Archive for the ‘business’ Category

« Older Entries

Cambridge University wants to take its flexible opals to market

Thursday, May 30th, 2013

Structural colour due to nanoscale structures such as those found on Morpho butterfly wings, jewel beetles, opals, and elsewhere is fascinating to me (Feb. 7, 2013 posting). It would seem many scientists share my fascination  including these groups at the UK’s University of Cambridge and Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute, from the May 30, 2013 University of Cambridge news release (also on EurekAlert),

Instead of through pigments, these ‘polymer opals’ get their colour from their internal structure alone, resulting in pure colour which does not run or fade. The materials could be used to replace the toxic dyes used in the textile industry, or as a security application, making banknotes harder to forge. Additionally, the thin, flexible material changes colour when force is exerted on it, which could have potential use in sensing applications by indicating the amount of strain placed on the material.

The most intense colours in nature – such as those in butterfly wings, peacock feathers and opals – result from structural colour. While most of nature gets its colour through pigments, items displaying structural colour reflect light very strongly at certain wavelengths, resulting in colours which do not fade over time.

In collaboration with the DKI (now Fraunhofer Institute for Structural Durability and System Reliability) in Germany, researchers from the University of Cambridge have developed a synthetic material which has the same intensity of colour as a hard opal, but in a thin, flexible film.

Here’s what the researchers’ synthetic opal looks like,

Polymer Opals Credit: Nick Saffel [downloaded from http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/flexible-opals]

Polymer Opals Credit: Nick Saffel [downloaded from http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/flexible-opals]

The news release provides a brief description of naturally occurring opals and contrasts them with the researchers’ polymer opals,

Naturally-occurring opals are formed of silica spheres suspended in water. As the water evaporates, the spheres settle into layers, resulting in a hard, shiny stone. The polymer opals are formed using a similar principle, but instead of silica, they are constructed of spherical nanoparticles bonded to a rubber-like outer shell. When the nanoparticles are bent around a curve, they are pushed into the correct position to make structural colour possible. The shell material forms an elastic matrix and the hard spheres become ordered into a durable, impact-resistant photonic crystal.

“Unlike natural opals, which appear multi-coloured as a result of silica spheres not settling in identical layers, the polymer opals consist of one preferred layer structure and so have a uniform colour,” said Professor Jeremy Baumberg of the Nanophotonics Group at the University’s Cavendish Laboratory, who is leading the development of the material.

Like natural opals, the internal structure of polymer opals causes diffraction of light, resulting in strong structural colour. The exact colour of the material is determined by the size of the spheres. And since the material has a rubbery consistency, when it is twisted and stretched, the spacing between spheres changes, changing the colour of the material. When stretched, the material shifts into the blue range of the spectrum, and when compressed, the colour shifts towards red. When released, the material will return to its original colour.

I find the potential for use in the textile industry a little more interesting than the anti-counterfeiting application. (There’s a Canadian company, Nanotech Security Corp., a spinoff from Simon Fraser University, which capitalizes on the Blue Morpho butterfly wing’s nanoscale structures for an anti-counterfeiting application as per my first posting about the company on Jan. 17, 2011.) There has been at least one other attempt to create a textile that exploits structural colour. Unfortunately Teijin Fibres has stopped production of its morphotex, as per my April 12, 2012 posting.

Here’s what the news release has to say about textiles and the potential importance of structural colour,

The technology could also have important uses in the textile industry. “The World Bank estimates that between 17 and 20 per cent of industrial waste water comes from the textile industry, which uses highly toxic chemicals to produce colour,” said Professor Baumberg. “So other avenues to make colour is something worth exploring.” The polymer opals can be bonded to a polyurethane layer and then onto any fabric. The material can be cut, laminated, welded, stitched, etched, embossed and perforated.

The researchers have recently developed a new method of constructing the material, which offers localised control and potentially different colours in the same material by creating the structure only over defined areas. In the new work, electric fields in a print head are used to line the nanoparticles up forming the opal, and are fixed in position with UV light. The researchers have shown that different colours can be printed from a single ink by changing this electric field strength to change the lattice spacing.

As for wanting to take this research to market, from the news release,

Cambridge Enterprise, the University’s commercialisation arm, is currently looking for a manufacturing partner to further develop the technology and take polymer opal films to market.

For more information, please contact sarah.collins@admin.cam.ac.uk.

