Bobzchemist
Forum Replies Created
-
I thought that this was a very good deal, if the shipping isn’t too high.
-
I don’t think it’s possible either.
The problem is that there are NO certified organic surfactants other than potassium or sodium soaps. So, a 70% organic lotion could possibly happen, if you can find a surfactant natural enough to pass the certifiers.There is a very slim chance that a 95% organic lotion is possible, but stability will be an issue.100% organic will never be possible, unless the rules are changed about what counts as “organic”. -
Another option would be this:
Or, you could buy something like this:and have someone build a heating system, a mixer attachment point, and a tilting cradle for it.Heaters at this scale trade power for time - a smaller heater will take longer to heat a batch, but use less electricity. Insulating the kettle and cover usually helps with this - a hot water heater blanket usually works at minimal cost. -
I’m going to assume that you have a moderate budget, so new industrial equipment will be out of your price range. Soapmaking equipment isn’t that expensive. Professional restaurant equipment is similarly priced.
You need a heated kettle with a mixer:and it’s likely that you will need a professional-level immersion blender: -
@milliachemist, you use a computer for shade matching?!? Sacrilege! Blasphemy!
(also, very expensive) -
Generally speaking, formula’s for shades are considered extremely proprietary information.
Additionally, there’s little to no incentive for pigment or pearl manufacturers to develop different shade formulas for their customers - multiple shades will not increase their sales.Lastly, pigments are tricky - they react differently depending on supplier, concentration, % titanium in formula, etc. Lot to lot variations are also common.As far as I know, other than using pre-blended pigment mixes, you have no choice but to make the shades yourself. BUT…this is not a bad thing. Working with pigments in your base to make all these shades will give you a much better grasp of how pigments behave in your particular base, and how to correct for the inevitable variations in processing and shade that you will encounter during production.I have found that making monochromatic batches - using just one pigment - speeds up color matching and shade development by a lot - it is much faster and easier than making dry blends each time. -
I’ve heard that AMPD is an acceptable substitute:
-
According to the supplier, modifying the APG further results in a natural ingredient that is milder than APG:
-
As far as we can tell from the FDA proposed rule, EVERY anti-bacterial agent allowed for use in OTC drug consumer hand and/or body wash will be declared Category III - not proven safe or effective.
At the end of 2015, if the FDA continues on this path, it will be misbranding to sell any product intended for use on human skin as “anti-bacterial”. (Hospital/medical use is exempted)At this point, we have been unable to find any company that supplies monograph anti-bacterial agents willing to perform the extensive (and expensive) testing the FDA is requiring.Not labelling your product as “anti-bacterial” and still using monograph active ingredients will also get you into hot water with the FDA. -
Gluten has become the new paraben.
There are some ignorant consumers (and even some ignorant doctors) who mistakenly believe the old wives tale that “60% of what you apply to your skin goes into your body”. There are also many consumers who believe that having a sensitivity to gluten in their food automatically means that they will react badly to gluten on their skin.
Since 99.5% of all cosmetic ingredients are naturally gluten-free, it costs very little to get letters from cosmetic ingredient suppliers certifying that your ingredients are gluten-free, and therefore substantiate a label claim of “gluten-free”The one thing that you have to be careful of is any wheat-derived raw materials. When consumers say “gluten-free”, they really mean “wheat-free”, so anything with wheat in the name has to go. -
Ummm…when you say “supply a product”, it means that you want to sell it to other people.
When you “procure or purchase a product”, it means that you buy it for your self.When you say “introduce an alternative”, you sound like you are referring back to your first sentence, so are you trying to sell an alternative to Texaphor 963 to other people, or are you looking for an alternative to Texaphor 963 to buy for yourself? -
Posting a complete email address on an open forum is an invitation to spam, though. Either way, it’s better to disguise the address in some way.
-
That makes it even better for cosmetics…
Let me know if he wants some contacts in the US for sales reps. Just remind him that cosmetic raw materials will never be a high-volume business - the best way to work seems to be low-volume, but higher margin. -
@Belassi, that could be a very valuable product to sell into the US Cosmetic market. Has your supplier considered this?
