PDA

View Full Version : Scientific Discovery of the Week - Volume 4



TE
07-04-2012, 04:20 AM
Since Agloco isn't doing these anymore, I figured I could pick the slack...ESPECIALLY with this particular discovery that introduces the applicability of insects (well sort of) to the field of medicine.

Bugs Inspire Better X-Rays: Nanostructures Modeled Like Moth Eyes May Boost Medical Imaging

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120703162622.htm


ScienceDaily (July 3, 2012) — Using the compound eyes of the humble moth as their inspiration, an international team of physicists has developed new nanoscale materials that could someday reduce the radiation dosages received by patients getting X-rayed, while improving the resolution of the resulting images.

The work, led by Yasha Yi-a professor of the City University of New York, who is also affiliated with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and New York University-was published July 3 in the Optical Society's (OSA) journal, Optics Letters.

Like their Lepidopteran cousins the butterflies, moths have large compound eyes, made up of many thousands of ommatidia-structures made up of a primitive cornea and lens, connected to photoreceptor cells. But moth eyes, unlike those of butterflies, are remarkably anti-reflective, bouncing back very little of the light that strikes them. The adaptation helps the insects be stealthier and less visible to predators during their nocturnal flights. Because of this feature, engineers have looked to the moth eye to help design more efficient coatings for solar panels and antireflective surfaces for military devices, among other applications.

Now Yi and his colleagues have gone a step further, using the moth eye as a model for a new class of materials that improve the light-capturing efficiency of X-ray machines and similar medical imaging devices.
In particular, the researchers focused on so-called "scintillation" materials: compounds that, when struck by incoming particles (say, X-ray photons), absorb the energy of the particles and then reemit that absorbed energy in the form of light. In radiographic imaging devices, such scintillators are used to convert the X-rays exiting the body into the visible light signals picked up by a detector to form an image.

One way to improve the output (the intensity of light signals read by the detector, and thus the resolution of the resulting images) is to increase the input-that is, to use a higher x-ray dosage. But that's not healthy for patients because of the increased levels of radiation. An alternative, Yi and colleagues figured, is to improve the efficiency with which the scintillator converts X-rays to light. Their new material does just that.

It consists of a thin film, just 500 nanometers thick, made of a special type of crystal known as cerium-doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate. These crystals were encrusted with tiny pyramid-shaped bumps or protuberances made of the ceramic material silicon nitride. Each protuberance, or "corneal nipple," is modeled after the structures in a moth's eye and is designed to extract more light from the film.

Between 100,000 to 200,000 of the protuberances fit within a 100 x 100 micrometer square, or about the same density as in an actual moth eye. The researchers then made the sidewalls of the device rougher, improving its ability to scatter light and thus enhancing the efficiency of the scintillator.
In lab experiments, Yi and colleagues found that adding the thin film to the scintillator of an X-ray mammographic unit increased the intensity of the emitted light by as much as 175 percent compared to that produced using a traditional scintillator.

The current work, Yi says,represents a proof-of-concept evaluation of the use of the moth-eye-based nanostructures in medical imaging materials. "The moth eye has been considered one of the most exciting bio structures because of its unique nano-optical properties," he says, "and our work further improved upon this fascinating structure and demonstrated its use in medical imaging materials, where it promises to achieve lower patient radiation doses, higher-resolution imaging of human organs, and even smaller-scale medical imaging. And because the film is on the scintillator," he adds, "the patient would not be aware of it at all."

Yi estimates that it will take at least another three to five years to evaluate and perfect the film, and test it in imaging devices. "We will need to work with medical imaging experts and radiologists for this to be actually used in clinical practice," he says.

:wakeup

This new technique of using an improved scintillator (thin film inserted) should prove to vastly increase the efficiency with which X-rays provide medical images.

Publication (no access to it :():

P. Pignalosa, Bo Liu, Hong Chen, H. Smith, and Yasha Yi. Giant light extraction enhancement of medical imaging scintillation materials using biologically inspired integrated nanostructures. Opt. Lett., 37, 2808-2810 (2012)

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/abstract.cfm?URI=ol-37-14-2808

Agloco
07-04-2012, 02:00 PM
Glad to see you carrying the banner forth triggered. :toast

As it turns out, there is an extraordinary demand for proton therapy, and hence my services. I'm not sure when I'll be able to resume my postings on a regular basis, but I still peek around quite a bit.

