C


N


E


I


L


E


A


B


R BIOSURFACTANTS 99


Fully upcycled microbial biosurfactants


Sophie Roelants, Nikita Sharma - AmphiStar


Cleansing has its origins in ancient Egypt, where it served not only as a means of hygiene but also as a reflection of spiritual purity and a preparation for rituals. The earliest documented soap recipe, dating back to around 2800 BC in Babylon, marks the beginning of soap’s evolution. Over the centuries, soap formulations transitioned from animal fat-based to vegetable oil-based products by the 1500s-1700s. During World War I, the shortage of fats


led to the discovery of synthetic cleaning agents, which spurred further innovation. As new chemicals emerged, surfactants - key components in detergents - became crucial. Among them, anionic surfactants such as sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) have become dominant in personal care products. However, concerns have arisen about the


environmental and health impacts of these synthetic surfactants, as they can irritate the skin, disrupt the skin barrier and strip the skin of its natural oils. Besides the visible signs of discomfort caused by their exposure, the presence of toxic by-products such as 1,4-dioxane in these surfactants raises further concerns for human health.


The need of the hour Consumers have long rejected products that are harsh for their skin, and now, more than ever, they are also rejecting those that harm the environment. A groundbreaking WWF-commissioned study by the Economist Intelligence Unit revealed a dramatic 71% global increase in online searches for sustainable products over the past five years, signalling a transformative shift in consumer consciousness.1


Also, a survey published by


the World Economic Forum revealed that 66% of shoppers consider sustainability in their purchasing decisions. Today’s younger generations, in particular,


are highly conscious of the environmental impact of their choices, recognizing sustainability as an urgent priority. As a result,


www.personalcaremagazine.com


demand for eco-friendly, safe formulations and greater transparency is pushing brands toward more responsible practices. This is evident in the growing number of brands embracing campaigns such as ‘cruelty-free’ or ‘free from sulfates, phosphates, 1,4-dioxane, palm oil’, or other ingredients.


The bare truth Most consumers are unaware that the cosmetic products they use rely on petroleum- or palm-based surfactants. Unfortunately, the production of these surfactants requires millions of tonnes of fossil and palm oil to undergo energy-intensive chemical processes at high temperatures and pressures, often requiring toxic catalysts. Additionally, many conventional surfactants contain harmful by-products such as 1,4-dioxane, a known carcinogen. Beyond health concerns, the environmental


impact of these feedstocks is substantial. The reliance on petroleum- and palm- derived surfactants contributes to air pollution, deforestation, and biodiversity loss.


Fossil-based surfactants release CO2 upon


biodegradation, while long and complex supply chains add to emissions through fuel consumption. Palm oil cultivation, meanwhile, drives large-scale deforestation, exacerbating climate change, destroying ecosystems, and reducing biodiversity. Moreover, the intensive land use required for palm plantations displaces natural habitats and disrupts local communities, further underscoring the urgent need for sustainable alternatives. Although the claim of being “(fully) bio-


based” is widely used and often perceived as a positive sustainability marker, many so-called first-generation bio-based surfactants—derived from virgin feedstocks such as sugar and vegetable oils (e.g., palm oil)—still contribute significantly to land use and ecological harm. Large-scale cultivation of these crops is associated with deforestation, biodiversity loss, and environmentally intensive agricultural practices, including high water consumption, pesticide use, and soil degradation. Moreover, despite their renewable


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