Category Archives: LEDs

Click here to enlarge image

April 5, 2004 — As the world goes mobile and cellular phone manufacturers jockey to get their gizmos in your pocket, a nanotechnology-based innovation is going along for the ride.

null

OLEDs, or organic light emitting diodes, are poised to make cell phone displays brighter, faster and perhaps one day even cheaper than current technology — enough so that Kyocera Corp., a Japanese electronics firm, launched a new subsidiary for OLED R&D, manufacturing and sales activities.

Click here to enlarge image

null

The new company, Kyocera Display Institute Co. Ltd., is slated to have 32 employees and is aiming to enter the OLED market in 2005 with OLED displays for phones, cameras and other consumer electronics devices.

null

“It’s very significant,” said Kimberly Allen, director of technology and strategic resources for iSuppli/Stanford Resources, an El Segundo, Calif.-based research and analysis firm. “It’s the middle-sized companies (like Kyocera) that are … the key to getting active matrix OLEDs into the market.”

null

null

Active matrix OLEDs offer high-end color viewing. Passive matrix screens are like the older monochromatic liquid crystal displays on low-end mobile phones and first-generation laptops.

null

null

Allen said that while some larger electronics firms are struggling, the midsize firms are doing relatively well. Kyocera’s new venture also has the advantage of a built-in customer: In early 2000, Kyocera bought Qualcomm’s mobile phone business, which is now Kyocera Wireless Corp.

null

null

OLEDs are already in the cellular phone market, though in their less robust form. Subdisplays — the miniature readouts on the outside of flip-style phones — are the initial application for passive matrix OLEDs in phones. Pioneer of Japan, Samsung NEC Mobile Display of Korea and RiTdisplay of Taiwan supply panels that Fujitsu, LG, Samsung and Motorola are using in phones either on or coming to market. The subdisplay, Allen says, is a place where consumers have lower quality expectations.

null

null

However, those low expectations won’t last long. Passive matrix OLEDs work in places where entrenched technologies like LCD are used, but OLED can’t compete with LCD on price. Therefore, Allen says, the ultimate market for OLED is in higher quality, and higher margin, products such as the full-color active matrix displays inside phones, handheld computers and digital cameras.

null

null

So far, it’s a wide open playing field. As far as Allen is aware, Kodak’s LS633 digital camera is the only consumer electronics product on the market with an active matrix OLED.

null

null

The worldwide OLED market in 2003 was worth $250 million, according to Allen, who said $195 million of it, or 78 percent, was in cellular phones. And as the market grows, to $1.7 billion in 2007 by her forecasts, she expects mobile phones’ share to grow too.

null

null

As for applications beyond consumer electronics, the technology faces some development hurdles. OLEDs degrade over time, making cell phones the ideal application for the present time, since consumers replace them frequently.

null

null

Phone manufacturers are even working on innovative designs that would sandwich two displays — one on the outside and the other on the inside — around a single set of electronics within a flip-style phone’s cover. The technique would save power and money. Consumers would be likely to toss the phone long before the displays wore out.

null

On the other hand, Allen said, “The display on your oven would not be a good idea.”

Click here to enlarge image

WASHINGTON, April 1, 2004 – As scientists and others continue to debate the significance of a recent study on the toxic effects of nanoparticles, the controversy has highlighted a growing need for federal research into the environmental and health effects of engineered nanomaterials, policy makers and others say.

 

The controversial study was unveiled earlier this week by Eva Oberdorster, a researcher from Southern Methodist University who found that fish exposed to nanoparticles suffered brain damage. Yet despite these potentially significant findings, industry leaders say they do not expect lawmakers will react negatively to the study.

Click here to enlarge image

 

“What (the study) will do is heighten the interest in funding initial research on nanotoxicology so we can find out what synthetic nanostructures are safe and what structures raise environmental and human health issues,” said Tom Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California-Berkeley, and former technology adviser in the Clinton administration.

 

In an interview, John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,  said he did not believe the study would affect funding for nanotech research or harm nanotech’s image among lawmakers, who are in the process of crafting annual appropriations bills that will provide funding for nanotech research and other government programs.

 

“There have been concerns expressed (in the past) about the health effects” of nanotechnology, Marburger said. “I don’t think the level of sophistication is so low (in Congress) that this will come as a surprise.” Instead, the study provides “another sign that we have to be careful” with the new nanomaterials being created, he said.

