Close
today i learned (til) vintage science

Fabrican: Taking a Piece of Chemistry onto the Catwalk

April 24, 2026

One of the most valuable experiences for any designer or innovator is the process of mastering new fields of knowledge to better guide and inform creative decisions. Almost every new problem or project requires designers to think of new ways to approach their solution or design. Manel Torres is the perfect example of this approach as he had to immerse himself in chemistry to develop what is now known as spray-on clothing. His work demonstrates how expanding beyond traditional design boundaries can lead to groundbreaking results with multiple applications! Torres’s invention really highlights how impactive ideas often emerge when disciplines intersect.

During Paris Fashion week in 2022 at the Coperni runway, Bella Hadid made a stunning performance as she stood there practically naked, while being sprayed with some white liquid material. Well, this material so happened to originate from the works of Manel Torres’ Fabrican. Inspired by silly string spray cans, Torres wanted to create a spray-on T-shirt from an aerosol can during his doctoral years at the Royal School of Art in London. With the help of Professor Paul Luckham from Imperial College’s department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology, Torres was able to create the right formulation to produce something that can spray thin fabric onto a model (Melton, 2023). A featured article years back on the home page of the Guardian Newspaper, highlights the work of fashion designer Dr. Manel Torres who invented a spray that “forms a seamless fabric on contact with the body” (Amato, 2011). Along with the article was a video, showing Torres in a lab coat demonstrating his new innovation by spraying the torso of a male model with a liquid mix of fibers and polymers that instantly dried and solidified upon contact with the skin. The results came out to be a skintight t-shirt!

(source: drawn by An Truong)

So how is it possible for a liquid material to become something that you can actually wear? 

Torres’ invention consists of a liquid mixture of short fibers that are suspended in a solvent that evaporates when exposed in the air, so that the spray turns into a solid non-woven non-knit material upon contact (Melton, 2023). It was made to be applied using an aerosol can or a spray gun that would be sprayed directly onto a person or onto a mannequin or mold, forming a fabric layer that can be thickened and strengthened by applying multiple layers. With this, you would be able to style, peel off, and shape the fabric as needed. The fibers themselves are biopolymers created from natural or synthetic sources such as corn starch, wool or mohair based keratin, hemp, or even collagen (Amato, 2023). Torres also experimented with various other kinds of fabrics and textures such as a paper-like texture, fleece, rubber, and lace. These fabrics and textures were able to be embossed, molded, and essentially patterned in any ways a designer wishes. 

(source: TEDxTalk)

Further Application

Torres believes that his invention should be and can be used to create a wide range of products, including fashion, automotive components such as dashboards and interior fabrics, and for medical application such as bandages, instant sterile dressings, or drug delivery patches. 

As any great designer and innovator would do, Manel Torres continues developing and improving his own works. In a TED TALK Torres gave in 2012, he mentions how he wants to push Fabrican to be fully reusable and sustainable as well as incorporate some kind of smart technology in the future. This is a great practice for designers and innovators alike as they should all reflect on their designs and continue to improve them even after its final outcome is presented.

Conclusion

Manel Torres’s work with Fabrican shows how innovation in design is truly never finished. It should evolve alongside new ideas, technologies, and needs. By continuing to refine his spray-on fabric with goals of sustainability, material and cost efficiency, and integration of smart technology, Torres sets a perfect example for future designers and innovators that creativity should not end at just the final invention or outcome, it instead continues to grow through constant iteration. Manel Torres’ process demonstrates how science and design can merge to create materials that are functional and adaptable. As Fabrican develops, it has great potential to reshape industries starting from fashion and expanding to fields such as medicine. Ultimately, Torres’s process and work encourages designers to think beyond traditional materials and to embrace experimentation and iteration. His brilliant vision for the future of clothing and textiles challenges the next generation to design with both imagination, experimentation, and research!

Citations:

Amato, Sarah. (2011). Fit to a T: Spray-On Clothing, Craft, Commodity Fetishism, and the Agency of Objects. Utopian Studies, 22(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.5325/utopianstudies.22.2.0285

Coperni. (2023, September 14). The making of a dress [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxObP6-ovdk

Melton, Lisa. The instant spray-on dress. Nat Biotechnol 41, 743 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-01829-1

TEDx Talks. (2012, April 26). Spray-On Fabric: Manel Torres at TEDxImperialCollege [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW6Gv-IoErw

 

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

Plants grown in space through NASA's Veggie system.
today i learned (til)
Coloring Space Green
today i learned (til)
Frankenscience – The future of medicine?
today i learned (til)
The Science Behind JaPow
Funny Bone, today i learned (til)
Why the tiny arms?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.