BTMS vs other emulsifiers - Any good reasons to use it in skin creams?

I've ended up using BTMS in one of my moisturizer formulas, probably due to a CERtain brand using it..

Are there any good reasons to in a face or body moisturizer compared to emulsifiers like Montanov 68/82 or Lotionpro 165? 
Tagged:

Comments

  • I've personally never found any. BTMS doesn't really offer anything new when compared to the competition but costs a hell of a lot more. Probably one of my most regrettable purchases.
  • Perhaps the reason could include the ionic nature so that the emulsion may be more stable? And also a potential powder skin feel provided? 

    Though depending on the storage condition, i've seen someone post on reddit that their Cerave smells fishy, perhaps due to the BTMS. 
  • ZinkZink Member
    It can definitely generate a very smooth product giving your skin a feel similar to conditioned hair, but there are other ways to achieve that.


  • @Zink what are the other ways to achieve such felling in a non-ionic emulsion? 
  • Perhaps it is used because of its ability to emulsify silicones? 
  • MicroformulationMicroformulation Member, Professional Chemist
    edited February 23
    Honestly I think you see it used quite a bit in DIY Formulas and that is partially the reason you see it so often. It is hardly my go-to.

    markfuller@microformulation.com Microformulation.com Microformulation Cosmetic Consulting provides Custom Formulations for both large Commercial accounts as well as smaller entrepreneurs. We can provide Naturally compliant Formulations under the NSF, NPA, Whole Foods and USDA Organic Certifications. BS.Pharm Albany College of Pharmacy, Union University.
  • chemicalmattchemicalmatt Member, Professional Chemist
    I dunno' 'bout all that, but @Zink should try it in skin-care. Lower your cost by using iQuat BTMC from Cosphatech (now Kimika LLC) or Maquat BTMC from Pilot-Mason, never from Croda (perhaps where @natzam44 went wrong?) Half the price for same material. Nice powdery after-feel  - which admittedly can be achieved by other means - but as @Cafe33 mentions, emulsifies dimethicone like nothing else does.
     

  • GraillotionGraillotion Member
    edited February 27
     emulsifies dimethicone like nothing else does.
     

    Speaking of specialty emulsifiers....  I have a very difficult emulsion using 165 and GSC.  The formula  contains mixed EO's at 3%.  It appears as though the EO's start to 'leak out' of the emulsion after 6 months of my torture test...( half full clear containers in my sunniest window).

    So I was wondering if there was an emulsifier that I could use as a co... that is known to really handle the EO's well?  I am not 100% sure that it is the EO's, as the formula also contains 2.5% vanillin....which is just a B%#@h to work with.

    Finally got the oxidation licked....just need to figure out what is leaching out of the formula.  Note:  This does not occur when I treat the formula with respect...(colored container...out of the sunlight all day...everyday.)  It also does not occur to my  regular lotions that do not contain vanillin and EO's which live through the same test.  They are spot on....6-8 months later.  The standard lotion deviates in that is uses Varisoft EQ 65 as the co in lieu of GSC.

    Would love to hear thoughts on best emulsifier for EO's.
  • helenhelenhelenhelen Member
    edited February 27
    Speaking of specialty emulsifiers....  I have a very difficult emulsion using 165 and GSC.  The formula  contains mixed EO's at 3%.  It appears as though the EO's start to 'leak out' of the emulsion after 6 months of my torture test...( half full clear containers in my sunniest window).
    Do you have any non-polar ingredients in there? I used to get this issue with squalane with a different lamellar-forming emulsifier. It drove me mad as I liked the feel of squalane but it would always start seeping out of the emulsion after a month without fail, or even earlier with heat and movement. This was even with tiny amounts of squalane like 0.5%. I put it down to the emulsion not being able to hold onto the squalane sufficiently (e.g. page 7/8 of the attached study I found). But I never solved the problem (I'm not a chemist) and gave up on squalane. 
  • PharmaPharma Member, Pharmacist
    edited February 27
    @Graillotion EQ 65 is similar to BTMS. I don't know whether or not it's equally good at emulsifying silicones and/or squalane (which comes close to silicones in several regards).

    @Zink One reason to use BTMS and alike would be incompatibilites for example with cationic polymers such as chitosan.
    Given that most emulsions using non-ionic emulsifiers have a negative zeta potential by nature. This makes it a safer bet to add anionic co-emulsifiers which will further decrease the potential rendering the droplets more stable. Adding a cationic one will increase it and hence pass through the unstable range of -30 mV to +30 mV before hitting a high enough positive value to actually be stable again. Sure, if working with lamellar networks and liquid crystal structures as well as gelling agents, zeta potential may be less of a concern.
Sign In or Register to comment.