Category Archives: Materials and Equipment

By Richard Acello

An American Bar Association committee of attorneys has concluded that no major changes are required in statutes to bring nanotech products and processes under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lynn Bergeson, chair of the ABA’s Section of Environment, Energy and Resources (SEER) and a partner at the Washington, D.C., firm of Bergeson & Campbell, says the panel’s review was spurred by the increasing use of nanotech in everyday products.

“Products such as food packaging materials are starting to involve nanotech,” Bergeson said. “Our hope is that the technology is applied with eyes wide open and with a good deal of common sense.”

From March through May of this year, more than a hundred SEER attorneys were organized into seven teams to consider whether the EPA’s current statutory authority was sufficient to bring nanotech products within its purview. The SEER attorneys produced seven papers on topics ranging from whether regulation of nanotech materials is included in the Clean Water Act to regulation of nanoscale materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The complete set of papers can be found at www.abanet.org/environ/nanotech. The SEER committee has already briefed EPA General Counsel Ann Klee on its work.

“Our goal was to provide scholarly, balanced reviews of these statutes to see if they provide EPA with the authorization to address nanotech products, and the answer is yes, they do,” Bergeson said.

While the ABA report finds existing statutes sufficient to regulate nanotech products, agencies may need to revise and update their regulatory schemes to include nanotech products.

“The devil is in the details,” Bergeson said. “There’s a lot we don’t know that involves data development, the retooling of screening procedures, and (EPA) needs to get a handle on that stuff, but we don’t need a new law. These laws are very elastic and well-suited to address nanotech issues and risks. Some of the regulatory programs will need to be amended, some tweaked and some re-thought to deal with nanotech.”

In addition to the EPA’s set of water, air and hazardous material legislation, nanotech products may be subject to regulation by other federal agencies. For example, nanotech manufacturers are subject to rules of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and may be subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), among others.

A tricky issue for regulators may be how much they’re likely to know about the potential risks of a nanotech product before it has been introduced into the stream of commerce.

“It’s a combination of EPA and the manufacturing sector and the user community appreciating that there are unknowns,” said Bergeson. “So if you don’t know, you minimize exposures, make sure (workers) are wearing the appropriate clothing and equipment, and minimize potential troubles through waste and shipment, using an abundance of caution.”

Europe has also been wrestling with nanotech regulation issues and appears to be leaning toward a model of nanotech regulation that involves more government oversight than in the United States. One issue for both European and U.S. regulators is whether nanotech products should be subject to government approval before they enter the stream of commerce. Pre-approval by the FDA is part of the government’s regulatory scheme for new drugs, but not for most products.

Bergeson counseled nanotech-related businesses to apply the technology prudently and to manage risks associated with nanotech “as you would any other business risk, but don’t ignore it.”


The seven briefing documents prepared by the American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources were as follows:

  1. CAA (Clean Air Act) Nanotechnology Briefing Paper
  2. CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) Nanotechnology Issues
  3. CWA (Clean Water Act) Nanotechnology Briefing Paper
  4. EMS (Environmental Management Systems)/Innovative Regulatory Approaches
  5. The Adequacy of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) to Regulate Nanotechnology-Based Pesticides
  6. RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) Regulation of Wastes from the Production, Use, and Disposal of Nanomaterials
  7. Regulation of Nanoscale Materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act

The full text of each white paper and additional information about the SEER’s nanotechnology project is available online at www.abanet.org/environ/nanotech.

Military markets can help a company grow but don’t underestimate the challenges

By Garry Kranz

Fueled by the global war on terror, the Pentagon is displaying a voracious appetite for advanced materials and smart sensors that could give soldiers an edge against often elusive enemies. It is a potentially lucrative opportunity for small companies developing cutting-edge technology. But success will hinge upon their ability to work with their bigger brethren.

Take Science Applications International Corp., for example. SAIC, as it is generally known, is a huge systems integrator based in San Diego. It is teaming with several nanotech companies to pioneer new military-related applications, including Nanosys Inc. of Palo Alto, Calif. The companies have joint contracts to develop new nanomaterials for use in biosensors, solar cells and memory devices.

SAIC is also under contract to market the products of Metal Storm Ltd., an Australian company that makes all-electronics weapons systems, including a MEMS-based mortar system.

“We look for small company partners whose technology is going to be applicable to (solving) a key Department of Defense problem in the fairly near future,” said Todd Hylton, SAIC’s director of advanced materials and nanotechnology.

It’s a good match. Research-oriented startups often have promising technologies but lack the money to commercialize their research. Deep-pocketed defense firms, on the other hand, specialize in systems integration and production.


