I mentioned recently our work at Envision on the need to be able to rapidly distinguish between various strains of pathogens and how nanotechnology plays a part, but printable electronics plays a greater role than simply producing the detectors.

The beauty of being able to print devices is that costs become almost insignificant, so the critical semiconductor industry metric of yield, i.e. how many of the devices coming off the line are actually working, becomes insignificant. A wafer of microprocessors containing 800 chips retailing for $50 each is worth $40,000, and given the volume of processor manufactured, the effect of a a 2.5% improvement in yield of $1000/wafer soon stacks up. In contrast, printable electronics can produce devices for fractions of a cent (although nothing as complex as a microprocessor) and if these are retailing for a dollar the greater than 90% gross margins means that its not worth tweaking the system to get an improvement of a few percent in yield.

Talking to semiconductor industry people about plastic electronics often reaches an impasse with repeated demands to know what the expected yield of the process would be, and industry players often just not understanding the concept of yield not being significant when it is a measure that can make or lose millions of dollars a day for silicon based semiconductors.

But when we are talking about detecting swine flu (or Influenza (A) H1N1 as it has been re branded) one of the key issues is getting enough tests into the hands of the people who need them, and quickly. Changing a semiconductor process is costly and time consuming, because of the need to maintain high yields, whereas with the printed electronics solution, or at least the one we have, the device remains exactly the same whatever you are trying to detect, and it is only the antigen that needs to be changed whether we are looking for flu strains, bacteria or anything else.

Apart from the cost, which is always high on the agenda in any business, it is the flexibility of the approach which fascinates me. Whichever influenza strain we are looking for, only a small change in the antigen used needs to be made to produce a new detector. In fact, with the technology in its current state, a number of different antigens can be placed on the same chip, allowing positive identification of any one of a number of strains. So creating a new test, or opening up a new market only requires a minor tweak, rather than re engineering an entire process and losing sleep over small changes in yield.

A criticism that has been levelled at nanotechnology is that after over $50 billion dollars of government funding, not much of use has emerged – yet. As someone involved on the investment side of business for a long time, finding opportunities that can be commercialised and profitable has been one of the hardest things to do. However, a lot of the development work goes on ‘under the radar’ and the recent concern over Swine Flu has forced us to break cover as we have a technology that can help with this, and future pandemics.

Flu is a very comon virus, and as word of a potential pandemic spreads doctors and hospitals tend to become overwhelmed by everyone feeling slightly off colour suspecting that they have the killer version of the flu and demanding urgent attention. So one of the major problems in preventing the spread of pandemics is in distinguishing between the pandemic strain, SARS, H5N1 avian flu or recently the H1N1 strain of swine flu. Making the distinction isn’t a problem, many pathology labs can do this within twenty four hours or overnight if needed, but someone working in a city and commuting on crowded transport can spread a lot of virus around in twenty four hours, so the ability to rapidly distinguish between Swine Flu and any other kind is of the highest importance.

Earlier in the year, through our investment company Envision ALR, we acquired a company working on plastic electronics for lab on a chip applications. We have been developing the technology, and were planning to enter a number of markets early in 2010 with a rapid an portable diagnostic system.

The basic principle of most diagnostic systems is optical. You have an antigen which you bind to a surface and a solution containing a secondary antibody which contains an enzyme which fluoresces when it binds to the antibody you are trying to detect. When a binding event occurs, the enzyme lights up and you know you have detected the primary antibody, but the trouble is that the glow is very faint, so you need to wait a long time for enough binding to take place, or have a very concentrated solution, and both of those waste precious time.

Our trick is to print the entire device in one process – detectors, reaction cells, antigens. This not only cuts the size and cost down, but as the detector and reaction are in very close proximity the sensitivity over normal techniques, which involve an optical microscope at some stage, goes up by a couple of orders of magnitude.

Ergo, we can do on a sliver of plastic with a hand held reader in seconds what it takes twenty four hours to do in a path lab.