-
hair deep conditioner(rinse off)
I want to make a hair deep conditioner with these ingredients:
1) water
2)glycerin
3)cetyl alcohol
4)behentrimonium chloride
5)polyquaternium10
6)hydrolyzed wheat protein
would you help me in guessing percentages? -
25 Replies
-
1. 70
2. 33. 34. 25. 26. 2Other components make it add up to 100% (oils, preservative, fragrance, hydrosols) -
Generally deep (intense conditioners are commonly seen as thick creams having a viscosity of around (4000-12000 cps), with all due respect to @Belassi I would start with 6% fatty alcohol here, 1% glycerin, 2% Behentrimonium Chloride, 0.5-1% PQ 10, 1% HWP and rest of the things as required. It has to be left on hair longer than compared to normal rinse off conditioner though.
-
woooooowww 3%cetyl alcohol will thick the emulsion so much…ya?
-
6% cetyl alcohol!!!!!?? so can I exert it from tube?
behentrimonium chloride itself thickens the formula -
Well if you have a tube then follow Belassi’s suggestion and see if you need to go down or up on the fatty alcohol.
-
Aha so polyquat 10 comes as a solid. (Just checked) If so, 2% seems high. 1% better. I don’t use it myself. I use quaternium-60. Also, you might find cetearyl better than cetyl for the purpose.
-
@David Silicones are notorious for build-up and hard to remove even with repeated shampooing, case in point Amodimethicone. I would stick to PQ-10 but on a lower side, if not then I would use a combo of long chain conditioners like the one @nasrins has used with a disteardimonium chloride or stearamidopropyl dimethylamine for deep conditioning.
But I would make sure this is not for virgin hair as the studies show that the deposition on treated hair is more than the virgin hair because of higher negative charges, in fact it is double. -
I want it for a dry and damaged hair, both virgin hair and colored hair can be damaged. u mean I use amodimethicone, its better than other silicones? disteardimonium chloride is behentrimonium chloride?
-
The extent of negative charge on virgin and treated is always different, so the deposition would vary. Although I am not sure how virgin hair can be damaged (maybe you can explain), virgin itself implies something not damaged and hence very little affinity for deposition. Anyhow Amodimethicone tends to build up and its hard to rinse off even after repeated shampooing.
Disteardimonium Chloride has 2 stearyl alcohol chains and 2 methyl groups whilst Behentrimonium Chloride is one behenyl chain and 3 methyl groups. -
damaging process are as the same in both hair but in different severity.
“virgin itself implies something not damaged and hence very little affinity for deposition” why u say virgin is not damaged? my hair is virgin but is far more damaged than a treated hair.
ok I will try that percentages and then say the answer.
-
Yeah you are right, virgin would be non treated but damaged by other factors like sunlight, pollutants and various external environmental factors. Only the extent and severity is different, this is purely my understanding and this is what I am sharing with you. But for sure (proven by studies) the deposition on a virgin and treated hair is definitely too much different because of the charge factor.
As for your deep conditioning I would use a combo of Stearamidopropyl Dimethylamine and Disteardimonium Chloride with 2% and 1% respectively to start with. Thickness can be adjusted by starting with around 3% fatty alcohol. -
uhum I got it…thanks…
-
@ milliachemist , you are right about the buildup, however when I read “deep conditioner” I presume it is not for everyday use, besides you don’t have to use that much. BTW, do you have a lit.ref. for the buildup of amodimethicone? There is so much nonsense on the internet regarding this matter.
-
Well to some extent I agree with you @David as there is too much negative publicity for the old to enable the entry a new hero to arrive
but there is in fact a build up in the form of a film which stays on the hair through several washings but on the upside it repels further build up and since the film is transparent, it provides a shiny appearance too. The film supposedly locks the moisture too.
Depends on the formulator what to choose. -
If you claim ”deep” or ”intense” on your products you must prove the efficacy at first…In order to get a deep effect you need to get in to the cortex layer of the hair…
There are several ingredients that can penetrate into the cortex…Hydrolyzed Wheat Protein is one of them…You can try Coconut Oil, Panthenol or Cetrimonium Bromide instead…%5 Cetyl Alcohol and %2-3 Behentrimonium Chloride give you a nice conditioning effect but there might be some stability problems…Add some GMS to the formulation…On the other hand using pq-10 above 0,5 leaves hair sticky and heavy….It is very hard to get rid of pq-10 residue on hair… -
@pepe . I don’t think you have to prove anything since “deep” and “intense” have no exact meaning. And why should Cetrimonium Bromide penetrate deeper into the cortex than behentrimonium chloride?
-
Are you aware of new EU cosmetic regulation David ??? You have to prove every claim you write on the label…Can you tell me please what if I write ”deep moisturizing” instead of ”moisturizing” on the label??
for your 2nd question please take a look: http://swiftcraftymonkey.blogspot.com.tr/2009/07/cationic-quaternary-compounds.htmlI can show you tens of article about it… -
Correct me if I am wrong,
Amodimethicone is one of the hard to wash but not really build up silicones right?
Won’t the first layer just repel the second layer?
So, you would need anionic or zwitterionic surfactants but it would at least not build up too much.
If sold together with a weekly clarifier it would be a pretty awesome product, best of both worlds and it would also appeal to the “nopoo” people.
(sorry we used some of these things to grow embryos so my knowledge is very basic)
-
@pepe well I don’t say that I am a claim expert, just want to learn, but I still don’t think there is a legal difference if you write “moisturizing” or “deep/intense moisturizing”. How deep is deep? How intense is intense? And regarding CTAB I am still not convinced. Of course the molecule is shorter and has more probability to penetrate but it is still quite large..you will have to show me ten more articles!
-
Correction: Here is a scientific background for CTAB penetration
However I found no info on BMTS except blogsites where they claim BMTS also penetrates… -
@pepe - “Can you tell me please what if I write ”deep moisturizing” instead of ”moisturizing” on the label??”
There are no specific rules on how you substantiate claims so it is up to every company to come up with some rational on how they substantiate a claim. If you make the claim ‘deep moisturizing’ you could simply show that one of the ingredients you use penetrates hair and the support for the claim is satisfied. -
@pepe cuticule layer is like fish scales when u have healthy hair these scales are closed , but when ur hair is damaged and dry these scales are opened and every material could peneterat to inner layer(cortex). so I dont think so peneterating depends on ur kind of material….
-
good point nasrins , there is of course a limit in molecule size which can penetrate, like for example the article above describes the PQ-10 will unlikely penetrate. I just don’t think there is a large difference between C16 and C22, as the blog-site referred to above assumes. There are other more important factors.
-
I doubt anyone could demonstrate a penetration difference between a C16 and a C22 molecule. Perhaps there is some theoretical difference but not a practical one.
Log in to reply.