 

Federal agencies are in the process of beginning several studies aimed at studying the health and environmental effects of nanoparticles such as carbon nanotubes. Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency,  FDA,  and other agencies discussed the issue Tuesday at the quarterly meeting of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), a panel of industry and academic representatives that provide the White House with advice on science and technology issues.

 

Among the studies initiated in fiscal year 2004 include a $3-million project headed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science’s (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program. The project will examine through inhalation exposure the toxic and carcinogenic potentials of quantum dots, nanotubes, and other materials in laboratory animals.

 

The EPA has also launched a $4-million research project that will study the toxicology of manufactured nanomaterials. It will also look at the fate, transport and transformation of manufactured nanomaterials and the impact of human exposure to them.

 

While these studies may take several years to complete, John Bucher, director of federal toxicology research at NIEHS, said he believes the studies may provide short-term results as soon as next year. He said researchers have begun designing the studies and procuring the materials needed for their work.

 

At Tuesday’s meeting, Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, noted that additional research is being done through other agencies, including the National Science Foundation that will touch on environmental and health effects of nanomaterials.

 

He noted that health and environmental research makes up about 11 percent of total federal nanotech funding this year.

 

Meanwhile, the newly released study led by Southern Methodist University environmental toxicology lecturer Oberdorster found the rates of brain damage to be 17 times higher in nine large-mouth bass exposed to a form of water-soluble buckyballs. The rate was in comparison to nine unexposed fish. The concentration of nanoparticles used in the 48-hour laboratory study was .5-parts-per million.

 

The current study is believed to be the first to show that such particles may cause brain damage, but researchers have not performed human studies. Oberdorster said she is seeking money from the EPA for additional studies to look at such issues as how the buckyballs actually get into the fishes’ bodies and cause damage.

 

The study was presented Sunday at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society in Anaheim, Calif. An article based on it was submitted in late February to the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, and is going through peer review. The journal likely will publish it later this year, she said.

 

Oberdorster stressed that more needs to be done before drawing any firm conclusions about nanoparticles and health risks. She would like to see tandem research efforts into the benefits and risks.

 

“I know there are all these scary Michael Crichton ‘Prey’ things out there; my study does not in any way support that sci-fi horror thing going on,” she said. “Don’t stop using nanotech, because there are so many important things it can offer. Let’s keep looking at the possibilities, alongside the cautionary toxicology of it.”

 

Vicki Colvin, executive director of the center for biological and environmental nanotechnology at Rice University, provided the materials used in Oberdorster’s study, but she distanced herself from its findings during a presentation at the PCAST meeting.

 

Still, Colvin said one of her biggest concerns as more findings from other studies are revealed on the potential health and environmental effects of engineered nanomaterials is that the “scientific community will have an instinct to want to run to the defense” of those findings, without adequately understanding public fears. At the same time, as federal researchers move forward with their own studies, she urged policy makers to help develop standards for research and common terminology.

 

Nonetheless, PCAST member Robert Herbold, Microsoft’s executive vice president, said the recent study’s findings should be taken seriously. “This is an area that could flame out extremely quickly if these things are not handled” delicately, he said.

 

In an interview prior to the PCAST meeting, Teague said there is some “possibility there could be an over reaction to this” study. Still, he said, “no one is going to take these studies lightly. They will be taken as important new pieces of information as we proceed to develop appropriate regulatory mechanisms (aimed at) ensuring that the technology is moved forward in a responsible way, and health and environmental impacts are given high priority.”

 

Small Times staff writer Jeff Karoub contributed to this report.

March 29, 2004 — A university study has found that nanoparticles can cause brain damage in fish.

The small, preliminary study, led by Southern Methodist University lecturer Eva Oberdorster, found rates of brain damage 17 times higher in largemouth bass exposed to a form of water-soluble buckyballs than unexposed fish. The concentration of nanoparticles used in the 48-hour laboratory study were .5 parts per million.

Oberdorster said in a written statement that the current study is believed to be the first to show that the particles can cause brain damage, but researchers have not performed human studies. She said she plans studies to determine how the buckyballs can get into the fishes’ bodies and cause damage.

Kevin Ausman, executive director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University, said in an e-mail it would be irresponsible to comment too strongly until the work has passed peer review. He also said it’s not conclusive whether the effects seen in the study were from the nanomaterial or a contaminant.

The study was presented Sunday at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society in Anaheim, Calif.

