100 BIOSURFACTANTS
Figure 1: Electromicroscopic image of cells of one of our microbial production hosts, the yeast Starmerella bombicola together with crystals of lactonic sophorolipids (rods seen in the picture). Budding scars from the multiplication cycle are visible
6 5 4 3 2 1
0 Sophorolipids Upcycled Sophorolipids EF3.1 land use
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
sophorolipids
0.000012 0.00001
0.000008 0.000006 0.000004 0.000002 0
AmphiStar upcycled
sophorolipids Recipe2016 - endpoint Human health sophorolipids
AmphiStar upcycled
sophorolipids Figure 2: (Top) Cradle to gate result for CO2 Virgin
0.0000001 9E-08 8E-08 6E-08 5E-08 4E-08 3E-08 2E-08 1E-08 0
Virgin sophorolipids
AmphiStar upcycled
sophorolipids Recipe2016 - endpoint Ecosystem Virgin Recipe2016 - endpoint Resources Virgin APG SLES CAPB
origins, these surfactants undergo harsh chemical production processes involving high temperatures, high pressures, and toxic catalysts, further diminishing their sustainability credentials. This contradiction between marketing claims and actual environmental impact fuels greenwashing, misleading consumers into believing they are making truly eco-friendly choices. For the past 10-15 years, the market has witnessed the emergence of novel approaches such as sophorolipids (SLs) and rhamnolipids (RLs). Rhamnolipids and sophorolipids are examples of fully bio-based surfactants but are, unlike other fully bio-based surfactants such as alkyl polyglucosides (APGs), produced through biological instead of chemical production processes.
Climate change excluding biogenic CO2
Often referred to as biosurfactants or
microbial biosurfactants, SLs, RLs and other types of molecules rely on microorganisms— such as yeasts and bacteria—as production hosts to synthesize surfactants from bio-based feedstocks. The microbes function as microscopic biofactories, converting renewable raw materials like sugars and vegetable oils into biosurfactants under mild, water-based conditions, eliminating the need for high temperatures, high pressures, or toxic catalysts. While these biological production processes
are more sustainable than traditional chemical methods, they still rely on first-generation feedstocks, such as sugar and vegetable oils, which come with the same environmental concerns—including land use, deforestation, and biodiversity loss—as conventional bio- based surfactants. Without a shift to alternative feedstocks, scaling up these biosurfactants to meet global demand could perpetuate the same sustainability challenges seen in traditional surfactant production.
Biosurfactants from waste—the sustainable solution Personal care brands must develop formulations that meet growing consumer demand for sustainability and safety while maintaining high performance. Achieving this requires innovative approaches that minimize environmental impact and ensure product efficacy without compromising consumer wellbeing. Belgian-based startup AmphiStar offers a
solution. Unlike other alternatives, AmphiStar’s microbial biosurfactants are derived entirely from waste and side streams. This makes them the first fully upcycled biosurfactants on the market, significantly reducing resource consumption and environmental footprint. This innovative technology uses bio-based waste and side streams—such as food waste and agricultural by- products—as feedstocks, which are transformed into high-performance biosurfactants through a mild, biological fermentation process akin to that used to create alcoholic beverages. Designed to address the industry’s need for
structural variety and functional performance, the startup has developed a proprietary strain library of over 500 microbial strains, each capable of producing different types of biosurfactants. This diversity enables formulators to choose from a wide range of options, ensuring that sustainable alternatives can match the functional properties of conventional surfactants while delivering enhanced environmental benefits. The production of biosurfactants from bio-
sophorolipids
AmphiStar upcycled
sophorolipids equivalents produced per kg of surfactant excluding biogenic CO2 uptake. (Middle) Recipe 2016 endpoint results showing reductions in land use (7×) and
resource consumption (4×) and (bottom) Recipe 2016 endpoint results showing reductions in human health impact (6×) and ecosystem impact (15×)
PERSONAL CARE August 2025 Virgin
based waste offers a large reduction in GHG/CO2 emissions compared to classic fossil and palm oil- based surfactants with a factor 2 to 4 through a number of reasons, as below.
No use of crude fossil oil The conversion of fossil feedstocks into surfactants results in the release of fossil- derived CO2
also generated during the extraction and
www.personalcaremagazine.com
, while methane emissions are
Pt Pt kg CO2 eq./kg active surfactant
Pt
Pt
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114
