Speeding up the Transition to Greener Surfactants

The green trend continues to gain momentum and increasingly consumers base purchasing decisions on perceived health and environmental benefits. This is particularly true in the cosmetic and personal care space where the number of products carrying green claims is on the rise.

The Problem

One key class of ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products is surfactants. Used to create emulsions and microemulsions, surfactants help the water and “oil” components to hold together in stable formulations. There’s clearly a desire to replace conventional surfactants with naturally derived, sustainably sourced or biodegradable alternatives but for the cosmetic scientist the challenge of making this switch in practice is a tough one.

There are very few ways to determine which surfactant is the best green replacement, especially when working with microemulsions. Trial and error takes time, eating into a company’s competitive edge, so it is clear a framework for rational formulation design would be beneficial. Outlined here is a real alternative to the limited Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance (HLB) approach.

HLD-NAC Theory

A highly promising approach for identifying key parameters is the Hydrophilic Lipophilic Difference (HLD) - Net Average Curvature (NAC) methodology of Professor Edgar Acosta from the University of Toronto, built on the HLD concept developed by Aubry, Salager, Sabbattini and others. HLD theory is well-established in the oil industry but little-known for cosmetics.

The HLD uses a simple equation based on salt concentration, oil “number” and the surfactant Characteristic curvature (Cc) which identifies the region in surfactant space where the surfactant is most useful. A simple equation determines how close a mixture is to the “optimal formulation” where the smallest amount of surfactant gives the largest amount of (micro) emulsification.

If the Cc of the surfactant is far from this optimum, the emulsion is inefficient/poor. If the Cc is slightly lower than optimum, an efficient type I oil-in-water (o/w) emulsion is produced and if it is slightly higher, an efficient type II water-in-oil (w/o) emulsion is formed.

Importantly, the Cc of a mixture of surfactants is the weighted average of the two. Optimal surfactant mixtures with the desired Cc can be created from combinations of surfactants. Surfactant mixtures are common in cosmetic formulation and HLD theory, uniquely, makes it possible to find optimal mixtures efficiently.

Determining Cc Values

The Cc values are known only for a few dozen surfactants. Catalogues of green surfactants contain hundreds of possible choices but provide no guiding Cc values. Measuring Cc is not very difficult. Take, for example, 8 tubes containing measured amounts of water, surfactant, salt and 8 different oils spanning the appropriate HLD range. Phase transition from w/o to o/w via a type III bi-continuous oil and water emulsion determines the optimal point from which a Cc value can be calculated (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 — Transition from w/o (type II) microemulsions on the left to o/w (type I) microemulsions on the right allows determination of a surfactant’s Cc value. The transition (type III) can be seen in the 5th tube from the left. Phase volumes provide extra information, covered by the NAC part of HLD-NAC theory.

Doing this process for multiple surfactants is tedious, time-consuming and resource-intensive. We therefore developed a quick, efficient and accurate method to determine Cc values of multiple surfactants using a high-throughout screening method.

High-throughput

Specialised high-throughput equipment, such as the Chemspeed Formax, can be utilised to greatly increase processing power. Robotic determination of Cc values can be carried out 4 times faster than by traditional long-hand phase scans, significantly decreasing the required manpower and greatly improving accuracy. This is the first time high-throughput screening and HLD-NAC have been brought together.

Figure 2 – Chemspeed Formax at VLCI, Amsterdam

Cc Values of Green Surfactants

A number of the key surfactant suppliers generously provided a range of green surfactants. They were chosen to cover a large range from hydrophilic to hydrophobic, ionic and non-ionic, ethoxylated and non-ethoxylated, sugar-based, natural extracts, etc. Of the 22 surfactants tested, Cc values were determined for 13 (see Table 1). For the remaining 9, definite values could not be defined within the bounds of this project but minimum or maximum ranges were determined. In general it is desirable to formulate with surfactants with Cc values from -2.5 to 2.5. Within this range surfactants match well to typical oils and formulation conditions. Outside this range surfactants are more difficult to match and therefore not a first choice as a principal ingredient.