March 25, 2004 – The Korean government is creating a consortium of chipmaking equipment and material suppliers, academia, research institutes, and government organizations, in an effort to boost the domestic industry’s competitiveness, according to the Korea Times.

The Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy (MOCIE) said it plans to provide up to 7 billion won ($6 million) to increase localization of semiconductor material and equipment, such as CVD equipment, etchers, and steppers, from its current 8% level to over 30% over the next five years. The plan also calls for supporting overseas marketing activities, establishment of two nanotechnology centers, and efforts to draw more investments from Japanese semiconductor material and equipment manufacturers.

The Korean government wants its equipment industry to be more equal with that of its semiconductor and display industry, led by Samsung, DongbuAnam, and LG Philips; currently sales of domestic equipment and materials are less than two-tenths of a percent of sales of foreign rivals — Korea DNS and KC Tech, for example, posted sales of $112.7 million and $49.8 million in 2003, compared with $5.2 billion for Applied Materials and $2.6 billion for TEL.

Kim Jong-kap, deputy minister of commerce, industry, and energy, called such international firms’ dominance “a barometer for sustainable growth and competitiveness of local semiconductor and display industries.”

March 25, 2004 – Cree Inc., Durham, NC, has acquired the gallium nitride (GaN) substrate and epitaxy business of Advanced Technology Materials Inc. (ATMI), Danbury, CT, for an undisclosed cash amount.

Cree president and CEO Chuck Swoboda said the purchase will complement Cree’s silicon carbide and GaN materials business, as well as add IP to the company’s optoelectronic, materials, and microwave patent portfolios.

The deal, expected to close in Cree’s fiscal 4Q04 ending in June, represents “a modest premium over book value,” according to ATMI CFO Dan Sharkey.

ATMI CEO Gene Banucci added that the sale is the first phase of the company’s planned disposition of its six technologies businesses. “It’s a good deal for ATMI strategically, and it’s probably an even better deal for Cree,” he added.

March 25, 2004 – Germany’s Infineon Technologies AG said that CEO Ulrich Schumacher has resigned effective immediately, replaced on an interim basis by chairman Max Dietrich Kley.

The Associated Press, referring to a statement from the company’s workers union, said Schumacher had “lost a boardroom battle over leadership style and strategy,” including his support of outsourcing and his criticism of Germany’s business climate.

Schumacher led Infineon’s spin-off from Siemens AG in 1999, and had managed the no. 3 memory chipmaker through the downturn, posting a small profit in its most recent quarter ending December 2003 after nine consecutive losing periods.

The sudden departure is unusual, given the region’s and industry’s typical behavior of planning top-management changes well ahead of time — STMicroelectronics, for instance, already has named the successor to CEO Pasquale Pistorio, who will step down in 2005.

Ironically, Schumacher reportedly said in a recent interview that he “could imagine working here another 20 years without any problem,” according to the AP.

Gene Banucci, ATMI CEO, says, “The sale of our gallium nitride business is the first element of the planned disposition of ATMI’s six Technologies businesses. We feel very good about the results of this process for several reasons. It’s a good deal for ATMI strategically, and it’s probably an even better deal for Cree. As importantly, the employees of our gallium nitride business believed that Cree would be a great home for the business, and we are gratified that we were able to make this a reality.”

(March 30, 2004) ALBUQUERQUE, NM&#8212Creating a tool small enough to measure friction on a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device is not an easy task. Yet, researchers at Sandia National Laboratories have developed an “inchworm” actuator instrument that provides detailed information about friction at the microscale.

March 25, 2004 — On a cold, wet January day, 50 miles outside Liverpool, England, a group of scientists gathered to discuss one of the biggest public fears surrounding nanotechnology: How could it harm human health? The meeting drew on some of Europe’s leading toxicologists, including Ken Donaldson and Vyvyan Howard.

null

Nanotech and Toxicity

Nanotox 2004, held in England in January, was widely reported as having raised questions about the toxicity of nanoparticles. Among the researchers’ assertions:

  • Gold nanoparticles injected into pregnant rats may be transferred to the fetus, according to Vyvyan Howard, a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.

  • A new way of classifying nano-particles needs to be created, said Ken Donaldson of the University of Edinburgh Medical School, that takes more than size into account, but also the “full spectrum of toxicities that might arise from nanoparticles of different compositions.”

  • The catalytic effects of materials — notably metal oxides that are used in some brands of sunscreen — can change dramatically at small sizes, said David Jefferson of University of Cambridge.

