[Abdullah]

I don’t know about toothpaste but we are sanitizing with 100 ppm hypochlorite solution. 
Much cheaper than alcohol.

[Abdullah]

RobboAU said:

700 ppm is 0.7 g/L (0.07% w/w) of total dissolved solids, some of which will be CaCO3.

If we assume that all the TDS is metal cations that EDTA/STPP complexes with, then 2% is more than triple the amount you need. It’s also a lot of Na+ ions.

To quote the famous cosmetic chemist, Lil Jon: that EDTA concentration needs to Get Low. (citation needed)

2% EDTA/STPP is 2% when it is in Product, when it is in wash water, it gets diluted many time. 

For example, in a wash cycle in automatic machine, i added 150g of liquid detergent, when wash water came out, it was around 17kg water.
It means that 150g detergent has been diluted with 17kg of hard water.
So if the detergent had 2% STPP, during washing it  has only 0.017%. is this amount enough to make that hard water soft? 

[Abdullah]

@RobboAU TDS of water is at least 700 ppm. I don’t know how much CaCO3 concentration it would be approximately. 

[Abdullah]

@ketchito i will make  a sample without any builder tomorrow just to test. But without a builder how can this liquid laundry detergent work in hard water specially when primary surfactant is SLS? 

[Abdullah]

stearamidopropyl dimethylamine

[Abdullah]

@ketchito @RobboAU thanks 

I have made a sample without STTP but with 2% EDTA and it also separated. 

The only stable sample is the one without CMC, even with all those STPP.

Can it be that there are different types of CMC and each one need different method to incorporate them? 

I just add CMC to water and mix with high shear mixer. The same as i do for xanthan gum. Is my method correct? 

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

@Graillotion Funny thing that a client recently patch tested the following:

- Shampoo w/fragrance 1
- Shampoo w/fragrance 2
- Conditioner w/fragrance 1
- Conditioner w/fragrance 2

Both shampoos and conditioners share the same formula (except for the fragrances)…and both shampoos were slightly irritant (irritation index around 0.21) while both conditioners were not irritants at all (irritation index about 0). So, same fragrances but different carriers (patch tests diluted at 2% -both shampoos and conditioners, but separately and with different subjects-). Maybe P&G was right about adding Cetyl alcohol to all their shampoos after all. 

In my experience too 550 ppm formaldehyde as formalin in Shampoo was irritating to scalp but in a lotion it was not irritating to skin.

[Abdullah]

What you want to make is an unstable emulsion that do creaming after 4 hours. 

I would say remove NACL or add higher amount to make it more unstable. 

Or use spdma instead of Cetrimonium chloride at higher pH and it will separate more easily. 

[Abdullah]

Graillotion said:

Abdullah said:

I don’t know about these ingredients but is this video on youtube? 
Cab you share the link?

Discord Webinar Replay: Analyzing Lotions & Creams - YouTube

Note:  On a chart like that….those are arbitrary opinions.  

Thanks

[Abdullah]

chemicalmatt said:

@Abdullah, I agree with @ketchito here. Might be the STPP working against the glucoside? CMC is pretty robust otherwise, even at that pH.

After your comment i made another sample and used CAPB instead of lauryl glucoside. It separated again after a few hours. 
Any other suggestion?

This is photo 

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

@Abdullah That’s too much precipitate to be the CMC. Maybe you’re salting out your surfactants. Could you try reducing the STPP? 

What is “salting out” of surfactant? 

What percentage of STPP do you suggest?

[Abdullah]

Agree with @MarkBroussard .

I think most people has secrets. Maybe it is not so unique for public but when you think it is unique and important, you become secretive.

Some  people who make products as a hobby, they may share everything and feel good about that sharing. Some people who do business of it or work in this field, they want to be competitive. So they have to keep some secrets. 

[Abdullah]

I don’t know about these ingredients but is this video on youtube? 
Cab you share the link?

[Abdullah]

@ariepfadli i was adding CMC for it’s anti redeposition purpose, not viscosity increasing.
Viscosity is ok. 

[Abdullah]

I don’t know about one single preservative but one blend may be phenoxyethanol+ ipbc for emulsions. 

It might be one of the most effective, easy to work with, most gentle and least expensive preservative blends. 

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

@Abdullah If you want a milder dishwasher for hands, then play around with your surfactant system.

If you want hands to feel softer, you could try using Sodium cocoyl glutamate or PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate. You could try using a cationic polymer, of course…it just wouldn’t be my choice (I don’t recall any big brand doing it, but I might be wrong). 

