What is the real purpose behind this Challenge?

It is a risky, high-reward call under EIC Pathfinder that aims to convert heterogeneous waste streams into valuable products or energy in a step-change manner. Consider radically new conversion paths (electrochemical, photonic, bio-hybrid, microreactor-based), new separation and purification logics, or AI-controlled process control – not small improvements. It is premature science that can potentially shift from TRL 1-2 to TRL 3-4, with a clear roadmap to subsequent Tech Transition.

Who is eligible to apply?

Applicants (both small consortia and single entities) should be set up in an EU Member State or an Associated Country. In practice, the majority of winning teams are small, cross-functional teams of 3-5 beneficiaries (universities, RTOs, SMEs) whose approaches and facilities complement one another. Massive consortia are generally underperformers unless they are governed with a razor.

To what extent and how frequently?

Grants shall be financed up to 100 percent of the applicable direct costs and 25 percent of the applicable indirect costs (flat rate). The project sizes are typically 3-4 million EUR, with increased reactor yield and selectivity stable at 500 h, and a pilotable cartridge design. 36-48 months. Budgeting, which balances expenses against real risk-reduction achievements (e.g., increased reactor yield, stable selectivity at 500 h, pilotable cartridge design), sounds good to evaluators.

Which type of TRL development can be predicted?

Starting at TRL 1-2 (fundamental concepts, laboratory curiosities) and producing high-quality TRL 3-4 results: validated lab prototypes, reproducible data sets, and realistic scale-up speculations. When you are already at TRL 5, you are likely using the wrong instrument; when you are just theory without a validation plan, it is also a mismatch.

Which types of streams and outputs of waste are within the scope?

Mixed plastics, textile recycled materials, agri-food by-products, construction and demolition fines, municipal solid waste fractions, mining tailings, electronic waste, CO2-contaminated off-gases – assume your treatment method can contend with composition variability and impurity loads. The products can be monomers, platform molecules, critical minerals, advanced materials, or energy storage media. The quality specifications sought by evaluators include clean quality monomers (e.g., purity of monumental >99.5, ash or metal recovery >95) and persuasive analytics.

Which kind of evaluation criteria are reviewers using?

Three pillars:

-Excellence: audacious, state-of-the-art assertions with hard comparisons; plausible, falsifiable hypotheses; it is a well-founded methodology.

-Impact: a clear vision regarding what downstream exploitation and transition options will look like; measurable sustainability gains (e.g., E-factor, MJ/kg, CO2e/ton), and not a vague notion of a circular economy.

-Execution: lean work plan, strict risk management, a team that is a real cross-disciplinary (chemistry, materials, micro-/bioprocess, controls, LCA/TEA) one.

In the case of Challenges, suitability to the particular challenge roadmap is conclusive.

What technical KPIs would we be committed to?

Select a few of the ones that show real conversion and separation performance with realistic feed variability:

-Steady state yield and selectivity (e.g., 80% yield, >95% selectivity, 100 h stability).

-Specific energy requirement (MJ /kg product) and carbon intensity (kg CO2e /kg).

-E-factor (less than 1 depolymerization; less than 5 bio-routes) and solvent recovery (more than 95).

-Space-time-yield and throughput in intensified reactors (e.g., >2 g·L⁻¹·h⁻¹ bio-routes; >10 g·L⁻¹·h⁻¹ electrochemical).

-Contaminant tolerance (ppm-levels).

-Purity of the product according to standard (ASTM/ ISO grade, where applicable).

Any common pitfalls to avoid?

Several:

-Asserts that it is green and has no quantitative baselines.

-Extrapolating before impurity toleration data.

-Missing powerful analytics (absence of purity cross-validation/structure).

-Losses of separation energy; it usually dominates OPEX.

-Thin risk management – high-risk projects should have disciplined mitigation and not bravado.

-Theory requires hardware; no engineering underpinning to consortia.

What is the IP in the case of Pathfinder projects?

This remains the property of the provider; new results (foreground) are the property of the beneficiaries under the Consortium Agreement. Among partners, exploitation and access rights are negotiated. Reasonable open-science publication practices, actual names of owners, routes, and timeframes in exploitation plans are expected.

In what role does MIC play in a winning consortium?

We discuss the middle ground: microfluidic architecture, bespoke systems, sensorized plates, and quick prototyping, which turn good ideas into good ones. We also co-write proposals (with impact and implementation sections), find labs and SMEs throughout Europe, and create working prototypes. In previous Horizon Europe partnerships, the proposal success rate for a proposal with a specific SME added, such as MIC, has doubled on average relative to official baseline data for similar calls. We participate as partners in R&D and microfabrication, or as work-package leaders in screening/scale-down engineering.

What time frame are we supposed to take?

4-6 months plan to shape the consortium into submission-ready, including 2 internal reviews and 1 external dry run. For projects, a 36-48-month timeframe with quarterly decision gates is realistic. Reciprocate deliverables to evaluation rationale: Beta reproducibility, mid-term prototype stability, late reproducibility, LCA/TEA, and exploitation.