Lockheed Martin’s Sharon Smith, at right, says it’s important for the company to look externally wherever new technologies are being developed. She says potential partners need to solve specific problems facing defense. Photo by George Craig
Click here to enlarge image

“We have a lot of needs for advanced technologies across all of our platforms, and it’s not possible even for a large company like ours to develop all the technologies we need,” said Sharon Smith, director of advanced technologies at aeronautics manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. in Bethesda, Md. “It’s important for us to (look) externally to find where these technologies are being developed.” That means universities, government labs and smaller firms.

A case in point is Lockheed Martin’s agreement with Nanosonic Inc., a 60-person company launched eight years ago in Blacksburg, Va. Lockheed and Nanosonic say they are working on a number of development projects for new materials and coatings. The most visible manifestation is “metal rubber,” a highly elastic composite made of plastic and metal ions.

Metal rubber is produced using Nanosonic’s self-assembly process in which individual molecules are stacked together in layers. One possible military application would be using it to make warplanes whose wings adapt to different flying conditions.

Yet the pitfalls are many for smaller companies. To win over risk-averse military agencies along with the defense companies that supply them, small firms need to be sure there is a path from their research to commercially viable products. BAE Systems Inc. of Rockville, Md. last year declined to ink agreements with three separate nanotech companies whose technologies weren’t sufficiently mature, despite more than a year of evaluation.

“The worst mistake (small) companies make is underestimating how much time, money and other resources it will take to bring their products to market,” said Steve Danziger, program manager for BAE.

Nanotechnology companies also need to target development proposals to solve specific problems confronting defense firms, said Lockheed Martin’s Smith. The company gives specific instructions on its Web site to guide would-be partners on criteria they’ll need to meet to become a Lockheed Martin supplier.

“For any type of collaboration or strategic alliance in the nanotechnology area, first off we look to see if the technology (of a small company) is a match for us: Does the company have capabilities that we don’t have?” said Smith. “After that, we look at whether it has good quality practices and a good reputation for meeting cost and delivery schedules.”

Military markets can also be limited. “The truth is that the defense department may spend a lot of money developing a new technology but may not buy a large quantity of (finished) items,” said SAIC’s Hylton. Therefore, small companies should develop their technologies with an eye on both military and industrial applications – a so-called “dual use” strategy.

You might think a scientific tool called the Titan would be used to study gargantuan things, but FEI’s Titan scanning/transmission electron microscope peers into the diminutive – in fact, the smallest ever seen by a commercial instrument. The Titan works at the sub-Angstrom level: it can examine objects as small as seven-hundredths of a nanometer.

In July FEI announced a new version of the Titan that uses a range of energies, from 300 kV down to just 80kV. The lower energy lets scientists study delicate materials, such as single-wall carbon nanotubes that are normally damaged by higher energies.

As nanomaterials enter mainstream manufacturing, many industries find themselves in the market for ultra-high resolution imaging technologies. For example, aerospace and auto manufacturers depend on high-performance materials, and those materials need to be increasingly light and strong to improve performance and fuel economy. Materials that spring from nanotechnology, like carbon nanotubes, will play a key role. And the parts made from them can’t fail; their makers need to see what’s going on at the nanoscale to make sure that they don’t.


FEI’s Titan 80-300 raised the bar for S/TEM imaging with sub-Angstrom imaging. Photo courtesy of FEI
Click here to enlarge image

Hence, Titan. Interest has been lively so far. Hillsboro, Ore.-based FEI started shipping the Titan a little over a year ago, and it has already attracted more than 30 customers, including Brazil’s National Institute of Metrology, Standardization and Industrial Quality; Canada’s National Facility for Ultrahigh-Resolution Electron Microscopy at McMaster University; the Center for Accelerated Maturation of Materials at Ohio State; the Department of Inorganic Chemistry and Catalysis of the Fritz-Haber Institute in Germany; the Ernst Ruska Center of Germany; Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology; the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands and others. Need we say more?

The Titan has garnered its share of awards too, including the iF Design Award from the International Design Forum in Hannover, Germany, and the Innovative Product of the Year Award through the Oregon Tech Awards program.


AcryMed SilvaGard

Click here to enlarge image

Thousands of people die every year from infections acquired in the hospital. AcryMed Inc.’s SilvaGard technology adds antimicrobial silver nanoparticles to the subsurface of medical devices – tubes, catheters, implants – and makes them impervious to bacteria. The technology recently garnered U.S. FDA approval. Device manufacturers are interested.
Photo courtesy of AcryMed

Fiberstars EFO

Click here to enlarge image

What business doesn’t want to reduce its lighting bill? Fiberstars Inc.’s Efficient Fiber Optics lighting could cut it by up to 80 percent, and the components can be almost completely recycled. Whole Foods Market uses EFO in 12 stores and, in addition to energy savings, the company has cut its losses on perishable goods by one-third because EFO generates no heat.
Photo courtesy of Fiberstars

