Fiber Filter

Jamie Farrell, Carter Cortazzi and Lola Bushnell

Georgetown University

Business Plan

Bioethics Research Showcase

5-6th April 2017

Executive Summary

The Problem

Every time a fleece is washed, more than 250,000 tiny pieces of plastic are released,

equivalent to 1.7 grams of plastic. (1) These plastics, less than 5 millimetres long, are too small

to be filtered by washing machines and wastewater treatment plants. An estimated 40-50% make

it into marine environments.(1) Fleeces aren’t the only offender, however. Every synthetic

garment sheds these microfibers. Acrylic clothing is the worst offender, and some garments can

release up to 750,000 fibers per wash. (2) Recent studies have indicated that up to 85-90% of the

plastic debris on the world’s shorelines comes from these fibers. (3)

These fibers aren’t simply small, harmless pieces of plastic. Like microbeads, they can

have a profound effect on the environment and aquatic ecosystems. They even make their way

into our food, particularly shellfish. A recent study indicated that 33% of the shellfish we buy

contains microplastics, along with around 25% of the fish we eat. (4) These staggering statistics

are likely to increase as the problem continues to worsen. Microplastics are problematic because

they absorb POP’s (persistent organic pollutants), toxic organic compounds that are resistant to

environmental degradation. When fibers are ingested, these POP’s are absorbed by the fatty

tissue in the organism. Because of their persistence, the pollutants bioaccumulate. Not only do

microfibers absorb persistent organic pollutants at much greater rate than other plastics (like

microbeads) thanks to their greater surface area, but they also have a detrimental impact on the

digestive systems of marine organisms, particularly young ones. Studies showed that pike and

perch larvae exposed to microplastics preferred to eat them over normal food. (5) A testament to

the devastating effects of microfiber pollution, every one of the larvae exposed to the

microplastics died. (5)

There is very little we can do to stop these microfibers from reaching aquatic

environments beyond the obviously unsustainable options of refusing to wash synthetic garments

and stopping their production altogether. The only product which prevents microfibers reaching

water systems currently available to purchase is a wall mounted external washing machine

effluent filter. This is expensive and requires installation by a plumber. This is not an option

which is accessible for most consumers. We hope, that with the Fiber Filter, we can make in

wash microfiber capture a tangible possibility at a fraction of the cost of a wall mounted filter.

Ethical Issues

There are a considerable number of ethical problems which result from the huge scale of the

microfiber problem. Firstly, the lack of knowledge around microfiber pollution is a violation of

one’s autonomy. At this current point, when one washes synthetic clothing, they are almost never

making an informed decision. The amount of media exposure centred around the problem is

completely insufficient to inform people of the damage they are doing to the oceans, and

possibly the health risks they are posing to themselves. It is our ethical responsibility to educate

people on the full consequences of the decisions which they make, and if we can offer them a

way to make this decision more environmentally sustainable, we should do everything in our

power to do so.

In addition, as I have already described, microplastic pollution, and specifically the

bioaccumulation which results from it, could pose serious risks to people’s health. This is yet

another serious ethical problem, and thus we must do something not only to inform the public of

this potential damage but also to stop the problem as a whole.

Another very serious ethical issue is the refusal of most manufacturers, who are certainly

somewhat responsible for the spread and severity of the issue, to address it in a satisfactory

manner. With the exception of Patagonia, who funded one study into microplastic pollution

resulting from washing machines, major garment manufacturers are either as unaware of the

problem as consumers or completely unwilling to do anything about the scale.(1) As the, albeit

unaware, perpetrators of the problem, they have an obligation far above that of others to try to fix

it. Unfortunately, due to their economic reliance on synthetic products, they have made little to

no effort to do so. Our hope is that our product, and the awareness campaign which comes with

it, will pressure them into serious action, whether this comes in the form of research into

microfiber capture or the development of new synthetics which do not shed.

Government organizations also are ethically responsible to pick up on some of the

burden. They too have failed to address the issue in a satisfactory manner. Current water

treatment plants do not have the infrastructure to capture the fibers. Water testing downstream of

the Blue Plains Water Treatment plant, regarded as the biggest and the best in the United States,

revealed microfibers to be present. (6) While it may not immediately solve the global problem,

we hope that our product and campaign will pressure legislators into improving wastewater

treatment facilities to upgrade their very poor rate of microfiber capture.

