The Next Big
Technology Could Be Nanomaterials
Discoveries
surrounding a new class of impossibly small and improbably powerful compounds
could reshape the materials industry — and the world around us.
When 3M introduced Scotch tape in 1930, at
the start of the Great Depression, it was a remarkably apt product for a
scrimping and saving population — and an extraordinary advance. By combining
two recent discoveries, masking tape and DuPont’s impermeable cellophane,
3M scientists had produced a clear, clean, inexpensive binding device, useful
for mending rips in a wide spectrum of materials. Musicians used Scotch tape to
patch ripped sheet music; women, to fix broken fingernails; accountants, to
restore torn ledger books; and banks, to repair ripped currency.
Today,
most of us take this enormously durable and useful product for granted. It
clutters up our kitchen junk drawer, an early example of the robust innovation
culture that once powered the chemicals and materials industries. Between the
mid-1920s and 1970s, corporate researchers created a steady stream of breakthrough materials.
Cellophane was one, but the most consequential materials were synthetic
polymers — complex molecules manufactured by humans. Many of them made
possible new classes of commercial products that became enmeshed in our daily
lives: nylon, latex, synthetic resin, Bakelite, the synthetic fibers used in
contemporary clothing, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, polyurethane, and
silicon.
So
relentless was the wave of innovation that in an iconic scene in 1967’s The
Graduate, actor Walter Brooke gave Dustin Hoffman’s drifting character
a single word of career advice: “Plastics!” But right about the time the movie
came out, the wave began to subside, owing to a range of factors. The growing
level of concern about the environmental and health effects of synthetic
chemicals, the leveling off of the market for new products in industrial
countries, the expiration of patents, the rising costs of R&D, and the
shrinking number of new hit polymers all curbed the enthusiasm for new
investment. In addition, rising pressures for short-term profits pushed large
corporations away from long-term basic research. And so, as the chemicals
industry matured, it increasingly focused on commoditization (and competition
based primarily on price), consolidation, and the search for new markets in
emerging economies.
It was left to university labs to develop the
breakthrough that kicked off the next renaissance in chemicals and materials
manufacturing: the extraction of graphene, the first two-dimensional material.
After more than 10 years of academic research and development, that singular
breakthrough is producing scads of new materials that are impossibly thin and
improbably strong, both in the graphene carbon family and from other 2D
molecules. So far, the large incumbent chemicals companies have mostly ignored
this hive of activity. But sitting back and watching may be a luxury they can
no longer afford. It appears inevitable that these materials, which possess
unique properties and versatility, could radically change the physical infrastructure,
and the look and feel and quality, of the world around us. As was the case with
the advent of the personal computer and the Internet, developments are moving
so quickly that the companies that catch the wave early, whether they are
prominent today or not, could greatly influence the future.
A Pencil-Thin Material
Oddly enough, cellophane tape helped make
this breakthrough possible. On a Friday afternoon in a University of Manchester
laboratory in 2004, Russian émigrés Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov were
playfully passing time while investigating the electrical properties of carbon
graphite — the writing end of a so-called lead pencil. The two physicists
had just about given up on making any progress when they decided to test
whether they could obtain thinner flakes of graphite by peeling off a layer
with Scotch tape. (They had seen other researchers use the tape to clean
graphite before putting it under a microscope.)
On the first pass, Geim and Novoselov pulled
off hundreds of layers of carbon without disturbing its underlying structure.
Intrigued, they used more tape to repeat this process again and again. Before
long, they had peeled the graphite back to its thinnest possible arrangement: a
layer composed of a single atom. Here was a material so minute that it could be
described as two-dimensional, a stunningly elusive concept that scientists had
been chasing for years.
Graphene fits under the broad umbrella of
nanomaterials, a category that encompasses products up to 100 nanometers thick.
For comparison’s sake, the thinnest human hair is about 80,000 nanometers
thick. But graphene has uncommon characteristics that enable it to perform
wonders. With carbon atoms arrayed in a tightly packed honeycomb lattice,
graphene is stronger than steel and more flexible than a rubber band. It
conducts heat and electricity. It is transparent, virtually weightless, and
impermeable to gases and even bacteria.
When Geim and Novoselov won the 2010 Nobel
Prize in Physics for their breakthrough, the academy offered this simple
description of graphene’s awesome power: A graphene hammock measuring one
square meter tied between two trees could hold a four-kilogram (nine-pound) cat
without breaking. “The hammock would weigh less than one milligram” (an ounce
is 28,350 milligrams), the committee wrote, “the weight of one of the cat’s
whiskers.”
