- Education & Outreach
National Nanomanufacturing Network
An official of a materials technology and manufacturing startup based on a Purdue University innovation says his company is addressing the challenge of scaling graphene production for commercial applications. Glenn Johnson, CEO of BlueVine Graphene Industries Inc. (http://www.bluevinegraphene.com/), said many of the methodologies being utilized to produce graphene today are not easily scalable and require numerous post-processing steps to use it in functional applications. He said the company's product development team has developed a way to scale the production of graphene to meet commercial volumes and many different applications. "Our graphene electrodes are created using a roll-to-roll chemical vapor deposition process, and then they are combined with other materials utilizing a different roll-to-roll process," he said. "We can give the same foundational graphene electrodes entirely different properties, utilizing standard or custom materials that we are developing for our own commercial products. In essence what we've done is developed scalable graphene electrodes that are foundational pieces and can be easily customized to unique customer applications." Timothy Fisher, founder and Chief Technology Officer of BlueVine Graphene Industries, developed the technology. He also is the James G. Dwyer Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue. The patented technology has been exclusively licensed to BlueVine Graphene Industries through the Purdue Office of Technology Commercialization. "We're moving up to roll-to-roll, large-scale manufacturing capabilities. These roll-to-roll systems allow us to increase output by a thousand-fold over the original research-scale processes," Fisher said. "These state-of-the-art systems allow us to leverage the game-changing properties of graphene and, in particular, our graphene petal technology, called Folium, at production scales that provide tremendous pricing advantages." BlueVine Graphene Industries already is developing and testing two commercial applications for its Folium technology: biosensors and supercapacitors. Johnson said the company's first-generation glucose monitoring technology could impact the use of traditional testing systems like lancets, which are made with gold and other precious metals. The second-generation technology could allow people to use non-invasive methods to test their glucose levels through saliva, tears or urine. "Patient non-compliance with doctor-recommended glucose testing frequency can be a problem. By making lancets more affordable and potentially non-invasive, we are addressing a critical global need," he said. "More frequent tests could lead to better control of the disease, which could lead to an associated reduction in health risks." Supercapacitors are BlueVine Graphene Industries' second application under development for its Folium graphene. Johnson said the company's graphene supercapacitors are reaching the energy density of lithium-ion batteries without a similar energy fade over time. "Our graphene-based supercapacitors charge in just a fraction of the time needed to charge lithium-ion batteries. There are many consumer, industrial and military applications," he said. "Wouldn't it be great if mobile phones could be fully recharged in only a matter of minutes, and if they kept working like new, year after year?" Johnson said the company will refine its production and quality assurance processes to produce commercial volumes of the Folium graphene. "We also are focused on working with potential customers to continue to develop baseline products for both our biosensor and supercapacitor applications," he said. BlueVine Graphene Industries is one of more than 20 startups based on Purdue intellectual property that were launched in the 2014 fiscal year. For information about leadership positions, investing in a Purdue startup or licensing a Purdue innovation, visit http://www.purduefoundry.com (http://www.purduefoundry.com ) Source: Purdue University (http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q3/purdue-based-startup-scales-up-graphene-production,-develops-biosensors-and-supercapacitors.html)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the combined Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans (http://eprints.internano.org/cgi/users/home?screen=EPrint::View eprintid=2215). EPA requests comments (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/304m/index.cfm) on its Preliminary 2014 Plan, including the data and information used to support the findings, actions, and conclusions as stated in the Preliminary 2014 Plan. EPA seeks public comment and stakeholder input, data, and information on several topics, including nanomaterials manufacturing and formulating. The notice states: EPA is collecting data and information on the potential industrial wastewater discharge hazards associated with nanomaterials manufacturing and formulating. EPA requests public comment and stakeholder input relating to any information or data available on the wastewater hazards and discharges associated with the manufacture of nanomaterials and their use in manufacturing or formulating products, as well as any other information believed to be relevant. Comments are due November 17, 2014.Source: EPA (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/304m/index.cfm)