The Product

The product itself is a very fine nitex nylon mesh bag, likely between 50-150 microns in

mesh size, into which synthetic garments are placed. We have tested these two sizes and are

currently attempting to discover the optimum sizing for microfiber capture. This mesh bag

allows water and detergent to circulate around the garments but prevents microfibers from

release into the washing machine effluent. Once the wash is completed, the garments are

removed and the microfibers are scraped from the inside of the bag.

The exact closure method of the bag has also not been finalized, although prototypes

have been developed using zip and drawstring closures. We also aim to develop a prototype

using a foldover seal, similar to the ones often found on waterproof bags. We have been in a

product development phase for four months but we hope to have a finalized product by April

14th.

Testing

Our scientifically rigorous testing methodology has been refined over many iterations,

and the current methodology is as follows. The effluent hose is removed from a high efficiency

washing machine, and replaced with a flexible rubber pipe, fixed with a turnkey clamp, which

feeds into a 50 gallon plastic drum. (Appendix A) The effluent is then pumped from the drum

through a 150 micron mesh filter. (Appendix B) These filters are weighed before testing, and

after being dried in a desiccator, they are weighed again. The difference in weight is the amount

of residue, including microfibers, which were released during the wash cycle. Each time we test

a new prototype, we first run the washer 3 times, with no load or detergent, to measure the

amount of residue released by the washer itself. We then test a piece of a brand new fleece

blanket, identical to the one inside the prototype bag, in order to ascertain the weight of the

microfibers released. (Appendix C) Next, we run the washer to ensure no microfibers are left

within the system, before testing the prototype itself.

We have not yet had a chance to test a prototype with a closure, but when testing a 150

micron mesh bag sewed around a fleece, a capture rate of 87% was recorded. With further

product development and different mesh sizes, we are confident we can increase this number.

Full testing results, as well as images of our testing apparatus, prototype and filter mechanism,

are attached as appendixes. (Appendix D)

Expertise

The Team

Our team is comprised of 3 members, each with unique motivations, strengths and

weaknesses. Jamie Farrell is sophomore in the College majoring in Environmental Biology.

Growing up in Upstate New York, engagement with the environment was a part of her life from

a young age. Whether on the ski slopes, the camp ground, or at the lake house, her family prized

our time spent outdoors. These experiences at home and various experiences abroad, as well as

my studies during her time at Georgetown University,  have instilled in her a passion for the

environmental future of the Earth and an understanding of the degree to which its continued

well-being relies on the decisions of the present and engagement of the general public. For this

reason, when she heard about the issue of microfiber pollution - one that is now so unavoidably

stemming from consumer practices – it felt like a very natural problem to work with the team to

solve, especially in a way that turned said consumer practices into solutions. In addition to Fiber

Filter, her involvements at the University include the Georgetown Running Club, theater, and

Georgetown Phonathon.

Lola Bushnell, a junior in the college, grew up in San Francisco, a city kid, but that isn’t

all that defined her upbringing. At a young age, rather than sending her to a summer camp to get

her out of their hair, Lola’s parents dropped her off at the biodynamic heirloom grain farm that

provided for the CSA that they were a part of. Spending summers plowing the fields and taking

trips up into the marble mountains with the farm goats allowed Lola to get in touch with, and

appreciate, the natural world. Back in the city, her relationship with nature was more limited;

weekend surfing expeditions paired with bi-weekly hikes on mount Tamalpais. She was always

an active, athletic kid who loved being outside, and while being on a field was great, being on

the water was better. Her passion for ocean and manifested in a competitive sailing career that

carried me here to the Georgetown Sailing Team. At Georgetown, Lola has sought to deepen her

understanding of Earth systems in an Environmental Studies curriculum, which has given her the

knowledge base to analyze the way in which ‘progress’ has fundamentally altered Earth’s

biogeochemical cycles. To complement the science, she studies Government to better understand

the political, economic and social forces that dictate human interaction with the natural world.

Carter Cortazzi is a sophomore in the College from London, England. He is a Philosophy

major who hopes to gain a concentration in Bioethics. His interest in Water Conservation, and

the prevention of microfiber pollution stems from his hobbies as a keen fisherman and

spearfisherman and avid marine biology nerd. He is also very interested in fisheries conservation

and sustainable commercial fishing practices. His interest in preventing microfiber pollution

specifically comes from the damage this pollution does to fish larvae, and the potentially

devastating damage extensive microplastic pollution can do to delicate marine ecosystems where

endangered species could be threatened with extinction. Outside of Fiber Filter, his other pursuits

on campus include working for The Corp, playing on the club rugby team and being the

Discussion Chair for the Lumen Institute for principled business leaders Georgetown chapter.