The reference to opals reminded me of yet another Canadian company exploring the uses of structural colour, Opalux, as per my Jan. 31, 2011 posting.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in biomimcry, business, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Graphene and the next step according to ID TechEx

Friday, May 24th, 2013

Hats off to ID TechEx for a great promotional strategy. The consulting company sent out a May 22, 2013 news release about graphene and its current state of commercialization which was picked up as a May 23, 2013 news item at Nanowerk,

Graphene has already come a long way towards commercialisation, despite its short history. Manufacturers are busy closing their second or third round of financing and many are installing multi-tonne production capacities across the world. At the same, many are moving up the value chain beyond simple powders to offer formulations and master-batches. The industry is also slowly realising that graphene is still far away from high frequency application, and is therefore looking for more realistic and lower hanging fruits. All these factors indicate that the hype is beginning to pass. But really hard questions still remain about what comes next and how to grow revenues.

The ID TechEx May 22, 2013 news release goes on to describe the challenges and promote the company’s graphene report,

We find that two main factors are acting as hard brakes on commercial growth of graphene. The first is that there is market confusion (and thus risks for the end user) and the second is that the main go-to-market strategy is replacing a well-entrenched incumbent solution. The industry should address both challenges if it is to grow beyond the $100 million dollar market forecast by us in our market research report (www.IDTechEx.com/gra

…
The market confusion stems from the fact that there is no single graphene on the market. Instead, there are many graphene types. Each type is a departure from the ideal form and offers a different package of material properties. It will therefore be suitable for different end uses.
Graphene can also be manufactured using a variety of techniques. This is a positive factor in that it creates more pathways for entering the production business, but it also adds to the overall confusion. This is because each technique produces a somewhat different graphene type with a different price point.
It is currently mostly upon the potential end users and consumers – and there are many of them – to sift through this confusing market space to evaluate each graphene type and production technique for their own sets of requirements. While it does allow for differentiation between suppliers, it is a barrier against adoption. It therefore will be commercially beneficial if graphene producers collectively establish clear guidelines that will help reduce the risk and burden to the end users.
There are promising signs that the industry is moving to dispel the confusion. Business-driven conferences are playing a positive role in bringing clarity to the market. [emphasis mine] The industry is already speaking of an association, and players are moving up the value chain en masse to relieve the burden off the end users. [emphasis mine]

I’ll get back to the business-driven conferences later but there is already some sort of graphene association, it’s the Graphene Stakeholders Association as per my April 23, 2013 posting.

The company’s May 22, 2013 news release provides more analysis and self-promotion,

Graphene has yet not identified many applications where it has a first mover advantage. The prevalent go-to-market strategy today is replacing existing incumbent solutions. Here graphene attempts to do what already exists on the market, only a little bit better and/or a little bit cheaper.
There are many examples that verify this observation. CVD graphene pushes to replace ITO (or even ITO alternatives), but it is more expensive and has a higher sheet resistance. Graphene powders attempt to replace graphite or black carbon in composites as additives, but they are more expensive and the potential reduction in wt% may not be enough to create large and rapid market shares. Graphene competes with activated carbon in supercapacitors, and while it can offer a comparative performance advantage, its premium price will initially confine it to niche and low-volume corners of the business (more examples and more thorough assessment can be found in our report (www.IDTechEx.com/gra).
…
The industry is moving, albeit very slowly, beyond the ‘replacement’ phase too. We have seen several interesting product concepts such as transparent low-cost inks, IR images, low-noise sensors, etc, but more effort and imagination will be required. The alternative will otherwise inevitably be that suppliers will be forced to price to cost, and not to value. Graphene should be more than a “I am cheaper than the other guy” material.

The coup de grâce lies at the very end of the news release web page where the company mentions and provides a link to its upcoming “business-driven” conference, Graphene LIVE! 2013, Santa Clara, California 20-21 November 2013.

Revenons à mes moutons, the report webpage provides details about the report, a graph, and the report’s Table of Contents,

IDTechEx forecasts that 100 million dollars of graphene will be sold in 2018 into a range of applications, including RFID, smart packaging, supercapacitors, composites, ITO replacement, sensors, logic and memory, etc.
For each market segment, the forecasts are provided by both value and mass. The forecast models are based on (a) our detailed market knowledge at application level, (b) our critical assessment of graphene’s value proposition per target market, and (c) existing and projected commercial activity at company level. Our knowledge base was built up by interviewing relevant players across the industry and tracking and interpreting the latest around the globe.
IDTechEx finds that there is no single graphene, but they are different types of graphene. Each type has a different a microstructure, layer number, oxygen content, etc. And each type offers a different set of properties therefore targeting a different set of markets.
For the curious, here are the prices for the report,

Graphene Opportunities 2013-2018: Technology, Markets, Players
Electronic     £2595.00
Electronic and Hardcopy     £2750.00

 I like the fact that ID TechEx has included a lot of free information as they promote their report and their conference in a cohesive strategy.

