-
Reduction of tackiness in clay pomade formulation
I am formulating a clay hair pomade. I have found all the desired qualities in the formulation with the exception of tackiness. I am calling tackiness the poor ability of the comb to run through the hair smoothly. What kinds of chemistry should I be researching for this? My ingredients are as follows in descending order by quantity.
Water, rice bran wax, shea butter, kaolin clay, peg 40, cetearyl alcohol, Poly Suga Mulse d9 (with HLB of 12-14), fragrance, Leucidal SF Max preservative. PH 5.5
Thank you in advance for your consultation.
-
7 Replies
-
You would need to post the Formulation with percentages to get any real help. My first impression is Leucidal is a horrible preservative and would be unlikely to be effective in this product.
-
This reply was modified 7 months ago by Microformulation.
-
This reply was modified 7 months ago by
-
Water 50%, Rice bran wax 15.20%, Shea butter 12.2%, Kaolin clay 7.24%, Peg 40 6.28%, Ceteral Alc. 3.88%, Poly Suga 2.62%, Leucidal 1.8%, Fragrance 1%. For reference this formulation was made with and without Leucidal. Both formulations performed the same. Please explain the reasoning on the Leucidal comment.
Thank you.
-
I have had shelf stability with this formulation for 11 months 12 days as of today. I have 5 samples in 75F 15% RH, 5 samples 80F 15% RH and 5 samples 85F 15% RH. No samples are showing signs of separation, degradation or biological contamination. Product is being used daily in 5 barber shops with no signs the before mentioned. Graham stain testing has resulted in clean sample performance. I don’t want to get off topic. I would like ideas for adding a smoother comb performance with less tackiness. Please include reasoning for your comments.
Thank you.
-
Leucidal is known for being a poor preservative and you can find numerous discussions regarding that in the search function. @PhilGeis has expounded on this as well and he wrote one of the leading texts on Cosmetic preservation. We stopped using it early on and had too many PET failures to safely consider using it.
You can’t OBSERVE a product for contamination. You MUST test for this factor and its a micro test usually sent out.
-
This reply was modified 6 months, 4 weeks ago by Microformulation.
-
This reply was modified 6 months, 4 weeks ago by
-
Microformulation is 100% correct.
I saw no mention of challenge testing even as made, and Gram staining is not a valid means of addressing micro quality any more than eye-balling products in stability. Leucidal is a pretty poor to lousy preservative even if you’re working with irradiated clay (are you?) and will have a lot of challenge in use since most pomades are marketed in open pots
Legally, you must affirm micro safety through the expected product life and use - usually with challenge testing data. Above would appear to have you in noncompliance even with old cosmetic regs. You’ll prob not get a lot of help from experts like Microformulation when you appear to blow off micro safety.
-
Thank you for all the preservative input. I will continue to work on this aspect. I would like to get back on topic with the original question. What types of chemistry will I need to work with to get more slip in my product? Please refer to the original post.
-
@Zymurgist try adding an emollient ester to that mix. These are compatible with those butters & waxes and you’ll get better dry comb. I would also suggest dimethicone but I glean that a Leucidal user would be averse to using silicone too.
Log in to reply.