poptech eco materials lab report 2-1-11

8/7/2019 PopTech Eco Materials Lab Report 2-1-11

1/30

Releti te PpTe

Eteril Iti L


2/30


3/30

REfLEcTIons on ThE PoPTEch EcomaTERIaLs InnovaTIon Lab 2

Exeutie sury

If you are like most of us, you probably spend a fair amount of time

thinking about your clothes what to wear, when to wear it, jackets,pants, shoes, belts. But, when was the last time you thought deeplyabout how your clothes were made? About all of the materials that gointo, say, a pair of shoes the amount of chemicals, water, petroleum,and land required to put together a simple combination of rubber, poly-ester, and leather?

Assessing the total environmental cost of the materials that make upthe very stuff of our lives is not an easy task. Nor is nding ways to

make those materials ecologically benign. Yet, in an age of an expand-ing human footprint and accelerating environmental challenges, the

need to do so is pressing. It is exactly for these reasons that PopTechand its partners have undertaken the Ecomaterials Innovation Lab an ongoing effort to promote open collaboration between leadingmaterials scientists, thought leaders, industry professionals, ecologicalactivists, government leaders and designers on new ways to acceleratethe adoption of ecological materials and processes.

At the rst gathering of the lab, we brought together a diverse and high-ly talented group of 40 of these stakeholders for a three-day conferenceat Harvard Medical School. Here we would like to summarize some ofwhat we learned over the course of those three days and what we see

as some of the most promising areas of opportunity for the future.

This report is not meant to be in any way a comprehensive overview ofthe materials space. Our goal is to bring the debate to light, presentthe work done thus far, and show a glimpse of potential areas of futurefocus. As the conversation continues, and the debates undoubtedlydeepen, we are committed to doing our part to facilitate the dialogueamong stakeholders, activists, and concerned citizens.


4/30


Itrduti

Materials matter.1 Everything we do, touch, taste, see, hear, wear, drive,

drink, eat all of it is connected to the sourcing, renement, manu-facture, distribution, use and re-use and ultimate disposal of materials.The health of the planet and the prosperity of its inhabitants rests large-ly on how people extract and use the full range of materials that comefrom and return to the Earth such as wood, minerals, fuels, chemicals,agricultural plants and animals, soil, and rock.

As humanitys footprint and material appetite have skyrocketed, so toohave the amount of materials consumed globally, and particularly in theUnited States. Consider the following:

In the past 50 years, humans have consumed more resources thanin all previous history.

The U.S. consumed 57% more materials in the year 2000 than in1975; the global increase was even higher.

With less than 5% of the worlds population, the U.S. was respon-sible for about one-third of the worlds total materials consump-tion from 1970-1995. The average American consumes more than46,000 pounds of materials in a year.2 That is the equivalent of 23full dump trucks worth of materials for every man, woman, andchild in the country.3

In 1900, 41% of the materials used in the U.S. were renewable(e.g., agricultural, shery, and forestry products); by 1995, only 6%

of materials consumed were renewable. The majority of materialsnow consumed in the U.S. are nonrenewable, including metals,minerals, and fossil fuel-derived products.

Our reliance on materials as fundamental ingredients in the manu-factured products used in the U.S. including cell phones, at-

screen monitors, paint, and toothpaste requires the extraction ofmore than 25,000 pounds of new nonfuel minerals per capita each

year.4

It is difcult to fathom the toll this rate of material exploitation is tak-

ing on both the planet and the health of its inhabitants. Global warm-ing, desertication, sheries depletion, habitat destruction, biodiversityloss, and increased levels of environmental and human toxicity are allimplicated by our current model of material exploitation. Unfortunately,these are classic externalities that are not well accounted for by currentmarket mechanisms. Other impacts, however particularly increasedstress on water and oil reserves, and a forecasted increased cost of en-ergy are already being felt by industries around the globe. Unchecked,these forces could impact global enterprises supply chains and theirbrands, as companies become increasingly viewed as either part of theproblem, or part of the solution.

Action is critical, as these trends are accelerating at a geometric, notarithmetic rate: projections suggest that between 2000 and 2050,world population will grow by 50%, global economic activity will

grow 500%, and global energy and materials use will grow 300%.5

It seems clear that, to avoid a future of disruption, exhaustion, or col-lapse, we need a global and national materials strategy that helpshumanity live lightly upon the Earth.6 Key to that strategy will be rede-signing materials and materials streams for efciency, longevity, reuse,

safety and biodegradability. It will pose new questions: can a requiredmaterial property be obtained with less environmental load? How canmaterials (and products) be designed to improve recyclability? How

BY 2050:

50% 500% 300%More People More Economic Activity More Materials Needed


5/30


can maximum performance be acquired with least consumption ofresources?7 And ultimately, how can we decouple wealth and consump-tion?

To that end, PopTech and its partners have initiated an open-source,collaborative effort to investigate and accelerate the future adoption ofsustainable ecomaterials. This effort, the PopTech Ecomaterials In-novation Lab, is designed to identify and connect thought leaders andstakeholders in a wide variety of scientic and technical domains, along

with experts from government, industry, and material innovation-relateddisciplines.

The rst meeting of the Ecomaterials Lab network in July 2010 at

Harvard University brought together 40 of these thought leaders andstakeholders for a facilitated dialogue regarding the drivers, constraints,opportunities, and challenges surrounding these materials (with a par-

ticular emphasis on textiles) and how incentives might be used to drivetheir use. The gathering unearthed new insights and areas of disagree-ment, and helped form a new kind of multi-stakeholder network aroundsustainable ecomaterials.

Along with many subsidiary ideas, this rst gathering produced three

central insights:

1. T i pii ck c t t t t

ici t i.

