Nanomaterials are receiving increasing
attention in the technical community
and the public at large. There are numerous
activities throughout the world focusing
on a wide range of developments,
including privately and publicly funded
work. From an industrial perspective, the
measure of success of these programs will
be the number of new products that are
introduced to the market. The purpose of
this article is to discuss issues related to
the commercialization of nano-enhanced
materials as well as to propose areas for
future commercial developments.
INTRODUCTION
Nanotechnology is receiving substantial
attention in the technical communities
as well as in the public at large.
Momentum continues to build in both
arenas, as demonstrated by:
- More than $4 billion was spent
in the United States by the end of
2005 as part of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative.1
- Approximately $18 billion has
been invested globally in nanotechnology
by national and local
governments as of the end of
2005.2
- More than $1 billion is budgeted
for fiscal year 2006 U.S. spending
for nanotechnology research1 and
over $6 billion is projected to be
invested globally in 2006.2
More than 2,500 nanotechnology
projects were conducted in the
United States in 2004.3
- More than 12,000 citations of “nanotechnology” were made in
the popular press in 2004.4
- Nanotechnology initiatives have
been established at 19 of the 30
companies listed on the Dow
Jones industrial index.5
More than 30 percent of nanotechnology
start-up companies are focused
on nanomaterials.6
- $1.4 billion in revenue is estimated
for nanomaterials by 2008.7
- An annual growth rate greater than
30 percent is projected for U.S.
nanomaterials markets through
2020.6,7
As such, nanomaterials are often in
the forefront of discussions within the
materials community today. Furthermore,
academic institutions, government
laboratories, and industrial facilities are
expending significant resources in the
pursuit of nanomaterial technologies.
While there may be many criteria with
which to critique the success of these
efforts, a potent litmus test will be the
number of new products that are successfully
introduced into the marketplace.
To this point, critics of nanotechnology
are already questioning whether the
investment will pay off. A recent publication2
cites that the global investment in nanotechnology over the past eight years
is equivalent in absolute dollars to the
entire NASA Apollo program; however, “eight years into Apollo, the program
had already achieved the first manned
flight around the moon, while the entire
output of the nanotech(nology) program
in the layman’s view still consists of only
stain-resistant pants.”
While nanomaterials, and nanotechnologies
as a whole, may be important
enablers for new products, commercial
production of nanomaterials and
nano-enabled materials is not new. The
development and application of structure-property relationships has long
been the basis for product developments.
There are many examples of “traditional” nanomaterials, including high-strength
low-alloy steels developed with nanosized
niobium carbides for toughness-critical
applications, age-hardenable
aluminum alloys that utilize nano-sized
Guinier-Preston zones for strengthening,
heat load reduction glass products
employing nano-thin films of metals
and metal oxides, and paints containing
various nanoparticles for color, rheology,
and enhanced properties. It should be
noted that these applications were made
commercially successful not necessarily
by reducing their size down to the nanoscale,
but rather by growing to the final
nano-scale structure from their respective
constitutive natural (i.e., atomic) form
to achieve the optimum dimension for
property enhancement.
The utilization of nanosized structural
features is an important approach for new
product design; however, it is not the only
technique available to today’s materials
engineers. Utilizing nanomaterial technologies
just to produce a nanomaterial
is oftentimes illogical. Programs that
involve nanomaterials should be judged
on the same basis as conventional product developments: whether the resultant
product meets or creates a market
demand. Furthermore, manufacture of
the product must be compatible with
environmental stewardship and meet or
exceed financial considerations.
TECHNOLOGY VERSUS PRODUCT STRATEGY
New product developments are either
“pulled by the market” (i.e., created to
meet a market need) or they “push the
market” (i.e., create a new market need).
Either way, achieving the final product
attributes is the first step toward success.
