3D PRINTING AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

Volume 2, Number 4, 2015

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/3dp.2015.0007

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Anticounterfeiting Options for Three-Dimensional Printing

Sharon Flank, Gary E. Ritchie, and Rebecca Maksimovic

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing opens up new possibilities in customization and manufacturing, but brings
with it tremendous intellectual property vulnerabilities, including financially motivated knockoffs and intentional sabotage. Novel methods for chemical tagging and authentication address these vulnerabilities, taking
advantage of analytical advances to create fast, secure validate-anywhere options. Simply requiring that the
blueprint file contain an authorization code is not enough to prevent all types of 3D counterfeiting. The
authorization code validates the printing process, but leaves no trace of that validation (or the lack of it) on the
product that is generated. New research, described here, uses under-the-surface taggant layers, detectable using
portable chemical analyzers such as spectrometers. This under-the-skin tagging represents a substantial advance
in security. The tagging in layers also represents a considerable advance over simply mixing a taggant chemical
into a single printing medium since it makes possible a much larger number of tag options. The ability of UVcured commodity chemicals to apply and adhere to a wide range of materials and remain undetectable in the
visible spectral region is a key enabler of the technology. The near-infrared region of the electromagnetic
spectrum has been shown to be useful for distinguishing specific regions of absorption of the tagging compounds not present in the substrate. This property is what makes the selected compounds particularly effective
as covert taggants: the human eye cannot detect their presence, but the spectrometer can.
Introduction

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is increasingly acknowledged as vulnerable to counterfeiting.13 The ability to

authenticate a 3D-printed object as genuine protects brands
and manufacturers, but it also protects the public, in important ways. For example, 3D-printed spare parts for an airplane
may look fine, but they could be crafted of weak materials
and fail at a critical moment. Even more sinister, rogue 3Dprinted objects can be intentionally designed to explode, fail,
or carry a toxic payload.4
There are two basic paths to creating counterfeits with 3D
printing. An existing object (including a genuine branded or
licensed product) can be 3D scanned to create the instructions, or blueprint, for printing a copy. Alternatively, the
instructions can be created as software, and then shared.
Hybrids of the two paths also exist, for example, a 3D scan
version that is then altered in one or more characteristics.
Simply requiring that the blueprint file contain an authorization code is not enough to prevent all types of 3D counterfeiting. The authorization code validates the printing

process, but leaves no trace of that validation (or the lack

thereof) on the product that is generated. Apple has filed a
patent application for a physical marking on an object such as
a phone case.5 A physical 3D mark is minimal protection
because it assumes the ability to tuck away a visible mark
unobtrusively.
Using authorized material alone is also insufficient, in the
same way that it is possible to use genuine ink in a genuine
printer, to make illegal copies of a copyrighted work or to
print a plagiarized document. Encoding the instructions for
materials tagging into the blueprint makes it possible to use
software controls (authorized secure downloads) to limit
proliferation of physical copies.
Limiting unauthorized versions is desirable to brand
owners and important for public safety. Brand owners want a
way to ensure that the products in the marketplace are genuine, both to ensure quality and to ensure that they are getting
paid for their work. They see 3D printing as an opportunity
and a threat. It constitutes an opportunity to offer personalized custom versions of a wide range of products, from shoes
to jewelry and spare parts to medical implants. However, it

InfraTrac, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Opposite page: InfraTrac chemical taggants can be layered into jettable nano-composites, as shown here on Chemcubeds UV LED 3D
printer for building objects with conductive traces.

181

182

also threatens their brand, their quality, and their market: how
can they distinguish a branded athletic shoe from a knockoff,
or a customized medical implant from a dangerous chunk of
plastic, if both are 3D printed? In the case of a so-called void
attack,6 an evildoer may intentionally alter 3D instructions so
that the resulting object contains an invisible hole and
therefore performs badly.
Brand owners currently spend millions on ensuring that
their products in the marketplace are genuine, employing
quality inspectors, secret shoppers, security teams, and forensic laboratories, many incorporating rapid, noninvasive,
nondestructive, spectroscopic, and other physicochemical analytical tools.7,8,17 These teams check distributors, monitor
suspect products at customs in cooperation with border authorities, and visit retailers to monitor their supply chain.
When knockoffs slip through, the brand owners are alerted.
This may occur because an unhappy customer returns a suspect
product, often because it failed, and the brand owners laboratories spend time and money searching for the cause of
failure or attempting to prove that the failed product is in fact a
fake. Authentication is the fastest growing segment of the
broader anticounterfeiting market because fasterand more
portableways to check on products save money, time, and
reputation. The existing anticounterfeiting effort is, however,
insufficient to meet the challenges of 3D printing, inspiring
InfraTracs 3D solutions.
Applications for additive manufacturing technologies that
may need to identify a genuine product include architecture,
construction, industrial design, automotive, aerospace, military, engineering, dental and medical industries, biotech (implantables, human tissue replacement, dose-calibrated drugs),
fashion, footwear, jewelry, eyewear, food, and spare parts.
Current Taggant-Based Methods for Anticounterfeiting
of 3D-Printed Objects

