[Bobzchemist]

Well, yes, preservation is more compromised, as well as oxidative stability, and sometimes emulsion stability also, with excess air in a product.

Something else to consider - in the US, and I think elsewhere, whether you sell your product by weight or by volume is NOT up to you. There are government regulations that determine this.

Also think of this possibility - what if your product is so foamy that you can’t fit 200 grams of it into the container you’re using for your 200 gram size?

[Bobzchemist]

If I were you, I’d use Euxyl K-300 (Phenonip, EK 300)

http://www.schulke.co.uk/product/_/69/euxyl-k-300/ 

http://www.wholesalesuppliesplus.com/products/phenonip.aspx 

https://www.bulkactives.com/ek300-phenoxyethanol-methyl-butyl-ethyl-propyl-and-isobutyl-paraben.html 

Using a mix like this means not having to mess with separate preservatives. Since you’ve had trouble with preservation, I’d suggest a 1% use level.

[Bobzchemist]

The ITT is a powder treatment patented by KOBO. It will be completely ineffective on it’s own. If you can’t get treated powders, or figure out what to do from published patents, you’re going to need to hire a consultant.

[Bobzchemist]

If I was formulating a new degreaser, I’d want to combine surfactant cleaning with solvent loosening.

So, an emulsion/microemulsion of limonene, lauramine oxide, cocamide DEA, and NPE or potassium soap would be my starting point.

[Bobzchemist]

No problem. It’s amazing stuff - solubilizes things that even PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil can’t. 

Not to put the good folks at Colonial down, they certainly make fine products (and we’re customers), but this is the first new product they’ve come up with that’s really outstanding - nothing else like it currently on the market.

[Bobzchemist]

Look them up on Wiikipedia, and see what they’re soluble in.

[Bobzchemist]

The HLB system was always (and is still) meant as a guide for experimenting, not a replacement for it. To make a base lotion is going to take some trial and error and trial again, even if you slavishly copy a formula from the internet. 

On the plus side, you’ll learn something. If you don’t want to learn something about what and why you’re formulating, just buy the pre-made base - it will be much cheaper and significantly safer for you and anyone you give the lotion to. This is not cooking - screw up, and you could seriously hurt someone. 

[Bobzchemist]

If I had to guess off the top of my head, I’d say the panthenol was kicking out, just from your description of the gunk you have.

You need to run a knock-out series to confirm this, but if I were you, I’d start with three test batches:

1) no panthenol

2) no wheat protein

3) no EO’s

After you figure out what’s kicking out, you have to figure out why it has suddenly gone bad, so you need to find out what’s changed - because clearly, something has.

[Bobzchemist]

2-way pressed powders were only made possible when hydrophobic powder treatments were invented. If you can’t get hydrophobically treated powders, you will have to make them yourself before you can make a 2-way cake. If you can’t get the chemicals (reactive silicones) to make the powders, you will need to find another way to get regular silicone onto your powders evenly.

[Bobzchemist]

I don’t know anything about TKB, but they appear to be OK.

Some of the mica names I recognize, some I don’t. The thing to do is to contact the three top level manufacturers (EMD, Sun, BASF) and ask for a product list, then only purchase micas off those lists. That will guarantee that you get micas available for mass production.

[Bobzchemist]

Do you want a lab or a contract manufacturer with a lab?

[Bobzchemist]

process very, very tightly, each batch of product will come out a little different. The good news is that the vast majority of consumers won’t notice.

[Bobzchemist]

Much of your confusion is coming from your need to use distributors. Maybe I can clear this up for you. 

The first thing to know is that making colored micas requires some really expensive production equipment. As a result, there are only 4 or 5 manufacturers of micas. The major ones are: EMD (formerly Rona), BASF (Formerly Mearl), Sun Chemical, and Sensient. There are also manufacturers in China and Mexico, but they’re harder to deal with. 

The next thing to know is that there’s a second tier of manufacturer. These companies buy plain micas and/or colored micas, and process them further. These companies include Cardre, Charles B. Chrystal, Cosmetic Specialties, Creations Couleurs, KOBO, Lipo, 

Miyoshi Kasei, Natural Sourcing, Nihon Koken Kogyo, Nikko Chemicals, Presperse, U. S. Cosmetics, Ultra Chemical and a number of others.

All of these companies make sure that the colored products they sell come out the same every time they make them. Generally speaking, a consumer won’t be able to tell the difference from lot to lot, so if you make the same formula, you’ll get similar products every time you make it.

Now, that’s not to say that you won’t get some subtle color changes - unless you control your manufacturing proce

[Bobzchemist]

Short answer: no.

Longer answer - something like “Colorona Bordeaux”, which is a trade name, is made by EMD, and will be the same no matter who you buy it from - it’s like asking if Tide HE laundry detergent will be the same thing no matter which supermarket you buy it from.

For anything else, try searching on UL Prospector for the name and you might get enough info to make a decision.

[Bobzchemist]

I agree that you should be very concerned. and that we should all look into this more carefully, but that’s not what you described initially. You talked about a skin cream, not a rinse off product, and about comedones, not hives.

Hives/welts are not comedones. Comedones are blackheads/whiteheads - basically acne vulgaris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedo 

[Bobzchemist]

@Belassi,

While I think it’s great that you are concerned about allergic reactions, I also think that you’re over-reacting.

First, rinse-off products like shampoo and body wash have FAR less potential to cause a skin reaction, allergic or not, than a leave-on product does - even with the same level of problem ingredients. The amount of skin contact time is usually minimal. Also, strong surfactants (as opposed to emulsifiers) are generally very bad things to have in any leave-on product, due to the harm that they can do to the skin, and it’s not just allergenicity.

