[Abdullah]

@Perry thanks. 
I will do such claim too hahahah. 

[Abdullah]

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]

How much DMDM hydantoin and benzyl alcohol is there?

[Abdullah]

I mean from base shampoo formula, make several samples. Add these extra ingredients one in each sample. Then evaluate which one is not stable. 

[Abdullah]

Are you selling this product or for your own use? 

SLES, CAPB, amphodiacetate preservative with some sodium chloride makes stable formula. Add ingredients one by one and see which one cause separation

[Abdullah]

It is about 75% active

75.428571428571%

[Abdullah]

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

@ketchito

[Abdullah]

@PhilGeis thanks

[Abdullah]

@vitalys @ariepfadli thanks

[Abdullah]

@Pharma @PhilGeis then what percentage of salt is prohibitive to microbial growth?

Also does 35 g/100 ml solubility mean 35%?

[Abdullah]

@jemolian yeah but some say 4.5 and that confuses me

[Abdullah]

Maybe centuries ago these surfactants weren’t available.  

Now that it has better alternative why use it? 

Centuries ago we were traveling on donkey. That was best on that time because there wasn’t a better option available. Now that we have care the donkey is no longer the best option. 
Although donkey is natural and car is unnatural too hahaha.

[Abdullah]

@Perry thanks 

Where we can watch all of these Q&As? 

[Abdullah]

ketchito said:

Abdullah said:

@ketchito 30 minutes for what batch size? 

Let’s say for a 100kg, but this also depends on your mixing speed and the ratio of your mixer diameter/container diameter, so the 20-30 min are referential (the main idea is to give the system enough energy to overcome crystalization while increasing interactions for later micellar arrangement).

Good. 
I thought it is for small or sample batches because  the emulsion he is making is less than 500g

[Abdullah]

What is this used for?

[Abdullah]

@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? 

[Abdullah]

@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?

[Abdullah]

@MelindaNicole thanks

[Abdullah]

@ariepfadli very reasonable explanation. Thanks.

So if we apply moisturizer immediately after AHA or BHA leave on exfoliant, does it reduce the effectiveness of exfoliant? 

If yes, then how much time should we wait before applying moisturizer?

[Abdullah]

DaveStone said:

Abdullah said:

Yes. They don’t clean as well as anionic

That leads me to another question…are nonionic or amphoteric surfactants sufficient for daily facial cleansing? I could see if you haven’t washed your face in a week or so, then maybe something stronger is warranted. Does it take much to get a face clean, that hasn’t been washed in 12-42 hours? Is a mild surfactant strong enough to rid the skin of previously applied moisturizer/lotion?

I don’t wash my face daily with cleanser. For daily wash pure water is enough. 

I wash my hair and face and body 2 or 3 times a week with one product for all and that has about 11% SLS and SLES and that is completely fine for me.

[Abdullah]

DaveStone said:

Is castile (olive oil) soap anionic?

Soap is bad

[Abdullah]

Yeah, if it was pH 4 it would have been better than this even without any preservative ????

[Abdullah]

zetein said:

@DaveStone Post was talking about acidic or neutral-as-water cleansers based on synthenic surfactants. Alkaline fatty acid soaps should never be recommened as it directly neutralize intercellular lipids and also leave scums onto skin and cause irritation.

pH7 products won’t do this. And their effect on the pH balance of skin is negligible because it’s the same as that of tap water in the rinsing process which is an inevitable despite the acidic cleanser you might use.

I think water vs surfactant at ph7 is not the same because water is weakly and surfactant is strongly buffered. At least stronger than water.

Same as a glass of lemon juice vs a glas of water with a teaspoon of lemon juice. Both will have pH 2 but the effort from pH 2 in pure lemon juice is stronger. 

[Abdullah]

vitalys said:

@Abdullah I doubt the formulations at pH7 could be milder in terms of “dryness” especially in long term perspective. The neutral and alkaline pH ( for the SC) inhibits important enzymes, including those that regulates lamellar bodies, which produce intercellular lipids. At the same time pH 7 and higher hydrates (not moisturizes) the Stratum Corneum for a short period of time. After that water evaporates quickly. Hyperhydration leads to disruption in corneocytes packing. I guess, authors considered short period of time of hyperhydration to be “milder”. Only buffering system of the skin helps to recover the normal (acidic) pH after use. 

When i tested I also felt the same product at pH 5 was milder than 7 but that maybe just my imagination because i wanted to be like this. ????

[Abdullah]

vitalys said:

This old diagram explains the correlation between pH and electric charge. 

@vitalys does this chart mean below 4 skin has positive charge and above 4 negative charge?

Also where did you get this char?