ACCUEIL
NOS PRESTATIONS

Qualification Materials
Failure of materials
Quality Control
R & D support
VOTRE SECTEUR D'ACTIVITE

Food and packaging
Automotive and Aeronautics
Building, construction, engineering structures
Glues, adhesives, sealants, coatings
Cosmetics and hygiene products
Detergent, cleaning product and surfactant
Medical devices
Inks, pigments, dyes
Environment
Chemical experts and justice experts
Industry
Microelectronics
Swimming pools and coatings
Plastics Processing, Polymer Processing
Natural polymers
Polymers
Polyols
Health
NOS MOYENS ANALYTIQUES

GCMS-FID
PYROLYZER
UPLC/UV/TOF-MS
UPLC-MS-MS
HEADSPACE/GCMS
IRTF SPECTROMETER
SEM/EDX
CENTRIFUGE
UV-VIS SPECTROMETER
NOUS CONNAITRE

The company
The Polymex team
Our partners
Quality and certifications
CONTACTS
NEWS
EN
FR EN

Comparison of the distribution of surfactants in two products

As you know, the structural and chemical study, in particular by comparison, is part of the analyzes that can be carried out by our laboratory.
The objective of these tests was to compare two samples, sample A made by our client and sample B from a competing company.

For this we carried out a structural analysis by pyrolysis / GCMS , which will allow us to identify the polymer matrix (s) of the samples.
We also performed UPLC / TOF-MS analysis to analyze semi-volatile organic compounds to determine the distribution of surfactants in the two samples.
The analysis results of these two samples were compared to see their degree of similarity .

Thanks to the Pyrolysis / GCMS analysis, we were able to notice the two samples were similar from a structural point of view, they both have a polymeric matrix of the PEG type and an “ acrylic ” copolymeric matrix.
Regarding the analysis by UPLC / TOF-MS , this allows us to see a slight difference: the two samples have the same mPEG [9004-74-4] and PEG [25322-68-3] type matrices but in the sample A we were able to note the presence of two compounds that were not present in the competing sample.
In addition, the mPEG matrix follows a different distribution in the two samples: in sample B there is a possible mixing of mPEGs while for sample A there is only one mPEG matrix.

In addition, the mPEG matrix follows a different distribution in the two samples: in sample B there is a possible mixing of mPEGs while for sample A there is only one mPEG matrix.

In conclusion, these two products are very similar in terms of their composition but the competing sample does not have all the components present in our client's sample.
Our client can therefore continue production without fear of a patent copy, and we remain at his disposal to ensure further comparative analyzes if he wishes.