aperson
Forum Replies Created
-
Dry powders rarely have bacterial problems (unless the material itself already had bacterial problems in its raw form and subsequent processing did not get rid of it). In point of fact, keeping something dry is a somewhat decent way to make sure you don’t have a microbiological problem. Also helps with yeast/mildew.
If your product is intended to be wet, than you probably want a low bacterial count + preservative. Some natural products, are very dirty. You just cant get past the source. Others more refined versions, typically have less bacteria as the processing gets rid of it.
Rarely is there a cut-and-dried answer. And much depends on the source, and the processing.
—
you are asking a fair amount of legal questions. this would require consulting a lawyer.
-
@MArchambault
don’t bother switching out your materiale (HDPE is the low end of the packaging spectrum, they’ll all have thin walls).hot-fill. HDPE is pretty inert (chemically), but its thermal coefficient of expansion, is beyond ridiculous. so when your product cools, it pulls in a side. in your case, “the weak side”.
unless you have insanely thick walls, this will be a problem (due to your material choice).
either fill cooler (unlikely), or give it time to acclimize before releasing it to labeling. dealers choice.
re: the soft spot. that is a wall thickness issue. there you might get some benefit from switching to a better grade (i.e. thicker wall size). but you don’t want to go too thick (causes other problems).
note: switching what your bottle is made of, is also likely to cause formulation-specific issues (particularly PET).
HDPE, is a good choice (unless you really really need clear).
Just learn to work with it.
-
I was just discussing something similar with one of the forum members in pm
316 is the only way to go, 304 is garbage (for purposes of cosmetics). you might be able to get buy with some passivation, but long term the problem is that 304 isn’t stainless under salt + heat, chemical attack conditions. 316 is basic marine grade. the problem is the vast majority of equipment is made with 304, particularly at the low end. they’re not made to handle a heated saline solution, period. I consider anyone selling cosmetics processing equipment with 304 as “planned obsolescence”, as the equipment is guaranteed to degrade with regular use under cosmetic processing conditions.
> I think that what’s happening is that “stainless” relies on a very thin passivated coat (reaction with O2) and the surfactants destroy
it’s the salt. ss depends on self-passivization. once your start eroding the surface finish, this accelerates the process and the metals in the surface inhibiting rust corrosion, cease to function. ammonia compounds are very aggressive.
citric acid will fix it if you damage the lining (regenerate the surface finish by removing what couldn’t be dissolved).
see above.
How did your teacher handle the whole “thermoplastic” portion with regard to heating? Was he using a thermoset plastic? I was considering plastic at the very beginning but I was concerned about structural integrity under heating.
-
-
> @aperson - Your assertion “I have the best evidence in the world. I use it. when I get burned” demonstrates that you and I do not share compatible philosophies about knowledge and truth.
Could be. I learn from everything.
> Science isn’t a perfect system, but it is far superior to any other system created for figuring out what’s true.
No.
—
I wrote a longer reply, more eloquent, full of interesting facts, real-world examples, valuable insight into the history of science and the scientific method.
But this ^^, is what I posted.
Thats how far, we’ve regressed in the West. And, in my lifetime.
-
… (continued from prior post)
@all:lastly, with regard to “homeopathics”; on the bright side, their shit is so diluted that the bioactivity is likely nil. makes your 1%, look like a giant amount. but, if you believe in homeopathic medicines, and you buy and take homeopathic medicines, and a placebo effect has an actual effect (either palliatively, psycosomatically, or what have you), then you have just, by definition, treated yourself.
I don’t much care for homeopathics; but it doesn’t offend me any more than say, the “fairydusting” in cosmetics. As Galen said, “all medicine, is toxic”; and Parhelius said: “toxicity, is a question of dosage”. If you are cavalier about the substances you are working with, be concerned. Because all that crap that you throw into a formula willy-nilly, using raw materials with unknown strengths, unknown compounds, unknown effects, can have an effect. (2)
And here, is the real travesty of it. Most of what you put in your formulas, you don’t want in your formulas. But you let some marketing twat force it on you. What exactly, are their credentials? You, at least, are the formulator. That means its YOUR business, what goes into your formulas. Tomorrow if marketing demanded you dump radium in your formulas for the “warm tingly” sensorial, are you going to do it? Then why is a botanical different?