Current anticounterfeiting approaches include several taggant

options and these are being applied to additive manufacturing as
well. Some taggants emit such a strong signal that they are easy
to identify even in minute quantities. Options include fluorescent taggants, upconverting phosphors, and rare earth oxides.
Fluorescent taggants are now widely available, even to counterfeiters. Upconverting phosphors are microscopic ceramic
powders that convert invisible infrared light wavelengths to
visible colored light. Essentially, these taggants light up when an
infrared light is shone on them. These, too, are widely available
to counterfeiters as well as to legitimate players; a Google search
yields sources such as this one:
980 nm luminescent upconverting material anticounterfeit, US $6002000/Kilogram, IR phosphor,
Y2O3, Shanghai, China (Mainland).9
Ultraviolet versions are available too; the product description is reproduced here verbatim10:
Ultraviolet Anti-counterfeiting phosphors producer
1. professional producer
2. can produce as your requirement
3. best quality in china
Up-conversion Anti-counterfeit Phosphor is a luminescent material that converts different invisible

FLANK ET AL.

infrared light into visible light. Making full use of

technology advantage of Chinese Academy of Sciences,
KPT is the first company in China that develop this
product, the quality has achieved the leading level of
the world. It has characteristic of sensitive response,
rich glowing colors, long lifetime, easy test and the
most importanthigh safety and concealed ability, by
using it, IR (infrared ray) beam can be efficiently detected, tracked, identified and proofread etc.
Product use
This product is suitable for printing all kinds of
anti-fake paper and package, such as, portfolio, certificate, archives, bill, label and branded Package of
cigarette, alcohol, medicine. It well applies to the field
of food, garment, chemical, electric utensil, IT, beverage etc.
special purpose
Used for
currency detector anti-counterfeiting device
Ultraviolet Anti-counterfeiting phosphors producer
Rare earth oxides have been used to tag ink, including on
Euro banknotes, where the inks are invisible, but glow in
different colors, red in the case of Europium (III), under irradiation with UV light.11 Low-toxicity choices such as
lanthanide-based emitters are highly preferable, but avoiding
toxicity limits the range of options. Rare earth taggants
worked well as a first-generation solution, but increasingly
sophisticated counterfeiters have learned to identify their
presence and replicate it, compromising their protective
ability. In any event, a homogeneous mix-in solution does not
provide any protection whatsoever against void attacks.
Quantum dots have been proposed as an anticounterfeiting
method for additive manufacturing. They are added as taggants and their detection relies on fluorescence. Quantum
dots can be made with a variety of sizes and therefore fluorescence wavelengths and they can be mixed to produce a
unique fluorescence spectrum that would be difficult to reproduce without quantum dot expertise. They would be added to feedstock as an embedded fluorescence marker. Most
versions are visible, not covert, and they glow visibly under a
black light. There do exist viable infrared-emitting nanocrystals, which would be invisible to the eye, but emit infrared light under black lights. From a counterfeiters
perspective, however, all of these fluorescent signals are
active signals. If the prospective counterfeiter detects the
fluorescence, it is clear there is a measure in place to be
overcome or replicated.
Quantum dots are an excellent example of a fluorescent
material. They are bright, they have narrow fluorescence
spectra that can be mixed to produce an exact shape, their
surfaces can be tuned to be compatible with essentially any
host material, and they are very stable. Unfortunately, however, there are additional major issues with their use, in
particular scalability and toxicity.
In terms of scalability, it is easy to make a few grams of
quantum dots in a laboratory, but when made in a large reactor, they tend not to have uniform properties. The current
solution is a labor-intensive approach at liter scale. Newer
processes using flow reactors are showing some success at
sufficient quality for some commercial applications. In any
event, quantum dot synthesis is still a specialty process.12