Typically, a materials engineer has
multiple options available to achieve the
desired final product properties. A classic
example of this scenario is strengthening
of steel. Comparable strengthening
increments can be achieved via a variety
of mechanisms, including solution hardening
and precipitation hardening due to
alloying as well as grain refinement via
composition and processing control. The
effectiveness of nanosized precipitates
for property development has long been
known, yet is not always employed in
the design of new grades.
Increasingly, however, nanomaterials
are being investigated in the laboratory
and being utilized in the design of new
products, ranging from golf balls to
flame-retardant polymers to self-cleaning
glass. A driver for this trend is the
demand for improved performance,
whether it is for strength, appearance, or
durability. Additionally, modern process
controls, manufacturing techniques,
and analytical capability advances have
provided enabling technologies for the
production and incorporation of nanosized
features in the final product.
There have been many articles that
have highlighted the potential commercial
impact of nanomaterials (see, for
example, References 5–9). The effect of
nanomaterials may range from a simple
evolution in product performance (e.g.,
a shift in strength-ductility-toughness
combinations) to a “disruptive” technological
advancement. It is the potential
for a revolutionary step in product performance
that has caught the attention
of researchers and investors alike. Nanotechnologies
have been cited as having
“the potential to impact virtually every
industry, from aerospace and energy to
health care and agriculture”1 as well as
holding “promise for virtually every field
of human endeavor, from slice-resistant
golf balls and chameleon-color surface
finishes to highly sensitive, non-invasive
medical diagnostics.”10 By now, there
is arguably enough technical evidence
to support these statements; however,
whether these predictions come to pass
may ultimately be determined by nontechnical
factors.
The environmental impact of nanomaterials
must be considered during the
development cycle. All new products,
including traditional materials, must
meet or exceed the applicable safety
and environmental standards. As a
result of their unique nature, efforts are
underway within industry, academia, and
government to investigate and catalog
various nanomaterials in a systematic
fashion.11–13 Past and current efforts in
this area provide guidance for the safe
use of nanomaterials on a large scale
and must continue to be supported by
the materials community.
The cost of production and/or use of
nanomaterials is a critical factor that
will greatly affect the success of new
product developments, especially in the
higher-volume materials sectors. A large
proportion of nanotechnology-oriented
research and development is focused
on more advanced, niche-type applications
where high margin potentials are
predicted. While this work is important,
developments requiring the least capital
investment with minimal effect on production
speeds are the most attractive
to industry. As such, industrial developments
need to be scrutinized with respect
to anticipated production infrastructure
and capabilities as well as the total cost
to the customer. In the steel industry, for
example, novel coatings are most attractive
if they are capable of being applied
at typical process line speeds, which can
range from 62 meters per minute to more
than 370 meters per minute.
Large-scale commercial development
efforts involving nanomaterials and
nano-enabled materials will therefore
continue to be evaluated on the same
terms as more traditional materials. Such
a process at many industrial facilities
may consider an initial portfolio of a
few dozen or more candidate projects;
however, after evaluating the probability
of technical and commercial success,
compatibility with environmental and
safety standards, and the effect on overall
manufacturing costs, only a handful of
programs may be pursued in earnest.
As discussed in the next section, the
nano-enabled projects that will be commercialized
most often will be those that
address a clearly identified need.
TOMORROW’S NANOMATERIALS
Looking to the future, it is estimated
that greater than ten percent of aerospace
products will contain emerging nanotechnologies
by 2009, followed shortly
thereafter by the same market share in
automotive products.14 These market
projections, however, assume not only
an increase in the production of current
products, but also cost-effective commercialization
of new nano-enhanced
materials. Undoubtedly, there will be
many opportunities for homogeneous
nanomaterials (i.e., structures in which
the entire cross section can be classified
as a nanomaterial) as well as integrated
structures in which the nanomaterial
comprises only a portion of the final product (e.g., coatings or films applied
to a metallic substrate).
There are many efforts currently
underway to develop the next generation
of nano-enabled materials, as evident by
the resources being expended in this area.
