Synthetic Materials Set New World Record For Greatest Amount of Surface Area

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Synthetic Materials Set New World Record For Greatest Amount of Surface Area

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @03:09PM from the narrowly-beating-out-your-mamma dept.

Zothecula writes "Researchers at Northwestern University, Illinois, have broken a world record in the creation of two synthetic materials, named NU-109 and NU-110, which have the greatest amount of surface areas of any material to date (abstract). To put this into perspective: if one were able to take a crystal of NU-110 the size of a grain of salt, and somehow unfold it, the surface area would cover a desktop. Additionally, the internal surface area of just one gram of the new material would cover one-and-a-half football fields."

96 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

SCP by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 15:19 · Score: 0

I like the names. Makes them sound like SCP materials.
Safe class, probably.
1. Re:SCP by Riddler+Sensei · 2012-09-11 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  Containment Procedures: Ummm...a small box?
SI units, please by Lumpio- · 2012-09-11 15:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Could we have the equivalent of "a desktop" and "one-and-a-half football fields" in a more scientific unit? I'm not American enough to remember how big a "football field" is.
1. Re:SI units, please by cheater512 · 2012-09-11 15:25 · Score: 2
  
  From TFA it seems to be 7,000 m2/g.
2. Re:SI units, please by binarylarry · 2012-09-11 15:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  How many magic bags of holding is it comparable to?
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
3. Re:SI units, please by codepigeon · 2012-09-11 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  1.2 baseball fields = 1 football field or if you prefer
  
  one desk = the surface area of a 30pack of Budweiser
4. Re:SI units, please by Gothmolly · 2012-09-11 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  You people have football fields too.
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
5. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  And as an American I don't know what a gram is.
6. Re:SI units, please by Nemyst · 2012-09-11 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  That would be 1.46e32 barns.
  (Or 0.0146 km squared if you want to be boring...)
7. Re:SI units, please by TapeCutter · 2012-09-11 16:22 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's the old woman who gave birth to your "mom".
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
8. Re:SI units, please by Nemyst · 2012-09-11 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I get for skimming the abstract. 0.0146km^2/g is the hypothetical maximum surface area they have determined through computational simulations. The actual surface area of the material they have conceived is around 7000 m^2/g.
9. Re:SI units, please by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-09-11 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not American enough to remember how big a "football field" is.
  about three quarters of an Association pitch.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
10. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  An egg is roughly 60 gram. (chicken)
11. Re:SI units, please by fractoid · 2012-09-11 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  One.
  
  (Trick question. It's always comparable to one.)
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
12. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  A sugar packet is 1 gram.
13. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it is the inverse of a bag of holding. A bag of holding has a small surface area for a huge internal volume.
14. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  Relate it to the cocaine you buy and it becomes more manageable.
15. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  How small are these objects? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt surface area lose meaning at a small enough scale? E.g. What is the surface area of an atom? Of the electrons and protons and quarks it contains? Isnt this like trying to find the length of an edge on a fractal?
16. Re:SI units, please by BurningFeetMan · 2012-09-11 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  How many "Sydney Harbours" is that? Which then translates to how many Olympic sized swimming pools?
17. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  1 Desktop, a Dt? A football field, 1 FBF? Seriously, these are not standard units? :-)
18. Re:SI units, please by kasper37 · 2012-09-11 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  The point is to convey scale, and for the vast majority of people, salt, desktop, gram and football field do a better job of that than 1x10-4 m^3, 1 m^2, gram and 5000 m^2.
19. Re:SI units, please by mwvdlee · 2012-09-11 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  1.2 baseball fields = 1 football field or if you prefer
  one desk = the surface area of a 30pack of Budweiser
  You darn americans with your strange units of measurement...
  How many Heinekens does it measure?
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
20. Re:SI units, please by Patch86 · 2012-09-11 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  A football pitch is roughly one acre. Which is still not SI, but is one furlong by one chain if that helps.
21. Re:SI units, please by petsounds · 2012-09-11 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Heineken?? Fuck that shit! PABST BLUE RIBBON!
22. Re:SI units, please by drkim · 2012-09-11 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, this is /.
  That surface area is the same as Bill Gates home+garage on Lake Washington. (Really.)
23. Re:SI units, please by pahles · 2012-09-11 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  Blame your government!
  