Hampering progress, there is no consistently held grand vision ar-ticulating what the successful adoption of ecomaterials would looklike, at scale and in a meaningful timeframe, among policymakers,corporations, activists and academics. In contrast, climate changeadvocates have largely agreed upon the goal of stabilizing carbon at350 parts per million in the atmosphere, and have developed rigor-ous models to understand what the effects of such an effort mightbe. There is no equivalent, agreed-upon, large-scale metric in thematerials space.

This lack of consensus extends, occasionally, even to the denition

of key terms and strategies. Is biodegradability always the right ap-proach? Are closed loop systems truly scalable? Should water-ef-

cient GMO agricultural crops be emphasized as part of the solution?In lieu of precise answers, the sustainable materials discussion mustfrequently rely on heuristics rules of thumb rather than absolutelaws.

Even the most basic questions, including what is an ecomaterial?elicit a wide variety of responses. It is not enough to dene an eco-material as environmentally benign. Unpacking that modest two-word phrase involves acknowledging that we need materials thatare bio-based, ubiquitously producible, highly customizable, highlyrecyclable (or biodegradable), require minimal processing, and do

not require extensive use of chemical additives in their processingor manufacture.

Determining the level of green of any specic material is also

highly context dependent is a material green if it uses fewer

chemicals or creates less harmful waste in its production? Or doesbeing green require absolutes? What is the baseline for green?Assessing the environmental impact of a material along the entiretyof its life cycle and guring out how to assign relative positive and

negative values at particular points is part of what makes the seem-ingly easy task of dening green or eco so challenging.

The lack of consensus about denitions and what constitutes suc-cess, however, has not prevented a proliferation of sustainablestandards, endorsement marks, and messages that have led largelyto confusion and dissipation of energy.

2. T i i t iti. It c.

The materials sector faces a crisis of opportunity. There are manyproof-of-concept sustainable materials and related processes thatalready show great promise, and green chemistry and material sci-ence labs are bursting with promising lines of future inquiry. The lifesciences, in particular, are poised to have a transformational impacton materials and energy, well beyond their roots in biology andhealthcare. (There are exceptions, of course, key missing materials,but a surprising amount of progress could be made by scaling up

solutions that already exist).


6/30


As with all early-stage technologies, the challenge for these early-stage material innovations is how they will overcome the substantialinbuilt cost, infrastructure, supply-chain and regulatory advantages

of more mature, robust and less sustainable competitors.

3. Cpti t; t sums. All h ha a l la bu s, all wll ha

t t t p.

Despite a barrage of constant communication about all thingsgreen, consumers are under-informed about the space, suscep-tible to greenwashing, and ill equipped to make a signicant differ-

ence without the proper tools.

The US government seems focused on a different set of problems,and approaches rooted in a different era. For instance, the EPA ar-

ticulates a vision of sustainable materials management, but remainsfocused on toxicity and pollution control.

Without strong governmental leadership, and with an inconsistentlyinformed consumer base, forefront corporations are put in the un-usual position of asking for more but better policies, because theyknow that with them, they and everybody win.

Each of these insights suggests a critical area for future collabora-tion and development. For example:

If key recycling technologies or material streams now exist,whats urgently needed are detailed roadmaps, suggesting

detailed policies, incentives and investments to guide their

rise to fruition.

If a lack of consensus dominates among key stakeholders, thena scenario-planning process must be undertaken to create

a vision of shared success.

And if government and citizens lag in their engagement on theissue, then new forms of advocacy should be undertaken toenergize these constituencies both politically and, in the

case of consumers, behaviorally.

We consider all of these strategies to be essential to accelerate theadoption of sustainable ecomaterials in the decades to come.

In the following pages we present some of our baseline ndings,

including observations about the textiles space, a summary of therst meeting of the PopTech Ecomaterials Lab in summer 2010, and

concluding with more general strategies and opportunities for mate-rial sustainability.


7/30


a sptligt Textile

The textiles industry represents a unique case study of the opportuni-

ties and challenges present in constructing a more ecologically soundmaterials economy. Cotton and polyester are the two most widely usedbers and, at present, both exact signicant environmental tolls in their

extraction, processing, and manufacture.

Cotton, despite its obvious benet of being natural, is an environ-mentally demanding ber. It takes more than 100 pounds of water toproduce a single pound of conventional cotton and more than two inevery fty acres of arable land on Earth is used to grow it. The cottoncrop accounts for an estimated 25% of global insecticide use and11% of the worlds pesticide use.8 And thats just in the production of

raw material: while it takes a little under 3 oz of chemical pesticides,fertilizers, and insecticides to produce a pound of genetically modied

cotton, it can take three times that amount of chemicals to process thebers into nished cloth.9

The past few decades have witnessed the rise of organic cotton,produced without the use of synthetic chemicals such as pesticidesand fertilizers. The organic cotton market has grown dramatically from2,075 metric tons in 1993 to 145,000 metric tons in 2007. India iscurrently the worlds leading producer of organic cotton with 55% oftotal global production. The hope is that the rapidly increasing use of

organic cotton will produce a pull-through effect to convert chemical-intensive farming systems to organic.10

Today, organic cotton adoption is limited by the types of farms whereit can be grown. Organic cotton farming does not easily lend itself tolarger farms in developed nations where capital-intensive farming sys-tems (use of chemicals and machinery versus labor) prevail and labor

costs are high. In these systems, where efciencies are already opti-mized, the additional labor costs are, with a few exceptions, more thanthe market can bear. Smaller farms, where hand labor is the primarymeans of tending crops, are also much more economically susceptible

to the drawbacks of an organic system. Reduced yields or crop lossfrom pest infestations may mean the difference between having and not

having enough income on which to live. Additionally, organic cotton de-

mand, while growing, still only represents a very small percentage of theoverall demand, further reducing the incentives for conventional farmersto change growing practices.