Oxonica SERS Nanotags

Click here to enlarge image

SERS Nanotags, by Oxonica Inc., are 50-nanometer gold beads that can be coated with a unique marker and various molecules that bind to a target for detection – DNA, antibodies, security tags. The nanotags cut prep time for diagnostic tests and can detect up to 20 different factors simultaneously.
Photo courtesy of Oxonica

SiTime SiRes product family

Click here to enlarge image

SiTime Corp.’s SiRes MEMS-based oscillators and resonators aim to replace the quartz resonating crystals that provide the “heartbeat” of every commercial electronic device. Quartz crystals can’t be integrated into a silicon chip, but SiTime has sealed its oscillator below the surface of the chip, making one neat package.
Photo courtesy of SiTime

Cardiovascular disease kills vast numbers of people and comprises a large share of America’s healthcare expenditures. As a result, technologies that can solve difficult and expensive issues in cardiac care have a bright future, and CardioMEMS is zeroing in on some of the biggest problems. The Atlanta-based company makes the EndoSure sensor, the first wireless, battery-free, permanently implantable pressure sensor approved for human use in the United States.

In November 2005 the sensor received its first FDA approval – to measure pressure changes within an abdominal aortic aneurysm, a potentially deadly bulge in a major artery that supplies blood to the abdomen.


CardioMEMS’ wireless pressure sensor is implanted along with an arterial stent. Photo courtesy of CardioMEMS
Click here to enlarge image

Currently, stents with a fabric coating are implanted within the artery to create a sort of tube-within-a-tube. When functioning correctly, the blood flows through the tube and the pressure on the arterial wall is alleviated. However, leaks appear periodically when blood finds its way around the stent, putting pressure back on the damaged wall.

The sensor is implanted in the artery with the stent in order to make sure no such leaks occur. The physician places an antenna on the patient’s abdomen and activates the sensor using low power radio-frequency energy. The sensor responds with a signal, and a monitor displays a real-time, high-resolution pressure waveform.

Other applications wait in the wings. The sensor has been used in heart transplant patients in Chile to measure heart function and help with post-operative care. Also in Chile, the company is conducting clinical trials to see whether the sensor is useful for managing patients with congestive heart failure, one of the costliest chronic diseases.

Managing congestive heart failure patients means tracking how strongly their hearts are pumping blood; when the heart flags, fluid buildup can quickly put a patient in the hospital. Currently, that tracking is done with clumsy tools like monitoring a patient’s weight and sending a nurse to the home to take vital signs. An implanted pressure sensor would relatively inexpensively provide early warning signs of heart failure, allowing healthcare providers to adjust the patient’s medication and avert a crisis.


FEI Co.

FEI Co. produces focused ion- and electron-beam instruments that let users study and modify materials, with resolution down to less than a tenth of a nanometer. FEI is based in Hillsboro, Ore., and has operations in more than 40 countries. The past year has seen a slew of new products and penetration into a variety of new markets.

Micralyne Inc.

Micralyne Inc., based in Edmonton, Alberta, is one of the largest independent MEMS manufacturers in the world. Its products are found in automobiles, telecommunication networks, pharma labs and many other locations. This year has been a banner one for growth – in staff, customers, revenues and production capacity.

Nantero Inc.

Nantero Inc., of Woburn, Mass., has played a key role in the emergence of carbon nanotubes as a viable manufacturing material. Its goal is to develop a CNT-based memory product that could replace all existing forms of RAM. Nantero has made steady progress, developing a reputation as a purveyor of quality carbon nanotubes along the way.

SiGNa Chemistry

Founded in 2004, New York-based SiGNa Chemistry stabilizes reactive metals like lithium, sodium and potassium by encapsulating them in nanoscale porous oxides, which transforms them from lab hazards into useful industrial ingredients. The company aggregated an impressive roster of corporate customers, including ExxonMobil, Motorola, Pfizer, Shell Chemical, BASF and DuPont.

By Angela Godwin

DuPont Personal Protection recently introduced its new line of apparel for controlled environments. Developed for professionals in the life science, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, electronics, food processing and medical device manufacturing industries, the Suprel® LS apparel is based on DuPont’s proprietary Advanced Composite Technology. According to the company, the patented bi-component fabric offers breathability and barrier protection, with a more comfortable feel than other materials.

“The Suprel LS line continues our efforts to listen to the voice of the controlled environment customer,” says Jessica Lai Perez, new business development manager for DuPont Nonwovens. “We have been repeatedly asked by customers to offer a product line that’s comfortable and delivers a level of protection that complements our premium Tyvek® IsoClean™ garments. Suprel LS fills that need by offering a unique combination of breathability and barrier protection with a softer feel and increased comfort, as compared to limited-use microporous film (MF), spun-bonded polypropylene (SBPP), SMS, SMMS, and low-barrier reusable garments currently available in the market.”


