Tag Archives: Gary Thomas

Quantum-Nano Centre (QNC) opening Sept. 21, 2012 at the University of Waterloo (Canada)

1 Reply

Gary Thomas’ Sept. 13, 2012 news item for Azonano provides some facts about the new centre at the University of Waterloo,

The University of Waterloo has reported that the Mike & Ophelia Lazaridis Quantum-Nano Centre (QNC) will be officially opened on September 21, 2012, in the new building at the center of the university campus.

The Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology (WIN) and the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) will share QNC, a 285,000-square-foot facility for future innovation in nanotechnology and quantum information. QNC will provide the equipment and collaborative opportunities to researchers to carry out pioneering experiments, explore new materials and processes and develop advanced technologies.

You can find more details on Azonano or in the fulsome Sept. 11, 2012 University of Waterloo news release by Christian Aagaard,

It’s a curious building for curious people, supported by an entrepreneur driven by curiosity.

The Mike & Ophelia Lazaridis Quantum-Nano Centre on the main campus of the University of Waterloo is ready for its starring role — a gateway to a future shaped by incredibly small devices, advanced materials and powerful technologies based on the laws of quantum mechanics.

One step diagnosis (nanotechnology-enabled) from University of Georgia (US)

Leave a reply

The researchers haven’t tried this out on blood, saliva, or urine yet but this July 21, 2012 news item by Gary Thomas on Azonano hints that will be the next step,

Researchers at the University of Georgia have devised a single-step, quick and accurate technique using nanomaterials to detect pathogens and contaminants. The team demonstrated the capability of the new technique in detecting compounds like protein albumin and lactic acid in extremely diluted mixtures that comprised of dyes and chemicals.

The researchers conclude that the same method can be employed on biological mixtures like blood, saliva, food and urine to detect contaminants and pathogens.

The originating July 19, 2012 news release by Sam Fahmy for the University of Georgia provides more detail,

“The results are unambiguous and quickly give you a high degree of specificity,” said senior author Yiping Zhao, professor of physics in the UGA [University of Georgia] Franklin College of Arts and Sciences and director of the university’s Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center.

Zhao and his co-authors—doctoral students Jing Chen and Justin Abell and professor Yao-wen Huang of the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences—used nanotechnology to combine two well-known techniques and create their new diagnostic test. …

The first component of their two-in-one system uses a technique known as surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy, or SERS, which measures the change in frequency of a laser as it scatters off a compound. Every compound displays a series of distinctive changes in frequency, or Raman shifts, that are as unique as a fingerprint. The signal produced by Raman scattering is inherently weak, but Zhao and his colleagues have arrayed silver nanorods 1,000 times finer than the width of a human hair at a precise angle to significantly amplify the signal. In previous studies with Ralph Tripp in the UGA College of Veterinary Medicine and chemist Richard Dluhy in the Franklin College, they demonstrated that the use of SERS with silver nanorods could identify viruses such as HIV and RSV isolated from infected cells.

Here’s why they needed a second technique and how it fits into the picture (from the news release),

“In a clinical setting, the sample that you obtain from patients typically contains bacteria or viruses as well as a lot of fluid—as in blood, urine or saliva—that contains biological agents that interfere with the signal you’re trying to detect,” Zhao said. “To develop a diagnostic that could be used at the point of care, we needed a way to separate those agents.”

Once again, the scientists turned to nanotechnology to create a next-generation diagnostic test. Using traditional thin layer chromatography, or TLC, scientists blot a drop of sample onto a porous surface. They then apply a solvent such as methanol to the sample, and the sample components separate based on how strongly they’re attracted to the solvent and the surface.

Study co-author Justin Abell, a doctoral student in the UGA College of Engineering, explained that TLC typically requires a large sample volume because the compound of interest soaks into the surface in addition to moving along it, like a stain on a rug. The silver nanorod surface that the researchers use, in contrast, allows them to use a miniscule amount of sample in a technique known as ultra-thin layer chromatography.

“In our case, the nanorods are acting as the detection medium but also as the separation medium,” Abell said, “so it’s a two-in-one system.”

To test their method, the researchers used mixtures of dyes, the organic chemical melamine, lactic acid and the protein albumin. In each case, they were able to directly identify the compounds of interest, even in samples diluted to concentrations below 182 nanograms per milliliter-roughly 200 billionths of a gram in a fifth of a teaspoon. And while the detection of viruses using techniques such as polymerase chain reaction can take days or even weeks and requires fluorescent labels, the on-chip method developed by the UGA researchers yields results in less than an hour without the use of molecular labels.

As for future plans to develop this application (from the news release),

The researchers are currently testing their technique with biological samples from Tripp’s lab that contain viruses, and Zhao said preliminary results are promising. He adds that while his team is focused on health and food safety applications, SERS and ultra-thin layer chromatography can be used to detect compounds of all types—everything from forensic materials at a crime scene to environmental pollutants. His team also is working with colleagues across campus to create an online encyclopedia that would allow technicians to identify viruses, bacteria, biomarkers and pharmaceuticals based on their distinctive Raman shifts.

“Every compound has a unique SERS spectrum,” Zhao said, “so this is a very robust technology whose applications are practically endless.”

Buckyball legal suit: all about toys, rare earths, and magnets

1 Reply

The July 27, 2012 news item by Gary Thomas on Azonano highlights a legal suit involving Maxfield & Obertontoys that happen to be called Buckyballs and Buckycubes. From the news item,

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has filed a complaint against New York based Maxfield & Oberton Holdings LLC over their Buckyballs and Buckycube desk toys subsequent to a 3-1 Commission vote approving the filing of complaint.

