Ion Mask

I'd like to see that service too for a DWR that would REALLY last. Got a pile of GTX clothing waiting for that treatment.

Eric

> would it be possible for BPL to start a service to ion mask any product?
The process requires a very large vacuum chamber for a start, and then some plasma gear. This would run into six figures at least. Then you have to add the cost of the technicians to run it. Over a few years that would possibly reach seven figures.
Don't hold your breath!

Roger,
perhaps a direct question to you. The question of DWR's, effectiveness and durability has been asked before on BPL. Ion mask seems like an interesting development but it's pretty difficult to see if it really can be as promising as all the press releases claim.
Can you, with your professional background, and purely based on the available information in press releases and on the ion mask website, make an assessment on what we can realistically exspect, how it differs from conventional DWR's and why it would or would not be better? Could we really exspect it to replace current waterproof cloatings and membranes like they seem to suggest?

PS: for more detailed info on how it works, just a tip: it's patented ;-)

If you look at the info on this site,http://www.wetisdry.com/, the Hi-tech/IonMask promo website, you will find this statement under waterproof flx test :" Independent testing shows that Ion Mask is as waterproof as leading membranes under certain test conditions"
BTW that chart shows 180 minutes of "waterproofness" for both "leading membranes" and IonMask with the comment that it is not an "untill failure" test.

I take it that by" leading membranes" they mean PTFE (Gore-Tex and eVent ?), but what bothers me is that qualifier "under certain test conditions". Under certain test conditions my BD Lighthouse (Epic) is as waterproof as PTFE (Todd-Tex) and standard PU coated nylon.
I had visions of that typical waterproof shop-demo display where there is a boot inside a clear cube with running water that does not actually touches the boot….
Franco

Hi Tom and all

Rule #1: Never believe the press releases!

What they are doing is very similar to the EPIC treatment (or any other DWR in fact) in some ways. In fairly simple terms, they are putting on a surface treatment which increases the surface tension of water droplets so they don't wet out the surface. Fine, but this leaves unanswered three questions:

1) How long will the coating last? They claim it adheres better: this may well be so.

2) What pressure is required to overcome the surface tension effect? You will note their caveat of 'under certain test conditions'. ANY approach which relies on surface tension will fail at some pressure. Pack shoulder straps, kneeling on hard surfaces …

3) How resistant is this treatment to contamination? This one is the secret killer of all surface tension systems. Get sweat, dirt, plant secretions, etc on the treated surface and the water will wet straight through because the special coating is masked. I had some sad experiences with EPIC on cotton fabrics this way …

I am slightly surprised at the company allowing shoes to be the first test case. Shoes get muddy! Other membranes are inside the shoes protected from the mud and usually rely on a PU membrane – more reliable.

On the other hand, I could see the treatment as suiting a tent fly, but obviously not a groundsheet.

Hope this helps.
Cheers

I wonder if Ion Mask is kin at all to Feathered Friends' nanoSphere, beyond the word "nano" appearing. When it was described to me it sounded like this stuff. I chose it for my sleeping bag since it was supposed to be permanent and lighter and more filth-resistant than Epic, though a little less breathable.

NanoSphere is a Schoeller technology ( assuming that it is what FF are using…) and it does indeed sound remarkably similar to the Ion Mask . However IonMask is a gas (plasma) coating/impregnation whilst NanoSphere is a liquid coating.
Franco

Hi Roger,
some of the questions you ask are the same I have been asking myself.
For me the durability question is the main issue. This is the point where all the water repellent treatments have failed up to now. I know some people have been testing ion mask treated shoes and boots since at least november last year but I haven't read a full review up to know. Let's wait and see.

What you surface tension question concerns, I'm wondering in which way an ion mask treated article works differently from e.g. an eVENT jacket. They are both porous, ion mask treated jackets supposedly much more than eVENT ones (too much) and they both rely on fluorocarbons to repel water (the coating that makes eVENT oleophobic at the same time actually also makes it more hydrophobic). Long tailed fluorocarbon polymers have a surface tension of about 5 to 10 mN/m, compared with 20-21 for PTFE and around 30 for polysiloxane based polymers if not mistaken. Supposes ion mask is as durable as claimed, why then should we fear pressure as an enemy for ion mask while durability issues for eVENT are rare? The fact that the pores in the ion mask treated weave are bigger than in eVENT and too big to be bridged by surface tension alone?

Concerning resistance to contamination, I would think it's not entirely correct to use contamination problems with EPIC as an indication of the problems that ion mask could have. EPIC is silicone based with a silicone based coating with a surface tension of around 30 mN/m(something like that). It's hydrophobic but not oleophobic. I thought oils, alcohols,… have surface tensions between 20 and 30-35 mN/m. Fluorocarbons on the other hand have much lower surface tensions as already mentioned. In fact, I though that one of elements in all those self-cleaning applications that are being promoted and marketed is the use of fluorocarbons and this in combination with nanoscopic texturing or roughening of a surface. In fact, this is exactly what nanosphere is.