Developed for professionals in the life science, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, electronics, food processing and medical device manufacturing industries, the Suprel LS apparel is based on DuPont’s proprietary Advanced Composite Technology. Photo courtesy of DuPont Personal Protection.
Click here to enlarge image

Perez says the fabric, which is available exclusively through DuPont, “provides ease of movement and less surface friction, which equates to ‘uncompromised comfort’ for the wearer.”

According to Dale Outhous, global business director for DuPont Personal Protection, “Suprel LS continues DuPont’s commitment to those working in controlled environments by delivering the comfort and protection required when garments are worn for an extended period of time, while maintaining a competitive price point.”

The new line was designed as a cost-effective alternative to the company’s premium Tyvek IsoClean apparel line. “By offering a cost-effective alternative…Suprel LS provides a strong addition to our line of contamination control garments,” says Outhous.

Perez says the fabric exhibits normal textile flammability per CPSC 16 CFR 1610. It is not fire-retardant, and therefore not intended for use around heat, flame, sparks or in potentially flammable or explosive environments. Suprel LS is treated for static dissipation, and has a static decay time less than 0.5 seconds per IST 40.2.

Silicone contamination, which has been traced to the thread used in cleanroom garments, is a growing concern for contamination-control professionals. The Suprel LS garments, according to Perez, “have been tested using infrared analysis of a hexane extract and no silicone was detected.”

DuPont worked closely with both customers and industry experts to develop the product. Beginning in early 2005, the development and refining process spanned a period of eighteen months. In the first half of 2006, Suprel LS was introduced into selected cleanroom markets and shown at several trade shows. “We introduced our most popular styles of coveralls and frocks for initial evaluation, and the overall response has been overwhelmingly positive,” says Perez.

Several styles of Suprel LS garments are now available, including a selection of coveralls and frocks, but an expanded portfolio of product styles is expected to launch later this month. “We believe in continually improving our product performance as well as cost position to remain competitive in this marketplace,” says Perez, “and [we’re] prepared to add more styles of Suprel LS garments as demand dictates.”

Suprel LS is available gamma sterilized to an SAL of 10-6, as well as bulk packaged. Select styles will be available in blue or standard white color.

Everyone knows carbon nanotubes have tremendous potential, but who expected that they might work as flashlights? Answer: IBM researcher Jia Chen. Last year, she published a paper in Science describing a new way to make carbon nanotubes into light sources a thousand times brighter than light-emitting diodes. With this discovery she brings closer a time when all information may be efficiently transmitted using speed-of-light photons rather than relatively pokey electrons.


IBM researcher Jia Chen developed a new way to convert electricity into light using nanotubes. Photo courtesy of IBM
Click here to enlarge image

Her research group injected electrons into carbon nanotubes and “tricked” them into picking up positive charges at a faster rate than usual through clever design of the substrate holding the nanotubes. Every time an electron bonds with a positive charge, or “hole,” it produces a photon. The particular technique results in every injected electron producing a photon – a much more efficient rate than usual.

In an article that appeared in Small Times Chen reports, “We were able to coerce the electrons to convert the energy to light instead of dissipating into heat.” And the best part: the photon-emitting nanotubes can be produced using the same fabrication processes as silicon semiconductor devices and potentially can be built into light-based circuitry in the same footprint as conventional electronic components.

The nanotube light isn’t Chen’s first venture into world-changing research. As a graduate student at Yale, working with Mark Reed (longtime collaborator of Innovator of the Year, Jim Tour), she created the first reversible molecular switch. The achievement was chosen for Science’s 2001 “breakthrough of the year” section.

Among numerous accolades, she has also been recognized by the National Academy of Engineering as one of the nation’s top 80 brightest young engineers. She holds U.S. and foreign patents on molecular devices, memory storage devices, CMOS processes and devices, and carbon nanotube electronic and optoelectronic devices.


Russell Cowburn

Click here to enlarge image

Russell Cowburn, chair in Nanotechnology, Imperial College London, invented a laser scanning technique that reads the unique nanoscale irregularities in the surface of paper and uses them to track a “fingerprint” to thwart counterfeiters. The fingerprint survives even if the paper is soaked in water, scorched or scrubbed with abrasive pads.
Photo courtesy of Imperial College London

James Tour

Click here to enlarge image

James Tour, Innovator of the Year winner, Chao Professor of Chemistry, and director of the Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University, is bringing molecular self-assembly to the point of commercial reality. His nanocar is a practical example of molecular manipulation, and his group is working on more sophisticated machines.
Photo courtesy of Rice University

Huikai Xie

Click here to enlarge image

Huikai Xie, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering, University of Florida, designed a tiny motion sensor that can be manufactured with standard CMOS technology that uses one-thousandth of a watt of power. It has myriad potential applications, including in clothes to track the motions of athletes or to monitor the elderly in their homes.
Photo courtesy of University of Florida

Jie Zhang

Click here to enlarge image

Jie Zhang, principal staff engineer, Motorola, demonstrated the first all-printed timing circuit produced using a graphic arts printing press and nanoscale-particulate-based inks. That was in 2003 and, since then, she has used those techniques to fabricate 50 miles of integrated circuits as well as drive the research to the stage where it’s ready to be produced and commercialized.
Photo courtesy of Motorola

By Peter Cartwright, P.E., Cartwright Consulting Co.