Where these barriers have been successfully overcome, it has beenthrough building new business relationships and supply chain structuresthat mitigate risks for all sectors. It is in these new relationships, con-necting farmer to market and market to farmer, that organic cotton hasmade the greatest contribution to the textile industry thus far.11

Hanging over anydiscussion of cotton organic or otherwise is the adoption of ge-netically modied (GM)

strains. In principle(and particularly whencombined with organicfarming practices) GM

strains dramaticallylower the water, pesti-cide, insecticide, and

fertilizer intensivity ofcotton, but also raisesignicant concerns,

including implementation control, the expansion of intellectual propertyregimes, and the risk of genetic drift, among many others. As withmany issues involving genetically modied crops, disagreement over

this cocktail of juxtaposed and balanced risks (between the ecologicalimpact of non-GM cotton vs. the risks of GM cotton) complicates the

process of developing consensus.

Persuading a conventional

farmer to switch from a chemical-

intensive system to an organic

system is the equivalent of asking

a Western medical doctor to

switch to Chinese medicine and

acupuncture; it is a fundamentally

different system

Lynda Grose, Assistant Professor of Fashion


8/30


Polyester, on the other hand, implicates a different set of concerns. Inaddition to polyester being a petroleum byproduct and thus innatelycarbon intensive, the use of the highly toxic heavy metal antimonyinpolyester processing is of particular concern to environmentalists.

Synthetic bers are the most popular bers in the world it is estimated

that synthetics account for about 65% of world production versus 35%for natural bers. Most synthetic bers (approximately 70%) are made

from polyester, and the polyester most often used in textiles is polyeth-ylene terephthalate (PET). Used in a fabric, it is most often referred to

as polyester or poly. The majority of the worlds PET production about 60% is used to make bers for textiles; about 30% is used to

make bottles. It is estimated that it takes about 104 million barrels ofoil for PET production each year or 62 million barrels just to producethe virgin polyester used in fabrics.12

Sustainability discussions regarding polyester center on ways to miti-gate the detrimental aspects of its production. Proponents of recyclingPET (rPET), either from clothing or bottles, point out that producing

rPET is typically 70-84% less energy intensive than what was needed tomake virgin polyester in the rst place13, and doing so keeps bottles andother plastics out of landlls.

Yet, the eco-friendliness of recycled polyester is highly dependent onthe recycling process, and the quality and treatment that the originalpolyester itself has received. Recycling traditional polyester actuallydowngrades the quality of the polyester, limiting the number of times it

can be recycled before its value is gone and it ends up in landll. Theantimony used in the manufacturing process creates a byproduct calledantimony trioxide, which is released every time the garment is recycled.

Moreover, some of the inherent energy advantages of post-consumerpolyester disappear when considered in light of the entire supply chain.For example, rPET chips vary in color from white to creamy yellow,making it difcult to get consistent dye lots, and increasing the need for

chemical- and energy-intensive dying processes which themselves

may or may not be ecologically optimized. Further inhibiting growth isthe proprietary nature of many practices within the nascent rPET mar-ket, making transparent auditing all but impossible.

One solution then is to design a more environmentally friendly polyesterfrom the start. There has been work to create novel polyester bers by

companies such Victor Innovatex, whose EcoIntelligent polyester is

made without the use of antimony. Another solution is to nd a way to

make rPET more robust through chemical depolymerization and repo-lymerization, a process that, though promising, is extremely expensiveand almost non-existent today. 14

As the above demonstrates, even with a narrow focus on a specic

material such as cotton or polyester, a constellation of ecological,technical, economic, supply-chain, and other issues are implicated. Theproblems are thorny and complex.


9/30


nte fr te firt Gterig

te PpTe EterilIti LHaa Us Shl M, Jul 20-22, 2010

At the rst Ecomaterials Lab network meeting, 40 thought leaders in the

materials space representing industry, science, technology, innovation,government, design, and public interest gathered together for threedays at Harvard University to discuss the drivers, constraints, opportu-nities and challenges surrounding the ecomaterials space. Each day of

the lab was dedicated to a specic area of discussion: systems condi-tions, potential disruptors, and incentives.

Day ones discussion of systems conditions was meant to assess thematerials landscape and raise critical questions: What is the currentstate of the materials system? Do we understand it? Do we have allthe concepts and tools that we need? The presentations were variedbut what emerged was the idea that in order to achieve the vision of an

industrial closed loop, sustainability must be designed into the product.Though related, the materials space is not like the carbon emissions

Drawing by Peter Durand.


10/30


space; it is not enough to focus on end-of-pipe considerations. Sus-tainability begins with the extractive processes and extends through thelife of the product. There must be a community effort among all partiesinvolved the chemical suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, design-ers, retailers, consumers in order to create a sustainable materials

future.Day two was dedicated to an exploration of the current state of disrup-tive innovation in the space. We heard from some of the most cutting-edge thinkers working in materials today and learned that not only arethere a number of potentially game changing innovations on the hori-zon, there are quite a few that need only modest investment to go toscale in the very near future. We heard about everything from ways tosafely dye fabrics by incorporating color into the polymerization processto creating packaging materials from mushrooms to turning organicwaste into plastics. Taking inspiration from nature and natural process-

es, and nding ways to use bio-based materials to create novel formsof usable materials is the future. Bringing these innovations to scale isthe challenge.

The nal day of the lab was dedicated to nding ways to move the

process forward. Reaching agreement on the denitions of the terms,

determining what success means, and creating a roadmap based ona shared perspective should be at the center of what happens next.Understanding that the market will ultimately determine success is keyto building a sustainable materials future and combating commercial-ized greenwashing. There is danger in moving forward too fast (see

corn ethanol), but there is also danger in not moving forward at all. It isvital to act, and act collectively. Incentive programs, such as the MITX Prize, could be effective motivational tools but the desired outcomesshould be clear and measurable. Creating an overly broad competitionis worse than no competition at all.

