Low-cost electrostatic mask making tools

Problem: Large-volume mask manufacturers have little incentive [1] to add capacity for short-term mask production to make excess N95 masks, nor make these disposable masks last longer. The pandemic [2] demonstrated that the electrostatic barrier fails after several hours of use, rendering masks ineffective. Where masks are being repurposed [3] it is not clear the electrostatic charge returns - nurses hesitate to trust [4] repurposed masks.

Solution: Allow everyone to wear electrostatic masks. Serving the total US market (238B masks) would cost $625B as is, but on-site mask manufacturing from recycled plastic reduces this to around $1B.

Impact: General public can benefit from masks augmented by electrostatic filtration.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/miscalculation-at-every-level-left-u-s-unequipped-to-fight-coronavirus-11588170921

[2] Bailar, J. C., Donald S. Burke, L. M. Brosseau, H. J. Cohen, E. J. Gallagher, and K. F. Gensheimber. "Reusability of facemasks during an influenza pandemic." Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, Washington [DC] (2006).

[3] https://www.massgeneral.org/news/coronavirus/research/partners-healthcare-mask-sterilizing-facility

[4] https://www.boston25news.com/news/health/mass-nurses-saying-no-decontaminated-masks/V3YJ6O2XNRFVJG2T3A762MAEU4/

Mask demand far exceeds supply so we are left with scientifically unsound recommendations to wear cloth masks. While logistics are a problem, N95 masks are made from plastic and there is plenty of repurposable plastic in the world. A $1000 tool that makes 400 masks per day could save hundreds of billions of dollars. Consider, at the demand of 238B per year, and the price of $0.83 - $3.40 per mask [5], if everyone wore two masks per day it would cost between $198B and $811B. On the flip side, if 1.6M tools each make 14.6k masks per year the cost decreases to $1.6B for the same 238B masks. Our solution currently costs <$1k and we are optimizing the process to produce electrostatic nonwoven polypropylene mask material.

[5] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/3m-sues-price-gougers-who-used-amazon-to-sell-masks-at-1800-markup/

During Covid-19, official guidance does not equate to scientifically-sound advice. For consumers, this means we are told to wear cloth masks instead of electrostatic N95 masks:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend that the general public wear N95 respirators to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including coronavirus (COVID-19). Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for health care workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance.” [6]

Our solution is to instead sell low-cost, point-of-use, equipment that makes supplying N95 masks easier. The equipment will (1) adjust a batch of molds to fit 25 individual faces, (2) electrospray recycled plastic into customized molds every 30 minutes, (3) test permeability to certify masks meet NIOSH standards during production, and (4) apply EPA- & FDA-approved electrostatic finishes to improve useful lifetime by imparting a more-stable surface charge that survives in humid exhaust for longer.

[6] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-and-face-masks

Our solution will serve seamstresses, factory workers and the general public. For the price of under 1200 3M masks a family of 4 could be protected with electrostatic masks for roughly a year. Seamstresses making cloth masks for daily use by consumers could distribute or sell electrostatic filters for use within their cloth masks. On factory floors, a workforce protected is unlikely to struggle with absenteeism.  There are around 267,000 factories in the US that employ fewer than 100 people and for $1k per year they could make 4 masks per employee per day, provided there is readily-available recyclable plastic feedstock. If not, poly pellets suffice at around $0.04/ mask. We are currently refining this price by garage-testing the prototype tool with poly pellets.

The lack of electrostatic masks is tragic. A cloth mask only protects others as airborne virions follow streamlines, around edges and through big holes. Making a cloth mask filter virions makes them impermeable. Impermeability limits breathability, which limits personal protection. So making a cloth mask filter virions limits its ability to protect a person. But if we incorporate electrostatic filtration into the masses’ masks this chain is broken because breathability is decoupled from impermeability and less people will die.

Competition spans large-volume inflexible manufacturers with tight tolerances to small-volume flexible manufacturers with lax tolerances and significant variances in quality [7]. Rather than ordering masks, making masks on-site from recycled plastic would simplify the supply-chain to allow more access to safer masks. Instead of focusing only on solving the supply-chain issues around N95 masks we endeavor to make masks that fit individual faces better by design and, though it may require supplying consumables, we are considering how to incorporate antimicrobial finishes to improve their longevity. Within the final prototype will be a loose metal screen that adjusts the size of the mask based on the shape of the face so that the respirator fit-test become obsolete. Incorporating an additive, similar in principle to HEPA filters [8] but using a proprietary, EPA- and FDA-approved formulation, will create better electrostatic functionality. The combination of these features within a low-cost, easily deployable mask-making tool form the basis of our innovation.

