Ledger · 2026-08-28 · Advanced Oleochemicals

Enzymatic Synthesis of Estolide Biolubricants via Direct Castor Oil Transesterification

Rejected

This concept did not clear the framework. The reasoning is published in full below.

Why it failed

Assessment

The concept fails sub-test B because the wear scar comparison (~600 µm baseline) relies on diesel fuel lubricity standards rather than a like-for-like fully formulated lubricant benchmark. Furthermore, mandatory OEM pump testing and REACH/VGP environmental certifications push time to first paid delivery beyond 18 months.

Claimed advantage

Wear scar diameter of 106 µm vs ~600 µm (standard diesel benchmark) / ~200 µm (PAO)

Named comparator: Polyalphaolefin (PAO / PAO 4 / PAO 6) and Mineral Oil

Also flagged

A rejection is not a claim that the science is wrong. It means the venture case did not survive: the comparator was not what the buyer actually buys, the comparison was not like-for-like, the advantage fell short of a step change, or the capital and time to first revenue were prohibitive.

Assessed 2026-08-28 against seven gates plus the voiding sub-tests. How the method works · Browse all concepts