PopTech Ecomaterials Innovation Lab, Harvard University, July 2010. Pictured: Yiqi Yang, SimonettaCarbonaro. Photo by John Santerre.

PopTech Ecomaterials Innovation Lab, Harvard University, July 2010. Pictured: Ken Geiser, Libby

Sommer, Michael Ellison. Photo by John Santerre.


11/30


PpTe Eteril

Iti L Prtiipt

Haa Us Shl M, Jul 20-22, 2010

Ee byercofounder and chief executive ofcer of Ecovative Designs.

Eri bekfounder and co-director of the Mascaro Center for Sustainability Inno-

vation (MCSI) and a Professor of Engineering at the University of Pitts-

burgh.

J biellchief executive ofcer and co-founder of Micromidas, Inc.

Rird blkursenior lecturer at the University of Leeds, co-founder and director of the

University of Leeds spin-out company DyeCat Ltd.

miel brwco-founder Brown and Wilmanns Environmental, LLC.

siett crrprofessor in Design Management and Humanistic Marketing at theSwedish School of Textiles at the University of Boras.

Eri Duysustainable materials specialist within Nike Considered Design, Nike Inc.

Jill Duidirector of Environmental Strategy for Patagonia Inc.

Peter Durdco-founder and creative director of Alphachimp Studio.

miel Elliprofessor of Polymer Fibers at the School of Materials Science and En-

gineering at Clemson University.

J frzierdirector of Considered Chemistry and ESH for Nike Inc.

Keet GeierProfessor of Work Environment and Director of the Lowell Center for

Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

P Greeesenior design innovator for Nike Considered Design.

Lure heiescience director and partner at Clean Production Action and the princi-

pal of Lauren Heine Group, LLC.

ali Kedllassistant professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Univer-

sity of California, Davis.

srir Kuripostdoctoral fellow at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engi-neering and at Harvard Medical School.

Rdlp Lewiprofessor of Molecular Biology at the University of Wyoming.

Reid Lietassociate director of the Industrial Environmental Management Program

and Resident Fellow in Industrial Ecology at the School of Forestry and

Environmental Studies at Yale University.


12/30


Kierte mueigerfounding director of the Product Design Program and a principal of the

Green Product Design Network at the University of Oregon.

ail netrliprofessor of Fiber Science at Cornell University.

Ti nguyeCounsel for Science Commons.

cri Pgedirector, Nike Equipment and Sustainability Innovation

Pil Pttermanaging director of Colour Connections Textile Consultancy.

bred Plttco-director of the non-prot Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR).

Did Rejekidirector of the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

mrk Riresearch director and partner of Clean Production Action (CPA).

Liy serenvironmental scientist with the US EPA Design for the Environment

program.

Dwye sprdlipresident and chief executive ofcer of InnoCentive, Inc.

hele streysenior research fellow and professor of Fashion and Science at the Lon-

don College of Fashion and co-director of the Fashion Science Centre.

Lrrie vgelgeneral manager for Nike Considered Design

Peter Weerchief executive ofcer of bluesign technologies ag.

Erik Wgerfounding executive director of the X PRIZE Lab @ MIT.

J Wrerpresident and chief technology ofcer of the Warner Babcock Institute

for Green Chemistry and the Beyond Benign Foundation.

Pil Wywellscientic lead for the Catalytic Textiles project.

Rird Wlprofessor of Chemical Engineering and director of the Affordable Com-

posites from Renewable Resources (ACRES) Program at the University

of Delaware.

Yiqi YgCharles Bessey professor in the Department of Textiles, Clothing andDesign and the Department of Biological Systems Engineering with the

University of Nebraska at Lincoln.


13/30


Ide Gllery: strtegie d

opprtuitie r Iprig

mteril sutiilityThe cases of cotton and polyester illustrate the broader need to developmaterials strategies along two simultaneous lines: dematerialization,i.e. using as few materials (and energy) as possible while reusing as

much as possible, and detoxifcation, i.e. making materials and theirattendant processes as safe as possible for all living things.15 These twostrategies employed in concert along the entirety of the life cycle of anyproduct would effectively reduce the ecological impact of that producttoward zero the north star for all stakeholders.16

To inspire your thinking, in the pages that follow, we present a gallery(by no means exhaustive) of just a few of these approaches, from within

the world of textiles and well beyond.


14/30


TradIng aToms for bITs

The most basic way to make materials more ecologically friendly is tosimply use less of them. Digital technology, for example, allows us toput songs, books, magazines, newspapers, TV shows, movies, most

any kind of media, onto increasingly smaller computer chips. By trad-ing in the atoms of the books, CDs, DVDs, glossy magazines, andnewsprint for the bits of digital les, we save using countless resources

the trees for the paper, the plastic for the packaging, the fuel used forshipping, and the energy used to operate brick and mortar retail outlets.

While benecial in terms of dematerialization, digitization of culture is

not entirely ecologically benign. As we consume ever more digital me-dia, the amount of technological hardware we use to access that mediasteadily increases. And the heavy metals and toxic chemicals that gointo constructing computers, mp3 players, and cell phones whichmay include lead, mercury, bromine, and chromium present signicant

disposal and recycling challenges. More and cheaper gadgets are aninevitable market response to consumer desire for these products, andthere is as of yet no comprehensive strategy for dealing with this e-waste.

Apple iPod Nano (www.apple.com)

The dematerialization opportunities may be immense,

but its not clear what will have the biggest impact

creating new better products, erasing the need for old

ones, or modeling behavior in a new way. Liz Gannes, GigaOm17


15/30


PromoTIng sharIng / TurnIng ProduCTs InTo servICes

Another way to dematerialize is through the emphasis of access overownership. Rather than owning a car, for example, Zipcar.com mem-bers share cars. A sequel company, RelayRides.com, enables car

owners to rent out their cars when at work. The average American onlyuses their car 8% of the time.18 What about the other 92%? How canwe use what we have more effectively?