Electrochromic materials exhibit reversible optical change in the visible region when they are subjected to an electric charge. These switchable materials can be used for 'smart' windows in buildings, cars and airplanes as well as in information displays and eye wear. An electrochromic device is one of the most attractive candidates for paper-like displays, so called electronic paper, which will be the next generation display, owing to attributes such as thin and flexible materials, low-power consumption, and fast switching times. Electrochromic devices (ECDs) generally consist of a structure where certain material layers, among them an electrolyte, are sandwiched together. A major limitation until now has been the necessity to use the very expensive indium tin oxide (ITO) as transparent electrodes. ITO's brittleness makes it unsuitable for flexible device applications and its fabrication process vacuum-coating, high-temperature annealing is incompatible with plastic-based substrates. "ECD structure and manufacturing is to a wide extent challenged by the electrolyte component," Frederik C. Krebs (http://www.dtu.dk/english/Service/Phonebook/Person?id=3454), a professor and head of section of Energy Conversion and Storage at the Technical University of Denmark, tells Nanowerk. "As it remains common practice to employ a semisolid adhesive gel electrolyte, fabrication of devices is limited to separately coating of the two electrodes before finalizing the device in a lamination step; a technical challenge in a simple roll-to-roll (R2R) process and an impossibility in advanced R2R processes with 2D registration requirements." In new work, reported in the September 5, 2014 online edition of Advanced Materials ("From the Bottom Up Flexible Solid State Electrochromic Devices" (http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1002/adma.201402771)), Krebs and first author Dr. Jacob Jensen describe solid state electrochromic devices, manufactured by sequentially stacking layers in one direction using flexographic printing and slot-die coating methods. The novelty of this bottom-up printing process for electrochromic device fabrication is the use of printed grid structures in combination with printable electrolytes that can be crosslinked in such a way that many layers can be printed on top of each other. Whereas previous processes have employed the lamination of two separately prepared films, this new method provides the ability to constitute multilayer structures with functionality through printing layers consecutively on top of each other. "We show how using a specially developed 'curing chamber' mounted on a mini roll coater solid state electrochromic devices can be manufactured continuously in one direction, i.e., from the bottom and up, using slot-die coating and flexographic printing," says Krebs. "This technique eliminates the need for a lamination step and enables fully additive roll-to-roll processes." This considerably simplified process constitutes an important step towards R2R manufacturing of ECDs without having to employ brittle materials such as ITO. This new paper extends the team's previous reports on ECD manufacture such as "Fast Switching ITO Free Electrochromic Devices" (http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1002/adfm.201302320) in Advanced Functional Materials and "Manufacture and Demonstration of Organic Photovoltaic-Powered Electrochromic Displays Using Roll Coating Methods and Printable Electrolytes" (http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1002/polb.23038) in the Journal of Polymer Science. The ability to cheaply mass-produce ECDs will find applications ranging from light management and shading to large area/low cost displays such as billboards. Basically, it is a simple way of printing thin, very low cost and low power consumption display devices. The compromises that need to be made with this process are slow switching speed and relatively poor contrast. Both can be improved, notes Krebs, but since these devices rely on a chemical reaction taking place when changing color there are limits to the switching speed that can be reached. Krebs points out that the current version of his team's ITO- and vacuum-free grid electrodes still require further optimization to achieve the same optical transmission as the brittle ITO. Source: Nanowerk (http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=37388.php)
The Northeastern Universitys NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing (CHN) has developed a fully-automated system that uses offset-type printing technologies at the nanoscale to make products that fully take advantage of the superior properties of nanomaterials. In minutes, the system can print metals, organic and inorganic materials, polymers, and nanoscale structures and circuits (down to 25 nanometers) onto flexible or inflexible substrates. The Nanoscale Offset Printing System (NanoOPS) is a new system that has the potential to transform nanomanufacturing and spur innovation. Because of its relative simplicity, NanoOPS is expected to eliminate some of the high cost entry barriers to the fabrication of nanoscale devices for electronics, energy, medical, and functional materials applications. Current nanofabrication facilities cost billions of dollars to build, and their operation requires massive quantities of water and power. NanoOPS could operate at a fraction of the cost, making nanomanufacturing accessible to innovators and entrepreneurs, and creating the potential for a wave of creativity, perhaps similar to what the PC did for computing and what the 3D printer is doing for design. In addition to reducing manufacturing costs, NanoOPS will go beyond current fabrication capabilities by enabling the commercialization of products enabled by the properties of nanoscale materials, such as nanotubes, that have been demonstrated in laboratory settings. This will enable critical manufacturing in areas such as new and more affordable medicines; stronger, lighter building materials; or faster, cheaper electronics. NanoOPS was designed jointly by the CHN team and Milara, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of specialized equipment for the semiconductor industry, and subsequently built by Milara. This enables industry and innovators access to unique, emerging nanoscale process tools transitioning directly from a NSF NSEC. This exciting development provides a prime example of the new emphasis on science and technology investments by the federal government effectively transitioning to impact the commercial sector. The CHN will be hosting a NanoOPS Demonstration to be held on September 17, 2014 at Northeastern Universitys Burlington, MA campus. Please contact Eric Howard, email@example.com (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org) or check out http://nano.server281.com/nanoops-day/ (http://nano.server281.com/nanoops-day/) for more details or to RSVP to this event.