As both the quality and quantity requirements for contaminant-free water increase, the demands for innovative technologies and improved system designs are creating challenges and opportunities for the multitude of industries that require ultrapure water.

All water supplies contain contaminants. The kind of contaminant is hugely variable and no two water sources are identical with regard to the kind and concentration. What constitutes a contaminant is entirely dependant on the application; for drinking water, it is defined by the Safe Drinking Water Act, a regulatory document. For semiconductor rinsing, anything other than H2O is a contaminant and the concentrations must be as close to zero as possible.

As it is virtually impossible to make water free of any and all contaminants, the goal of a treatment process is to reduce the level as much as possible.

It is possible to classify contaminants by category to more easily address their removal (see Table 1). There is no shortage of water treatment technologies available. Some remove only a single class of contaminants, while others are more versatile. Each technology has strengths and weaknesses. No single technology will produce truly ‘ultrapure’ water.

Click here to enlarge image

As a result, the challenge is to design a system utilizing a combination of technologies to provide optimum contaminant removal to meet the particular ‘use-specific’ water quality requirements.

The pressure membrane technologies of microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis are the most versatile and, hence, most widely used as the lynchpin of most ultrapure water production systems.

In particular, membrane technologies possess certain properties that make them unique when compared to other water treatment technologies. These include:

Continuous process, resulting in automatic and uninterrupted operation

Low energy utilization involving neither phase nor temperature changes

Modular design-no significant size limitations

Minimal moving parts with low maintenance requirements

No effect on form or chemistry of contaminants

Discreet membrane barrier to ensure physical separation of contaminants

No chemical addition requirements

Simply put, these technologies are continuous filters. The form of contaminant removed is a function of membrane polymer selection and its pore size. Although they all provide separation of contaminants from water, each performs a specific function and has specific advantages and disadvantages when compared to the others in a particular application.

Click here to enlarge image

The development in filtration technology known as ‘crossflow’ or ‘tangential flow’ filtration allows for continuous processing of liquid streams. In this process, the bulk solution flows over and parallel to the filter surface and, because this system is pressurized, water is forced through the filter medium and becomes ‘permeate.’ Turbulent flow of the bulk solution across the surface minimizes the accumulation of particulate matter on the filter surface and facilitates continuous operation of the system. Figure 1 compares the crossflow mechanism with conventional filtration.

Microfiltration

Generally, microfiltration (MF) involves the removal of particulate or suspended materials ranging in size from approximately 0.01 to 1 micron (100 to 10,000 angstroms). Figure 2 depicts the mechanism of microfiltration (MF).

Click here to enlarge image

null

Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration (UF) is used to separate materials typically smaller than 0.01 micron (100 angstroms). The removal characteristics of UF membranes can be described in terms of molecular weight cutoff (MWCO), the maximum molecular weight of compounds that will pass through the membrane pores. MWCO terminology is expressed in daltons. Basically, ultrafiltration is used to remove dissolved nonionic contaminants, while suspended solids are removed by microfiltration (see Fig. 3).

Click here to enlarge image

null

Nanofiltration

Nanofiltration (NF) is an intermediate process between ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. The MWCO properties of nanofiltration membranes are in the range of 300 to 800 daltons (<10 angstroms). Ionic rejections vary widely depending upon the valence of salts; multivalent salts such as magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) are rejected as much as 99 percent, while monovalent salts such as sodium chloride (NaCl) may have rejections as low as 10 percent (see Fig. 4).

Click here to enlarge image

null

Reverse osmosis

The reverse osmosis (RO) process removes all dissolved organic (nonionic) solids with molecular weights above approximately 100 daltons, as well as a high percentage of ionic materials. Because reverse osmosis membranes are not perfect (they will typically remove 95 to 99 percent of the ionic contaminants), they are generally used as pretreatment to a final ‘polishing’ deionization unit for high-purity water production (see Fig.5).

Click here to enlarge image

null

Membrane elements

To be effective, membrane polymers must be packaged into a configuration commonly called a ‘device’ or ‘element.’ The most common element configurations are: tubular, capillary fiber, spiral wound, and plate and frame (see Fig. 6)

Click here to enlarge image

null

Tubular

Manufactured from ceramic, carbon, stainless steel or a number of thermoplastics, these tubes have inside diameters ranging from 3/8 inch up to approximately 1 inch (10 to 25 mm). The membrane is typically coated on the inside of the tube and the feed solution flows through the interior (lumen) from one end to the other, with the permeate passing through the wall to be collected on the outside of the tube.

