-
review my formula for a mild shampoo for dry hair
Hello! I am a homecrafter/ DIYer making cosmetics for personal use only. I have afro textured hair and have been experimenting with formulations for a couple months. I used swfitycraftymonkey/ making cosmetics free formulas to get my start to creating my formulas. So i came up with a formula for my dry kinky hair that I actually like, problem is is that I feel like I’m using WAY too many ingredients. Could you suggest with I might eliminate from this formula? Currently my formula makes a mild cleansing shampoo, that is thick (which I like), opaque and pearly, ok lather, and has good detangling properties. after using it my hair feels slightly conditioned, but clean.
Formula:
8% SCI powder
10% cocamidopropyl betaine
.5% Polyquat 10 (for thickening and detangling)
10% aloe juice
10% Polyglucose/Lactylate Blend
3% Quarternium 31
2% glycol disterate
5% glycerin
2% water soluable shea butter
2% peg 7 cocate
1.5% hydrolized protein
.5%fragrance
.5% polyquat 44
1%polyquat 7
citric acid to adjust pH to 5Is there anything I could remove/ reduce the amount of and still get the above listed result? Even though I’m a home crafter, I still strive to not be wasteful or fool myself into thinking “more is better”. just trying to be efficient.
-
11 Replies
-
The Aloe isn’t doing anything so you can get rid of that. You don’t need both Polyquat 44 and Polyquat 7. Get rid of the 44. The Hydrolyzed protein is probably not doing anything either. Glycerin isn’t doing anything in the formula either.
In sum - get rid of
aloe
glycerin
polyquat 44
polyquat 10
hydrolyzed protein
Quaternium 31 -
What’s the 2% PEG-7 GC for?
-
well @Belassi swifty reccommended it on her blog. from my understanding it is to increase mildness for dry hair and add some emolliency. i was also using it as an opacifier. together with the glycol diserate a white pearly shampoo was the result.
@Perry I was using polyquat 10 to thicken the shampoo. without it the product was a little on the thin side. I also have cationic guar. would that be a better addition instead?
-
Polyquaternium 10 is not really a thickener. It is a conditioning ingredient. If you want thickening you would use something like Xanthan Gum or Hydroxymethyl Cellulose. Cationic guar is also a conditioning ingredient, not a thickener.
-
really @Perry ? Makingcosmetics description says ” Thickening quat conditioner of the polymeric quaternary ammonium salt of hydroyethly- cellulose. Light-yellowish powder, faint odor. Easy soluble in water. pH value: 5.5 - 6.5 (2% solution)” “Cationic quat conditioning agent, adheres readily to hair proteins. Provides superb wet combatibility, good manageability & curl retention. Builds viscosity making the use of an auxiliary thickener unnecessary.”
When i add it to water it makes a “gel” type solution.
is there a benefit of using xantham gum over polyquat 10. i also have that. What usage would you suggest for xantham gum?
Thanks so much for you help!!
-
Well, in the industry it is not used as a primary thickener. There are just other ingredients that work better and cost less.
Xanthan gum may be less expensive and you may be able to use less to get adequate thickening. But it might also make your product feel a bit slimy. It depends on the level. But Xanthan Gum would be more in line with a “natural” positioning. It wouldn’t be my generally recommended thickener, but neither would Polyquat 10. Better would be Hydroxyethylcellulose or Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose.
-
@Perry ok! thanks I have revised my formula based on you reccommendations! very much appreciated!
-
It’s really an old discussion, but I am eager to learn.
Perry, you didn’t ask to eliminate Shea butter as well or it does work in shampoo?
-
I thought it might provide some conditioning benefits but it depends on the overall formula.
-
I am actually a big fan of polyquaternium 10 and think it should stay. I tried several polyquats and it’s my favorite. I also add it to sulfate free formulas for its thickening properties, although I understand Perry’s point. It’s the same thing as using high molecular weight HA as a thickener (which I also must admit being guilty of). Expensive and not the most effective approach. But if you use it for it’s conditioning properties anyway, it’s great to have a bonus of extra thickening, as sulfate free surfactants are not very easy to thicken.
@Rimshah, I just want to clarify, there’s nothing wrong with sulfates. They are effective and easy to work with. I use both but prefer milder surfactants for every day use.
-
Thanks a ton @Perry and @ngarayeva001
Log in to reply.