—
(1) three if you include witchcraft four if you include fauna as a separate category (particularly marine); I do not. -
> Thanks for your thorough comments.
I try.
>”countless people, across countless cultures, have aloe vera plants in their kitchens. this is not, arbitrary. if you think that this plant, is somehow “fairy dust”, you need to seriously reconsider your position.”
> The first is Argument from Popularity. The fact that lots of people use aloe is not evidence that it actually works.yeah I’m stupid like that. when I go into a new clime; I do what the natives do. I don’t argue out of ignorance, that my understanding is somehow more superior than their customs, having lived in their environs all their lives.
reminds me of that story about the Brits showing up, and running an African colonies farming using “modern” “scientific” agricultural techniques. Crop yield plummeted by 50%. After a decade of famine, one Brit says “hey, the natives here had a planting method, maybe we should try that”. Next year, full crop yields.
Whether you like it or not, its a fact. Aloe Vera is in tons of kitchens. Maybe you don’t cook. I do. So maybe, you’re just not familiar with the properties.
> “That for some 2000+ years, botanical extracts, were in fact, the major source of medicines for the world…”
> These are both logical fallacies and are not persuasive arguments.
logical fallacies? there were only two major sources of medicines up until the 18th century; botanicals, and minerals (1). by far the botanical outweighed the mineral components, which didn’t pick up until analytical chemistry took off; circa 1850 or so. Why do you think, that was the golden age of “patent medicines”?
Personally it doesn’t matter to me whether its botanical or mineral; so long as its effective.
> The second is Argument from Antiquity. The fact that botanicals have been used for 2000+ years is not evidence that they work.
no offense, but simply because something was prevalent in antiquity, does not disprove its effectiveness. And countless studies have demonstrated that a fair amount of the medicines from antiquity have active curative or palliative effects.
the past, is the past. and facts, are facts. So while I appreciate that you think a vague philosophical argument of “logical fallacy” acts as a disproof, you are right on one and only one aspect: we do have differing conclusions.
> And anecdotal evidence is also not proof of anything.
I’m always surprised, at this concept that ‘anectodotal’ evidence, is “not proof of anything”. Far from it; unlike scientific “evidence”, anecdotal evidence is easy to replicate and reproduce (“hence its oral transmission”); does not suffer from ‘arbitrary’ p-values cut offs (“it either works, or it doesn’t”), does not require knowledge of priors in probabilities for unknowns (“knowing the unknowable”).
You seem to think, that the only way to mint knowledge, is to get a scientist to say it is a fact. But the truth is, that being observant, is far more utilitarian in life, than reading some half-baked study, that completely misses the point (“women, endocrine distruptors, tea tree oil”), is questionable in its methodology (statistically “controls” for error rather than removes it), is indistinguishable from the placebo effect (due to p-value blindness to priors), or is completely unreproducible, or worse, politicized or flat-out faked.
Science (REAL science), was never meant to be an altar; nor was it meant to be the sole source of knowledge. To claim so, particularly with its many many known flaws under its modern interpretation, is in your parlance “an appeal to authority”.
Most particularly, a scientific report, is not meant to replace critical thought.
“as to inflammation (or burns) it definitely is bioactive.”> You say this with such certainty without supporting evidence. Of course, maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “bioactive.”
I have the best evidence in the world. I use it. when I get burned. and it definitely cuts down on the inflammation/tissue damage. Mind you, I use toothpaste first as its more effective in dropping the heat in the tissues without subjecting it to additional damage (thermocycling with ice). but once that’s done it’s work, aloe vera goes on. I could use the aloe vera directly, but it requires multiple applications to get the same “cooling” effect that a smear of smudged up toothepaste gets (due to chemistry). the goal of course, is to suck out as much EXTRA heat out of the tissues, without subjecting it to freezing. if its a light burn I skip the toothpaste and go straight for the aloe vera.
> In my opinion only a double blind placebo controlled trial is the only way here. This is were all the homeopathy nonsense also fails.
#1 - up until the 1950’s, most double-blind studies were done with men. which means NONE of the medicines studied under clinical studies, were valid for women. Some of the medicines that were clinically beneficial for men, were actually harmful to women.
#2 - up until about the 1980’s, most of the double-blind studies were performed primarily on white people. Which means that people of color, had the same problems women had in the 1950’s.