Building formulations based on Cc values: the benefits

Using the measured Cc values makes it much easier to get reasonable first approximations to good formulations.

Figure 3 – the free Optimal Surfactant software used for formulation work. Although the HLD-NAC equations are simple, help from software (and the database of Cc values inside it) makes it even easier to use and to understand how to adjust formulations to improve them further. This system provides:

- Improved prediction of surfactant performance in a given formulation;

- Reduced formulation development time, cost and resource;

- Easier selection of appropriate green surfactant alternatives;

- Elimination of surfactant adjustment with alcohols; the fine-tuning of formulations with mixtures of surfactants is possible by calculation of combined Cc value.

As a result of this project, Syntopix Group plc have identified two new green surfactants for incorporation into novel oral care microemulsions.

The Future

All Cc values from the project have been placed in the public domain. In particular, the Optimal Surfactant software (www.stevenabbott.co.uk/HLD-NAC.html) has these values included in its database, allowing users to find their own surfactant formulations. The team has also provided an Instant Guide to HLD-NAC. It is hoped that this project will encourage surfactant suppliers to measure and provide Cc values to aid their customers in formulation design.

Green Surfactant Cc Values

Table 1 - Measured Cc values. Please note that values for surfactants can be source dependent. Values can typically range over +/- 0.2 depending on control of chain length, branching, residual alcohols, salts etc.

The 30 Day Formulation Challenge Project

Supported by Intelligent Formulation Ltd, this was a 30 Day Challenge Project aimed at stimulating innovation in the formulation space. Dr Gavin Donoghue and Sarah Gregory from Syntopix Group plc identified a need for rational microemulsion formulation design. The Challenge brought together two surfactant experts, Prof Edgar Acosta of the University of Toronto (expert in HLD-NAC theory) and Dr Ian Callaghan, an independent consultant. Prof Steven Abbott of the University of Leeds and a consultant to Syntopix provided the Optimal Surfactant software and acted as project leader. Sander Van Loon led the VLCI team running the high-throughput scans. The team thanks David Calvert of Intelligent Formulation for overall coordination of the project.

For further information:

http://www.intelligentformulation.org/

http://www.stevenabbott.co.ukhld-nac.html/

http://vlci.biz/

http://www.syntopix.com/

The Future of Innovation in Biocides?

By Guest Blogger Dr Jim Bullock, CEO of Intelligent Formulation

It’s pretty difficult to predict the future accurately, but it’s possible to take a systematic look at what factors are driving innovation within particular markets and produce a useful view of how you expect things to develop. This can help to guide your business and strategic decision-making.

At Intelligent Formulation we have carried out a roadmapping and foresighting exercise which covers all of the markets which use formulation technology. In consultation with formulating companies, universities and other organisations we looked at the main global trends and drivers, at what challenges formulators are being asked to undertake, what new tools are or could be available for the formulator and what understanding has been or should be generated.

This exercise helped us identify a number of general challenges for formulation technology, in particular:

• Formulation has to be used to improve product performance: ingredients are needed which have “smart” or multiple effects in a formulation; formulations need to be able to deliver an active accurately to a particular site; and formulations are needed which provide novel functionality. Additionally we need to be able to control and manipulate ever more complex multi-component formulations to give the desired effect. There is also a role for novel and cost-effective manufacturing methods to give improved product performance.


• As interest grows in sustainable sources, a second challenge is to be able to substitute ingredients in a formulation with those from natural origins. This challenges formulators to maintain or improve the cost-performance ratio of the formulated product whilst working with unfamiliar and poorly characterised ingredients.


• Formulation is a great way to introduce new products quickly and cost-effectively, as new effects or improved cost or environmental profiles can be achieved without the need for new molecular entities. But formulations are “complex beasts”. Can we use our understanding of formulated products to do things even better?