Tags: , ,
Posted in business, graphene, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Gary Goodyear rouses passions: more on Canada’s National Research Council and its new commitment to business

Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013

Gary Goodyear’s, Minister of State (Science and Technology), office in attempting to set the record straight has, inadvertently, roused even more passion in Phil Plait’s (Slate.com blogger) bosom and inspired me to examine more commentary about the situation regarding the NRC and its ‘new’ commitment to business.

Phil Plait in a May 22, 2013 followup to one 0f his recent postings (I have the details about Plait’s and other commentaries in my May 13, 2013 posting about the NRC’s recent declarations) responds to an email from Michele-Jamali Paquette, the director of communication for Goodyear (Note: A link has been removed),

I read the transcripts, and assuming they are accurate, let me be very clear: Yes, the literal word-for-word quotation I used was incorrect, and one point I made was technically and superficially in error. But the overall point—that this is a terrible move by the NRC and the conservative Canadian government, short-changing real science—still stands. And, in my opinion, Goodyear’s office is simply trying to spin what has become a PR problem.

…

I’ll note that in her email to me, Paquette quoted my own statement:

John MacDougal [sic], President of the NRC, literally said, “Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value”

Paquette took exception to my use of the word “literally,” emphasizing it in her email. (The link, in both her email and my original post, goes to the Toronto Sun story with the garbled quotation.) Apparently MacDougal did not literally say that. But the objection strikes me as political spin since the meaning of what MacDougal said at the press conference is just as I said it was in my original post.

As I pointed out in my first post: Science can and should be done for its own sake. It pays off in the end, but that’s not why we do it. To wit …

Paquette’s choice of what issues (the 2nd issue was Plait’s original description of the NRC as a funding agency) to dispute seem odd and picayune as they don’t have an impact on Plait’s main argument,

Unfortunately, despite these errors, the overall meaning remains the same: The NRC is moving away from basic science to support business better, and the statements by both Goodyear and MacDougal [sic] are cause for concern.

Plait goes on to restate his argument and provide a roundup of commentaries. It’s well worth reading for the roundup alone.  (One picayune comment from me, I wish Plait would notice that the head of Canada’s National Research Council’s name is spelled this way, John McDougall.)

Happily, Nassif Ghoussoub has also chimed in with a May 22, 2013 posting (on his Piece of Mind blog) regarding the online discussion (Note: Links have been removed),

The Canadian twitter world has been split in the last couple of days. … But then, you have the story of the Tories’ problem with science, be it defunding, muzzling, disbelieving, doubting, preventing, delegitimizing etc. The latter must have restarted with the incredible announcement about the National Research Council (NRC), presented as “Canada sells out science” in Slate, and as “Failure doesn’t come cheap” in Maclean’s. What went unnoticed was the fact that the restructuring turned out to be totally orthogonal to the recommendations of the Jenkins report about the NRC. Then came the latest Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) report, which showed that Canada’s expenditure on research and development has fallen from 16th out of 41 comparable countries in the year Stephen Harper became prime minister, to 23rd in 2011. Paul Wells seems to be racking up hits on his Maclean’s article,  “Stephen Harper and the knowledge economy: perfect strangers.”  But the story of the last 48 hours has been John Dupuis’s chronology of what he calls, “The Canadian war on science” and much more.

Yes, it’s another roundup but it’s complementary (albeit with one or two repetitions) since Plait does not seem all that familiar with the Canadian scene (I find it’s always valuable to have an outside perspective) and Nassif is a longtime insider.

John Dupuis’ May 20, 2013 posting (on his Confessions of a Science Librarian blog), mentioned by both Nassif and Plait, provides an extraordinary listing of stories ranging from 2006 through to 2013 whose headlines alone paint a very bleak picture of the practice of science in Canada,

As is occasionally my habit, I have pulled together a chronology of sorts. It is a chronology of all the various cuts, insults, muzzlings and cancellations that I’ve been able to dig up. Each of them represents a single shot in the Canadian Conservative war on science. It should be noted that not every item in this chronology, if taken in isolation, is necessarily the end of the world. It’s the accumulated evidence that is so damning.

As I’ve noted before, I am no friend of Stephen Harper and his Conservative government and many of their actions have been reprehensible and, at times, seem childishly spiteful but they do occasionally get something right. There was a serious infrastructure problem in Canada. Buildings dedicated to the pursuit of science were sadly aged and no longer appropriate for the use to which they were being put. Harper and his government have poured money into rebuilding infrastructure and for that they should be acknowledged.

