Stories tagged Chemical Reactions

Mar
20
2014

NanoDays is a nationwide festival of educational programs about nanoscale science and engineering and its potential impact on the future.

Most events will be taking place between March 29 - April 6, 2014.
NanoDays 2008-2014 map
NanoDays 2008-2014 mapCourtesy NISE Network

NanoDays events are organized by participants in the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Network) and take place at more than 250 science and children's museums, research centers and universities across the country from Puerto Rico to Hawaii. NanoDays engages people of all ages in learning about this emerging field of science, which holds the promise of developing revolutionary materials and technologies.

To read more about NanoDays visit:
http://www.whatisnano.org/nanodays

To see a full list of organizations hosting 2014 events visit:
http://www.nisenet.org/nanodays/participants-2014

2014 Events in Saint Paul and Minneapolis, MN: http://www.smm.org/nanodays

To learn more about nanotechnology, science, and engineering, visit:
www.whatisnano.org

To see other nano stories on Science Buzz tagged #nano visit:
http://www.sciencebuzz.org/buzz_tags/nano

Jan
24
2013

Sniffing Out Cancer: Amherst chemists develop a way to "smell" cancer cells.
Sniffing Out Cancer: Amherst chemists develop a way to "smell" cancer cells.Courtesy Jeremie63
Chemists from the University of Massachusetts Amherst have developed a way to quickly and accurately detect and identify metastatic cancer cells in living tissue, in much the same way that your nose can detect and identify certain odors.

The smell of a rose, for example, is a unique pattern of molecules, which activates a certain set of receptors in your nose. When these specific receptors are triggered, your brain immediately recognizes it as a rose.

Similarly, each type of cancer has a unique pattern to the proteins that make up its cells. The Amherst chemists just needed a "nose" to recognize these patterns. What they came up with was an array of gold nanoparticle sensors, coupled with green fluorescent proteins (GFP). The researchers took healthy tissue and tumor samples from mice, and trained the nanoparticle-GFP sensors to recognize the bad cells, and for the GFP to fluoresce in the presence of metastatic tissues.

This method is really sensitive to subtle differences, it's quick (can detect cancer cells within minutes), it can differentiate between types of cancers, and is minimally invasive. The researchers haven't tested this method on human tissue samples yet, but it holds some exciting potential.

Jul
18
2012

Sprayable Battery: Move over spray-tan, there's a new aerosol in town.
Sprayable Battery: Move over spray-tan, there's a new aerosol in town.Courtesy Alex Walker
Researchers from Rice University have rethought the battery. Typically, batteries are made up of 5 layers: a positive and negative electrode, each with a metal current collector, and a polymer separator. These layers are manufactured in sheets and then rolled into cylinders. Rice researchers realized that each of these layers were available, or could be created, in sprayable form. They used lithium titanium oxide and lithium cobalt oxide for the anode and cathode, existing metallic paints and carbon nanotube mixtures for the current collectors, and a chemical hodge-podge with a very lengthy name for the separator layer. The result is an ultra thin (a fraction of a millimeter thick) lithium ion battery.
In their first experiment, researchers sprayed each consecutive layer onto nine bathroom tiles, topped with a solar cell. The resulting batteries were able to power 40 LEDs for six hours.
In its current state, this method is too toxic to be used outside a controlled environment, but with a little tweaking, a safe alternative will be found. At that point, any surface could be a battery!

Nov
01
2011

Zombies are not real right now because it is impossible. Well, until a scientist screws up. In the movies zombies are people that get infected from a source, it is unlikely that it will happen in our lifetime, but scientifically it will be brains( how ironic ), not bronze that prevails over this threat of zombies. The virus would most likely be like the T virus in Resident Evil, but we probably will never know. What do you think??? I was reading a article from the CDC and they say that it might be possible for a zombie apocalypse to happen! How do you think you would prepare for this??? Well we don't know. We honestly don't. Scientifically we would never truly be ready. And for an Awnser I don't want, "my dad has a gun"!!! Actual science reasons here. Heck, it might be a parasite for all we know, then again, your mom or dad may get it first( that would suck! ), or your sister, or brother. We will never know until we realize that nothing is impossible in science. Scientifically I should say, ELECTRICITY would go down first! Then GAS would eventually run out. Cities would be safe most of the time, because all the people would go out to the country.

