-
Why did this shapoo separate
Any ideas on why this may have separated? Never had this happen before. HEre is a link to what it looks like.%Water 65.00AOS 40 10%Planetran 1200 N 5%(Lauryl Glucoside)Coamidopropylbetaine 11.0%Germall Plus Liquid 5%Polyquat 10 0.4%Fragrance 1.2%Quickpearl PK3 1.0%CETAC 2.0%Hydrolyzed Keratin 2.0Extracts 1.3%Moringa Oil 0.2%Coconut Oil 0.2%Hazel nut oil 0.1%Panthenol 0.01% -
19 Replies
-
Maybe it’s the anionic surfactant kicking the cationic CETAC and polyQuat out of the formula. Or could be the 2% high oil loading and insufficient surfactant to solubilise. Try making 2 samples, 1 without the cationic and one without fragrance and oils and see if it still splits
-
Liquid Germall Plus at 5% ????
Should be 0.5% max! -
I agree with the above. Could also be the pearl kicking out of solution
-
Wow too many anomalies in the formula, anionic and cationic together (though polyquat is fine), then too much of a preservative and to top it up you have a good amount of oil as well in the formula. I would be surprised if the formula remained stable, period.
-
It was a typo, Germall liquid is at 0.5%
-
The AOS40 is anionic; the glucoside is anionic; the betaine is amphoteric; the CETAC (I have never heard of any of these except betaine) is anionic! That will be enough to cause a mess.
-
@Belassi If I am not mistaken then CETAC is cetyl trimethylammonium chloride and hence the formation of insoluble white complex of plus and minus charges and then you have the usual suspects in the form of oils to give additional haziness and instability.
-
Yes, agreed, @milliachemist. I do recall in my early days experimenting with mixtures of anionic and cationic, and getting disasters.
I have a possible solution to mind. Forget using the cationic. Anyway the betaine has a cation in it. If you would like great conditioning (it looks to me like you’re trying to design a 2-in-1) then add say 2% of Polyquart H-81. It is a pseudo-cationic and plays well with anionic shampoos. Instead of the CETAC use say, an amphoteric such as sodium cocoamphoacetate, an excellent mild amphoteric with good foam and thickening properties. -
I would count in Lauramine Oxide as well, good thickener and as @Belassi said has both the charges and is pH dependent. But this is a very mild conditioning we are talking about otherwise for an intense one it has to poo-con process in my opinion.
-
while I agree with other respondents that CTAC won’t do anything to help with stability, experience tells me the separation is almost certainly down to the oils kicking out the pearliser; cutting them back to <0.1% should improve matters
-
This is a perfect situation for a formula knock-out experiment.
-
I appreciate everyone giving me their opinion. We are trying a few different things in the lab that we will be observing over the next few days/weeks. One as simple as adding carbomer in the form of Aqua SF-1 to the formulation. Another is taking out AOS 40 and using SLES but keeping all else the same as the original. Plus a few others. I’ll report back when I have any news.
Thanks again people, much appreciated.
David -
“One as simple as adding carbomer in the form of Aqua SF-1 to the formulation.” (my emphasis)
I am going to die laughing if you use terms such as “simple” in the same sentence as “Aqua SF-1”!I take it you haven’t been down that road yet. . . Nearly drove me mad before I finally called the formulator at the supplier. “Hahaha. Yes, back-acid thickening. Hahahahaha! Me too!” -
@DavidW Guess you can incorporate this Aqua Sf-! and the back acid thickening is really amazing, I am using citric acid solution and it turns out pretty thick and good yield value. But again I would remind you that if CETAC is that cationic chloride salt then even your SF-1 is going to ppt out.
-
I gave up on carbomers in shampoo. Besides the nightmare of using it, it’s almost impossible to get rid of the bubbles.
-
@Belassi I agree with you but at times the formula just can’t be finished without an additional thickener, secondly the advantage here is that the drop in pH increases the viscosity as opposed to other thickeners where after neutralization a pH of around neutral needs to me maintained and which is undesired for shampoo formulas in general.
-
Yes; ordinary carbomers such as 940 or Ultrez are useless in shampoos when you want an acidic pH. I can’t get on with Aqua SF-20 though. Made many experiments to establish this “back acid thickening” and it just was a nightmare. The supplier’s formulator shares my opinion. Also the damn bubbles make filling a horror, have to do it strictly by weight, looks like a bottle of hair gel - ugh.
So in my sulphate-free shampoo I use Glucamate VLT. It improves the preservative system, gives great hand feel, if anything it improves foam, and it’s easy to use. The hand feel with carbomer is crappy in comparison. -
I would take out the CTAC, set the Germall at the right level (0.5%), lower the extract to 0.1%.
If that doesn’t work - exclude the fragrance. Carbopol is effective - if you like to stabilize airbubbles! -
Can’t take out the fragrance, customer wants it.
No problem for us to work with the SF-1 in the shampoo and that sample is holding up well so far. Even with CETAC.What I should have done initially is given the customer a shampoo with EGDS and EGMS. Never had a problem with that but the quick pearl is so much easier (I thought) and doesn’t need heat.
Thank you all again for your thoughts on this.
Log in to reply.
