Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />ACS Spring 2010 National Meeting and Exposition, March 22, 2010 <br...
Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Presentation Outline<br /><ul><li>Goal of the Project
Current Technology and Its Limitations
Project Work Plan
Project Progress
Acknowledgements</li></ul>carbon vs nano<br />
Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Project Goal and Envisioned Product<br />Prepare and test materials...
Lightweight
Air-permeable
Comfortable</li></li></ul><li>Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Available Technology<br /><ul><li>Imp...
Generally made of rubber or neoprene or other elastomers
Heavy and bulky
Hot due to lack of air and water vapor permeability
Uncomfortable to wear
Ex: OSHA approved Level A suit
Air-permeable materials.
Shell fabric; a layer of sorptive material; a liner fabric
Low physical burden
High water vapor permeability
Protection can be low in some instances
Ex: JSLIST suit
Semi-permeable materials.
Porous and solution-diffusion membranes
of 23

Nanoprotective Garments

Using nano particles in protective clothing
Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Source: www.slideshare.net


Transcripts - Nanoprotective Garments

  • 1. Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />ACS Spring 2010 National Meeting and Exposition, March 22, 2010 <br />From Nanoparticles to Novel Protective Garments<br />Sponsored by : NIOSH<br />Phase II SBIR: Grant No. 2R44OH007963-02A2<br />Shyamala Rajagopalan, Ph.D.<br />Manager, Research & Project Development<br />NanoScale Corporation, Manhattan, KS<br />www.NanoScaleCorp.com<br />
  • 2. Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Presentation Outline<br /><ul><li>Goal of the Project
  • 3. Current Technology and Its Limitations
  • 4. Project Work Plan
  • 5. Project Progress
  • 6. Acknowledgements</li></ul>carbon vs nano<br />
  • 7. Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Project Goal and Envisioned Product<br />Prepare and test materials for clothing to protect against chemical hazards.<br /><ul><li>Protective
  • 8. Lightweight
  • 9. Air-permeable
  • 10. Comfortable</li></li></ul><li>Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Available Technology<br /><ul><li>Impermeable materials.
  • 11. Generally made of rubber or neoprene or other elastomers
  • 12. Heavy and bulky
  • 13. Hot due to lack of air and water vapor permeability
  • 14. Uncomfortable to wear
  • 15. Ex: OSHA approved Level A suit
  • 16. Air-permeable materials.
  • 17. Shell fabric; a layer of sorptive material; a liner fabric
  • 18. Low physical burden
  • 19. High water vapor permeability
  • 20. Protection can be low in some instances
  • 21. Ex: JSLIST suit
  • 22. Semi-permeable materials.
  • 23. Porous and solution-diffusion membranes
  • 24. Ex: Gore-Tex
  • 25. Selectively permeable materials.
  • 26. Thin, lightweight, layered, and flexible
  • 27. Ex: US Army NSC; Gore-Tex; DuPont</li></li></ul><li>Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Current Technology - Limitations<br /><ul><li>Protective textiles based on carbon materials need REAL enhancement.
  • 28. Only partial protectionis afforded by activated carbon through physical entrapment of toxins.
  • 29. Activated carbon does not neutralizeadsorbed chemicals; it simply stores them.
  • 30. Preferential adsorption of water by carbons or increase in temperature results in off-gassingof adsorbed toxins.
  • 31. Untreated carbon has little effect upon acid or alkaline gases.</li></li></ul><li>Targeted Laminate Properties <br /><ul><li>Weight reduction is targeted to come from the fabric/adhesive.
  • 32. Effect of sorbent on the textile’s air permeability is unknown.
  • 33. Sorbent immobilization protocol on the textile will also play a critical role in the laminate’s properties. </li></ul>Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 34. Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Project Work Plan<br />Task 1<br />Preparation of granulated mixed nanoparticles<br />Month 1 - Month 4<br />Task 2<br />Performance evaluation and down selection<br />Month 1 - Month 5<br />Task 3<br />Textile/nanoparticleintegration<br />Month 3 - Month 11<br />Task 4<br />Permeation testing<br />Month 6 - Month 12<br />Task 6<br />Prototype production<br />Month 18 - Month 24<br />Task 5<br />Scale-up studies<br />Month 13 - Month 17<br />