Then all the people left would be in shock, and/or, injured and extremely prejudiced, but some will still be sane, like me, I know how to keep alive in a Z.A. but some people would not, but, scientifically someone will be smart and start remaking our civilization, but who knows maybe we will all die? You never know how things will turn out. What are your comments??? I would love to hear them.
EDITED BY LIZA, 11/1/2011: Hey, Buzzketeers! Still need a post-Halloween zombie fix, like ZombieDestroyer here? Head on over to the zombies page. You'll find out about a new zombie-fighting weapon, a real-life zombie-making parasite, and a very long-running thread about whether or not a zombie apocalypse is possible. (And if you feel a need to argue zombie-fighting strategies or likelihood, take it over to that last thread and keep it science-y, y'all!)

May
10
2011

Sometimes we here at Nano Headquarters grow weary of reading and attempting to decipher scientific papers in ways that make them easy to understand.

Take, for example, this sentence:

“The as-prepared gold particles showed good catalytic activity for the reduction of 4-nitrophenol to 4-aminophenol by excess NaBH4, and a surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) study suggested that the gold nanoparticles exhibited a high SERS effect on the probe molecule Rhodamine 6G.”

Here’s what we were able to immediately comprehend:

“The as-prepared gold particles showed good BEEEEEEEP for the reduction of BEEEEEEEP to BEEEEEEEP by excess BEEEEEEEP, and a surface-enhanced BEEEEEEEP BEEEEEEEP BEEEEEEEP study suggested that the gold nanoparticles exhibited a high BEEEEEEEP effect on the probe molecule BEEEEEEEP BEEEEEEEP”

On days like this, we like to practice what we call "selective avoidance" and seek out pretty images instead. Pretty nano-related images, mind you – but pretty images nonetheless. They soothe our bleeding brains. And so, for your BEEEEEEEP-free pleasure, we offer you this here compendium of pretty nano images:

Pretty!: Pollen Grains
Pretty!: Pollen GrainsCourtesy Dartmouth Electron Microscope Facility

NOVA - The Art of Nanotech
Remember our friends over at NOVA who made the nanorrific Making Stuff series? This here slideshow was a little buried treasure accompanying it. The images are originally from the Materials Research Society - Science as Art competition. We’re a little partial to the Starry Night knockoff. Van Gogh would be impressed. And if not, then we wouldn’t have wanted to be his friend anyway because apathy gets boring fast and huffy, stuffy artists are tedious.

Sciencescapes Speaking of the Science as Art competition – here are a few more images from competitions in years past. From likenesses of spaghetti and meatballs to a decaying Santa to a creepy Pac-Man to a dotted-dude walking off a cliff to his ultimate doom, there’s a little something here for everyone.
Also Pretty!: Water Droplet on Nasturtium Leaf
Also Pretty!: Water Droplet on Nasturtium LeafCourtesy Stephan Herminghaus

International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge
A video from the National Science Foundation wherein they invite us to “discover the artistry behind the 2010 International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge winners as they explain the processes, techniques and thoughts behind their entries.” SPOILER ALERT: The very first fellow we meet tells us right out that there’s “no message” to his work. Awesome.

Silver Saver – nanotech in art preservation Think that the old, old artifacts you see in museums just stay that way because they’re in a fancy, climate-controlled case? Think again!
Equally Pretty!: Silicon Nanomembrane
Equally Pretty!: Silicon NanomembraneCourtesy S. Scott, University of Wisconsin-Madison

NISE Net Viz Lab All the pretty, pretty pictures you’ve seen in this post thus far are from the NISE Net Viz Lab. And guess what? They’re in the public domain! That means you can use them however you like without going through all sorts of crazy legal hoops! Whee! Just remember to give credit where credit it due – ‘cause we’re pretty sure you don’t have a scanning electron microscope at home.

