Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

A Cheap, Plastic X-Ray Imager

Organic x-ray panels could bring down the cost of medical imaging.

By Katherine Bourzac

Friday, March 20, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Researchers at Siemens have discovered a way to print polymer x-ray-sensing panels that work just as well as expensive silicon ones. Using a new printing method, which is similar to the way that cheap plastic solar cells are made, the researchers believe that the approach could bring down the cost of medical imaging systems and be used to make lightweight, flexible imaging panels for procedures such as more comfortable mammograms.

Spray-on imager: The eight pink squares in the top image are polymer photodetectors. They were spray-printed onto the glass substrate below. The image of a butterfly (below) was recorded using a 256-by-256 pixel organic photodetector.
Credit: Nano Letters / ACS & Sandro Tedde

Electrically active polymers hold potential as a cheap alternative to silicon for devices including light sensors, solar cells, and transistors. Polymers can be processed in less stringent conditions--at room temperature and in the open air. However, their performance for all these applications is as yet unproven, says Thomas Jackson, a professor of electrical engineering at Penn State, who has no ties to Siemens. While polymer-based photodiodes have been shown to work well for solar cells, the value of using polymer materials for imaging hasn't been clear. The new high-performance Siemens light detectors should change that, however.

The photodiodes, developed by Siemens researchers led by Sandro Tedde and Oliver Hayden, work as well as those made of silicon. The researchers describe the manufacturing technique used to make them in the March issue of the journal Nano Letters, and presented organic photodiodes designed for x-ray detection at a meeting of the Materials Research Society. Tedde says that the detectors are stable for at least six years.

The Siemens researchers make their photodiodes by spraying water-based solutions containing two kinds of polymers through a metal mask onto a glass substrate. They put down, first, several layers of a polymer with low conductivity, then several layers of a polymer with high conductivity.

Story continues below


The use of two different polymers is crucial. When a photon hits the polymer photodiode, it excites an electron, leaving a positive "hole" behind; to read the resulting electrical signal, the diode has to carry the electron away from the hole. The interface between the two layers of polymers helps this separation to occur: the low-conductivity polymer carries the positive holes, while the other carries the electron to an electrical contact where it can be read.

The spray-coating method works well over large areas. Normally, these polymers are spread out across the substrate by spinning or using a small scraping blade. But these techniques don't work well over large areas, and x-ray imaging requires large panels because x-rays can't be focused using conventional lenses. "You need the imager to be the same size as the body part you're trying to image," says Karim Karim, an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University of Waterloo, who was not involved in the Siemens work. Indeed, a significant portion of the cost of today's systems comes from the large silicon panels used to convert photons into the electrical signals: the larger the silicon panel, the more expensive it is.

Comments

  • X-ray Absorption
    It would seem to me that, unless you're using very soft, non-penetrating x-rays, the absorption of a plastic film would be much less than of a higher Z material, so a much higher x-ray dose would be required to get as good an image.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    hsfrey
    03/20/2009
    Posts:13
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: X-ray Absorption
      Siemens claims:

      "The Siemens system has a quantum efficiency of about 75 percent; in other words, for every 100 photons that hit the diode, 75 will be registered. "That's pretty good," says Jackson."
      Rate this comment: 12345

      TooMany
      03/21/2009
      Posts:47
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Inexpensive?  Riiiight
    Something tells me the savings is unlikely to make its way to patients.  Call me cynical. 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    wealthychef
    03/23/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: Inexpensive?  Riiiight
      Always good to throw in a vague unsupported cynical 'feeling' about greed keeping reduced costs from flowing to consumers.

      Well, you're right.

      If an x-ray machine goes from $10,000 to $2,000 SHOULD it mean that x-rays will follow Moore's laws?  No, of course not.

      Since taking an x-ray isn't just about the machine.  I don't know the exact breakdown but a large chunk of it is the MA or radiologic technician's time setting up the gear and Pt for an x-ray, positioning Pt to get the right part of the body at the right angle.  Also knowing what part to take pix of. 

      An idiot might be able to take every possible angle (called an MRI or CAT scan) but that is a huge dose of radiation greater than just one cross section when is not needed.

      So given that the human side is a great expense and Moore isn't cranking us out any cheaper (Except during this downturn).  then there is the support circuitry of semiconductor in the x-ray machine, and all the other electronic gear controlling it and firmware isn't going to change.

      Then housing the x-ray machine, calibrating, building a place to house it that is shielded from frying everyone nearby (I know nurses this has actually happened to thru inadequate shielding).  Hospital and Dr's buildings aren't being made any cheaper by this advance.

      And a specialist or Dr to interpret the results will not go down in price due to this.

      This comment reminds me of a friend who seems to think that everything costs about $.75 to make in an anonymouse factory in China or India.  That would great if 'everything' could be shipped on container ships for free and stored and trucked for free and if store employees or UPS drivers all would bring it to you for free.

      There you go!   Your cynical comment has been dissected and found to be essentially correct!

      However this should lead to more clinics and other places being able to afford x-ray machines, and a slowing of increases due to other costs (personnel, rent, etc) which actually make up the bulk of the costs.  The ability to shape the emitter should also help make new innovative diagnostic tools with lower x-ray exposures and (even if slightly) lower costs.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      erbium
      03/25/2009
      Posts:110
      Avg Rating:
      3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.