  • 35. Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Air Filtration Test Apparatus<br />Challenge<br />Agent<br />Compressed <br />Air<br />Water<br />Humidity Controller<br />Vent to <br />Hood<br /><ul><li>Goal is to screen sorbents for initial downselection.
  • 36. Challenge and breakthrough concentrations are based on OSHA PEL/IDLH.</li></ul>Sorbent<br />Test Bed<br />FT-IR w/<br />16 m Gas Cell<br />Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 37. Breakthrough Test Results<br /><ul><li>Breakthrough time in minutes.
  • 38. Average of 3 trials.
  • 39. Single metal oxides.
  • 40. Bi-metal oxides.
  • 41. Tri-metal oxides.</li></ul>Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 42. Downselected Formulation<br />One nano material formulation was downselected and optimized based on breakthrough test results.<br />Granules based on downselected formulation have ≥70% Ball Pan Hardness.<br />No binders were required to harden the granules. <br />Used granule sizes: -60+120, -60+80 and -40+60 mesh.<br />Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 43. Health Effects and Safety<br />Acute toxicology testing done at the U.S. Army’s Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine (USACHPPM) under GLP.<br />NanoActive materials are no more toxic than their commercial counterparts Several materials have been tested.<br />Sub-chronic toxicology testing showed no detrimental effects (FAST-ACT).<br />Human immune cell testing by Prof. Paul Wright, Toxicology Unit, School of Medical Sciences RMIT in Melbourne, Australia.<br />No cytotoxicity to human immune cells in this study (FAST-ACT).<br />Dermal penetrationstudy by Dr. Deon van der Merwe, Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.<br />No penetration of intact human skin (FAST-ACT).<br />Lung effect study by Dr. John Pickrell, Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.<br />No lasting detrimental effects (FAST-ACT).<br />Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 44. Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Permeation Set Up – Initial Test<br />Vessel + Comfort Layer<br />Vessel + Comfort Layer + Sorbent + Black Liner<br />Vessel + Comfort Layer + Sorbent<br />Vessel + Comfort Layer + Sorbent + Black Liner + Cover Fabric<br /><ul><li>For DMMP testing: Water in inner vessel.
  • 45. For 2-CEES testing: Carbon beads in inner vessel and water in outer jar.</li></ul>Complete Permeation Test Set Up<br />
  • 46. Laminated Carbon Fabric -Key Points<br />A single layer of carbon beads is glued between black silk and comfort layers.<br />Adhesive Web Glue Sheet is used in the gluing of the carbon beads.<br />Fabric is stiff.<br />Fabric is slightly breathable.<br />Adhesive Web Glue Sheet also helps to contain the contaminant.<br />No agent permeation was seen.<br />No agent was seen on the cover fabric.<br />Solvent extraction showed intact agents from the laminate. <br />Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 47. Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />ASTM F739:Fabric Permeation Testing<br />ASTM F739 is designed to measure the permeation of liquids or gases under conditions of continuous contact:<br /><ul><li>Liquid agents are tested in the closed top/open loop configuration.
  • 48. Gaseous agents are tested in the open top/open loop configuration.</li></li></ul><li>Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />NFPA Standard Testing Conditions<br />Liquid agent. <br /><ul><li>Chamber temperature at 32˚ C (±3˚ C).
  • 49. Relative humidity of 80% (±5%).
  • 50. Collection gas flow at 1 LPM.</li></ul>Gaseous agents are tested under the same conditions with the gas flowing at 1 LPM through the challenge side.<br />Tests are run for 1h.<br />Select fabric samples were further extracted for retained chemicals and byproducts.<br />
  • 51. Reactive Liner - 2- Layers<br />Key Points:<br />Granules were well immobilized.<br />No shedding was observed.<br />Challenges:<br />Weighs 442 g/m2. <br />Stiff.<br />Air permeability: 6.12 cm3/cm2.s.<br />Did not meet requirements of a Class 2 Protective Garment.<br />1st Reactive Liner<br />Key Points:<br /><ul><li>Weighs 338 g/m2.