[7] https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-agencies-have-spent-millions-on-kn95-masks-often-without-knowing-who-made-them

[8] Kilic, A., Shim, E., & Pourdeyhimi, B. (2015). Electrostatic capture efficiency enhancement of polypropylene electret filters with barium titanate. Aerosol Science and Technology, 49(8), 666-673.

The core technology is a modified cotton-candy machine that spins plastic with additives into custom-fit molds. The heated spinneret has many small holes for fibers. As the heated spinneret rotates at ~3krpm fine sugar fibers would typically be produced but we’ve modified the spinneret. It is now energized with a DC bias to form electrostatic materials.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/03/29/making-an-n95-mask-for-covid-19-coronavirus-what-you-need-to-know/#6403c18b4989

https://www.inovenso.com/nanofiber-facemask/nanofiber-facemask/

https://groups.oist.jp/nnp/diy-face-mask?utm_source=social_media&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=bandi-mask-manufaction&utm_content=textlink   

If history is any guide, the general public will start to demand the higher-rated masks soon, likely in the fall when indoor work, co-worker proximity, and exposure opportunities increase. Our theory of change supposes that if people could get better masks (than cloth alone) then they could work more safely, and there would be relief in workplace anxiety, especially on the employer's part, which would enable economic recovery. Low-cost equipment could make inserts for cloth masks to afford electrostatic protection. Cotton-candy machines appropriately modified could be deployed easily.

Our mission is to increase the quantity and quality of face masks through a full system design approach and delivery. From that, we can coordinate our theory of change with the large number of stakeholders; current N95 mask customers like nurse unions, upstream consumer-grade mask providers like ISVs and resellers, as well as the end-users who buy them. We have interviewed many mask users, and it is becoming progressively apparent that the Pareto optimized mask needs an electrostatic barrier, since consumers will not sacrifice breathability to be able to filter ~100nm diameter virions.

The solution currently serves 5 people: my immediate family and coworkers. Gating factors to growth: (i) final prototype, (ii) setting up operations to work with OEMs that supply equipment via online fulfillment centers and (iii) working with regulators to establish and obtain both FDA and NIOSH certifications. If met, we expect to pilot this to over 50 customers in year 1, who can service up to 200 people each tool. Our goal is to deploy this into every small factory in the US, roughly 267,000 customers by the end of year 5. An important point, is that this technology is simple and does not require an established company provide specialized consumables. If the next pandemic waits a decade the solution still works as cotton-candy machines, recycled plastic feedstock and the proprietary additives have existed for decades in volume and will still be available. Given these features it is likely that we could deploy this solution to many more people with the right guidance.

Our goals are fairly simple: make it so that electrostatic filtration becomes equitable. It is deplorable that excess supply capacity is an excuse for not saving lives with necessary PPE during a pandemic. Why should healthcare workers get electrostatic masks at the expense of a meatpacker? Why can’t healthcare workers give better PPE to their families so they don’t have to isolate? So many people need these masks and they are not allowed to use them. Bah! Inequities like these compound the problem and the solution is obviously to distribute manufacturing of these masks in a way that dramatically reduces the cost to the world. Saving lives is always a worthwhile goal.

Our immediate barriers to deployment, aside from the gating factors listed above, are predominantly financial, legal and cultural. Financially, this project started in a garage; we have less than $1k remaining and if we were paid to devote time it would deploy faster. Legally, liability limits and intellectual property are too expensive to solve in the short run, so we cannot claim any standard and will rely on trade secrets until we have additional resources to pursue these; at least we can currently qualify whether fabric is electrostatic. We are currently preparing for covid-19 as well as the next potential pandemic, face masks will be needed and we should be ready. 

 It is unlikely that, without investment and help, we can deploy this en masse during the current Covid-19 environment. Vaccines will not make our approach obsolete. Indeed, it looks as if mask wearing is here to stay much as it has been for years in parts of Asia. This first year which will require a rapid deployment strategy. Then we will settle into a steady state over the next 5 years which will look like the business processes of pre-Covid days except that everyone will be wearing high-efficiency masks in many more scenarios.

Our plan to overcome these barriers is to (1) finish process development using the existing prototype, (2) leverage the process to obtain a seed round, (3) engage regulators to limit liability, (4) work with OEMs to reduce costs and populate fulfillment pipeline. Step 4 will inform IP strategy, which is going to surround the tool design and will allow us to focus on using customization to offset the cultural barrier by making masks that resonate with consumers – for instance, during the recent protests, people printed “I can’t breathe!” on black masks so making prints on masks will reduce the cultural barrier to their use.

N/A

3 part-time, un-paid.