That said, I'd like to offer a quick comment on this article.

The use of scintillators for plain film imaging is necessitated by the poisson statistics invovled in x-ray production and interaction in media. That is, there aren't enough x-rays produced to expose the film and give adequate contrast for reader interpretation. We must therefore "amplify" the effect by placing something in contact with the film that produces enough photons for contrast. While the higher bound on how many photons are produced per x-ray is necessarily limited by the energy of the incoming photon, the efficiency of the scintillator plays a part as well.

At this point, I'll mention that there different kinds of resolution in radiologic imaging. Among them are contrast, spatial and temporal resolution.

The content in this article implies that research is focused on the first kind: contrast resolution, but equivocates on how the second kind (spatial) is to be improved. I'll cite some of the passages for clarification:


One way to improve the output (the intensity of light signals read by the detector, and thus the resolution of the resulting images) is to increase the input-that is, to use a higher x-ray dosage. But that's not healthy for patients because of the increased levels of radiation. An alternative, Yi and colleagues figured, is to improve the efficiency with which the scintillator converts X-rays to light.

Yes, increasing the intensity of light will develop film to a greater degree, likely improving contrast resolution. Also, research into scintillator / detector efficiency has been ongoing for some time. This is an interesting and novel use of an already existing biologic model for that purpose.

However,


But moth eyes, unlike those of butterflies, are remarkably anti-reflective, bouncing back very little of the light that strikes them.


It consists of a thin film, just 500 nanometers thick, made of a special type of crystal known as cerium-doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate.


The researchers then made the sidewalls of the device rougher, improving its ability to scatter light and thus enhancing the efficiency of the scintillator. In lab experiments, Yi and colleagues found that adding the thin film to the scintillator of an X-ray mammographic unit increased the intensity of the emitted light by as much as 175 percent compared to that produced using a traditional scintillator.

Let's examine the three passages above. In the first, we see that moth eyes are more efficient at detecting (capturing) photons. Good for contrast resolution (most likely), and dose reduction.

In the second, we are told the thickness (500 nm). This plays a part in detector efficiency as well as spatial resolution. What we don't know is how much lateral spread of light occurs within that distance. That largely determines the limiting spatial resolution. I will say that this is a typical thickness for scintillators.

In the third, we are told that light scatter is enhanced by making "rough edges". Anyone who understands radiologic imaging knows that scatter is the number one enemy of contrast resolution; and when considering the scale of objects within the human body, of spatial resolution as well.

Point number three in particular is very important since this research involves x-ray mammography, which is done at substantially lower energies than traditional x-ray imaging. The entire premise is to avoid compton scatter by taking advantage of the photoelectric effect (which predominates at energies < 25 kev). It also produces contrast based on the effective atomic number (Z) of the media in question.

The take home message here is that we want to avoid scatter and lateral light spread to improve both contrast and spatial resolution.

Hence I'm a bit confused by the content of the article as written. Admittedly, I haven't read the original research article. I'll do that later this week. I'm certain this is just a problem related to terminology.

Also of import: 1) The response of the material in the clinically relevant range of imaging energies. 2) How is the spatial resolution affected by the addition of this scintillator to the film? Again, this is particularly important for mammo.

I'll conclude by saying that I have access to this article if triggered or anyone else is interested in it.

@ triggered: Have you covered any radiology or radiation oncology related subjects yet? Feel free to PM me if you have questions. We tend to zip through the physics of imaging quite quickly. :lol

TE
07-04-2012, 02:32 PM
As expected, Agloco delivers. :toast

The question you pose is one that should hopefully be addressed in the article.

If possible could you pm me the article? As alluded in the original post, I don't have access. :lol

Regarding the question of radiologic oncology, we have been introduced to the topic in a very broad manner. I would assume it's nothing more than just an introduction. If I have questions in the future I'll surely look to ask you. :toast

Agloco
07-04-2012, 03:33 PM
I won't be able to link articles unfortunately. What I can do though is EMail you a PDF of the article. Just PM it to me. This invitation is extended to everyone.