So-called Mesh businesses leverage data and social networks toenable people to share goods and services efciently and convenient-lyto gain superior access to what they need without the burdens orexpense of ownership. There are already thousands of these business-esin transportation, fashion, food, real estate, travel, nance, enter-tainment, and many other categorieswith more starting every day.

Those countries that consume the most are also those most able totake full advantage of access-based economies. With near ubiquitousaccess to WiFi and 3G networks in the US, the ability to share any

digital book, movie, TV show, or music le is almost limitless. Buildingon, and likely surpassing, the success of access-oriented companieslike Netix, the next generation of digital access entrepreneurs will be

able to tap into consumers desire to rid themselves of the burden ofownership while simultaneously being able to instantly satisfy consumerwants.

(www.relayrides.com)

(www.netix.com)

The Mesh has emerged as the best new creative

engine for getting more of what we want, exactly when

we want it, at less cost to ourselves and the planet.

Lisa Gansky

The most efcient material is the one you never use.

Reid Lifset, Yale University


16/30


green ChemIsTry

Todays chemical industry relies almost entirely on nonrenewable pe-troleum as the primary building block to create chemicals. This type ofchemical production is energy intensive, inefcient, and toxic resulting

in signicant energy use, and generation of hazardous waste.

The 12 Principles of Green Chemistry, originally published by Paul An-astas and John Warner, provide a road map for chemists to implement

green chemistry.20 One of the principles of green chemistry is to priori-tize the use of alternative and renewable materials including the use ofagricultural waste or biomass and non-food-related bio-products. Ingeneral, chemical reactions with these materials are less hazardousthan when conducted with petroleum products. Green chemistry is notonly about making chemical additives safer, it is also about using asfew chemicals as possible in extraction, renement, and manufacturing

processes.

The textile dyeing and computer manufacturing industries stand to ben-et greatly from increased application of Green Chemistry principles.

Richard Blackburn, a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, is co-founder of University of Leeds spinout company DyeCat, Inc. Throughthe development of novel polymerization methods, the company helpscustomers achieve colored polymer materials without downstream col-oration and associated processing.

By designing less toxic materials and using them in

processes that are less likely to dissipate them into

the environment, we could go a long way to creatingsustainable materials systems.

Ken Geiser, University of Massachusetts Lowell19


17/30


LeSS energy-intenSive proceSSing

The production of plastics is an energy intensive process, consum-ing roughly 40,000 Btu for each pound of plastic generated. About halfof this energy is used in producing the raw polymer materials, while

the remainder is spent in manufacturing plastic goods from such rawmaterials. During manufacturing, much of the energy is used to heat thepolymers to temperatures high enough to allow them to melt and ow,

typically above 200C (392F).

Researchers in MITs National Science Foundation-funded Center forMaterials Science and Engineering have developed a new type of plas-tic that could substantially lower energy consumption related to plas-tics manufacture. As described in a 2003 Nature article, these baro-plastics use similar manufacturing equipment as current commercialplastics but need little or no heating to be molded into desired shapes.Instead, these materials ow when large pressures are applied, due to

their specially designed nanophase structure.21 At microscopic lengthscales, the raw materials, made by core-shell emulsion polymerization,are arranged like a Tootsie Pop, with a soft polymer center and a hardpolymer shell. When placed under pressure, the hard component par-tially mixes with the soft component, allowing the entire system to ow.

Once the pressure is relieved, the plastic rehardens. Besides savingenergy in plastics manufacture, baroplastics can potentially save energyconsumed in raw material production, since the new plastics are alsohighly recyclable.

Unlike traditional heat-based processing, which can thermally degradepolymer molecules and incorporated additives, pressure-based pro-cessing causes minimal degradation, allowing the new plastics to bemolded over and over without changing their molecular structure. Thesubstantial discoloration and loss of mechanical performance that isproblematic in current plastics recycling can thus be avoided. MIT re-searchers have successfully shredded and remolded their materials asmany as 10 times. 22

(http://web.mit.edu/dmse/mayes/version3_0/research_baroplastics.html)


18/30


bIomImCry

In its simplest denition, biomimicry is applying lessons learned from

the study of natural methods and systems to the design of technology. 23In her 1997 book Biomimicry, science writer Janine Benyus articulated

nine principles of biomimicry: 1. Nature runs on sunlight. 2. Natureuses only the energy it needs. 3. Nature ts form to function. 4. Nature

recycles everything. 5. Nature rewards cooperation. 6. Nature banks ondiversity. 7. Nature demands local expertise. 8. Nature curbs excessesfrom within. 9. Nature taps the power of limits.

Recent innovators have applied biomimicry principles to a wide rangeof materials. Dr. Anthony Brennans antimicrobial Sharklet surface iscomprised of millions of tiny diamonds arranged in a distinct patternthat mimics the microbe-resistant properties of sharkskin. SharkletTechnologies, Inc. puts the pattern into adhesive-backed lms and

manufactures the pattern into medical devices and consumer goods toprevent bacteria growth providing a simple, cost-effective solution forbacteria control.24

Qualcomm MEMS Technologies, Inc. has developed the industrys rst

MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical systems) display for mobile devices

based on the physical properties of butteries wings. The display

works by reecting light so that specic wavelengths interfere with each

other to create color. The reective displays, based on interferometric

modulation (IMOD) technology, offer a signicant reduction in power

consumption as compared to other display technologies, while ex-tending device battery life, and reducing environmental impact. Thesedisplays require no supplemental lighting in most ambient lighting en-vironments and can be viewed in bright sunlight. The buttery inspired

mirasol display dramatically increases feature options for users, designspace available to developers, revenue streams for carriers, and differ-entiation for manufacturers of mobile devices.25

(http://www.sharklet.com/)

(http://www.mirasoldisplays.com/)


19/30


Bio-BASed MAteriALS

The search for alternatives to petroleum-based composites is of partic-ular concern in the ecomaterials space. Nonrenewable and potentiallytoxic, petrochemicals are nonetheless ubiquitous in the production of

durable, commercial-grade composites. The need to nd economi-cally viable, environmentally benign alternatives represents a signicant

challenge and the work being done in the eld of bio-based materials

represents one of the most promising areas of research.