The NanoBCA conducted an interview on August 27, 2014 with Allen Gelwick, Executive VP of Lockton Companies. Mr. Gelwick is one of Americas leading insurance experts and has been an active participant in the nano community for over a decade. NanoBCA: Historically, how has the insurance sector dealt with nanotechnology? Mr. Gelwick: The insurance industry thus far has essentially dealt with nanotechnology by taking a wait and see approach. This is not unusual as the nature of insurance is to look retrospectively at events to determine how to set policies and rates. The challenge here is that nanotechnology is an emerging technology with little or no history. Thus, insurers cannot use the past to accurately predict future events. A basic tenant of the insurance sector is to rely on accurate predictive capabilities, which simply do yet not exist for nanotechnology. NanoBCA: Are there any steps that the insurance sector can take while waiting for data? Mr. Gelwick: Without the benefit of adequate historical data, the insurance sector has done its best to try to develop an understanding of risks associated with nanotechnology. To that end, risk control experts and actuaries from the major insurance carriers have engaged in nanotech specific conferences and meetings for over a decade with the intention to better understand risks associated with this emerging technology. They have also looked to government agencies for guidance. NanoBCA: Why cant an insurer just make an educated guess and then revise rates as the data become available? Mr. Gelwick: Actuarial science is the discipline used by insurance companies to establish pricing. Its a data driven discipline that does not lend itself to the flexibility you suggest. However, there are some actuaries who believe that emerging risk can and should be quantified. This creates somewhat of double-edge sword for insurers which could result in increases in reserves by the insurer, adversely impacting the insurers ability to remain competitive, in order to cover the risk. NanoBCA: If my nanotech company today has a standard policy, am I not already covered to some extent regarding risks arising from nanotechnology? Mr. Gelwick: There has been growing discussion in the insurance sector regarding the potential coverage implications due to specific existing coverages such as Products Liability, Workers Compensation, Health, Professional liability and Environmental liability. While there is not a specific nanotechnology exclusion written into the policy, Products, Liabilities, and Professional Liability (D O, Medical Malpractice, EPO, etc) should raise a serious concern to the insurers as well as the company and their investors. Health coverages are likely to assume a majority of the emerging health risks. The good news is our health plans and workers compensation policies should continue to respond. Some of the insurance industry articles have discussed products recall as an exposure, but this exposure is not generally covered by insurance and instead remains a specialty coverage. Perhaps most surprising is that neither health insurers nor state-funded Workers Compensation carriers have become vocal yet on the implications of this emerging technology. Those two will likely have the greatest share of liability. NanoBCA: Risks that are akin to those contemplated with a nanomaterial have been around for a long time, say for instance in the chemicals sector. Are there not established mechanisms in the insurance sector to deal with such risks? Mr. Gelwick: This is a good segue into why coverage should be reviewed. Unlike most professional liability and environmental policies that generally incorporate a "claims-made" coverage trigger, most U.S. products liability policies currently use an "occurrence" coverage trigger.We are now getting into some nuances that I am happy to discuss with anyone who is interested to dig deeper on this topic. Suffice it to say that there are significant pricing and potential liability dollar amounts that result from the type of coverage trigger. I will be covering this topic in more detail in some upcoming publications. NanoBCA: One last question on this topic: you mentioned U.S. policies; are European policies different? Mr. Gelwick: To some extent, yes. Claims-made coverage for products and completed operations is common in Europe, but not in the U.S. NanoBCA: What, if anything, is being reported in the insurance sector literature on the topic of nanotechnology? Mr. Gelwick: Articles on the topic of nanotechnology risk generally convey that a steep learning curve is underway and that the regulatory framework, which will govern nanotechnology, is still a work in progress. There are excellent high level and introductory articles offering views on this promising technology that, to date, come mostly from global insurers such as Allianz, ACE, Chubb, Gen Re, Lloyds, Swiss Re, and Zurich etc. However, very few of these publications have yet to discuss potential coverage issues. NanoBCA: Does a nano-specific policy exist yet in the marketplace? Mr. Gelwick: AIG's licensed non-admitted