Bobzchemist
Forum Replies Created
-
Where have you looked so far for answers to this question?
-
Stay far, far away from yogurt in personal care. Belassi makes a good point - Surfactants need to be 5-10x higher.
-
Make some and find out. Kathon is a bit high, though. 0.10% is preferred.
-
This was actually a very interesting situation, and much more political than one might think.
The FDA set things up so that the odds were stacked highly against any company or organization being able to come up with the data they required, by making sure the required testing would cost almost a million dollars, if not more. Since no single company would spend a million dollars without gaining a competitive advantage, and since no viable non-profit group really represents just the personal care soap producers that could spend the money jointly, and finally, since there were no major companies producing the actives, the FDA had a clear shot at banning these products without opposition.
-
What is the viscosity stability profile over time of your product without the colloidal gold?
The number of chemicals that could take the place of CMC reaches into the hundreds - what thickeners are available in your country?
-
No, not really any standards. But, something like this is typical:
https://www.lubrizol.com/-/media/Lubrizol/Personal-Care/Documents/Personal-Care-Product-Technical-Data-Sheet/Lanocerin-Lanolin-Product-TDS.pdfNote that the more specifications you list, the greater the opportunity for an inspector or customer to find fault with your product. Confining yourself to pH and/or viscosity is usually wise.
Where I work, we combine the spec sheet, together with the formula batch sheet, into one document, so that there’s no chance of confusion over what specification applies to what formula.
-
Oh, you need a method. Now I understand - but this is way, way out of my field of expertise. You need to talk to an analytical chemist.
-
Yes, there are many. Where have you tried to look for formulations so far?
-
I remember it was more expensive than carmine, so upwards of $200/kilo, at least.
There is no synthetic replacement - L’Oreal may have a proprietary source, which is a common tactic of theirs to make a product un-reproduceable.
-
You start with a cosmetic-grade surfactant and then essentially steam-distill it. This is sometimes called “steam-stripping”. It adds a significant amount of cost to the surfactant, though.
-
Once you have a shampoo batch made, there’s nothing you can do.
The only way to do this is to use a surfactant system that has no 1,4 dioxane in it to begin with.
Otherwise, you can use surfactants that are “steam-stripped” to reduce the dioxane to levels below 10ppm, but it never goes away completely.
-
I think you really need to make sure that your target market wants this kind of aesthetic feel before you go any further. You might want to use a syringe homogenizer/emulsifier setup to make small samples for this.
http://cadenceinc.com/catalog/product-group/micro-emulsifying-needles/
I’d also look into powder/gel/fiber types of emulsifier if I was trying to do this.
-
You need to let go of this idea of making a lotion as something that will be good for your hypersensitive skin. The truth is, there are no effective emulsifiers that you can access that will not be at least somewhat irritating, with the possible exception of lanolin.
I am not at all sure that you will ever be able to get small quantities of the Decalact Liquid - and you are in any case entirely wrong about the TEC. If you read the document carefully, you will see that is being used only as a carrier/solvent to dissolve the active ingredient.
I looked into this further, and I see that Climbazole is soluble in Benzyl Alcohol, and further, that Benzyl Alcohol is FDA approved at 5% as a lice treatment, so higher than usual doses of it should be OK. Of course, patch test everything.
My suggestion is to make a soluble mixture of the Climbazole in Benzyl Alcohol and then mix that solution into silicone gel. This, for example:
http://www.makingcosmetics.com/Silicone-Gel_p_1108.html -
Spec sheets for your products or for your incoming raw materials?
(I’m not aware of any US standard for either)
-
I want to try some!
-
Have you tested each ingredient separately on skin yourself? Because “not supposed to irritate” isn’t at all the same thing as “doesn’t irritate in our tests”.
-
The machinery to make color cosmetics is expensive. There is a huge cost advantage to being able to buy raw materials in bulk. Lastly, you’re not going to have enough work to justify hiring a chemist full-time.
Honestly, you’d be much, much better off contracting with one of the private label color cosmetics outfits in the LA area while you build your brand for a while before attempting to make your own eyeshadow.
For a consultant, try Richard Konik, RAK Cosmetic Consulting Services.
-
Personally, I don’t have an issue with ads/links for products, services, raw materials or companies that apply to what we do here - even selling wholesale cosmetics could be ok - but I’d hate for this forum to turn into a place to get bombarded with retail ads/advice/spam.
-
I’d have to agree - advertising for retail finished products should not have a place here.
-
I would prefer it if we could make a distinction between API’s (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients) and “Active Ingredients. Since it’s not likely that the FDA will change its nomenclature, though, I think it would be better for the cosmetic industry if all of us stopped calling ingredients that do something specific “Active Ingredients”. Sadly, I don’t see a chance in hell of that happening without legislation or federal rulemaking. I suppose a sufficiently aggressive/activist FDA could ban the use of the term outside of pharmaceuticals, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
The term “chemical-free”, in my opinion, is flat-out fraud and criminal deception. I am upset enough about this that yes, I think it should actually be a prima facie felony to use this term on any labelling and/or advertising.
And as long as I’m ranting here, I think the term “organic” needs to be replaced by the term “certified organically grown”.
-
Don’t do it. Not even close to being worth the headache and expense, and as johnb said, the aesthetics are horrible.
-
It would certainly be an interesting experiment, but my educated guess is that you’d get a brick.
But - even if by some miracle you didn’t get a brick, your product would still fail as a cosmetic - because you wouldn’t have the other half of the binder’s function. Liquid binders actually serve a dual purpose - their first function is to hold the product together, but their second function is to adhere the powder to the skin. Without that adherence, your customers could have all of the cosmetic powder falling off of their skin in as little as 15 minutes, in my experience.
Powder cosmetics are a delicate balance among a number of attributes, and a number of very talented chemists worldwide have been working on formulations for years and even decades. New/innovative ideas are hard to come by.
-
This is one of those situations where it is critically important for you, Siddarth, to hire a consultant who is familiar with the raw material availability (and cost) situation in your country particularly. It won’t do you any good if we give you formulas that have ingredients that are sold only in America, or that are extremely expensive in India. We do not have access to that information.
-
It’s a good opportunity for a commercial product - but also a great opportunity for teaching/learning.
Get yourself some petrolatum. Take about a pea-sized amount and spread it on your skin. Evaluate the feel during application and after application.
Come back and tell us what you like/don’t like about it.
-
This is the kind of thing you should hire a consultant for.