Y6-February, 2016

February 23, 2016

Recorder: Kathryn

Attending Trainees: Vanessa, MK, Paulo, Chris, TJ, Kenny, Kevin, Catherine, Monique, Sonny, Teresa, Soheila, Andre

Faculty: Dr. Black

Staff: Kathryn

Meeting Called:  ~2:05 pm

Deliverable Status Updates:  Group 1 and 2, IR Module

Group 1: Development of Bladder Control System Using a Closed Loop Feedback
TJ, Monique, Donovan, MK, Andre and Chris
Monique opens with overview and background of the project goals, motivation, advantages.
Key points intended for March meeting were included here, primarily mention of the believed-to-be novel idea of using magnetic nanoparticles and 3D stereolithography. TJ gave more detail on the unique aspects of the project (SmartGel usage, stereolithograpy, absorption aspects).  Also gave Major Updates, where the group acknowledged recognizing that the deliverable will be a paper addressing select aspects of the project rather than something encompassing the entire original plan and a device with accompanying refinements. Gave the following projected ideas:

First Paper
  • Magnetic Nanoparticle Synthesis and Functionalization
  • Incorporation in Hydrogel and 3D Printing Process
  • Magnetic Actuation
Second Paper
  • Feedback Loop
  • Biosensing Component

Reiteration that the original project goal remains, but the addition of an update specifically involving the 3 bullet points noted for the first paper seemed like a suitable progression. Characterization of the magnetic nps, swelling rates of SmartGel and composite magnetic properties were mentioned as experiments still to be conducted for the paper.

Chris next discussed the “Spray-on EIT Armband”, based upon work done in another project that might offer some techniques and options for MK’s electrode and lead creation involved with the actuation, feedback and biosensing components.

Donovan then spoke briefly about the software program, which was received, and explained that it is a PC-based program only, and both he and Andre' have Macs.  Presents issues, not sure how they will be resolved at presetn.
.
TJ discussed some technique aspects regarding the gel, addressing solvent comparisons and specifying the potential suitability of an acetone/water combination as appropriate for the swelling components.  He also presented a very helpful and well-constructed initial outline for the group's deliverable/first paper,  some solvent issues regarding the swelling components for the gels (acetone/water combination). Dr. Black affirmed the outline as a good guide for all the groups to use as a reference in planning who will write what for their group deliverable.
Monique mentioned the need to establish a list of target journals for submission of the paper, discussing that topic with advisors, as well as preparing some text of the paper to include in the next presentation/update.

 

Group 2-Fullerene Project
Sonny, Soheila, Paulo, Quincy

Sonny opens, reiterating background information regarding C60 fullerite (fullerene soot), most frequently found in outer space, as the raw material for the formation of the fullerene crystals via his solvent protocols. He mentioned that size and shape differences are based upon solvent protocols.
Noted that the group hopes to experiment with photo polymerization effects upon the crystals, as well as performing various characterizations.  He readdressed the characterizations already performed, as found in the literature, and and the proposed new characterization methods the group hopes to consider.
Sonny also describes the methods for determining the degree of polymerization:
  • XRD
  • Fluorescence (qualitative)
  • Electrical conductivity of single particles (most sensitive method)
The team is currently experiencing several difficulties: 
  • Samples Soheila sent not received, so Sonny was not able to characterize
  • Sonny planning to hire a consultant to do electrical conductive measurements, which is a very detailed and complex process, but the individual is away on a business trip for few weeks (1-2)
  • Noginov has allocated UV lamp to another project temporarily?
Paulo next gave the Goal Status, considering the obstacles encountered and noted above, with some green and some yellow, essentially presenting the same overall status as the prior update. Paulo also mentioned his preparation to set up and use the Schrodinger software license to look at molecular structure, and stated he needs to “untangle” some of it due to lack of recent use. 

Soheila next commented on the schematic of the set-up used on the missing samples, and explained further updates on the status of the samples that are MIA.  Clarified the situation with the UV lamp, stating she was asked to not move the UV lamp again, which reaffirmed the need to make some adjustments to allow progress to ensue.

Sonny closed with a slide of the Zyvex Nanoprobes EC set up, and again mentioned the planned hire of an expert individual.

Dr. Black then mentioned her plan to send a message to the entire group with suggestions as to how to address the problems presented.

Concluded content from Trainee Groups.

Mentioned Purdue visit:  Doodle Poll determined the best time for the trip as April 21st-23rd.

