Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Nanoparticle Infused Gauze Quickly Stanches Wounds

Posted by Soulskill on Fri Apr 25, 2008 04:45 PM
from the it's-bloody-quick dept.
Medicine Biotech Science
jackieduvall writes "Medical gauze has received its first upgrade since World War I. Chemists have infused it with nanoparticles derived from kaolin clay, which somehow give it an amazing ability to stop severe bleeding. It was developed when the Navy approached a team of inorganic chemists at the University of California Santa Barbara to solve a problem with QuikClot, a zeolite-based hemostatic agent that became way too hot and caused burns when it came in contact with water or blood. While performing blood clotting tests, they realized that kaolin clay, which has been used as a control for clotting experiments since the 1950s, could also be used as a first aid product." There is a video demonstration alongside the article. It shows the gauze halting the bleeding from a pig's aorta. The blood isn't excessive, but if you're bothered by that sort of thing, you may want to skip the video.
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Nanoparticle Infused Gauze Hits the Market by jackieduvall (1105397)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Nanoparticle Infused Gauze Quickly Stanches Wounds 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Humph... This happens a lot (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25 2008, @04:48PM (#23203242)
    http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/10/10/2024228.shtml [slashdot.org]

    • Re:Humph... This happens a lot (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mursk (928595) on Friday April 25 2008, @04:52PM (#23203282)
      I think the difference is that this gauze can be used fairly easily and quickly by just about anyone. The gel mentioned in the linked article seems like it would be more for operative use by surgeons (the summary mentions eye surgery). They are somewhat similar, but this still seems to represent something "new."
      • Ah... I seem to remember another one as well.

        Instead of using shrimp particles, they want to be politically correct and use nanoparticles.

        http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/16/1518208 [slashdot.org]
        • Ah... OK, you win that one. Without actually reading either of the full articles, that does sound pretty similar...

      • Re:Humph... This happens a lot (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SoyChemist (1015349) on Friday April 25 2008, @04:58PM (#23203334) Homepage
        Yeah, there are also surgical gels made from a polymer which is structurally similar to a protein from mussels.

      • Re:Humph... This happens a lot (Score:5, Informative)

        by bargainsale (1038112) on Friday April 25 2008, @05:24PM (#23203520)
        I am an eye surgeon [IAAES?], and I find it hard follow why Dmitri Azar in the linked article thinks it would be so useful in our field.

        Bleeding isn't normally a big feature of eye surgery such as cataract surgery.

        Maybe he has applications in retinal surgery in mind. Blood in the vitreous humour inside the eye clears away very slowly, and sometimes needs to be removed surgically, which is a very major eye operation. It would be good to have some substance you could inject into the eye which would clear the blood faster: in fact various things of this kind have been tried.

        It doesn't seem that this stuff would be particularly useful in that way, as it arrests bleeding rather than clears blood.

        Neurosurgery I can see, though.
        It reminds me of when I did neurosurgery as a trainee, years ago; brain bleeds easily, and the more you touch it, the more it tends to bleed. We used to splosh peroxide on the bleeding spots to arrest bleeding (I don't know if this still goes on).
        I remember a cynical anaesthesiologist saying he was convinced that peroxide had no actual effect in itself to stop the bleeding - what happens is that the peroxide fizzes for several minutes and during that time the surgeon has to keep his fingers away from the brain, and it's THAT that arrests the bleeding.

  • Animal Cruelty (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25 2008, @04:53PM (#23203288)
    It doesn't say what happened to the pig. I have to hope there was a BBQ afterward.
  • So when our ancestors got wounds and rubbed dirt into them they had it right all along? Or is it they had it wrong, you only rub special dirt in, and only if the wound is severe?

  • Sounds (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kamineko (851857) on Friday April 25 2008, @05:13PM (#23203460)
    Sounds like a gauze for celebration!

  • Also works for the runs... (Score:5, Informative)

    by neapolitan (1100101) * on Friday April 25 2008, @05:13PM (#23203462)
    Medical factoid - kaolin and pectin are the substances that constitute the anti-diarrheal substance "Kaopectate" (hence the name.) Note that it doesn't really do anything but bind with water -- kind of a clay-like substance that will then give one more firm stools.

    I think the modern kaopectate has modified its ingredients, but kaolin clay like substances are still available for medical use. Nice to see a new implementation of this technology, with the "nano" prefix thrown in for sexiness.

  • Ah... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jd (1658) <imipak.yahoo@com> on Friday April 25 2008, @05:16PM (#23203478) Homepage Journal
    That's fine for people with blood, but what happens to those of us who are caffeine-based lifeforms?

  • A brief history of kaolin (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the Dragonweaver (460267) on Friday April 25 2008, @05:24PM (#23203516) Homepage
    Clay- all clay- is basically a mixture of kaolin, water, and larger particles (sand or "grog"- crushed clay bits.) Clays with a low percentage of kaolin and a high percentage of inclusions are low-fire clays, such as terra cotta, while a high percentage of kaolin is necessary for high-fire clays such as porcelin.

