-
Cetaphil Cleanser Dupe
Due to the nature of extremely reactive skin, what barriers are there to creating a cleanser from water, foaming oats and PE9010? The cetaphil ingredients look dubious to me but I think I know why they used the parabens due to the barrier breakdown in skin with eczema and increased bacteria on skin with potential to become infected. But I’m not 100% sure that’s the reason. There’s no gaurantee that PE 9010 wouldn’t sensitize skin but I want to create something super simple with few ingredients. The consistency may be very watery but I plan to use pakcaging that wouldn’t waste any product.
0.4g | 0.4% Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate (SCI) (USA / Canada)
4g | 4% cetearyl alcohol (USA / Canada)
20g | 20% vegetable glycerine (USA / Canada)Phase B
0.5g | 0.5% xanthan gum (soft) (USA / Canada)
10g | 10% vegetable glycerine (USA / Canada)
40g | 40% distilled water
0.2g | 0.2% panthenol powder (vitamin B5) (USA / Canada)
0.1g | 0.1% niacinamide (vitamin B3) (USA / Canada)
0.03g | 0.03% 90% lactic acid solution (USA / Canada)Phase C
24.27g | 24.27% distilled waterPhase D
0.5g | 0.5% Liquid Germall Plus™ (USA / Canada)CETAPHIL
Water, Cetyl Alcohol, Propylene Glycol, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Stearyl Alcohol, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Butylparaben
-
10 Replies
-
I believe @PhilGeis will give a better explanation, but Cetaphil used that combo of parabens for many years, since they are effective and safe (you can check the dermal info from their CIR and Opinions from the SCCP).
For the cleanser itself, if the product is more or less thick and foamy, then they made a lamellar gel (not a lamellar gel network since the oil part is missing), which is not only mild but helps retain more moisture on the skin due to the interlamellar water.
-
Phenoxyethanol has very little sensitization risk, less than parabens, and parabens preservation can be effective. But risk assessments are based primarily on finished products, and Cetaphil folks have resources for a complete product risk assessment. Those not so well funded have relied on CIR and classic preservative combinations - notably without HRIPT.
Tho’ FDA is moving slowly, I think there will be an expectation of HRIPT for all cosmetic products.
-
They use such a harsh surfactant, I’m confused at how these globally popular brands can refer to their products as gentle and safe for eczema when they are not. One gentle cleanser I used contains CABP and the cetaphil contains a known irritant. However, without extensive testing I can’t market my facial cleanser as gentle or better than these brands. But each individual ingredient is repudiated for its gentleness whereas the surfactants used by major brands touting safety is not.
-
Gentleness is highly individual—I have eczema, yet my skin tolerates SLS, CAPB, and even fragrances without issue. Formulating a truly mild cleanser isn’t as simple as swapping surfactants, either. In fact, sulfate-free alternatives can sometimes be more irritating than their sulfate counterparts, especially if not properly balanced. Factors like buffering, lamellar structures (as @ketchito noted), and pH play critical roles in minimizing irritation. And as @PhilGeis pointed out, big brands rely on HRIPT and clinical testing to back their claims—resources most DIYers and small brands can’t easily access.
-
Just to expand on @Fedaro ‘s good points, it’s different to have a sole surfactant (like a solution of SLS which is the way ingredients are tested) than to have a mixture of different types of molecules which interact between each other in a synergistic way to get milder products, higher viscosities, better deposition, etc. Anionic surfactants are usually combined with amphoterics or non ionics to reduce their irritation potential and sometimes increase viscosity. They can also be combined with cationic polymers for the same (plus extra conditioning through coacervation). That’s one of the reasons why EWG’s classification fails to reflect what really happens inside a product.
-
-
It depends on the formula. SLS/SLES is very well tolerable in eczama-prone skin if formulated well. The formula is mostly fatty alcohols and PG, so the chances of it being harsh on the skin is very low.
What surprised me more is that they didn’t use any buffer or a chelating agent for a bath product.
-
-
I use GDL for all of my bath formulations but I know with eczema prone skin they recommend using the least amount of ingredients but I still am confused by the use of SLS. Dose is the medicine or poison…but with the availability of newer more gentle surfactants, maybe its a cost consideration. Why spend millions on testing a new formula when it works.
-
Ingredients like SLS and parabens that have bad reputation are the best ingredients.
They have replaced SLS with SCI and parabens with other preservatives to look better in ingredients list. you can see their reviews, everyone says the previous formula with SLS and parabens was more gentle, better tolerated and much better than new formula.
-
I haven’t seen that. But I do know that just replacing something with an ingredient that looks good doesn’t guarantee suitability or performance. So my goal was to not only use gentle ingredients that were gentle on their own and combine it with other gentle ingredients to make something that performs just as well. The only challenge I can think of is not having a lab or access to clinical testing. Other than that just coming up with a basic formula that I can at least test on myself is a start. I wouldn’t spend any grant funds on testing something that likely could not work or wouldn’t work on my skin. My customers might be picky about natural skin care but they’re not chemists and wouldn’t understand the use of parabens and SLS. However, they are very happy with other synthetics I use like urea that I can market fairly well. I have been avoiding the use of natural and have replaced it with nature identical in the same way a used car is now a pre owned car.
-
-
Hi,
It’s not clear why you listed Marie’s (humblebeeandme) formula in your initial post.
Have you made that and you’re not happy about the outcome?
Log in to reply.