Need volunteers to help:  Monique and Irving volunteer to help coordinate with Catherin at Purdue; Cornell-needs to talk to Dr. Wiesner regading budget info to see how travel will be handled.  Teresa agrees to do the legwork


Deliverables for Next Meeting

Dr. Black mentioned that she sent an email with updates on what she wants in each group presentation, noted below, and also asked that each group prepare an outline for their team paper and determine writing assignments.

FROM EMAIL:  On the next round (starting on 3/1), please add the following, beyond the regular update on the project activities and your deliverable:
- What is motivating your work (some projects have it well spelled out, others can make it more explicit)
- Which aspects of your project are new, and which are just "replay"
- What is the innovation part of your project, or what innovation would it promote?
- What will your project contribution to science or technology be?

Full deliverable due on May 3 and May 10 to IR module presentations, with faculty presen.t
.
Dr. Black will send a follow-up message regarding things to be included in presentations.

Pedagogy module begins Tuesday, March 15th, to go for 6 weeks through April and to have content regarding during Purdue visit as final sessions..

Meeting Concluded:  2:40 pm

Next Meeting:  March 1, 2016

 

February 16, 2016

Recorder: Kathryn

Attending Trainees:

Faculty: Dr. Black

Staff: Kathryn

Meeting Called: 2:05 pm

Deliverable Status Updates:  Group 3 and Group 4

Group 3:  SciTS Research Module
Catherine, Kevin, Irving

Catherine began with brief background information concerning the project, followed by Irving addressing the evolution of the dynamics of collaborations. Mentioned that group deliverable was submitted to ASEE (abstract accepted; manuscript under review), and noted the three primary research foci: Communication strategies; critical areas of success and critical barriers to collaboration, and how to evaluate research collaborations over a long period of time.  Includes longitudinal data as a quantitative measure, and discourse analysis as well as focus group interviews as quantitative measures, prepping for the group's final IR write up. Currently ahead of plan schedule, with "green lights" in all status update areas.

Workload distribution presented for Feb 1-15:
Catherine
  • Focus Group Scheduling
  • Presentation Updates
Kevin
  • Initiation of Update Presentation Revisions
  • Managing weekly surveys and communication with Participants
Irving
  • Leading editing efforts with ASEE paper

Catherine presented content, offering how theory or framework fits in with codebook development for this project in the analysis of the data:
Transdisciplinary Science Initiatives (Stokols, et al, 2008)
Intrapersonal; Interpersonal, Organizational, Technological, Societal and Political, Physical environment

Group used the general concepts of the model mentioned, and made their own “Codebook ofThemes” as very clearly expressed themes, more extensive than the 6 divisions of the origina lmodel, reflecting the data actually “influencing” the theory as applied to the project.

Kevin then addressed the individual and group level concept (Boerner, et al, 2010), based upon the surveys the group created to obtain feedback from the individuals, and the impact upon the group dynamic. Assigned quantitative values to survey responses, and coded the groups so bias and specific association of individuals with responses was blinded. Created a Team Alignment Score and Individual Alignment Scores, and evaluated the overall reflection on the team dynamic. Derived recommendations for future exploration from the results, and concluded presentation.

NSU had power failure momentarily, so reconnected and resumed.

Group 4: High Gain Media SPASER Revisited
Vanessa, Kenneth, Teresa

Vanessa opened with background information to the project, Noted biolgical Imaging and optoelectric applications. Further explained how a SPASER works; mentioned essential components and character of each:
  • Dye molecules-high number, based upon size and geometry
  • Gold core-nanoparticle size
  • Silica shell-thickness and presence around nps
Stated deliverable of team to be a white paper explaining the mechanistic necessities to make SPASER fabrication a consistent, reproducible process

Kenny then addressed the traffic light schedule for the status and updates, all yellow and green. He also described the current work for each person over the past 2 weeks:
Teresa
  • Synthesize Au nps
  • Coat nps
  • Incorporate dye
  • Varying Au size and dye concentration
Kenny
  • Synthesize Au nps-different procedures
  • SEM imaging
  • Work with Teresa on dye loading and silica coating
Vanessa
  • Transmission measurements
  • Excitation ane emission studies of each component and SPASER
  • Stimulated emission study
  • COMSOL modeling
Explained use of Monique’s np synthesis technique and another process used for creation of the gold nanoparticles. Showed TEM images, indicating need for some modifications due to excessive silica aggregation and not coating the NPs to the proper thickness.
Teresa discussed need to optimize conditions for coating with the silica.
Vanessa characterized some of the particles sent from Kenny using the two techniques. Also working on protocol for dye loading.