As for what the Conservatives are attempting with this shift in direction for the National Research Council (NRC), which has been ongoing for at least two years as I noted in my May 13, 2013 posting, I believe they are attempting to rebalance the Canadian research enterprise.  It’s generally agreed that Canada historically has very poor levels of industrial research and development (R&D) and high levels of industrial R&D are considered, internationally, as key to a successful economy. (Richard Jones, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation at the University of Sheffield, UK, discusses how a falling percentage of industrial R&D, taking place over decades,  is affecting the UK economy in a May 10, 2013 commentary on the University of  Sheffield SPERI [Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute] website.)

This NRC redirection when taken in conjunction with the recent StartUp visa programme (my May 20, 2013 posting discusses Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney’s recent recruitment tour in San Francisco [Silicon Valley]),  is designed to take Canada and Canadians into uncharted territory—the much desired place where we develop a viable industrial R&D sector and an innovative economy in action.

In having reviewed at least some of the commentary, there are a couple of questions left unasked about this international obsession with industrial R&D,

  • is a country’s economic health truly tied to industrial R&D or is this ‘received’ wisdom?
  • if industrial R&D is the key to economic health, what would be the best balance between it and the practice of basic science?

As for the Canadian situation, what might be some of the unintended consequences? It occurs to me that if scientists are rewarded for turning their research into commercially viable products they might be inclined to constrain access to materials. Understandable if the enterprise is purely private but the NRC redirection is aimed at bringing together academics and private enterprise in a scheme that seems a weird amalgam of both.

For example, cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) are not easily accessed if you’re a run-of-the-mill entrepreneur. I’ve had more than one back-channel request about how to purchase the material and it would seem that access is tightly controlled by the academics and publicly funded enterprise, in this case, a private business, who produce the material. (I’m speaking of the FPInnovations and Domtar comingling in CelluForce, a CNC production facility and much more. It would make a fascinating case study on how public monies are used to help finance private enterprises and their R&D efforts; the relationship between nongovernmental agencies (FPInnovations, which I believe was an NRC spinoff), various federal public funding agencies, and Domtar, a private enterprise; and the power dynamics between all the players including the lowly entrepreneur.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, nanotechnology, science policy | No Comments »

Russia’s nanotechnology efforts falter?

Friday, May 17th, 2013

The title for Leonid Bershidksy’s May 16, 2013 Bloomberg.com article, Power Grab Trumps Nanotechnology in Putin’s Russia, casts an ominous shadow over Rusnano’s situation (Note: Links have been removed),

The projects, known as Rusnano and Skolkovo, were meant to propel Russia’s raw-material economy into the technology age. They involved multibillion-dollar government investments, the first in nanotechnology and the second in a new city that would become Russia’s answer to Silicon Valley. They were supposed to provide the infrastructure and stability required to attract large amounts of foreign investment.

Now, both have become targets in Putin’s campaign to demonstrate that he’s being tough on corruption and mismanagement of government funds. As a result, their chances of succeeding are looking increasingly remote.

…

Trouble came in April [2013], when the Accounting Chamber, a body charged with auditing government spending, accused Rusnano of inefficient management in a report that received ample coverage on state-owned TV. It said that Rusnano had transferred about $40 million to shell companies and pointed out that a silicon factory in which Rusnano invested about $450 million was not functioning and was about to be declared insolvent. The report also highlighted the state company’s 2012 losses of 2.5 billion rubles ($80 million) and the 24.4-billion-ruble (about $800 million) in reserves Rusnano had formed against potential losses from risky ventures.

Anatoly Medetsky’s Apr. 29, 2013 article for The Moscow Times provides more insight into the situation,

The government’s Audit Chamber on Friday [April 26, 2013] accused state-owned Rusnano of multiple infractions in a blow to the high-tech corporation’s chief, Anatoly Chubais.

The chamber’s critical conclusions followed President Vladimir Putin’s reproof of the company during a live call-in show the previous day.

Auditors made their statement after examining Rusnano’s records in response to a request by Chubais’ political nemesis, the Communist Party.

“The audit’s materials attest that Rusnano’s performance was inappropriate to attain the goals that it was entrusted with, which are the development of the national nano industry,” the Audit Chamber said in a statement.

…

Auditor Sergei Agaptsov said separately that Rusnano is unlikely to achieve the goal of 300 billion rubles in annual sales of nano-tech products by the companies it co-owns in 2015 — the target that the government set for the company, Interfax reported.