SPECIAL NOT-NECESSARILY-NANO BONUS:
The Periodic Table Printmaking Project We could look at these for DAYS. In fact, we have. Take the Periodic Table of the elements, mix in a few block-print makers, and what do you get? Some seriously killer prints that provide visual intrigue for such favorites as Promethium and Fluorine. We will admit to getting a little googley-eyed over these.

Okay kids, stop swooning. Back to work.

Mar
29
2011

By the way, when you read about the gigatons of carbon emissions that human activities emit each year, it's helpful to have some perspective:

Let's talk gigatons--one billion tons. Every year, human activity emits about 35 gigatons of [carbon dioxide] (the most important greenhouse gas). Of that, 85% comes from fossil fuel burning. To a lot of people, that doesn't mean much -- who goes to the store and buys a gigaton of carrots? For a sense of perspective, a gigaton is about twice the mass of all people on earth, so 35 gigatons is about 70 times the weight of humanity. Every year, humans put that in the atmosphere, and 85% of that is power. Large actions, across whole nations and whole economies, are required to move the needle.

By comparison, our atmosphere is small--99.99997% of our its mass sits below the Karman line, which is often used to define the border between Earth’s atmosphere and outer space. At 62 miles above Earth's surface, it’s about as high as the distance between St. Paul, MN, and Menomonie, WI.

The oceans also absorb some of that carbon dioxide, but not without consequence.

Of course, the great part about being responsible is having capability--if our inventions bring about such transformations in the air and oceans, then couldn't we be inventive enough to reduce their negative impacts?

Mar
14
2011

The Fukushima plant: Before the earthquake.
The Fukushima plant: Before the earthquake.Courtesy KEI
Ok, well, there isn’t really such a thing as a nuclear earthquake. “Nuclear Earthquake” just sounds impressive. And I suppose “impressive” is one way to describe what’s happening in Japan right now.

I suppose you’re all aware of the 8.9 (or possibly 9.0) rated earthquake that hit Japan last week (if you aren’t, check out this post), and that the Fukushima nuclear power station there has been severely damaged.

While the country is still trying to put itself together, officials are still trying to get the power plant under control. So what happened, what’s happening, and what’s (probably) going to happen?

Well, a nuclear plant like Fukushima basically operates by using radioactive uranium to boil water. The uranium is always decaying—the number of protons and neutrons it has isn’t stable, so neutrons fly off, causing heat. If the neutrons hit other neutrons in the uranium, they fly off too, causing even more heat. If there’s too much of this neutron-on-neutron action, the uranium will get too hot, melt everything around it, and it’s a disaster. This is what happened at Chernobyl.

To prevent the neutron reaction from getting out of control, and to make sure the uranium produces just the right amount of heat, “control rods” are inserted in with the uranium fuel. The control rods absorb some of the neutrons to keep the reaction under control. When the right amount of heat is being produced, the water around the fuel boils, turns to steam, and spins electric generators. It works out pretty well.

At Fukushima, the control rods were inserted into the uranium as soon as the earthquake started, and they did work—the uranium reaction was shut down. But the decaying uranium had already produced other elements, elements with a lot of heat of their own. So there was a lot of residual heat in the power station.

Normally, water would keep circulating around the hot core, carrying away the residual heat (and turning it into electricity). But between the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami, the power to the water pumps was shut off and the backup generators were disabled. The pumps had backup batteries, but eventually those ran out. That means there was still a lot of heat in the core, but no fresh water to carry it away. The water that was there would continue to heat up until the steam was vented or the vessel containing it simply burst.

Unfortunately, both of those things sort of happened. While purposely venting some of the steam, an explosion happened in the building surrounding one of the cores. According to this site, this is probably because some of the vented water vapor had separated into hydrogen and oxygen, which built up in the building and ignited. This whole situation (the venting and the steam) was radioactive, but not that bad as those things go—the radioactive elements decayed and became stable in a very short time.

The next problem was that with all the venting, the water level around the cores was slowly falling. Without water to take away their heat, the cores could overheat, and eventually melt down. This started to happen, and some more dangerous radioactive products of the uranium started to mix with the remaining water and steam, so officials decided to start pumping seawater into the core. Seawater can get more radioactive than clean water, but it would keep the core cool and under control. And it did.

