[Abdullah]

PhilGeis said:

Forgot to wash (clean) and assume forgot to sanitize and black dots (suggest black fungi).
the product would be reasonably considered adulterated - “If it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth.”

suggest you scrap the product and focus on a production system not in control.

i wash equipments before production and sanitize them. after production another workers washes the equipments. we dont sanitize equipments after production.(shoud we sanitize equipments afer production too?)

 befor production, tank and all equipments was sanitized with 100ppm hypochlorit solution for 30 minutes. that hoper was from filling machine and it was sanitized with 70% ethanol before use. after production someone toke that hoper outside and they forgot to wash it or clean it. they saw it after 3 days and told me and i asked here.

there is no visible sighn of anything bad with product that has been packaged.

do you think raw materials were contaminated with fungi or equipments werent clean enough befor production even after being washed, sanitized with hypoclorit and ethanol and rinsed with production water( filter water)?

does it look like aspergillus brasiliensis or some other fungi?

what did you mean by this one.” and focus on a production system not in control.”? i didnt get the idea from this.

[Abdullah]

PhilGeis said:

Don’t recall tottle caps I’ve used have carried those distinctions.  Filled and inverted, it may not make much difference.

Pressure differentials can play a trick.  Product made and packaged in midwest US, sold in high altitude markets can squirt a little product at 1st customer opening.

i have used these two flip top type caps. the red one works fine but the green one, if we squeaze the bottle, from some of them air comes out. that air also has the smell of fragrance i use in that shampoo. as my preservative is formalin that has gas it made me wory. 
when i asked the suplier about it they siad that these caps are water-tight and not air-tight. is this normall for shampoo or lotion bottles that if we squeez the bottle, air come out from it?

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

@Abdullah DMAPA and LAPDMA for instance…you could ask your supplier for technical info about it.

thanks

[Abdullah]

MarkBroussard said:

@Abdullah

What they are calling Polyethylene is almost certainly LDPE (Low Density Polyethylene) which is used in packaging.  HDPE is generally used for rigid structure items such as cutting boards.  It sounds as though this supplier may not know the difference between LDPE and HDPE.

that may be the case.
thanks

[Abdullah]

amitvedakar said:

PE in HDPE stands for polyethylene.  HDPE bottle is not transparent. PET, HDPE, LDPE are different grades of PE. as I know.

i also thiks so. but as they said this is polyethylene, i thought maybe they are calling HDPE as polyethylene.

[Abdullah]

 

they also make these jars from that plastic they call Polyethylene.

[Abdullah]

they said we have two types plastic. Polyethylene and PET. 
this one is PET. So the bottles above would be something other than PET.

[Abdullah]

they say these are polyethylene bottles. are these HDPE?

[Abdullah]

evchem2 said:

HDPE is high density polyethylene, it is polyethylene but has different properties than lower density

https://sciencing.com/differences-hdpe-plastic-polyethylene-plastic-6807965.html
https://omicoplastics.com/blog/ldpe-hdpe-similarities-and-differences/

thanks a lot

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

@Abdullah Just check closely the purity of your CAPB. CAPB has been found to be allergenic in some studies, mostly because of some organic impurities.

what impurities should i look for?

i am using it at 3% which is 0.9% active surfactant. currently my concern is that it is preserved with CMI MI.

[Abdullah]

Perry said:

Looks like for a leave on product it has been deemed safe up to 6%

got it 
thanks

[Abdullah]

Why are sodium gluconate and xanthan gum highest in your formulas. 

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

Abdullah said:

@ketchito in the ulprospector Link, what is your opinion about these two

Other factors that effect deposition

1. Coacervate rheology
is it the actual product viscosity or product viscosity during shampooing when coacervate is formed? 

2. Electrolytes reduce the amount of coacervate.
doesnt it mean reduced deposition? 

1) that’s a good question; I believe it’s products viscosity, since, if the product is too viscous, it’d be hard to dilute it so coacervate is formed before you rinsed-off the product

So higher product viscosity is better to form coacervate, correct? 

