[Bobzchemist]

http://www.gcimagazine.com/

http://www.happi.com/

There are people who make a living as consultants to advise on exactly this. For anything more, you will need to hire one of them.

[Bobzchemist]

I don’t think I can help with this unless you explain with much more detail. The shampoo caused dandruff?

[Bobzchemist]

You need to start out simpler. Try Dow Corning EL-7040 Hydro Elastomer Blend, add water and preservatives.

[Bobzchemist]

Why?

[Bobzchemist]

There is an enormous amount of information on the web about making soap. You need to start reading some of it, and trying out formulations - or you need to hire a consultant.

[Bobzchemist]

If I was doing this, I’d try to make an anhydrous product, using one or more quick-absorbing esters, along with a small amount of long lasting emollient. Possibly an elastomer gel with added cyclomethicone would also work as a base. Not using water is the easiest way of avoiding degradation.

[Bobzchemist]

Then you should probably either hire a consultant, or start doing research.

You could start here:

http://borneoscience.ums.edu.my/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/8.-Lipstick-Formulation-Effect-Of-Composition-Variation-On-Physical-Properties-And-Consumer-Acceptance.pdf

[Bobzchemist]

@noelariel, is Google not working for you?

[Bobzchemist]

For legal reasons, I need to tell you that formulating your own cosmetics is not a safe thing to do, particularly if you do not conduct safety or micro testing on your formulations. You should never give an untested formulation to any other person to use.

That said, formulating a new lipstick is very difficult - probably the most difficult of all the color cosmetics. Even professional cosmetic chemists often require several weeks of full-time (40-hour) work before they get one working right.

Your question tells me that you have little to no experience in formulating or chemistry. I’d very strongly suggest that you stick with a published formula that you know works.

Try one of these (but use other, FDA-approved colorants):

http://www.ijppsjournal.com/Vol5Suppl4/7197.pdf 

[Bobzchemist]

Are you restricted to “natural” products?

Also, I have a hard time with the idea that a cosmetic product that’s not heat stable at 45C can’t ever be sold in the UK. 45C (113F) is much hotter than any consumer product is likely to see in it’s lifetime. I understand that it’s a standard temperature for accelerated stability testing, but I would be shocked if there’s not an exception in there somewhere.

[Bobzchemist]

To be strictly correct about labeling, you’ve got to go with Perry’s definition - you are adding water, so you have to list water. This is why many companies still buy unconcentrated (1x) Aloe Vera Juice - using it is the only completely correct way to list Aloe Vera Juice as a main ingredient, even though the juice is mostly water.

The less correct way is to use a concentrated liquid, and reconstitute it as a separate formula, then use the result of that process as an ingredient in your batch. It’s mostly a paperwork trick, but this is what you have to do to satisfy NSF/NOP.

The least legal way is what you’re describing - use a bit of powdered concentrate and claiming that it you’re making reconstituted Aloe Vera Juice rather than water plus powder. This is taking a risk, and it’s not something that I’d ever suggest doing.

[Bobzchemist]

I agree that it’s a bit odd to specify “grain alcohol”. It may be a remnant of older ways of thinking about alcohol, when the distinction was between grain alcohol (ethanol) and wood alcohol (methanol).

[Bobzchemist]

A “natural” soap bar is made from vegetable oil(s) or fatty acids made from those oils, and caustic (lye). Among other things, ~90 - 95% of the soap bar has to be composed of these ingredients for the FDA to consider your product a soap, and not a cosmetic.

I don’t see any caustic in your formula, so unless you are using 90% or more of the sodium stearate, you’re not making a soap, you’re making a cosmetic that cleanses.

Also, that is just about the strangest ingredient list for soap that I’ve ever seen. How did you come up with it?

[Bobzchemist]

Try asking some of the wax suppliers technical service people - Ross, Koster Keunen, etc.

[Bobzchemist]

The only free MSDS generator is the one between your ears…

[Bobzchemist]

You will need an emulsifier for any amount of water unless you have extremely expensive ultra-high-shear equipment. Also, once you add water, you need good/strong preservatives. Without water, smaller amounts of simple broad-spectrum preservatives will do.

Please note that selling this commercially, at least in the US and EU, will require much safety testing, etc.

[Bobzchemist]

For very small amounts, you could use a pigment muller to simulate the 3-roll mill:

http://www.utrechtart.com/Utrecht-Muller-Medium-MP-04808-002-i1003112.utrecht?gclid=CMf75Yb7v8kCFYcjgQodvqcHXQ

http://www.art-boards.com/Muller's.htm 

[Bobzchemist]

Option 1 - grind active and potassium sorbate into petrolatum, using no water. This makes what the pharma folks call an ointment. Due to the extremely high viscosity of petrolatum at room temperature, the best way to do this is with a three-roll mill (sometimes called an ointment mill).

There’s an awesome lab one here: http://exaktusa.com/dispersion-equipment/basic-models/trm-basic-exakt-50i/ 

This is from a different manufacturer, but it’s a good overview:

http://www.slideshare.net/torreyhillstech/three-roll-mill-101-an-introduction-to-a-high-shear-blending-and-dispersion-tool 

Ross, the inventors of the 3-roll mill, also makes a (much larger) lab version:

http://www.lab-mixers.com/pdf/3rm.pdf 

Option 2: Make a water-in-petrolatum emulsion. Any decent mixer/homogenizer can handle this, but it’s not a room-temperature process.

[Bobzchemist]

What you’re asking for is common knowledge in the industry - I have no idea where you’d find documentation of it, it’s just something most formulators know.

[Bobzchemist]

Try contacting the SCS (Society of Cosmetic Scientists) in the UK.

[Bobzchemist]

Generally speaking, all cosmetic/pharmaceutical formulators try to keep the number of “active” ingredients in each formula to the absolute minimum needed. That’s primarily because it’s impossible to tell if an “active” is working well with another “active”, or fighting against it, without spending an enormous amount of money on efficacy testing. Each “active” you use adds greatly to the cost of that testing.

What that means for you is that there’s a good chance that you will go through all that trouble with all those “actives”, and your cream does absolutely nothing, because the “actives” are fighting each other. There’s also a good chance that your cream will do something entirely unexpected - and that could be good or bad - because all these “actives” have not been tested together all in one cream.

There is no way of your knowing whether or not your cream will be harmful. Please be very careful.

[Bobzchemist]

Sadly, all of the “natural” surfactants are pretty bad/ineffective. Since this is primarily a cosmetic site, there’s not much more we can tell you.

[Bobzchemist]

Why?

[Bobzchemist]

Where have you looked for starting formulas so far?

[Bobzchemist]

Decyl glucoside is not a great foamer, nor is it a good thickener. But - it is a myth that foaming is needed for cleaning, and also a myth that high foaming indicates a high strength cleanser.

What kind of cleaning products are you trying to make, and why do they need to be thick?