Today, there was a second explosion at the plant, however. I’m not totally sure what caused this, but it looks like it was again from the accumulation of hydrogen in one of the buildings.

With the uranium reaction under control and the cores under water, the residual heat should eventually dissipate. But the explosions have further damaged the cooling systems, and keeping the multiple cores at the station submerged in seawater has been a challenge. The longer the cores are exposed, the harder it is to control radioactive material already produced by the cores, and the greater the chance of a meltdown occurring at the plant.

Approximately 200,000 people living in the region of the nuclear plant have been evacuated, and it’s still unclear what will happen there. Nothing good certainly, but a meltdown isn’t a sure thing at this point, and even if a meltdown were to occur (again, a meltdown happens when there’s too much heat in the core, and everything around the radioactive fuel melts), the Fukushima plant was built to much higher safety standards than Chernobyl was, and it should contain the damage much more effectively. At Chernobyl, explosions sent radioactive material into the atmosphere and over the surrounding area. At Fukushima, as I understand it, the radioactive products of a meltdown would be contained inside extremely thick, tough containers, which, so far, have not been damaged by the earthquake or the explosions.

There’s more to be said about what will happen, and how this might affect the world’s attitude toward nuclear power, and whether that’s a good thing or not … but that will have to wait for another post.

Update: A Third Explosion at Fukushima
A there's been another explosion at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Now three of the four reactors at Fukushima have experienced an explosion. The previous two explosions were probably caused by a buildup of hydrogen, but it isn't certain whether that was the cause of this explosion as well.

The vents that emergency workers had hoped to use to flood the reactor chamber with seawater were malfunctioning, meaning that the core was dry (and un-cooled) for several hours. The vents finally started working in the early morning, but the chamber wasn't filling with water the way they had hoped, perhaps because of a leak.

A meltdown is still possible, but while radiation levels in the area are considered "elevated," they are low enough that it's very unlikely that the vessels that contain the reactor cores have been breached.

3/15/11 Update: Fire at 4th reactor
Shortly after the explosion at reactor 2 (the third explosion), a fire started at reactor 4. Between the fire and the explosion, radiation levels at the site briefly spiked to about 167 times the average annual dose. Reactor 4 actually wasn't producing power when the tsunami hit, but it did contain a cooling pool for spent fuel assemblies.

Nuclear fuel that has decayed to the point where it's not useful for sustaining a nuclear reaction still produces a lot of heat, and so it's stored in a pool of water for years to deal with the heat and radiation. Reactor 4 at Fukishima has one of these pools, and—just like with the active reactors—it looks like the cooling system was malfunctioning, which allowed the water in the pool to boil away, exposing the spent fuel. The spent fuel likely heated up until it ignited, or caused a fire in the building.

Authorities are now warning people living as far as 20 miles away from the plant to stay inside to avoid any radioactive fallout. As for the emergency workers at Fukushima, CNN's expert says, "Their situation is not great. It's pretty clear that they will be getting very high doses of radiation. There's certainly the potential for lethal doses of radiation. They know it, and I think you have to call these people heroes."

Update: 2 Reactor containment vessels probably cracked
Japanese officials think that the spike of radiation around the Fukushima plant last night might have been associated with a cracked containment vessel in one of the reactors. Today, they think a second container might be cracked as well, and leaking radioactive steam.

Feb
10
2011

Lisa Jackson: The head of the EPA met with House Republicans recently to discuss carbon regulation.
Lisa Jackson: The head of the EPA met with House Republicans recently to discuss carbon regulation.Courtesy EPA
I'm assuming that you aren't at home watching dense legal proceedings related to the regulation of molecules in our atmosphere. So here's the timeline of a recent important story.