I’m sorry to read about Rusnano’s difficulties especially in light my first piece about it where I compared the Canadian effort unfavourably to, what was then, a relatively new and promising organization in my Apr. 14, 2009 posting. About seventeen months later, officials with Rusnano signed a memorandum of understanding with John Varghese, CEO and Managing Partner of Toronto based venture capital firm, VentureLink Funds as noted in my Sept. 14, 2010 posting. Nothing further seemed to come of that agreement.

I have one last thought about Rusnano’s current travails, will they have an impact on US commercialization efforts? In my Oct. 28, 2011 posting where I was contrasting nanotechnology commercialization efforts by the US, Spain, and Rusnano, I mentioned this deal Rusnano had made with two US nanomedicine companies,

Then RUSNANO announced its investments in Selecta Biosciences and BIND Biosiences, from the Oct. 27, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

BIND Biosciences and Selecta Biosciences, two leading nanomedicine companies, announced today that they have entered into investment agreements with RUSNANO, a $10-billion Russian Federation fund that supports high-tech and nanotechnology advances. [emphasis mine]

RUSNANO is co-investing $25 million in BIND and $25 million in Selecta, for a total RUSNANO investment of $50 million within the total financing rounds of $94.5 million in the two companies combined. …

…

The proprietary technology platforms of BIND and Selecta originated in laboratories at Harvard Medical School directed by Professor Omid Farokhzad, MD, and in laboratories at MIT directed by Professor Robert Langer, ScD, a renowned scientist who is a recipient of the US National Medal of Science, the highest US honor for scientists, and is an inventor of approximately 850 patents issued or pending worldwide. Drs. Langer and Farokhzad are founders of both companies.

Ripple effects, eh? Rusnano was very active internationally.

ETA June 14, 2013:  Nanowerk has a June 13, 2013 news item, which updates the situation with the news that Rusnano has opted out of presenting an ‘initial public offering’, aka, listing itself on a stock exchange in 2015 and will instead attract private investment.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, investment, nanotechnology | No Comments »

NanoQuébec and iNano get to the chapel while Canada Economic Development presides

Monday, May 13th, 2013

ETA May 14, 2013: I changed a word the title to correct a typo: ‘wirh’ to while.

I described NanoQuébec’s iNano, an open web innovation platform,  as an industrial dating service in my Sept. 19, 2012 posting. so I thought I’d extend the metaphor by sending it to the chapel for the latest news about the project.

iNano, designed to match up the research community with industry-based nanotechnology challenges, and Canada Economic Development have now announced new funding for the platform, from the May 13, 2013 news item on Azonano,

The Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, today announced that the organization NanoQuébec has been granted financial assistance for a project to translate knowledge into commercial applications, while improving the innovation capability and competitiveness of Quebec’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

“Our Government is today giving a real boost to innovation, and thereby economic growth, by lending its support to NanoQuébec,” said Minister Lebel.

NanoQuébec is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to support nanotechnology innovation with a view to contributing to sustainable economic growth in Quebec.

Specifically, these funds will enable NanoQuébec to implement an open innovation pilot project aimed at generating technology transfers and strengthening ties between business and the research community. The project, which will last approximately 18 months, will also allow for a second testing of the iNANO open innovation web platform.

If I understand this properly, the iNANO project has been successful with helping various companies solve their problems/challenges and now the Government of Canada is granting NanoQuébec additional monies to create a new project which is focused on commercializing the solutions (?), as well as, allowing NanoQuébec to run the original iNANO challenge project a second time.

The May 7, 2013 (?) Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions news release, which originated the news item, provides a few more details about iNano and about the funding,

 ”“Since the opening of the iNANO platform, we have already posed more than 120 industrial challenges to the research community. The collaborative projects set up through the platform will foster the development of innovations that will be a major competitive advantage for our businesses,”” noted Benoit Balmana, President and CEO of NanoQuébec.

The funding from the Government of Canada will contribute toward the hiring of a staff person to ensure the platform’s management and leadership, technology development, production of promotional tools and business prospecting.

““Our Government remains focused on four priorities, as outlined by the Prime Minister, that Canadians care most about: their families, the safety of our streets and communities, their pride in being a citizen of this country, and of course, their personal financial security,”” concluded Minister Lebel.

…

This assistance, granted in the form of a $171,000 non-repayable contribution, has been awarded through Canada Economic Development’s Quebec Economic Development Program.

I wish them  the best of luck with the challenges and the commercialization.

Note: There appears to have been a change of spelling from I-Nano to iNANO.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, economy, nanotechnology | No Comments »

No more carbon nanotubes from Bayer MaterialScience

Thursday, May 9th, 2013

A May 8, 2013 news item on Nanowerk proclaims,

Bayer MaterialScience intends to focus its development activities more intently on topics that are closely linked to its core business. For that reason the company will bring its work on carbon nanotubes (CNTs) to a close. Precisely how the research results and know-how for the production and application CNT will be used further will be determined shortly.

