Global plastic production now exceeds 460 million tons per year, and microplastics are now being detected everywhere from oceans to human tissue. In filtration and membrane science, this is not an abstract issue. It is something that is measured, tracked, and increasingly studied. As the research continues to develop tools to assess the impact on human health and the environment, it is reasonable to also examine what is happening on the materials side.
Shellworks, a London-based biomaterials company, recently closed a $15 million Series A to scale a plastic alternative called Vivomer. This technology is worth understanding, particularly for researchers and engineers working in environmental monitoring and microplastics analysis, where shifts in material science directly influence what enters the filtration and analytical workflows used to study microplastics.
Material Science
Vivomer is a polyhydroxyalkanoate, or PHA, a class of biopolyesters synthesized intracellularly by certain microorganisms as a form of carbon and energy storage. Shellworks produces through microbial fermentation using second-generation feedstocks, specifically waste streams like used cooking oil, rather than food-competing crops. The microbes accumulate PHA granules, which are then extracted and processed into a thermoplastic resin that can be formed using conventional techniques including blow molding.
PHAs have been studied since the 1920s and attracted serious commercial interest since the 1980s. What has historically held them back is production cost and the difficulty of achieving consistent mechanical properties at scale. Shellworks' claim is that six years of process development has moved Vivomer past both of those hurdles, at least relative to comparable rigid packaging materials.
The biodegradation profile is also worth noting. Unlike PLA (polylactic acid), which requires industrial composting conditions to break down, PHAs can biodegrade in soil and marine environments through enzymatic hydrolysis, This distinction that matters significantly from a lifecycle and environmental fate perspective, and one that has direct relevance to anyone working in environmental monitoring or microplastics research.
Where Things Stand Commercially
Shellworks says Vivomer has reached cost parity with glass and aluminum at approximately 5 million units of production. That's a meaningful benchmark, because glass and aluminum are the materials brands typically reach for when they want to move away from plastic, not because they are cheap, but because they are recyclable and consumer-facing. Competing on cost at that volume, before the economics of scale have fully kicked in, is a stronger position than most PHA producers have managed.
The material is already commercially used. Brands including Wild (Unilever) and Sonsie Skin have launched products in Vivomer packaging, available through Tesco in the UK and Whole Foods in the US. These are real supply chains with real quality requirements, which is a different kind of validation than a lab-scale demonstration.
The 15-million-dollar Series A, led by Alter Equity, with participation from Nat Friedman of NFDG, JamJar Investments, Founder Collective, and LocalGlobe, will go toward expanding manufacturing capacity in the US and Europe and further developing processing capabilities around blow molding for large format packaging.
Reference
Vignesh R. "Plastic without plastic: Shellworks' $15M bet on microbe-made packaging." Tech Funding News, 4 March 2026. https://techfundingnews.com/shellworks-15m-series-a-vivomer-plastic-alternative/
Sterlitech recently attended Pittcon Conference + Expo 2026, held in San Antonio, Texas, where our team connected with scientists, researchers, and industry professionals from across the analytical and laboratory community.
The conference provided an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas, discuss industry challenges, and learn about emerging technologies shaping analytical science and laboratory workflows. Events like Pittcon continue to play an important role in bringing the scientific community together to share knowledge and advance innovation.
If you missed our display of products ranging from vacuum pumps, vacuum manifolds, membrane filters, and cellQART® Cell Culture Inserts and Well Plates and would like to learn more, ask an expert now.
We want to thank everyone who took the time to connect with our team during the event and look forward to continuing the conversations moving forward.
See you in Pittsburgh in 2027!
Pressure-driven membrane technology has become a cornerstone process for protein separation and purification, offering a scalable and gentle alternative to traditional thermal and chemical methods Among the various membrane-based processes available today, pressure-driven processes, microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF), are most applicable due to their simplicity, scalability, and gentle operating conditions. These processes are used across biotechnology, dairy, food processing, and pharmaceutical industries.
Why Pressure-Driven Membranes?