• In almost every industry where chemicals are used, regulations are a huge driving force. Whether the product is a biocide, an agrochemical, a medicine or a cosmetic, restrictions are growing on how products can be used and what ingredients can be included.

During 2010 we used our general formulation roadmapping exercise to look in more detail at one specific market, namely that for formulated biocides. Looking first at trends and drivers:

Societal trends and drivers have an impact for biocides formulation:

• Increased awareness of sustainability leads to a greater use of natural origins and as a consequence the potential for microbial contamination of products increases. Additionally formulators sourcing raw materials need to be aware of changing consumer demand e.g. for Fairtrade in personal care.


• A greater societal awareness of water and air quality has led for less environmentally persistent and more biodegradable industrial and consumer products, biocides included.


• Society appears to be coming more risk averse and fear driven, over and above legislative demands. This presents biocide formulators with conflicting demands. On the one hand there is an aversion to chemical biocides (“they must be nasty because they kill things”) but on the other hand we are increasingly aware of biosecurity and threats to human and animal health (“I want something that kills things”).


• On the other hand changing population demographics opens up opportunities. An ageing population increase the demand for better infection control and healthcare systems. In the developing world a growing middle class increases the demand for enhanced cosmetic and personal care solutions.

Technology also influences and drives the market for formulated biocides:

• The demand for fast, lean and flexible manufacture leads industrial users to seek “one size fits all” biocides, and products with easier, less hazardous handling will be sought.


• The potential for improved product development methodology may allow the formulator to get more out of existing biocidal actives and additives.


• The possibility of product and packaging recycling and re-use also presents challenges and opportunities for the formulator.

Economic drivers are also significant:

• “Me too” is no longer good enough in a very competitive marketplace. Are biocide formulators making enough of innovation as a differentiator? Can we think of new ways of making and using biocides? Can we use formulation to develop new products, applications or services?


• Production is becoming increasingly globalised. Biocidal active and formulation ingredients are becoming commoditised, but we still want to differentiate our products. Additionally, global product ranges are becoming increasingly common, with one production site serving all markets.

Environmental trends and drivers are increasingly important:

• Increasingly the carbon (and water) footprint of products (from raw materials through production and on to end use and disposal) is under scrutiny. Formulators are in a unique central position where they can influence this – with one eye on raw materials and production and the other on the end use and application


• Sustainability encompasses the whole product life cycle. Increasing attention is being paid to the consequences (e.g. resistance) of inadequate and unsuitable biocide regimes. Furthermore, there is an increasing look at waste. Active ingredients are expensive: are we formulating in a way to get the most out of our actives?

Finally we looked at political drivers:

• In the biocides world we can’t get away from legislation and regulation. Whether it is the EU Biocidal Products Regulation, the US EPA regulations, the EU Cosmetics Directive or the Medical Devices Directive, costs are only going to increase and choice of ingredients will reduce.

Next we looked at the possible conclusions and consequences of these drivers for the world of biocide formulation:

• One straightforward conclusion is that the active ingredient is no longer king. This is not only true for biocides (where regulatory drivers have reduced choice and increased the barrier for new actives) but is also being played out in other markets such as pharma and agrochemicals.


• Looking at how biocides are currently formulated leads us to a second conclusion – there is a huge potential for improvement. Currently biocides formulations are centred on the efficacy spectrum of one or more active ingredients. We are all familiar with alleged synergy claims between actives; these are usually often nothing more than one biocidal active filling the efficacy gap left by the other. Formulating additives are simply added to give basic physical compatibility with the final product or matrix. There is nothing particularly smart about these formulations


• The end result of standard formulations is that active ingredients often go to waste – they are not targeted to the organisms and sites that matter and are degraded along the way. Apart from the potential of underuse leading to tolerance or resistance, the cost-performance ratio has big scope for improvement.


