Bobzchemist
Forum Replies Created
-
Where have you already searched for this?
-
“Classicol ATX is a specially blended cationic surfactant with disinfectant used to make high quality toilet bowl cleaner gel in minutes.”
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Toilet-bowl-cleaner-gel-like-harpic_113880360.html
It took me less than 10 seconds to find this on Google. Please do at least some research on your own before posting questions. -
Here’s the thing - every single formula is different. There is NO way to tell if you have an adequate preservative system just from formula information, even if you listed the entire formulation. The ONLY acceptable way to determine this is with a preservative efficacy test, otherwise known as a microbial challenge test. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying to you.
-
There are several hundred different chemicals/mixtures that could be used. Why do you want to thicken esters?
-
Perhaps you should try saponifying a few different oils, and find out for yourself?
-
The essence of cosmetic chemistry is experimentation. Why can’t you try it and see for yourself?
Alternatively, you should research what DHA is soluble in. That should give you a hint. -
What kind of oil? For example, mineral oil and most other synthetic oils don’t need any. Oils that are highly unstable will need more than more stable ones.
Also, tocopherol is not very good at preventing oxidation. I’d find another anti-oxidant if it were me. -
Yes, a dimethicone copolyol or a derivative is what I had in mind.
SilSense SW-12 Dimethicone Copolyol Ester is probably what I’d try first:I think the sorbitol is adding to the tackiness - it needs to go. -
Sorry for the too-quick answer.
Theoretically, pigments produce more opacity/intensity from using the smallest possible particle size that’s above the reflective wavelength of the visible light that they reflect, and from having the largest number of individual particles in a given formula.
In theory then, all other things being equal, the USP-3 should be significantly more opaque/reflective than the USP-2. But…there’s a catch.ZnO powder loves to agglomerate, and it does so very strongly. One of the reasons that coated ZnO has been so successful is that the powder treatment inhibits re-agglomeration. So, if you’re using untreated ZnO, and you mill it strongly enough to de-agglomerate it down to its primary particle size, you might also be breaking down the primary particles also. In that case, you wouldn’t see a difference between -2 and -3, because all the particles would be the same size. Sadly, you’d get the same results if your milling/grinding process wasn’t strong enough to get down to the primary particle size - for both grades, you would be milling down to the same agglomerate size, and you wouldn’t be able to see a difference.So, the answer to your question is that it depends on how strongly and completely you can mill the ZnO. If you have the batch time and the milling power available to actually get down to the primary particle size, then USP-3 will be better. But that kind of milling isn’t easy, or cheap, or quick. And the milled material will want to re-agglomerate, so you will need a way to keep that from from happening. It may turn out that you only have the time and power to mill down to 2 microns - which is twice as small as lipstick pigments are typically milled down to - but is still 2,000 nanometers. In that situation, since both ZnO grades will be the same size agglomerate, the only difference between the two grades will be the porosity of the agglomerate. Porosity controls oil absorption, so it will take more oil to wet out the USP-3, but you won’t see any other difference. -
Try them both and see.
-
The answer is, unfortunately, that no one knows. I don’t think that anyone has ever bothered to measure fiber length after homogenization. And since it would take either some very expensive equipment or weeks of lab time, I don’t think anyone ever will.
The only way you can figure this out is empirically. Does adding the fiber at the end give you any lumps or clumps in your finished product? Since you are presumably adding fiber to get an enhanced lengthening effect, and assuming that longer fibers will give you lengthier lashes, which way of adding the fiber gives you better lengthening? -
Water-soluble organo-silicones
-
Why vegetable oil?
-
Before I can answer this, I need to know what kind of position you have. Are you a professional chemist, a home crafter, a marketing person, a reporter, or just someone who wants to know more about cosmetics?
-
This does not sound like a problem we can help with, other than to suggest different equipment to process your batches with.
-
Fortunately not. If there was, the companies we work for wouldn’t have to pay us…
-
That should be fine. The first thing you have to determine is the right level of pigment loading - the only thing that can increase your color is more pigment.
The next step is a little tricky - determining how much pigment to use. Hopefully, you’ve got your mixture of pigments set - the question is just what percent level you want.Mix your pigment grinds together in the right ratio to get your shade, then add your mica and kaolin. Mix well. Put a little on a q-tip or a lipstick brush, and apply it to your skin. It should be too intense - if it isn’t, you have a problem with your pigment dispersions not being strong enough.Next, take about 2/3 of your pigment mixture, and mix it 50/50 with castor oil, and put a little on your skin again. This is the tricky part - you have to ignore the shine from the castor oil, and look past it to see if you have too little, about right, or too much pigment. Adjust your castor oil levels until you get a pigment level you’re happy with.Unfortunately, I can’t give you any other advice until you start weighing everything in grams. Using volume is much too variable for any help I can give, especially when you’re using volume to measure solid ingredients. -
Good, that helps. A lot of times, dryness is a problem that is seen with inadequately ground pigment dispersions.
Sometimes with a problem like this, it helps to go back to the beginning and look at the desired characteristics of your product again. What is your list of things that you want this lipstick to do? -
1) Even if you make a paste, you still have to worry about suspending the pigments. The easiest way to do this is to use a combination of thickening agents. You are essentially making a liquid makeup, so look at those types of starting formulas for suspension systems. Veegum plus should work to start with, but there may be more stable combinations.
2) Getting TiO2 and ZnO completely dispersed and de-agglomerated into water takes a lot of energy, no matter what they’re coated with. Your best bet is to use a colloid mill, and gradually close down the gap once you have all the pigments wetted into your hydrated gum mix.3) It would save you a lot of time and energy if you started with pre-made dispersions. -
Personally, if we count vagueness as misleading? I think we’re closer to 90%. I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb to say that anything other than a generic “moisturizing” claim is designed, in some way or another, to be misleading. Sometimes, it’s misleading in the other direction, though - companies whose products actually produce drug-like effects trying desperately to avoid making drug claims.
-
How are you grinding your pigment? Or is it pre-ground/dispersed?
-
And your question was, exactly?
-
I have to suggest the pemulens again - TR-1 was designed to fix this problem.
-
This is pretty basic. The alcohol and water will ALWAYS combine into an alcohol/water solution. That leaves the fragrance oils/essential oils all by themselves, and they will separate unless you use much more alcohol. To get them into solution, you need a fragrance solubilizer. There are a few around, just search for them.
-
Perry,
Did you make a recording of this? Could I get a copy?Bob