Monthly Archives: July 2010

Buckyballs in space

Leave a reply

Astronomers are excited! They thought they’d found buckyballs (buckminster fullerenes) in some stars about 15 years ago but that finding still hasn’t been confirmed with laboratory data. Meanwhile, a new team including Jan Cami from the University of Western Ontario (Canada) and the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute in Mountainview, California recently made an unexpected discovery—buckyballs—while examining a planetary nebula (remains of a star shedding its outer layer of gas and dust as it ages). According to the news item on physorg.com,

“We found what are now the largest molecules known to exist in space,” said astronomer Jan Cami of the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and the SETI Institute in Mountain View, Calif. “We are particularly excited because they have unique properties that make them important players for all sorts of physical and chemical processes going on in space.” Cami has authored a paper about the discovery that will appear online Thursday [July 29, 2010?] in the journal Science.

Buckyballs are made of 60 carbon atoms arranged in three-dimensional, spherical structures. Their alternating patterns of hexagons and pentagons match a typical black-and-white soccer ball. The research team also found the more elongated relative of buckyballs, known as C70, for the first time in space. These molecules consist of 70 carbon atoms and are shaped more like an oval rugby ball. Both types of molecules belong to a class known officially as buckminsterfullerenes, or fullerenes.

You can also find the news item at Nanowerk where an alternative video clip (featuring an interview with Jan Cami discussing buckyballs) to the the silent animation featuring buckyballs and their movement  available on the physorg.com site.

The folks at Rice University must be thrilled since proof of the existence of buckyballs on this planet is strongly associated with discoveries made by scientists at Rice (my May 13, 2010 posting provides a fuller picture of some of the twists and turns associated with that science story).

Nanotech comic books

1 Reply

Originally released in 2008 by Marvel Comics, New-Gen chronicles the adventures of nanotechnology-enhanced super humans. From the article by Patrick Montero at the New York Daily News,

Though similar to other superhero teams, the nanopowered creatures of the futuristic action comic series, New-Gen, are not your average mutant superheroes. What sets them apart is the seamless blending of your classic superhero with real science-based fact.

“Nanotechnology is a real science,” exclaims J.D. Matonti, creator and co-writer of the New-Gen series, “I reached out to NASA scientist, Dr. Brad Edwards, [to learn about] the possibilities of nanotechnology. What if someone was composed of nanobots? What sort of incredible powers could manifest?

We wanted to employ a realistic approach as to where those nanopowers could originate from so when our audience read New-Gen they would think, ‘Hey, this can really happen!'”

I searched Dr.Brad Edwards and found an interview where someone with the same name and an association with NASA (US National Aeronautics and Space Administration) discusses his work on a space elevator. From Sander Olson’s article on Next Big Future,

… Dr. Edwards received his PhD in physics in 1990, and worked at Los Alamos National Lab for 11 years. After leaving Los Alamos, Dr. Edwards has dedicated his career to researching and developing the space elevator concept. All of his research indicates that the space elevator concept is valid and feasible. He currently heads a company called Black Line Ascension, which is actively promoting the space elevator concept. He has published several books on the space elevator, including The Space Elevator: A Revolutionary Earth-to-Space Transport System, and Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator.

I think this is the same person cited in Montero’s article and, while he doesn’t mention nanobots, he does discuss carbon nanotubes and their application in his space elevator project at some length.

Also cited in Montero’s article is a NASA Center for Nanotechnology. The site doesn’t seem to have been updated since April 2007. I mention it because of this comment in Montero’s article,

According to the NASA Center for Nanotechnology (CNT), nanotechnology robots, or nanobots, are microscopic machines that work on an atomic level to systematically organize and manipulate materials 100 millionth of a millimeter or smaller.

I couldn’t find any references to nanobots on that website. Perhaps the creators/writers gave Montero references that were valid in 2007 when they were likely researching and preparing the series prior to its 2008 launch?

I did go to the Marvel Comics website to find free copies of the first three installments of the series as promised in Montero’s article. (Go here.) From the Marvel Comics New-Gen page,

A battle over Nanotechnology rages between two superhuman scientists. Gabriel banishes his former friend, Deadalus, to an underworld, sends his infant twin sons to Earth and takes in the young children and creatures affected by Nanotechnology. The children and creatures grow up possessing unique NanoPowers in the Association for the Protection of New Generation (A.P.N.G.) and will oppose Deadalus as he evolves into the purely evil Sly attempting to transform worlds.

