-
How to choose a cationic surfactant for hair conditioner
Hi!
Lately, I’ve been formulating a hair conditioner suitable for all hair types. However, I’ve found myself in a tricky situation: which cationic surfactant should I choose and why? What are the differences between them? and why use them for a specific hair type or purpose?
I tried using Incroquat™ Brehenyl TMS 25, which is Behentrimonium Methosulfate at 25% and Cetyl Alcohol, and found that it makes the conditioner really thick—almost like a mask. I also tried Quartamin 60 (Cetrimonium Chloride) blended with Cetyl Alcohol, which reduced the viscosity but lost that luxurious feel that BTMS provided. (I have to say that in both blends i used polyquaternium 37, wich adds considerable viscosity to the product)
I have other ingredients I haven’t tried yet, such as:
- Dehyquart C4046 (Cetearyl Alcohol, Dipalmitoylethyl Hydroxyethylmonium Methosulfate, and Ceteareth-20)
- Behentrimonium Chloride
- Cetrimonium Methosulfate
I’d love to hear your practical lab knowledge about which surfactant to use in a specific situation and why. I’d appreciate it if you could share your experience formulating a hair conditioner with these cationic surfactants 🙂
-
6 Replies
-
Have you considered BTMS-50. It has a higher percentage (50%) of the cationic and less of the fatty alcohol with some butylene glycol. You can use less to get the same conditioning and because there is less fatty acid it won’t be as thick.
-
I haven’t tried it because my supplier didn’t have it in stock, but I was able to get it from another source to test it. However, I’m still a bit confused about which surfactant to use for each case—could it be based on price or quality? Anyways i’m thankfull for your help!!
-
-
Generally speaking, a longer chain alkyl group gives more lubricity (for instance, behentrimonium vs cetrimonium). Also, the methosulfate counterion gives a thicker gel phase than chloride (which gives more viscosity as you experienced, but also better TEWL control and conditioning in general). A shorter chain length gives more motility (cetrimonium vs behentrimonium) and that’s why CTAC is the best when it comes to static reduction. And finally, a dialkyl chain gives also more lubricity than a monoalkyl chain. Short answer, it’s complicated….hehehe. In reality, different surface activity is one of the reasons you normally see a mixture of different cationic surfactants in conditioning emulsions.
-
Thank you so much for such detailed explanation! It really helps me better understand the nuances between the different cationic surfactants and how they affect the final product. I truly appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge, it’s been a huge help!
-
-
There’s not much I can add to the great answers above, but I will mention that Stearamidopropyl Dimethylamine can be a great choice for finer, thinner hair, while Behentrimonium Chloride or Methosulfate might work better if you’re targeting thicker, coarser hair types, but can generally be used for all hair types.
It may be worth taking a look at popular conditioners and seeing which surfactants they are using. For example, Pantene (P&G) is using Stearamidopropyl Dimethylamine in their Daily Moisture, Volume & Body, and Curl Perfection conditioners, but in their Gold Series which targets curly and coily hair, they opted for Behentrimonium Chloride.
I think another important factor could be concentration. Finer, thinner hair might need less active conditioning material to prevent weigh down, while thicker, coarser hair might need more active conditioning material. I say this because you will find conditioners marketed for “all hair types” that use Behentrimonium Chloride (for example), so it’s not like it’s exclusively for one hair type.
-
I think I’m starting to get it now. I’m making a conditioner that works for all hair types, so maybe the best approach could be a blend of cationic surfactants. That way, I can achieve the right texture with the appropriate amount of (+) ions to help provide those after-wash properties (no frizz, proper detangling, etc.) without minimizing volume.
I appreciate all the help you’ve been giving me. Thanks a lot for taking the time.
-
Log in to reply.