Benz3ne
Forum Replies Created
-
You should be able to back-work it to some degree.
If a shop sells a shampoo for $3 and you know from your discussions that the markup has to be e.g. 25% then you know it’s been sold to the shop for $2.40.
If you’ve a rough idea of packaging, material, production & labour costs then you can approximate how much profit they’re making.
Whether that profit aligns with what you’re happy with, or whether you’re making a profit at all, will help you govern your wholesale/trade price.What is obvious yet worth noting is that the more you produce the lower your costs will likely be.
If you can buy 2x the packaging, or 10x, the price per unit typically drops quickly.
Same goes for raw materials. Thereafter you’re either maximising profit or able to undercut competition. -
Climatechangeanxiety said:why can’t it simply use contain surfactants + unsaponified oil?
It can. You oftentimes get inexpensive soaps that are SLES + CDEA + salt + something oily for feel when using. However, they’ll be less efficacious as a shampoo/handwash as a proportion of the surfactants will be ‘used’ for solubilising oils.
Bear in mind you can also superfat saponified oils. Granted higher pH’s aren’t ideal but they can still result in some conditioning.
-
Pharma said:Unlikely. I think that’s because sunscreen absorbs (and sometimes reflects/emits) certain wavelengths which changes the spectrum or rather has our brain interpret the colour we perceive differently. Pink is a colour which our brain ‘creates’, it’s not a real colour but interpreted due to a gap in the spectrum.
It could be though.
Blue = from ‘white’ sunscreen.
Red = from darker skin tones.
The sum of the above = purple.The majority of the absorption/reflection wavelengths for sunscreens is shorter than what the eye can see anyway, right? So I don’t understand why this would amend our perception.
For sunscreens that leave a white trace, it could either be the above (giving a purple effect) or the simple combination of white from particular ingredients (TiO2 or ZnO, especially if not micronised) plus darker skin tones (which could give the more ‘pink’ attributes as you mentioned). -
To clarify, you’re not distilling?
You’ll only get somewhere between 15-25% max that way depending on how hardy your yeasts are. Anything above that and it’s too challenging a condition for yeast to survive.
Thereafter you’ll need to distil to have high concentrations of ethanol. -
MattTheChemist said:Take a look at GranLux AOX from Paradigm. I’ve been playing around with it and it’s performing well. High heat tolerance.
Great, thanks for the nod towards GranLux AOX, Matt.
-
Dan said:Interesting on the Synthalen W600 @chemicalmatt. I hadn’t heard of this product, so will read up on it.
For the Carbopol Ultrez 20/21 I have an mixing question - after letting the powder self wet into the water, I would then add the SLS. Can I turn the mixer on full blast to get the SLS to dissolve in, or would this damage the powder?
As @Paprik correctly mentions use low shear. Depends on what your mixer is, really. I’ve seen a shear homogeniser in action for bulk production that worked surprisingly well and benchtops I use a hand blender after wetting which has worked fine for Carbomer 940 (in both cases).
-
Oladoo said:Hello,
Does anyone knows how sulphur can be dissolved?
Why?
-
Both TEA and Carbomer have some scent associated with it. The TEA being amine is typical of amines and can be a little towards the ‘fishy’ side.
Carbomer is more acrid and not dissimilar to acetic acid in some cases. The combination of the two can smell a little ‘gluey’ I’d have though.
This might be exacerbated by being stored (a) in bulk and (b) in a sealed container where the volatile portions might accumulate.May I ask why you’re making bulk gel ahead of time? What is the gel used for?
-
Benz3ne said:PhilGeis said:1. Accepotance criteria in what context? Might consider ISO 29621 for micro risk. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:29621:ed-2:v1:en
2. “Reasonably archaic”. Please don’t be casual re. GMP’s. Per the Drective:
To ensure their safety, cosmetic products placed on the
market should be produced according to good manufacturing practice.1. Exactly. I’ll have a look into the standard but neither the EC No. 1223/2009 or ISO 22716:2007 are particularly explicit on examples of acceptance criteria, nor tests specific to acceptance criteria.