The complaint seeks an order on the firm to prohibit sale of Buckyballs and Buckycubes, to inform the public about the defect and also refund the consumers in full for purchases made. …

Despite cooperative efforts by CPSC and Maxfield & Oberton to educate buyers that the products are meant for adults, reports of swallowing incidents and injuries kept coming in.

Before I go further, here’s what the toy looks like,

downloaded from Maxfield & Oberton’s http://www.getbuckyballs.com/ home page

The problem is that the small spherical magnets contain rare earths and are being swallowed by children and teenagers resulting in serious injury. I found more details about the situation in the July 25, 2012 news release issued by the CPSC (Note: I have removed some links) ,

In May 2010, CPSC and Maxfield & Oberton announced a cooperative recall of about 175,000 Buckyball high powered magnets sets, because they were labeled “Ages 13+” and did not meet the federal mandatory toy standard, F963-08. The standard requires that such powerful loose as received magnets not be sold for children younger than 14.

The Buckyballs and Buckycubes sets contain up to 216 powerful rare earth magnets.

…

In November 2011, CPSC and Maxfield & Oberton worked cooperatively to inform and educate consumers that Buckyballs were intended for adult use only, and although the risk scenarios differ by age group, the danger when multiple rare earth magnets are ingested is the same. However, even after the safety alert, ingestions and injuries continued to occur.

Here’s more about the number of injuries associated with the Maxfield & Oberton toys and more about how children and why teenagers accidentally swallow the magnets (from the CPSC news release),

Since 2009, CPSC staff has learned of more than two dozen ingestion incidents, with at least one dozen involving Buckyballs. Surgery was required in many of incidents. The Commission staff alleges in its complaint that it has concluded that despite the attempts to warn purchasers, warnings and education are ineffective and cannot prevent injuries and incidents with these rare earth magnets.

CPSC has received reports of toddlers finding loose magnets left within reach and placing them in their mouths. It can be extremely difficult for a parent to tell if any of the tiny magnets are missing from a set. In some of the reported incidents, toddlers have accessed loose magnets left on a refrigerator and other parts of the home.

Use of the product by tweens and teenagers to mimic piercings of the tongue, lip or cheek has resulted in incidents where the product is unintentionally inhaled and swallowed. These ingestion incidents occur when children receive it as a gift or gain access to the product in their homes or from friends.

When two or more magnets are swallowed, they can attract to one another through the stomach and intestinal walls, resulting in serious injuries, such as holes in the stomach and intestines, intestinal blockage, blood poisoning and possibly death. Medical professionals may not diagnose the need for immediate medical intervention in such cases, resulting in worsening of the injuries.

Here’s how the CPSC explains the reason for filing suit (from the CPSC news release),

The Commission staff filed the administrative complaint against Maxfield & Oberton after discussions with the company and its representatives failed to result in a voluntary recall plan that CPSC staff considered to be adequate. This type of legal action against a company is rare, as this is only the second administrative complaint filed by CPSC in the past 11 years.

Michelle Castillo’s July 26, 2012 news item for CBS News provides more background,

Currently marketed to adults, the CPSC reported that more than 2 million Buckyballs have been sold in the U.S., as well as 200,000 Buckycubes. Each container has anywhere from between 10 to 216 small magnets.

…

CPSC spokesperson Alex Filip told CBSNews.com that there were 22 cases of swallowing these magnets from 2009 to October 2011. One of the most high-profile cases was that of a 3-year-old from Portland, Ore., who swallowed 37 magnets. The girl needed surgery after the balls ripped three holes through her intestines.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)said in a statement that they agreed with the CSPS complaint, adding that the minute size of the magnets made it hard for caregivers to see if one is missing. A survey of North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition members found that there have been more than 60 magnet ingestion cases over the last two years, which necessitated 26 surgeries and involved 23 bowel perforations. It wasn’t stated how many of these cases were related to Buckyball or Buckycube magnets. [emphasis mine]

According to the CPSC information, there were a dozen or more  incidents associated with the Buckyball/Buckycube magnets. I’m unclear as to how many incidents that is per year since 2009 – 2011 could be considered either two years (e.g. July 2009 – July 2011) or three years (Jan. – Dec. of 2009, 2010, and 2011). Regardless,  either four or six incidents per year in the US have been attributed to these Maxfield & Oberton toys (or, seven to eleven incidents based on the total number [22] of accidents involving the ingestion of these kinds of magnets).

Maxfield & Oberton’s response covers a number of points,

“We are deeply disappointed that the CPSC has decided to go after our firm – and magnets in general. Magnets have been around for centuries and are used for all sorts of purposes. Our products are marketed to those 14 and above and out of over half a billion magnets in the market place CPSC has received reports of less than two-dozen cases of misuse. We worked with the Commission in order to do an education video less than 9 months ago, so we are shocked they are taking this action. We find it unfair, unjust and un-American,” added Zucker [Craig Zucker, founder and Chief Executive Officer]. “We will vigorously fight this action taken by President Obama’s hand picked agency.”

Maxfield believes the CPSC is now taking the absurd position that warnings can never work. By doing so, CPSC has called into question the efficacy of all of the warnings the agency relies upon including its recently announced program to warn about the risk of strangulation posed by cords on baby monitors, cords that have been involved in 7 deaths.

What will CPSC do about drowning for which its remedy is warnings?

For balloons involved in several deaths each year, the Commission warns about the risk of suffocation from uninflated or broken balloons and says “Adult supervision required.” But for some reason when it comes to an American company that sells Buckyballs® exclusively to adults, the CPSC takes a different approach and decides that warnings don’t work. The Company believes the CPSC can’t have it both ways.

While this isn’t a nanotechnology story as such, despite what the toys are named, it  does illustrate issues around risk s, hazards, and regulations. What are the benefits? What risks are we prepared to tolerate? What are the hazards and how do we mitigate against them? How much regulation do we need? What are the impacts economically and socially?