Objective

Vendors should develop and scale the production of biosynthetic materials for environmentally-friendly, omniphobic technologies for Department of Defense clothing and equipment without the use of fluorine or perfluorinated compounds.

Description

The DoD seeks new, biosynthetic and environmentally-friendly non-PFAS technologies for clothing and equipment to impart omniphobicity. No PFAS-free alternatives currently exists that can provide the needed level of oil repellency. While water repellency is obtainable, non-PFAS finishes struggle to meet military durability requirements over the expected life cycle of an item. The Army needs novel, non-PFAS formulations and technologies to provide a durable omniphobicity equivalent to those obtained using PFAS.

Biosynthetic materials are key to sustainable domestic production and offer new opportunities to discover and synthesize novel compounds. The Army needs new biosynthetic material technologies that can replace PFAS compounds in DoD clothing and equipment, while providing the needed level of oil repellency and durability.

The developed non-PFAS bioinspired solution should target at least one of the following areas: textile-based systems clothing and equipment items (uniforms, shelters, sleeping bags, hydration systems) and food packaging and/or protective clothing items (barrier materials). It should also be form factor and integratable into an end item.

The biosynthetic solution may offer an alternative coating or finish for an existing DoD item. It could also be an entirely new material or substrate, with inherent repellency to replace and/or integrate into existing materials within the DoD system. Businesses must consider other requirements for the final product, including water repellency and flame resistant properties.

The vendor must take specific care to avoid “regrettable substitutions” such as siloxanes, which are under similar scrutiny as PFAS compounds from health and safety standpoints. Due to health, safety and regulatory concerns, solutions should not contain any carbon-fluorine bonds, including partially fluorinated fluoropolymers. This includes those not defined as “PFAS” by the EPA.

Firms should thoroughly review state-of-the-art for non-PFAS substitutions. Firms should also have familiarity with environmental manufacturing concerns (such as the use of isocyanates or solvents), as well as the feasibility of producing omniphobicity with the proposed system using environmentally-friendly materials and processes.

(Suggested Reference: https://www.ri.se/en/popfree/pfas-substitution-guide-for-textile-supply-chains)

Phase I

Feasibility Assessment: Firms should demonstrate the proof-of-concept for a biosynthetic solution with no fluorine-carbon bonds that can provide omniphobicity. The objective is a small-scale demonstration of omniphobicity on a substrate to illustrate proof-of-concept.

Firms should also identify a biosynthetic system that can synthesize and/or provide omniphobicity. Achieving oil repellency is a greater challenge than water repellency using non-PFAS systems. However, both qualities are critical for DoD clothing and equipment. Firms must produce the bioinspired system at quantities over 10 grams (or milliliters), with an objective of 100 grams (or milliliters) and a purity over 80%.

For textile substrates, businesses can demonstrate feasibility on a swatch or coupon by achieving some level of oil repellency in accordance with the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists Test Method 118.

Vendors can demonstrate water repellency through spray rating tests, and should prove the achievability of water repellency in addition to oil repellency using the proposed omniphobic system. If a business cannot demonstrate on a swatch or coupon during Phase I, it must provide a robust model demonstrating how the synthetic biology technology will impart omniphobicity with a realistic path towards application on a DoD end item.

An assessment of scaling capability for the omniphobic technology will be made, with special consideration for industry standard practices and limitations, and any benefits of using biotechnology for environmentally-friendly manufacture.

At the completion of Phase I, a sample of the proposed non-PFAS technology must be available for independent evaluation by the government technical point of contact. If the vendor performed a small-scale demonstration, a sample of these materials should be available for independent evaluation as well.

Prior to moving into Phase II, the business should identify the specific targeted application and/or properties expected of the solution.

Phase II

Prototype Development: At the end of Phase II there should be a viable solution to provide durable omniphobicity to a DoD end item. The technology should be scalable to commercial levels.

Year one: Optimization and application of the biosynthetic technology on the targeted substrate and/or application into a DoD end item.

The biosynthetic technology should scale to an appropriate level for application into a DoD end item. The Army encourages partnership with a manufacturer. The scaling method should consider environmentally-friendly practices, including the use of biotechnology and solvent-free systems.

The vendor should determine the application or integration of the biosynthetic solution into the DoD clothing or equipment based on the form factor of the solution and requirements of the end item. Regardless of the form factor and integration/application method, end items should maintain the desired physical properties as determined by the end use application.