    • But it wasn’t just the scientific community that was interested. Several representatives from the business world had made the trip up to the north of England. Delegates from financial groups, manufacturers and investment houses were in attendance.

    Indeed, over the next 20 years, nanotoxicity could be an issue that defines the growth of the nanotech business. Just as the development of genetically modified crops — in Europe at least — was defined by the opposition of environmental groups, nanobusiness development could face a similar brake on its ambitions.

    Yet the business community is only slowly waking up to the potential threat the safety issue could pose to their own business environment.

    The U.S. venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson has said it would not invest in a nanotech business unless the products had already been proven safe. Some European investment groups, while concerned with any potential problems, see few particular dangers arising from the nanotech sector. “The issue has not arisen in the companies in which we have invested,” said Hitesh Mehta of Amadeus Capital Partners Ltd.

    However, some financial groups are slowly appreciating that perception of risk could also create opportunities. A representative of Swiss Re said the company is interested in the broad range of risk. Swiss Re is one of the world’s largest reinsurance groups, which is bringing out a report into the potential liabilities (and business opportunities) that nanotechnology can offer.

    The Germany-based Munich Re Group commissioned a report in 2002 listing numerous potential liabilities from nanoparticles. Among the scenarios it outlined: “Active nanotechnology products might be … released during manufacture, endangering the lives of workers and the environment.”

    Perhaps more importantly, the report also observed that nanotechnology could bring about a shift in the scale of the problems faced by potentially polluting industries: “Up to now, losses involving dangerous products were on a relatively manageable scale, whereas, taken to extremes, nanotechnology products can even cause ecological damage which is difficult to contain,” said the report.

    The cosmetics industry was also represented at Nanotox 2004, with French group L’Oreal sending a representative. The group has patented numerous applications that use nanoparticles and says it upholds the highest standards in safety testing.

    “At each step of the product development — from the raw materials to the final formula — we evaluate the safety in vitro and then, only if the previous test is negative, in vivo on human volunteers,” said Patricia Pineau, a L’Oreal research adviser.

    “Thanks to our expertise in reconstructed human skin, we are able to investigate many biological mechanisms linked to safety issues and we also have collaborations with external independent institutions,” she added.

    The aspects of nanoparticles that make them so appealing to scientists — their ability to be absorbed in the human body — is also what makes them potentially so toxic. Scientists are establishing not just how toxic the particles might be, but also to what extent they can be absorbed by the lungs, organs cell nuclei and even potentially the fetus.

    Still, the nanotech industry is not relying purely on university-based research to look for the health risks from nanoparticles. DuPont has led much of the research into the toxicity of nano-particles, notably David Warheit’s research on the effect of nanoparticles injected into rats’ lungs.

    But there remains considerable amount of research — and explanation — before the nanotech industry is out of the waters of controversy.

    The design gap
    The complexity of recently available products, such as new 3G mobile phones, camera and PDA combos, is staggering and requires a huge design effort. “There is no doubt that electronic systems of the future are going to be very complex,” says Frank Oppenheimer of the OFFIS Research Institute, Oldenburg, and coordinator of the IST project ODETTE. “The complexity has been on the increase for a decade or so and we expect the trend to continue for the next 10-15 years.”

    (March 25, 2004) Danbury, Conn.&#8212ATMI Inc., a supplier of materials and materials packaging to semiconductor manufacturers, has entered into a definitive agreement to sell its gallium nitride substrates and epitaxy business to Cree Inc. of Durham, North Carolina, subject to customary closing conditions and certain third party approvals.

    Click here to enlarge image

    March 24, 2004 — With the January release of the Bush administration’s budget proposal, nanotech supporters got the first signal of whether the money will follow the recent enactment of a bill codifying the federal government’s nanotechnology activities into law.

    Click here to enlarge image

    The bill’s supporters say they are satisfied that the administration has shown its commitment to nanotech in its fiscal year 2005 budget, released Feb. 2 — even if the proposed funding fails to match the amounts authorized by the nanotech legislation.

    Click here to enlarge image

    “In this tight budget year, there wasn’t much hope that it would be at authorization bill levels,” said Heidi Mohlman Tringe, a spokeswoman for the House Science Committee.

    Still, the administration’s $982 million budget request for federal nanotechnology initiatives marks only a 2 percent increase over last year, well below the 10 percent increase for nanotech in Bush’s 2004 budget plan.