Meet the Nanomaterials
Graphene is only one of many nanomaterials
being examined at thousands of academic research labs around the world. In the
molecule-sized world where they are developed and studied, these materials,
compared with previously known materials, not only look different but act and
react differently. And their potential applications go far beyond providing a
wispy platform for catnaps. It is possible they can address some of humanity’s
most vexing problems. The possibilities include breakthroughs in renewable
energy and pollution reduction; in treatment of diseases and congenital
conditions; in computer, sensor, and robotics technology; in manufacturing; and
in new forms of clothing and packaging.
One of the most promising post-graphene
nanomaterials is molybdenum disulfide (MoS2). In its ordinary form, MoS2 is a
common lubricant, used in motorcycles and bicycles, and a component of nylon
and Teflon. Thinned down to a single layer, MoS2 is a strikingly powerful light
source, potentially usable in a solar cell array or in fiber-optic networks. It
can convert even minute amounts of light into photovoltaic energy.
Similarly intriguing are silicene and
phosphorene (derived from silicon and phosphorus, respectively). Both are
malleable high conductors, shown to improve the performance of solid-state
electrical circuits. These elements can combine chemically with larger, 3D
molecules, and hence are useful in a variety of forms and objects, including
computer and telecommunications components.
Hundreds of research papers are now published
each year describing nanomaterial experiments in a range of fields. In
manufacturing, for example, using a combination of heat and pressure, MIT
researchers have created a 3D material from small flakes of graphene, opening
the door to “fattening up” graphene so it can be used in construction and in
durable goods. Items produced through this process would be 5 percent as dense
as steel but 10 times as strong, according to MIT’s simulations — and could be
tooled in a 3D printer. Unlike components printed from plastic and most metals,
those printed from graphene particles conduct electricity, which makes them an
attractive option for the bodies and components of next-generation electric
automobiles and planes.
Some researchers think nanomaterials could be
useful in mitigating the greenhouse effect and thus slowing or stalling climate
change. Scientists at the University of Texas at Dallas have developed a
honeycomb-shaped structure built from nanoscale molecules that can trap carbon
emissions in the atmosphere. To keep gases from leaking out of the device, the
researchers capped its outer surface with vapors of a one-nanometer molecule
called ethylenediamine. This protective layer was an attempt to mimic the way
bees seal parts of their hives with wax.
Another application, developed at Rice
University, uses sheets of graphene to recycle waste carbon dioxide into
ethylene and ethanol. In a lab test, graphene showed the potential to reduce
carbon dioxide by up to 90 percent, converting 45 percent of greenhouse gases
into clean fuel.
Potential healthcare uses include silicon
nanowires that can be absorbed by human cells. Scientists at the University of
Chicago propose placing these nanowires deep into the circulatory system, where
they could record the barely perceptible electrical communications among
structures inside the cells, revealing minute mutations and dysfunctions,
including the beginning stages of tumor growth. The nanowires could also
deliver molecular drugs directly to targeted cells.
Graphene Frontiers, based in Philadelphia,
has created a device that takes advantage of graphene’s heat and electrical
conductivity to measure trace bacteria in bodily fluid. When an antigen in the
patient’s sample binds to an antibody attached to the graphene, electrostatic
and temperature changes on the nanomaterial can immediately be detected,
signaling the presence of infection or cancer.
Because virtually every advance in computer
technology over the past five decades has stemmed from miniaturizing components
and chips and from the concomitant performance improvements, nanomaterials
offer the possibility of an unexpected palette of faster, smaller, and more
portable systems that can manage and store vast amounts of information. If we
could combine impossibly tiny nanoscale parts that conduct electricity while
dissipating performance-degrading heat and friction, we could see a new model
for mobile and desktop systems that boot almost instantly and save data in
nanoseconds during a system shutdown. We could have ultra-high-definition
displays and more natural and responsive digital assistants and voice
intelligence.
Nanomaterials also seem likely to yield
breakthroughs in consumer goods. In 2016, researchers at Dublin’s Trinity
College published a report on their efforts to blend three 2D nanomaterials —
graphene, tungsten diselenide, and boron nitride — to print sheets of
electronic circuitry that could be inlaid in virtually any consumer item and
provide alerts, warnings, data, and entertainment. For example, food packaging
could display a digital countdown to warn of spoilage; wine labels could tell
people when a pinot grigio hits the perfect temperature; and drug containers
could alert the pharmacist when they are ready to be refilled.
A cottage industry is rapidly forming around the 2D materials world.