ANTICOUNTERFEITING OPTIONS FOR 3D PRINTING

As for toxicity, most of the established quantum dot materials contain cadmium, lead, or arsenic. The superior
quantum dot material for fluorescence in the visible light
range is cadmium selenide, which is likely to encounter
compliance problems under Europes RoHS, Restriction of
the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and
Electronic Equipment Directive13; the common infraredemitting quantum dots made of lead selenide, lead sulfide, or
indium arsenide face similar restrictions. The development of
nontoxic quantum dot materials is an active area of basic
research,14 but they are not yet commercially viable.
Overall, quantum dot synthesis more closely resembles
engineering on an atomic level rather than normal chemical
synthesis. Quantum dots do not have a predefined structure or
predefined properties; their properties are derived from the
exact size and shape of each individual quantum dot in the
sample, and not all have the same physical properties or optical specifications.15 Engineering a solution to a given
problem (e.g., solubility in a particular polymer) can be a
considerable challenge in light of the fact that the process
must be able to synthesize high-quality reproducible particles.
Another anticounterfeiting method, used on electronic
parts within the U.S. Department of Defense, employs altered
segments of botanical DNA as a taggant. This has the advantage of millions of possible taggants, but the authentication requires polymerase chain reaction analysis, currently a
sophisticated and rather cumbersome process. DNA taggants
can be used in certain types of 3D printing, but of course not
in the high-heat versions.
Chemical Fingerprinting

Ease of use is a key factor in technology adoption and it

applies for taggants as well. As 3D printing moves from a
prototyping technique to mainstream production, streamlining
becomes more important. A fingerprinting technique that can
be controlled through software choices using existing feedstock
is likely to be preferred over one that relies exclusively on
custom addition of taggants and specialized materials. In regulated industries, choice of materials is a sensitive issue, and
there is little enthusiasm for novel ingredients, especially if they
engender supply chain concerns. These concerns may reflect
sourcing issues, for example, worry about materials that must
be purchased from Chinese suppliers, or they may be caused by
sole source reliance on a single supplier of a crafted nanoparticle since best practice encourages the availability of an
alternate source of supply for all materials. Key authentication
features are highlighted in Table 1.
Different 3D printing media have different curing methods, but most are amenable to chemical fingerprinting. Optimally, the chemical taggants are detectable only with a

183

spectrometer, not with the human eye. Near-infrared (NIR)

spectroscopy is one of the preferred techniques, in particular
because it is well suited to distinguishing plastics, and highquality instruments are now being manufactured that are
highly portable, inexpensive, and easy to use (Fig. 1).
Most methods for 3D printing are compatible with chemical tagging, including the following:
Fused deposition modeling, the technology that extrudes
the melted plastic out through the head of the 3D printer. The
heat tolerance requirements for a taggant in this case are in
the range of 250C, which somewhat restricts the universe of
available taggants, but still allows a wide range of costeffective safe choices.
Selective laser sintering (SLS)a high-quality 3Dprinting technology that can use metal, glass, and ceramic
materials as media, cured by lasers. SLS is compatible with
chemical taggants since there are (nonspectroscopic) detection modalities that can be used to distinguish metals, in
particular X-ray fluorescence and X-ray diffraction analyzers, which provide qualitative and quantitative material
characterization.
Stereolithographic (or SLA) 3D printing techniques
which put down a thin layer of resin that is cured with a UV
laser, either cured layer by layer as each layer is exposed to
the UV curing as it moves up on a platform in a vat of liquid
photopolymer or deposited (as in a spray) in layers. These
resins are compatible with chemical tagging, and/or different
resins can be used in fingerprinting.
Some methods melt or soften material to produce the
layers, for example, selective laser melting, for example, of
aluminum mixtures, or direct metal laser sintering. If an
object can be composed of more than one material, chemical
taggants can be accommodated.
With laminated object manufacturing, thin layers are cut to
shape and joined together (e.g., paper, polymer, metal). If there
is more than one material available, this technique too can be
made compatible with chemical tagging and fingerprinting.