Our Journey

Fiber Filter started as a class project. All three of our team members were in the same

group within Bio 262: Science, Society and Global Challenges. This class, taught by Professors

Slakey, Dhillon and Anderson, presented us with a challenge: To find a solution for a serious

biological challenge which face our society. After exploring many ideas, almost all of which

focused on our mutual interest in water pollution and conservation, we settled on microplastic

pollution for 3 reasons: The huge scale of the problem, its relatively new discovery and the huge

solution space associated with this, and the possibility of having a real impact due to the huge

solution space. We had plenty of ideas on how to approach the issue, but we settled on a product

over an awareness campaign. Awareness campaigns are extremely hit and miss, and when not

coupled with a product, in this situation, they do nothing but inform the public without giving

them a way to fix or mitigate the problem.

We applied for a SIPS (Georgetown University Social Innovation and Public Service

Fund) grant to assist us with the financial burden of testing apparatus and product materials, and

were successful in our application. This grant money, along with the use of Professor Weiss’ lab,

allowed us to significantly increase not only the number of times we could test but also the

scientific reliability of the testing. Through the grant, we were also able to attend a consulting

session at McKinsey’s Washington DC office, which helped us in our strategies when

approaching potential customer relationships with Outdoor Apparel companies like Black

Diamond or Patagonia. We were in discussions with Patagonia’s sustainability department but

we chose not to aggressively pursue a relationship so early in product development. When the

class ended at the end of fall semester 2016, we were granted independent study credit to

continue with the project in the spring.

Despite our attempts to stay away from a pure awareness campaign, we did do a few

things to raise the issue to the public on a local level. The most significant thing we did was

water testing on the Potomac River on a very cold Halloween weekend morning. We did this, in

conjunction with the Adventure Scientist organization, to show the local level of the problem.

The results showed that these microfibers aren’t just thousands of miles away, floating in the

open ocean, but are also in the waterways of the cities and towns many of us call home. As a

result of our testing, we were featured on the Adventure Scientists blog and Facebook page, as

well as National Geographic Voices. (6) The results also gave us valuable evidence on which an

awareness campaign could be based.

We have worked with many incredible people on the course of our microfiber fighting

adventure. Professor Francis Slakey, Co-Director of the Georgetown Science in the Public

Interest program and Upjohn Lecturer on Physics and Public Policy, has been and continues to

be an excellent mentor throughout the program, and has put us in contact with some fantastic

connections. Professor Allyson Anderson, a member of the energy committee, has also been an

incredible mentor and has helped us immensely with our pitching and presentation strategy.

Professor Arjun Dhillon has been a huge asset on the design, product development and

marketing side of the project, and his continued assistance and support has allowed us to refine

our project in a much more streamlined fashion and helped us create a unique product identity

and marketing campaign.

Marketing and Sales Strategy

At the end of the spring semester, from May 5th to May 15th, we will have the incredible

opportunity to be part of a microfiber pollution photoshoot with “Viral Epic Photographer” Ben

Von Wong. (7) Von Wong’s huge following will give huge exposure not just to our product but

also microfiber pollution in general. With his 270 000 strong facebook following, Von Wong’s

photo campaign, which will focus around the idea of ‘the hidden monster in your washing

machine’, has an excellent chance tobe the most viewed media surrounding microfiber pollution

yet. (8) This will propel the issue into the public image and give us huge consumer exposure, but

instead of beginning to sell directly to consumers, we aim to use the campaign to pressure

manufacturers and retailers into stocking our product and developing more sustainable and

environmentally friendly practices.

As a team, we grappled with the business format of Fiber Filter and what it would say

about the product and our mission. Our ultimate goal in creating the Fiber Filter was the

mitigation of the aquatic microplastic pollution; thus, personal monetary gain is not the

motivating factor behind the development of our project. That being said, we believe that a for-

profit business model is simply more efficient for the purposes of distribution of the product as it

is more likely to attract partners and capital investment. Furthermore, it is our belief that

organizations under the for-profit model are often more resilient, as the product is one that has

survived on the free market simply due to its competitively superior character and ability to

satisfy the consumer. While we plan to incorporate as an LLC, we will continue to operate with

the idea of a Benefit Corporation (which is legally responsible to serve shareholder as well as

social interests) as the primary inspiration for our business model.

