-
What does these percentages about silicone deposition in hair mean?
What do these percentages mean?
1. Does it mean without polymer 0% silicone deposit in hair and with jaguar exel 42% of that silicone deposit in hair?
2. Or it it means whatever amount of silicone deposit on hair without polymer, with jaguar exel that amount increase by 42%?
-
16 Replies
-
They are using a 14% SLES shampoo with 1% silicone at PH-6-6.5. They are saying that you are getting 53% of silicone deposition if you add Jaquar C17 at a .2% concentration. It is higher than other polymers like PQ-7 which is at 13%. In conclusion, different polymers impact silicone deposition differently.
Thank you for the graph, it is informative.
-
@Syl thanks for explanation.
That maybe the cause of Amodimethicone buildup from one of my shampoo. It had Amodimethicone, cationic guar and PQ10.
-
It says silicone, but they do not specify which one! They are probably using the silicone that makes their product look good, not necessarily Amodimethicone.
-
@Abdullah Take into account that it’s supplier’s data, so the results will always be more dramatic in favor of their ingredients. That said, the type of silicone matters a lot, being neutral silicones (like dimethicone) deposited better when used with a cationic polymer. Amodimethicones, not only could compete with cationic polymers for binding sites on hair, they tend not to build-up due to electrostatic repulsion once the first layer has deposited.
-
Specifically what they mean is not known. But this is how I would interpret it.
In their shampoo, they include 1% silicone.
Some amount of that silicone gets left on hair during use.
Each polymer increases the amount left on hair by the % shownBut that doesn’t mean that without polymer 0% silicone is deposited.
It more reasonably means the following.
1. Say without polymer, 0.01% of the silicone is deposited
2. With polyquat 10, 0.0106% is deposited
3. With PQ-7, 0.0113% is deposited
4. With Jaguar c17, you get 0.0153%Is it more? Yes
Does it matter? I don’t knowSounds more impressive when put in a graph and you don’t look at the actual numbers. But that’s advertising.
-
@ketchito can i ask why do you think polymer compet with Amodimethicone instead of helping it’s deposition? Have you seen any data for this or this is how you think?
Because Amodimethicone has 0.2% nitrogen for active Amodimethicone and cationic guar has 1.3% nitrogen.
Cationic guar will always bind easily and faster than Amodimethicone. Then why all manufacturers use a cationic polymer with Amodimethicone in shampoo?Why there isn’t 1 single manufacturer that uses Amodimethicone alone in shampoo? Even phique shampoo.
If it is not for helping deposition then what benefit can cationic polymer+Amodimethicone give to hair that Amodimethicone alone can’t? -
@Perry thanks for explanation.
What do you think about Amodimethicone+cationic guar in shampoo? Does cationic guar help deposition or compet deposition of Amodimethicone in shampoo?
-
@Abdulilah, good question! I also wondered about that.
-
@Abdullah You can find the support to my statement in the page 301 of the book “Principles of Polymer Science and Technology in Cosmetics and Personal Care” (chapter Silicones in cosmetics). It’s only fair to think that if the driving force for the deposition of a molecule is of electrostatic nature, molecules of the opposite charge to the substrate will compete for these sites (eg., cationic polymers, cationic silicones, cationic surfactants, cationic aminoacids/peptides, cationic inorganic ions, etc.). Since small molecules difuse faster, they can bind easier to anionic binding sites (that’s why sodium ions and cationic surfactants bind preferentially than cationic polymers o silicones). Now, when you compare a cationic (water soluble) polymer vs amodimethicone, it depends on your system; if you have a shampoo and a coacervate is likely to be formed, then the means of deposition of the cationic polymer will be through reduction of free energy in your system. If on the other hand you have a conditioner in which a cationic polymer and amodimethicone are present, then both molecules are likely to compete rather than help each other deposit (consider that keeping a hydrophilic cationic polymer suspended in your system requires less energy than keeping a cationic silicone, and also, there’s a barrier surrounding cationic polymers (solvated by water molecules). With that, I mean that for big molecules, there’s more than one driving force for deposition.
-
ketchito said:@Abdullah You can find the support to my statement in the page 301 of the book “Principles of Polymer Science and Technology in Cosmetics and Personal Care” (chapter Silicones in cosmetics).
thanks a lot for this interesting book. But I couldn’t find this in page 301 . I have attached page 301 screenshot. Is it this page?
It’s only fair to think that if the driving force for the deposition of a molecule is of electrostatic nature, molecules of the opposite charge to the substrate will compete for these sites (eg., cationic polymers, cationic silicones, cationic surfactants, cationic aminoacids/peptides, cationic inorganic ions, etc.). Since small molecules difuse faster, they can bind easier to anionic binding sites (that’s why sodium ions and cationic surfactants bind preferentially than cationic polymers o silicones).
i agree with you but when we see that everyone is using a cationic polymer with Amodimethicone then the question rise’s that why.Now, when you compare a cationic (water soluble) polymer vs amodimethicone, it depends on your system; if you have a shampoo and a coacervate is likely to be formed, then the means of deposition of the cationic polymer will be through reduction of free energy in your system.