#3 - up until the present, the outsourcing of “double-blind” studies to poor countries incentivized financially to self-select “beneficial” results (to maintain their monopoly on clinical testing, in foreign jurisdictions i.e. with little oversight), has led to a rash of “faked” clinical studies. But don’t take my word for it, look it up on the FDA website. Circa 1999 is when they started getting hip to the con.
#4 - a study came out around 2008, that determined that p-value hacking had destroyed the integrity of the “scientific method”, that many of the drugs where not actually better than their prior counterparts, some were in fact worse; and further, that a majority of the borderline medicines “curative” effects were actually due to an understated “placebo” effect.
I could go on, but you get the gist.
(continued on next post)
-
though why you would want a “foamy” clay mask, somewhat escapes me. isn’t the purpose of a clay mask, to expand on the face, and trap dirt so when you pull it off, the dirt comes off?
-
lookup “crackling cream”
-
typically you only see these “bulk” sizes at industrial supply. and not for consumer “refill”. for the reasons mentioned in the thread.
—
you are basically seeing, break-pack on industrial products.
-
“prepubescent boys”.
-
@AUteatree
I suppose, it must be common, for prepubescent brothers, to both grow tits where you’re from, on changing a shampoo.
They tracked it back to the “botanicals shampoo” they were using (the only change). Discontinuing the use of the shampoo, corrected the problem.
… about three years later, they publish a study, where both tea tree oil, and lavender, show up as having severe endocrine disrupting effects (published in late 2017 as I recall).
Much as I love the whole “they didn’t test the right component” debate (or any one of the myriad forms of cherry picking scientific “facts”), where I’m from, when you knock out the endocrine disruptor, and the boys both cease growing tits, this is sufficient to establish a causal relationship.
As to the specific botanicals, who knows? Cultivars, collection methods, and soil conditions heavily affect expression of specific compounds; as does method of storage, concentration, plant parts, or even, supply chain issues.
And then there is the genetic predisposition (particular to the individual) to respond to these particular compounds (either biochemically, through anomalous protein expression, or environmental protective effects). What may be carcinogenic to one person; may be entirely harmless to another.
But the point remains. Whether you like it or not. Throwing in random botanicals, without any knowledge of their actual potency, or bioactivity as “fairydust” is, potentially dangerous and irresponsible. As is, conflating no effect based on historical uses of putting in very small amounts.
Furthermore, its the attitude regarding botanicals and their usage in cosmetics that I was addressing. In both directions (dismissive of having no effect; dismissive of having an effect).
Lastly, consider - that even in the synthetic species of chemicals, allergic response is itself, inconsistent (depending on aforementioned genetic predispositions, as well as sensitizing environmental conditions). Yet this forum is filled with countless changes, to avoid potential allergenic responses of specific chemical compounds. And not just in response to a “marketing” concern.
> yet gynecomastia is a “rare condition”.
Which is why the original story caught my eye.… Right up there with prepubescent girls, growing beards (from residuals on testosterone cream transfers) - about two years before any doctor even thought to mention the possibility.
I like, to stay ahead of the curve.
As to tea tree oil, I leave it up to the authors of the recent study if they wish to refute your allegations. Perhaps you should write them with your concerns. I have no vested interest. I certainly, WILL NEVER, be using tea tree oil in any of my formulations. Just out of caution, you understand.
With respect to lavendar, yes I know its bioactive. Definitely.
One last point:> Most of the tested compounds from TTO and Lavender do not penetrate the dermal/skin barrier and enter the bloodstream – solid data on this exists. How can compounds cause systemic disruptions if they are not systemic when applied topically?
I think, you should not confuse, “penetration of the dermal/skin barrier” as the ONLY method of entry into the bloodstream.Plenty of compounds which were thought to “not be possible” to transmit through skin, show up in higher concentrations in blood when topically applied. In fact, I believe one of the chemists here actually had such a problem (for which I was thankful he shared his experience, as in fact, this is a common “inclusion” in formulations).