Competitors

There are a few competitors within the microfiber capture space. The earliest of these we

encountered was the Rozalia Project. They too are dedicated to stopping microfiber pollution,

and their product also is built into the washing process. Their product, the Cora Ball, is inserted

ito the wash with laundry, and captures loose fibers during the wash cycle. There are a number of

problems we have identified with this product. Firstly, it is not yet available. There is no timeline

on possible release or pre-order dates, but there is a kickstarter campaign which will start on

March 28th. (9) The cost is likely also to be prohibitive. Whilst the price estimates have not been

released, previous iterations of the product have been around the 75 dollar mark, considerably

higher than the expected price of our product. Furthermore, they offer no statistics or even hints

towards their capture rate. This indicates that it is not particularly high, and is very unlikely to

exceed the close 90% capture rate which our testing has indicated is representative of our current

prototypes efficiency. There are also problems associated with disposal of captured fibers.

Previous products from the Rozalia team were expected to be sent back to the Rozalia project

after certain usage, which is inconvenient for the consumer.

The other, and most environmentally promising, competitor to our product is the Guppy

Friend, based in Berlin, Germany. This product, developed in conjunction with Patagonia, is very

similar to ours. Whilst they were developed independently, they share the same basic concept.

They too have a very fine mesh bag into which synthetic garments are placed. Their product

seems, at first glance, to have some advantages over ours. Firstly, they claim to have a 99%

smicrofiber capture rate, which is greater than the rate of capture of our current prototype,

although this is self-reported.(10) They are also further along the development phase than we are,

and have 30 000 pre-orders, as well as plans to stock their product in Patagonia stores as well as

other undisclosed retail outlets.(10) We believe, however, that our marketing strategy, especially

thanks to some intangibles which we as a team possess, like our status as students at a world

renowned research university will allow us to be extremely effective competitors within the

microfiber pollution space.

There are a number of weaknesses we have identified within their marketing strategy, and we

feel that we have the ability to create a much better brand and product identity than they

currently have. We feel that their entire product identity, starting with the name “The Guppy

Friend”, is very vague and fails to capture the full scale of the microfiber pollution problem. Not

only does it fail to inform the consumer of the function of the product but it also seems very

unscientific and unprofessional. (10) Fiber Filter sounds professional, scientific and clearly

informs the consumer of the nature and function of our product.

In addition, independence from a major synthetic garment retailer is a major advantage for

us. While it should be noted Patagonia has taken a more ethical approach to the issue of synthetic

garment shedding than most over retailers and manufacturers, our complete independence allows

us to not only sell independently but also act as a pressure on synthetic garment retailers. Guppy

Friends partnership with Patagonia could prevent them from conducting marketing campaigns

which could be detrimental to Patagonia’s, and by association other distributors, public relations.

Our marketing strategy, on the other hand, is to do exactly that. We aim to call out these

manufacturers for the damage which their products are doing, and pressure them into stocking

our product and researching more long term solutions to microfiber shedding.

Guppy Friend recommends that collected microfibers are simply thrown into the trash.

These microplastics will then make their way into landfill sites. There are a few problems

associated with this. Firstly, there is evidence which suggests that inclusion in landfill sites does

not prevent microplastics from reaching waterways. (11) While US landfill sites have only a

small amount of runoff, landfill sites in other nations are often very ineffective at containing

microplastics. In addition, the idea of an extremely environmentally centred product which has

waste products in landfill sites is problematic. The microfibers we capture will be approached in

a very different fashion. We have not settled yet on a definite solution, but none of our proposed

ideas involve landfill sites. Since it is extremely difficult to recycle microfibers, we will

definitely have a method for the consumer to capture and retain the microfibers. The idea which

is looking most promising is to include a container for microfibers with the purchase of our

product. This container would offer an incentive to the user. It would serve as a trophy, a way to

exhibit the number of microfibers which the consumer has prevented from entering the oceans.

What was once a dangerous waste product becomes a prize and a conversation starter. Not only

is the consumer incentivised to use the bag and capture the microfibers, but they are also given a

real tangible idea of the environmental impact they are preventing.

