-
Mont 202 + Mont 68 = A mess???
I have been working on a facial cream for the last month, Using Montanov 202 plus a polymeric plus some carbomer. Everything has been wonderful until I tried to follow some Seppic examples of splitting the emulsifier between Mont 202 and Mont 68… keeping everything else the same.
The cream will separate right after making the emulsion….but if I hit it with the emulsifier, and it is cool enough, it will return to an emulsified cream. I can not imagine this product being stable, if I have to coerce it into an emulsion. Last night the batch I made, would not emulsify until it had cooled to about 41C. Has anyone worked with these two emulsifiers, and know the trick/s I am missing when combining?
The addition of the 68….makes the cream incredibly rich and silky, so I would like to keep this combination. HELP!
-
24 Replies
-
That sounds like some PEG-based emulsifiers which show phase inversion above a certain temperature. In theory, Montanovs do not have such a PIT (phase inversion temperature) and hence, are unresponsive to temperature changes.However, high temperature may prevent lamellar and liquid crystalline structures from forming. PEG-100 stearate is different and hence, you’re probably used to ‘real’ emulsions meaning small oil droplets formed in water like pea in a soup. What you have now at hand is more like lasagne or puff pastry. Unlike ‘pea soup’ emulsions which get finer and more stable the harder/faster/longer you mix, that kind of emulsion requires time and forms rather spontaneously.If it looks good at room temperature there’s a fair chance that it actually is good. Some stress tests or a few months on a shelf would tell you more. -
As I always say if it’s for your own use and there’s no customer who wants ‘natural green and organic’ just use lotionpro 165. Aka arlacel 165. Aka GMS+peg-100 stearate. It’s a bulletproof solution.
-
ngarayeva001 said:As I always say if it’s for your own use and there’s no customer who wants ‘natural green and organic’ just use lotionpro 165. Aka arlacel 165. Aka GMS+peg-100 stearate. It’s a bulletproof solution.Hehehe….so far all the products I sell…are 165 based.
I have made this formula, also using 165, and the feeling that is created with mixing M 202 and M 68…. is mind blowing compared with 165.
It always finally goes into emulsion….when it finds the temp it likes. So I will try a 75% M 202 and 25% M 68, and see if I can keep the feel, and maybe it will be a little more user friendly. M 202 has been as easy to work with as 165. Montanov 68….Not so much!
-
Pharma said:That sounds like some PEG-based emulsifiers which show phase inversion above a certain temperature. In theory, Montanovs do not have such a PIT (phase inversion temperature) and hence, are unresponsive to temperature changes.However, high temperature may prevent lamellar and liquid crystalline structures from forming. PEG-100 stearate is different and hence, you’re probably used to ‘real’ emulsions meaning small oil droplets formed in water like pea in a soup. What you have now at hand is more like lasagne or puff pastry. Unlike ‘pea soup’ emulsions which get finer and more stable the harder/faster/longer you mix, that kind of emulsion requires time and forms rather spontaneously.If it looks good at room temperature there’s a fair chance that it actually is good. Some stress tests or a few months on a shelf would tell you more.
So am I damaging my lamellar structures…by homogenizing more than I should, trying to discover at what point (temperature) it will create the final emulsion?
My roto-stator emulsifier is spending way more time in the beaker than I would like. I stop very quickly after the emulsion finally forms.
-
I read a forum from 2016…and it suggested Sodium Stearoyl Glutamate as a co-emulsifier for Montanov 68. Is this still the thinking?
I did make the formula again today, this time with a 3 to 1 ratio of Mont 202 and Mont 68 + .25% SSG….and it behaved as expected. (The formula also includes a polymeric emulsifier at low rate.)
-
Have you tried 3:2 for 202:68 + 0.6% to 0.8% Aristoflex?
Just thinking how it should go at at the moment. It’s the combo i’d try.
-
jemolian said:Have you tried 3:2 for 202:68 + 0.6% to 0.8% Aristoflex?
