-
Sulfate-free, silicone-free, paraben-free shampoo foam
Hi!
Lately i’ve been working on a sulfate-free, silicone-free, amine-free and paraben-free shampoo. The formula that i have as of now works pretty amazing, but i think that the foam could be a little bit better. The product I have now provides a good feeling, doesn’t irritate the scalp, doesn’t dry out my hair, and has good cleansing capability. What I’m looking for now is to maximize its foam production, either by adjusting the ratio of my surfactants or by adding/removing a surfactant. On another note, do you think my surfactant phase is sufficient? Am I adding too many surfactants, either percentage-wise or ingredient-wise?
This is the formula i currently have.
PHASE A
Water 44.80
Chemoryl SFB (Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate (and) Sodium Cocyl Isethionate (and) Cocamidopropyl Betaine) 8.4
Cocamidopropyl Betaine 11.2
Sodium Cocyl Isethionate 1
Sodium C12-14 Olefin Sulfonate 8.4
Hydroxysultaine 5
PHASE B
Water 15
Arginine 0.5
Polyquaternium-10 0.275
Polyquaternium-7 0.275
Cetiol HE (Peg-7 Glycetyl cocoate) 0.5
EDTA 0.120
Prodew 500 (Sodium PCA,Sodium Lactate,Arginine,Aspartic Acid ,PCA,Glycine,Alanine,Serine, Valine,Proline,Threonine,Isoleucine,Histidine,Phenylalanine and Water) 0.5
Panthenol 1
Jojoba Pro HP (Hydrolyzed Jojoba Protein) 1
PHASE C
Phenoxyethanol 0.5
Fragance 0.7
Glucamate (Methyl Glucose Trioleate PEG-120, Propylene Glycol and water) 0.75
Mix Phase A. Mix Phase B until fully homogenized. Add Phase B to Phase A and stir until combined. Finally, add Phase C to the AB mixture
-
7 Replies
-
Hi @natasha-acendra ,
In my opinion, you could simplify this formula without affecting the performance significantly, and maybe even boost the foam in the process.
Since the Chemoryl SFB blend already contains Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate, and Cocamidopropyl Betaine, you could try increasing its usage level instead of adding separate Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate and Cocamidopropyl Betaine. The blend is likely optimized for synergistic ratios. I recommend testing the formula with 10–15% active matter of Chemoryl SFB and seeing how it performs in terms of foam and cleansing.
Since you already have Cocamidopropyl Betaine as a secondary surfactant and foam booster in the blend, you might not need Hydroxysultaine. Removing it could help simplify the formula without impacting performance significantly.
Sodium C12-14 Olefin Sulfonate is a strong cleanser, but it might not be necessary if the Chemoryl SFB provides sufficient cleansing on its own. Consider removing it and testing the blend’s performance. If more cleansing power is needed, you can reintroduce it at a lower percentage.
Using both Polyquaternium-10 and Polyquaternium-7 may be unnecessary. I’d suggest keeping Polyquaternium-10 as it tends to work better in shampoos and contributes more to conditioning and detangling. Removing Polyquaternium-7 could simplify the formula and reduce the chance of build-up.
The Prodew 500 blend already includes arginine, so adding extra arginine might be redundant. You could remove the standalone arginine without affecting the formula.
I would recommend cutting the Panthenol to claims levels or at least in half.
You might also consider using Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose to thicken your shampoo, it is said to work as a foam stabilizer.
Good luck!
-
I was waiting to respond because I wanted to try out the shampoo the way you suggested. Here’s what I found:
I removed Sodium C12-14 Olefin Sulfonate and arginine from the formula, reduced panthenol to 0.5%, and increased my surfactant blend to 28%. However, I made two versions of the shampoo—one without Hydroxysultaine, replacing it with 5% Cocamidopropyl Betaine, and another without Cocamidopropyl Betaine, replacing it with 5% Hydroxysultaine.
Here’s what I noticed:
- Both versions lost significant viscosity (I had to increase Glucamate to 5.6%; this is my rheology modifier, by the way).
- They didn’t produce as much foam as I expected (removing Sodium C12-14 Olefin Sulfonate might have caused this).
- Despite that, I felt a good cleansing sensation, and it left my hair feeling soft and silky (thanks to the polyquaterniums).
- However, when I gave some of the product to one of my colleagues, he said it produced very little to no foam and was difficult to spread through his hair. (Though I should note that he has really short hair compared to mine) But said he liked the conditioner feeling it gave.
I think I made some progress by reducing the formula’s cost, but I also took a step back in terms of foam production. I will keep trying different versions of the formula taking into consideration your help. Thank you so much!
-
From my research, Chemoryl SFB has an active matter of only 32%. This means you would need to use approximately 47% of the blend to achieve a 15% active surfactant matter in your shampoo (without adding other surfactants). The loss in foam production you observed might be due to insufficient active surfactant matter—at 28% usage, you’re only getting around 9% active matter. Another possibility is that Sodium C12-14 Olefin Sulfonate contributes more to foam formation than the blend or acts as a foam booster.
Regarding the viscosity issue, have you tested the blend’s responsiveness to salt? I came across a supplier formula that used 2% salt as a thickener with Chemoryl SFB at 50%, which might help address the viscosity loss.
My suggestions would be to either:
-
Test the shampoo with the blend at 47% and no additional surfactants to see if the foam improves, or
-
Reduce the blend slightly and compensate for the loss of active matter by reintroducing some Sodium C12-14 Olefin Sulfonate to boost foam and cleansing power.
-
-
-
My approach was totally differrent.
I saponified coconut oil to produce a foaming and thoroughly cleansing shampoo that I named Tropical Sunrise Shampoo. And with absolutely zero synthetics.
It became one of my top-selling products globally. And even today I am contacted by customers wanting this shampoo.
-
What’s your pH? Sometimes when amphoterics are present, pH can impact foaming properties of the whole formula. Also, I’d add cationic polymers from the start, after water and before the surfactants so they can hydrate and uncoil properly.
-
My pH is between 5 and 5.5. I hadn’t really considered that the amphoteric surfactant might be the one reducing foam production. I just looked up that, at the pH range I am using, the amphoteric surfactant primarily acts as a cationic surfactant, which, according to my experience in these formulations, does impact foam production. I will try another version of the shampoo, removing all the amphoteric surfactants and adding decyl glucoside to see if it helps improve foam production.
-
-
Not necessarily that it will reduce foam, but that it won’t foam as much as it should at some pH. You could do some Ross-Miles test of your formula at different pH to see the effect.
Log in to reply.