Table 1. Optimally, Anticounterfeiting

Should Be Designed for Maximal
Scalability and Minimal Footprint
Properties of an optimal authentication system
Easy to add
taggants
Easy to
authenticate
Fast

Inexpensive
Sturdy,
long-lasting
Secure

Millions of possible
codes
Safe

FIG. 1. Authentication can be performed using a handheld

spectrometer (courtesy of Spectral Engines OY, Finland).
Color images available online at www.liebertpub.com/3dp

184

In the case of UV-cured SLA, an article of manufacture is

created using a UV-cure resin 3D printer. The printer cures
the workpiece by directing UV lights of various wavelengths
at a moveable platform in a vat of resin, exposing liquid
polymer resin, and then curing it layer by layer. The UV curable resin is formulated using polymer added to a mix of photoinitiators in the UV longwave and shortwave range. The
workpiece layers of untagged resin are cured, the untagged
liquid resin is removed, and the tagged resin is placed in the tray
for curing of subsequent layers. To implement chemical tagging
in the simplest format, NIR-active resin is formulated as a homogeneous mix; in the case of a UV-curing 3D printer with
multiple jets for resin delivery rather than a vat of liquid, taggant
is employed in one or more jets rather than as a homogeneous
mix. For a multijet printer with mixing options, the fingerprint
can consist of a mix of NIR-active resins or a sandwiched area
of NIR-active resin within other inert materials.
The fingerprinted end product, regardless of the print method,
is an object with a covert marked area that consists of a chemically distinguishable layer or layers. Thus, the resulting tagged
object has an invisible under-the-skin marking, as in Figure 2.
InfraTracs protection represents a significant improvement over existing methods because it is rapid, convenient, inexpensive, and aligns well with the 3D design and
printing process, while overcoming the problem of rogue
copying inherent in the rise of 3D printing. Tagging can be
covert, in particular because spectroscopic (rather than visual) detection makes it possible for the taggant layer to be
below the surface of the finished 3D-printed object. As noted,
taggants that show up under ultraviolet or infrared light are no
longer considered secure; counterfeiters detect them with
their own lights and replicate them with materials available
on the internet from sources both legitimate and shady.
Spectroscopic under-the-skin tagging represents a substantial advance in security. The tagging in layers also represents a
considerable advance over simply mixing a taggant chemical
into a single printing medium since it makes possible a much
larger number of tag options (e.g., in the top left corner, layered
1-2-3, or 1-3-2, or 2-3-1, or 2-double-thickness-3-1, or in the
bottom right corner, and so on), all locally controlled at the
point of manufacture.

FLANK ET AL.

or blueprints are available on 3D printing marketplaces.

Managing the digital rights is a start, but there is a clear need
to mark the physical objectsso that the resulting objects can
be authenticated, without access to the software that made
them. This is a particular concern with spare parts (Fig. 3),
especially in the areas of aerospace and defense.
There is a growing need to address protection requirements
across the marketplace without escalating costs and complexity. This approach to brand protection returns the
anticounterfeiting advantage to legitimate manufacturers,
packagers, and distributors.
The ability of UV-cured commodity chemicals to apply and
adhere to a wide range of materials and remain undetectable in
the visible spectral region is a key enabler of InfraTracs
technology. The NIR region of the electromagnetic spectrum
has been shown to be useful for distinguishing specific regions
of absorption of the tagging compounds not present in the
substrate. This property is what makes the compounds used by
InfraTrac particularly effective as covert taggants: humans
cannot differentiate them, but a spectrometer can.
InfraTracs patented brand protection methods employ a
three-step process: developing suitable formulation(s) from
commodity chemicals, applying the selected formulation,
and verifying that the chemical code contained in the applied
formulation exhibits the desired spectral absorption attributes. In the case of 3D printing, the formulation step may
instead be fingerprint validation and consist of verifying that
a particular sandwich of materials can be distinguished from
the nonsandwiched version. That is, can the spectrometer
validate the breadpeanut butterjellybread section, reliably
distinguishing it from the breadbreadbread version as well
as from any breadpeanut butterbread or breadjellybread
sections?
NIR spectroscopy has been implemented successfully as a
technology for use in plastic recycling because it does an

Scan Vulnerabilities

3D scanning is a process of analyzing and collecting digital

data on the shape and appearance of a real object. Based on
these data, 3D models of the scanned object can then be
produced, and then knockoffs, unauthorized and not necessarily made of high-quality material, can be produced. Models

FIG. 2. Subsurface layers of chemically detectable taggant

materials create a covert fingerprint.

FIG. 3. Subsurface fingerprinting can be placed in an inconspicuous nonload-bearing location for later field authentication. The covert fingerprint is chemically distinct,
but not visible to the naked eye.

