Plastics challenge: Mitigating the release of microplastics from tire wear

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is seeking environmentally acceptable and cost-effective technologies that will mitigate the microplastics pollution from tire wear (also known as tyre wear) in Canada.

Challenge sponsor:
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
July 27, 2022

Closing date:
August 31, 2022 14:00 Eastern Time

Prospective applicants should refer to the Innovative Solutions Canada Grant Instructions and Procedures document.

Challenge

Problem statement

Globally, it is estimated that 6 million tonnes of tire wear particles are released to the environment annually (Selonen et al., 2021; Kole et al., 2017). Microplastics* released from tire wear are becoming recognized as a significant source of environmental pollution that requires further research and innovative solutions. Once released into the environment, microplastics persist for a long time and accumulate in natural habitats, potentially impacting ecosystem health. The particles from tire wear also have the potential to leach chemical additives and heavy metals into the environment (Wagner et al., 2022; Sieber et al., 2020; Brinkmann et al., 2022). Technological innovations surrounding the prevention, reduction or collection of tire wear particles by targeting tire design or the tire use phase would assist in mitigating the risk to the environment.

*Microplastics are defined as plastic particles (including fragments, or fibers) with a diameter less than 5mm (GESAMP, 2016).


Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

  • Develop an environmentally safe solution that reduces tire wear particles being released into the environment for at least one vehicle type
  • Account for an appropriate life cycle management strategy that will not have further adverse effects on the environment, including an end of life strategy that retains the value of the product in the economy
  • Adhere to tire wear standards in line with currently available tire solutions, e.g. ISO 4649:2017 (International Organization for Standardization, 2017) for rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic tires
  • Not eliminate the tire or vehicle use in the proposal design
  • Not target off-vehicle capture of tire wear particles/microplastics

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

  • Demonstrate reduced release of chemical contaminants into the environment compared to conventional rubber tires
  • Develop an environmentally safe solution that prevents tire wear particles from being released into the environment
  • Evaluate the applicability of the solution in different Canadian contexts (various associated seasons and environmental conditions/compartments)
  • Demonstrate suitability for more than one vehicle type.

Background and context

The Government of Canada is tackling the issue of plastic waste and pollution, including microplastics, through multiple initiatives such as the Ocean Plastics Charter, the Canada-wide Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste and associated Action Plans developed in partnership with the provinces and territories, and through a comprehensive science agenda (Government of Canada, 2022). The Government recognises the importance of innovation in the achievement of zero plastic waste, and through the Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenge program has provided funding to Canadian innovators to develop technologies addressing issues such as microfiber release from textiles and the filtration of microplastics from ship greywater.

The natural environment is widely contaminated with microplastics, and tire wear** is a significant source of this pollution that requires further research (Parker-Jurd et al., 2021). Tire wear particles are considered microplastics due to the use of synthetic polymers in tire composition, the size of the tire wear particles and their physio-chemical properties (Hartmann et al., 2019). Microplastics released into the environment persist for a long time and accumulate in natural habitats, degrading into smaller and smaller particles. These particles have the potential to leach chemical additives (vulcanising agents, antioxidants, plasticisers, etc.), fillers (carbon black, mineral fillers, etc.) and metals into the environment that may negatively affect environment and human health (Wagner et al., 2022; Sieber et al., 2020; Brinkmann et al., 2022).

Tire wear is generated due to friction occurring between the vehicle tires and the road surface during normal use. Several factors influence tire wear rate, such as tire or vehicle characteristics, road surface, driving behavior, maintenance of tires, road traffic and weather conditions (OECD, 2021). While innovations exist in tire composition to decrease tire wear, there are none that prevent the emission of tire particles into the environment. This Challenge is seeking environmentally acceptable and cost-effective technologies that will prevent or reduce tire wear particles from being released into the environment.

Efforts to mitigate the release of microplastics into the environment from tire wear emissions will further advance the Government of Canada's goal to achieve zero plastic waste by 2030. Moreover, microplastics from tire wear are a global problem and there is opportunity for Canada to demonstrate leadership in addressing the issue.

**Tire wear particles can be generated from laboratory abrasion studies or from road driving (in which case they would include particles both from the tire and from the road surface – also referred to as tire and road wear particles).

References

Brinkmann, M., Montgomery, D., Selinger, S., Miller, J. G.P., Stock, E., Alcaraz, A. J., Challis, J. K., Weber, L., Janz, D., Hecker, M., and Wiseman, S. (2022). Acute Toxicity of the Tire Rubber-Derived Chemical 6PPD-quinone to Four Fishes of Commercial, Cultural, and Ecological Importance. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 4(9), 333-338. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00050

Government of Canada. (2022). Zero plastic waste: Canada's actions. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-reducing-waste/reduce-plastic-waste/canada-action.html.

