-
BTMS 50/25 rarely used (in hair conditioners) by mainstream companies
Hello, been lurking for a while now, first post
. Excellent place of learning, appreciate everything I’ve already read.Any thoughts on why larger companies generally use Behentrimonium/Cetrimonium Chloride instead of BTMS 50/25?
And on the same token, smaller companies usually use the BTMS’ (small time suppliers seem to almost never carry the chlorides around here, so that is probably a reason)…
-
12 Replies
-
I think it is simply less performing than others. of course, it has some advantages, such as maintaining a cationic behavior even at alkaline pH, but said that as a detangling capacity and as an anti-frizz activity there are much more effective products and I believe, for those who work large quantities, even much lower prices.
-
Good question, i’ve been wondering the same thing myself. I love working with btms, haven’t had a chance to try chloride yet.
-
@JohnS Using BTMS as source of Behentrimonium is more expensive than using it alone (usually, it comes as a 80% active). You can also add the fatty alcohol separately. In that case, you can add higher amounts of Behentrimonium without increasing price dramatically.
-
I don’t know for certain but here is my hypothesis. It all comes down to the price and profit of the materials.
There isn’t a big difference in performance as the conditioning comes from the Behentrimonium portion and not the Chloride/Methylsulfate portion. So, big companies are going to use what is least expensive. That would be the Chloride version. They buy up huge quantities of the stuff and get huge price breaks.
Small companies buy their raw materials from chemical distributors. And really small companies buy them from repackers like makingcosmetics.com. Repackers and distributors buy a certain quantity of a raw material from the supplier then break it up into smaller portions to sell for a higher profit to small companies.
So, the repackers will have to compete with the big companies for a chemical like Behentrimonium Chloride. This drives prices down and makes the ingredient much less profitable for the repacker. On the other hand there is much less competition for a less frequently used (by the big companies) ingredient like Behentrimonium Methylsulfate. Repackers can buy that up and sell it for a better profit than they can the chloride versions.
That would be my guess anyway.
It also gives the small companies a point of differentiation because they can say their formulas are different than what the big companies make. That doesn’t mean they are better but many consumers don’t know that.
-
BTMS is very forgiving as an emulsifier. You can use sub par mixing and process and it will most likely still remain stable. It also has application for skin. It is the perfect product for repackers to sell.
-
Every reply makes a lot of sense.
Absolutely no point for companies to use BTMS, when they know how to formulate without it for cheaper.
And absolutely no reason for repackers and small companies/hobbyists to use anything other than BTMS, when they wouldn’t make any money and wouldn’t even know how to formulate without it.
-
Perry is on the mark - again - in his summation. Behenyl quat chloride (BTMC) is less expensive than the methosulfate by many $$$, and it is the alkyl quaternary that does the heavy lifting, not the anion. BTMC is the better, cheaper emulsifier too, especially when you use the 85% wax (dissolved into the water at 85 - 90C.) As for efficacy, the behenyl quats lend a softness to hair and skin substantially better than the lower homologs STEARAC, CETAC. Summing up: friends, don’t let friends use BTMS-25 or 50 when BTMC 85% can be had.
-
chemicalmatt said:Perry is on the mark - again - in his summation. Behenyl quat chloride (BTMC) is less expensive than the methosulfate by many $$$, and it is the alkyl quaternary that does the heavy lifting, not the anion. BTMC is the better, cheaper emulsifier too, especially when you use the 85% wax (dissolved into the water at 85 - 90C.) As for efficacy, the behenyl quats lend a softness to hair and skin substantially better than the lower homologs STEARAC, CETAC. Summing up: friends, don’t let friends use BTMS-25 or 50 when BTMC 85% can be had.
Thanks for the additional info, Matt. Through anecdotal evidence/perception I can confirm that the behenyls outperform the others.
By “the 85% wax” you meant for example - Incroquat Behenyl TMC-85, INCI: Behentrimonium Chloride (and) Isopropyl Alcohol - or something else?
-
@chemicalmatt 90°c in too high temperature and would be difficult to work at Specially in lage quantity for small manufacturer.
Can we dissolve BTMC in small percentage of water at 90°c and add that to main water at ~60°c and add fatty alcohol and other ingredients at this temperature?
-
JohnS said:chemicalmatt said:Perry is on the mark - again - in his summation. Behenyl quat chloride (BTMC) is less expensive than the methosulfate by many $$$, and it is the alkyl quaternary that does the heavy lifting, not the anion. BTMC is the better, cheaper emulsifier too, especially when you use the 85% wax (dissolved into the water at 85 - 90C.) As for efficacy, the behenyl quats lend a softness to hair and skin substantially better than the lower homologs STEARAC, CETAC. Summing up: friends, don’t let friends use BTMS-25 or 50 when BTMC 85% can be had.
Thanks for the additional info, Matt. Through anecdotal evidence/perception I can confirm that the behenyls outperform the others.
By “the 85% wax” you meant for example - Incroquat Behenyl TMC-85, INCI: Behentrimonium Chloride (and) Isopropyl Alcohol - or something else?
Yes
-
@Abdullah You don’t need to go too high in temperature. I usually make large batches following Clariant’s recommendations for working with their Behentrimonium chloride (heating both of the two phases at 75-80°C).
Log in to reply.