66
nanotimes News in Brief
unlike some of its competitors, it can be used on dental mirrors and food wrap in refrigerated dis- plays.”
Tests have shown Berkeley Lab’s Nanostructured An- tifogging Coating to be more transparent, last much longer (years compared to months) and cost less than competing antifogging technologies.
2
Invention of the Magnetic Resonance Microarray Imaging (MMRI) techno- logy was led by Alexander Pines, an internationally recognized leader in the
development of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and its daughter technology MRI, and by Vikram Bajaj, a Project Scientist in Pines’ research group. Other principal investigators on the develop- ment team behind this work were David Wemmer and Matthew Francis. Pines, Bajaj and Francis are affiliated with Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division; Wemmer is with the Physical Biosciences Division.
MMRI combines remote instrumentation, JPEG- style image compression algorithms, and other key enhancements to image materials flowing through microfluidic “lab-on-a-chip” devices and zoom in on microscopic objects of particular interest with unpre- cedented spatial and time resolutions. Portable and magnet-free, MMRI technology can provide fast, on- site analyses of medical, environmental or industrial fluids. With its high degree of spatial resolution, it can quickly capture the results of hundreds or thou- sands of parallel assays on a single microfluidic chip.
“Our technology enables time-resolved imaging of multi-channel flow; dispenses with the need for
MMRI of water flowing through a constricted microfluidic channel as a series of image ‘snapshots’ over a given time of flight. © LBL
http://www.lbl.gov
h t t p : / /www. r dma g . c om/Awa r d s / RD- 1 0 0 - Awards/2011/06/R-D-100-2011-Winners-Overview/
11-06/07 :: June/July 2011
large, expensive magnets for NMR analysis; is able to assay complex, unprocessed mixtures in one pass; and adds portability to NMR/MRI,” Bajaj says. “The cost of components for our MMRI technology is also far less than conventional NMR/MRI components.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111