when nano go to production for industrial applications, it needs very stable and reproducible properties, To my point of view and for specific applications, this is what is missing the most today. Everybody is ok to say yes it works in research labs, but probably not suffiently for a every day use in commercial products.

when nano go to production for industrial applications, it needs very stable and reproducible properties, To my point of view and for specific applications, this is what is missing the most today. Everybody is ok to say yes it works in research labs, but probably not suffiently for a every day use in commercial products.

How many of these so-called nano technologies are really practical.. for example.. glucose sensor.. thousands of papers on nano based glucose sensors, but most of them are expensive & cumbersome when compared to existing technologies and they will never be commercialized.

But there are already some excellent examples of commercialization of nano technologies.. Ex: Silicon nano wire based Lithium ion batteries from Stanford Univ's Yi Cui lab, spin off company is Ampirius

Thank you for nice explanation but can we have some remedy to fight back on these issues so that nanotechnology could also reach to its place like micro-electronics and micro-machining.

Do we have solution to this inherent problem related with this nano research?

I'd like to join the discussion, and say a few words on the topic suggested. First, I'd try to add to Ignacio a little. The problem is (at least) two-fold: indeed, some of academic research might be far from the real-life samples (look up, e.g. "material gap" and "pressure gap"). However, let me express my doubts in the fact that most of industrial R&D employees understand the processes on the "nano"- level. Yes, you'll have to merge the two approaches together somehow. And a nice example of where a lab and a factory are merged is an industrial process for a central processor in your computer. I bet, you'd be surprised how complex it is and how close it comes to a definition of nanotechnology (including single crystal Si wafers production, nano-lithography, etc - all the sub-processes that are used in the computer hardware production). That's the most obvious argument, but one could think of some others. Let me also remind you, that e.g. IBM has one of the foremost R&D in surface science/microscopies, and that papers they produce are published in high-impact factor journals on a regular basis. Regarding graphene - if demanded industrially, one could use chemical vapor deposition of graphene on metal foil, like copper, in a vacuum of 1E-6 - 1E-7 mbar, which is not even UHV, and could be in principle achieved industrially. This has to be investigated properly, but production of high-quality graphene is not the most challenging task. The biggest problem with graphene (as I see it) is its direct implementation into devices, and the ease of graphene's response to an external impact (from this point the discussion can go into the other direction, so let's not restrict ourselves to graphene business only). To my mind, a suitable answer to Saurav's question is:

"Saurav, in order to cover big distances humanity first used feet. Then horses were domesticated, and wheel was invented. First ships started to float across the oceans. A little while after that, as a result of technological progress, there were cars, and trains appeared, as well as planes and even rockets. But we do not use rockets or planes to go to a Sunday market across the street. We do not take a taxi to take us from bedroom to a toilet. The invention of rockets and planes did not make trains to disappear. Now you probably see what I am trying to tell you. Nanotechnologies ain't a panacea or universal answer to all the questions of mankind. And there unlikely going to be one. We are using nanotechnologies right now - from fabrication of computer chips, and individual targeted medication/drugs to steel industries, etc - only where these are economically viable. One could theoretically make a superfast transistor, or even a computer based on e.g. graphene chip - but it is going to cost like constructing an orbital station and maintaining it for years... Would we come one day to the technologies, based on the individual-atom-manipulation (which would already be sub-nanotechnology)? - Probably, yes. Would we use this kind of technologies for everything? - Probably, no."

Hope this answers your question. There is no universal solution, since there is no universal nanotechnology - there are likely numerous technologies, which are to certain extent scalable to -micro-, -nano-, -pico-, -femto-, -atto-, etc, as well as mega, giga, tera...... :)

Best regards

Nikolay Vinogradov : well said i am totally agree with the argument you have given. I think you have analyzed this topic rational and depicted each point very well.

I have another point. The effects of nano-objects in the environment and the human health have not yet been tested satisfactory in all their life cycle. There are initiatives, particularly I know the one from the European Council, to do efforts of standarizing, measuring, making nomenclature and parameters to create regulations and quality measures to keep nano safe to everybody both in consumer products, end life, occupational health and so on. I suppose this is a huge constraint to industry and I guess this will retard in some extent the arrival of the academic research on nano to the real life applications. Happily, because the extent of damage could be enormous if nano objects begin to spread everywhere without any sort of control. On the other side, once regulated and the exposure risks minimized, the industry will be interested to invest as they did for example with micro objects in cosmetics or in the gluten free markets, in the thin film solar cells and so on. Nevertheless, remember what happened with thin film solar cells after the silicon shortage, they become less attractive and many small industries close... Well, these are reflections... hope useful.

I think it is necessary to understand a lot about the hype that has happened with the start of Nanotechnology. Many of the early researchers have really hyped the things to get the funding and demonstrated things at the lab level which could not be extended on a commercial scale. As said by Driss Soubane these are more of self promotion of a few people who are well connected. Nanotechnology certainly has potential in a number of domains but not necessarily the solution for everything. Also the real value of Nanotechnology is not being properly communicated to the masses in a way they understand well. One place where such information available is

http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/

Project on Emerging Technologies – partnership between the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts

The project is dedicated to helping ensure that, as nanotechnologies advance, possible risks are minimized, public and consumer engagement remains strong, and the potential benefits of these new technologies are realized.

Similarly the dangers of Nanotechnology are overly dramatized with statements such as

Health and the environmental impacts associated with the exposure to many of the engineered nanomaterials are still uncertain

Some nanomaterials may initiate catalytic reactions depending on their composition and structure that would not otherwise be anticipated based on their chemical composition.

“Nano particles can enter the body and its vital organs [through the skin & nasal passages], including the brain, much more easily than can larger particles.”

“Some nanoparticles are extremely combustible and can spontaneously burst into flames.”

Nanopollutants are nanoparticles small enough to enter your lungs or be absorbed by your skin.

Unfortunately there is still no systematic study large enough to understand the risks of nanotechnology.