Capillary (hollow fiber)

These elements are similar to tubular elements in design, but are smaller in diameter, are usually unsupported membrane polymers and require rigid support on each end provided by an epoxy ‘potting’ of a bundle of the fibers inside a cylinder. Feed flow is either down the interior of the fiber or around the outside of the fiber.

Spiral wound

This element is constructed from an envelope of sheet membrane wound around a permeate tube that is perforated to allow collection of permeate. Water is purified by passing through one layer of the membrane and flowing spirally into the permeate tube. It is by far the most common configuration in water purification applications.

Plate and frame

This element incorporates sheet membrane stretched over a frame to separate the layers and facilitate collection of the permeate, which is directed into a center tube.

Click here to enlarge image

From the perspective of cost and convenience, it is beneficial to pack as much membrane area into as small a volume as possible. This is known as ‘packing density.’ The greater the packing density, the greater the membrane area enclosed in a certain-sized device and, generally, the lower the cost of the membrane element. The downside of the high-packing-density membrane elements is the increased propensity for fouling (see Table 2).

Click here to enlarge image

Figure 7 illustrates a complete membrane processing system. In terms of function, it could also represent a single membrane element. Note that the ‘feed’ stream enters the system (or membrane element) and as the stream passes along and parallel to the surface of the membrane under pressure, a percentage of the water is forced through the membrane polymer producing the permeate stream. Contaminants are prevented from passing through the membrane based on the polymer characteristics. This contaminant-laden stream exits the membrane system (or element) as the ‘concentrate’ stream, also known as the ‘brine’ or ‘reject.’

Click here to enlarge image

The percentage of feed flow that passes through the membrane and becomes permeate is known as ‘recovery.’ Typically, for water purification applications, recovery is set below 85 percent. As recovery is increased (to decrease the concentrate volume), the concentration of contaminants in the concentrate stream increases significantly. This effect is mathematically developed and illustrated in Table 3.

Fouling

The vast majority of membrane element device and system failures are caused by membrane fouling, which is usually the result of one or more of the following mechanisms:

Suspended solids in the feed stream due to improper feed water filtration

Precipitation of insoluble salts or oxides resulting from concentration effects within the membrane device

Biofilm caused by microbiological activity

These mechanisms cause the membrane surface to become coated with fouling materials that build up in layers. As the layer thickness increases, the flow rate across the membrane surface and immediately adjacent to it decreases, reducing local turbulence and encouraging more settling of suspended solids, which increases the fouling layer thickness-a vicious cycle.

With nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes, which reject ionic contaminants, fouling usually creates a phenomenon known as ‘concentration polarization.’ The fouling layers inhibit the free movement of the feed stream away from the membrane surface and, as salts are rejected from the membrane, their concentration at the surface is higher than in the bulk solution (that portion above the fouling layer).

Since ionic rejection is always a percentage of the salt concentration at the surface of the membrane, the permeate quality decreases as a direct result of concentration polarization and this phenomenon may actually indicate the presence of foulants before a reduction in permeate flow is detected. The increased salt concentration at the membrane surface also promotes precipitation of those salts whose solubility limit is exceeded as a result of concentration polarization.

For ultrapure water production, reverse osmosis is virtually always used and, as this membrane technology is the most susceptible to fouling, pretreatment is usually necessary.

Additionally, reverse osmosis by itself will not produce ultrapure water (by most definitions). As a result, most systems utilize additional technologies to polish the reverse osmosis permeate. This approach of breaking the system design down into components has resulted in the concept of looking at every system as the optimum combination of pretreatment, primary and post treatment technologies.

Pretreatment

Pretreatment technologies are dictated by the raw water quality and limitations imposed by the reverse osmosis membrane polymer. If the raw water is prone to calcium carbonate scaling (positive Langelier Index), pretreatment should include one or more of the following: softening, acidification or dispersant addition. Excessive iron (above 0.3 ppm) can be removed with a manganese greensand filter or oxidation and filtration. If the turbidity is above 0.1 NTU, a backwashable multi-media filter should be used. Cellulosic reverse osmosis membrane polymers are sensitive to hydrolysis at a pH above 7.0; this requires that acidification be used with high pH water supplies.

Activated carbon is a pretreatment technology capable of removing residual chlorine, which is essential when thin film composite reverse osmosis membrane polymers are utilized. In those applications where cellulosic polymers are used, the activated carbon unit is normally placed downstream of the reverse osmosis unit. Activated carbon filters must be backwashed to remove accumulated particulate material and require periodic replacement of the filter media.

Primary treatment

As stated above, reverse osmosis is usually the key technology utilized for ultrapure water production. To achieve the required ultrapure quality for the specific application, one or more of the following technologies are used.

Mixed bed deionization

Mixed bed deionization (DI) will ‘polish’ the purified water up to 18 megohm-cm resistance, the maximum ionic purity attainable in industrial systems. Because deionization is a batch process, consideration must be made for off-line regeneration.