About the fact that they chose shoes, perhaps it's just a sign from the fact that they are extremely confident that it will work. Because, if it works in a shoe (and the environment in which a shoe has to operate), in what wouldn't it work.

Comparing nanosphere to ion mask, I think they are comparable in that they both used fluorocarbon polymers. They are different in that 1) nanosphere uses nanoscopic texturing and ion mask appears not too (nanoscopic texturing makes for even higher hydrophobicity but I think the weak point is the adhesion between nanoparticles and surface)and 2) nanosphere is a surface treatment while ion mask gets into the deepest layers of the weave by the use of plasma as a carrier.

Or doesn't this make any sense what I am saying?

I don't see how this is much different in function from Schoeller nanosphere. Perhaps more durable or more hydrophobic, but just as Epic (with extremely small pore size) will allow water to pass with moderate pressure, Ion mask applied to, say, Pertex Microlight (larger pore size)would also allow water to pass. No?

If that's the case then it may be an uber-durable DWR – what we've all been waiting for – but not waterproof.

I ran into a blog entry where someone described a Hi-Tec prototype hiking boot with Ion Mask, mentioning that the boot also had a WPB membrane. The Hi-Tec model with Ion Mask that's on the market now is advertised as having "waterproof leather" in addition to Ion Mask. So I get the feeling that Ion Mask, by itself, is not waterproof. But I could be wrong.

However, the blog entry also described resistance to dirt and grime similar to Nanosphere – a plus for durability, as noted by previous posters. Also, even though water can likely penetrate the pores of an Ion Mask treated fabric, the treatment should prevent the fabric itself from absorbing moisture and wetting out, also like Nanosphere, which would be great for moisture management, even if not fully waterproof.

Schoeller has apparently improved the durability of Nanosphere for this season, but it hasn't been widely adopted yet, despite Schoeller licensing another company to apply the finish to non-Schoeller fabrics. I'm a little leary about it for health reasons, as nanoparticles can pass the blood brain barrier with unknown effects. I've no idea if the nanometer thick polymer coating used in Ion Mask would be less bioactive.

Hi Tom

Yes, everything you wrote makes a lot of sense.

I think we are going to have to wait and see. After all, GoreTex version 1 looked great on paper, didn't it?

One of the biggest concerns will have to be the cost of the process. It requires rather expensive equipment.

Field test samples will be welcome … :-)

Cheers

Roger,
I hope you weren't ironical when you wrote that :-).

About the new nanosphere, I guess it sounds logic that it will be more efficient. But what I found really interesting whas the fact that the production method has changed to the use of C6 technology. One of the critisisms you'll often find is that fluorocarbon treatments but also stuff like teflon (which is still the base for gore-tex and eVENT) were and are based on production methods involving perfluorooctane molecules (C8) like PFOA and PFOS which are regarded as being (very) harmfull, causing cancer, growth deformations in children, etc … The fact that nanosphere can be made now using C6 technology which appears not to have these harmfull effects, is regarded by me as a positive development.

> stuff like teflon (which is still the base for gore-tex and eVENT) were and are based on production methods involving perfluorooctane molecules (C8) like PFOA and PFOS
I may be wrong (often am!), but I thought they had changed the production technology in the last few years to reduce or eliminate this problem?

Roger,
that's certainly possible. I seem te remember that Dupont has some sort of agreement/program to phase out PFOS/PFOA based processes by 2015 (not sure of the date, could be a bit earlier also). It's not clear to me where they are now.
I also asked the question of PFOA/PFOS to Gore since they not only use teflon for the membrane but develop there own DWR treatment(s). They told me they were going to address my question but it could take some time and I haven't heard anything since then.

Ion Mask:
perhaps the ultimate dry treatment for climbing ropes – and slings, cord, harnesses, etc!!!!

obviously, it would have to be safe for life support gear and all, but if they are already using it on nylon fabric, it shouldn't do anything too weird.

If it really is waterproof and breathable, then tents, tarps and sleeping bag shells are an obvious use. Some great possibilities if this works! Would it work on down? No more loss of loft in wet conditions!
I'm glad they have chosen footwear first, as i think this means they must be confident in their product.

Although this thread is a few days old now I had to share my excitement about this new technology. I think the fundamental difference between Ion-Mask and conventional DWR treatments is that Ion-Mask works on a molecular level rather than simply coating the outer surface. In effect this means that the outer leather of a pair of boots can be sanded off leaving the exposed layer still completely hydrophobic. In addition, the breathablity of the fabric is not affected, nor it's tactile properties. Having examined treated fabric samples (mesh, felt, paper, cardboard), I haven't noticed any differences between them and the untreated samples apart from the former having remarkable hydrophobic properties.
Hydrostatic head will be dependent on factors such as tightness of weave of the treated fabric.
I too would like to see this technology applied to down products as theoretically it would render the down itself completely waterproof yet not affect it's ability to loft or add any extra weight or bulk. As a treatment for shoes it is effective since even if water enters through the top (which is inevitable) it will not soak into the inners and therefore shoes will not stay wet for long.
Hopefully Ion-Mask continues to be developed and lives up to the expectations!