Just thinking how it should go at at the moment. It’s the combo i’d try.
I tried 3 to 1 (202 to 68)…and liked that. Still had the full silky feel that the 68 brings…but the lightness of the 202.
Yes… I use .6% Aristo or Zen (still trying to decide…but leaning towards Zen), plus a dab of carbomer.
As mentioned above…I used .25% SSG. So not exactly sure what made the difference…I also took the temps up a little higher after reading Seppic’s formulation pages. -
What do montanovs emulsifiers do that 165 doesn’t? Emolliency?
-
ngarayeva001 said:What do montanovs emulsifiers do that 165 doesn’t? Emolliency?
YES! As far as emulsifying….nothing beats 165…we all know that.
As far as feel…. especially adding some 68 to the 202… really gives a silky glide. The original plan…after getting most of the pieces in places….was to work on the feel, tweak the esters and add-ons…but after adding the 68… That whole process got scrapped. It feels amazing as is. Nothing like the 165 only or M 202 only.
Of course I have followed all your other recommendations on polymerics and carbomer, and Pharma’s cascading emollient (ester) program. Combined with some very silky oils…Babassu, Camellia and Meadowfoam plus Rosehip and Raspberry seed oils.
And the 68 seemed to bring more emolliency that the 202… But the 202 makes for a very lite feel…and matte finish that I like. I did not try….Just a M 68 formula…and do not intend on it. -
For emollience, why add 68, why not Cetearyl Alcohol alone?
or you intend to do multi-Glucosided lamellar.Hope this might help
https://patents.justia.com/patent/9949900 -
There are so many ingredients that can improve aesthetics without compromising on stability though. Various esters with different melting points and spreadability, silicone elastomers, powders like polymetylilsesquioxane, polymers.. I am sure there’s more.
-
Pattsi said:For emollience, why add 68, why not Cetearyl Alcohol alone?
or you intend to do multi-Glucosided lamellar.Hope this might help
https://patents.justia.com/patent/9949900This is a great question and I’m curious because I’m having emulsification failures with Montanov 68 as well. Would just using Cetearyl Alcohol add the silkiness that Montanov 68 does? How is Cetearyl Alcohol different from Cetyl Alcohol in terms of skinfeel and application? I love Cetyl and use it all the time..
-
I’ve had experience with the Montanov 202 before. I think it came as a replacement of the Simulgreen 18-2. For me the both emulsifiers had a kind of weakness, and the emulsions made with them had a tendency to separate after a week or two, or even after a month. They were unpredictable literally! I don’t think that Montanov 202 has a mattifying properties, because that’s not a function of the emulsifier itself. Also I don’t understand why you have to combine it with the Montanov 68? According to Seppic’s documentation Montanov 202 has a low electrolites tollerance, so it could be combined with the Montanov 82, not 68! Also I don’t think that Montanov 202 is emulsifier for homecrafters, because it is sensitive to temperature deviations, electrolites, shear forces and many more conditions which are difficult to represent at home. Anyway, I have had a successful emulsions when combined Montanov 202 with an anionic emulsifier like Glyceryl Stearate Citrate.
-
Btw I recently discovered sepimat sb by Seppic. Go to for mattifying. I use it in face powder but it’s used in emulsions.
-
ngarayeva001 said:Btw I recently discovered sepimat sb by Seppic. Go to for mattifying. I use it in face powder but it’s used in emulsions.
Thank you. I think I am more about not wanting shine…vs needing matte…if that makes any sense at all. The formula as is (but not done), is in a happy place for me. I love to learn about new products, so keep throwing them at me!
-
ggpetrov said:Anyway, I have had a successful emulsions when combined Montanov 202 with an anionic emulsifier like Glyceryl Stearate Citrate.
I use GSC in another formula, where final feel is not of concern, but tough as heck emulsifying is. For me…it brings too much of an oily feel to the finished product, even at a .5% inclusion rate.