    In examining the individual requests for the five agencies covered by the nanotechnology bill, Bush’s proposed spending falls below the amounts authorized by the new law.

    The president’s $305 million request for nanotech activities at the National Science Foundation — a 20 percent increase over fiscal year 2004, Tringe noted — is $80 million below the amount authorized by the new nanotech law for 2005. The Energy Department would get $211 million under the Bush budget, compared with the $317 million authorized by the new law. And the National Institute of Standards and Technology would receive $15 million less — $53 million — under Bush’s plan, compared with the authorized amount.

    At the same time, NASA would receive nearly $1 million more under the Bush budget request of $35 million, while the Environmental Protection Agency would receive about $500,000 less than the $5.5 million authorized in the nanotech bill.

    Last week, House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., discussed the difficulties faced by those who support increased funding for nanotechnology, given the extreme budget constraints lawmakers must deal with.

    As if to underscore his point, the House Budget Committee approved a budget resolution last week that essentially freezes most nondefense and nonhomeland security discretionary funding for fiscal year 2005.

    Pointing to the Energy Department’s 20-year plan to update its scientific facilities, Boehlert said at a conference at Brookhaven National Laboratory, “All of us need to do a lot of missionary work (in Congress) if anything in the DOE planning document is to become a reality. I don’t think I’m exaggerating by saying that.”

    He added that the “future of science funding will depend on many things beyond your control — the macroeconomic situation, the nature of competing needs, etc. But it will also depend on how actively you can make people like me understand why what you’re about is important to our nation.”

    NNIN Up and Running

    Meanwhile, the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) was supposed to be up and running by January. But by early February, the NSF and Cornell University, the university leading the project, had yet to ink a contract because of delays in completing the necessary paperwork, according to Lawrence Goldberg, a senior engineering adviser at the NSF, who said he expected to complete the deal by the end of February.

    The NNIN is made up of 13 universities that have joined together to create a nationwide system that will share their facilities to support research and education into nanoscale science, engineering and technology.

    Despite the delay in completing the contract, the participating universities have been welcoming users since the first of the year.

    “We are welcoming users regularly into our facilities,” said NNIN Director Sandip Tiwari in early February. “Some facilities have five to 10 new external users entering and getting trained a week.”

    The NNIN is based on, and will expand on, the National Nanofabrication Users Network, which only involved five universities. With the NNUN contract set to end last year, NSF expanded the focus of the initiative when it chose to rebid the $70 million, five-year contract and award it to the 13-member consortium.

    Goldberg said the expanded network of institutions involved with the NNIN will cover more disciplines, such as environmental nanomaterials, and also will allow for a greater range of users from academia to small businesses to international users. In addition, he said, the NNIN hopes to reach out beyond its user base to provide educational information to elementary and high school students. “The awardees thought what was lacking was a way to excite kids,” Goldberg said. “They thought nano was a good way … to reach out to them.”

    Initially, the network will offer a Web portal that will allow users to “get connected with the appropriate site” that has the capabilities needed by users, he said.

    Tiwari has high hopes for the initiative, saying he is optimistic the NNIN will “bring to fruition the promise of nanotechnology across all disciplines.”

    Nano Part of Energy’s Plan

    At the Energy Department, nanoscale science is one of the seven short-term goals in the agency’s new 20-year “strategic plan” aimed at obtaining “dramatic increases in knowledge and scientific achievements,” according to a Feb. 12 statement announcing the project. The plan follows the release late last year of a 20-year proposal aimed at updating the department’s key scientific facilities.

    “Our emphasis on the emerging area of nanoscience, for example, requires advances in new analytical tools and the creation of entirely new ways of conducting science that could lead to major breakthroughs in energy production and environmental cleanup,” Raymond L. Orbach, director of the department’s Office of Science, said in the statement.

    The department aims to “lead the nanoscale science revolution” with the goal of enabling the production of new composite materials and joining technologies by using fabrication at the nanoscale by 2011. As part of this effort, the department’s nanoscale research program, which is being led by the agency’s Office of Science, calls for the establishment of five nanoscale science research centers.

    Through these centers and other efforts aimed at supporting nanoscale research, the department will focus on “attaining a fundamental understanding of phenomena unique to the nanoscale, achieve the ability to design and synthesize materials at the nanoscale to produce materials with desired properties and functions…, integrate nanoscale objects into microscale assemblies and macroscale devices, and develop experimental characterization tools and theory modeling (and) simulation tools to advance nanoscale science.”