Led by Dr. Richard Wool, the Affordable Composites from RenewableSources (ACRES) program at the University of Delaware is seeking to

nd novel ways to use renewable sources to produce everything from

circuit boards to tractor parts. Under the ACRES project, soy oil is beingused to make affordable and renewable ber-reinforced composites for

high-volume applications. The application of soy-based products isattractive from both the environmental and commercial perspectives.Soy-based composites can be made into long-lasting durable materi-als yet unlike petroleum-based composite resins such as vinyl esters,polyesters, and epoxies, they are also optionally biodegradable.26

Eben Bayer and his colleagues at Ecovative Design have developed aprocess by which such materials as seed husks and mushrooms canbe used to create materials for a variety of uses including packag-ing and insulation. The company uses the biochemical machinery ofmushrooms to create a resin similar to plastic, but which is much moreenvironmentally friendly. Ecovative was named a Technology Pioneerfor 2011 by the World Economic Forum one of about 30 companiesworldwide to be named. 27

Professor Richard Wools chicken feather and

soybean oil based circuit board.

(http://ic.kr/p/5YinS)

EcoCradle packaging. (http://ecovativedesign.com/ecocradle/why/)


20/30


desIgn for dIsassembly

As a detoxication strategy, design for disassembly is concerned pri-marily with disassembling computers and cell phones easily into theircomponent parts in order to ensure that heavy metals do not end up in

landlls.

Active disassembly is a method of disassembling products into theirseparate components by creating gadgets that can break apart just bybeing exposed to heat or magnetism. It allows for a clean, nondestruc-tive, quick and efcient method of component separation. This saves

money, and the materials can be recovered more efciently.28

Utilizing active disassembly, Nokia has created a prototype of a cellphone that dissembles itself in two seconds. Today, most cell phonesand other small electronics are shredded instead of taken apart for re-

cycling, because the disassembly time is too expensive for the amountof material reclaimed.29

(http://athousandgreatideas.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/active-disassembly/)


21/30


SeLf-HeALing MAteriALS

Self-healing materials are a class of materials with the structurallyincorporated ability to repair damage caused by normal wear and tear.Initiation of cracks and other types of damage on a microscopic level

can change certain intrinsic properties, and eventually lead to failure ofthe material. A material that can intrinsically correct damage caused bynormal usage could lower production costs through longer part lifetime,reduction of inefciency caused by degradation, as well as prevent

failure costs.

At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Scott White and col-leagues have developed a structural polymeric material with the abil-ity to autonomically heal cracks. Autonomic healing is accomplishedby incorporating a microencapsulated healing agent and a catalyticchemical trigger within an epoxy matrix. An approaching crack rupturesembedded microcapsules, releasing healing agent into the crack planethrough capillary action. Polymerization of the healing agent is triggeredby contact with the embedded catalyst, bonding the crack faces andleading to more than more than 90% recovery in toughness in fractureexperiments.

A novel autonomous material developed by Henry Sodano and col-leagues at Arizona State University uses shape-memory polymerswith an embedded ber-optic network that functions as both the dam-age detection sensor and thermal stimulus delivery system to produce aresponse that mimics the advanced sensory and healing traits shown inbiological systems. An infrared laser transmits light through the ber-

optic system to locally heat the material, stimulating the toughening andhealing mechanisms.30

Self-healing microcapsules. (http://autonomic.beckman.illinois.edu/)

A Thermal Image Shows the Shape-Memory System in Action. Where infrared laser light is applied, the

material toughens and regains its original shape, strengthening cracks or tears in the material. (Image

courtesy of American Institute of Physics)


22/30


loCal manufaCTure

As an ecomaterials strategy, dematerialization is not just about reduc-ing the impact of materials themselves but also reducing secondaryimpacts, or embedded costs. Reducing the distance between points of

manufacture and points of sale saves fuel and reduces overall materialsimpact.

Co-founded in 2007 by former Marine and Harvard Business Schoolgraduate Jay Rogers, Local Motors is premised on the notion of com-bining the crowd-sourcing and DIY movements with staid auto manu-facturing. Amateurs and professionals submit designs to Local MotorssWeb site, and users vote on the winners in a monthly contest. If, amongother factors, a vehicle generates enough buzz that the company thinksit could sell at least 500 of them, the engineers ne-tune the design

to make it feasible. Then Local Motors sets up a micro-factory where

buyers build the car themselves under guidance from the companysinstructors for an estimated $50,000. 31

Local Motors plans to release between 500 and 2,000 units of eachmodel. The cars are not meant to compete with the major automakers,but rather ll in the gaps in the marketplace for unique designs. Rogers

uses the analogy of a jar of marbles, each of which represents a vehiclefrom a major automaker. In between the marbles is empty space, spacethat can be lled with grains of sand and those grains are Local Mo-tors cars.32

(www.local-motors.com)


23/30


eCoeffICIenT manufaCTure

The DARPA Hoodie is a computer-generated garment built to use aslittle material as possible. Available on Betabrands Web site, it wasdesigned after Jonathan Bachrach and Saul Grifth, of Otherlab, won

a grant from DARPA, the defense departments tech research arm, tocome up with algorithms that could convert 3-D objects into 2-D pat-terns. The software they developed was originally intended to cre-ate programmable matter: a new functional form of matter, based onmesoscale particles, which can reversibly assemble into complex 3Dobjects upon external command.