The focus of individual projects being
conducted as part of this enterprise varies
greatly across material systems as well as
intended market segments. Most likely,
the ability to commercialize products
arising from these programs will be
linked to the primary focus of the laboratory-
or pilot-scale studies. As shown in
Figure 1, there are three broad categories
for research and development efforts:
applied research, applications-inspired
research, and fundamental research.
Applied research employs known fundamentals
to produce new products. As
the basis for this work is well established,
the likelihood for success is relatively
high and development work typically can
be readily transferred to industrial practice.
In contrast, applications-inspired
research may require the investigator
to conduct basic research to facilitate
production. Current examples of this
type of work can be found in energy
programs such as reversible ambient
temperature hydrogen storage and next generation
transmission lines, which may
require the development of new theories
and models for energy nanoscience.16
Finally, fundamental research is focused
primarily on mechanistic understanding
aimed at increasing scientific knowledge.
Commercial applications may arise from
this type of work, but the probability is
relatively low and would most likely
occur well in the future. The knowledge
gained through these programs, however,
may very well form the basis for future
applications-inspired researchers.
Today’s commercially driven activities
are primarily a mixture of applied and
applications-inspired research. There
will continue to be a role for traditional
nanomaterials in new products, whether
they are new applications of existing
pigments in coatings or the refinement
of practices for the stabilization of
nanosized phases in metals and metallic
alloys. These evolutionary developments
are important, but the development of
new designs and techniques for functional
nanomaterials will most likely
be needed to fulfill the market projections
discussed earlier. There are many
opportunities for applied and applications-
inspired research that can result in
paradigm shifts for product performance.
While not an exhaustive compilation, the
following items highlight fruitful areas
for development programs that address
current commercial needs:
- The production of nanoscale microstructural
features in metals
remains an active area for research.17–19 Typically, solid-state transformations are utilized for
the in-situ formation of particles
or other nanoscale structures. As
such, the control of thermomechanical
history is often critical
for production. Work furthering
the understanding of the formation
and thermal stability of nanosized
structural features, including second
phases, particles, and grains,
in metals under typical industrial
conditions continues to be an area
of interest.
- Nanomaterials are more frequently
being utilized in polymeric
coatings.20–22 In the area of polymeric
coatings, applications span
from multilayered structures—such as those used in automobile
paints—to single-layer systems
composed of thin films—such
as antifog treatment on oriented
polystyrene to preserve the clarity
of food container packages.
Recent advancements in automobile
finishing have incorporated a
mar- and scratch-resistant nanocomposite
clearcoat to the current
multilayer paint system, yielding
a product with extended durability
and gloss retention. Applications involving the addition of particles
to reduce the density of polymeric
materials, prevent corrosion of
metallic substrates, or enhance/modify surface and structural
properties are fruitful areas for development.
- The addition of nanoscale constituents
to polymer films has been
found to produce novel properties.23 Conductive films, self-healing
coatings, anti-fouling coatings,
and coatings with tailored
environmental (e.g., temperature,
humidity, ultraviolet, infrared,
etc.) responses are examples of
unique opportunities for nanomaterials.
- Probably the greatest success in
developing polymer-based nanomaterials
has been achieved with
layered clay systems.20–24 Layered
clays, such as montmorillonite,
are made up of stacked thin silicate
platelets that are nano-dimensional
in the plate-thickness
direction. Since such clays are
relatively inexpensive (around $5
per pound) they have been studied
extensively in a variety of
polymer systems. The challenge
in working with such clays is to
effectively disperse them into the
polymer matrix, a process called
exfoliation, and then to keep them
from agglomerating. When exfoliation
is achieved, the resulting
nanoclay polymers have shown
dramatic improvement in properties
compared to standard materials.
Efforts will undoubtedly
continue toward the design and
production of polymer nanocomposites
with increased strength,
reduced weight, improved toughness,
higher thermal stability, and
improved abrasion resistance.