• But every problem leads to an opportunity. In a smart formulation the formulation itself is focused on being an effective delivery vehicle for the end application. This means that the formulation targets the active to the right place at the right time using, for instance, encapsulation or triggered release systems. In smart formulations, there is real synergy between ingredients, actives are produced in-situ when you want them and at the right time. All this has the potential to reduce unnecessary human or environmental exposure to active ingredients and to improve cost-performance of the product.


• There are real opportunities for biocide formulators to learn from other industries. Smart formulation is being used right now in pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals and personal care applications. Furthermore, formulators can use knowledge from within the supply chain, whether it’s from providers of the actives and additives or from the end users. Biocides formulation has the reputation of being a bit secretive. Perhaps it’s time for a change?

So our conclusion leads us to a pretty simple set of final messages to biocides formulators. If you want to generate value in the biocides industry, don’t just concentrate on the active; use smart formulation to get more value out of your product. Be prepared to collaborate on ideas with partners in your own supply chain and be prepared to collaborate with and learn from other formulating industries. Usually they are not your competitors, so commercial success through partnership and knowledge exchange is a real possibility.

At Intelligent Formulation we are dedicated to helping companies like Syntopix become more successful by innovating in formulation. Have a look at our website, blog, LinkedIn group or Twitter feed to see how we are doing just that.

Intelligent Formulation are currently supporting a Syntopix research project through the '30 day formulation challenge' scheme.

Skin, bacteria and mobile ‘phones: making the right call

By Sarah Gregory, Dr Steven Jones and Prof. Steven Abbott

Syntopix recently presented at the Intelligent Formulation event “Formulated Product Design: Kick Starting Open Innovation”. It was a great event and a brilliant way for small businesses like ours working on innovative formulation approaches to connect with potential partners.

For those unable to attend, the main points of the presentation given by Dr. Steve Jones, CEO of Syntopix and Prof. Steven Abbott, Independent Consultant, are summarised below.

Formed in 2003, Syntopix is a spin out from Leeds University and was listed on AiM in 2006. With a rich portfolio of new product opportunities Syntopix offers antimicrobial expertise to the cosmetic, consumer healthcare and pharmaceutical industries.

Driven by high rates of skin irritation, increasing bacterial resistance and environmental concerns over current treatments, Syntopix began the search for new active ingredients capable of really clearing up acne without any of the downsides.

It soon became apparent that selecting the right antimicrobial was just the first step. To be really effective on skin we needed to tackle formulation head-on to deliver the active directly to where the spot-causing bacteria live, the follicle.

Traditional approaches were tried but we couldn’t replicate our excellent lab results when we tried human volunteer studies. It was time to “phone a friend” to find a fresh answer to our problems. As a result of a chance meeting, Syntopix discovered Professor Steven Abbott, a polymer chemist and software developer, who, amongst other things, had been developing protective coating for mobile phones. Whilst not at first glance the formulation consultant we were looking for, Steven’s approach to our problem started to give the results we needed: how to kill off P. acnes within the follicle at a low concentration of active.

Professor Abbott’s approach involved harnessing Hanson Solubility Parameters to match the solubility of our formulation and the active to that of skin. His basic assumption (anathema to the classical skin permeation world) was that skin was “just a polymer” so the science that worked well for, say, coatings onto mobile phones would also be effective on skin. And it did work! Steven happily pronounced that the skin permeation world has been wrong for the past 20 years.

Our selected active, a cosmetic ingredient known to be safe and naturally derived, produced a 90% mean reduction in acne-causing bacteria after 4 days. These results, comparable to the bacterial kill rates of antibiotics, are unrivalled by current cosmetic spot products.

Since then we have demonstrated that this platform formulation technology works for other anti-acne actives. By targeting delivery directly to where it’s needed, the approach reduces waste and speeds up the time taken to see results. It’s cheap, simple (i.e. has few ingredients) and effective.

