102 BIOSURFACTANTS
microbial biosurfactants can be extracted from the fermentation broth. By avoiding reliance on fossil feedstocks
and first generation bio-based feedstocks such as palm oil or sugar and by making use of low-energy production processes, the resulting biosurfactants demonstrate a superior sustainability profile and a favourable Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) compared to mainstream chemically-produced surfactants (petroleum- and bio-based) or other commercially-available microbial biosurfactants.
No greenwashing A life cycle analysis (LCA) was performed to assess and compare the impact of the waste-based biosurfactants (cradle to gate) and determine the hot spots for further optimisation. The LCA result, using the EF3.1 method for climate change, demonstrated a threefold reduction in CO2
18 17 16 15 14 13 12
0 60 120 180 Seconds 240 300
(Partial) APG replacement 100% APG ■ 33% AmphiCare A/66% APG ■
18 17 16 15 14 13 12
0 60 120 180 Seconds
Figure 5: Maximum Foam height comparison (Ross Miles) of market standards of conventional surfactant SLES (left) and APG (right) compared to partial replacement with fully Upcycled SL A derived from 2G feedstock
-equivalent emissions
per kilogram of surfactant produced when comparing the waste-based biosurfactants to mainstream chemically-produced surfactants. Figure 2 shows the cradle to gate result for equivalents produced per kg of surfactant.
CO2
The data revealed a remarkable reduction in CO2
footprint in the case of fully upcycled,
bio-based waste biosurfactants in comparison to the existing conventional and 1G-feedstock derived surfactants. Hence, these biosurfactants contribute to mitigating climate change while helping preserve ecosystems from the harmful effects of biodiversity loss and extreme weather fluctuations.
Products in action AmphiStar has introduced its first two products for the cosmetic market: AmphiCare® A and AmphiCare L (Figure 4). These innovative biosurfactants, Upcycled Acidic Sophorolipid (Upcycled SL A) and Upcycled Lactonic Sophorolipid (Upcycled SL L) offer distinct characteristics (Table 1) that can be leveraged across a range of formulation applications, demonstrating their versatile potential. They can be incorporated into diverse formulations, from rinse-off products such as hand soap, makeup remover, body wash, and shampoo to leave-on applications like moisturizers and hair care products. By integrating these upcycled biosurfactants, brands can reinforce their
TABLE 2: HAND SOAP Phase Ingredients / INCI
A Water Xanthan gum
B Upcycled SL A Upcycled SL L Lauryl glucoside
Sodium cocoyl glutamate C E Tetrasodium glutamate diacetate
D Pentylene glycol, sorbic acid Perfume
Citric acid (up to pH 5.60) PERSONAL CARE August 2025
commitment to sustainability. Incorporating both biosurfactants into
mild hand soap formulations can increase the proportion of upcycled surfactants to a minimum of 25%. This helps brands minimize climate impact and waste, conserve resources and ecosystems and cater to the growing demand for environmentally friendly personal care products. Furthermore, the inclusion of Upcycled SL A
and Upcycled SL L allows brands to improve the renewable carbon index in their formulas. Work is ongoing to expand the portfolio of microbial biosurfactants, with the long-term objective of enabling the development of personal care products that can be marketed as fully upcycled and fully sustainable.
Spotlight on Upcycled SL A The sophorolipid biosurfactants in Upcycled SL A and Upcycled SL L products were evaluated for their foaming and emulsification potential. An initial evaluation and comparison of the
Upcycled SL A product against market standards of sophorolipids (1G) and SLES show that the Upcycled SL A foams at an equal performance as 1G sophorolipid market standards and inferior foaming compared to workhorse SLES (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Figure 5 clearly shows the difference between the foam height for SLES (fossil-derived),
w/w (%) q.s. 0.5
4.76 1.02 6.82 14.59 0.43 4.00 0.60 q.s.
alternative biosurfactant (1G feedstock) and fully upcycled acidic sophorolipids (waste derived 2G feedstock). The flash foam for both 1G and Upcycled SL A (2G) is similar. Hence, waste-derived biosurfactants show
promising results and no functionality loss is associated with changing the feedstock. The low foam here suggests the use of biosurfactants as secondary surfactants.
An extended portfolio of novel biosurfactant molecules With AmphiStar’s SYNBIO portfolio, a portfolio of novel molecules has been developed to fill the performance gaps in the future as can be seen in Figure 4 with three novel microbial biosurfactants from the portfolio included. This selection of three candidates from the very broad portfolio of designer molecules demonstrates the wide range of functionalities that can be obtained. Currently, the production of more than 50 high-purity novel microbial biosurfactants can be produced by the methods previously described. This proliferation of strains, with different properties and uses, enable customers to tailor products to specific requirements. Upcycled SL A can already help brands
make steps towards increasing sustainability if no compromise on lather is to be expected. Replacing 30% of SLES and/or APG in a
TABLE 3: MAKE-UP REMOVER Phase Ingredients / INCI A Water
Upcycled SL A
Sodium cocoyl isethionate Lauryl glucoside
B Glycerin Xanthan gum C Propylene glycol
D Pentylene glycol, sorbic acid Citric acid (up to pH 5.60)
w/w (%) q.s.
5.95 1.50
2.00 1.01
0.02 1.00 1.00 q.s.
www.personalcaremagazine.com 240 300
(Partial) SLES replacement 100% SLES ■ 33% AmphiCare A/66% SLES ■
Foam Height
Foam Height
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