Hartmann, N.B., Hüffer, T., Thompson, R. C., Hassellöv, M., Verschoor, A., Daugaard, A. E., Rist, S., Karlsson, T., Brennholt, N., Cole, M., Herrling, M. P., Hess, M. C., Ivleva, N. P., Lusher, A. L., and Wagner, M. (2019). Are We Speaking the Same Language? Recommendations for a Definition and Categorization Framework for Plastic Debris. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(3), 1039-1047. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05297

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2017). Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic — Determination of abrasion resistance using a rotating cylindrical drum device: ISO 4649:2017. ISO – ISO 4649:2017 – Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic — Determination of abrasion resistance using a rotating cylindrical drum device

Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP). (2015). Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Global Assessment. Journal Series GESAMP Reports and Studies, 90, 93. GESAMP_microplastics full study.pdf (europa.eu)

Kole, P. J., Löhr, A. J., Frank G.A.J. Van Belleghem, F. G.A.J., and Ad M.J. Ragas, A. M.J. (2017). Wear and Tear of Tyres: A Stealthy Source of Microplastics in the Environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10), 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101265

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). Policies to Reduce Microplastics Pollution in Water: Focus on Textiles and Tyres. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/policies-to-reduce-microplastics-pollution-in-water_7ec7e5ef-en.

Parker-Jurd, F. N.F., Napper, I. E., Abbott, G. D., Hann, S., and Thompson, R. C. (2021). Quantifying the release of tyre wear particles to the marine environment via multiple pathways. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112897

Selonen, S., Dolar, A., Kokalj, A. J., Sackey, L. N.A., Skalar, T., Fernandes, V. C., Rede, D., Delerue-Matos, C., Hurley, R., Nizzetto, L., and Cornelis A.M. van Gestel, C. A.M. (2021). Exploring the impacts of microplastics and associated chemicals in the terrestrial environment – Exposure of soil invertebrates to tire particles. Environmental Research, 201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111495

Sieber, R., Kawecki, D., and Nowack, B. (2020). Dynamic probabilistic material flow analysis of rubber release from tires into the environment. Environmental Pollution, 258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113573

Wagner, S., Klöckner, P., and Reemtsma, T. (2022). Aging of tire and road wear particles in terrestrial and freshwater environments – A review on processes, testing, analysis and impact. Chemosphere, 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132467

Maximum grant value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this challenge.

Phase 1:

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 1 Grant resulting from this challenge is : $150,000 CAD
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 1 project funded by a grant resulting from this challenge is up to 6 months
  • Estimated number of Phase 1 grants: 3

Phase 2:

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 Grant resulting from this challenge is : $1,000,000 CAD
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 2 project funded by a grant resulting from this challenge is up to 12 months
    • Note: Only eligible businesses that have completed Phase 1 could be considered for Phase 2.
  • Estimated number of Phase 2 grants: 1

Note: Selected companies are eligible to receive one grant per phase per challenge.

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of Phase 1 and Phase 2 awards will be made by Canada on the basis of factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities and availability of funds. Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Travel

No travel is anticipated. The kick-off meeting and final review meeting will have the flexibility of being a video or teleconference

Kick-off meeting

Teleconference/videoconference

Progress review meeting(s)

Teleconference/videoconference

Final review meeting

Teleconference/videoconference

All other communication can take place by telephone, or videoconference.

Eligibility

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

  • for profit
  • incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
  • 499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employeesFootnote *
  • research and development activities that take place in Canada
  • 50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in CanadaFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of workFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residenceFootnote *

Evaluation criteria

The applicant must complete the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form with a degree of information sufficient to enable Canada's assessment of the proposal against the criteria and the Evaluation Schema. The information must demonstrate how the proposal meets the criterion.

Part 1: Mandatory Criteria

Proposals must meet all mandatory criteria identified by achieving a "Pass" in order to proceed to Part 2. Proposals that do not meet all mandatory criteria will be deemed non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Scope

Describe the proposed solution and demonstrate how it responds to the challenge. Include in your description the scientific and technological basis upon which the solution is proposed and clearly demonstrate how the solution meets all of the Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory - Pass/Fail)

Pass

The Applicant's proposed solution is clearly articulated, within the scope for the challenge and addresses all Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes (if identified) in the Challenge Notice.

Fail

The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.
OR
The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes listed in the challenge.
OR
The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.
OR
There is little to no scientific and/or technological evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet the challenge.

Question 2: Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
  • Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)
  • Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory - Pass/Fail)

Pass: The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRLs 1 and 6 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.