Computational folding has obvious implications beyond clothing manu-facture. Formtank, by the 2d3d Group, has applied the minimal wasteformula to produce more from less through a simple proposition; uti-lize a sheet of steel in the most efcient way to produce a single table.

Each table is reverse designed from the steel industrys standard sheetsize in order to maximize yield and minimize waste steel to less than4% overall. Moreover the forms create the illusion of more material thanthere actually is, on average the steel base represents just one third ofsteel and glass combined.34

Zero material waste windbreaker designed by Saul Grifth and Jonathan Bachrach.

(http://betabrand.com/)

Formtanks 3fold desk (www.formtank.com)

The tool creates the opportunity for greatly lowering

the time of manufacturing and for creating a unique

algorithmic design quality...[T]he automatic panelizeropens up the possibility for custom clothing...

Jonathan Bachrach 33


24/30


elImInaTIng weIghT

Of the 60 billion pounds of plastic discarded annually, only 7 percentis recycled. This means 4 billion pounds of plastic ends up in landlls.

That is roughly 20 empty water bottles for every person on Earth go-

ing into the ground. Reducing the amount of materials we consume aswell as reusing those materials as much as possible are therefore everybit as important as recycling. The Replenish spray bottle is a greatexample of this in practice. The bottle itself is made from sturdy PET-1plastic, meaning it does not have to be replaced (though every part of itis recyclable). At the bottom of the bottle is an interchangeable twist-

on concentrate pod. To use it, you simply attach the pod to the bottle,ip it upside down, squeeze the pod until the internal measurement cup

is full, and then add water. Each pod contains four bottles worth ofconcentrate.

When you buy a spray bottle of normal household cleaner, saysfounder Jason Foster, youre basically paying for water and plastic. I

kept thinking, why are we wasting money and resources shipping waterand plastic. Replenish is a drastic reduction on both counts. 35

The Replenish Spray Bottle: Disruptive technology for reuse and reduction.

(http://www.myreplenish.com/)


25/30


ClosIng The looP

A closed loop is ideally a zero-waste supply chain in which all end-of-life wastes are reused or recycled to create new products. Zero wasteaims to transform industrial processes and products, so that mate-

rial ows replicate natural systems to become closed loop. I t includesrecycling, but goes beyond recycling by taking a whole system ap-proach to the vast ow of resources and waste through human society.

Zero waste maximizes recycling, minimizes waste, reduces consump-tion and ensures that products are made to be reused, repaired, orrecycled back into nature or the marketplace.

Sailing and yachting apparel company Henri Lloyd is incorporatingTeijins Eco Storm, a recyclable and waterproof material made fromrecycled bers laminated with a thin polyester lm, into their Blue Eco

Range collection for 2010. The Eco Storm material is part of Teijins Eco

Circle, a closed-loop system that recycles polyester. At the Teijin plant,materials are converted into polyester raw material (after chemical de-composition), and turned into Eco Circle bers, which will then be a part

of new products. According to Teijin, recycling through the Eco Circlesystem reduces energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions by80% when compared to petroleum-based processes used in producingpolyester. 36

Henri Lloyd Blue Eco jacket, 2010. Credit: Henry Lloyd


26/30


reCyClIng/uPCyClIng

Recycling is by far the most visible form of what could be considered eco-friendly behavior on the part of consumers. Recycling bins have becomea ubiquitous presence on city sidewalks and an ever-present reminder that

normative consumer behavior can be directed from the top down. Keepingrecyclable materials out of landlls is a noble goal but inefciencies in the

recycling process must be addressed.

According to the latest EPA report on municipal solid waste (MSW), all MSW

from commercial, industrial, and institutional sources in 2008 was 249.61million tons. Of that total, 33% was recovered either through compostingor recycling. Of all generated materials recycled, containers and packagingmake up the largest portion of MSW at 31%. Containers and packaging alsorepresented 44% of the total materials recycled.37 These gures represent asignicant amount of energy saved (the equivalent of more than 10.2 billion

gallons of gasoline), but also point directly at the fact that 67% of waste is notrecycled but is instead diverted to landlls. Compare this with the fact that

the US leads the world in per capita waste generation. With just 5% of theworlds population, the US produces 40% of the worlds trash (1,643 poundsper person per year).38 There is denitely much room for improvement.

Ideally, the amount of materials used would decrease while the percentage ofbiodegradable/recyclable materials would increase. Minimizing the amount ofpackaging materials we use while at the same time making those materialsout of organic substances would address the biggest part of the MSW issue.

Since the early 1990s, Nikes Reuse-A-Shoe program has been collectingworn-out athletic shoes of any brand and recycling them along with scrapleft over from the production of Nike footwear into a premium grade mate-rial called Nike Grind. As of 2011, more than 25 million pairs of athletic shoesand thousands of tons of manufacturing scrap have been separated andprocessed for recycling. Nike Grind has partnered with surfacing and ooring

companies that use this material in synthetic and hardwood courts, runningtracks, playgrounds, and for synthetic turf inll and carpet padding.

The long-term goal is to incorporate increasingly more recycled athletic prod-ucts in the manufacture of low impact recycled materials and goods to create

a truly closed-loop manufacturing model.

(http://www.nikereuseashoe.com/)


27/30


a fil nte d next step

PopTech (poptech.org) is a community of diverse innovators commit-ted to accelerating the impact of world-changing people, projects andideas. We are a nonprot organization with no commercial interest in

any of the technologies or initiatives presented.

PopTech and our partners are committed to continuing to bring togethera diverse network of stakeholders, to map the opportunities and chal-lenges of sustainable ecomaterials, and to collaborate on the design ofincentives to propel progress on their widespread adoption.

To follow our continually evolving efforts, and to learn how you or yourorganization can participate or contribute, please visitpoptech.org/ecomaterials_lab .