Obviously, if the system is used continuously, another identical DI unit must be available to allow time for regeneration of the exhausted resin without total system shutdown.

Resin beds that sit idle for more than 48 hours at a time may contribute to microorganism problems in the water treatment system.

Electrodeionization

The newest development in high-purity water production is a technology known both as electrodeionization (EDI) and continuous deionization (CDI) (see Fig. 8). This process is basically a combination of electrodialysis (ED) and resin deionization (DI). The DI resins are enclosed between layers of ED membranes. The energy to effect separation is electrical, imparted to positive and negative electrodes. The DI resins do not adsorb ionic contaminants, but facilitate ion movement into the concentrate streams.

Click here to enlarge image

When fed RO permeate, EDI will produce 18 megohm-cm quality water. It is a continuous process and does not require regeneration.

Storage

In general, once the water has been treated to achieve the desired purity, it is directed to a storage tank, which is typically constructed of inert materials and is sized to hold anywhere from several hour’s to a full day’s requirement. It is typically either vented to the atmosphere with the tank protected from atmospheric contamination by a submicron vent filter, or it is sealed with a blanket of inert gas such as nitrogen. The storage tank receives water directly from the primary treatment system as well as water from the recirculation loop.

Post treatment

Because ultrapure water is extremely aggressive and will become contaminated by virtually anything with which it comes into contact, the distribution loop from the storage tank to the points of use generally requires technologies to continuously remove these contaminants. The technologies defined earlier are often utilized as part of this post treatment. As the recirculation rate in this loop is usually much higher (and more variable) than the production rate to the storage tank, the technology components must be sized accordingly.

Microfiltration

Typically 0.1- or 0.2-micron filters are used to remove particulate materials and live bacteria. These can be either conventional ‘dead-end’ cartridges or crossflow membrane devices. It is essential that they be manufactured from materials that will not leach or slough off into the pure water stream.

Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration often provides the final polish. With typical molecular weight cut-offs in the range of 5,000 to 100,000 daltons, UF is effective in removing most of the residual contamination in the system. Typically, ultrafiltration units are designed with recoveries of 95 to 98 percent, meaning that between 2 and 5 percent of the water flow is directed to the drain or recycled to the front of the system. Again, it is essential that all materials of construction in contact with the highly aggressive pure water be completely inert.

Ultraviolet irradiation

This unit is intended to reduce bacterial propagation throughout the storage tank and distribution piping. Although ultraviolet irradiation (UV) does not remove microorganisms-and there is some debate with regard to its ability to completely kill bacteria-it does inhibit bacterial growth and is an effective component of any high-purity water system.

Ozonation

Considered the most effective disinfectant available, ozone will also break down organic compounds, theoretically into their basic elements. It is so aggressive that special materials of construction must be utilized and it must be removed (usually with 254 nm UV) before the water can contact membranes or resins.

Today, the industries that are the largest consumers of pure water include: semiconductor manufacturing-for rinsing of electronic devices (computer chips, etc.); the power industry-for high-pressure-steam-generating boilers; the pharmaceutical industry-for manufacturing operations requiring USP or WFI water; hemodialysis-for preparation of dialysate solutions and rinsing artificial kidneys; and medical laboratories-for analytical and research activities.

Although each industry requires pure water that is ‘contaminant-free,’ the particular contaminants of concern and their acceptable residual levels vary according to the application.

Click here to enlarge image

As analytical techniques become increasingly more sensitive, it has become obvious that there is no such thing as water that is completely free from all contaminants. Also, as water is purified it becomes more and more aggressive and will start to dissolve most materials with which it comes into contact.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Click here to enlarge image

Recognizing the practicality of this situation, each industry has established pure-water quality requirements that constitute a compromise between performance and economic reality. Tables 4 and 5 provide examples of water quality standards or guidelines for the semiconductor manufacturing and pharmaceutical industries.

Click here to enlarge image

Figure 9 illustrates a generic design for a typical pure-water treatment system. Although the optimum configuration is a function of the factors previously discussed, this system is representative for most applications.

Conclusion

In ultrapure water production, the optimum design requires the following input:

Feed water quality

Ultrapure water quality requirements

Ultrapure water quantity requirements

Of critical importance are the knowledge, experience and capability to select and implement the appropriate technologies into a complete, comprehensive, reliable and economical system.

Peter S. Cartwright, P.E., specializes in both marketing and technical consulting in high-technology separation processes. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

SmallCo is a hypothetical start-up. It’s been in business for about six months but does not yet have a product to sell. It doesn’t even have a working prototype, but SmallCo has a great idea – it’s going to use nanoparticles to make the best widget possible.