carrier, Lexington Insurance, is the first carrier to offer a nano-specific coverage, known as LexNano Shield. Another surplus lines carrier (a licensed non-admitted carrier in the U.S. - meaning they operate outside of any state guarantee funds and are essentially unregulated as it relates to coverage), James River, is also willing to underwrite and cover some nanotechnology related risks. Aspen currently incorporates nanotechnology questions that if addressed can affirm coverage. And finally, Zurich developed its ZNEPtm protocol to underwrite nanotechnology exposures. NanoBCA: Sounds like progress is being made to address some of the concerns you mentioned above? Mr. Gelwick: Yes, but as an aside, Lexington continues to advise companies in the nano space save the $5,000 or more per year by rolling the dice that there are no nano specific coverage exclusions (and perceive that retaining Occurrence coverage will protect them.) This is a bet, that if wrong, could impair an exit strategy or otherwise adversely impact your investors. No doubt that entrepreneurs will take risks. And, when it works out, we tend to romanticize this behavior. When it does not work out, however, investors and the public are at risk. A difference between Europe and the U.S. is that regulations are already being implemented in Europe and the public demands that risks are assessed before products are introduced to the marketplace. Regulations in the U.S. are inevitably coming, but as stated previously, the sector is largely unregulated currently and insurers are in a reactive mode rather than a proactive mode. NanoBCA: Do insurers use nanotechnology as a classification for coverage analysis, or do they look at more distint categorization? Mr. Gelwick: The insurance industry, like regulators and scientists, continue to argue over the definition of nanotechnology. While this discussion focuses on nanotechnology, we should note that chemicals also remain largely uncharacterized. Insurers therefore usually require a Claims-made coverage trigger to address their inability to assess the risks of long-term exposures to certain chemicals. From an underwriting standpoint, and with a lack of an adequate regulatory framework, insurers are applying protocols often adapted from the chemical, medical and environmental exposures to underwrite emerging technologies. An example of how underwriters can underwrite in the absence of specific classifications is Zurich's ZNEPtm. NanoBCA: What specific questions about nanomaterials are insurers most concerned about? Mr. Gelwick: Every article that I have seen suggests that toxicological assessments of nanomaterials are broadly needed. And although a tremendous amount of funding has been expended to develop nanomaterials, the smallest portion of that funding has been assigned to understanding risk. For instance, we find that very few nanomaterials have been characterized for EHS purposes. Further, a smaller percentage of those have been independently evaluated by toxicologists for impacts on workers, consumers and the environment. Without such evaluation, I believe there exists a false sense of security for us all. NanoBCA: Can you sum this up for us more in laymans terms? Mr. Gelwick: Keep in mind that insurance is simply a method to finance business risk. Insurance carriers and risk practices use risk identification as a necessary first step, then they measure the risks identified, as best they can, to determine the cost of risk transfer through insurance. Any business should use a similar process to decide whether to transfer the risk to a qualified insurer, or alternatively to retain the risk. NanoBCA: So, it sounds like you are saying that many companies do not do this? Mr. Gelwick: Well, we can start by acknowledging that less than 100 nanomaterials have been characterized, yet there are in active development. Universities, where a majority of the research is conducted, have proven to be very reluctant to allow independent safety assessments of their nanomaterial laboratory activities. Small companies tend to not have the funds necessary to properly assess nanosafety, or at least they perceive the cost as too expensive. And, larger companies, like Johnson Johnson, tend to be self-insured and may or may not have an understanding of the risks including risks to supply chains upon which they rely. NanoBCA: As you mentioned previously though, insurance policies do, to some extent, currently cover risks associated with nanotechnologies? Mr. Gelwick: Generally, the structure of the policies relevant here are classified as occurrence policies which means that if you have a policy for year 2014, then any claim in future years (say, in 2018) that points to an event in 2014, will be covered by the terms of the policy as it existed in 2014. (Note: every state has different laws in this regard which creates a level of complexity). So, for illustration sake, if an occurrence policy does not exclude nano, then in many states, plaintiffs attorneys would be able to sue for every single year, under a separate policy for each year, that a suspect material was