  --
  Sig?
24. Re:SI units, please by mwvdlee · 2012-09-11 20:44 · Score: 2
  
  Heineken?? Fuck that shit!
  Taking into account the inner metric diameter of the neck of a Heineken bottle, I regret to inform you that your request cannot be granted due to mechanical incompatibilities.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
25. Re:SI units, please by petsounds · 2012-09-11 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  swooooosh...
  Blue Velvet
26. Re:SI units, please by mwvdlee · 2012-09-11 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Ah... never seen that movie :)
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
27. Re:SI units, please by chrismcb · 2012-09-11 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  Could we have the equivalent of "a desktop" and "one-and-a-half football fields" in a more scientific unit? I'm not American enough to remember how big a "football field" is.
  What does a "football field" have to do with America? Yes an American Football field size isn't the same as the rest of the world Football field... But it is close enough for this article.
28. Re:SI units, please by doktorjayd · 2012-09-11 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  we do indeed, but they arent like yours.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football_playing_field
  they arent of a regulation size either.
  which brings us back to: SI units, please
29. Re:SI units, please by Arancaytar · 2012-09-11 23:06 · Score: 2
  
  I'd roughly estimate a football field to be between 0.1 and 0.2 Libraries of Congress.
30. Re:SI units, please by Charliemopps · 2012-09-11 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, we need the "libraries of congress" conversion to truly understand these numbers.
31. Re:SI units, please by Archimagus · 2012-09-12 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Our government tried to switch, the people wouldn't.
32. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  Step 1: Turn bottle around.
  Step 2: Turn yourself around.
  See, now there's plenty of room!
33. Re:SI units, please by Chris+Mattern · 2012-09-12 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well, there's not such thing as a standard desktop, so your guess is as good as mine on that. A US football field, however, is 120 yards long (including the end zones) by 160 feet wide, so it's 57,600 square feet, or 6400 square yards.
34. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  you're off by a mile! 1 furlong x 1 chain = 220 x 22 yards. an american
  football field on the other hand is 120 x 53 and 1/3 yards.
35. Re:SI units, please by Nadaka · 2012-09-12 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  You should be more worried about the outer diameter. Ouch.
36. Re:SI units, please by LeadSongDog · 2012-09-12 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  an american football field on the other hand is 120 x 53 and 1/3 yards.
  Well, that explains why the Bills keep losing: they've been stopping after 100!
  
  --
  Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
37. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  So, (magic bag of holdings) ^ -1 , then.
38. Re:SI units, please by mcgrew · 2012-09-12 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  The guy you quoted is wrong. Unfold a 30 pack beer box and it's a very small desk.; a desk is a little less than two meters wide and a little more than a meter the other way. And a can of Heinie is the same size and shape as a can of Bud; liquid containers here actually use metric measurements, although there's a conversiion printed on the label.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
39. Re:SI units, please by GameboyRMH · 2012-09-12 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  1 Heineken is about 0.7 regular beers from the bottles they sell around here...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
40. Re:SI units, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Think soccer field instead of footbal field, if you like... Seriously, the internal surface area is about 7 square kilometers per kilogram or ~1.2 square miles per pound. The two materials are crystalline, the channels in each are completely uniform, and their widths are precisely known, as are the locations and identities of all the component atoms, based on x-ray diffraction and related measurements. The original article shows out that the hypothetical ceiling for this class of materials is around 15 square kilometers per kilogram -- much higher than scientists previously imagined. This opens up potential applications that were previously thought to be out of reach and perhaps is a more important finding over the long term than the actual design and assembly of the new record holders. The surface area per unit of mass of each of the two new materials is substantially higher than that of graphene (even counting the area on both sides of a graphene sheet) and much higher than even the lightest aerogels. (Aerogels, though, do have lower densities -- mainly because the irregular pores and channels within them are much larger than in the new materials.)
  Strictly speaking, the *accessible* surface area of a porous material depends on the size of whatever it is that you are trying to pack on the surface. (In other words, are the probe particles larger than or smaller than the widths of the holes in these sponge-like compounds?) With these materials, the surface area was examined both experimentally and computationally by packing a single layer of small molecules throughout the crystal, both inside and out. This makes sense from a practical standpoint since the most intriguing potential near term applications of these and closely related materials are controlled storage and release of natural gas (mainly methane, a small molecule; now cost-competitive with gasoline as a vehicle fuel), carbon capture (in the form of CO2), storage and release of molecular hydrogen (the ultimate clean-burning fuel and also useable in fuel cells; google "Mercedes-Benz F-125 concept car" where storage is described as the biggest remaining technical challenge), separation of very similar molecules (for example ethane versus ethylene) that are used commercially in unbelievably large quantities but are very expensive (both in dollars/euros and energy) to separate by the best existing methods, e.g. cryogenic distillation, and capture of and protection against improvised chemical weapons (for example, stolen toxic industrial chemicals such as propylene oxide, ammonia, or sulfur dioxide). To stop these volatile chemicals from entering lungs, you need a filtering material that lets air through but has a gigantic surface area for binding the chemical threats and yet weighs very little. Unfortunately, compounds like ammonia sail straight through the active sorbent currently used in gas masks (mainly graphene/graphite-like porous carbon).
Now we know by NEDHead · 2012-09-11 15:25 · Score: 1

where the socks disappear
And to put this in perspective further... by Jiro · 2012-09-11 15:25 · Score: 2

