[Bobzchemist]

In the US, anything “organic” has to be “certified organic” by USDA regulations. Doing this doubles or triples the costs of manufacturing + raw materials. I don’t think anyone’s making much money going that route.

[Bobzchemist]

You really should test them yourself and find out. “Foaming” has many different parameters, and means different things to different people.

[Bobzchemist]

The vast majority of my experience is in and for the US. No animal testing is being conducted or has been conducted on animals in the US for cosmetic chemicals for a long time - at least 15 years that I’m aware of.

I do have some interest in what’s going on there, and it was my understanding that the EU’s absolute prohibition on animal testing for cosmetics also extended to the cosmetic raw materials that went into them, thus the need for extensive safety reviews and dossiers. If I recall correctly, there was even some controversy about whether or not any of the raw materials that had been animal tested decades ago were still legal to be used in cosmetics after the new directive came out.

I don’t consider the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (United Kingdom) to be an unbiased source, any more than I consider PETA to be an unbiased source for information on the subject. Much of their income depends on convincing people that animal testing is still going on, whether or not it is, in truth, happening.

I would strongly suggest that you contact the Society of Cosmetic Scientists, in the UK, for up to date information, or that you read the Cosmetic Directive 76/768/EEC of 1976-07-27 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products[2] (as amended).

[Bobzchemist]

Some of the CARBODILITE crosslinkers are non-toxic (GSI Exim America, Inc.) but I think you’d be better off buying the polymer already cross-linked.

[Bobzchemist]

Vacuum kettles and vacuum filling. Otherwise, design a product with delayed and/or temperature sensitive thickening.

[Bobzchemist]

All surfactants (even soap) are made by chemical reactions, and frequently by a series of them. The decision to make/blend your own surfactants depends mostly on five or six things:

1) the volume of product you will be making (and selling)

2) the market (and profit margin) you will be shooting for

3) your level of chemical knowledge and competence

4) the type, kind, and quality of the processing equipment that you have

5) the level of analytical chemistry support that you can access.

6) (possibly) The availability of commercial quantities of surfactants where you live, and the availability of the raw materials to make the surfactants with.

Surfactants, even natural surfactants, are ubiquitous in most of the industrialized world. The companies that make them have a huge cost advantage. 90% of the people in the cosmetic industry worldwide buy their surfactants from a specialized surfactant manufacturer - the other 10% make traditional soap from scratch.

[Bobzchemist]

To correct another misconception, all skin irritation and eye irritation tests are now done on humans and/or in-vitro. This has been the common practice for the last 10 - 15 years.

[Bobzchemist]

That’s true - and pretty much the work-around for years has been to either use ingredients that were animal tested several decades to more than a half-a-century ago, or to use ingredients that were first designed and tested for the pharmaceutical industry. The idea of testing any ingredient that is solely for use in cosmetics on animals for any reason died a messy death in the 90’s. (fish don’t count)

None of the people in the “don’t hurt the bunnies” brigades have ever been able to get traction for the idea that prescription pharmaceutical ingredients shouldn’t be tested on animals, mostly because they run right up against the “don’t hurt my children” hordes.

[Bobzchemist]

You need to consider the difference between “likely to prevail” once a lawsuit has been started, and “likelihood of being sued”

[Bobzchemist]

I’m sorry, I can’t help you

[Bobzchemist]

I’m not finished yet…

[Bobzchemist]

It’s easier to make a prototype if you use a syringe with a large-diameter needle. Either a rotating platform or a skillfull assistant is required to turn the jar as the second material is being extruded.

[Bobzchemist]

@Perry, would you consider this spam?

[Bobzchemist]

@shahimanshair, are you a chemist?

[Bobzchemist]

Simple experiment, make 2 large batches, 1 at 10% and the other at 0%. Mix portions of each batch together so that you get 10 samples, from 1-10% concentration. Test pomade hold for each sample, then pick the best one.

[Bobzchemist]

PVP K60 or K90

[Bobzchemist]

@David, I was trying to say that the emulsion type is less important when formulating for optimum delivery. Because of the emulsions structure, a w/o emulsion is much more likely to deliver a continuous (and therefore occlusive) layer on the skin. This gives a w/o emulsion an advantage when trying to deliver an oil-soluble ingredient.

Delivering a water-soluble ingredient effectively is harder with a w/o emulsion, and it is also difficult to get a w/o emulsion to feel elegant on skin.

[Bobzchemist]

I would say that this, like so many other things, follows an 80:20 rule. 20% of the perceived high quality of high-end cosmetics comes from the ability to use, or use more of, expensive functional ingredients, like boron nitride, for example. The other 80% comes from the use of high-quality packaging and the ability to fine-tune the formulation to work perfectly with that packaging, the product presentation, and lots and lots of marketing.

That being said, I agree with @beaver - any private label manufacturer that can make a mass market lipgloss can easily make a high-end lipgloss - the equipment required is exactly the same. High-end formulas aren’t difficult to make, either - they just cost more, as does their packaging.

How large a run are you looking to have made for you?

[Bobzchemist]

One of the basic rules of the internet is that you cannot get for free something that you would ordinarily have to pay for. You will need to hire a chemical engineer - we can’t help you here.

[Bobzchemist]

Please tell us what is wrong with the formulations that you found by using Google.

[Bobzchemist]

I was somewhat involved with the very first product like this, so I’m not just guessing.

The trick is, it’s not filled all at once, it’s a multi-step operation, but it’s a relatively simple modification of an existing process.

First, the jar is filled with your clear gel, and possibly allowed to set up for a bit. Then the jar is moved to another machine, which inserts filling nozzles all the way into the bottom of the jar. In this particular case, the two nozzle openings are rectangular, to produce a ribbon-shaped extrusion. Then, right as the nozzles start pumping the fluid to be extruded, the nozzles are slowly retracted upwards, to form the ribbon-shaped extrusion. Simultaneously, the jar is slowly rotated, which puts the twist in the ribbon.

The formulating problems for this kind of product are interesting. If the ribbon material is too similar to the surrounding clear gel, the color(s) will migrate over time, and the ribbon will start to look fuzzy, or dissipate completely. But, if the ribbon is too dissimilar, it will not blend well and/or yield an elegant skin feel during application. It can produce unique results, as well. Sometimes, the best feeling emulsions are the least stable. In this case, there is the opportunity to form that unstable, great feeling emulsion only upon application.

[Bobzchemist]

@Gangarani, if you have a new question, please start a new discussion. We try not to answer unrelated questions in an existing topic.

[Bobzchemist]

I thought Evonik (formerly Degussa) was a German company?

[Bobzchemist]

No.

Remember, water is volatile, so as you rub a cream into skin, the water evaporates off, no matter what your emulsion type is.

The difference is whether or not you are left with an occlusive, coherent film of oil.

[Bobzchemist]

Is there a US supplier of this?