produced. This creates a scenario where multiple claims are possible. That is why the occurrence coverage trigger vs. the claims made coverage trigger presents such significantly different financial consequences. NanoBCA: So, is this scenario bad for the insured, or the insurer, or both? Mr. Gelwick: Any ambiguity usually works to the benefit of the insured. Thus, it is commonly believed that this is ultimately a problem for the insurer. However, the reality is that this scenario will likely hurt the insured more because the company may end up in a situation, post claim, that it can not find an insurer that will provide coverage at an acceptable costmoving forward from any claims which, as mentioned above, could also impact exit strategies for investors. As claims increase, insurers will predictably evolve to either limiting coverage or creating exclusions. NanoBCA: You make a good point. But, what claims are out there currently? Mr. Gelwick: Of current significance is the recent hip replacement claims against Johnson Johnson and its subsidiaries. These claims account for over $4 billion in offered settlements by Johnson Johnson. You can bet that plaintiff attorneys are considering this as a template for future litigation on other products. NanoBCA: Arent the insurers incentivized to figure out a way to create a market to sell nano specific policies, and to control risks associated therewith? Mr. Gelwick: Yes, and they are working on it. For starters, the reinsurance sector will likely begin inserting and requiring answers to nanomaterial specific questions to assist with the underwriting process. This will force the applicant to answer difficult risk questions associated with nanomaterials. Since nanomaterials are rarely disclosed, yet are commonly incorporated into products, it is currently almost impossible for insureds to answer these questions completely. Failure to do so, however, will likely create coverage gaps, particularly as it relates to supply chain risk. This process will, in some instances, evolve to create insurance exclusions. However, where enough understanding and data is available, buy-back policies or endorsements will likely become available. NanoBCA: Is there a precedent for this seemingly awkward point in time that we are in with regard to nanotech and insurance? Mr. Gelwick: Most would cite asbestos and the evolution of pollution exclusions, but this in my view this is too narrow a focus and assumes the worst when it is more likely that only a limited percentage of nanotechnology will equate to this level of risk. In fact, nanotechnology will likely help reduce risks in the future, as evidenced by nano enabled products that can clean-up pollution. However, I agree with some observers who believe that we are in unchartered territory as the number of new and innovative chemicals, not to even mention nanomaterials,that have recently been introduced into commerce is growing at a steep exponential rate. Risks are not yet known as to most of these. Michael Depledge, the former Chief Scientific Advisor of the UK Governments Environment Agency, gave a presentation on point this June in London at the Royal Institute for EMTECH, an emerging fund being created to invest in emerging technologies. He offered two slides that from an insurance standpoint help us consider emerging risk from a historical standpoint. Those slides illustrated that the lag time from the introduction of any new technology to the adequate recognition and understanding of associated risks is generally about 10 years. The number of new chemicals and materials has experienced truly off-the-charts exponential growth in the 21st Century. What the future holds in terms of risk is literally growing faster than we can possibly fathom. NanoBCA: So, how do you manage this increase of unknown risks? Mr. Gelwick: Insurance companies will simply have to increase the size of their reserve funds to offset incurred and unknown risks on these new materials because they may likely have to pay claims on them down the line. NanoBCA: Any other observations to share regarding the future of nanotechnology risk insurance? Mr. Gelwick: People often ask me if insurers will simply exclude nanotechnology. Nanotechnologies have been in the stream of commerce now for over ten years and, to date, only one insurance company that we know of has put an exclusion on nanotechnology. But things are changing rapidly. Most insurance companies are starting to consider nanotechnology through their underwriting groups already supporting high hazard classes of business such as chemical companies or environmental exposures. The analysis of insuring consumable products will follow except to the extent the exposures are covered by regulatory agencies such as the FDA. Ultimately, nanotechnology will be incorporated into all realms of insurance risk assessment and coverage. NanoBCA: What do you see as the toughest questions emerging in the arena of nanotechnology risk and liability? Mr. Gelwick: How do you exclude something from a policy if even the applicant doesnt know that the risk exists? There are many