  1. Humans figure out how to turn things (engines, turbines) by burning coal and petroleum. This makes like life a whole lot better in lots of ways.
  2. Scientists figure out that, all that burning is causing some problems. When we burn that stuff, we put carbon in the atmosphere and that's disrupting the natural climate system leading to all kinds of problems.
  3. Some different humans hear about this science and think we should pass a law. This law should put some limits on how much carbon we put into the atmosphere.
  4. The humans in the Republican controlled House don't like this idea, because they think these limits would cripple the economy. Oh, and some of them don't even believe the scientists. Since these Republicans are in charge right now, no new law.
  5. The humans over at the Environmental Protection Agency, who are mostly scientists, notice that they should already be regulating all this carbon, because of an existing law, the Clean Air Act.
  6. The Supreme Court agrees
  7. The House Republicans, disagree and call a hearing with the head of the EPA.
  8. Who knows what's next...

OK, you're up to date. Unfortunately the media is framing this issue in military terms. "The coming battle." "EPA and Republicans spar over climate change." "EPA blocks Republican rocket launcher with sweet ion science shield." Yeah, I made that last one up. But we don't need battles, we need conversations and action.

My point is that this issue is a great opportunity to have a discussion about how science is used in our public policy decisions. Do you think the EPA is too focused on the scientific findings related to climate change? Are they ignoring the economic impacts? Are you frustrated with some of the Republican views that outright deny the scientific findings on what's causing climate disruption? Are they ignoring real facts? Could this issue be alleviated by better science education?

Dec
16
2010

I was not even a thought in the 1970s, but I've heard it was a pretty good time to be a rock. People took you as their pets, and I'll bet Professor Lawrence Edwards had a couple Pet Rocks back in the day.

Family Portrait: From left to right: Momma Igneous, Baby Sedimentary, and Poppa Metamorphic.
Family Portrait: From left to right: Momma Igneous, Baby Sedimentary, and Poppa Metamorphic.Courtesy Wikimedia Commons

You see, Edwards is an isotope geochemist, which sounds just about as awesome as it is: he studies the teeny tiny radioactive elements in rocks. These elements help Edwards date rocks. No, that doesn't mean he wines and dines them. Quite the opposite! Edwards developed a sneaky way to figure out how old they are (and let me tell you, nobody wants to be reminded of their age when they're hundreds of thousands of years old).

Edwards' method is similar to carbon-14 dating, only way better. In certain kinds of rocks, Edwards can date rocks as old as 500,000 years compared to carbon-14's measly 50,000 years. That's a whole order of magnitude older! Here's how Edwards' method works: Scientists know that half of any quantity of uranium decays into thorium every 245,500 years. Edwards uses a mass spectrometer to measure the ratio of two radioactive elements -- uranium and thorium. Then, Edwards compares the present ratio of uranium to thorium to what scientists would expect from the half-life decay and bada-bing, bada-boom! Simply genius.

Why am I getting all hyped up over some old rocks? Because they're helping us learn more about ourselves and the tenuous place we hold in this world. For example, Edwards has used his super-special method to trace the strength of monsoon seasons in China. Turns out weak monsoon seasons correlate with the fall of several historical dynasties, and strong monsoons correlate with climatic warming in Europe. Edwards calls this work,

"the best-dated climate record covering this time period."

Nov
19
2010

Glowing Trees
Glowing TreesCourtesy This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot on 09:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC) by Manoillon (talk). On that date it was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Bioluminescence. Think fireflies. Or anglerfish. Or your friendly neighborhood boulevard tree. Wha? Yep. Recently the Royal Society of Chemistry published (and gave their royal thumbs-up to) Dr. Yen-Hsun Wu’s paper in which he describes eliminating the need for energy-sapping streetlights by injecting trees with gold nanoshells.

According to inhabitat (design will save the world):

By implanting the gold nanoparticles into the leaves of the Bacopa caroliniana plants, the scientists were able to induce the chlorophyll in the leaves to produce a red emission. Under a high wavelength of ultraviolet light, the gold nanoparticles were able to produce a blue-violet fluorescence to trigger a red emission in the surrounding chlorophyll.

Popular Science is just as psyched:

This ingenious triple threat of an idea could simultaneously reduce carbon emissions, cut electricity costs and reduce light pollution, without sacrificing the safety that streetlights bring.

Creepy? Cool? You decide.