It’s also apparent that this formulation approach will have applications beyond acne. With the ability to enhance substantivity within the top layer of the skin (the stratum corneum), we are confident this platform will allow deodorants to work for longer. Targeted follicular delivery via the pore is desirable for products such as depilatories, and hair stimulants. Getting the active to where it’s needed quickly and without waste leads to a host of new or improved products that will reduce cost and allow consumers to see the results they desire in less time.

Our lessons have been many and we’ve experimented more than just in the lab. We have had the nerve to bring two different worlds together and the courage to challenge assumptions - now we have a novel approach for delivery to the skin. Syntopix was founded on an unwavering desire to truly improve the way people look and feel, and we believe this technology has the capability to do just that.

Syntopix is actively seeking to expand its range of commercial partnerships to take this exciting technology forward. Please contact us with your business development enquiries. We look forward to hearing from you.


W: www.syntopix.com
E: spj@syntopix.com
T: 0845 125 9204

Formulation guided by Hansen Solubility Parameters and realized via High Throughput Screening

By Sarah Gregory

Syntopix recently attended an Intelligent Formulation event on how to use high throughput screening to accelerate formulation development at which we presented a poster.

The poster summarises how Hansen Solubility Parameters can be used to develop topical formulations and how the process can be automated to efficiently translate concepts into prototype formulations.

Excerpts from the poster by Professor Steven Abbott, Dr. Gavin Donoghue and Dr. Anne Eady are below:

The Problem

Formulating for delivery of actives into skin requires multiple compromises. The active has to be soluble in the delivery “chassis”, and the chassis needs to solubilise the correct part of the skin in order to aid the permeation of the active. At the same time, the solvents/excipients in the chassis have to meet strict regulatory guidelines. Almost inevitably this requires a complex mixture and the solubility characteristics of the mixture need to be known in order to be optimized. Without rational formulation guidelines, this task is often hit-and-miss, using simplistic and misleading terms such as “hydrophilic” or “lipophilic”, which don’t do justice to the complexity of chemical space. Syntopix develops novel antimicrobials for the management of acne prone skin. The company was seeking a method of rational formulation design in order to ensure efficient delivery to the target site.

Understanding solubility characteristics

One proven, powerful method for understanding solubility is the use of Hansen Solubility Parameters. These 3 values provide a means of predicting whether one material will dissolve in another and form a solution:

• δD represents the energy from dispersion bonds



• δP represents the energy from dipolar intermolecular forces



• δH represents the energy from hydrogen bonds

The HSP of a mixture is simply the weighted average of the individual components. Using HSPs, it is possible to make a solvent from two non-solvents. Syntopix has exploited this approach to devise solvent mixtures for difficult to solubilise actives.

To view the full poster, please click here.

The FDA OTC Acne Monograph – stifling the development of better treatments?

By Dr Anne Eady

In my personal view the biggest single barrier to the development of better therapies for acne is the 20 year old FDA OTC Acne Monograph. Here I’ll explain why I believe this regulatory document is stifling much needed innovation in the management of this very common skin condition.

Acne is unusual in that remedies fall into two regulatory classes, medicines and cosmetics (although these cannot be sold as acne remedies but rather as products to manage ‘breakouts’). Teenagers and their parents aren’t generally aware of this and find it hard to discriminate between product intended to manage a few pimples and those required to treat more severe disease. In most countries including the US and the UK, the OTC segment is the first port of call for acne sufferers for whom cosmetic products haven’t worked. Here I will use the term ‘acne’ to refer both to the disease and to the cosmetic indication of ‘spots’.

Acne is easily self-diagnosable and therefore amenable to self-selection of treatment. Moreover pressure in the US, UK and elsewhere on healthcare budgets, means that OTC route is likely to become even more important in the future than it is now as the main conduit via which acne sufferers access treatment. The emerging role of pharmacists in the management of easily diagnosed conditions like acne further focuses attention on the OTC route. Seeking help from a medical practitioner could and should become a strategy of last resort.