    Porcelin clays are fired between three and four thousand degrees in order to vitrify- which means, to melt and fuse together. Glazes, which are based in sand and metal, vitrify at a lower temperature, which is why pots have two firings, the first to make them pots instead of shaped clay, and the second to decorate them.

    Kaolin is not quite as common as dirt or sand but it is found all over the world and not too difficult to obtain. A good college ceramics department will have a barrel on hand.

    The upshot of this, I guess, is that if you are foolish enough to stick your hand into a clay mixer, which is like a Kitchen Aid stand mixer on steroids, and get your hand torn off, sticking your hand into the barrel of kaolin dust would be amazingly good first aid.

  • The blood isn't excessive, but if you're bothered by that sort of thing, you may want to skip the video.

    Here's something that I've always wondered and never got an answer to. Why are some people bothered by the sight of blood? What's shocking about it? I really don't get it even a bit. Besides I always thought (my own) blood was kind of yummy.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jheath314 (916607)
      I suppose it has something to do with our natural aversion as a species to injury and death. Most apes aren't really predators by nature (many are omnivorous, but mostly vegetarian), so usually any blood they happen to see would be their own.

      • That's fine and dandy, but that doesn't tell me what people who are bothered even slightly by the sight of blood feel or think.

    • I'd assume it has more to do with seeing it come out of something; sort of how many of us will pass on touring a slaughter house but fry up strips of bacon first thing in the morning.
      Reinforcing my point: I've never seen anyone vomit at the sight of maroon paint.

      Besides I always thought (my own) blood was kind of yummy.

      I somehow doubt your first reaction to losing a hand would be to grab a dixie cup.

      Somewhat off-topic: Am I the only one having trouble loading the video? I just see a black rectangle with a menu below.

    • "Here's something that I've always wondered and never got an answer to. Why are some people bothered by the sight of blood?"

      Social conditioning. When I was young I was tasked with beheading and plucking a bunch of chickens. I found it a bit nasty (I was an innocent suburban kid) because I was never taught nor had I experienced anything different.

      My views changed instantly on eating the delicious stew made from my victims. :)

  • Obligatory 911 reference (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kdubb1 (930778) on Friday April 25 2008, @05:27PM (#23203548)

    "In 2002, following the September 11 attacks, the military was looking at new technologies to stop bleeding," Huey says.

    As if the military had no other reason to look into this.
  • Since when does grinding something small constitute nanotechnology?

    I'd have to take such characterization with a grain of nano calcium chloride.
    • Since when does grinding something small constitute nanotechnology?

      Why mod this "interesting"?

      There was no mention of "nanotechnology" anywhere in the article or summary. They are talking about nanoparticles.

      Quoted from your local neighborhood Wikipedia:

      "A nanoparticle which historically has included nanopowder, nanocluster, and nanocrystal is a small particle with at least one dimension less than 100 nm."

      See, no tiny machines necessary...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by budgenator (254554)
        Calcium ions trigger thrombosis, blood clotting and calcium chloride is an excellent source of calcium ions, probably the best; burns like hell in a cut too. They use a product called "quickstop" in pet grooming shops to stop toenails from bleeding when the quick is cut; a toenail will bleed for what seems like forever without it. Quickstop is a styptic made from ferric and calcium chlorides.

  • Clotting for non-clotters? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gruvmeister (1259380) * on Friday April 25 2008, @05:34PM (#23203592)
    Being that kaolin clay binds with water and causes clotting, does this mean that this stuff will work on people who have clotting issues, such as those on blood thinning medications or hemophiliacs?
  • Is it just me, or did that seem like an advertisement for a company and their product, moreso than there being anything of substance? It isn't like this is groundbreaking chemistry either.

  • I use Celox already (Score:4, Informative)

    by greyhueofdoubt (1159527) on Friday April 25 2008, @07:40PM (#23204430) Homepage Journal
    The last time I was deployed in Iraq, we were all issued Quikclot packs in our trauma bags; I'm sure that if I needed to use it, it would have worked fine. However, Quikclot causes pretty severe burns and pain when it's used; in addition, the hard 'clot' that is formed is a PITA for surgeons to remove.

    In my personal trauma kit here at home, I use Celox:

    http://www.celoxmedical.com/ [celoxmedical.com]

    It is chitosan-based but claims to not affect people with seafood-based allergies. It produces no heat and is removed easily by water irrigation. I am curious why the DoD has not moved towards this product; you can get the celox-infused gauze that works much the same as this kaolin-based product already. If any of you are EMTs or just interested in having a good hemostatic agent in your kit, you should look into Celox. When everything else is equal, the disadvantages of Quikclot make Celox the clear winner.