I use SLES: CAPB 3:1 but as total surfactant is high, i want it to be a bit milder. 

Would PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate without a deposition aid do any benefit? 

[Abdullah]

ariepfadli said:

STPP work as water hardness reducer by capture calcium and magnesium ion, to avoid reacting with your surfactant, so it’s not anti redeposition, just make to sure your surfactant can works
more hard water more STPP,
Just try maximum combination and you can see effectiveness by how much foam can be formed during application, more foam indicate more surfactant still works

STPP is soluble up to 14% in water. Do you suggest i use 14% STPP?

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

@Abdullah The question would be why do you need to add them. If it’s for softness (on hands I believe), there are other ingredients. If it’s for foaming or detergency, there are other more suitable polymers as well that do nos deposit as much.

The main purpose is to make the dishwasher milder for hands. 

Without a deposition aid, will there be any benefit of using other ingredients for hand softness?

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

Abdullah said:

ketchito said:

@GeorgeBenson Hydroxysultaines are very beautiful molecules: for the anionic part of the molecule, they have a sulfonate group (as any other high foaming anionic surfactant), but the hydroxyl group next to it can hydrogen bond with one of the oxygens, reducing charge density and making the molecule milder. Then you have the cationic nitrogen that changes how the molecule behaves when interacting with anionic surfactants (same as what CAPB does). 

So, when used alone I’d say CAP Hydroxysultaine is almost as mild as CAPB but more foamy. This is more evident when you pair them with an anionic surfactant. The downside with CAP Hydroxysultaine is that it impairs coacervate formation (but for a shower gel, that wouldn’t be an issue).

Why does it impair coacervate formation? 

Will lauryl hydroxysultaine also impair coacervate formation? 

In my experience if we replace CAPB with lauryl hydroxysultaine the conditioning effect on hair improves. 

@Abdullah Our ability to “measure” things is always limited and biased (that’s why for example, there are blinded studies and even double blinded, to remove any bias also from the researcher). If you want to compare conditioning from a cleansing formula, you could start by doing a coacervation (dilution) test.

But I don’t know how to perform a coacervation test?

Can you help? 

[Abdullah]

ariepfadli said:

See common technical sheet of wash machine energy rates or water selector level that you used during washing

Couldn’t find this data on technical sheet.

I cant find water selector level. Where should I look for it?

[Abdullah]

ariepfadli said:

Check 

Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC)

 of each surfactant that you used in formulation then multiply with 4, that minimum concentration your detergent for slightly to moderate dirt on the cloth, or multiply with 6 up to 8 for highly dirty cloth. Don’t forget to reduce active  surfactant availability based on hardness level water do you used

The problem is i have no idea with how much water it gets diluted during washing process in front door automatic machine. 

Any idea how to find it out?

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

@GeorgeBenson Hydroxysultaines are very beautiful molecules: for the anionic part of the molecule, they have a sulfonate group (as any other high foaming anionic surfactant), but the hydroxyl group next to it can hydrogen bond with one of the oxygens, reducing charge density and making the molecule milder. Then you have the cationic nitrogen that changes how the molecule behaves when interacting with anionic surfactants (same as what CAPB does). 

So, when used alone I’d say CAP Hydroxysultaine is almost as mild as CAPB but more foamy. This is more evident when you pair them with an anionic surfactant. The downside with CAP Hydroxysultaine is that it impairs coacervate formation (but for a shower gel, that wouldn’t be an issue).

Why does it impair coacervate formation? 

Will lauryl hydroxysultaine also impair coacervate formation? 

In my experience if we replace CAPB with lauryl hydroxysultaine the conditioning effect on hair improves. 

[Abdullah]

Clear cationic guar is 2 or 3 times more expensive that regular cationic guar. Keep that in mind. 

[Abdullah]

@chemicalmatt what about 1:1 ratio? 
Will it work even better than 2:1 or the sweet spot is 2:1?

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

@Abdullah Formula B foams more both for having a higher anionic level (as well as total surfactant level), and for having a mixture of SLES and LABSA. It also probably has better detergency.

EMPA soiled fabrics are standard soils used by the industry to evaluate the performance of laundry detergents vs different type of soils (https://www.mrpltd.com/html/empa_soiled_fabrics.html).

Thanks 

In this coding for example 101, does it mean we should put 90g soil in 1 m2 fabric or 90g detergent in 1 m2 soiled fabric?