A proxy is not the requirement
Matt Prissel, VP of strategic sales & marketing, and Megan Pearl, VP of global technology, at Locus Fermentation Solutions propose a four-question check for evaluating structurally unfamiliar surfactants against optimised incumbents
Innovation in traditional petrochemicals has historically centred on process evolution and refinement: narrower homologue distributions, sustainable rawmaterial sources, lower residual impurities, better catalysts and cleaner processing.
These improvements deliver incremental gains in performance and regulatory position with predictability that formulators value. However, optimisation at the molecular level is becoming more of a necessity to unlock a new, or improved, performance profiles.
Molecular innovation has continued to an extent within petrochemical feedstocks, in Gemini, and in extended and cleavable architectures but with their own challenges often rooted in downstream processing, or in making it out of the lab into broader commercial adoption.
Biomanufacturing offers an alternate route to chemical innovation by harnessing nature to make complex molecular architectures accessible. Glycolipids, lipopeptides and other fermentation-derived amphiphiles bring head-group geometries, congener distributions and aggregation behaviour that fundamentally differ from traditional petrochemical surfactants like alcohol ethoxylates and ether sulfates.
Figure 1 – Where screening & application outcomes diverge
If complex molecular architecture contributes to multifunctional performance, the question then becomes whether standard evaluation practices can accurately capture differentiation or whether an incumbent’ s familiar profile has become the unintended definition of success.
What benchmarking can tell us
Every screening test carries three things worth separating: the response we measure, the outcome we need in the application and the evidence connecting the two.
Critical micelle concentration( CMC), equilibrium surface tension, contact angle and Draves wetting time, are widely accepted key performance indicators( KPIs) in benchmarking surfactant performance. Even established tests like these can produce variable responses when the method and condition are not clearly specified. Take CMC for example: the International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry notes that different measured properties can yield different values and requires the determination method to be stated. 1
There is also the more pertinent question of usefulness. Does the screening test accurately predict performance in an application? Data gathered across a chemical family, including formulation adjustments and various use conditions, typically give a basis for performance prediction. When relevant features change, we need to reconsider whether that screening data still applies to the intended application and what unintended biases are introduced. Simply, does the benchmark still do its job?
40 SPECIALITY CHEMICALS MAGAZINE ESTABLISHED 1981