Bobzchemist
Forum Replies Created
-
Check the SCS group on LinkedIn.
-
@zink, you can absolutely use zinc oxide to replace TiO2. Make sure you get a pigmentary grade, though, since many of the sunscreen grades try to minimize opacity, and you are trying to maximize it.
I happen to think that Boron Nitride is awesome, (but then I’m biased since I was one of the people who introduced it to the cosmetic industry). You can use any particle size you want, but since it is a platelet-type material with a high aspect ratio, if you go too small, you will loose all of the platelet slip. -
Do you have to stay completely “natural”?
There are many synthetic products that will help - there are far fewer “natural” ones. -
The answer, like so many answers in cosmetic chemistry, is “it depends”.
If the SA in the anhydrous formula is able to penetrate into at least some of the stratum corneum, it may work well enough to provide exfoliation. The exfoliating effect of SA may not be dependent on it’s pH, either. -
As for question 1, try AMA labs. You could run a quick 5-person panel to get an idea of what a full SPF test would net you.
For question 2, did you do a plate count or a challenge test? -
1) There is not a single correct INCI name in the entire list.
2) The use of the word “organic” is expressly prohibited in FDA-compliant ingredient lists
3) The use of the phrase “CO2 Extractions of” is prohibited in FDA-compliant ingredient lists4) The use of the style “Extractions of:” and then a list of plants is prohibited in FDA-compliant ingredient listsGiven all these violations taken together, it’s obvious to me that whoever is advertising this couldn’t care less about complying with FDA regulations. So, why should you believe him when he claims that the ingredients are never heated above 96 degrees, or the product does not contain any waxes, alcohols or toxins? -
Since you are not able to use the most efficient opacifiers, you will have to use much more of the less efficient ones. (at least 2 - 3 times as much) As a result, you will need to consider skin feel of the powders.If you can afford it, the Boron Nitride has the best skin feel, then the Bismuth Oxychloride, then the micas.Calcium Bentonite is probably going to feel like rubbing sandpaper on your skin.
-
If the lab sample they sent you is fine (and you should do a challenge test to make sure), and the production batch either came to you contaminated or was so under-preserved that normal exposure to the environment contaminated it, then something changed in their process or formula.
-
If your lotion is already contaminated, you must destroy it - it cannot be sold for human or even animal use. A quick plate count can determine this. FDA rules are pretty strict about this.
If your lotion is only under-preserved, you can salvage it by adding more preservative. How natural do you need to be? -
Ordinarily, I’d stay out of a discussion like this. However, a major concern here is that Tea Tree Oil is one of the few essential oils that is far from harmless.
Tea tree oil can be toxic if ingested. Using a penetration enhancer to get it further into the skin, where it might be absorbed into the bloodstream, strikes me as being a Very Bad Idea. -
Bismuth Oxychloride, Alumina Trihydrate, nylon powder, cotton fiber, various starches and flours,
How exotic do you want to get? -
Boron Nitride, also microspheres made of various materials.
-
Also look at this website:
Creams thickened with waxes don’t feel good on skin, at least not compared with creams thickened by thickeners. Why do you want to do this? -
Mica, Sericite Mica, Kaolin, various precipitated silicas and silicates, Barium Sulfate (blanc fixe), calcined clay(s).
-
Penetration enhancers can theoretically turn a cosmetic into a drug.
Personally, I would never recommend a penetration enhancer for use in cosmetic products, and particularly so for a home-crafter, unless you have the resources to professionally safety-test your formulations.Safe home-made cosmetics sit on the surface of the skin and do not penetrate. Ever. Anything more than that introduces an unacceptable health risk, in my opinion. -
ADM (Archer Daniels Midland Company)
-
Typical honey analysis:Fructose: 38.2%Glucose: 31.3%Maltose: 7.1%Sucrose: 1.3%Water: 17.2%Higher sugars: 1.5%Ash: 0.2%Other/undetermined: 3.2%None of the sugars in honey are oil-soluble, so even boiling the water out will not help you incorporate honey into an oil-based product.As Jane (@MakingSkincare) says, you’ll need an emulsifier to get honey into your system. I would try pre-mixing the emulsifier with the honey before adding the mix to your balm.Because you’re now introducing water, it would be prudent to include a preservative as well.
-
magnesium aluminum silicate is the key.
Use the Veegum HS grade for maximum electrolyte stability and minimum acid demand. -
I don’t really consider Cetearyl Alcohol to be an emulsifier. I did think, however that GMS 165 was just a peculiar way to identify Glyceryl Mono-Stearate, so I missed that piece, sorry.
That being said, I think Matt’s got the right idea: Steareth-2/Steareth-21 combo, with the possible addition of polysorbate 60 and/or what used to be called Arlacel P-135 ( now Cithrol™ DPHS from Croda = PEG 30 Dipolyhydroxystearate)With the use of the Steareth-2/Steareth-21 combo, the Cetearyl Alcohol does act as an emulsion stabilizer/LC booster. I’m not at all sure it behaves the same way with PEG-40 stearate. -
The only emulsifier I see is PEG-40 Stearate (Myrj S40). Have you considered a co-emulsifier? Maybe one of the Span’s (Polysorbates)?
-
Sodium Stearate can give you a stick structure all by itself. An aesthetically pleasing stick? Not so much.
This should be useful:David, do you folks make anything similar to “heel-tastic”? -
David,
Filling a water-based stick product requires very careful control/minimization of product evaporation, to the point where scrap material probably can’t be re-worked.There are two (maybe three) types of containers you can fill into:1) Direct-fill push up2) Direct-fill propel/repelmaybe 3) Pre-molded fill propel/repel (lipstick-type) More expensive, more equipment needed, harder to assemble - just mentioned for completeness.Particularly with the direct fill push-up containers, you need to have a formula that will shrink enough away from the container walls so that it’s relatively easy to push up the product. Propel/repel containers let you overcome a little more friction, but not much.Having a formula that shrinks, though, means that you will have to decide how to deal with the shrinkage cavity/shrinkage funnel that will inevitably develop. You might be able to avoid this by filling from the back.Picture: -
Manufacturing/batching order is irrelevant with these materials.