The transition from R&D formulations on sample volumes of a few milliliters to production volumes of several tons is necessary to achieve economically viable profitability thresholds for a future product to be marketed.
Let's compare conventional batch production with continuous microfluidic production to highlight the advantages of the latter.
Conventional Batch Production
Scaling up in batch production generally involves a process known as homothetic scaling (scale-up). This step consists of adapting the proportions of the initial formula to larger production volumes. It ensures that the product's properties remain consistent during scale-up. This process presents several technical constraints, the main ones being:
Process Adaptation: Necessary to adjust production methods to the available equipment. This may involve changes in mixing, heating, or cooling steps to ensure the final product meets specifications.
Raw Material Waste: During scale-up, there are often losses of raw materials due to adjustments and trials needed to optimize the production process.
Water Consumption for Cleaning: The use of large equipment requires significant amounts of water for cleaning between different production batches, increasing water consumption and associated costs.
Microfluidic Production
Scaling up via a microfluidic process involves continuous flow production technologies that typically do not use homothetic scaling (scale-up). Instead, we refer to reactor parallelization (scale-out). The benefits assessed by this scaling method are numerous:
Speed of Process Transfer: A continuous microfluidic process has the advantage of being fast and flexible in transferring R&D phases to production phases. There is generally little adaptation of the instrumentation to mixing, heating, or cooling issues.
Continuous Production: Unlike batch production, microfluidics allows for continuous production, eliminating downtime between batches and optimizing efficiency.
Water Savings for Cleaning: Thanks to the precision and reduced size of microfluidic equipment, the amount of water needed for cleaning is significantly reduced, lowering costs and environmental impact.
Conclusion
Microfluidics offers the possibility of scaling up a cosmetic formula with shortened timelines and few constraints regarding process adaptability. Additionally, raw material waste is reduced, and water resources are conserved. This method allows for a more efficient and sustainable transition from R&D to production phases, marking a significant advancement in cosmetic production.
By adopting microfluidics, Klearia demonstrates its commitment to innovation and sustainability, providing significant competitive advantages in the cosmetic industry.
Comments