2. Yes, of course. I’ve probably painted it in a poorer light than it deserves, truthfully. The only aspect that is truly ‘missing’ right now is the tests for acceptance criteria.
Would colourimetry suffice in the case of certain shades/colours of product? Or specular gloss tests if it was matte (or glossy)? What about spreadability?Furthering your point 1. Acceptance criteria in terms of finished product. We’ve relied on supplier CoA given our quality standard stipulates supplier audit etc. as outlined in 22716:2007.
-
The other option that’s alluded to in the UK/EU is peelable labels that then give two additional surfaces for information. I don’t have any experience with them in a manufacturing capacity but they’re pretty commonplace here.
-
PhilGeis said:1. Accepotance criteria in what context? Might consider ISO 29621 for micro risk. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:29621:ed-2:v1:en
2. “Reasonably archaic”. Please don’t be casual re. GMP’s. Per the Drective:
To ensure their safety, cosmetic products placed on the
market should be produced according to good manufacturing practice.1. Exactly. I’ll have a look into the standard but neither the EC No. 1223/2009 or ISO 22716:2007 are particularly explicit on examples of acceptance criteria, nor tests specific to acceptance criteria.
2. Yes, of course. I’ve probably painted it in a poorer light than it deserves, truthfully. The only aspect that is truly ‘missing’ right now is the tests for acceptance criteria.
Would colourimetry suffice in the case of certain shades/colours of product? Or specular gloss tests if it was matte (or glossy)? What about spreadability? -
Perry said:Yeah, saying you’re allergic to “synthetic fragrances” is similar to saying you are allergic to “all animals.” No one is allergic to all animals. You may be allergic to cats or dogs or ferrets but not all animals. Similarly, you may be allergic to one or two of the components found in some synthetic fragrances but you are not allergic to all synthetic fragrances because they are not chemically the same.
The only way you can really know is having patch tests done.
Or, you may be allergic to all animals but the classes of animal you’re allergic to are still separate/individual. You could be allergic to cats + allergic to dogs + allergic to [insert animal name here] but it doesn’t mean that there’s a common denominator between them, or that it could be umbrella’d as “allergic to all”.
Excellent point made about chemicals both from natural and synthetic origin. -
vhogiono said:Hi guys, I just wonder if the formula below is fine. First, my purpose is to make cheap and simple dishwash and floor cleaning.
1. For dishwash, the main purpose is to degrease and clean the plate, so is this formula enough?
To 100 Water
10.0 Sodium Laureth Sulfate (70% active)
q.s salt
q.s preservative2. And for floor cleaner, again I think the main purpose is just to clean the dirt, so can the above formula be used also?
*The water in my region is hard water, do you think I will need EDTA for my floor cleaner formula?
* If I don’t add EDTA, will it damage the ceramic/tiles, by making a deposit of scum onto the ceramic/granite tile?
* Is there any other material that can help make the floor look shiny or look more polished?Sorry if my questions is not so relevant with personal care, but I want to know if my formula actually is good enough for general cleaning. Thank you so much in advance
1. Yes a little but addition of LABSA will aid it. 7% active SLES isn’t a lot, so might be worth increasing that. Your current concentration is more like a hand-wash in terms of degreasing strength.
7% active SLES will only thicken so far with salt as well, so look to add something like CAPB.
You might leave deposits. There’s no harm adding EDTA as a chelating agent so give it a go, try it out.
Shiny and polished, yes. I think some people add things like dimethicone for slip and some shine, or mineral oils if they’re used more specifically on metals. -
domicanica said:@Benz3ne, seems to be synthetic fragrance, i haven’t had the same issue using body wash that’s scented with essential oils. it very well may be that the percentage of fragrance in the product was just very high or too high for me but from experience, synthetic fragrances in body wash causes irritation and other uncomfortable issues for me.
I’d still say it’s valuable to have some patch testing done. You’ll be able to see what exactly is causing you issues rather than assuming that it’s ‘synthetic chemicals’ which is a significant and broad class of chemicals.