There’s also a New-Gen website where you can read up on the latest about the series, find biographies for each character, and more.

The series, from what I’ve seen of it, looks like it might be good, goofy fun although I understand from Montero’s article that the creative team has reworked the original stories to make them edgier for their new (2010) release as mobile comics. As for the science aspect, I think they had good intentions when they started the research.

Sunscreen and nanoparticles from ivy

1 Reply

I like a story about science research that starts with a question even if it does lead to another nanosunscreen posting this year (from a news item on Science Daily),

“What makes the ivy in [the] backyard cling to the fence so tightly?”

Associate professor of bioengineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Mingjun Zhang, asked himself that question one day while watching his son play in their back yard. Zhang’s answer may lead to the development of a new type of nanosunscreen, one that uses plant-based nanoparticles rather than metal-based ones.

Zhang speculated the greenery’s hidden power lay within a yellowish material secreted by the ivy for surface climbing. He placed this material onto a silicon wafer and examined it under an atomic force microscope and was surprised by what they found — lots of nanoparticles, tiny particles 1,000 times thinner than the diameter of a human hair. The properties of these tiny bits create the ability for the vine leaves to hold almost 2 million more times than its weight. It also has the ability to soak up and disperse light which is integral to sunscreens. [emphasis mine]

Michael Berger at Nanowerk has written an article (Harmless natural nanoparticles show potential to replace metal-based nanoparticles in sunscreen) discussing Dr. Zhang’s work in more depth,

Quite impressively, the team’s study indicates that ivy nanoparticles can improve the extinction of ultraviolet light at least four times better than its metal counterparts.

Zhang points out that sunscreens made with ivy nanoparticles may not need to be reapplied after swimming. “That’s because the plant’s nanoparticles are a bit more adhesive so sunscreens made with them may not wash off as easily as traditional sunscreens,” he says. “And while sunscreens made with metal-based nanoparticles give the skin a white tinge, sunscreens made with ivy nanoparticles are virtually invisible when applied to the skin.”

This certainly looks promising but they don’t seem to be anywhere near to producing sunscreens containing ivy nanoparticles.

Could science funding in the European Union have an impact on Canadian nanotechnology?

2 Replies

Unexpectedly they’re upping the research budget in the European Union. According to the item online at  BBC News,

The EU has announced 6.4bn euros (£5.4bn) of funding for scientific research and innovation next year – a 12% increase on this year’s allocation.

The programme is aimed at creating more than 165,000 jobs and developing “a more competitive and greener Europe”, the European Commission says.

The focus is on tackling climate change, energy projects, food security, health and Europe’s ageing population.

Grants will be awarded to about 16,000 research bodies and businesses.

“Research and innovation are the only smart and lasting route out of crisis and towards sustainable and socially equitable growth,” said the EU Commissioner for Research and Innovation, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn.

“There is no other way of creating good and well-paid jobs that will withstand the pressures of globalisation.”

EU-funded research currently accounts for about 5% of the total public funding for research in the EU, she said.

The investment includes more than 600m euros for health research, about 206m euros of which will go into clinical trials for new drugs.

Nanotechnologies will get 270m euros, while about 600m euros is earmarked for advanced computer technologies. [emphasis mine]

Another 400m euros is to be spent on computer applications that address the challenges of building a low-carbon economy and managing ageing populations.

I was inclined to view it as a piece of delightful news without really analyzing it, then David Bruggeman (Pasco Phronesis) made a salient comment,

I suspect that the European spending will be insufficient even if individual nations hold the line on their own science funding. Because even those nations are looking at significant cuts to their universities, which affect both the training of the next generation of researchers and a certain amount of research. At best the funding boosts and cuts will be a wash, but the future doesn’t look like the best. What might happen is a greater shift in attention to European Union level research compared to country level research.

David also provides a brief description of the  ‘framework programme’ that the European Union uses to fund science research so that readers (such as me) have a better understanding of the bigger picture. If you’re interested in this kind of thing, do check out his posting.

David’s commentary was particularly timely as, this morning, I came across an article about the French government funding nanotechnology research in Canada (Sherbrooke, Québec to be precise). Since the article is in French, I’m going to be relying on my translation skills (Note: I will reproduce at least some of the French, so do let me know if you spot any errors.)

