Advanced Fuel Research, Inc

Advanced Fuel Research, Inc.

87 Church Street

East Hartford, CT 06108 Tel: 860-528-9806 http://www.afrinc.com/

Interviewee: Marek Wojtowicz, Principal Investigator Time of phone interview: Nov 7 @ 3pm

Technology: mercury sorbents and carbon black derived from waste tires Technology Continuum Stage: Verification

Media: Air Treatment EPA program(s): SBIR

Sources of funding: Only source of funding is the EPA SBIR program for the two technologies mercury sorbents and carbon black derived from waste tires.

Regulation involvement: AFR is facing federal and state elections, and depending on whom gets elected governor will determine demand for the technology. A utility company in Michigan that is big in the United States is looking at the tar technology to meet the regulations that may be passed. In AFR’s case, the change in the EPA Option Task funding* dramatically slowed their development of the technology, because it was funding that AFR was depending on.

Environmental problem technology solves:

Air Pollution: Having clean air to breathe is vital for all life on planet earth to survive. There are toxins such as nitrogen oxide and sulfurous gases that are dangerous to inhale. Carbon black is made from oils derived from scrap tires. A pyrolysis process was developed for conversion of used tires into activated carbon, carbon black, and fuel gases.

Exhaustion of natural resources & Safer Tires: The most common usage of carbon black is as reinforcement in automobile tires. Carbon black also helps conduct heat away from the tread and belt area of the tire, reducing thermal damage and increasing tire life. Carbon black particles are also employed in some radar absorbent materials and in printer toner. We need fuel gases in order for our cars to run, exhaustion of our current gas and oil supply could result if we do not find another means for oil. The oils derived from the tires (before being processed into carbon black) can be used as an alternative to lower the increasing gas prices of today.

Poison Control: Mercury is highly toxic and in humans damages the nervous system, and if it gets into the environment, it poisons wildlife. AFR has developed a novel process (patent pending) for the removal and recovery of mercury from combustion flue gas. AFR creates tire-derived activated carbons for mercury control.

Environmental impact: Carbon absorption has numerous applications in removing pollutants from air or water streams both in the field and in industrial processes such as spill cleanups, groundwater remediation, drinking water filtration, volatile organic compound capture from painting, dry cleaning and other processes.

Activated carbon is used to treat poisonings and overdoses following oral ingestion. It prevents absorption of the poison by the gastrointestinal tract. In cases of suspected poisoning, medical personnel either administer activated carbon on the scene or at a hospital's emergency department. Activated carbon has become the treatment of choice for many poisonings (i.e. mercury). The use of activated charcoal is

contraindicated when the ingested substance is an acid, an alkali, or a petroleum product.

Filters with activated carbon are usually used in compressed air and gas purification to remove oil vapor, odor, and other hydrocarbons from compressed air and gas. Activated carbon air filters are also commonly used to purify the oxygen in aquariums.

Summary: Advanced Fuel Research, Inc. (AFR) celebrated its twentieth anniversary in early 2000.The Company currently has 14 full-time employees and 14,000 sq. ft. of office and laboratory space. The company has developed leading edge technologies in a number of areas. AFR has successfully developed, through government and industrial support, a number of innovative laboratory and process control instruments and software products that are today serving industrial and academic clients throughout the world.

AFR also performs contract research and development for research institutes and private organizations. AFR often works on projects in collaboration with other small businesses, large companies, national laboratories, universities, and consultants. Many of these interactions have occurred through Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) projects.

AFR typically makes at least 10 presentations per year at national and international conferences. In addition, AFR scientists have been actively involved in organizing symposia, in the governance of professional societies, and in standards

organizations. AFR has published more than 300 papers in conference proceedings, book chapters, encyclopedia chapters, and referred journals. AFR has considerable expertise in electronic materials and devices (EMD) and carbon materials (carbon fibers, fullerenes, diamond, and advanced carbon sorbents).

Challenges along the way (at what stage): It was quite challenging to spread the funds evenly through out time. The carbon black technology took from 1999 to 2005 to develop; it was intended to take only two years. It took so long partially due to the gaps in between Phase I and Phase II funding stages. As a contract R&D company, trying to commercialize technologies is time consuming and challenging, so they would rather stick to what they are good at: making technologies. The change in option task funding

also hindered their project; because they were depending on getting that funding, then the rule changed. AFR feels the rule changed because the EPA wanted to increase

seriousness for companies to receive funding. Mainly because companies can easily inflate in-kind donations when providing proof to the EPA, and for a company to sponsor the small business with cash, means that the sponsor is serious.

Solutions to the challenges (resources used): AFR currently has no funding for this project and is unable to get the option funding, mainly because the rule was changed. It is difficult to get a straight cash donation, especially since they are not able to do pilot scale testing to give the technology more credibility.

Interviewee’s Suggestions to improve environmental technology commercialization:

Make a clear definition of deliverables (e.g., pilot scale testing data), and to consider each of them on a case by case basis, and to negotiate funding. The time it takes for the

funding to be dispersed is also an issue. EPA has funded Foresight, and their assistance was wonderful. Most of the Foresight interactions pleased AFR. AFR has not heard of the ETV program when asked about it. It is possible that the ETV program would have helped give their technology more credibility to provide more funding from sponsors.

Major conclusions: It is always beneficial to rely on multiple sources of funding when moving a technology along the technology continuum. EPA may have tried to increase seriousness, or honesty for applying for more funding, but this effort may in fact he hurting companies and not helping them.

Nugget of knowledge, interesting fact: AFR has developed a successful strategy for commercialization of advanced technologies. The first step is to work closely with industrial strategic partners (often starting in Phase I of technology development) to develop technology based upon real customer needs. AFR may then seek additional development funding from industry or government. AFR then sells its first commercial units directly to its industrial partners and other industrial "early adopters". A

comprehensive business plan is created, and when a technology/market combination demonstrates enough promise to exist profitably on its own, a free-standing spin off firm, to make and sell products. AFR will pursue this strategy based upon initial customer responses and business plan analysis. AFR technology is transferred or licensed to that spin-off company.

EPA has outperformed the other government agencies because a majority of AFR’s leads comes from EPA’s website. A business development person is hired as needed, but most of the advertising is word of mouth from the president, and primary investigator of the technology.

Analysis: Marek Wojtowicz of AFR commented that 75% of their funding comes from SBIR programs, so it would be particularly important for this company to have as small a break in the time to receive more funding as possible. He also mentioned that a more concrete definition of deliverables for the Phase I/Phase II project would be beneficial.

Defining what results are expected from each Phase on a case by case basis would let the

companies pick a goal to be reached at the end of each Phase. He also wanted EPA’s rules about what types of contributions are allowed to make companies eligible for EPA’s option funding changed back to the way they were. He feels that his project is not one that can draw the cash contributions now required for the option funding, though they had no trouble finding in kind contributions to help develop the technology. This rule change would specifically affect AFR for the better, though EPA may have made this rule

change because people were claiming to receive larger in-kind contributions than they actually had, making themselves eligible for the $70,000 available as option funding.