What was the previous record? This is a lousy article, since it gives us no reason to think that this is really a breakthrough. From the description it sounds like an aerogel.
1. Re:And to put this in perspective further... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  i thought areogels just contained a lot of air/gas.
2. Re:And to put this in perspective further... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  r u kidding? if you are smart enogh, you would know that aerogels has less than 1000m2/g surface and these materials have higher than 70000.
What are the implications? by joelwhitehouse · 2012-09-11 15:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

The article says the synthetic material is porous. Can this material be used as a water filter? If the material forms a cage like structure, can it be used in medicine to trap a virus or bacterium before infection occurs? What can you do with such a material?
1. Re:What are the implications? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  Read the article. It's in JACS, every university will have a subscription to that.
2. Re:What are the implications? by NEDHead · 2012-09-11 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  No good as a water filter - no matter how much you pour in it just vanishes....
3. Re:What are the implications? by jo_ham · 2012-09-11 15:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Catalysis, gas storage, filtering, scaffolds for molecular construction etc.
  Extremely high surface area materials are already extensively used in chemistry for this sort of thing.
4. Re:What are the implications? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  I am co-author on this paper. Yes, it can potentially be used as a water filter! The pores of these MOFs are too small to trap a virus, but there are other MOFs that could do that potentially.
5. Re:What are the implications? by SydShamino · 2012-09-11 16:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Depending on its electrical properties it could be a component of an ultracapacitor.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
6. Re:What are the implications? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 19:06 · Score: 0
  
  What would happen if we put some of it into a bottle of cola?
7. Re:What are the implications? by drkim · 2012-09-11 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Depending on its electrical properties it could be a component of an ultracapacitor.
  ...or a very tiny antenna. (similar to the way they are using fractal antennae.)
8. Re:What are the implications? by drkim · 2012-09-11 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Drug delivery.
9. Re:What are the implications? by Jade_Wayfarer · 2012-09-11 20:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I thought Mexicans were unquestionable leaders in this field?
  
  (Hey, I have nothing against Mexicans or even light drugs like the weed, really.)
  
  --
  Absence of proof != proof of absence.
10. Re:What are the implications? by thegarbz · 2012-09-11 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  Potentially oil refining. Many processes in the oil industry such as fluidised catalytic cracking rely on a catalyst with really large surface area to control the thermal cracking of hydrocarbons. The question is, for it to be useful in many chemical and process plants, will it survive being heated to 700degC
11. Re:What are the implications? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  But could it also be part of a flux capacitor?
12. Re:What are the implications? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us somehow managed to graduate from university.
13. Re:What are the implications? by mug+funky · 2012-09-11 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  would it be a possible replacement for activated carbon as an adsorbent?
  would it be reusable?
14. Re:What are the implications? by JustOK · 2012-09-12 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  too SMALL to trap a virus?
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
15. Re:What are the implications? by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-12 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Metal Oxide Film?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
16. Re:What are the implications? by chriswilmer · 2012-09-12 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely! Today, these MOFs are more expensive than activated carbon, but tomorrow who knows? Also, MOFs can potentially filter out things that activated carbon can't.
17. Re:What are the implications? by chriswilmer · 2012-09-12 02:14 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, too small! The smallest virus that I am aware of has a diameter of 20 nanometers. The pores of MOFs are typically only a few nanometers (which is huge when it comes to trapping gas molecules). However, some day we may be able to design MOFs with much larger pores, which will be really cool for biological applications.
18. Re:What are the implications? by mcgrew · 2012-09-12 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  No good as a water filter - no matter how much you pour in it just vanishes
  My god, someone invented Thiotimoline!!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
19. Re:What are the implications? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  I thought Mexicans were unquestionable leaders in this field?
  Keep your racism to yourself, please.
20. Re:What are the implications? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  No es chistoso.
Capacitor by pcjunky · 2012-09-11 15:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wonder how large a capacitor density could e made with this stuff?
1. Re:Capacitor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody knows! It's a fertile area for future research.
2. Re:Capacitor by inode_buddha · 2012-09-11 16:35 · Score: 2
  
  Ahh hell, that's *exactly* the first thing I was thinking... I remember when aerogel came out...
  