There is an abbreviated version of the article (Nanotechnologies: un petit bout de France à L’UdeS) by Jonathan Custeau for the Sherbrooke Tribune here (fyi, somebody sent me a copy of the full article).

The University of Sherbrooke’s current nanotechnology laboratory (Laboratoire international associé en nanotechnologies et nanosystèmes [LIA-LN2]) is about to receiving funding to the tune of ! million Euros over three years from France’s CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) putting  it in a category occupied by only eight other labs in the world.

I gather the lab’s current LIA-LN2 status is a consequence of previous French funding since the university’s vice-president of research describes the current bonanza as ‘jumping to a new level’, i.e. jumping to Unité mixte international (UMI) status,

“Nous étions tellement en avance que nous sautons à un autre niveau”, fait valoir Jacques Beauvais, vice-recteur à la recherche de l’Université de Sherbrooke.

L’autre niveau, c’est l’Unité mixte internationale, un laboratoire financé par le Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS français. Il n’en existe que huit à travers le monde.

“Une UMI coûte très cher, parce que c’est un vrai laboratoire, avec des chercheurs financés par le CNRS, des fonds de recherches français et européens. C’est comme s’il y avait un bout de France sur le campus de l’Université de Sherbrooke”, fait valoir Vincent Aimez, codirecteur du LIA-LN2.

The nanotechnology researchers at the University of Sherbrooke (L’UdeS) have been liaising and collaborating with researchers in Varennes, Lyon, and Grenoble, France for over two years,  so this new funding is an acknowledgment of the quality of their work.

Bravo—the award is all the more extraordinary given the concerns about science and university funding in Europe.

January 2012 is the launch date for the University of Sherbrooke’s UMI which will have a focus on bringing at least some of the academic research to the market. Miniaturized integrated circuit boards are mentioned specifically and my translation skills failed a bit here,

Les applications des recherches pourraient notamment permettre de relever le défi de la miniaturisation des puces électroniques [integrated circuit boards?]. “Nous cherchons à faire des puces avec plus de fonctions, mais qui consomment moins d’énergie, pour qu’elles restent efficaces pendant un mois par exemple. Nous voulons aussi développer des biocapteurs [?] pour des contrôles environnementaux [?] ou des analyses médicales [medical diagnostics?]”, précise Abdelkader Souifi, également codirecteur du LIA-LN2.

I found the comments regarding products quite interesting in light of the Québec government’s recent moves to improve innovation in that province as per the article (June 30, 2010) by Peter Hadekel in the Montréal Gazette. (Idle thought: This casts a new light on the recent Domtar-FPInnovations collaboration on nanocrystalline cellulose (my July 16, 2010 posting).

Windows that generate electricity

Leave a reply

My obsession with windows continues unabated so the news that someone has developed electricity-generating windows piqued my interest. From the news item on Nanowerk,

New Energy Technologies, Inc. is pleased to announce that researchers developing its proprietary SolarWindow™ technology have achieved major scientific and technical breakthroughs, allowing the Company to unveil a working prototype of the world’s first-ever glass window capable of generating electricity in the upcoming weeks.

Until now, solar panels have remained opaque, with the prospect of creating a see-thru glass window capable of generating electricity limited by the use of metals and various expensive processes which block visibility and prevent light from passing through glass surfaces.

New Energy’s ability to generate electricity on see-thru glass is made possible by making use of the world’s smallest working organic solar cells, developed by Dr. Xiaomei Jiang at the University of South Florida. Unlike conventional solar systems, New Energy’s solar cells generate electricity from both natural and artificial light sources, outperforming today’s commercial solar and thin-film technologies by as much as 10-fold.

More details at Nanowerk.

Nanotechnology and sunscreens: recalibrating positions and the excruciating business of getting it as right as possible

1 Reply

I’ve been waiting for Andrew Maynard’s comments (on his 2020 Science blog) about the Friends of the Earth (FoE) guest bloggers’ (Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato) response (ETA June 6, 2016: Just how risky can nanoparticles in sunscreens be? Friends of the Earth respond; a 2020 Science blog June 15, 2010 posting) to his posting (Just how risky could nanoparticles in sunscreens be?) where he challenged them to quantify the nanosunscreen risk to consumers.  His reflections on the FoE response and the subsequent discussion are well worth reading. From Andrew’s posting, The safety of nanotechnology-based sunscreens – some reflections,

Getting nanomaterials’ use in context. First, Georgia and Ian, very appropriately in my opinion, brought up the societal context within which new technologies and products are developed and used:

“why not support a discussion about the role of the precautionary principle in the management of uncertain new risks associated with emerging technologies? Why not explore the importance of public choice in the exposure to these risks? Why not contribute to a critical discussion about whose interests are served by the premature commercialisation of products about whose safety we know so little, when there is preliminary evidence of risk and very limited public benefit.”