So where is the problem? There is an urgent need for innovative treatments for acne that can be made available via non-prescription routes. People with acne don’t want to take antibiotics for months or years at a time and antibiotics are not a suitable therapy for a chronic condition like acne. In the community, antibiotics for acne are a significant driver of antibiotic resistance which is a communicable adverse treatment effect. Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) and topical retinoids offer alternatives to antibiotics but neither is problem free. BPO is the oldest topical treatment for acne and has been around for over 50 years. It works well but it bleaches everything with which it comes into contact. Modern formulations have done much to reduce irritancy in all but highly susceptible individuals or those who tend to be over-zealous in the amounts they apply. Topical retinoids are still underused and offer an equally effective alternative to BPO. Whilst BPO is available without a prescription, topical retinoids are not. In the future, they might be re-classified as long as regulators can be persuaded that the risk of teratogenicity is infinitely small.

In the US, over-the-counter acne medicines are regulated by the FDA via the monograph system. So, what else is permitted in the OTC space? The answer is very little that anyone nowadays would choose to use – would you want to put sulphur or resorcinol on your skin? The FDA monograph is backward looking and yet it still influences OTC availability of acne treatments within and beyond the US. Apart from BPO, the only other OTC listed active that can be said to demonstrate efficacy is salicylic acid, another very old remedy. Salicylic acid, in the concentrations permitted, is not a very effective treatment for those with anything other than mild, ‘cosmetic’ acne. Unlike BPO, for which evidence of efficacy is overwhelming, published reports of its efficacy are few and far between and not very convincing.

I’m sure these criticisms apply across the FDA Monograph system and don’t just apply to acne. The OTC sector should drive not stifle innovation. It is the obvious regulatory space for new products to treat diseases like acne. Cosmetic companies are much more innovative than big pharma and yet can only go so far given that cosmetics cannot be seen to treat disease and acne is a disease. However, the spectrum of severity of acne is wide, onset is typically slow and prevention is surely better than cure. So if a cosmetic product can be said to enhance the appearance of skin by keeping it blemish-free then, in theory at least, it could work as well as any medicine. Assuming that there will always be a big demand for treatments as well as prophylactics, new medicinal products containing new actives will be required. Most existing topical acne therapies produce at best a 50-60% reduction in lesions after weeks or months. There is still much room for improvement despite the advances in formulation technology that have allowed the development of combinations products based on BPO and an antibiotic, a retinoid and an antibiotic or more recently BPO and a retinoid. This is still just playing around with old molecules when what are urgently required are entirely new actives that can be sold OTC. If we really want to relieve the burden on physicians, reduce reliance on antibiotics and put control in patients’/consumers’ hands, we have to give them choice and we have to provide effective new remedies that overcome the disadvantages of the older ones.

I’d like to see either a complete overhaul of the FDA OTC Acne Monograph or preferably its abandonment and I’d like to see it sooner rather than later. It is worth mentioning that the final FDA rule on BPO was only published in March of this year. This is hardly indicative of a responsive regulatory process. The FDA has led the way with tighter controls on the availability of oral isotretinoin and yet none of the available alternatives come even close to the power of this agent. Isn’t it about time that regulators facilitated the development of safer, more effective treatments? Without the constraints imposed by the monograph, I’m sure big pharma and major healthcare companies will respond rapidly to the challenge of overcoming conservatism and competing successfully with the more innovative cosmetic sector.


References

1. Food and Drug Administration. Topical Acne Drug Products for Over-The-Counter Human Use: Final Monograph. Federal Register 1991; 56 (159): 41008 – 41020.

2. Food and Drug Administration. Classification of Benzoyl Peroxide as Safe and Effective and Revision of Labeling to Drug Facts Format; Topical Acne Drug Products for Over-The-Counter Human Use; Final Rule. Federal Register 2010; 75 942): 9767-9777.

3. Patel M, Bowe WP, Heughebaert C, Shalita AR. The development of antimicrobial resistance due to the antibiotic treatment of acne vulgaris: a review. J Drugs Dermatol 2010; 9(6): 655-664.