  --
  C|N>K
It's bigger... by zawarski · 2012-09-11 15:46 · Score: 2, Funny

...on the inside!
1. Re:It's bigger... by boarder8925 · 2012-09-11 15:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Time and Relative Dimension in Salt
  
  --
  Keep your eyes to the sky.
A video about MOFs by chriswilmer · 2012-09-11 16:15 · Score: 3, Informative

For those of you who are curious to know more about our MOF research at Northwestern University: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaKSekjAnqY
1. Re:A video about MOFs by Martin+Soto · 2012-09-11 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  This is a very illustrative video, worth spending a few minutes on if you are new to this topic like I am.
Aerogel? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 17:39 · Score: 0

Isn't this just another way of describing an aerogel?
1. Re:Aerogel? by omnichad · 2012-09-12 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't aerogel specify density more than surface area? I mean yes, it has a huge surface area, but that wasn't the single identifying characteristic.
Pedantry FTW by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-11 19:15 · Score: 1

which have the greatest amount of surface areas of any material to date

if one were able to take a crystal of NU-110 the size of a grain of salt, and somehow unfold it, the surface area would cover a desktop.
That's nothing, I've got a tablecloth that covers an entire table.
But seriously folks, is this area/volume? Area/mass?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Pedantry FTW by chriswilmer · 2012-09-12 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  The record that is broken is an area/mass value. Specifically, 7100 meters squared per gram of material (NU-110).
2. Re:Pedantry FTW by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-12 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure I'm wrapping my head around this properly. How would this area compare, say, to a hypothetical single layer of graphite?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:Pedantry FTW by chriswilmer · 2012-09-12 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  A single layer of graphite (which is called graphene) would have a higher surface area per unit weight than this MOF. However, try making three-dimensional porous structure out of it!
4. Re:Pedantry FTW by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-12 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  However, try making three-dimensional porous structure out of it!
  'k. brb.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
....What size is the desktop you say? by cre_slash · 2012-09-11 20:24 · Score: 0

Ah, that depends on the resolution....
Is it sticky? by Another,+completely · 2012-09-11 20:55 · Score: 2

Does this do the van der Waals force trick that Gecko feet do, or does it need to be more flexible for that?
1. Re:Is it sticky? by SleazyRidr · 2012-09-12 00:50 · Score: 2
  
  The surface area is mostly holes running through each 'grain' of this stuff, so you can't put it up against another surface to do that trick.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
nearing SA of Gabriel's horn? by xlovenuggetx · 2012-09-11 23:34 · Score: 1

i don't think so!
Finally - something better than Mentos! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:48 · Score: 0

*grabs some Diet Coke bottles*
Really useful for Youtube by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:04 · Score: 0

This stuff must be so much better than Mentos in my diet Coke.
Yeah!!! by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-09-12 01:40 · Score: 1

Doing sh*t because we can! Now scientists will spend 100 years trying to figure out what to do with these crystals. Will end up in iPhone50 S.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
1. Re:Yeah!!! by chriswilmer · 2012-09-12 02:18 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, very high surface area materials already have a lot of important industrial uses. Your at-home water filters, for example, are function entirely on the basis of having a larger surface area to weight ratio. So, materials like these have immediate uses as water filters (and many many other things, such as storing natural gas in cars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaKSekjAnqY).
Police Box by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:45 · Score: 1

What would happen if I grew a Police Box out of these crystals?
Paraphrasing Steven Wright... by mlosh · 2012-09-12 01:58 · Score: 1

It's a small grain of NU-110, but I wouldn't want to paint it.
Mod parent DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:59 · Score: 0

+4? Please.
Please tell me how this would be used as an ultracapacitor. Just because you have surface area does NOT mean that there is any way to create plates.
People posting on this site are incredibly stupid. The moderators might just be more stupid.
1. Re:Mod parent DOWN! by SydShamino · 2012-09-12 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  But if there was a way to create plates it could be a component of an ultracapacitor.
  The OP was asking what the possible uses might be. I made one up. That's all anyone else did who replied, too.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
This may be slightly pedantic, but... by edraven · 2012-09-12 02:12 · Score: 1

Should they not be talking about the greatest _ratio_ of surface area to volume? The Earth itself, for example, has a pretty great amount of surface area.
NU-110 + 2l bottle of Coke? by Sherloqq · 2012-09-12 05:51 · Score: 1

So what happens when you drop a grain of it into a bottle of Coke...

--
Have EVDO, will travel.