Researchers from Bayer MaterialScience had collaborated with external partners in recent years to resolve complex issues related to the safe production of specific carbon nanotubes. [emphasis mine] Methods for scaling up the production processes were developed, as were new generations of catalysts and new types of products.

The timing for this announcement from Bayer MateriaScience is interesting given that the US National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) just announced some stringent recommendations (almost zero) for occupational exposure to carbon nanofibers and carbon nanotubes (my Apr. 28, 2013 posting).

The May 8, 2013 Bayer MaterialScience news release, which originated the news item, provides more detail about the business decision,

Much of the knowledge gleaned over recent years was made available to other companies and research institutions within the Innovation Alliance Carbon Nanotubes (Inno.CNT), which counts Bayer MaterialScience among its roughly 90 members.

“We remain convinced that carbon nanotubes have huge potential,” says Patrick Thomas, Chief Executive Officer of Bayer MaterialScience. It has been found, however, that the potential areas of application that once seemed promising from a technical standpoint are currently either very fragmented or have few overlaps with the company’s core products and their application spectrum.

“For Bayer MaterialScience, groundbreaking applications for the mass market relating to our own portfolio and therefore comprehensive commercialization are not likely in the foreseeable future,” says Thomas. Nonetheless, this know-how provides an important basis for a possible later use of CNT, for example in the optimization of lithium ion batteries, Thomas says. “We are currently in contact with potential interested parties regarding the specific application of the know-how generated,” Thomas adds.

The conclusion of the nano projects has no impact on the headcount. All 30 people employed in this sector will be transferred to other suitable positions within the Group.

I”m glad to hear no one will lose their job.

Finally, I recall reading somewhere that there was a glut of carbon nanotube production and taking that with the recent NIOSH recommendation and Bayer’s claim of poor prospects for commercialization, it seems like one of those decisions that made itself.

ETA May 20, 2013: Dexter Johnson provides some insight into carbon nanotube production and the glut in his May 18, 2013 posting on Nanoclast (on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website),

This [Bayer MaterialScience decision] is no surprise since there was a huge glut of product resulting in industry utilization rates that must have been in the single digits. This oversupplied market was the result of a MWNT [multi-walled nanotube] capacity arms race that started in the mid-2000s.

I recommend reading the rest of the posting where Dexter goes on to describe how pricing dropped precipitously from 2006 to 2009  and the resultant efforts to develop markets for the product.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Mop up the oil spills with nanosheets from Deakin University and The Conversation

Thursday, May 2nd, 2013

Researchers from Deakin University (Australia) have developed a new material, boron-based nanosheets, which can mop up oil spills more efficiently than current methods and are recyclable. From the May 1, 2013 news item on Nanowerk, (Note: A link has been removed)

In Nature Communications today (“Porous boron nitride nanosheets for effective water cleaning”), we showed how we produced, probably for the first time, nanosheets that could revolutionise oil spill clean ups and water purification.

Not only do our nanosheets absorb 33 times their weight in oil, they’re also recyclable.

Ordinarily there’d be a news release from Deakin University but these researchers appear to have taken a different approach posting on a website called The Conversation. This is a very interesting science communicaton initiative from Australia and I will be digressing for a moment. Here’s a description of the initiative from their Who We Are page,

The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community and delivered direct to the public.

Our team of professional editors work with university, CSIRO and research institute experts to unlock their knowledge for use by the wider public.

Access to independent, high-quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversations.

We have introduced new protocols and controls to help rebuild trust in journalism. All authors and editors sign up to our Editorial Charter and Code of Ethics. And all contributors must abide by our Community Standards policy. We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article. Authors’ funding and potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed. Failure to do so carries a risk of being banned from contributing to the site.

Since our launch in March 2011, we’ve grown to become one of Australia’s largest independent news and commentary sites. Around 35% of our readers are from outside Australia.

We believe in open access and the free-flow of information. The Conversation is a free resource: free to read (we’ll never go behind a paywall), and free to share or republish under Creative Commons. All you need to do is follow our simple guidelines. We have also become an indispensable media resource: providing free content, ideas and talent to follow up for press, web, radio or TV.