risks that we just simply do not know yet. How does that play out in court? Can those risks legally be excluded? Probably not, but these things will play out in court. And that will take some time. NanoBCA: So, what conclusions, if any, can we make about the future course of insurance for nano? Mr. Gelwick: I would conclude that there will continue to be a lot of confusion in the future, at least the near future 5 to 10 years. It seems logical to me that insurers might shift Products, Liability from the occurrence coverage model to a claims made coverage model as discussed earlier. The advantage of the claims made model is to limit the cost of distracting and expensive litigation. This model really appears to be best suited for an emerging technology with unknown risks, such as nanotechnology. Insurers will need to broaden tail coverage to be able to offer reasonable pre-agreed pricing for tail coverage and to structure these policies to reflect the different statute of repose for different states providing confidence to the insured. This enables a more sustainable economic model for all stakeholders. NanoBCA: What role will the pending hip replacement class action products liability lawsuits have on the insurance sector? Mr. Gelwick: Frankly, I see the hip replacement litigation serving as a roadmap for more claims from the plaintiffs bar. They will not only look prospectively at new products and new claims, but will also look retrospectively at the possibility of adding nanotech specific claims to products produced over the past ten or so years. Each day that we as a nanotech business community fail to address issues we have discussed today, simply benefits those who make their livings from litigation. NanoBCA: Do you attach any historical significance to this hip replacement litigation? Mr. Gelwick: Yes, I think we are indeed at a watershed moment. Previously there have not been any claims against insurance policies, or allegations contained in lawsuits, that specifically cite nano anything. This hip replacement litigation, which is resulting in settlements in the billions of dollars, is the first to identify nano as a specific allegation of causation. Note that only the surface of the hip incorporated nanotechnology, yet it appears to be the proximate cause of loss. This is significant because it serves to educate the plaintiffs bar that nanomaterials exist and may be a component of causation, and thus liability, of other products in the future (and the past). Also, given what we know about the huge volume of products in the flow of commerce that include nanomaterials, it is reasonable to assume that this hip replacement litigation is the first of many to come that will implicate nanomaterials. NanoBCA: This is all very enlightening and confusing at the same time. As you say, confusion is likely to reign for a while longer. With that in mind, should nanomaterials companies seek insurance coverage today? And, how would they get it? Mr. Gelwick: Yes, nanomaterials companies should absolutely seek coverage. If anything, the hip replacement litigation shows us that liability is very real and that it can be extremely expensive to find yourself as a defendant in a products liability and recall action without coverage to the point that it could easily destroy companies that do not have a good risk strategy plan in place. I hope and suspect that the nanomaterial producer, or producers, for Johnson Johnson had a contract(s) holding them harmless, or their business(es) could be in jeopardy. So, use of contracts to mitigate its risks become critical. We also now know that taking the approach of putting your head in the sand to feign ignorance will be no match in a court of law against the reasonableness standard of independently assessing safety. From an insurance standpoint this will trigger a common coverage exclusion expected or intended creating grounds for an insurance carrier to deny coverage. A more prudent approach, in my estimation, would be for companies to pursue Claims-made coverage, broadened from traditional offerings as we discussed, to affirm there is coverage for nanomaterials that are known and to include those materials the insured can be reasonably held to have known contained nanomaterials. And, companies should make efforts to fully understand, to the extent possible, the nano risks associated with their business and products. This would include toxicological analysis and data regarding risks to their workers, consumers, and the environment. Ultimately this understanding and data will be very useful because insurers (as well as current shareholders and future investors) are going to demand answers to these questions. Moreover, EPA requires this data for approval of manufacturing and sales of nanomaterials in the U.S. Larger companies that utilize nanomaterials from third parties are also at risk. They are likely not aware of whether a supply chain risk exists that may seriously disrupt their production schedules. These large companies may want to consider purchasing aggregate stops on their large retention cash flow programs.
