Case study · sophorolipids

20 candidate markets — and the three facts that decide the best one are published nowhere.

A fermentation-derived biosurfactant, read across the whole public record. The top-ranked lead came back strong, and then ran into an absence — which turned out to be the most valuable thing in the study.

20

candidate markets found and scored

8

suppliers confirmed in the EU chemicals register, in a single day

33

separate pieces of evidence behind the top lead

3

decisive questions that no source publishes at all

The top lead: bio-based additives for adhesives and sealants

It scored highest of the twenty. Checking the supply side gave a clear, citable picture rather than an assertion.

Supply, from the registerCommercially real at kilotonne scale

Eight supplier entries read in the EU register. One major producer anchors the volume; other non-EU producers ship into Europe through appointed representatives; a smaller European producer holds material at tonne scale.

Two registered salt forms have been withdrawn. Form-level churn like that is a finding in itself: the market has settled on the ester and acid forms.

Demand, from research housesLarge parent market, faster bio segment

Research houses put the parent market at tens of billions of dollars growing at low-to-mid single digits, with the bio-based segment smaller but faster in every house that sizes both.

Recorded as an estimate rather than a verified figure — because it comes from firms selling reports, not from a register anyone can check.

What was the single strongest demand signal?
A global fragrance and flavour major holds its own EU registration for this chemistry. A formulator of that size does not carry the cost of owning a dossier unless the material matters to it. That is one checkable fact doing more work than a page of market-size estimates.
Read from the EU chemicals register, 23 August 2026. We do not name companies that appear only because they sit in a public register.

Then the honest problem

Adhesive use is evidenced in the literature and in patents — and is declared in none of the registration dossiers we read. Sixteen separate documents support the application. Not one of the registered dossiers lists it among its identified uses. That is either genuine white space, or it is a red flag. The study says which question closes it, and does not pretend to know the answer.

What nobody publishes is the product

Three facts decide whether this is a business. Each was searched for and each came back empty — and empty is a different answer from unexamined.

The additive slice

No research house publishes the functional-additive share of the adhesives market. Sizing it is the work, not a lookup.

The bio premium

No published price premium for bio-based additive content. The sharpest unanswered question in the whole study.

The channel

Whether the route to formulators is direct or through specialty distribution is not established by any named source.

A report house cannot sell those three answers, because it does not have them either. A checked, cited map of who actually supplies this, plus three precisely-stated unknowns is a more honest starting position than a number somebody invented to fill the cell.

Why is “we could not find it” recorded as a result?
Because “we looked and found nothing” and “we could not look” are different facts, and a study that shows them the same way is not telling you what you have. Each of the three gaps above is recorded as a searched-and-empty result with the sources that were checked, so the next person does not repeat the search.
It is also why the leads that failed are published beside the ones that survived.