Bobzchemist
Forum Replies Created
-
It’s not the sugar reacting in any way.
When the sugar is added to hot oil, the coconut oil, shea butter, and stearic acid are melted. As the mixture cools, those solid ingredients start to crystallize. The sugar crystals are already present, so the wax matrix that slowly forms as your batch cools is connected to them, and you get a firm product.
But, if you allow the mixture to cool before you add the sugar crystals, the wax matrix forms without them. Once the wax matrix is formed, it doesn’t re-form unless you heat it back up again past it’s melt point. What’s worse, you’re actually breaking the matrix structure down by mixing it after it cools, in order to get the sugar in. This will give you the lower viscosity that you’re seeing.
-
This is laid out very specifically in their regulations. If an ingredient is well-known, just the presence of it on the ingredient label has the effect of making a claim. You could not, for example, put penicillin into a cream without it being a drug.
And further, since it’s up to the FDA to decide if an ingredient is well known enough to trigger this provision, it’s safer to stay on the side of the angels.
-
From the CM’s point of view, their ideal customer is locked into buying exclusively from them forever. To do this, their primary tactic is to keep their formulations as secret as possible.
So why would people use them at all? It’s all about upfront costs. Prospective customers get charged a small fraction of the actual R&D costs, typically 10 - 25%. Existing customers typically don’t pay any R&D fees at all, and big-name customers get wined-and-dined to the point that it costs CM’s a fair amount to go after their business.
All this has to get paid for somehow. But if you don’t have the cash to lay out as you’re starting up, the option of paying a minimal fee at the beginning, and then a larger fee when you’ve outgrown the CM can be very appealing.
-
Silicones and organo-silicones are the ultimate penetration blockers/retardants. See “invisible glove”, etc.
-
Well, “enough” shear should be determined by results. How are your Hegman/FOG readings?
That homogenizer should probably work for batches up to 100 grams or so. Anything larger will likely take hours to grind small enough.
-
Yes, it’s bigger than you need now - but if you can build a stand for it, and get a speed controller, you will have a mixer that will grow with your operation for about 1/10 of the cost for a new one. Check with Admix directly for the costs of new mixers. Alternatively, buy the used Admix, set it aside, and continue to use the Waring mixer until it pays to buy a bigger kettle.
Everything else should be determined experimentally.
-
Also take the milk out and reduce the vitamin levels by a factor of 10, at least.
-
High-speed (Cowles) disperser, 3-roll mill, colloid mill or ball mill. You could even use a muller if your sample size is small enough. Stick homogenizers don’t generate nearly enough shear force.
There are also grades of ZnO and/or dispersing agents that should help.
-
For many, many years even the big companies didn’t preserve their lipsticks. In today’s litigious society, that practice had to go. Everything will depend on micro testing and your tolerance for risk against lawsuits.
-
Let me try to answer your questions.
1) Entry-level step in terms of equipment for a small-scale manufacturer. You need something that is more an emulsifier than a homogenizer, but the terms are frequently used interchangeably. Something with strong pumping action, which tends to eliminate silverson-type mixers. Either an Admix or an Arde-Barenco/Gifford-Wood type will do well for you.
(If it were up to me, I’d grab the Admix ASAP)
2) Can we possibly use this as a poor man’s version for the time being? Yes, but you may get results that will be hard to duplicate/scale-up without spending a lot.
3) All homogenizers emulsify, not all emulsifiers are capable of generating enough shear force to homogenize.4) A - What is the positive consequence of reducing the particle size of our product? Improves stability, uniformity.
B - Would it have any effect on how smoothly our product goes through a foaming dispenser (the foaming compatible formulation), for example? No. -
If I had to guess, I’d say your ZnO was re-agglomerating. What are you using to mill this with?
-
Since the lilac tincture will have zero effect on your skin anyway, you should be using just a tiny amount of the tincture in your product (less than 0.10%). The little bit of alcohol in that amount of your tincture will not affect your formulation.
-
Your only alternative is to visually confirm the addition of carbomer, either by video or a by a trusted observer.
-
I have to add my voice to the chorus here - why would you ever use something on your dog that could kill it if you make a formulation mistake? How would it make you feel if that happened?
There are plenty of safe, thoroughly tested, synthetic flea repellents already on the market. Please, please use one of them, and don’t put your dog’s life at risk.
-
Just as a FYI - once you “lake” a dye, it isn’t a dye anymore. Dyes are soluble. When you precipitate a dye solution by adding a binder, the dye that precipitates has become a laked pigment, which is no longer soluble.
If you do a google search on the two terms, you’ll see what I’m talking about.
(Also, I would strongly recommend against using any actual dyes in lipstick. Using the correct terminology will help keep you from making that kind of mistake.)
-
Is the shampoo storage container sealed, or left open to the air?
-
If you are only using micas, then no, don’t grind them. But they still need to be properly dispersed. (I’ll also point out that if you’re getting color solely from colored mica, you are spending way more money on raw materials than you need to.)
Since you can’t grind micas without losing their iridescent properties, you are going to have to increase the suspending power of your base instead. Most people use bentonite gels for this purpose.
-
Try using a flat-surface probe, or one designed for high-viscosity products. General purpose electrodes don’t work reliably with high-viscosity/high-solids formulations.
-
First thing to check is if your pigments are ground finely enough to suspend properly in your product when it’s hot. The fact that it’s “separating” and needs to be constantly agitated tells me that this is likely the first problem you need to solve.
-
Cosmetic chemistry is all about experimentation - you need to try it and see for yourself.
-
I agree with Mark - all of my contracts strongly restrict my ability to talk about my work.
-
I agree with Perry. It is simply not possible to do this and get a modern-day acceptable feel and/or hold.
-
Sorry, but that’s a little too close to what I consult on to answer.
I will point out though, that the Ross and similar blenders are different from the cheaper chinese v-blenders on ebay. (http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/262593718998?chn=ps&dispItem=1). You get what you pay for.
-
This is as close to industry standard as I know. It’s not what I’d consider top-of-the-line, but I think it’s used the most.
Both machines are needed together unless you are buying pre-pulverized pigment dispersions.
https://www.hmicronpowder.com/products/product/mikro-pulverizer-hammer-and-screen-mill