Dozens of startups, funded by venture capital money and research grants, have
emerged to support the first commercially successful applications of these
products, some of which are already on the market. To date, however, mainstream
chemicals companies are not participating in this activity, despite the likely
impact of 2D nanomaterials on their future products — and the fact that these
materials are largely adaptations of chemicals taken straight from the periodic
table.
This muted response reflects how much the
business model of the chemicals industry has changed, more than five decades
after the heyday of plastics discoveries. “Just 20 or 30 years ago, they had
huge industry labs that did amazing advanced research. Those days are past,”
says Rigoberto Advincula, professor of macromolecular science and engineering
at Case Western Reserve University. “Now, they mostly just try to improve on
their existing product lines. And probably the only way they can grow or
innovate is to acquire another company that already has the technology or
know-how that they are lacking.”
Tiny Beginnings, Big Trajectory
The
dazzling range of beneficial applications that nanomaterials could make
possible and their unfathomable properties could not be more remote from the
concept of nanotechnology as first hatched. The word nanotechnology was
coined in the early 1980s by MIT-educated engineer Eric Drexler. He proposed
the development of infinitely tiny molecular assemblers: robots the size of a
virus that could synthesize molecules atom by atom to produce self-propagating
devices. Drexler chose the prefix nano as shorthand for
nanometer, one-billionth of a meter; for context, a sheet of paper is about
100,000 nanometers thick. Drexler’s nanobots were patterned after human
ribosomes, which receive instructions from RNA and then assemble sequences of
amino acids to construct protein molecules.
Drexler’s
proposal was immediately controversial, because the technology had potentially
devastating side effects. Swarms of mechanical biologics could be released, for
example, multiplying out of control and battling with flora and fauna for the
planet’s resources. “Robotic industries would compete vigorously among
themselves for matter, energy, and space,” wrote computer scientist Bill Joy in
a frequently cited
article in Wired, published in
2000. “Unable to afford the necessities of life, biological humans would be
squeezed out of existence.”
But nanotechnology did not quite follow the
path that Drexler envisioned, or that Joy worried about. Instead of focusing on
minute molecular assemblers, most researchers were inspired by Drexler’s nano
vision to develop new types of materials. The time was right for this kind of
R&D: A host of “atomic force” microscopes and electron-level imaging
devices were designed in the early 1980s that for the first time allowed
scientists to observe molecular or cellular activity in precise detail.
Aided by this equipment, researchers produced
the first wave of nanomaterials. In this phase, nanoparticles made of various
combinations of gold, copper, carbon, silver, iron, and platinum, among many
other elements, were extracted. By the mid-2000s, many of these materials were
being used commercially, typically in industrial applications. These included
lightweight parts for cars and jets; targeted drug delivery and cancer
treatments; self-cleaning surfaces; regrowth of skin, bone, and nerve cells;
and wearable health monitors. Annual revenue from the U.S. sales of
nanotechnology-enabled products grew more than sixfold between 2009 and 2016,
exceeding US$500 billion in 2016, according to the National Nanotechnology
Initiative.
These materials, although valuable and now
relatively easy to produce, still represented only transitional steps toward
the genuine promise of nanotechnology. They are three-dimensional, are composed
of multiple atoms, and are, hence, fairly dense elements — many of them are
more than 50 nanometers thick, whereas graphene is only 0.1 nanometer.
Comparing the two classes of nanomaterials is analogous to placing early mobile
phones (three pounds, 10 inches long, 30-minute battery life, no camera, no
GPS, no music; cost: US$4,000) next to today’s multifunctional smart devices.
Indeed,
the first actual glimpse of graphene in its native state came during what might
have been the last great finding of the initial nanomaterial era. In 1991, NEC
Corporation engineer Sumio Iijima was examining a form of carbon in a hollow
sphere, known as a fullerene, when he discovered, as he put it, “a new material
with a long, thin appearance.” Dubbed a carbon tube thanks to
its cylindrical structure, this material’s unique shape and structural
qualities were intriguing. The tube was, at the time, the strongest substance
ever found and could maintain a length-to-diameter ratio of up to
132,000,000-to-1, also significantly greater than that of any other material.
Suddenly, researchers around the world were studying carbon tubes. And before
long, Iijima and others learned the secret to its distinctiveness: It was made
up of individual slices of graphene, solitary carbon atoms that naturally spun
together during extraction to form an unbroken cylinder.