I will, of course, keep any EMail addresses confidential.

TE
07-04-2012, 03:38 PM
I'll pm you my email in a bit. Thanks :toast

mouse
07-05-2012, 07:08 AM
I'll pm you my email in a bit. Thanks :toast

Maybe if you keep up the good work your doing for Science Agloco might autograph your pocket protector at the next gtg. :toast

Agloco
07-05-2012, 11:35 PM
Maybe if you keep up the good work your doing for Science Agloco might autograph your pocket protector at the next gtg. :toast

Don't hate, participate.

mouse
07-07-2012, 03:56 AM
Don't hate, participate.

You two will have to compare slide rulers w/o me this month my lab coat is still at the cleaners


I really can't wait till Science discovery #5 is posted.

Winehole23
07-31-2012, 12:19 AM
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/07/30/you-can-thank-wasps-for-your-bread-beer-and-wine/

Wild Cobra
07-31-2012, 02:41 AM
Well, there are areas that don't need winter refuge...

Winehole23
08-16-2012, 08:48 AM
Researchers at King’s College London have developed the first artificial functioning blood vessel outside of the body, made from reprogrammed stem cells from human skin. The team also saw the cells develop into a blood vessel inside the body for the first time.

The new technique could have real potential to treat patients with heart disease – the biggest killer in the UK – by either injecting the reprogrammed cells into the leg or heart to restore blood flow or grafting an artificially developed vessel into the body to replace blocked or damaged vessels. The treatment could also benefit diabetic patients with poor circulation, preventing leg amputation.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevents/news/newsrecords/2012/08-Aug/pioneering-heart-disease-treatment.aspx

Winehole23
08-16-2012, 09:05 AM
more invention, but still interesting:


The winning toilet, however, is smarter still. It has been developed by Michael Hoffman of the California Institute of Technology, and has earned him the $100,000 first prize. Dr Hoffman’s toilet uses solar panels to power an electrochemical system that produces two things. One is hydrogen. The other is a compound which oxidises the salts in urine to generate chlorine. This creates a mildly disinfecting solution that can be used to flush the toilet. The hydrogen is suitable for cooking or for powering a fuel cell to produce electricity. The solid residue from the process can be employed as fertiliser.http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/08/sanitation

Wild Cobra
08-16-2012, 01:54 PM
I love the breakthroughs that has come from adult stem cell research. Would someone again remind me why we need to use embryonic stem cells and create a demand for them? Has anything yet come of it?

mouse
08-17-2012, 07:38 AM
I love the breakthroughs that has come from adult stem cell research. Would someone again remind me why we need to use embryonic stem cells and create a demand for them? Has anything yet come of it?

That kind of Science I support.

I like when medical Science is busy creating artificial livers or a better long lasting mechanical heart.


They are Highly motivated (maybe $Money wise ) who cares at least they aren't trying to convince you that they know for a fact the sun is 12 Billion years old and that the Bible is bullshit.

Create a kidney we can buy at the local Pharmacy, cure Autism, but don't try and preach to us and push your Atheist agendas on the students.



That kind of Science I don't support.

Proxy
08-17-2012, 07:50 AM
That kind of Science I support.

I like when medical Science is busy creating artificial livers or a better long lasting mechanical heart.


They are Highly motivated (maybe $Money wise ) who cares at least they aren't trying to convince you that they know for a fact the sun is 12 Billion years old and that the Bible is bullshit.

Create a kidney we can buy at the local Pharmacy, cure Autism, but don't try and preach to us and push your Atheist agendas on the students.



That kind of Science I don't support.

They're both important. One cures physical ailments and the other cures ignorance.

mouse
08-17-2012, 10:22 AM
They're both important. One cures physical ailments and the other cures ignorance.

My 11 year old with Cancer would take a cure over a history lesson about the solar system .

wouldn't yours?

Winehole23
01-14-2014, 03:38 PM
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html