-
> Sorry for my delayed response.
no problem
thank you for the reply, it was quite helpful & informative.I was trying to figure out if its worth it to run a traditional manufacturing environment at a moderate scale, vs a manufacturing concern + distribution & storage outsourced operation.
the question mark (to my mind) is the actual benefits that amazon has a serious (non-trivial) competitive advantage in, vs the cost structure imposed and additional third-party risks (separating out the 3pl, from the catalog & analytics service), plus ancillary concerns (leaving a large chunk of the business to the whim and dictates of a third party with significantly larger negotiating power).
I will have to think some more on your answers.
-
you should check out some videos on ostwald ripening. they’ve made some progress in CFD simulations - fascinating process. particularly with respect to geometry of the container, and headspace.
-
yes I am understanding, that you (as chemists) are in between a rock and a hard place (having read a large set of older posts). that is, any “biologically active” botanical (claim, ingredient covered by monograph) triggers OTC.
Which in turn means that “functional” percentage use of ingredients (required amounts for therapeutic use), is essentially unknown in “cosmetics” formulation, leaving you stuck putting in 1%’ers, which does nothing but screw up the chemistry of your products, without any actual gain.
I empathize. Having read, probably around 100 discussions on this forum, it is easy to see why “naturals” are covered with such disdain for any potential therapeutic effect. But you have to realize; this is because you are deliberately limited in your use of them (with respect to functional therapeutic use, or marketing of those uses).
I think this is why, for example belassi, has repeatedly shown interest, and successfully developed a product (as he does not face this same “dilemma”).
With the FDA, not eager to expand the repertoire of monographed active ingredients in several classes of “cosmetics”, despite science indicating that there is indeed a therapeutic effect; and with a very uncertain supply (botanical-based api’s need even higher standards than chemical manufacturing, as there is the additional layers of cultivation and cultivar influencing yield, bioactivity & synergestic cofactor effect); I understand, and empathize.
Having said this; do consider: That for some 2000+ years, botanical extracts, were in fact, the major source of medicines for the world (with a couple of notable exceptions with respect to inorganics) including topical applications intended to improve appearance.
That you are unable to capitalize on them, does not mean they are worthless. That you are “forced to fairydust” (at some consternation!), does not mean they are not active. Quite the contrary.
> Therefore people are usually using a tiny bit of the powder for the marketing story.
indeed. I see your point but you have to think, not everyone who is reading this forum, knows this. if this forum, is a valuable resource, for those entering into the field, it makes sense to present the complete picture. And with respect, if you are forced to fairydust, don’t presume that this reflects on the potency or “therapeutic” effects of the underlying ingredients. And IF you are forced to fairydust, and do not take the time to understand the different types of botanics, their bioactivity, their preparations, and what effects their potency, than be thankful you are stuck at 1%!
I am reminded of the indiscriminate use of tea tree oil, and lavender oil, for example in shampoo’s, and resulting gynocomastia in prepubescent boys as a clear warning, that even at “fairydust” inclusion, things can still have major functional effects.
While I did not intend to write a small treatise; I posted, simply to correct the information on Aloe Vera, with respect to its uses. Since I am unfamiliar with your field (still learning), I am unsure as to wha
-
bearing in mind that I haven’t done cosmetics manufacturing, much less using “jacketed kettles” - I did some preliminary research and willing to share.
jacketed kettle is currently constructed using a “dimpled” shell method. this introduces turbulence to the flow to allow even heating throughout the entire shell.
apparently the problem with a plenum-style jacket, is that it allows condensation to form, which destroys the evenness of the heat. I imagine a double-boiler/bain marie to suffer from the same problems.
if heating the liquid evenly is your goal, then a steam or electric jacket will do it, in style.
typical uses of heat (from what I’ve read) tend to be three-fold:
* initially melting solids (waxes, oils), typically for mixing or dispersion
* preheating water/oil in preparation for phase-inversion (emulsification)
* prepping for a specific ingredients optimum incorporation (at a specific temperature).if your product is the type to incorporate materials which are sensitive to over-heating, and have a strong temperature/density correlation, you would likely prefer to have a jacketed kettle; but depending on the style of overhead mixing you are doing, you may be able to get by with something that efficiently moves the fluid around (including at the boundaries!).
good luck.
-
> To think people also eat/drink this stuff. “It’s a strong detox! I got rid of my constipation immediately!”