Here was the missing link to the real
nanomaterial revolution. Researchers had finally burrowed down to the molecular
level — i.e., to where they could see a single atom closely enough to segregate
and extract it. But they didn’t have the wherewithal to do either of those
things yet. Since then, the carbon tube has had a remarkable run as the most
successful nanomaterial. Thousands of tons of it are produced each year, and it
is used in baseball bats and golfing equipment, in automobiles and desalination
plants, and in medical implants and targeted pharmaceutical treatments. John
DiLoreto, president of nanotechnology consultancy NanoReg, says: “The nanotube
brought us to the threshold; at that point, graphene and all the
single-molecule substances were just past the door.”
Although more than a dozen 2D particles have
been isolated to date, graphene is still the only one that is routinely culled
for commercial applications. It is often used in protective coatings such as
paints to improve adherence and reduce corrosion (some studies have found that
graphene paint might last as long as 100 years without fading). Recently, James
Briggs, a large European coatings and lubricant provider, inked a deal with the
U.K.’s Applied Graph-ene Materials to produce a line of graphene-based primers.
Other startups are working on mixing graphene
with existing polymers to improve strength, heat resistance, and flexibility.
Montreal-based Group NanoXplore has patented a formula for producing graphene
as a powder to combine with plastics for “lightweighting” components
used in heavy equipment or even for clothing with built-in exercise
sensors. To circumvent the reluctance of polymer producers to adopt a new
material that would first have to be approved by their customers — such as
automakers or textile companies — NanoXplore recently acquired its own factory
for manufacturing graphene in the form of compounded materials or pellets that
OEMs could more easily integrate into finished products themselves.
Although the large chemicals businesses have
yet to participate in this nascent industry, a few established companies from
other industries have joined in, eyeing the substantial profit potential of
nanoscale materials. IBM has invested more than $3 billion in nano
semiconductor research and has already produced the world’s smallest and
fastest graphene chip. Samsung has filed more than 400 patents related to
graphene, involving manufacturing processes and touch screens, among other
things, and Samsung’s Advanced Institute of Technology has funded an effort to
produce a blueprint for extending lithium-ion battery life using silicon and
graphene. Apple is looking into adding graphene signal paths to its lightning
connector. And one of the largest consumer goods companies has quietly
earmarked funds for packaging and product design based on nanoscale molecules.
Great Expectations
To understand the conundrum faced by
chemicals companies, it’s instructive to understand the evolution and elongation
of their supply chains. For much of their history but especially since the
1960s, chemicals providers were known for innovation and new products. Their
customers were generally other large top-of-the-pyramid companies: OEMs in the
auto and aerospace, computer hardware, and textiles industries. By offering a
steady stream of new materials, particularly plastics, that could be formulated
to fit into assembled products and manufacturing processes, chemicals firms
expanded their market presence.
But more recently, the supply chain has
expanded to include a set of new suppliers such as polymer and additive makers
that have usurped the traditional role of chemicals companies as innovators.
These suppliers purchase feedstock from the chemicals companies and provide
parts and materials to larger manufacturers, working with them to improve
weight, technology, and performance. Which leaves chemicals companies in a
bind. If they invest in new materials development in the 2D arena, which would
require a long-term and expensive commitment with plenty of uncertainty, they
run the risk of cannibalizing the business of some of their most important
customers — namely, the suppliers that are themselves adopting graphene and
other nanomaterials as a base for their products.
Of course, that could change. “If one of
these nanomaterials proves to be an excellent fit for their traditional
chemistry, let’s say making epoxy or making polyurethane, then I can imagine
that the big chemicals companies will get more interested,” Advincula at Case
Western notes. “Otherwise, they’ll leave it to the rest of us for now.”
In the meantime, the 2D sector will
undoubtedly take a cue from Silicon Valley: moving forward with frequent flashy
new innovations in the next three to five years, while accumulating knowledge
about how these miracle materials operate. In describing the evolution of
nanotechnology, Paul Higgins, Nano-Xplore’s chief operating officer, harks back
to the way engineers tested new bridges in 1900. “They sent sheep across to see
if the structure held up for two weeks before letting people go on it,” Higgins
says. “They didn’t really know why the bridge stood up. That was where
materials science was not long ago. But now we are working with these materials
by design, experimenting with new ideas with some confidence about how they
will respond and how we will be able to apply them to real-world issues.”
Indeed, if the outlook of researchers and
startups is any indication, it won’t be long now before nanomaterials are as
commonplace as Scotch tape.
by Jeffrey
Rothfeder
https://www.strategy-business.com/article/The-Next-Big-Technology-Could-Be-Nanomaterials?gko=a0030&utm_source=itw&utm_medium=20170727&utm_campaign=resp
No comments:
Post a Comment