  • 52. Air permeation: 57 cm3/cm2.s.
  • 53. Granules were well immobilized.
  • 54. No shedding was observed.
  • 55. More flexible.
  • 56. Passed permeation tests as Class 2 protective garment.</li></ul>Challenges:<br /><ul><li>Problems with locating the same fabric.
  • 57. Little stiffer than the carbon bead laminate.</li></ul>2nd Reactive Liner<br />Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 58. Reactive Liner – 3 - Layers<br />1st Reactive Liner<br />Key Points:<br />Laminate weighs 377 g/m2.<br />Air permeability 71.9 cm3/cm2/s.<br />Passes Class 2 Protective Garment requirements.<br />Challenges:<br />Laminate weight.<br />Mobile granules. <br />Granules are smaller than the pore size of the interfacing.<br />Shedding is an issue.<br />Manufacturability of a 3-layer configuration.<br />2nd Reactive Liner<br />Key Points:<br /><ul><li>Weight: 387 g/m2
  • 59. Air Permeability: 73 cm3/cm2/s.
  • 60. Granules fairly well secured, very minimal shedding.
  • 61. Passes as a Class 2 protective garment.</li></ul>Challenges:<br /><ul><li>Laminate weight.
  • 62. Manufacturability of a 3-layer configuration.</li></ul>Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 63. Products from Agent Chemisorption<br />Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 64. Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Permeation Test Samples from 2-CEES Experiments<br />Protocol<br /><ul><li>Loose sorbent was separated from textile and extracted with ethyl ether .
  • 65. Separated textile was extracted with ethyl ether .
  • 66. Laminated swatch containing sorbent was extracted as whole with ethyl ether .
  • 67. All samples were analyzed by GC-FPD.</li></ul>Outcome<br />Conclusions<br /><ul><li>Commercial textile (non-laminated) did not trap any 2-CEES or by-products.
  • 68. Textile (Commercial & NanoScale) containing carbons only physisorbs 2-CEES.
  • 69. NanoActive material containing swatch provided the least amount of extractable 2-CEES.
  • 70. Lamination is critical to reduce permeation.
  • 71. Destructive adsorption by nano materials was confirmed .</li></li></ul><li>Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Permeation Test Samples from DMMP Experiments<br />Protocol<br /><ul><li> Laminated control was extracted with ethyl ether.
  • 72. Laminated swatch containing sorbent was extracted with ethyl ether.
  • 73. All samples were analyzed by GC-FPD.</li></ul>Outcome<br />Conclusions<br /><ul><li> Laminated textile controls (no sorbent) contained low amounts of extractable DMMP with high permeation.
  • 74. Carbon containing textile swatches yielded large amount of extractable DMMP with low permeation.
  • 75. NanoActive material containing textile swatches yielded the least amount of extractable DMMP with low permeation.
  • 76. By-product characterization is in progress.
  • 77. Agent exposure threat is lower with nano materials containing textiles.</li></li></ul><li>Attestation of Agent - Sorbent Interaction<br />Protocol<br /><ul><li>Carbon and nano formulation were challenged against CWA simulants2-CEES and DMMP.
  • 78. Sampleswere analyzed using TGA up to 600°C (10°C/min heating rate).
  • 79. Temperature at which agent off-gassing from sorbent was recorded as reflection of binding strength.                 </li></ul>Conclusions: <br />NanoScale sorbent exhibited higher binding strength than carbon for 2-CEES and DMMP as reflected by higher onset and conclusion temperatures.<br />Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 80. Where are We Now?<br /><ul><li>Defining overall product concept/clothing system (classification by design, performance, and service life etc.).
  • 81. Defining market needs and identification of user needs (fire fighters, first responders, war fighters, drug raid, agriculture workers, chemical labs etc.).
  • 82. Performance and cost.</li></ul>Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />
  • 83. Serving Customer Needs Through Advanced Chemistry<br />Acknowledgements<br />Team Members at NanoScale Corp.<br />Chris Aikens<br />Shuvo Alam<br />Dennis Karote<br />Jane Langemeier<br />Cherry Leaym<br />Justin Millette<br />NIH/CDC/NIOSH<br />Fabric Suppliers<br />

Related Documents