[Abdullah]

PhilGeis said:

Be aware - don’t see it listed in Annex V - Cosmetic Directive
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/pdf/COSING_Annex%20V_v2.pdf

Thanks 

[Abdullah]

Pharma said:

Both wouldn’t be allowed in the EU and both don’t look ‘mild’ to me. Ah well, the world is overpopulated anyway…

I will not sell it in Europe and all these ingredients are allowed here.

Is it because of formalin or something else in the formula that you think it is not mild? 

My another preservative option is CMI MI but i think formalin is milder than CMI MI. 

[Abdullah]

No it would not be possible

[Abdullah]

Perry said:

If the consumers can’t feel the difference then why does the answer matter? Just make a product that consumers like.

The truth is that you’re asking a question that doesn’t have a simple answer. The characteristic of “conditioning” is a subjective one. So whether something is more conditioning or less depends on what you are measuring. 

Your measure is based on asking people. So there is no way you can theoretically guess what they will think.

We are a group of 5 people who test my every product to see how it feels in every aspect. I am sure that when we 5 people can’t tell the difference doesn’t mean no one or majority of people can’t.

As I don’t have another method to measure differences, knowing what difference in theory would a change in product ingredients bring will help a lot. 

[Abdullah]

PhilGeis said:

The CIR Expert Panel concluded that formaldehyde and
methylene glycol are safe for use in cosmetics when formulated
to ensure use at the minimal effective concentration, but in no
case should the formalin (note 1) concentration exceed 0.2%
(w/w), which would be 0.074% (w/w) calculated as formaldehyde or 0.118% (w/w) calculated as methylene glycol.
https://online.personalcarecouncil.org/ctfa-static/online/lists/cir-pdfs/PRNS547.pdf

Thanks 
That is a good news that 0.1% formalin is safe for babies. 

[Abdullah]

Perry said:

How are you measuring conditioning?

I don’t have equipments to measure it. My measurement is by asking people how their hair feel when it is dry and how much easy it is to comb when wet and dry. 

That is why a lot of time i am asking here how the conditioning effects are in theory. Because most of the consumers can’t feel the difference properly. 

[Abdullah]

@ketchito in the ulprospector Link, what is your opinion about these two

Other factors that effect deposition

1. Coacervate rheology
is it the actual product viscosity or product viscosity during shampooing when coacervate is formed? 

2. Electrolytes reduce the amount of coacervate.
doesnt it mean reduced deposition? 

[Abdullah]

What are you using glucosides for and at what percentage of your total surfactant?

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

@Abdullah You can actually start with this book: Principles of Polymer Science and Technology in Cosmetics and Personal Care.

ULprospector also has an article about it (although only related to coacervates): https://knowledge.ulprospector.com/638/pcc-understanding-deposition-rinse-products/

Now, here are some interestin papers (the first ons is my favorite on the topic):

1) http://www.scientificspectator.com/documents/surfactant%20spectator/surfactant%20interaction/2006%20Coacervate.pdf
2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9292326/
3) https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jos/68/6/68_ess19081/_pdf
 

Thanks a lot 

[Abdullah]

chemicalmatt said:

Nope! That’s only one-half the USP monograph NClO activity for a wound care wash. It may dry your skin a lot, but at least it’ll be sterilized.

Thanks 

[Abdullah]

Perry said:

It does both. Mostly it removes the conditioning ingredients. But some of it combines with the cationic & forms an insoluble salt that stays behind on hair.

I have made some insoluble salts by mixing 0.2% cationic and 2% anionic surfactants. They made insoluble salt. Then when i mixed this salt with phenoxyethanol or glycerin it turned into a very sticky substance that was extremely difficult to remove from mixing equipment or from skin. I didn’t use them on hair ????.

Question: this insoluble salt if anionic surfactant is SLES, cationic surfactant is BTAC, cationic polymer is cationic guar, will it be more conditioning than BTAC or cationic guar in their cationic form or less? 

If less then how can we say we get additional conditioning? 

[Abdullah]

@ketchito this patent page is in English but when i download it, the language changes to Chinese. Is there any way to download it in English?