Bobzchemist
Forum Replies Created
-
Try treated powders. TKB sells some.
Also, if powder is too hard, try pressing more softly.
-
“guide me the step by step dish wash making formulation” is detailed enough that it’s something that you will have to pay a consultant for.
-
Color performance in pigments is directly correlated to particle size and concentration (as opposed to dyes where concentration is the only factor). To increase color intensity, you have to either increase the concentration of your lake, or decrease the particle size, or both.
Even if you take that route, lakes are inherently transparent. To make this less obvious, you need an opacifier. But, all opacifiers have a color of their own. Using TiO2 will tint you towards the pink side. Using red iron oxide will tint you towards the brown side. Using yellow iron oxide will tint you towards the orange/brown side.Using Manganese Violet will move towards the blue/purple side, as will black iron oxide.
The other way to add opacity is to use colored pearlescent mica. You’ll have a similar issue with color movement, but your color choices will be greatly expanded.
-
Is your dispersion a buttery texture? Are you below a 4 on the hegman gauge? How many times did you mill the dispersion?
-
It looks very similar to the exakt mills. I’m sure it will work just as well. Being able to remove rollers might be useful.
-
You don’t need heated rollers. You should be dispersing powder into liquids, not waxes. Even if you have to add some wax, you will be ok if you add the hot mixture and mill on room temperature rollers.
I prefer stainless steel rollers, but either ceramic is better than plain steel.
If you have to use a mini mill, these are my favorite small lab mills:
http://exaktusa.com/pharmacy-equipment/products/exakt-50ec/But most of the time I’ve worked with these:
http://www.threerollmill.com/RossTHTP11800.htmlOddly, it’s actually easier and quicker to use/clean the larger 4×8 mill than the smaller ones, because they are finicky and harder to adjust properly.
If you can afford it and have the space for it, consider the larger mill.
-
Be aware that not just the FDA, but also the FTC, state-level consumer protection agencies, and even private organizations like the BBB are all involved with regulating/policing advertising and claims. Not to mention the lawyers looking for a cash cow.
We don’t want to discourage you from getting into the cosmetic industry - but you clearly want to sell a drug and call it a cosmetic. This is a bad idea.
-
Try increasing stearic to 10%, monolaurate to 6%, replace sodium stearate with fumed silica, cut propanediol and glycerin by half, heat to 80-90C, neutralize to pH 10-11.
-
It’s a grey area.
If I was doing it, I’d change the paperwork to make it a little safer - make sure that the paperwork states the they are selling you a finished product - a dilution or dispersion made with certified pigments, and not the certified pigment itself.
You could also have them bill you separately for the concentrated dye, and then for toll-processing the dilution, but that might require a repack certificate. I’m not sure though, since the dye/pigment doesn’t actually leave their facility.
(Dyes usually get diluted, usually only pigments get dispersed, btw)
-
It would be more credible, but not required, for an outside person/company to run the survey. It would be more credible, but also not required, for an expert in claim substantiation/consumer testing to write the survey. Lawyers shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near this.
The problem with email surveys, in my opinion, is that, if you don’t have an outside tester, it’s expected that you have some way of verifying that the people filling out the survey have actually used the product. Remember, there’s a very slim, but still real, chance that you’ll be asked to defend your claims to someone outside your company at some point. So, you have to think of how it will sound to describe your claim substantiation process to someone who’s somewhat skeptical.
-
When I was working with several smaller cosmetic companies, and even with some claim substantiation labs, it was generally accepted that cosmetic-level aesthetic claims (moisturizes, softens, improves feel, etc.) could legally be substantiated by a consumer trial and subsequent survey. The minimum survey size was 20, if I recall correctly. The questions could be ultra-simple, i.e. “my beard feels moisturized after I use ‘x’, yes or no.” There’s nothing wrong with conducting the trial yourself, either.
If you can’t find 20 people to try out your product and fill out a simple questionnaire, you might need to rethink this project.
“Rich in anti-oxidants” can be legally substantiated by relying on supplier claims/literature.
I think what may have scared your consultant, however, was your desire to say “Nurtures, Helps cultivate, Healthy, Freshens/revitalize”. These either come too close to making drug claims, or are just wrong. Hair is dead. It can’t be nourished, revitalized or made more healthy. “Cultivate” sounds dangerously close to “grows”.
-
Bentonites, when properly activated, do really well in pigmented systems as thickeners and pigment suspenders. I agree with @johnb that to just thicken clear oil as a finished product, they won’t be nice looking, or particularly stable.
-
A biochemist? Why ask us? I’m sure any of the NYC colleges/universities will have a number of them willing to talk with you.
-
The mocap plugs look like this:
Very low tech, just push them in by hand, then put your cap on. They might be a good stopgap while you test the pressure-sensitive aluminum. -
or there are things like these:
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/aluminizing-pressure-sensitive-seal-liner-for_1930198327.html -
We use these on some of our difficult to seal products:
http://www.mocap.com/plug-cap-tapered.html -
shea butter
-
The sad reality is that your product (and all products like it) have zero effectivity, except as an occlusive moisturizer. Adding ingredients to “boost” the efficacy is a bit like multiplying by zero - nothing will change.
Ingredients to decrease TEWL, on the other hand, should work well.
-
I don’t understand your process. GMS and Stearic Acid and Cetyl Alcohol are all solids at room temperature. How are you possibly getting them into an emulsion at room temperature?
Honestly, I think you need to start over from scratch. On top of all the other problems with your formula, there’s not a good suspending agent in there for the TiO2.
-
I’m going to have to second Johnb’s point - you’re asking for information for free that most consultants would charge hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for. Myself included.
I will make a point, however. At least 80% of the information you’re asking for is available for free on the web - but the amount of time it will take to find that information, separate it from information that either isn’t true or isn’t useful, and then apply it to your product line is very large.
One of the primary things you’re buying when you hire a consultant is saving time. I’d estimate that you could answer all of the questions you asked above by yourself with about 1,000 hours worth of research and experimentation. That’s just about an entire half of a year year of full-time work. Or, you could pay a consultant, and have all your answers in a week or two. How much is six months of your time worth to you?
-
If your shadow does not hold together, that is a very strong indication that you either don’t have enough binder in your formula, or that you did a very poor job of pulverizing the binder into your powder, or both. It’s also possible that your psi for pressing is too low, or your dwell time is too short. Did you try different binder levels? Longer mixing times? Higher pressure or longer dwell time?
Also, binder systems consist of several components, dry and oil-based. What are you using for a dry binder? If you post your formula, we can help further.
-
The easiest way to make a liquid/gel foundation is to combine an elastomeric gel solution with a liquid pigment dispersion.
It’s expensive to do this, though, and difficult to fill, which is why you don’t see many products like this.
What products/suppliers do you have access to?
-
How do you define “Natural”?
-
The problem you’re running into involves physics and light-scattering.
Generally speaking, lipsticks are formulated to leave a smooth, shiny, reflective film on skin. Looks a little like this:
========To move over to a matte appearance without changing any of the other characteristics of the lipstick, you need to add a powdered mattifying agent that is just large enough to break up the smoothness of the film, but not large enough, or jagged edged enough, to make the lipstick feel rough and/or draggy. Typically, you’re going to need a spherical powder for this.
Done right, you’ll get a film that looks more like this:=0=0=0=0=0=
(If the particles are too small, you’ll get a film that looks more like this:=o=o=o=o=o=o, which won’t be broken up enough to look matte)Spherical powders that size, unless they’re deliberately colored, are going to refract light and look white and opaque. There’s no way around this, really. You just need to overwhelm the whiteness with more pigment.
-
He put it much better than I could have