So if you read through the thread, Sodium Stearoyl Glutamate has seemingly provided me with the missing component to strengthen the emulsion.
To date I have not released a product that cannot withstand 20 minutes of centrifuge.This formula is completely stripped of electrolytes, sans the .2% EDTA..
-
I have tried sepimat sb in facial cream. It gave a matte and silky feel. Or more user friendly starches, but I like sepimat sb’s skin feel more.
Elizabeth Arden Visible Difference Gentle Hydrating Cream might be a ref for stability, there’s PELEMOL BB in it.
-
This is a great question and I’m curious because I’m having emulsification failures with Montanov 68 as well. Would just using Cetearyl Alcohol add the silkiness that Montanov 68 does? How is Cetearyl Alcohol different from Cetyl Alcohol in terms of skinfeel and application? I love Cetyl and use it all the time..
@emma1985 - I have no experience with Montanov 68 myself but as I search it require co-emulsifier and various rheology modifiers, too much headache for me so I will leave it to professional formulator or contracted formulator, when/if I ever want to use it.
You can have Cetearyl Glucoside alone and try pair it with Cetyl if you like it, but I guess Cetearyl will be more stable.
-
ngarayeva001 said:There are so many ingredients that can improve aesthetics without compromising on stability though. Various esters with different melting points and spreadability, silicone elastomers, powders like polymetylilsesquioxane, polymers.. I am sure there’s more.
Ok….you have peaked my interest with the
Polymethylsilsesquioxane
Especially….since I can get it.
So I know you said you had not worked with Penstia ( INCI: Adipic Acid/Neopentyl Glycol Crosspolymer), but the descriptions seem similar. Can you or anyone compare these products? The Penstia did not seem to give me any ‘First Touch’ oooh la lah…that I was looking for, and in fact, seemed to make the oils absorb slower into the skin, which I am not sure is what I am looking for.
So I also see that it is a bit of a film former, and water proofer….is that just a general statement that follows all silicone’s around? Would those characteristics bring anything negative to a day cream?
All input on polymethylsilsequioxane…would be appreciated. It does not require a special solvent….right?
I have just a touch of soaping that I need to work out of the formula….do you think this would help?
Where would you start….as an inclusion rate? 2%?
-
I have polymetylilsesquioxane in one finished cream (and more under developing) mainly for spreadability.
less powdery than sepimat sb.
less matte than sepimat sb, more of a soft-focus than matte. but not shine during the day.
skin feel defers by size too 2, 4.5 , 7 , 10 -
Pattsi said:I have polymetylilsesquioxane in one finished cream (and more under developing) mainly for spreadability.
less powdery than sepimat sb.
less matte than sepimat sb, more of a soft-focus than matte. but not shine during the day.
skin feel defers by size too 2, 4.5 , 7 , 10So you like the feel that polymety…. adds?
The vendor I can get if from offer the 4-6 micron.
Can you describe…what you felt it added to the product?
Thank you for your feedback.So am I understanding….that polymety…, and Sepimat sb…give about the same textural feeling, only the matte/gloss is different?
-
No, sepimat doesn’t add silky glide and it much more mattifying.
-
If you can get sample get both and just test on your hand to see what each does. They both are great but I would argue that polymethylsilsesquioxane is more versatile.
-
I didn’t use polymetylilsesquioxane and sepimat in the same cream so I can’t compare them directly.
no, not the same feeling.
polymetylilsesquioxane was used to add glide as the cream was thick and didn’t want %dimethicone too high. Skin feel wasn’t particularly special not matte but def not gloss.sepimat have much more mattifying as @ngarayeva001 mentioned. The cream was thick and glide ok with 5.5%dimethicone. sepimat added to give it a matte and powdery feel. In the end that cream didn’t make the cut.
ngarayeva001 said:If you can get sample get both and just test on your hand to see what each does. They both are great but I would argue that polymethylsilsesquioxane is more versatile.agree, polymethylsilsesquioxane is more versatile.
Log in to reply.
