DEV Community

Daniel Ioni
Daniel Ioni

Posted on

MyZubster Circular Hygiene: from a 50-ton evidence pilot to global industry outreach

#innovation #webdev #opensource #sustainability

MyZubster Circular Hygiene: from a 50-ton evidence pilot to global industry outreach

Over the last few days, MyZubster has taken an important step forward.

We moved from discussing circular economy at a high level to defining a concrete pilot architecture for used absorbent hygiene products such as:

  • diapers;
  • sanitary products;
  • incontinence products;
  • other post-consumer absorbent hygiene materials.

The goal is not to reinvent industrial recycling.

The goal is to build the digital evidence layer around it.

Our working principle remains:

No evidence → no material claim.

The problem we want to solve

A circular process is only useful if we can prove what actually happened.

For a used hygiene product stream, a real circular flow may involve:

SOURCE
  ↓
COLLECTION
  ↓
WEIGHING
  ↓
DIGITAL LOT
  ↓
TRANSPORT
  ↓
PLANT RECEIPT
  ↓
TREATMENT
  ↓
RECOVERED MATERIALS
  ↓
DESTINATION / REUSE
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Every step creates data.

But today, those data points are often fragmented across:

  • municipalities;
  • collectors;
  • transport operators;
  • treatment plants;
  • manufacturers;
  • auditors;
  • sustainability teams.

MyZubster is exploring whether these records can be connected into a single verifiable evidence package.

The MyZubster Circular Hygiene model

We designed a pilot called:

MyZubster Circular Hygiene 500T

The name describes the potential scale-up target.

But the real starting point is much smaller.

Our proposed progression is:

50 t
 ↓
100 t
 ↓
500 t
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The first serious gate is 50 tonnes.

Before scaling, the pilot should demonstrate:

  • evidence completeness;
  • verifiable mass balance;
  • chain-of-custody records;
  • consistent lot identification;
  • treatment output records;
  • independent review.

We deliberately do not start by claiming that 500 tonnes will be processed.

The 500-tonne level is a possible future scale, not a completed result.

What is inside an evidence package?

For each lot, we propose recording at least:

LOT ID
ORIGIN
TIMESTAMP
RESPONSIBLE OPERATOR
INPUT WEIGHT
TRANSPORT / CUSTODY EVENTS
PLANT RECEIPT
TREATMENT REFERENCE
RECOVERED OUTPUTS
DESTINATION
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
INTEGRITY DIGEST
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

This gives us a structured object that can be reviewed later.

But there is an important engineering distinction.

A hash is not scientific validation

One of the easiest mistakes in environmental software is confusing data integrity with truth.

If we calculate a SHA-256 digest, we can prove that a payload has not changed.

That is useful.

But:

HASH_VERIFIED != PHYSICALLY_VERIFIED
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

and:

CRYPTOGRAPHIC_INTEGRITY != SCIENTIFIC_VALIDATION
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

A system can prove that a record is authentic and unchanged while the original physical measurement is still wrong.

This is why our trust model separates layers:

COLLECTED
   ↓
DOCUMENTED
   ↓
HASH_VERIFIED
   ↓
MEASURED
   ↓
EXTERNALLY_VERIFIED
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Environmental claims, accreditation and rewards should only appear at the appropriate layer.

MRV becomes the bridge

This brings us to MRV:

Measurement, Reporting and Verification.

The technical system can support:

  • provenance;
  • timestamps;
  • evidence references;
  • chain of custody;
  • integrity hashes;
  • mass balance;
  • reproducible records.

But external review is still required for stronger claims.

For example:

"5,000 kg entered the plant"
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

is different from:

"3,800 kg were scientifically verified as recoverable secondary material"
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

and both are different from:

"This process avoided X tonnes of CO2"
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The last statement requires a proper methodology.

So our rule is simple:

CO2, LCA and environmental-impact claims are excluded until an appropriate methodology and external validation exist.

KPI for the first pilot

For the initial 50-tonne gate, we defined technical and operational KPI such as:

  • tonnes collected;
  • tonnes treated;
  • contamination rate;
  • input/output mass balance;
  • kg recovered per kg input;
  • recovery by material fraction where measurable;
  • evidence completeness;
  • cost per tonne;
  • revenue per tonne.

For cellulose, plastics and SAP recovery, we only include metrics where they can actually be measured and documented.

The business model is also being tested

We also created a preliminary economic hypothesis.

One scenario assumes that MyZubster could generate approximately:

€30 / tonne
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

from a combination of:

  • software;
  • evidence services;
  • MRV support;
  • digital traceability;
  • marketplace services.

At 500 tonnes:

500 × €30 = €15,000
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

This is not a validated market price.

It is a business-model hypothesis to test with real operators.

Longer term, possible revenue layers could include:

B2B SaaS
+
MRV / evidence services
+
secondary-material marketplace fees
+
automation / robotics
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

But first, we need to prove that the evidence architecture is useful.

Bringing the model to CSMT and LIFE contacts

We recently had a positive exploratory discussion with CSMT.