Second, comedones are very rarely caused from allergic reactions. But, I will agree that your skin reaction, coupled with the literature, is enough to remove ingredients that worry you.

Third, and possibly most important, is that you’re discarding an entire class of chemicals due to problems mostly from one specific version of that class. Additionally, dermotologists NEVER make the distinction between ingredients and contaminants in those ingredients when making pronouncements about allergens. For example, it’s been proven conclusively that all allergic reactions to lanolin were solely due to pesticide residue in that ingredient. Properly purified lanolin is as close to non-allergenic as any ingredient can get. The same is true of petrolatum. Yet both of those ingredients are routinely condemned by dermatologists everywhere. 

Lastly, worrying about allergenicity and eliminating all potential allergens is a fast road to selling only pure water. You can find someone who is allergic to anything. Some people are even allergic to their own sweat.

You are free to do whatever you like, of course. But I think you’re making your job unnecessarily more difficult.

[Bobzchemist]

I’ve worked with Dan Bosmann, and can strongly recomend him for this type of project.

[Bobzchemist]

Also, see here:

http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/hb133.cfm

In the US, your net weight or net volume statement is legally binding. If a state weights and measures inspector catches you selling an underfilled package, you or your company could be fined thousands of dollars. (And yes, I’m speaking from experience)

[Bobzchemist]

The general rule of thumb is that each time you add a layer of distribution/repackaging, the price of the material doubles.

So, if the manufacturer sells something for $20 a kilo in truckloads, Distributor 1 sells it for $40 in 55-gallon drums, Distributor 2 sells it for $80 in 5-gallon pails, etc. Getting only an ounce or two of material may require 3 or 4 layers of distribution.

[Bobzchemist]

Also try Poly Suga Mulse D9 or D6. Start with 5:1 solubilizer:oil

http://www.colonialchem.com/poly-sugamulse-d9/

[Bobzchemist]

Next step up is to get a semi-automatic press. This is a much bigger investment, but it will also produce much nicer finished products, and more of them. Keep in mind that many of these cost more than a new car - not a decision to be taken lightly.

The catch here is that at this level, you should be getting something that can simulate the way your powders will be pressed in production. Since I don’t know what  that would be, I can only post some resources.

New:

http://www.carverpress.com/benchtop_auto_standard.html

http://www.vetraco.com/vetraco-expertise-cosmetic-powders_dry_mono_lab.asp

http://www.kemwall.co.uk/html/gb_powders.htm

http://www.eugeng.com/machines/show/55.aspx

http://www.cosmetics.lorenzato.com/lm5-pressing-machine/

Used (Can be modified for lab work by removing some of the equipment)

http://www.fraingroup.com/products/carver-press-mechanical-mcp-1-color-cosmetic-powder-press/

http://www.fraingroup.com/products/kemwall-press-mark-iv-1-color-cosmetic-powder-press-2/

[Bobzchemist]

OK, this is a tricky subject.

There are two or three ways to achieve a lab press setup. Which you choose depends greatly on how much money you have to spend, and also on what you are trying to do with it. 

If you just want something basic, so that you can produce small numbers of prototypes to show to marketing/customers/contract manufacturers, then you can get a simple manual press, like one of these:

http://www.carverpress.com/3850.html

The drawback here is that you will produce pressed powders under conditions that do not mimic any kind of automatic production machinery at all. Also, very slow process (but extremely safe)

[Bobzchemist]

I agree, that’s a good deal on the tank.

It helps me understand emulsion systems when I visualize a model of what’s going on. Bear with me, and remember that a model is just a good way of thinking about things, not actual reality.

In a traditional o/w emulsion system processing, water + emulsifiers are heated up, oil + emulsifiers are heated separately, and then the oil is added to the water. Due to both physical force (mixing energy) and chemical action (emulsifiers, surface tension, etc.) the oil phase breaks up into small droplets almost immediately. Because the oil + emulsifiers were mixed and heated separately, every oil droplet is exactly the same composition as every other one.

My mental model for this is here:

 http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v1/1931252230/Mini_soft_PTR_spike_ball_massage_ball.jpg_200x200.jpg

The bumps are the emulsifier heads sticking out from the body of the droplet.

Now, in a one-phase process, the oil phase ingredients are added cold to the hot water phase, one by one. They each form droplets on their own, solely from mechanical force, (except for the emulsifiers) The droplets, at least in the beginning, are not all the same composition, 

This is close to my mental image of what this looks like (ignoring the bottom two balls:

http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/952/701/405/405701952_606.jpg

The droplets hopefully get more uniform as mixing continues, but lab work and careful stability testing needs to be done to make sure that the batches will be stable.

[Bobzchemist]

PCPC international buyers guide should be the first place any of us look for sourcing raw materials:

http://buyers.personalcarecouncil.org/jsp/BGSearchPage.jsp 

Since the PCPC is the organization responsible for issuing INCI names, the buyers guide is also my ultimate reference on the accuracy of an INCI name.

[Bobzchemist]

You will still need a preservative. You ALWAYS need a preservative. The inertness or non-inertness of the materials in any cosmetic, even a  powder cosmetic, is completely irrelevant - the preservative is needed to kill the mold and/or bacteria that are introduced to the cosmetic by consumer use.

This is a formulation decision that is largely CYA - if a consumer believes that she has been harmed by your product, one of the first things that will happen is a micro test of the powder product. If they find any mold and/or bacteria, your company will be on the hook for a large legal settlement.

This development is fairly recent - 20 or 30 years ago, preservatives weren’t used in inert/anhydrous cosmetics much, if at all. The preservative companies have been greatly helped by the plentiful consumer lawsuits.