Going forward: further refining of the gold nanoparticle synthesis technique to use, addressing the obstacle of getting a silica shell that is adequate to coat the nps, and adequate forl oading the dye.
Presentation concluded.

Dr. Black discussed the time frame in April for the trip to Purdue. Plans to send a Doodle Poll to see the best dates for all.

Deliverables for Next Week/Beyond:
  • Doodle Poll input for Purdue visit
  • Groups 1 and 2 give deliverable status presentations
  • Work on capstone presentations where the advisors may be invited to attend

Meeting Concluded:  2:50 pm

Next Meeting:  February 23, 2016

 

 

February 9, 2016

Recorder: Kathryn

Attending Trainees: Paulo, Donovan, Andre, Vanessa, Soheila, Irving, Kevin, MK, Kenneth, TJ, SOnny, Teresa, Catherine, Monique

Faculty: Dr. Black

Staff: Kathryn

Meeting Called:  2:00 pm

Detailed Presentations of IR Progress from Groups 1 and 2

Group 2:  Photopolymerization of Fullerene Crystals
Paulo, Soheila, Sonny and Quincy

Sonny opened the presentation offering an overview if the fullerene structures and description of self-assembly. He informed the group that his most recent paper was accepted for publication on Friday, February 5th!
  • Flow chart of the potential functionalities of the fullerene crystals, noting optical devices and organic electronics.
  • Presented characterization techniques already used with these structures, and new characterization methods, specifically those proposed by the group for their IR project.

Paulo next addressed the goal status ("traffic light" colors), showing either green or yellow on all aspects. He noted the group's favorable progress particularly on the exposures to UV, based upon work performed by Soheila over the weekend, and the shipping of exposed crystals back to Cornell.

Soheila then detailed techniques/steps involved with processing the samples
  • Xenon lamp
  • Range of wavelengths tried
  • Different powers
Sonny then described the complex electrical conductivity measurement device
  • Zyvex nanoprobes
  • SEM
  • Need for training or hire of someone to teach usage
  • Donovan offered some insight, as device is similar to some he uses at NSU
  • Dr. Black encouragaed idea of finding someone to pay to do it, with Sonny observing to learn
  • Suggestion of Schrodinger software to evaluate/calculate molecular structure of crystals (Paulo's experience)

Presentation ended with question time.

Group 1:  Non-invasive Bladder Control

Monique, TJ, Chris, MK, Donovan, Andre

Monique opened, giving a research plan overview and project rationale
  • Goals
  • Motivation
  • Advantages
  • Gantt Chart with dates
MK assessed the status of various aspects
  • Magnetic nanoparticles synthesized
  • Electrode fabrication in process
  • Actuator characterization in process

Monique continued with very clear flow chart of work progression for each individual, reflective of their areas of emphasis and expertise.

Donovan then discussed aspects pertinent to Andre's and his contributions
  • 3D printer
  • Letter to company for optical software
  • Reference to software training in Pasadena, CA
MK details information on design
  • Bladder volume sensing
  • Electrode design
  • Data acquisition system
Monique continues with Workload Distribution for week of Feb 1-7; details her progress, Donovan details Andre's and his combined endeavors.  MK shows a simulation design for circuit board, to be submitted to a company for building.

TJ next addresses the photoinitiators involved in the ink characterization for the SmartGels/soft actuator creation, and MK closed with the upcoming goals for each member.
Presentation closed with fielding of questions.

Dr. Black added comments, and praise for the well-organized and informative presentations.

Deliverables for Next Week/General Information:
  • Groups to give status of IR project deliverable at this point.  No specific details; just progress status, noting the following:
    • - what kind of deliverable is it? Do you intend to publish it? Where? Proposal? other?
    • - share your deliverable document
    • - explain what information is/will be there
    • - who is working on which part of the document
  • No retreat at Purdue at originally-stated time, but potential for a few days in mid-last part of April, particularly to visit Birck Technology Center. Dr. Black will send a form to assess the time conflicts for planning of Purdue visit
  • March 4, 2016:  Catherine's defense.  All invited to join via BlueJeans

Meeting Concluded:  ~2:50 pm

Next Meeting:  February 16, 2016

Previous page: Y6-Spring, 2016
Next page: Y6-January, 2016


South Africa on innovative technologies Nano-INNOV Nederland