Sublamit is a small business that has assembled an expert team of advisors and subcontractors to successfully execute this project. Notably, Sublamit’s founders are two brothers, Corey and Jay Fucetola, who both obtained their eight degrees (undergraduate through graduate) from MIT. Corey brings expertise in nanofabrication and X-ray characterization, is an NSF ICORE Grant Awardee through the MIT Spark program. Jay, a mechanical engineer, adds expertise in equipment design and controls. Kurt Keville, personnel at Sublamit, has systems design expertise to be able to integrate a full-stack solution to be able to address a specific target.  We have established a relationship with the additives manufacturer and have experience building equipment. Furthermore, we have both sufficient scientific and engineering expertise in-house to be able to determine activities that yield either micro-improvements to our design, or larger improvements that further our ability to deliver the broader solution. 

Until we have a final prototype it makes more sense to finish technical de-risking. Once we can look beyond process development we plan to leverage existing relationships, e.g. with Thermocoax, and other OEMs to make custom equipment. In parallel we have identified an electrostatic additive supplier and have built a relationship with the concentrate manufacturer. We have also developed relationships, but not partnerships, with antiviral testing facilities and surface analysis labs to qualify our materials for regulatory approvals. 

Our Key Resources are fulfillment centers and consumable suppliers. Our Key Activities is to sell equipment and funnel orders to consumable suppliers. Our Type of Intervention is a product that makes masks for customers that are safer than cloth masks. Our Channels will be Amazon and other online market places. Our Segments include consumers, factory workers and families of healthcare workers who benefit from additional protection afforded by electrostatic masks and seamstresses, factory managers and healthcare practitioners, who as customers of our innovation, would pay for their constituents to obtain this benefit. Our Value Proposition is clear: customers will be able to protect their workers while having more control over their mask supply. Our Cost Structure follows a typical equipment provider business model in that we will mark-up our equipment by a factor of 3x and will add a 15% margin on consumables, i.e. plastic feedstock and additives, we sell. Our Surplus will be used to improve our product offerings. Our 1-yr Revenue is forecast to be 13% tools, 74% feedstock, 13% additives. In steady-state this will change to <5% tools, >81.5% feedstock and >13.5% additives when tool supply saturates. 

This summer we will begin selling electrostatic inserts for cloth masks through seamstresses (e.g. by working with Joann fabrics or similar to increase visibility and by using social media) to begin funding our work. 

Additionally, we are seeking seed-round VC. If we sell these to factories having less than 100 people we stand to make >$250M on equipment. With a run rate as high as $1.4B for feed-stock and $250M for additives.

We are applying because we think this could save lives but to maximize impact we need to connect with a solid incubator that is focused on social benefit. We want to solve the mask supply problem by changing the paradigm from buying disposable masks to allowing anyone who wants it to 3d-print their own electrostatic masks.

We envision forming a joint venture with our partners to simplify ownership structure. Sublamit's goal is to surround ourselves with partners who are committed to saving lives via novel solutions that improve industrial ecology. In this case  industrial ecology is limited because there is no way to take a used polypropylene mask and recycle (rather than repurpose) it into a new N95 mask instead of disposing it. We seek to partner with like-minded entities.

We will need to partner with 3 kinds of organizations on the consumer product delivery side. One is a service center to deliver / exchange masks on-demand. Another is a traditional fulfillment center (like Glovemen.com in MA), and one more would come from a traditional integrated service provider that has experience in this space to be able to provide an in-house solution for a large volume consumer like a hospital.

We would likely need business advice to determine if the most growth from this initiative would come from direct sales or services. We believe the IP would be equally applicable but we would want to talk with a company like Dragon Innovations in Cambridge to determine the best funding path forward, even if it was crowd-sourcing.

When Covid-19 began, my son told me: "Dad, fight covid and save the world." Sublamit has since pivoted to submit an SBIR on proving a class of additives that would augment conventional disinfectants by providing a kill-surface that functions while dry. 

This additive, we surmised, could also augment the electrostatic functionality of masks and while waiting for the SBIR proposal to resolve we've built a homemade electrospinning tool to test whether we can make better electrostatic mask materials. If we can make better mask materials at lower cost to consumers we would become covid heroes.

Pandemics, like hurricanes, are only going to get worse and we need all the heroes we can get to save lives. People are dying and we will solve this PPE challenge.

Our fundraising approach includes running this as a kick-starter or similar crowd-funded project because it is easy to provide mask inserts to seamstresses while we gear up for deployment into factory settings. Every seamstress we spoken to says that they would like to provide electrostatic inserts so we believe crowd-funding is a viable pathway to launching this technology for consumers.

This solution simply saves billions of dollars by changing the manufacturing paradigm for masks, from a buy-each to a make-each model. The impact of changing this paradigm is to simplify logistics so that distributed manufacturing of masks becomes mainstream for those who need electrostatic filtration. We are seeking like-minded investors and are willing to provide additional detail on our venture to interested parties.