Sorry i couldn’t understand this part. Can you explain it a bit!
If on the other hand you have a conditioner in which a cationic polymer and amodimethicone are present, then both molecules are likely to compete rather than help each other deposit (consider that keeping a hydrophilic cationic polymer suspended in your system requires less energy than keeping a cationic silicone, and also, there’s a barrier surrounding cationic polymers (solvated by water molecules). With that, I mean that for big molecules, there’s more than one driving force for deposition.
yes i agree -
@Abdullah My apologies, I should have added the edition from the book (the one from 1999). I’m pasting a couple of screenshots where you can find the info I mentioned.
My comment about the water soluble cationic polymer (WSCP) vs amodimethicone in a shampoo, was just to show that the WSCP in the presence of some anionic surfactants (like SLES) will form a coacervate (neutral) during dilution rather than being in a free cationic state. This complex will force the system to invest energy to keep it in the system (it’s like holding a baby that suddenly gained 40kg). That’s why coacervates readily stick to any surface which is good in terms of short term condicioning, but not only they don’t deposit in specific sites, they are hard to remove (at least, not completely). Amodimethicones on the other hand, they have both electrostatic (charge) and dispersion (size) forces to deposit on a surface. Dimethicones can actually deposit along with the coacervate (that’s why PQ’s and Guar gums are said to increade silicone deposition), but that’s not the case with amodimethicones. In the case of emulsions, you have WSCP in a free cationic state, and the competition for binding sites with amodimethicones is more straightforward (but interestingly, cationic surfactants do increase deposition of amodimethicones in emulsion systems).
-
ketchito said:@Abdullah My apologies, I should have added the edition from the book (the one from 1999). I’m pasting a couple of screenshots where you can find the info I mentioned.
My comment about the water soluble cationic polymer (WSCP) vs amodimethicone in a shampoo, was just to show that the WSCP in the presence of some anionic surfactants (like SLES) will form a coacervate (neutral) during dilution rather than being in a free cationic state. This complex will force the system to invest energy to keep it in the system (it’s like holding a baby that suddenly gained 40kg). That’s why coacervates readily stick to any surface which is good in terms of short term condicioning, but not only they don’t deposit in specific sites, they are hard to remove (at least, not completely). Amodimethicones on the other hand, they have both electrostatic (charge) and dispersion (size) forces to deposit on a surface. Dimethicones can actually deposit along with the coacervate (that’s why PQ’s and Guar gums are said to increade silicone deposition), but that’s not the case with amodimethicones. In the case of emulsions, you have WSCP in a free cationic state, and the competition for binding sites with amodimethicones is more straightforward (but interestingly, cationic surfactants do increase deposition of amodimethicones in emulsion systems).
@ketchito@ketchito thanks a lot for screen shot and comment.
In the past i had made shampoo with Amodimethicone without cationic polymers and the feeling was not good. Maybe because i was using too much Amodimethicone. I will make another samples tomorrow and see how it feels.Now i am wondering if cationic polymer compet with Amodimethicone then why evey company is using it with Amodimethicone in shampoo?
Is cationic polymer like guar gum better than Amodimethicone for wet or dry hair comb or antistatic or any other conditioning benefit?
This comparison shows 0.3% PQ10 for hair combing is equal to 0.5% behenamidopropyl dimethylamine and that is better than CTAC, BTAC and SPDMA cationic surfactants.
Is PQ10 or cationic guar also better than Amodimethicone that that they are using it with Amodimethicone?
-
@Abdullah I always rely more on independent data rather than supplier’s. Keep in mind that the main intention of suppliers is to sell. Also, PQ’s, gums, silicones, they are all different types of molecules and they give different results…and those results also depend on your system, wether you have the tendendy to form a coacervate in your formula or not, wether you have a cationic surfactant and this has a low molecular or high molecular weight, etc. Actually, many of those things are explained in that book, and trust me, Dr. Goddard was one of the finest scientists that ever walked the cosmetic industry. There is also another book co-edited by Perry: “Conditioning agents for hai and skin.”
-
I will echo @ketchito ‘s comment - don’t rely on supplier data. It is simply marketing information. They only show you data from studies that highlight the story they want to tell. They don’t show you data that conflicts with their story. Supplier studies are not science.
This isn’t to say that they are lying. It’s just that they are not attempting (as science does) to uncover what is true.
-
@Perry @ketchito thank you both.
Also how many pages does your book “Principles of Polymer Science and Technology in Cosmetics and Personal Care” has?
The version i have has 667 page’s
-
My version haas 667 pages also.
Log in to reply.