ANTICOUNTERFEITING OPTIONS FOR 3D PRINTING

FIG. 4. Many readily available plastics are easily distinguished using NIR spectroscopy. NIR, near-infrared.
efficient job of distinguishing plastics and requires no analytical expertise from the end user. This ability transfers well
to the authentication of 3D printing, in particular in light of
the fact that the repertoire of available materials is similar. An
example of plastic distinguishability is given in Figure 4.16
The astute reader will then ask how easy it is to reverse
engineer spectroscopic fingerprinting. Since the technique

185

provides a full chemical profile and is not just searching

for the presence of a particular marker, it is essentially
painting a full picture, and that picture has, for the full 70+year history of spectroscopy, been impossible to reverse
engineer. NIR spectroscopy has the further advantage of
shifting peaks when materials are combined, making reverse lookup impossible and giving the counterfeiter little
hope of reproducing the spectrum with his own set of
materials.
The following graph, Figure 5, shows how clearly the
tagged samples can be distinguished from the untagged. The
flat black (a) line is the untagged sample. The lightest line,
marked (c), with the sharpest peaks in the region of 1800
2000 nm is taggant alone. The intermediate line, (b), shows
the spectrum of the combination of the two.
The novice authenticator never sees the graphs. They are
analyzed automatically, with a matchno match response.
However, even the nonspecialist can see from the graph that
the untagged sample is different from either the taggant or the
tagged sample, with the taggant clearly detectable, with
peaks at wavelengths of 1880 nm, 1930 nm, and so on.
Figures 6 through 10 show spectral comparisons of 3Dprinted materials created on a Makerbot 2 using ABS and
PLA, where one serves as a covert taggant hidden under at
least one layer of the other. Figure 6 is a spectral overview.
Figure 7 shows peaks for PLA and ABS. Figures 8, 9 and 10
highlight the differences in the fingerprinted samples.
Solution Characteristics
No reverse engineering

The most effective anticounterfeiting solutions deny detection personnel access to the coding secrets employed to

FIG. 5. Even before full chemometric analysis, it is possible to use spectroscopy to discern clear chemical differences
between samples such as a, b, and c.

186

FLANK ET AL.

FIG. 6.

Different three-dimensional print materials show different NIR spectroscopic profiles.

protect the product being examined. That is, brand protection

best practice is to separate what is needed to detect counterfeits from what is needed to create counterfeits. Spectroscopy
is ideal here: a handheld spectrometer provides an instant
match/no match answer. For the advanced user, it can provide
spectral datacurves with peaks and valleys that represent the
light-based signature of a product or package. However, even
an expert has no way to reverse engineer those curves, especially when they reflect a mix of ingredients and shifts due to
the underlying elements. So, a bad actor with a good spec-

FIG. 7.

trometer has no Eureka moment: it is not possible to make the

leap from a spectrometer reading(1429, 0.2) (1640, 0.3)
(1803, 0.17)to the covert taggant code that produced it.
Combinatoric smarts

The combination of commodity (inexpensive) chemicals

to create a taggant code provides a solution that is inherently cost-effective. Yet combinatoric possibilities of these
compounds offer the choice of millions of secure codes.

Spectra of the ABS (black lines) and PLA (gray lines).

ANTICOUNTERFEITING OPTIONS FOR 3D PRINTING

FIG. 8.

187

The region 16001750 nm highlights differences between the fingerprinting and the matrix materials.

Combinatoric smarts are being leveraged in the newer multiple jet printers and they are particularly amenable to this
type of anticounterfeiting protection.

ble, and offer tests that are noninvasive and nondestructive,

using off-the-shelf hardware and software. The cost of these
devices is falling rapidly even as accuracy and ease of use
improve dramatically.

Hardware

Relevant hardware developments include the emergence

of tiny highly capable spectrometers from companies such as
Texas Instruments, Spectral Engines OY, and JDS Uniphase
(Viavi Solutions). The new spectrometers are sturdy, porta-

Recycling

Optimally, any anticounterfeiting measures will match the

recycling profile of the object they protect so as to keep the
product as green as possible.

FIG. 9. This figure zooms in on additional differences between the fingerprinting and the matrix materials. The two ABS
samples do not overlap perfectly.

188

FIG. 10.

FLANK ET AL.

Fingerprinted material can be distinguished from both of the pure matrix substances using NIR spectroscopy.