Andrew again,

… we need to think carefully about how we use scientific knowledge and data – “evidence” – in making decisions.

As he goes on to point out, cherrypicking data isn’t a substantive means of supporting your position over the long run.

Unfortunately it’s a common practice on all sides ranging from policymakers, politicians, civil society groups, consumers, medical institutions, etc. and these days we don’t have the luxury, ignorance about downsides such as pollution and chemical poisoning on a global scale for example, that previous generations enjoyed.

Three of the scientists whose work was cited by FoE as proof that nanosunscreens are dangerous either posted directly or asked Andrew to post comments which clarified the situation with exquisite care,

Despite FoE’s implications that nanoparticles in sunscreens might cause cancer because they are photoactive, Peter Dobson points out that there are nanomaterials used in sunscreens that are designed not to be photoactive. Brian Gulson, who’s work on zinc skin penetration was cited by FoE, points out that his studies only show conclusively that zinc atoms or ions can pass through the skin, not that nanoparticles can pass through. He also notes that the amount of zinc penetration from zinc-based sunscreens is very much lower than the level of zinc people have in their body in the first place. Tilman Butz, who led one of the largest projects on nanoparticle penetration through skin to date, points out that – based on current understanding – the nanoparticles used in sunscreens are too large to penetrate through the skin.

These three comments alone begin to cast the potential risks associated with nanomaterials in sunscreens in a very different light to that presented by FoE. Certainly there are still uncertainties about the possible consequences of using these materials – no-one is denying that. But the weight of evidence suggests that nanomaterials within sunscreens – if engineered and used appropriately – do not present a clear and present threat to human health.

Go to the comments section of the 2020 Science blog for the full text of Peter Dobson’s response, Brian Gulson’s response posted by Andrew on Gulson’s behalf, and Tilman Butz’s response posted by Andrew on Butz’s behalf. (I found these comments very helpful as I had made the mistake of assuming that there was proof that nanoparticles do penetrate the skin barrier [as per my posting of June 23, 2010].)

I want to point out that the stakes are quite high despite the fact that sunscreens are classified as a cosmetic. I’ve heard at least one commentator (Pat Roy Mooney of The ETC Group, Interview at 2009 Elevate Festival at 4:32) scoff because nanotechnology is being used in cosmetics as if it’s frivolous. Given the important role sunscreens play in our health these days, a safe sunscreen has to be high on the list of most people’s priorities but this leads to a question.

Should we stop developing more effective nanotechnology-enabled sunscreens (and by extension, other nanotechnology-enabled products) due to concern that we may cause more harm than good?

Andrew goes on to provide some interesting insight into the issue citing the Precautionary Principle and supplementing his comments with some of Richard Jones’ (author of Soft Machines book and blog and consultant to UK government on various nanotechnology topics) suggestions to refine the Precautionary Principle guidelines,

1. what are the benefits that the new technology provides – what are the risks and uncertainties associated with not realising these benefits?

2. what are the risks and uncertainties attached to any current ways we have of realising these benefits using existing technologies?

3. what are the risks and uncertainties of the new technology?

I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the issues around risk, the precautionary principle, emerging technologies, and the role of research read this posting (as well as its predecessors) and as much of the discussion as you can manage.

One additional thought which was posited in the comments section by Hilary Sutcliffe (you’ll need to scroll the comments as I haven’t figured out how to create a direct link to her comment) has to do with the role that companies have with regard to their research and making it available in the discussion about health, safety, and the environment (HSE),

… we need to be able to access ‘the best available information’ in order to make informed decisions in the face of uncertainty and enable the rounded assessment that Prof Richard Jones suggests. This is indeed essential, but ‘we’ are usually constrained by the lack of one very large chunk of ‘available information’ which is the HSE testing the companies themselves have done which leads them to judge the material or product they have developed is safe.