The next step proposed was another call involving a colleague with more specialized expertise.

This is important because the project is reaching a new question:

What evidence would an external specialist require before considering the pilot credible?

We prepared:

  • a 10-slide Circular Hygiene 500T deck;
  • a one-page executive proposal;
  • the 50 t acceptance gate;
  • the MRV trust model;
  • the KPI framework;
  • the proposed business case.

We then shared these materials with relevant CSMT and LIFE contacts.

This does not mean CSMT or LIFE authorities are formal project partners.

At this stage, we are seeking technical feedback and the correct validation pathway.

Then we expanded the conversation to Japan

The next step was to look at companies already active in hygiene-product circularity.

Instead of approaching them with a generic sustainability pitch, we created a Japan Partner Pack focused on interoperability.

The proposal is:

MyZubster does not replace proprietary recycling technology.

It adds a digital layer around:

COLLECTION
   ↓
LOT IDENTITY
   ↓
MEASUREMENT
   ↓
PROVENANCE
   ↓
TREATMENT OUTPUT
   ↓
DESTINATION
   ↓
EVIDENCE
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Unicharm

For Unicharm, we prepared a brief focused on potential interoperability with its circularity work and municipal workflows.

The discussion we are proposing is not:

"Use MyZubster instead of your technology."

It is:

"Can MyZubster connect to your existing operational data and turn it into portable, auditable evidence?"

We sent a dedicated outreach brief together with the broader Japan Partner Brief.

Kao

For Kao, the proposal focuses on:

  • treatment-event evidence;
  • recovered-output records;
  • traceability;
  • validation;
  • a possible 50 t proof of concept.

Again, the aim is interoperability rather than replacing industrial know-how.

P&G / Pampers

For P&G/Pampers, we created a separate innovation brief around:

  • digital traceability;
  • manufacturer/municipality interfaces;
  • recovered-material evidence;
  • circularity reporting;
  • scalable partner interoperability.

The proposal was then sent to a P&G innovation contact channel with a request to route it to the relevant sustainability, circularity, R&D or Connect + Develop team.

Why we created separate documents

We deliberately did not send the same generic PDF to everyone.

Each organization has a different role.

So we created:

GENERAL JAPAN PARTNER BRIEF

UNICHARM BRIEF
→ interoperability / municipal circularity

KAO BRIEF
→ treatment evidence / verification

P&G / PAMPERS BRIEF
→ manufacturer-scale traceability and innovation
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

This makes the conversation much more useful.

What we are NOT claiming

This part is important.

MyZubster is not claiming that:

  • Unicharm is a partner;
  • Kao is a partner;
  • P&G/Pampers is a partner;
  • CSMT is a formal project partner;
  • LIFE funding has been obtained;
  • the 500 t pilot is approved;
  • €30/t has been validated;
  • environmental savings have been certified;
  • a SHA-256 hash proves environmental performance.

These are exploratory technical and business-development steps.

The purpose is to create the conditions for real validation.

The architecture is becoming clearer

The Circular Hygiene vertical now looks like this:

                         MYZUBSTER
                             │
                             ↓
                      DIGITAL LOT LAYER
                             │
              ┌──────────────┼──────────────┐
              │              │              │
          COLLECTION      EVIDENCE        MRV
              │              │              │
              └──────────────┼──────────────┘
                             ↓
                       TREATMENT PLANT
                             │
                       RECOVERED OUTPUT
                             │
              ┌──────────────┼──────────────┐
              │              │              │
          REPORTING      MARKETPLACE     REVIEW
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

And the trust progression is:

DATA
 ↓
INTEGRITY
 ↓
PROVENANCE
 ↓
MEASUREMENT
 ↓
EXTERNAL VERIFICATION
 ↓
CLAIM
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Why this matters for open source

A lot of sustainability software starts with the final claim.

We are trying to do the opposite.

Start with:

WHAT HAPPENED?
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Then:

CAN WE DOCUMENT IT?
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Then:

CAN SOMEONE ELSE VERIFY IT?
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

And only after that:

WHAT CAN WE CLAIM?
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

That is much harder.

But it is also much more useful.

The next gate

The next real milestone is not another partnership announcement.

It is:

50 tonnes with a complete evidence chain

Target:

50 t
+
≥95% evidence completeness
+
verifiable mass balance
+
defined MRV methodology
+
external review
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

If that passes:

50 t → 100 t → 500 t → replication
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

That is the path.

Building MyZubster in public

This project is still experimental.

But the architecture is becoming more disciplined.

We are moving from:

IDEA
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

to:

PILOT
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

to:

EVIDENCE
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

to:

EXTERNAL REVIEW
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

And only then, hopefully, to:

REPLICATION
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The most important rule remains unchanged:

No evidence → no material claim.

MyZubster Circular Hygiene

Build → Measure → Evidence → Verify → Replicate.

MyZubster #OpenSource #CircularEconomy #MRV #Sustainability #WasteTech #CleanTech #Innovation #BuildInPublic

Top comments (0)