Just an FYI, aloe vera is a mucilent (mucilage); it creates a slime in the intestine. which is, what some people need. and its well-tested, there are tons of people in Latin cultures who drink it.
the key, for consumption (drinking), is to use the gel on the interior of the leaf, and not the entire leaf. If you are getting a “detox” effect, its because you are likely drinking a “whole leaf” extract (maceration of the entire leaf, rather than physical extraction of the interior of the leaf).
as to inflammation (or burns) it definitely is bioactive. with respect to burns, you need to reduce the heat in the tissues (without cycling with cold!). Any water/nano slurry will technically suck the heat out, almost immediately (i.e. try toothpaste slurried next time!).
But, aloe-vera also hydrates, and I suspect highly is bioactive with respect to actual inflammation. that it also sucks out heat is actually a byproduct of the hydrogel (as in it contributes, part, but not all of the effect). in this respect a thick slurry of toothpaste, works better (heat removal).
countless people, across countless cultures, have aloe vera plants in their kitchens. this is not, arbitrary. if you think that this plant, is somehow “fairy dust”, you need to seriously reconsider your position.
-
… with nice graph:
SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISMS LEADING TO COALESENCE OF AN OIL-IN-WATER EMULSION
—
website ran out of /tmp storage space while I was posting
so it didn’t pick up the rest of the post. -
@Perry
might I inquire as to the subjective benefits for amazon FBA, from your perspective?
- the elimination of pick-and-pack (deaggregation of unitized products)?
- the outsourcing of a ‘storage’ warehouse space?
- the benefits of scale, respective to pricing on customer-bound transportation?
- the constancy of pricing with respect to outbound transportation (you to amazon)?
- the platform analytics (on transportation and sales)
- the customer relations management (reverse logistics)
- (some other factors?)
I’m asking because of the following:
- giving up your customer and sales data to a third party
- paying holding costs on inventory directly to amazon
- having to double handle small orders more than twice
- warehousing space needed to temporarily hold aggregated shipments
- lack of ability to negotiate directly with your “transportation” provider
- “additional” hurdles not directly related to direct sales, but third-party distribution
- increased customer aggregation, at the cost of increased supplier aggregation (pricing/substitution).
I’m not super familiar with Amazon’s back-end processes. So I’m wondering if the additional costs, are balanced by the benefits. So far as I can think, the main two benefits that are difficult to match are the low pick-and-pack of an automated system, and the transportation-negotiation power of a multi-billion dollar distribution system. Do you find that ‘returns’ are an issue (i.e. what prominence does reverse logistics play, in response to customer acceptance of goods).
feel free to respond publicly, or privately
select which (if any points) you would like to address/hilite etc. I’m simply curious.I’m weighing the pro’s and con’s, so to speak. and whether or not, with respect to the cosmetics industry, if there might be some compelling factor vis-a-vis product selection, to prefer handling items myself, or simply dumping a bunch of product into amazon and letting them handle the last section.
thanks
—
btw (with respect to your website, I just got a popup notification):
“disk full (/tmp/@sql_3ff_3.MAI); waiting for someone to free some space… (errno: 28 “No space left on device”)
of which, in checking, I am 99.99% sure, is NOT a local notification. you may elect to contact your system administrator and inquire as to the servers (“temporary”) space.
-
“ISFET sensor characterization”
details on this type of ISFET ph meteres
-
well said mikethair.
-
> Do you validate the calibration, of your the inspectors watch?
Do you validate the calibration, of your the systems clock?
—I’m not making excuses; I’m making a point. You have a far more sensitive “control” that isn’t calibrated at all; in fact, I doubt its even entered your mind to consider it. Which is ironic, given its importance. AND NOT, an RH meter.
-
“Of course it does.”
No, it really doesn’t.
—
Tell me, is time a control in your procedures?
Do you validate the calibration, of your the inspectors watch?
-
old articles, come up in google.
the specificity of the container used to do the distillation, of merit.
-
thats a great tip, thanks for sharing!
—
regarding copper vs ss, copper has better heat transfer; besides the “possibility” that copper is acting as a catalyst, its entirely possible that the distribution of heat interacted with the extraction.
I know for a fact, that at least one medicinal botanical extraction, showed marked difference in activity, when replicated using the original copper equipment. as I recall, lavender was one of the components.
I would not put it above the pale, that the copper has some beneficial effect.
about four years back. it was quite interesting work.