Further in the comment she goes on to discuss a project (What’s fair to share?) that her organization (MATTER) is planning where they want to discuss how companies can share their HSE data without giving away intellectual property and/or competitive advantages.

Finally, I want to paraphrase something I said elsewhere. While I am critical of the tactics used by the Friends of the Earth in this instance, there is no doubt in my mind that the organization and other civil society groups serve a very important role in raising much needed discussion about nanotechnology risks.

The Jensen Project, researching, and the disappearing Canadian census long form

2 Replies

I couldn’t watch The Jensen Project (Friday, July 16, 2010) for more than about 3 or 4 minutes at a time as I had to keep channel surfing away from this bizarre ‘nanotechnology-themed’ tv movie. It was an awful fascination that kept me coming back.

I gather the writers did their science research by watching Agent Cody Banks (a 2003 Disney movie). They updated the concept so that the nanobots weren’t simple metal-munchers (the nanobots once unleashed would grab atoms to replicate themselves; they seem to particularly metal in the Agent Cody Banks movie. Now the nanobots (sometimes referred to as computers) were injectable (maybe they watched the Bionic Woman reboot?) into hapless victims whose biological processes could then be controlled by a phone app. That’s right. The nanobots could manipulate your hormones, your neurotransmitters and any number of other bodily systems so that you could be cured or killed at the touch of a fingertip by whoever was holding the phone/controller.

My favourite part was where the ‘evil ones’ had to procure a molecular assembler. There are only three or four in the world according to the story. Naturally, the evil chief scientist dashes off to pick one up and returns with it tucked under his arm. Yes, you wouldn’t worry about dropping it. After all, there’d be at least another two or three left in the world.

By comparison with The Jensen Project, Agent Cody Banks was a model of storytelling and scientific accuracy. The Disney movie correctly identified a fullerene (even if the actor was having trouble with the terminology). At least some of the character behaviour made sense and the story had a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ approach so the viewer could make allowances for the flights of fancy.

I searched for information about The Jensen Project as I was curious about any science consultation that might have taken place. Nada, there was no listing for a science consultant and, as far as I can tell, the writers have minimal writing experience (one or two writing credits including The Jensen Project) with some experience in production and none seems to have had a science background of any kind.

Regardless of how much experience you have, research is always important as we’re finding out if the discussion about the prospect that the Canadian long census form is about to disappear is any indication.

As Beth at The Black Hole noted,

All of this brings up questions about politicians’ understanding of the importance of data and evidence-informed practice, not to mention their ignoring the scientific experts on the matter – in this case, the statisticians at Stats Canada.

Beth did a little more investigating using Twitter,

This lead me to check out Clement’s [Tony Clement is the Cabinet Minister responsible for Statistics Canada] Twitter stream, where he referred to having a mandatory (as opposed to voluntary) long form as “state coercion” – I guess it’s fine to have the state “coerce” you to complete the short form – or, you know, obey any of our other laws – but they draw the line at the long form?

In response to a commenter who asked how the census discussion was relevant to science trainees (The Black Hole’s focus) and described the posting as ‘tory-bashing’,

… to call this random Tory bashing is pretty unfair. The census data is a tool that many scientists and social scientists use daily in their research. While it might not be directly relevant to whichever field of science you are in or thinking of when making this comment, it has a huge effect on trainees in epidemiology, public health, civil engineering, and even industry bound trainees. [emphases mine]

This blog is on issues affecting science trainees and a move like this which strips information from the public domain and many researchers is something we definitely see as having an effect.

Hope this helps explain a little why we found it important to post.

Dave [Note: Beth and Dave run the blog]

Interestingly, Tony Clement the minister defending this move fought against it according to Jeffrey Simpson in his July 17, 2010 column for the Globe and Mail,

Last fall, Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided his government would oppose the mandatory long-form census. Since then, nothing has changed his mind. His right-wing ideology and political instinct combined to make a policy that’s being denounced by almost every leading institution and commentator in Canada.

His decision was also opposed inside the government by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and by Industry Minister Tony Clement, who’s responsible for Statistics Canada, the agency that administers the census.

