Bobzchemist
Forum Replies Created
-
JM Huber is the worlds largest manufacturer of the silica abrasive that goes into toothpaste. They also own CP Kelco. This is a good place to start looking for info:
Lubrizol’s carbopol is also used in toothpaste:So is Vanderbilt’s Veegum:You can see that the SLS is usually added last, without dissolving it in anything. It’s not critical to the performance of the toothpaste, so very little needs to be added.I have no idea how much potassium sorbate and/or sodium benzoate you should add, or even if you should add any at all. -
The rule is that you always have to use the lowest value.
-
Yes, absolutely. This is typical in situations where products are not being matched with a colorimeter, and also where the QC department does not really have trained color evaluators.
In this kind of situation, you have to allow for the fact that the untrained eye can’t tell when a match is close enough. The procedure I’ve used in the past uses microscope slides. You put 1 drop of each standard on its own slide. Then, you put a drop of the batch on both sides of each of the standards (this eliminates the confusion of “is the standard on the right or the left” - the standard is always in the middle) Then, you cover each of the slides with another slide, and evaluate the color - if the batch is darker than the dark standard, or lighter than the light standard, it fails.With enough experience, color evaluators won’t need the dark and light standards anymore - but in some cases, acquiring this level of experience takes years. -
@gfeldman, depends on the claims, and to some extent, on the activity.
Bob -
This really belongs in another thread, but briefly - Thor is not known for using natural feedstock. Try Croda. Also, using natural feedstock costs more, so the only reason to use it is to gain a marketing advantage, which means that anyone making a raw material made from natural ingredients will be shouting that fact from the rooftops - you shouldn’t have to call anyone.
-
Do a knockout experimental series to determine the culprit - I suspect the dimethicone isn’t compatible with the quaternium-31.
What is creating the gel in your formula? -
The other “preservative” I’ve used for HI&I products is Dowicil QK-20, but it’s really more of a chemical sterilizer - it breaks down completely within 24 hours, so there is no consumer safety issue.
-
Personally, I’d use Kathon CG.
Did you send the product out for a micro test? -
Vegelatum
-
I’m sorry, but I don’t quite understand. Are you talking about QC standards?
-
Where in Georgia?
-
Try Koster Keunen for waxes, they have a good selection
-
Well, that’s the thing…
We require our supplier to test their product for micro (and pass) before they ship it to us. Then, once it gets here, we send a sample to our micro lab. Well, the last two or three shipments from them have failed the USP 61 micro test on our side, but the material passed before they shipped it to us.In an effort to rule out contamination during shipping, etc., I had the supplier pull 2 samples at the same time from his latest lot, and send 1 sample to the outside lab he usually uses, and one to the outside lab that we use. His passed, ours failed.So, now I need to know why - these aren’t challenge, or PET tests, they are just plate counts. -
@yq1, if you don’t have an emulsifier in your formula (as you indicated you didn’t), you are not really making an emulsion. What you are doing is making a starch/xanthan gum suspension, and the 1% oil you add is simply absorbed by the starch.
To make a stable emulsion, you need emulsifiers, but you may not actually need an emulsion.Have you looked at veegum to improve your suspension, or fumed silica for better oil absorption? -
You can use any order you choose.
-
You might also want to look into the pemulen polymeric emulsifiers.
-
To get this product stable without any emulsifier at all, you need shear well beyond what you can achieve with a homogenizer or homogenizing mixer. @Belassi is correct, ultrasonic mixers can do this, or you need a microfluidizer. http://www.microfluidicscorp.com/create-nanoparticles/fluid-processors
An alternative is to use a natural emulsifier that doesn’t sound like one. This one comes to mind: -
Unlike dyes, which produce the same color every time the same amount of dye from the same lot is added to a batch, iron oxides are pigments, which are not soluble, so the color comes from suspended oxide particles, rather than from solutions of individual dye molecules.
The intensity of the color of an iron oxide suspension depends largely on the number of iron oxide particles suspended in the product. For any given weight of iron oxide pigment, the color will intensify as the iron oxide particles are ground finer and made more numerous.The issue is complicated by the fact that iron oxide particles agglomerate (stick to each other) readily, so not only do you have to grind/de-agglomerate the particles, you also have to make sure that they do not re-agglomerate in your product.Pigment wetting can also be an issue - a pigment particle that is completely wetted will appear darker/more intense than one that still has air bubbles trapped on its surface.In order to get consistent batch-to-batch color using iron oxide pigments, you have to do four things:1) weigh your pigments very precisely2) grind/mill/homogenize them into your batch exactly the same way every time3) Use the right amount of wetting agents, suspending agents and anti-agglomeration ingredients4) adjust your pigment amounts every time you get a new lot of pigments -
For the hard science, you need to go to the SCC annual scientific meeting in NYC, held in December.
This was last December’s agenda:More info on the 2015 meeting should start showing up around September.Also, the IFSCC 2016 annual meeting is in the US: -
Is it worth anything? It depends.Here’s the dual risks the manufacturers are taking:1) That someone will be harmed by their product and sue. Faced with a lawsuit that could potentially reveal their deceptive label to the regulatory agencies, they would have NO choice but to settle out of court. If this became known among product liability lawyers, they could be bankrupted by the settlements.2) That someone will be harmed by their product and report it to the regulatory agencies with or without suing. Because they would have to reveal their deceptive label to the regulatory agencies during the subsequent investigation, they could be in a world of trouble. Also, risk #1 comes into play again, since agency investigations, etc. are usually public.
-
As Perry and Belassi pointed out, the downsides of selling a contaminated product are far, far greater than the downsides of selling a product with too much preservative.
The FDA could fine you and/or force a recall. They could shut down your company. Worst case, you could go to jail.Compare the costs of that to the costs of a few adverse reactions. Which wins? -
Well, it depends on what you are trying to do.
Incosmetics and NYSCC/California SCC suppliers day are primarily for selling ingredients/equipment/services to chemists.HBA and Cosmoprof are primarily for selling services/packaging components/ingredients to marketing, buyers and owners.If you want to find/talk to movers and shakers in the industry, go to HBA and/or Cosmoprof, etc. - those folks wouldn’t be caught dead at a show like Suppliers Day, which is for the “little” people who toil away in the labs making products. -
PETA for the win…
-
I’d like to see that formula, @chemist1, if you don’t mind sharing.
-
I hope you’re not trying to make anti-bacterial claims in the US. An anti-bacterial claim in the US makes your product into an OTC drug. What’s worse, the new FDA regulations mean that all but the most deep-pocketed companies will be out of the anti-bacterial business in August.