The benefits of nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing include significantly improved properties of many common materials when fabricated at nanoscale or molecular dimensions. Examples of these properties include quantized electrical characteristics, enhanced adhesion and surface properties, superior thermal, mechanical, and chemical properties, and tunable light absorption and scattering. Scaling these properties for nano-enabled products and systems, could offer potentially revolutionary performance and capabilities for defense, security, and commercial applications while providing significant societal and economic impact. Key challenges and barriers remain to realizing such nano-enabled technologies that are central to emerging nanomanufacturing techniques, including retaining the nanoscale properties in materials at larger scales, and the maturity of assembly techniques for structures between the nanoscale and 100 microns. Recently, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) has created the Atoms to Product (A2P) program to address and help overcome these challenges. The program seeks to develop enhanced technologies for assembling nanoscale elements coupled with integration and scale-up of these components into materials and systems to product scale in ways that preserve and exploit the distinctive nanoscale properties of the core element. We want to explore new ways of putting incredibly tiny things together, with the goal of developing new miniaturization and assembly methods that would work at scales 100,000 times smaller than current state-of-the-art technology, said John Main (http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/DSO/Personnel/Dr__John_Main.aspx), DARPA program manager, quoted from the DARPA website announcement (http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/08/22.aspx). If successful, A2P could help enable creation of entirely new classes of materials that exhibit nanoscale properties at all scales. It could lead to the ability to miniaturize materials, processes and devices that cant be miniaturized with current technology, as well as build three-dimensional products and systems at much smaller sizes. The A2P program supports the emphasis on key challenges of nanomanufacturing for given applications extending previous investments in fundamental science and materials research. In this case, several emerging nanomanufacturing approaches and platforms are likely to contribute to such a program concept, including nanoimprint lithography, directed self-assembly (DSA), layer-by-layer (LBL) assembly, additive driven assembly, and hybrid processes incorporating solution-based and vacuum-based processing approaches. Further scalability through adaptation to existing manufacturing infrastructure such as roll-to-roll and print, additive manufacturing, or semiconductor batch type processing is likely to accelerate the pathway to commercialization, and further position these emerging nanomanufacturing processes for the eventual Factory of the Future. To familiarize potential participants with the technical objectives of the A2P program, DARPA has scheduled identical Proposers Day webinars. Participants must register through the registration website: DARPA (http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/08/22.aspx)
Two-dimensional hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) is a material of significant interest due to the strong ionic bonding of boron and nitrogen atoms that provides unique properties, including the thinnest insulating nanomaterial, exhibiting a bandgap of 5.9 eV, with superior chemical, mechanical, and thermal stability. In addition, h-BN provides an ideal substrate for improving the electrical properties of graphene since the surface is atomically smooth and free of dangling bonds, thereby reducing charge scattering effects resulting in an order of magnitude increase in graphene charge mobility over materials grown on silicon or silicon dioxide. Previously, the method to synthesize monolayer n-BN utilized ultra-high vacuum chemical vapor deposition (UHVCVD) using borazine as a precursor on single crystal transition metal substrates, such as nickel, platinum, or silver, but proved difficult to scale. Polycrystalline metal foils (Ni, Co, Cu, and Pt) were additionally used to grow h-BN using regular chemical vapor deposition (CVD), but the thickness and quality of the films critically depended on surface morphology and crystal orientation of the substrate. High quality h-BN has been synthesized on Pt foils using ammonia borane precursor, yet control of film thickness and domain size remains a challenge for scaling, and the specific growth mechanisms are not well understood. Recently, Park et.al., reported results from a systematic study for synthesis of large area single layer h-BN films on polycrystalline Pt foils using low pressure CVD comparing borazine and ammonia borane precursors. The authors goal was to study the effect of the Pt lattice orientation, the total pressure, and the different cooling rate in order to understand h-BN growth mechanisms. Since nitrogen is not soluble in Pt, the authors objective was to confirm the contributions to h-BN growth surface mediated and precipitation processes. The study included analysis of film properties dependence on cooling rate and crystal orientation of the substrate. Their findings demonstrated that film growth was by a surface mediated growth mechanism, facilitated by a catalytic reaction, that produced polycrystalline h-BN monolayers confined by the underlying Pt surface orientation. The thickness of the h-BN films exhibited a dependence on the Pt surface orientation, presumably determined by the available catalytic reaction sites that decompose the borazine precursor, which would exhibit a dependence on crystal orientation. Improved understanding of h-BN growth mechanisms will potentially lead to methods for controlling the growth of high-quality h-BN films. This further provides the basis for materials and substrates for application in quantum tunneling devices, novel heterostructures, and two-dimensional semiconductors such as molybdenum sulfide and graphene.Reference: Park J, Park JC, Yun SJ, Kim H, Luong DH, Kim SM, Choi SH, Yang W, Kong J, Kim KK, Lee YH. Large-Area Monolayer Hexagonal Boron Nitride on Pt Foil. ACS Nano. 2014; 8 (8): 8520-852 doi: 10.1021/nn503140y (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/nn503140y#showRef) Image reprinted with permission from American Chemical Society.