Membranes act as selective barriers, allowing certain species to pass while retaining others based on size and, in some cases, charge. Compared to thermal or chemical separation methods, membrane processes:
- Operate at low temperatures
- Require no phase change
- Consume less energy
- Preserve protein structure and activity
These advantages make them particularly suitable for sensitive biological products.
Microfiltration (MF): Clarification and Cell Removal
Microfiltration membranes typically have pore sizes ranging from 0.1–10 µm. In protein processing, MF is primarily used for:
- Removal of cells and cell debris from fermentation broths
- Bacterial and spore reduction
- Clarification of protein-containing solutions
Importantly, most proteins are much smaller than MF pores and therefore pass through the membrane while larger particles are retained.
Applications:
- Recovery of proteins from fermentation
- Reduction of bacteria in skim milk (cold pasteurization)
- Pretreatment before UF concentration
MF modules are available in flat sheet, spiral-wound, hollow fiber, and tubular configurations, allowing flexibility in process design. Polyethersulfone (PES) and Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF) are well-suited due to their chemical resistance and hydrophilic options. Ceramic membranes offer additional durability for high-temperature or aggressive cleaning environments.
Ultrafiltration (UF): Protein Concentration and Fractionation
Ultrafiltration membranes are characterized by their molecular weight cutoff (MWCO). UF is the workhorse of protein processing.
Core UF Applications:
- Protein concentration
- Buffer exchange (diafiltration)
- Desalting
- Fractionation of proteins by size
UF has largely replaced size-exclusion chromatography for concentration steps due to its lower cost and ease of scale-up. Polyethersulfone (PES) is widely used in UF for its broad pH and chemical compatibility. Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) offers low protein binding, making it useful for dilute or sensitive proteins streams. Ceramic membranes provide robustness for demanding process conditions.
In dairy applications, UF is widely used to:
- Concentrate whey proteins
- Improve cheese yield
- Recover valuable protein fractions from waste streams
Conventional UF is primarily size-based and is most effective when proteins differ by at least a ten-fold molecular weight difference. Process performance is strongly influenced by:
- pH
- Ionic strength
- Transmembrane pressure
- Crossflow velocity
Optimizing these parameters can significantly improve transmission and selectivity without introducing external fields.
Sterlitech offers a wide range of flat sheets and spiral wound membranes suitable for UF applications. Flat sheet testing cells are used to evaluate flat sheet membranes and are typically the first step in assessing separation performance for protein separation. The next stage involves spiral wound testing, for example using an 1812 element, which requires a spiral wound housing to complete the test.
Fouling: The Critical Challenge
Protein fouling is the primary operational challenge in MF and UF systems. Protein fouling in membrane systems causes flux drop and is primarily governed by protein–membrane and protein–protein interactions. The main forces involved include van der Waals forces, electrostatic interactions, and polar interactions between surfaces [1]. Protein adsorption typically begins with the formation of a monolayer driven by protein–membrane interactions, after which additional fouling occurs as a result of protein–protein interactions [2]. Surface modification, hydrophilic membrane materials, optimized hydrodynamics, and proper cleaning protocols are essential to maintaining performance. Bench and pilot scale testing are used to evaluate the performance of newly developed modified membranes.
Conclusion
Pressure-driven membrane processes offer a practical and scalable path for protein separation and purification across biotechnology, dairy, and pharmaceutical applications. Selecting the right process, MF for clarification and UF for concentration and fractionation, depends on the target protein, process conditions, and purity requirements. While fouling remains an operational challenge, proper membrane selection and process optimization ensure reliable and consistent performance.
Contact our team of experts to learn more about membrane selection and process development for protein separation and purification applications.
References
[1] J. W. Chew, J. Kilduff, and G. Belfort, “The behavior of suspensions and macromolecular solutions in crossflow microfiltration: An update,” Journal of Membrane Science, vol. 601, p. 117865, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2020.117865.
[2] A. D. Marshall, P. A. Munro, and G. Trägårdh, “The effect of protein fouling in microfiltration and ultrafiltration on permeate flux, protein retention and selectivity: A literature review,” Desalination, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 65–108, Mar. 1993, doi: 10.1016/0011-9164(93)80047-q.