4. Seidler EM, Kimball AB. Meta-analysis comparing efficacy of benzoyl peroxide, clindamycin, benzoyl peroxide with salicylic acid, and combination benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin in acne. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010; 63 (1): 52-62.

Syntopix to present TBHQ data at ICAAC 2010

By Sarah Gregory

Syntopix has joined forces with the University of Leeds to conduct a research project into the antibacterial activity and mechanism of action of the lipophilic antioxidant tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ).

Working with Professor Ian Chopra, Dr Nicki Ooi, and Dr Alex O’Neill, the Research and Scientific Directors of Syntopix Dr Jon Cove and Dr Anne Eady are looking to investigate the compounds antimicrobial mode of action.

Research results will be published in a poster publication later this year at the 50th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy meeting which is taking place between the 12 Sept – 15 Sept 2010 in Boston, USA.

For further details please click here.

Finding a partner for your great idea: how do your get their attention?

By Dr Stephen Jones

When you’ve got a great idea which you’re convinced will make you money, you have to sell it. Identification of the right partner, and finding enough common ground to do the deal, is far from easy. There are so many doors to knock on; lots of companies, each with an array of decision-makers. So where do you start?

In my experience, finding doors to knock on is the easy bit. The tricky part is making sure it’s the right door for you if they open it. Then, if you’re invited in, it’s knowing what to say, and what you are looking for.

I’ve stood on both sides of this particular fence. Before I joined Syntopix in 2006, I was for 7 years Vice-President of R&D at GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, responsible for all the R&D projects to support Aquafresh, an oral healthcare brand with global sales approaching $1 billion. A constant stream of small companies (like Syntopix) from all over the world would contact us with (in their eyes) the most fantastic ideas and superb technology. It wasn’t easy to spot the winners and all too easy to be misled by the cowboys. One of the most successful innovations in my time at GSK was a collaboration with an external company which resulted in a product called “Aquafresh White Trays” for whitening teeth. Right from the very first meeting they were very clear about what they wanted and they showed that they were obviously experts in their field.

At Syntopix we are developing compounds to incorporate into products for treating acne and body odour, and improving oral healthcare. Now we have promising candidates, we are looking for commercial partners who will licence our technology. Knowing what a good pitch looks like from a large company’s perspective has been enormously helpful in shaping our business development approach.

I’ve always found that being very clear about your expectations and what you have to offer right at the outset is the route most likely to lead to success. When you make a presentation, it always helps to start by telling your audience (most of whom you will never have met before) what you want from the meeting and why you are there. Don’t make it complicated – the simpler the better. If you want to get them on your side, the easier you make it for them to understand what you want, the more likely you are to succeed.

Similar rules apply to the technology or science that you are presenting to them. The objective of the meeting is not for you to look good or clever, but to be believable. You have to succinctly convince them that you have a unique offering which can enhance their business, and you know what you are talking about. Credibility is absolutely key, which is why it is such an advantage to Syntopix to have co-founders who are world experts in their field (Anne Eady and Jon Cove).

If you can demonstrate the use of your technology in the business setting of the audience, so much the better – it’s hard work to get it right, but your vision and empathy with their world is normally very much appreciated. Showing you can listen to what they need and you think in the same way as them usually helps to make you stand out.

I know from hard experience that your audience will have to spend time and energy understanding your presentation if they are to seek approval from within their own company to take things forward, so make sure you give them what they need, and don’t over-burden them with superfluous facts that aren’t central to your objectives.

Finally, it’s easy to commit two more sins that can be deal breakers because they irritate people and lose their attention. Don’t take any more time than you are allotted (finishing early is always appreciated), and don’t try to cram 60 slides into a 30 minute presentation. The more senior the audience, the more important it is to follow these last two bits of advice.

We’ve been knocking on lots of doors recently and presentations have become a way of life for Syntopix. Pitching your big idea can’t be left to luck. Practice makes perfect, and as Arnold Palmer once said, the more you practice, the luckier you get.