This can include weight, thickness, air permeability, durability to abrasion and laundering for textiles used in personal clothing and equipment items. It can also offer properties such as resistance to cold cracking for shelters application, durability to delamination in food packaging and no leaching. The omniphobic solution should not impart more than a 10% weight gain to the end item.

The Army will test the solution based on the end use application and properties identified. The business should determine oil repellency on textile substrates in accordance with AATCC TM 118. The vendor must achieve a 5A oil rating, with an objective of higher oil ratings up to 8A (per AATCC TM118).

These oil rating values reflect lowered surface energy of the substrate that protects against fuels and battlefield contaminants such as F-24. The business should use spray rating test AATCC TM 22 to determine water repellency on textile substrates. As oil repellency presents the larger challenge, a demonstration that the omniphobic technology can provide water repellency in addition to meeting oil repellency metrics is sufficient.

At the end of year one, the vendor should deliver at least four sample swatches at a minimum of 6×6 inches, or one completed prototype incorporating the optimized omniphobic technology to the government TPOCs for independent evaluation. The company must also provide a report detailing the technology development, all test data, evaluations conducted to verify the target performance criteria, and a feasibility assessment for scaling up the omniphobic technology.

Year two: Ability to scale repellent technology.

The company should achieve lab scale production to 1,000 grams (or liters) for industry scale-up, to prioritize environmentally-friendly practices. The vendor must work with a manufacturer to scale up the biosynthetic technology to commercial levels and determine a realistic pathway to integrate with the DoD end item.

The business should take special consideration to the maintenance of DoD end item functionalities. This includes water repellency, flame resistance and dyability. By the end of year two, the vendor will achieve pilot production level quantities of the biosynthetic solution in a form factor, with a purity level acceptable for manufacture (as determined by standard practices for the targeted DoD end item manufacture). The Army encourages partnership with a manufacturer.

The business must supply treated end items at a pilot or prototype scale level to the government TPOC for independent evaluation. This includes one yard of a treated fabric substrate, laminate, membrane, or similar material or one prototype of the treated end item (ex. shirts, gloves, sleeping bags, hydration systems). The Army requires a cost analysis for producing the end items at full scale production at the end of year two. It should also offer a durability assessment for the lifecycle of the finished end item to predict durability via laundering and abrasion.

Phase III

Commercialization: Proposals should establish a lifecycle framework that can mature as the technology or process advances through the acquisition process. Life cycle management is an important consideration when assessing the potential PFAS release into the environment from manufacturing through use (including abrasion during wear and laundering) and disposal. At end-of-use, the solution must handle any residual chemistry in the relevant material recovery method, regardless of whether it is recycling, incineration or landfilling. Contamination can occur in:

• Ground/Water: Carpet and clothing are the most likely sources of PFAS in landfill leachate.
• Air: During manufacturing, air emissions from volatile substances must be addressed. PFAS that is polymerized and integrated into the textile, when thermally decomposed such as in burn pits, could also release into the environment. Burning waste in pits can create more hazards compared with controlled, high-temperature burning such as a commercial incinerator.
• Water:The processing/manufacturing of textiles containing PFAS can lead to wastewater contamination (water emulsions during application to fabrics, effluent water). Many textile manufacturers (Milliken, DuPont, 3M, and Mount Vernon Mills) were sued for contaminating U.S. public drinking water.

Synthetic biology systems using biomanufacturer for production may offer greener alternatives and reduce environmental contamination.

There are more than 100 DoD items identified as using PFAS to meet omniphobicity requirements in end item applications, including many cold weather clothing items. In addition to supporting the Army’s Arctic Strategy and the Army’s Climate Strategy, the technology developed will apply to a variety of items currently in the supply chain.

Depending on the technology developed, it could benefit clothing and equipment items in the Army Overwhite Program; Extended Cold Weather Clothing System; Cold Temperature and Arctic Protection System; clothing items and/or shelters used to provide chemical and biological protection; and other items used for a specific MOS. This could include fuel handler coveralls where omniphobicity is crucial to provide the required protection or food packaging items.

The developed technology would provide dual-use applications in the civilian sector in the high end outdoor retail clothing industry. It could also provide protective personal equipment for first responders and healthcare workers in addition to the possibility of replacing PFAS currently used in medical devices impacted by PFAS regulations and restrictions.

Submission Information

All eligible businesses must submit proposals by noon ET.

To view full solicitation details, click here.

For more information, and to submit your full proposal package, visit the DSIP Portal.

STTR Help Desk: usarmy.rtp.devcom-arl.mbx.sttr-pmo@army.mil