Our marketing strategy, unlike that of the Guppy Friend, which is more product focused,

is based more around creating a wider awareness of the issue. We hope to use our platform as a

launching point for further initiatives within the ocean pollution space. We are extremely open to

longer term solutions to the problem, especially given the scale of the problem. Our status as

students at Georgetown gives us a sense of activist credibility, and our continued actions outside

of the product itself, such as our viral photo campaign with Ben Von Wong, our entry into the

Bioethics showcase, and presentation we plan to deliver at the Georgetown Sustainable oceans

summit, will allow us to motivate the issue in a unique and significant fashion beyond simply the

product itself.

Financial and Sales Projections

As we are still very much in a product development phase, it is unclear what our pricing

structure and manufacturing structure will be. We plan to sell the bag through existing outdoor

retailers, and thus we must anticipate a significant mark-up between our wholesale pricing and

retail pricing of the product. Prototype materials, however, have cost around $6-8 each to

produce. This number could be lowered to around $5 dollars with bulk purchasing. Our current

plan is to manufacture the bags ourselves in the short term before outsourcing this process to a

sustainable manufacturing facility. Including packaging and distribution, we hope to keep the

cost of production to under 10 dollars per unit. This would theoretically place the retail price of

the bag in the 20-30 dollar range, which would be very competitively priced compared to our

competitors. It is almost impossible at this stage to provide sales projections and modelling, and

so much of this will depend on our manufacturing capacity and the success of the Ben Von

Wong photoshoot.

In order to gain further funding for our product, we intend to enter multiple pitch and

entrepreneurship competitions and hopefully gain investment from synthetic garment retailers.

We also hope to use new funding to investigate new avenues into the issue, and create a wider,

global awareness of the scale of the problem facing our oceans and what we can do to stop it.

Since this could be achieved in many different ways, we will not stop until we have explored

every possible option in the fight against ocean pollution. There is predicted to be more plastic

than fish in the ocean by 2050, and if we do not act now, this could become a reality. (12)

Appendix

Appendix A (Testing Apparatus)

Appendix B (Fibers Collected on Filter Screen)

Appendix C: Prototype Fiber Filter

Appendix D: Testing Results.

Works Cited

1. Bruce, Nicholas. Hartline, Niko. Karba, Steph. Ruff, Bess and Sonar, Shreya. Microfiber Pollution and the apparel industry. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California Santa Barbara. Web (Accessed 3/27/17)

2. Cernansky, Rachel. Are Synthetic Fleece and other types of clothing harming our water? Washington: The Washington Post. October 30, 2016. Web (Accessed 3/27/17)

3. Browne, Mark, Crump,Phillip. Niven, Stuart. Teuten, Emma. Tonkin, Andrew. Galloway, Tamara and Thompson, Richard. Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environmental Science and Technology., 2011, 45 (21), pp 9175–9179

4. Rochman, Chelsea. Tahir, Akbar. Williams, Susan. Baxa, Dolores. Lam, Rosalyn. Miller, Jeffrey. Teh, Foo-Ching. Werorilangi, Shinta and Teh, Swee. Anthroprogenic Debris in Seafood: Plastic Debris and Fibers from Textiles found in fish and Bivalves for Human Consumption. Scientific Reports. (2015) 5, Article Number 1430

5. Harvey, Fiona. Microplastics killing fish before they reach reproductive age, study finds. London: The Guardian. June 2nd 2016. Web. (Accessed 3/27/17)

6. Trennish, Greg. Cortazzi, Carter. Bushnell, Lola. Farrell, Jamie. Putting DC’s Wastewater Treatment to the Microplastics Test, Wahington: National Geographic Voices. January 13th

2017. Web. (Accessed 3/27/17)

7. Von Wong, Ben. VonWong.com. Web. (Accessed 3/27/17)

8. Von Wong, Ben. In Facebook: Public Figure. Web. (Accessed 3/27/17) (https://www.facebook.com/thevonwong/?fref=ts)

9. Rozalia Project. RozaliaProject.org Web. (Accessed 3/27/17)

10. Guppy Friend. GuppyFriend.com. Web. (Accessed 3/27/17)

11. Rosenberg, Alec. How plastic ends up in our seafood and what you can do about it. California: UC Newsroom. September 23 2016 (Accessed 3/27/17)

12. Kaplan, Sarah. By 2050, There Will be More Plastic Than Fish in the World’s Oceans, Study Says. Washington. The Washington Post. January 20th, 2016. Web (Accessed 3/27/17)