- Sensors and instrumentation that
utilize nanomaterials and nanotechnologies
have the potential
for improved process controls.
As in the past, many process and
product developments have been
enabled by improved methods to
track and control production conditions.
Nanocrystalline materials
may afford improved gas sensitivity
and gas selectivity.25 Additionally,
improvements in instrumentation and computing achieved
through advanced nanotechnologies
will aid in primary material
productions.
- The energy sector is an important
area where nanomaterials
may find significant applications.
Lost energy (i.e., energy that is
not available for the primary intent)
is a large portion of the total
energy production, approaching
69 percent of the energy used for
electricity generation and 80 percent
for the transportation sector.26
As such, the development and application
of nano-based catalysts
and devices for the energy sector,
including those for generation,
transmission, and storage, will be
an important area for research and
development.
- The drive toward faster computing
and higher storage capacity
media will be directly linked to
developments on the nanoscale.
Advanced products now contain
multiple nanoscale layers, including
overcoats and lubricants.27–29
Future developments that increase
areal density and capacity will
find rapid industrial application.
CONCLUSION
Both the technical community and
the popular press continue to focus upon
nanotechnologies. Many predictions
exist for the role of nanomaterials in
future products and there are numerous
activities throughout the world dedicated
to the development of nanomaterials and
nano-enabled materials. While there may
be many criteria with which to quantify
the success of these efforts, the ultimate
measure will be the number of new products
that are successfully introduced into
the marketplace. To that end, there will
most likely be increased pressure in the
future to document benefits accrued from
the current level of global investments in
nanotechnology. While the potential for
the next generation of nanomaterials and
nano-enabled materials remains great, it
is recommended to focus on research and
development efforts designed to address
identified commercial needs in order to
achieve the projections for large-scale
market impact. As such, there will be a
need for more collaborative efforts in the
future between industry, academia, and
government to work on technologies of
common interest. Such a model is being
pursued by the Pennsylvania Nano-Materials Commercialization Center,
which brings together a cooperative
of companies, including Alcoa, Bayer
MaterialScience, PPG Industries, and
United States Steel Corporation as well
as Carnegie Mellon University, the University
of Pittsburgh, and Pennsylvania
State University. The primary mission
of the Pennsylvania NanoMaterials
Commercialization Center is to develop
and commercialize innovative solutions
to meet the current and future needs of
the marketplace, including organic and
inorganic nanomaterials, coatings, sensors,
and film applications.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge
the Pittsburgh Technology Council, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, U.S.
Congressman Mike Doyle, and the
Heinz Foundation for their support of
the Pennsylvania NanoMaterials Commercialization
Center. The vision of Dr.
David Diehl of PPG in bringing the
founding participants together is also
appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years:
Assessment and Recommendations of the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology (May 2005),
www.ostp.gov and www.nano.gov.
2. “Where Has My Money Gone? Government
Nanotechnology Funding and the $18 Billion Pair of
Pants,” Cientifica (January 2006), www.cientifica.com.
3. J.H. Marburger, “Nanotechnology: Government’s
Role,” presented at MS&T ‘05, Pittsburgh, PA, 26
September, 2005.
4. The Nanotech Report 2004, Lux Research (www.globalsalespartners.com/lux/).
5. S. Baker and A. Aston, “The Business of Nanotech,” Business Week (14 February, 2005), pp. 64–71.
6. A.M. Thayer, “Nanomaterials,” Chemical and
Engineering News, 81 (35) (2003), pp. 15–22.
7. Nanomaterials to 2008—Market Size, Market Share,
Demand Forecast, and Sales, Fredonia Group (2005),
www.freedoniagroup.com/nanomaterials.html.
8. J.G. Reynolds and B.R. Hart, “Nanomaterials and
Their Application to Defense and Homeland Security,”
JOM, 56 (1) (2004), pp. 36–39.