    -b
    • Food for thought? Like I haven't heard enough people with your view already? We need to both be better at killing people and better at saving their lives. Both are useful.
    • Your logic is sorta flawed. If they did not need to patch wounds they would not need to create a better solution to stopping blood flow thus the research would never happen.

      Without a valid reason to spend money on research it tends to be difficult to get money. Like I would love to do a 50 year research project on how having a harem of over a dozen women will effect erectile dysfunction in a man through adulthood... but I've yet to be able to convince the government on why they should spend their military
    • Damned hippies!
      • The U.S. gives more money to countries in need than anyone other country in the world -- by a huge margin, especially if you combine government and private aid. When a disaster hits, the U.S. is often the first there with actual relief supplies. When that tsunami hit, the UN spent the first few months bitching about the quality of the hotel buffet and didn't do a damn thing about the people who needed help. The U.S. immediately sent a naval carrier task force (I think it took about a week to get there) -- which was criticized by idiots. A carrier task force gives you:

        Multiple hospitals, fully stocked with everything you need.
        Tons of food.
        Enough electrical power to supply a city.
        The most modern communication equipment in the world.
        The ability to create something like 100,000 gallons of pure drinking water a day.
        Helicopters for transporting supplies, personal, and the injured.
        Construction equipment, bulldozers are handy things when buildings have collapsed.
        Security. Natural disasters tend to attract roving bands of thugs who take advantage of the chaos to prey upon the helpless.
        etc, etc, etc.

        A carrier task force is about the best damn thing to have around when dealing with a disaster of that magnitude. I don't even need to list the huge sums of money and supplies donated by the American people and American businesses. I know of a lot of companies that sponsored donation matching.

        • Re:I have a better idea to stop the bleeding! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by msimm (580077) on Friday April 25 2008, @05:53PM (#23203766) Homepage

          The U.S. gives more money to countries in need than anyone other country in the world
          If you're going to rattle off broad claims like this you should at least cite them.

          That would be informative, otherwise you're essentially passing opinion (which I don't care about and leaves me less rather then more informed).

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Buelldozer (713671)
            These are such well known statistics that I'm surprised you're questioning them. The United States Government is, and has been for some time, the largest giver in absolute dollars of any nation in the world. There are tons of references to this online but here is one: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs [globalissues.org] Buried in that article is the knowledge that U.S. Citizens, outside the government, donate almost double what the Government does. No matter how you

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Threni (635302)
              > These are such well known statistics that I'm surprised you're questioning them. The United States Government is, and has been for some
              > time, the largest giver in absolute dollars of any nation in the world.

              Yeah, but most of that `giving` is to Israel. I'm talking about charity, to countries which need it. And by the Government, not the people. Finally, the US gives far less than the suggested minimum of its GDP. You're living the dream, arncha!

          • It's pretty common knowledge that the USA is both [globalissues.org] the largest source of foreign aid in terms of raw dollars and one of the smallest sources of foreign aid in terms of GDP.

            What's less well known is that close to two-thirds of that aid go to Israel and Egypt for the the purpose of buying weapons. [vaughns-1-pagers.com]
          • The U.S. gives more money to countries in need than anyone other country in the world...
            If you're going to rattle off broad claims like this you should at least cite them.

            The US give by far the most in dollars, but fairly low in terms of GNP. [oecd.org] But that is only counting UN Official Development Assistance contributions. I couldn't find numbers for private donations or other non-military aid. Although the Gates Foundation wrote just over $2 billion in grants in 2007, [gatesfoundation.org] which would put their giving on a
        • Then why didn't we send a carrier in after Katrina hit?
          • They did send in a bunch of military vessels. My guess is there was no carrier close enough to send.

        • Re:I have a better idea to stop the bleeding! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TapeCutter (624760) on Friday April 25 2008, @06:53PM (#23204166) Journal
          I'm an Aussie, I generally agree with your post and think Americans (both in government and in private) are generous when disaster strikes.

          The ships you speak of helped out in Indonesia, it took less than a week since, they were in the area and arrived before the Aussies could get there (and we live next door!!). The US had a shipload of choppers and spent weeks carting bottled water, desal plants, portable hostpitals, etc, etc. On one isolated island the choppers were attacked by some stone age natives with bows and arrows (who had survived by following their ancestors advice and going to high ground when the earth rumbled), but generally the assistance was greatly appreciated.

          One point in your post bugs me, you don't need to denigrate the efforts of others (UN) to make the US look good. The US is great for initial releif and moving a lot of bulk in a hurry. The UN is great for long term assistance and opening the political doors that enable the US Navy to do it's stuff. In other words the US & UN work best together not in competition.
          • I must admit ignorance about what an ARG is capable of doing. A carrier task force is still pretty damn good to have around, wouldn't you agree?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.