Both wrote to the Prime Minister, underscoring the importance of the mandatory long-form census to compile the most accurate statistics on which so much public policy and private-sector decision-making depends. [emphases mine]

Dave Bruggeman at Pasco Phronesis has also weighed in with some telling points (and sardonic humour which I haven’t reproduced here but do go and enjoy),

To the north, Canada is preparing for a census in 2011 (it does so every five years compared to ten for the U.S.), but is dealing with a very different methodological debate. The Conservative government, expressing a concern over the privacy of its citizens, has opted to make the census long form (distributed to twenty percent of the population, the remainder receive a short form asking for very basic information) voluntary. (Much like in the United States, you can be fined for not answering census questions.) However, the national privacy commissioner has received all of three complaints about the census since 2001, and Statistics Canada takes stringent measures to maintain confidentiality of census data (much like the U.S. Census Bureau), not releasing detailed census information for decades, if ever.

So the publicized rationale for the change does not reflect a statistically significant analysis of public opinion, but the anecdotes of a few people who caught the attention of Members of Parliament. [emphases mine]

Simpson goes on to suggest Harper’s possible  motivation,

What’s the point of all this, politically? There hasn’t been a hue and cry in years past about the fact that a fifth of Canadians have been required to fill out the long-form census. Past governments of both political stripes, like governments throughout the Western world, do something like this, and it’s one of the reasons why Statistics Canada is regarded internationally as one of the very best statistical agencies in the world.

… this sprang from Mr. Harper’s ideological core conviction about Big Government and, more important, a tactical political sense that here was an issue that could activate his party’s populist base – that could galvanize the core with bogus but potent arguments about the perils of the “nanny state,” the “elites,” the “bureaucrats,” the same sort of people who connive to take away your guns, raise your taxes and threaten your liberties, against whom only the Harper government stands resolute.

Personally, I’m wondering if this census storm isn’t simply a diversionary tactic.

Butterfly wings, morphotex, and trash fashion

3 Replies

Mimicking the structures found on butterfly wings, the fabric morphotex was used by Australian designer Donna Sgro in the dress she submitted to the Trash Fashion exhibition at Antenna, a science gallery at London’s Science Museum. (I previously posted about this show in Bacteria as couture and transgenic salmon?)

According to Jasmic Malik Chua’s article at Ecouterre,

… designer Donna Sgro fashioned the frock from the Morphotex, a nanotechnology-based, structurally colored fiber that mimics the microscopic structure of the Morpho butterfly’s wings, which despite lacking color, appear a shimmery cobalt blue. Manufactured by Teijin in Japan, Morphotex requires no dyes or pigments, nor the prodigious amount of water and energy used in conventional dyeing.

Here’s a detail of the dress from one of the many images available at Ecouterre,

Donna Sgro’s morphotext dress for Trash Fashion

This certainly sounds like a promising development. You can find some information about the product morphotex here at AskNature where you’ll find details including a patent number. Teijin’s (the manufacturer) English language website is here. Donna Sgro’s website is here.

You can find London’s Science Museum website here but I had a hard time finding anything more than this about Trash Fashion on their site.

Nanocrystalline cellulose plant announced by FPInnovations and Domtar

6 Replies

Congratulations are in order as per a joint (Domtar and FPInnovations) news release (this link leads to the joint release, a backgrounder, and a Govt. of Québec release),

Domtar Corporation (NYSE/TSX: UFS) and FPInnovations today announced that they have formed a new joint venture company to build the world’s first one metric ton per day commercial-scale nanocrystalline cellulose demonstration plant at the Domtar Windsor, Quebec pulp and paper mill site. Construction will begin in the coming weeks and will take approximately 20 months to be completed.

I first mentioned FPInnovations and their work with nanocrystalline cellulose  in my Nov. 3, 2009 posting but if you want a refresher course about the material here’s a comment from the company’s CEO,

“This is an important milestone cumulating over 15 years of R&D investments towards the future development of fiber-based products for the industrial world. During this time FPInnovations developed an extensive intellectual property portfolio around the manufacturing and application of nanocrystalline cellulose,” said Pierre Lapointe, President and Chief Executive Officer of FPInnovations. “I am confident that this partnership and the strong support of both governments will lead to exciting and successful new commercial applications.”

Nanocrystalline cellulose is a renewable, recyclable and abundant nanomaterial made of cellulose fibers from the wood pulp manufacturing process. Potential applications include optically-reflective films, high-durability varnishes, and innovative bioplastics. The properties of this material will provide new opportunities in a wide range of applications for a variety of sectors and markets such as the aerospace, automotive, chemical, textile and forestry industries.

I look forward to hearing more about nanocrystalline cellulose.