In 2015, American consumers will finally be able to purchase fuel cell cars from Toyota and other manufacturers. Although touted as zero-emissions vehicles, most of the cars will run on hydrogen made from natural gas, a fossil fuel that contributes to global warming. Now scientists at Stanford University have developed a low-cost, emissions-free device that uses an ordinary AAA battery to produce hydrogen by water electrolysis. The battery sends an electric current through two electrodes that split liquid water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. Unlike other water splitters that use precious-metal catalysts, the electrodes in the Stanford device are made of inexpensive and abundant nickel and iron. "Using nickel and iron, which are cheap materials, we were able to make the electrocatalysts active enough to split water at room temperature with a single 1.5-volt battery," said Hongjie Dai (http://dailab.stanford.edu/), a professor of chemistry at Stanford. "This is the first time anyone has used non-precious metal catalysts to split water at a voltage that low. It's quite remarkable, because normally you need expensive metals, like platinum or iridium, to achieve that voltage." In addition to producing hydrogen, the novel water splitter could be used to make chlorine gas and sodium hydroxide, an important industrial chemical, according to Dai. He and his colleagues describe the new device in a study (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5695) published in the Aug. 22 issue of the journal Nature Communications. The promise of hydrogen Automakers have long considered the hydrogen fuel cell a promising alternative to the gasoline engine. Fuel cell technology is essentially water splitting in reverse. A fuel cell combines stored hydrogen gas with oxygen from the air to produce electricity, which powers the car. The only byproduct is water unlike gasoline combustion, which emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.Earlier this year, Hyundai began leasing fuel cell vehicles in Southern California. Toyota and Honda will begin selling fuel cell cars in 2015. Most of these vehicles will run on fuel (http://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/natural-gas-reforming) manufactured at large industrial plants that produce hydrogen by combining very hot steam and natural gas, an energy-intensive process that releases carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Splitting water to make hydrogen requires no fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases. But scientists have yet to develop an affordable, active water splitter with catalysts capable of working at industrial scales. "It's been a constant pursuit for decades to make low-cost electrocatalysts with high activity and long durability," Dai said. "When we found out that a nickel-based catalyst is as effective as platinum, it came as a complete surprise." Saving energy and money The discovery was made by Stanford graduate student Ming Gong, co-lead author of the study. "Ming discovered a nickel-metal/nickel-oxide structure that turns out to be more active than pure nickel metal or pure nickel oxide alone," Dai said. "This novel structure favors hydrogen electrocatalysis, but we still don't fully understand the science behind it." The nickel/nickel-oxide catalyst significantly lowers the voltage required to split water, which could eventually save hydrogen producers billions of dollars in electricity costs, according to Gong. His next goal is to improve the durability of the device. "The electrodes are fairly stable, but they do slowly decay over time," he said. "The current device would probably run for days, but weeks or months would be preferable. That goal is achievable based on my most recent results" The researchers also plan to develop a water splitter than runs on electricity produced by solar energy. "Hydrogen is an ideal fuel for powering vehicles, buildings and storing renewable energy on the grid," said Dai. "We're very glad that we were able to make a catalyst that's very active and low cost. This shows that through nanoscale engineering of materials we can really make a difference in how we make fuels and consume energy."Source: Stanford University (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/splitter-clean-fuel-082014.html)