Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
07 July 2025 | Story Martinette Brits | Photo Charl Devenish
NAS Conference
Leaders in science and innovation at the NAS Research Conference 2025. From the left: Prof Samuel Adelabu (Vice-Dean: Research and Postgraduate Studies in NAS), Prof Vasu Reddy (Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research and Internationalisation), Prof Bonang Mohale (Chancellor), Prof Paul Oberholster (Dean of NAS), Dr Alba du Toit (Research Chair: Innovative Agro-Processing for Climate-Smart Food Systems), and Prof Daryl Codron (Department of Zoology and Entomology).

The inaugural Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences (NAS) Research Conference at the University of the Free State (UFS) signalled a decisive shift in how science is being imagined and practised at the institution. The two-day gathering, which took place on 1 and 2 July 2025, not only showcased research excellence, but also marked the official launch of two flagship initiatives: the Green Futures Hub and the Complex Systems Hub. Both are designed to enable transdisciplinary research that connects across fields, responds to global and local challenges, and contributes to the university’s Vision 130 strategy.

The conference theme, Integrating science for societal impact and a sustainable future, framed the programme, which featured presentations by researchers, postgraduate students, and postdoctoral fellows across all NAS disciplines. Opening the event, Prof Paul Oberholster, Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, said: “This is more than a research gathering. It’s a signal – a step forward in our faculty’s approach to science, innovation, and impact.”

He emphasised that in a world marked by climate instability, digital disruption, and growing inequality, science must step forward not only to understand the world, but also to help shape it. “Our goal is to create research pathways that are sustainable, collaborative, and responsive to both local and global needs,” he said. The Green Futures Hub and the Complex Systems Hub are practical, future-facing platforms that make that vision real – connecting researchers, government, industry, and communities, he explained.

 

A catalyst for agricultural and environmental transformation

Prof Wayne Truter, Executive Manager of the Green Futures Hub, introduced the initiative as a catalyst for bringing applied science and sustainability together. He asked how innovation can translate into practical solutions that serve society and the environment. “We often focus so deeply on our disciplines that we forget to ask how our work creates social and economic impact,” he said.

The Green Futures Hub is a virtual platform and flagship of agricultural and environmental stewardship and sustainable development. It fosters partnerships that unleash value through nature-based solutions, land rehabilitation, climate risk finance, water resource management, bio-energy innovations, and more – by connecting researchers with industry, government, and international stakeholders. It also supports initiatives that enhance food and water security, investigate the coexistence of mining and agriculture, and address the carbon and nitrogen economy. The hub serves as a space for funding, knowledge transfer, and community transformation.

Prof Truter noted that complex societal challenges – from sustainable agriculture to the energy transition – cannot be solved by isolated disciplines. “Research must be applied in ways that industry and communities can understand and value,” he said. “If we want businesses to believe in science, we must speak their language and show relevance. The Green Futures Hub exists to bridge that gap.”

 

Science that responds to complexity

Prof Oberholster explained that the faculty’s second major initiative – the Complex Systems Hub – is designed to equip researchers to solve pressing problems in a digitally interconnected age. By bringing together data science, AI, advanced modelling, and interdisciplinary design, the hub strengthens the university’s ability to respond to global challenges.

“These are not abstract concepts,” he said. “They are practical responses to the question: how can we do science that matters?”

Dr Jacques Maritz, Head of the Unit for Engineering Sciences, who presented the launch, emphasised that complexity is not a threat to science – it is a source of innovation. “Scalability, unpredictability, nonlinearity, and emergence – these aren’t just buzzwords. They define the future of research.”

The Complex Systems Hub is a digital platform that enables agile, multidisciplinary teams to develop integrated responses to major issues such as climate change, pandemics, and space science. It connects NAS entities such as the Green Futures Hub, the One Health Centre of Excellence, and Advanced Materials Research to foster collaboration and innovation.

Dr Maritz explained that the hub bridges academic research and real-world application by creating spaces where diverse fields intersect. “If we want research to move from lab scale to real-world solutions, we need diverse teams working together – no single field can do this alone.”

Current projects include eco-friendly materials for sustainable construction, scientific water management using algae, and genomic surveillance for public health – all united by one goal: to turn complexity into opportunity and data into direction.

 

Bringing research closer to impact

Prof Vasu Reddy, Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research and Internationalisation, officially opened the conference and praised the faculty for its foresight and leadership. “This conference is not only about exchanging ideas,” he said, “but about igniting conversations that matter.” Science, he noted, is not a luxury of the privileged, but “the lifeblood of progress,” and its success must be measured not only in citations but in consequences.

He reminded delegates that global challenges such as climate change, food insecurity, and biodiversity loss are no longer distant threats, but urgent realities. “Science must respond – not with silence, but with solutions and deeper questions.”

Referencing the university’s Vision 130 strategy, Prof Reddy said the goal is not just to be research-intensive, but to reimagine the role of science in society. “The world doesn’t necessarily need more data,” he said. “It needs more direction. If our research does not touch lives, it is not reaching far enough.”

He described the conference as a space to “plant ideas, cross-pollinate disciplines, and harvest innovation,” and applauded the launch of the two new research hubs as engines of hope and practical impact. Addressing postgraduate students and early-career researchers directly, he encouraged them to be curious, collaborative, and courageous: “You are not simply here to follow footsteps. You are here to forge new paths.”

 

Building a future grounded in our own narratives

Prof Bonang Mohale, the Chancellor, reminded delegates that science cannot be separated from history, context, or social justice. Quoting Emeritus Professor J Edward Chamberlin, he asked: “If this is your land, where are your stories?” He challenged researchers to ensure that science is not only excellent but also rooted in African realities and driven by the desire to transform society.

“Those nations that make English compulsory but agriculture optional are destined to produce a citizenry that speaks fluently – but on an empty stomach,” he said. “We must do science that describes, defines, and shapes this country in our own image.”

 

A faculty on the move

Over the two-day programme, students and researchers presented cutting-edge work aligned with the faculty’s wide range of disciplines and the university’s strategic research goals. The conference replaced the Flash Fact competition as NAS’s flagship research platform.

In closing, Prof Oberholster invited delegates to make the most of the opportunity to engage across disciplines. “Let’s ensure that the science we do here continues to transform lives – locally, nationally, and globally.”

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept