C
N
E
I
L
E
A
B
R BIOSURFACTANTS 103
formulation with the Upcycled SL A product results in the same maximum foam height as can be seen in Figure 5.
Safe, sustainable, and mild A mild and gentle hand soap formulation using Upcycled SL A and Upcycled SL L was developed and proved mildness on the skin. Conventional surfactants (SLES) and fully upcycled and waste- derived biosurfactants are compared in terms of their effect on the skin (Figure 6). The redness in the case of SLES demonstrates
the harsh and aggressive effect of traditional surfactants, especially on sensitive skin, while on the other hand, no signs of itchiness and redness were observed with Upcycled SL A and Upcycled SL L. The formulation with Upcycled SL A and L is presented in Table 2. During testing, the eye hazard potential of
Upcycled SL A and Upcycled SL L was evaluated using the In Vitro Eye Hazard Identification Time-to-Toxicity Test Method, using the SkinEthic Human Corneal Epithelium Model (RhCE) according to OECD 492B. The viability of the treated tissues was examined by using tetrazolium salt MTT [3-(4,5-Dimethyltriazole 2-yl) 2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide]. The extracted MTT formazan was quantified using a standard absorbance (OD) measurement. The viability of the cells was then quantified as a percentage in comparison to the negative control. In the performed experiment, all of the validity criteria were fulfilled. Upcycled SL A was assessed as a chemical not requiring classification (uncategorised) according to UN GHS classification and is thus a non-eye irritant in contrast to other acidic sophorolipids products that can currently be found on the market. This further opens up applications in personal care, such as baby care or highly sensitive product ranges. Due to the non-irritancy, mildness and
significant impact on the improvement of global warming, human health, etc. (see Figure 2) of Upcycled SL A, we then looked into the development of a mild, fully bio-based make-up remover with this product.
Before
In Figure 7, the make-up remover based
on Upcycled SL A containing 6 ingredients (perfume and preservative system excluded) showed at least similar performance for lipstick, lip gloss and mascara removal compared to a high-end market reference ‘mild make up remover’ containing 12 ingredients (perfume and preservative system excluded). Last but not least, good emulsifying
properties were found in an initial O/W emulsification trail with Fully Upcycled SL A, which will be further investigated in the future.
Conclusion The surfactant industry is increasingly prioritising the development of alternatives that combine high performance, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness. This study highlights that sustainability can be achieved without compromising functionality. AmphiStar has demonstrated the feasibility of producing fully upcycled biosurfactants derived from food waste and agricultural by-products, offering an environmentally responsible solution that minimises resource depletion and addresses the growing demand for sustainable formulations. The adoption of biosurfactants derived from
upcycled feedstocks presents an opportunity to mitigate climate change, pollution, and waste accumulation. While initial products, such as Upcycled SL A and Upcycled SL L, show great potential, certain performance limitations remain, and further optimisation is needed to enhance cost effectiveness. The integration of synthetic biology to
engineer novel, fully upcycled biosurfactants, combined with advancements in bioprocessing to improve production efficiency and reduce costs, will be essential in making biosurfactants a viable mainstream alternative in the future.
Reference 1. The Economist Intelligence Unit. An Eco-wakening: Measuring global awareness, engagement and action for nature, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 2021
PC
Figure 6: Patch test for SLES, Upcycled SL A and Upcycled SL L showing redness in the case of SLES and no redness for Upcycled SL A and L and control (H2
O). This patch was conducted
considering test parameter for rinse-off products (7 days, twice a day application, concentration used 10%, test area 1cm2
). Enlarged circle in
the case of SLES depicts the development of redness over the duration of testing
After
Market reference Make-up remover
AmphiStar Make-up remover
Figure 7: Evaluation of make-up removal with Upcycled SL A based make-up remover versus a mild to skin market reference. (Left) make-up before removal (right) make up after removal after two swipes (top: market reference and bottom: AmphiStar make-up remover
www.personalcaremagazine.com August 2025 PERSONAL CARE
T
G
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