…

They believe in open access and the free-flow of information as long as you don’t edit the article, etc. Here are five of the guidelines (from the Republishing guidelines page),

Republishing guidelines, for print and online

  1. Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Canberra, ACT.” to “Canberra” or “here”). If you need to materially edit our content, please contact our External Relations Manager.
  2. You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline. We prefer “Author Name, Institution” (for example, Qing Wang, Warwick Business School).
  3. You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
  4. If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
  5. If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story. Our page view counter is a small pixel-ping image (invisible to the eye) that allows us to know when our content is republished, and gives our authors sense of the size of audience and which publications they’re reaching. It is a condition of our guidelines that you include our counter. If you use the “republish” button that accompanies each article then you’ll capture our page counter.
  6. ….

Since I usually cut and paste parts of articles and news releases and often intersperse with my own comments and I don’t have the technical skills to use their page view counter, I won’t be using anything directly from The Conversation. I view my role as a curator (bringing together pieces of information from disparate sources) and a ‘connector’. To encourage connections, I don’t usually include a full news release or article as I suggest my readers look at the original or seek out the other sources I’ve included if they want more information.

Back to the boron nitride nanosheets and the news item on Nanowerk,

We found that porous boron nitride nanosheets have a couple of properties that make them particularly suitable for absorbing organic (carbon-based) contaminants, such as oil or dyes.
…

The nanosheets are made of a few layers of boron nitride atomic planes, and these sheets have a large number of holes.

It’s these holes that increase the surface area of the nanosheets to a huge 1,425m2 a gram.
This means one gram of porous boron nitride nanosheets has the same surface area as nearly 5.5 tennis courts – so plenty of surface for absorption.

Another advantage is that the saturated boron nitride nanosheets can be cleaned for reuse by simply heating in air for two hours.

The absorbed oil is burned off, leaving the nanosheets clean and free to absorb again.

To make our porous nanosheets, boron oxide powder and guanidine hydrochloride are mixed in methane and heated at 1,100C for several hours in nitrogen gas.

The news item on Nanowerk is illustrated with images and provides more detail as does the May 1, 2013 article (Don’t cry over spilled oil – use nanosheets) on The Conversation.

For those who’d like to read the published research, here’s a link to and a citation for it,

Porous boron nitride nanosheets for effective water cleaning by Weiwei Lei, David Portehault, Dan Liu, Si Qin, & Ying Chen. Nature Communications 4, Article number: 1777 doi:10.1038/ncomms2818 Published 30 April 2013

The article is behind a paywall.

Interestingly scientists in China have developed an entirely different material with similar properties for mopping up oil spills as per my Feb. 27, 2013 posting titled, Bacterial cellulose could suck up pollutants from oil spills.

ETA May 6, 2013: Dexter Johnson has commented on an outstanding issue with the Deakin University research and other such initiatives: a lack of commercialization efforts. From his May 4, 2013 posting on his Nanoclast blog (found on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website), Note: A link has been removed,

In fact, there are a variety of nanomaterials for these applications [oil spill remediation and water purification]—so many of them that there are catalogues to guide you through them.  But not so fast. As yet, no one is bothering to commercialize them so that they are available for the next oil spill.

Dexter provides worthwhile context and some provocative comments on how to ‘encourage’ commercialization of nanotechnology-enabled oil spill remediation/water purification  products.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, environment, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Graphene Stakeholders Association (GSA) formed

Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

I’m not sure why a new not-for-profit association is needed to promote graphene since that nanomaterial is receiving ample interest these days. My reservations notwithstanding, a group of business types disagrees with me and have formed the Graphene Stakeholders Association (GSA) according to the Apr. 19, 2013 news item on Azonano,

A new non-profit organization was launched this month to promote the responsible development and commercialization of graphene and graphene-enabled products. The Graphene Stakeholders Association (GSA) is a 501(c)6 enterprise headquartered in Buffalo, NY.

The GSA’s founders include Keith Blakely, a 35 year veteran of the advanced materials and nanotechnology community, Dr. Alan Rae, CEO of the Nano Materials Innovation Center, Vincent Caprio, Executive Director of the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association, and Stephen Waite, Managing Partner of SoundView Technology Group. Mr. Waite and Mr. Blakely will serve as co-Executive Directors of the GSA.

Here are some of the activities the GSA is planning, from the website’s Mission page,

The GSA will work primarily by regular web conferences timed for the convenience of members and will hold at least one plenary conference per year to review progress and develop action plans.

The GSA intends to collaborate closely with the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association and to organize meetings and presentations around certain of their events to enable our members to make the most efficient use of their time with respect to technical and business conference meetings.

It seems to me the proposed GSA plenary conferences are likely to emerge as a conference held within the context of  the larger NanoBusiness Commercialization Association’s conference. I think it’s an emerging trend whereby there’s a conference portal and within that context one or more conferences, which will attract likeminded attendees, are grouped together under one banner and have either overlapping dates or are run on parallel dates in the same locations.