Authentication

The covert nature of the taggants makes it hard for counterfeiters to find the markings, much less copy them. Even an
expert counterfeiter with sophisticated spectrographic skills
who manages to find the taggant signature will have no way to
copy it since spectroscopy cannot be reverse engineered.
As for field authentication, the more people who can spotcheck, the stronger the protection. If the spot-check can be
spoofed, however, the security plummets. So, for example, if
the protection is a hologram or printed code that itself can be
counterfeited, spot-checking can backfire: it can become a
training ground for unscrupulous actors, who learn how to
copy the anticounterfeiting method.
So the optimal protection is something that a counterfeiter
cannot spoof, even if he knows about it. Spectroscopically
detectable chemical codes fit into this safe category.
The next requirement is for easy verification. It is most
practical to use codes that can be detected in seconds with a
handheld device, for example, a spectrometer. Other methods
may require forensic-level analysis using a laboratory instrument. Testing every object is a wildly optimistic plan;
in actual practice, only a small portion can be tested. Developments that make testing easier, faster, less expensive,
and more accessible enhance security in the real world.
Conclusion

In sum, anticounterfeiting for 3D printing is best accomplished with a solution that is as follows:




Inexpensive and scales cost-effectively

Fast, showing results in a second or two
Easy, so it can be used anywhere by anyone with
minimal training
 Discreet and invisible on products

Nondestructive: after testing, products are unharmed,

able to be tested again, and ready to serve as evidence.
A unique marking technique that cannot be replicated
offers forensic proof of authenticity.

Wise companies and government entities are moving

quickly to address the counterfeiting threat, with the clear
understanding that reliable authentication protects not just
against the rogue hobbyist but also, increasingly, against
determined evildoers with robust capabilities to render
harm.
Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the University of Maryland

Terrapin Works laboratory for 3D printing assistance, the
University of Maryland, Baltimore, Professor Stephen W.
Hoag for spectroscopic guidance, and Andrew P. Beyler of
MIT for assistance on quantum dots.
Author Disclosure Statement

All of the authors are coinventors of the patent referred to

herein.
References

1. Campbell TA, Cass WJ. 3D printing will be a counterfeiters best friend. Scientific American, 2013.
2. Hornick JF. IP licensing in a 3D printed world. World
Trademark Review, 2015.
3. Pierce JE, Schwarz SJ. IP strategies for the rise of 3D
printing. Venable, 2015. www.venable.com/ip-strategiesfor-the-rise-of-3d-printing-0414-2015/ (accessed April 29,
2015).
4. Paulsen C. Proceedings of the Cybersecurity for Direct
Digital Manufacturing (DDM) Symposium. NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR)-8041, 2015.

ANTICOUNTERFEITING OPTIONS FOR 3D PRINTING

5. Apple. Compression and Obfuscation of Three-Dimensional

Coding. Patent WO 2013191913 A1, n.d.
6. Sturm L, Williams CB, Camelio JA, White J, Parker R. An
Analysis of Cyber-Physical Vulnerabilities in Additive
Manufacturing. NIST Proceedings of the Cybersecurity for
DDM Symposium. Gaithersburg, MD, 2015; pp. 2050.
7. Ritchie GE. Emerging options for worldwide authentication
and counterfeit detection. American Pharmaceutical Review, 2015.
8. World Health Organization. Anti-counterfeit Technologies for
the Protection of Medicines. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO
IMPACT (International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting
Taskforce), n.d.
9. Alibaba. 2015. kpt.en.alibaba.com (accessed May 21, 2015).
10. Alibaba2. 2015. www.alibaba.com/product-detail/ultravioletanti-counterfeiting-phosphors-producer_759143329.html (accessed May 29, 2015).
11. Binnemans K. Lanthanide-based luminescent hybrid materials. Chem Rev 2009;109:42834374.
12. Phillips TW, Lignos IG, Maceiczyk RM, deMello AJ, deMello JC. Nanochrystal synthesis in microfluidic reactors:
where next? Lab Chip 2014;14:31723180.

189

13. European Parliament. Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the
European Union, 2011.
14. Kovalenko MV, et al. Prospects of nanoscience with nanocrystals. ACS Nano 2015;9:10121057.
15. Cui J, Beyler AP, Bischof TS, Wilson MWB, Bawendi MG.
Deconstructing the photon stream from single nanocrystals:
from binning to correlation. Chem Soc Rev 2014;43:1287
1310.
16. Lotfi A. Plastic Recycling, 2009. www.lotfi.net/recycle/
plastic.html (accessed May 19, 2015).
17. Marketsandmarkets.com. Anti-counterfeiting packaging
market by technology. Marketsandmarkets.com, 2014.

Address correspondence to:

Sharon Flank
InfraTrac
8070 Georgia Ave. Ste. 415
Silver Spring, MD 20910
E-mail: sflank@infratrac.com