SmallCo doesn’t work with any overseas companies on R&D, nor does it buy anything from foreign suppliers. It doesn’t give plant tours or use any outside contractors, not even a cleaning crew. It’s pretty safe to say that SmallCo doesn’t have any export control issues.

Yet. But even a minor change to SmallCo’s situation can have a substantial impact. Say SmallCo hires an H-1B visa holder to work in its R&D group or an S-1 visa holder on its engineering team. According to U.S. export controls, allowing a foreign national employee access to any of SmallCo’s product development or manufacturing technology, even when that person is authorized to work in the United States, is considered an export to the employee’s country of citizenship. SmallCo must now figure out what it must do to comply.

Hiring a foreign national is not the only way to trigger the applicability of export controls to your business, but for nano- and other high-tech start-ups, it is a key trigger.

An overview of U.S. export controls

American export controls regulate the worldwide transfer of U.S.-origin goods, services and technology. These controls also apply to technical assistance, technology transfers, services and other activities involving non-U.S. persons, including when technology is transferred to non-U.S. persons authorized to work in the United States.

Exports of commercial and “dual-use” items – commercial items that also have military applications – are generally subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), administered by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). Exports of defense articles, including technology, are subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), administered by the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). The EAR and ITAR treat the release within the United States of technology to a foreign national who is not a permanent resident as an export.

Minimizing risk

What should SmallCo do to minimize the risk of export control violations? The first step is to review the U.S. Munitions List (USML) and the Commerce Control List (CCL) to determine whether any of its technology is controlled under the ITAR or the EAR.

Think broadly – the technology that should be classified includes technology specific to the manufacture of SmallCo’s product, and it also includes technology for the use of its equipment, technology for the use of certain materials and technology for the disposal of certain materials. In some cases technology may be controlled because it is “capable of” doing “X,” even though SmallCo is using it for “Y.” Be sure to review all categories under both the USML and the CCL carefully in order to determine what licenses are needed.

Once SmallCo has done this, it should:

  • Determine which new hires are foreign nationals so licenses can be obtained as needed, based on the technology to which the individuals will need access.
  • Obtain any licenses necessary. While a license request is pending, ensure that the foreign national does not have access to any technical data requiring a license.
  • Ensure that all IT systems administrators are U.S. citizens or authorized to access all types of controlled technology that are maintained on the IT system. Restrict access to electronic files to only those who are authorized.
  • Develop procedures to store technical and hard copy data securely and out of sight of anyone “just passing through the facility.”
  • Provide periodic training to employees about export controls and how they apply to the business.

Hiring a foreign national may not be the only way nanotech startups will face export controls – but it is the most likely one. The measures identified in this article are important to ensure compliance with U.S. export controls no matter what triggered your need for compliance.

Click here to enlarge image

SUSAN KOVAROVICS and WILLIAM CLEMENTS are partners in Foley & Lardner’s Washington, D. C., office and members of the White Collar Defense & Corporate Compliance practice. Ms. Kovarovics designs compliance programs and provides training on export and defense trade controls, trade sanctions, and anti-boycott matters. Mr. Clements counsels foreign and domestic parties regarding international business regulatory matters, particularly export controls, economic sanctions and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Aug. 31, 2006 – U.S. scientists using an off-the-shelf inkjet printer have developed a technique for printing patterns of carbon nanotubes on paper and plastic surfaces.

The research team says the method could lead to a new process for manufacturing a wide range of nanotube-based devices, from flexible electronics and conducting fabrics to sensors for detecting chemical agents.

Carbon nanotubes offer the combination of high strength, low weight and excellent conductivity. But most current techniques to make nanotube-based devices require complex and expensive equipment.

“Our results suggest new alternatives for fabricating nanotube patterns by simply printing the dissolved particles on paper or plastic surfaces,” said Robert Vajtai, a researcher with the Rensselaer Nanotechnology Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and corresponding author of the paper.

Vajtai and colleagues at Rensselaer — along with a group of researchers led by Krisztian Kordas and Geza Toth at the University of Oulu in Finland — explain the discovery in the August issue of the journal Small.

© 2006, YellowBrix, Inc.

Aug. 29, 2006 — CVD Equipment Corp. of Ronkonkoma, N.Y., announced it has been selected by CNT Technologies to supply an EasyTube 3000 Carbon Nanotube System for use by Los Alamos National Laboratory to further develop the commercialization of carbon nanotube fibers.

CVD started shipping the EasyTube & EasyWire 2000 and 3000 series early this year to research scientists at numerous universities, government and industrial research laboratories throughout the world. The EasyTube system is used for the growth of single and multiwall aligned carbon nanotubes while the EasyWire system is used for the growth of nanowires used in electronic applications.

“The systems are being used to develop and strengthen the processes needed for future production applications,” said Len Rosenbaum, CVD’s president and chief executive, in a prepared statement. “These process developments should enable introduction in the first half of 2007 our EasyTube 12000 production Carbon Nanotube platform.”