9 T. Imerito, “Nanotechnology: Building from the
Bottom and Building the Bottom Line,” JOM, 57 (12)
(2005), pp. 18–23.
10. T. Imerito, “Nano-Nano,” Pittsburgh TEQ (September
2005), pp. 14–18.
11. R.F. Service, “Calls Rise for More Research on
Toxicology of Nanomaterials,” Science, 310 (12)
(2005), p. 1609.
12. “NIOSH Announces Forthcoming Library for
Nanomaterial Information, Contacts,” Patent,
Trademark and Copyright Journal, 70 (1740), pp.
667–668.
13. Nanotechnology White Paper, Science Policy
Council, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/osa/nanotech.htm).
14. Sizing Nanotechnology’s Value Chain, Lux
Research (2004), www.globalsalespartners.com/lux.
15. D.E. Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science
and Technological Innovation, (Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press, 1997).
16. Nanoscience Research for Energy Needs, Report
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Grand
Challenge Workshop, 16–18 March, 2004, www.science.doe.gov/bes.
17. S. Vaynman, et al., “Recent Advances in High-Strength, Low-Carbon, Precipitation-Strengthened
Ferritic Steels,” Proceedings of MS&T ’04 (Warrendale,
PA: AIST, 2004), pp. 525–530.
18. D.J. Branagan, et al., “Wear-Resistant Amorphous
and Nanocomposite Steel Coatings,” Metall. and Mater.
Trans. A, 32A (2001), pp. 2615–2621.
19. T. Laha, et al., “Forming Nanostructured
Hypereutectic Aluminum via High-Velocity Oxyfuel
Spray Deposition,” JOM, 56 (1), pp. 54–56.
20. A.M. Thayer, “Nanomaterials,” Chemical &
Engineering News (1 September 2003), pp. 15–22.
21. K. Bukholz, “Improved Mar Resistance with Nano
Particle Technology,” AEI (February 2005), p. 56.
22. D. Rardon, “Nanotechnology at PPG: From Potential
to Products,” Advanced Materials and Processes,
(December 2005), pp. 27–28.
23. R. Fernando, “Nanomaterial Technology
Applications in Coatings,” JCT Coatings Tech (May
2004), pp. 32–38.
24. R. Stewart, “Nanocomposites,” Plastics Engineering,
(May 2004), p. 23.
25. F. Cosandey, G. Skandan, and A. Singhal,
“Materials and Processing Issues in Nanostructured
Semiconductor Gas Sensors,” JOM-e, 52 (10) (2000),
www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0010/Cosandey/Cosandey-0010.html.
26. P.M. Dehmer, “Some Energy Facts and Their
Implications for R&D Needed to Secure an Energy
Future,” presented at MS&T 2005, Pittsburgh, PA, 26
September, 2005, www.science.doe.gov/bes.
27. M. Kryder, “Giant Magneto-Resistance and Its
Impact Upon Data Storage,” presentation to the
Congressional Caucus on Research and Development,
Washington, D.C., 12 May, 2005.
28. R. Hempstead, “Nanotechnology at Seagate,”
presented at MS&T 2005, Pittsburgh, PA, 26
September, 2005.
29. “Pushing the Boundaries of Data Storage in
the Information Age,” www.seagate.com/newsinfo/newsroom/papers.
Todd M. Osman is a Technical Manager with
the United States Steel Corporation; Daniel E.
Rardon is a senior scientist and Manager of
Nanotechnology Initiatives at PPG Industries;
Lawrence B. Friedman is Head of University
Relations at Bayer MaterialScience; and Luis
Fanor Vega is Manager of Engineered Finishes
for Alcoa.
For more information, contact Todd Osman, United
States Steel Corporation, 800 East Waterfront
Drive, Munhall, PA 15120; (412) 433-7280; fax (412)
433-7232; e-mail tosman@uss.com.
|