The site does offer some interesting information. For example, there’s this from their Graphene Industry Information page,

China has published more graphene patents than any other country, at 2,204, ahead of 1,754 for the U.S., 1,160 for South Korea, and 54 for the U.K.

South Korea’s Samsung has more graphene patents than any single company.

Nokia is part of the 74-company Graphene Flagship Consortium that is receiving a €1 billion ($1.35 billion) grant that the E.U. announced in January 2013.

Nokia, Philips, U.K. invention stalwart Dyson, weapons and aerospace company BAE Systems, and others have committed £13 million ($20.5 million) to a graphene development center [Cambridge Graphene Centre as per my Jan. 24, 2013 posting] at Cambridge University, to go along with £12 million ($18.9 million) from the British government. [Also, there's a new National Graphene Institute being built in Manchester, UK {my Jan. 14, 2013 posting}.]

….

Graphene is prohibitively expensive to make today. As recently as 2008, it cost $100 million to produce a single cubic centimeter of graphene.

Researchers are working on methods to reduce the cost of manufacturing and help make graphene a ubiquitous fabrication material.

Graphene film companies face major commercialization hurdles, including reducing costs, scaling-up the substrate transfer process, overcoming current deposition area limitations, and besting other emerging material solutions.

GSA is looking for members from around the world according to the Apr. 19, 2013 news item on Azonano.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, graphene, nanotechnology | 1 Comment »

WAVE in Alberta (Canada); bringing your technology products to market

Tuesday, March 26th, 2013

May 5 – 8, 2013 are the dates for WAVE 2013, Alberta’s technology commercialization conference, being held at the Fairmont Chateau in Lake Louise, Alberta. The conference features 12 keynote speakers from industry (including Dr. Wagiuh Ishak of Corning Inc, Dr. Sergio Kapusta of Royal Dutch Shell, Stephen Graham of Maple Leaf Foods, and Travis Earles of Lockheed Martin) discussing 6 market areas (including health/medical, cleantech/conventional energy and agriculture/forestry).

The conference host and organizer is ACAMP (Alberta Centre for Advanced Micro and Nano Technology Products) a not-for-profit centre offering business support to micro and nano technology businesses. WAVE 2013 is the second such conference, the first being held in 2011. From the About WAVE page on the conference website,

From a Ripple in Research to a Powerful Wave in Marketing

The WAVE 2013 Conference and Exhibition builds on the success of our last conference WAVE 2011. WAVE 2013 exists to enable and encourage companies with investable hardware product technologies to showcase their state-of-the-art capabilities and bring them to market. There will be no poster sessions, academic papers, or student presentations.

Professionals representing domestic and international corporations are invited to take exhibitor space in order to network with other market strategists, distributors and representatives, manufacturers, materials producers, equipment suppliers, and investors.

This is an opportunity to expand your market and showcase your products. Networking areas are available free of charge and designed to allow attendees to meet privately to discuss business opportunities.

The bottom-line goal is bottom-line success.

The WAVE home page description offers more specifics as to how this conference is organized to maximize contact between participants,

Take your investable tech products to market

You may have a great investable technology product and not know it yet. Or you may know it, but can’t find partners and markets. In either case, it’s a big challenge to connect innovators with larger corporations and funding to help develop products and take them to market.

That’s what the Wave 2013 conference is all about… and we’re doing it in a very different way.
Connect with the right exhibitors

Typically, at large international conferences the exhibitors exhibit. The presenters present. The attendees listen and walk around exhibits looking for opportunities. Everyone is left to their own devices to make the right connections.

But at Wave 2013, we’re going to change all that. Every company that exhibits will also present to the entire audience. So exhibitors and attendees will understand where the opportunities are without all the frustration.
Actually meet the keynotes one-on-one

What about the big keynotes? There will be outstanding keynotes from a who’s who in the international tech space. And get this… they won’t just present and go home. At the presentations you’ll learn what they’re looking for and then they’ll be available for one-on-one meetings with you during the three days.

Plus, government officials from Alberta and across Canada will be in attendance, looking for new opportunities to invest and collaborate.
Find the right partners

So come. Exhibit. Present. Or join us as an attendee and pitch your product in one-on-one meetings. Some of the world’s most important companies in the tech space want to tell you what they’re looking for and hear about what you’re working on.

You can find more information about the conference in a brochure which oddly enough is on the NanoQuébec website here (scroll down about 1/3 of the way). I couldn’t find the brochure or the list of industry keynote speakers on the WAVE 2013 conference website (?)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, marketing, nanotechnology | No Comments »

« Older Entries