This report, along with our other ndings and efforts, are released under

Creative Commons license. As part of PopTechs commitment to open-ness, insights generated by the Lab will be captured in various mediaand released to the public through a special open-source repositorycalled the GreenXchange (http://greenxchange.force.com/).


28/30


Tk Yu t our Prter

PopTech gratefully acknowledges its partners Nike, the worlds leadingdesigner of athletic shoes and apparel and already a leader in sustain-able innovation via its Considered Design, and the University ofOregon for their assistance in making the Ecomaterials Innovation Laband the resulting research a possibility.


29/30


Edte

1. Geiser, Ken, Materials Matter: Toward a Sustainable Materials Policy (Cam-bridge: MIT Press, 2001).

2. Stephens, Jack. Live Lightly on the Earth Statistics that Teach, Natural

Building Network (July 21, 2009). http://nbnetwork.org/2786

3. Based on a standard, dual-axle commercial dump truck with a maximumload-bearing capacity of ten short tons.

4. Allen, Derry, et al. Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead,(Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009), p. 7.

5. Allen, et al., p. 8.

6. Allen, et al., p. 9.

7. Yagi, K. and Halada, K., Ecomaterials, European White Book on Funda-mental Research in Materials Science (Stuttgart: Max Planck Institute for Met-als Research in Stuttgart, 2001) pp. 228-232.

8. Grose, L. Sustainable Cotton Production, in Sustainable textiles: Lifecycle and environmental impact, ed. R.S. Blackburn. (Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress LLC, 2009), p. 43.

9. Van Dusen, Leigh Anne, How to get rid of chemicals in fabrics. (Hint: Trickquestion). O Ecotextiles (November 10, 2010).http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/how-to-get-rid-of-chemicals-in-fabrics-hint-trick-question/

10. Grose, L., p.43.

11. Grose, L. pp. 43-44.

12. Van Dusen, Why is recycled polyester considered a sustainable textile?OEcotextiles (July 14, 2009). http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/

why-is-recycled-polyester-considered-a-sustainable-textile/

13. Dale, Shane, Wearables, ASI (February, 2010).

http://www.asicentral.com/asp/open/content/content.aspx?id=4392

14. Van Dusen. http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/why-is-recy-cled-polyester-considered-a-sustainable-textile/#_ftn1

15. Dematerialization can be dened as an absolute or relative reduction in

the quantity of materials used and/or the quantity of waste generated in theproduction of a unit of economic output. This can be achieved via increasing

the intensity of service derived from each unit of material used and/or simplyusing fewer materials. See Cleveland, C. J. and Ruth, M., Indicators of Dema-

terialization and the Materials Intensity of Use, Journal of Industrial Ecology,

2: 1550 (1998); and Geiser.

16. The life cycle is dened here as comprising six major stages: resource ex-traction, material processing, product design and manufacturing, product use,collection/processing, and disposal. (Source: U.S. EPA).

17. Gannes, Liz, Green: Net: The Dematerialization Opportunity, GigaOm(April 29, 2010). http://gigaom.com/cleantech/greennet-the-dematerialization-

opportunity/

18. Lisa Gansky, Presentation at PopTech Conference, Camden, ME (October21, 2010).

19. Geiser, p. 2.

20. Anastas, Paul and Warner, John. Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice

(Oxford University Press: New York, 1998)

21. Gonzalez-Leon, J. A., M. H. Acar, S.-W. Ryu, A.-V. G. Ruzette and A. M.

Mayes, Low- temperature processing of baroplastics by pressure-inducedow, Nature 426, 424-428 (2003).

22. www.nsf.gov/mps/dmr/highlights/04highlights/mrsec/0213282.pdf

23. Biomimicry, Sustainability Dictionary. http://www.sustainabilitydictionary.com/b/biomimicry.php

24. http://www.sharklet.com/

25. http://www.mirasoldisplays.com/

26. http://www.che.udel.edu/research_groups/wool/acres.html

27. NYSERDA Supported Companies Gain National Recognition, NewsLI.com (December 16, 2010). http://www.newsli.com/2010/12/16/nyserda-sup-ported-companies-gain-national-recognition-in-2010/

28. http://www.activedisassembly.com/index3.html29. Active disassembly, A Thousand Great Ideas (October 27, 2010). http://

athousandgreatideas.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/active-disassembly/

30. Self-Healing Autonomous Material Comes to Life, ScienceDaily (Decem-ber 7, 2010). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101207091813.

htm

31. Mone, Gregory, Hacking the 21st-Century Auto, PopSci (May 10, 2010).

http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-04/diy-auto-industry

32. Anderson, Chris, In the Next Industrial Revolution, Atoms Are the NewBits, Wired (January 25, 2010). http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/

ff_newrevolution

33. LaBarre, Suzanne. Wanted: Darpa Hoodie Borrows Military Tech for Cus-


30/30


tom Fit, Fast Company Design (October 15, 2010). http://www.fastcodesign.

com/1662499/darpa-hoodie.

34. www.formtank.com

35. James, Patrick. Innovative, Reusable Replenish Spray Bottle Could

Disrupt Home Cleaning Market, Good (October 20, 2010). http://www.good.is/

post/innovative-reusable-replenish-spray-bottle-could-disrupt-home-cleaning-market/

36. Grady, Emma, Henri Lloyd Sailing Apparel Incorporates Recycled Polyes-ter in 2010 Collection, Treehugger (December 3, 2009).http://www.treehugger.com/les/2009/12/henri-lloyd-sailing-apparel-incorpo-rates-recycled-polyester-in-2010-collection.php

37. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid WasteGeneration, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for2008, (Washington, D.C.: US EPA, 2010), p. 5.

38. More Recycling Facts and Statistics, Environment Green (2008). http://

www.environment-green.com/More_Recycling_Facts_and_Statistics.html

poptech eco materials lab report 2-1-11

Documents