-
Interesting, funny, and sad but true story about fragrance and perception - a certain relatively large cosmetic/ consumer products company had a “brilliant” idea to reduce cost - reduce the fragrance by 20% in their product, and then do a consumer evaluation to see if a typical consumer can tell the difference. Well, it turns out that the majority of consumers cannot tell the difference with that small a fragrance reduction, so the change was made.
Then, they made their first mistake - after some time went by, they reduced the fragrance again. Again, consumers could not tell the difference. BUT…they didn’t bother to test against the original 100% fragrance level version (After all, why should they? They weren’t ever going back to the 100% version) - they only tested the once-reduced version against the twice-reduced version.Long story short, they kept doing this - and now their fragrance level is so low that it doesn’t really cover the smell of their base, to the point that some consumers can’t detect the fragrance at all. And they can’t figure out why they don’t get new customers for this product anymore… -
If I were doing this project for myself or a client, depending on the volume required, I would either buy pre-filled bottles and package them separately, or buy pre-made products and have them filled and packaged separately. The OSHA, insurance, and federal/state environmental regs around setting up even a small-scale filling operation are so strict that the ROI is very bad. Better to contract all of it out and focus on marketing/sales.
-
In all honesty, I think that these PIA lawyers deserve to be charged with attempted murder - or even actual murder - or at least negligent homicide.The number of lives lost from the increased cases of melanoma that is conclusively linked to unprotected exposure to the sun far outweighs the potential danger to the public from the unproven, tenuous, may-be-possible connection between titanium dioxide and cancer.
It would not surprise me in the least to find out that these lawyers are being paid by a zinc oxide manufacturer, or some other sunscreen supplier attempting to increase business.I think that this behavior is reprehensible. Unfortunately, it’s about what I expect from lawyers. -
@Irina, that is very true, and duplicating a fragrance, or even getting something close, is often the toughest and most expensive part of reverse engineering/duplicating a finished product.
There is a reason why the large consumer products companies spend so much time and money on fragrances - they are well aware that consumers connect their products, and product quality, with the quality and recognizability of their fragrance. In a great many formulas, the fragrance is by far the most expensive component.You can duplicate a formula exactly, and match its performance precisely, but if it doesn’t smell right, the vast majority of consumers will refuse to accept that it is the same thing - another reason why there’s usually so little distortion in ingredient labeling. -
Having tried this myself for a client, I can also tell you that it is extremely difficult and time-consuming (for regulatory/Homeland Security issues) to buy plain nitrocellulose. (Which is, for those who don’t know, not just flammable, but also explosive, to the point that it usually can’t be shipped by air.)
For a number of reasons, you will be much better off buying a pre-formulated base and topcoat and repackaging them, even if you add an ingredient or two beforehand - not to mention the explosion-proof facility and equipment you will need to buy in order to make nail polish safely. -
If you strictly stick to cosmetics/personal care, as Mark says, no insurance is needed. Developing any other kind of product - dish washing liquid, for example - would leave you open to potential lawsuits, so insurance would be a good idea.
-
I would have to agree with the 50% down policy as being typical. There would have to be a valid credit reason to not make this arrangement. If your company is relatively new, with little credit history, and you are not contracting for the job personally, I could see this happening - it’s not unheard of. But it does mean that this arrangement is near zero risk for them and almost 100% risky for you - if they screw up and refuse to fix it, all you can do is sue, which could take years.
Typically, the 50% down covers most if not all of the cost of the materials and overhead, so there isn’t much risk for the manufacturer in getting the other 50% on delivery. There is some, however.Perry is right that you really need some financial leverage on top of a manufacturer agreement. You might ask if they’d be willing to accept say, 60 - 70% upfront and 30-40% on approval. (They will send a sample of the finished batch for approval - you will have to pay the balance in order to get them to fill, label, pack and ship your product). This would be even less risk for them than 50/50, and less risky for you as well.If they are are unwilling to bend, it may be time to find a new manufacturer. It may even be time to consider paying a little extra in total in order to have that 50% leverage… -
At some point, it just becomes more cost-effective to buy one of these:
-
@johnsutw, you should see if they’ll make a blade that will fit one of the dremel shafts, but let us know about the high-torque, high-speed drill.
-
@johnsutw, try the dremel, and the shaft from promix. If you are making 100 grams in a 250ml beaker, the torque of the dremel will probably be OK. But…even if it is, the chances that it will be strong enough to mix a 500 gram batch are pretty slim.