There may be other differences in the essential oil-containing body wash that could cause/have caused you issues. -
ngarayeva001 said:There is an artisan perfumery in west London https://www.4160tuesdays.com/ I think you can try
to reach out, as everything is online now. I have been in their workshop and they have an impressive range of both natural and chemical ingredients.Another one to note is Rogue Perfumery on Etsy. Manny is very knowledgeable and seems to have time for all I know whom have approached him.
Funny question, reverting back to OP’s initial post - is it the synthetic ingredients that are causing you issues in the body washes you use or something else in there that disagrees with you? Have you had a patch test to find out which is the case?
I’m a big lover of fragrances and have fortunately had no issues with reactions regardless of whether it’s natural or synthetic aromachemicals/essential oils/fractions used, but I know more people who have had negative reactions from naturals than synthetic ingredients in the same circles. -
PhilGeis said:Methyl paraben alone is a pretty weak preservative system. Have you conducted any micro testing - challenge or content?
Thanks Phil - the issue I’m facing is that the product is dispensed hot (45+°C) so need something reasonably heat-stable. I’d gladly look to replace it if I could find a suitable replacement.
We’ve had challenge testing done on similar products with the same preservative system previously and have seen no issues otherwise, but I’ll readdress with this seeing as it’s thrown an issue.
I think it could be an incorporation issue during processing. That the mixture is not homogeneous so some portions are with more methylparaben than others. Not ideal at all, so going back to the drawing board. -
Vanillin is a good example of this, right?
Perhaps wait until the colour-change has occurred and have it safety tested thereafter? -
elaine said:How to prevent color fading or discoloration of clear gels?
It would benefit you to start your own thread instead of interrupting someone else’s.
-
PhilGeis said:Definition of and benefit “natural”.
That would be a good one.
-
Majman said:Hello fam, please this is on food processing, preferably, seasoning making and I’ll like to know if you have any ideas what chemical cancer be used to take away odour from wet and dry food during the processing that’s still edible and not harmful to consumers please.
Thank you.
Crikey, what a typo.
This is predominantly a cosmetics forum so you might find people’s areas of interests are elsewhere.
You’ll have to explain what the odour you’re referring to is, or whether you have any idea where it comes from. If it is spoiled food odours then I think you have a bigger problem and attempting to mask them is deceiving, possibly harmfully, your customers. -
One thing I’d be mindful of is environmental regulations. They’re not typically keen on large quantities of soap or surfactants ending up in water streams.
Fish don’t get on with them (understatement).
Sorry to bog down what otherwise sounds like an interesting project.As EVchem mentioned, you could look into a 205L metal drum and a heated drum jacket, perhaps? Just worth checking that the drum is suitable for lye and you should be good to go. I used to use a large, electronically-heated pot in work for natural glues/gums (not cosmetic related fwiw) and that could probably hold around 50L total and was on a stand so it was pourable. I’ll try and find an example of something similar…
Edit: found one. We referred to it as a ‘kettle’ which is as described here. No affiliation with the company or product, etc. https://taizyfoodmachinery.com/jacketed-pan-jacketed-kettle/
The above one is steam-powered which seems to be more favourable these days and even comes with a mixing motor so that’d be useful for bulk mixing of lye and oils/waxes, especially for cold-process. -
Pattsi said:@ngarayeva001 @B@Bill_Toge It’s good to know you have a sun in UK.
I always thought there’re only three season in UK - windy, rainy, winter.
🙂 Narrow it down from UK to Wales and you’re probably right. Summer is but one day a year here.
-
Pattsi said:Isn’t it a high pigment foundation, you are looking for?
sorry I can not be much help.
You know what, I think you’re probably right. I think the water repellence I’d be looking for is a little more than typical foundations but it’s a good basis to start with… a good ‘foundation’ if you will*
*I’ll get my coat.
-
+1 for other options. Carbomers are popular nowadays and give clear gels.
HEC is cloudy, for sure, although it’s worth noting there are different types (described to me as E-type, F-type, which made me think of marques of Jaguar cars), with them having different characteristics e.g. for ethanol incorporation.Of course, the more you add the cloudier the resulting gel will likely be. There are also higher viscosity HEC/HPMC/EC’s that you could use less of to have a similar resulting viscosity.
@zacchaeus‘ suggestion is good also.