Fail: The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 6 (inclusive) including:

  • There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment.
  • The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
  • The solution is demonstrated at TRL 7 or higher.
  • Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
  • The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level.
Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

  • An inventionFootnote *, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
  • Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
  • An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.

Fail:

  • Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed solution meets any of the ISC definitions of innovation; OR
  • Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).
Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

Describe in detail the competitive advantages and level of advancement over existing technologies. Where appropriate, name existing technologies as well as potential substitutes or competitors.

To demonstrate this, proposals should include the following information:

  • Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
  • How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)

0 points/Fail:

  • The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; OR
  • The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR
  • The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.

5 points/Pass:

  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

12 points/Pass:

  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR
  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches

20 points/Pass:

  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces; OR
  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces

Part 2: Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 50% to be deemed responsive. Proposals that do not achieve the minimum pass mark will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

Demonstrate the scientific and technological basis of how the proposed solution addresses the Additional Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice. If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, text entered in this section will not be considered.

If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Applicants will receive 10 points.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
  2. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
  4. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points
Question 4: Phase 1 Science and Technology (S&T) Risks

Describe potential scientific and/or technological risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 5: Phase 1 Project Plan

Demonstrate a feasible Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

  • Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently
  • Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 1. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
  2. Project plan for Phase 1 is conceivably feasible but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 20 points
Question 6: Phase 1 Project Risks

Describe potential project risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Applicants should address the following risks, as applicable:

  • Human Resources
  • Financial
  • Project Management
  • Intellectual Property
  • Other project-related risks

Note to Applicants: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 7: Phase 1 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how the project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 1 by completing the table. A member of the implementation team can have more than one role.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 10 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 20 points
Question 8: Inclusivity

If your business were to receive funding from Innovative Solutions Canada, describe what actions (e.g., recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, etc.) might be taken in Phase 1 to support the participation of under-represented groups (e.g., women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities) in the research and development of the proposed solution. Each Applicant in their response to this question must focus only on describing relevant programs, policies, or initiatives that it currently has in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1.

Note: Do not provide any personal information of individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
  2. A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided.5 points
Question 9: Phase 1 Financial Proposal

Demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient information provided and/or information provided significantly lack credibility. Does not demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information is provided but some costs lack credibility and/or are unclear for the Phase 1 project plan. 7.5 points
  3. Information provided contains credible elements to clearly demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 15 points
Question 10: Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the public funds throughout Phase 1. Applicants should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the public funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage public funds in Phase 1. 0 points
  2. Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant has some controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the public funds in Phase 1. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has strong financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage public funds in Phase 1. 10 points
Question 11: Phase 2 Overview

Demonstrate a realistic overview for the prototype development plan if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Responses should include:

  • key tasks
  • estimated cost for materials
  • human resources
  • project risks and mitigation strategies

Note: A more detailed proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has contemplated a realistic overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however there are gaps and/or the strategy is vague. 6 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has a clear and realistic overview. 12 points
Question 12: Commercialization Approach

Demonstrate a realistic overall commercialization approach/business model that can successfully take the technology/service to market, and how the technology/service will help you develop and sell other products.

Responses should include:

  • Target markets (excluding Government of Canada)
  • Non-ISC funding sources
  • Transition to a commercially-ready product or service
  • Any other indicators of commercial potential and commercial feasibility

Note: A more detailed proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 0 points
  2. Some information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential, however there are gaps in the commercialization approach. 6 points
  3. A realistic commercialization approach is provided that demonstrates that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 12 points
Question 13: Resulting Benefits to Canada

Describe the benefits that could result from the commercialization of the proposed solution. Applicants should consider the potential benefits using the following three categories and provide justification for each claim:

  • Innovation Benefits: Expected contribution towards the enhancement or development of new industrial or technological innovations within your firm. Responses could include: potential spillover benefits, creation of intellectual property, impact on productivity of the new technology, etc.
  • Economic Benefits: Forecasted impact on the growth of Canadian firms, clusters and supply chains, as well as its expected benefits for Canada's workforce. Responses could include: number of jobs created, number of high-paying jobs, investment in Canada's economy, etc.
  • Public Benefits: Expected contribution to the broader public to the degree that the solution is expected to generate social, environmental, health, security or other benefits to Canada. Responses could include: solution-related environmental benefits, solution-related accessibility benefits, and solution-related impact on Indigenous communities.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Innovation Benefits

    Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

    Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

    Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

  2. Economic Benefits

    Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

    Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

    Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

  3. Public Benefits.

    Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

    Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

    Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

Questions and answers

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@canada.ca.

All enquiries must be submitted in writing no later than ten calendar days before the Challenge Notice closing date. Enquiries received after that time may not be answered.

You can also consult the Frequently asked questions about the Innovative Solutions Canada Program.

glossary is also available.

Date modified: