chemicalmatt
Forum Replies Created
-
I sure recommend using hydroxysultaine in place of CAPB, works just the same or better and comes in a 50% active state instead of 30% - a good move there. Although there is not nearly enough research on coacervation my opinion, despite the works of Robert Lochhead and the late Des Goddard, you can bank on salt reducing deposition of cationic guar or Polyquaternum-10 or dimethicone. The ratio of anionic to amphoteric is important also, closer to 1:1 solids for these shampoos. Nobody has repeated these experiments on dilution-deposition with glucosides, glutamates, glycolipids, and all the other shiny new saccharide-based surfactants. What a shame. Perhaps you or I will someday get time to do so. Cheers.
-
@NasirAhmedRubel better than that is rice starch. Less expensive too.
-
Yes, it is an oil @NasirAhmedRubel and you may substitute very low viscosity mineral oil (70 wt or less) if you are unable to get hold of esters such as isopropyl myristate, octyl palmitate or others.
-
@Abdullah Hi there. This chart may be misleading, the actual coacervate complex is from the combination of anionic to amphoteric, or SLES-2 to sodium cocoamphoacetate. They show the glucoside as boosting that deposition (and it is amodimethicone/guar HPTC, not dimethicone, another misleading factor!), I can offer that is because glucosides make the whole damn formula more hydrophobic. Another bit of malfeasance: why add NaCl into this? Salt lowers the dilution-deposition threshold so that most of the conditioner materials will rinse away, not deposit. There is always at least 5.0% free NaCl in sodium cocoamphacetate and CAPB, CAHS so factor that into your formula. This is why we always used the salt-free Gemini amphos such as disodium cocoamphoacetate for conditioning shampoos. To answer your question: 2:1 ratio of anionic : amphoteric solids and add the least amount of salt you can manage. As for glucoside, I cannot see more than 2.0% added here. They are just trying to sell more glucoside.
-
@kivangel as someone who worked in contract manufacturing for over 35 years, all in Chicagoland, I can say you are asking for a lot of parameters for a low MOQ house. Do you mean OTC-drug registered establishment when you state “FDA registered”? That cuts out a LOT of CM. Also, certification for ISO16128 by SGS or another agency is an expense most CM will not abide unless their client (or their own brand) requires retail acceptance through WERCS. Honestly, I cannot believe Mana, Apex, Bell, or others of that size and stature would even commit to 20,000 MOQ. Lower your limitations and I’m sure you will find a good CM that can perform capably at the 4000 - 5000 unit level. As for MOQ of 2000? I cannot say. Others may weigh in here.
-
@Pharma is right on point there. Alkali are strongly keratolytic whereas acids are weakly keratolytic, excepting that nasty sulfuric acid mentioned. Fun “don’t try this at home” story. I once did a demo for the ACS for some high school kids, trying to peak their interest in STEM. I placed a copper penny into a small beaker of HCl 36% and they watched it fume and dissolve. Then I placed drops of the same acid onto my bare hand (HCl is non-keratolytic) while they gaped in awe. “See kids, I am Superman, even acid doesn’t hurt me.” Now, had I an open cut on that hand at the time, my painful cry would have been even funnier. Hemoglobin is an iron complex, reacts with HCl big-time. ????
-
@ML3000 You may have better luck finding PEG-8 Stearate, virtually the same nonionic emulsifier, or try the glyceryl ester analog Polyglcyeryl-4 Stearate. As for cetyl ricinoleate, that is a builder not an emulsifier, so how about using the more common cetyl palmitate?
-
@Formulator If anything chlorphenesin will be better in the mild alkaline range (pH 7 - 9), so your project is ideal.
-
Dr. Phil gave you the Big Picture there, so I can distill down to the little picture. Look at the CFR file [2016-15410, pp 42918] which is still valid today. Use the monograph limits for ethanol or isopropanol or BKZ, although ethanol is the most effective, least expensive, easiest to work with and most consumer acceptable active to use. BKZ has issues with P. aeruginosa (and @PhilGeis might correct me on that one) resistance, whereas the alcohols do not. Our company is the originator of Rapidgel EZ1, the drop-in alcohol thickener, for which sales went crazy when hand sanitizers sales did same, so we have a LOT of research on this. My beef with the TFM - and I always smile at that oxymoron - is their dismissal of chloroxylenol (PCMX), although it is still allowed in washes/ liquid soaps. PCMX has been safely in use since the 1920’s, has been proven not to be a contributor to MIRSA, is 60X more effective than phenol…I could go on. Triclosan, triclocarban, hexachlorophene and all the others (including dioxin!) have come and gone with dishonor, but PCMX maintains its rightful place in antiseptic formulation.
-
@Cafe33 I’ll second the recommendation from @ketchito . Although cationic silicone adheres to keratin better than any other, if you combine 1000 cst. dimethicone with a behenyl quat like behentrimonium chloride, you will get a similar effect. If haircolor retention is your game, then add a small amount of polyquaternium-37 and a UV absorber and there you have it. Consider this a formulation hack. We are full of them; just ask us anytime.
-
<div>I’m unsure what kind of “hair stick” was being discussed before (polyquat-10, polyquat-7 and proteins are only for water-borne hair products) but here is the original one, which I had a hand in creating. Over 25 years on the market and still going! Go for it.</div>
-
I’ve never seen amodimethicone microemulsion (the CETAC one, I presume?) used in that application before @Abdullah The “classic” approach is straight up dimethicone, preferable a higher MW like 10,000 cst., which I’m betting is what @ketchito used. The classic stabilizer for this in a shampoo system is always sodium xylene sulfonate at a low level, like 0.20 - 0.50% solid state. The commercial stuff is 40% active. If this already works, then no need to fix it, although dimethicone costs less and works better.
-
The ingredient chemistry you want to use here is the same one the food techs use to address this very same problem: polyglyceryl esters of fatty acids - preferable multi-esters such as polyglceryl-6 octastearate - will prevent recrystallization and sweating from butters and waxes. Just swap out the polysorbate-80 for one of these. BTW, “blooming” is the trade term the chocolatiers use for this phenomenon. I know: I’m just full of senseless trivia to share with y’all.
-
Micellar waters are a new marketing name for an old application. Be advised MOST of the micellar water products on the market are not finished products but simply conveyances for botanical extracts applied as ingredients for skin care. I did not know these were being applied as facial cleansers, a poor application in my book. This rings of gimmickry. Facial cleansers are of two types. Oil based for cosmetic makeup removal, water/surfactant based for daily mild cleansing. If you needed 4 wipes to remove something in aqueous media, there’s evidence of a formulator exceeding their level of competence.
-
@fareloz Not only are Polyquats used in conditioning shampoos but these are the original dilution-deposition polymers applied for this purpose. Polyquaternium-10 and Polyquat-7 and their analogs are the best ones to use. (Guar HPTC users may dispute that claim, but they’ll be itchin’ fer a fight if they do????) For these to coacervate in anionic shampoo/body wash systems you do need to include an amphoteric also, preferably a cocoamphoacetate or dipropionate ampho at solids range 1:2 with your anionics.
-
@Herbnerd Do you have any safety assessment on the glycolipids being used? These are relatively new surfactants in the supply chain. Also how do these taste? I know the polyglycerol esters have been used extensively in food products as solubilizer-emulsifiers and have a longstanding safety profile.
-
@Umesh what specifically is the problem you are having? Can you share with us a problem statement? Only anomaly I see is EDTA. Why is a chelant needed where so many minerals are added?
-
My understanding is 2.0% topically applied anywhere is the limit. Weirdly, wart removers are allowed up to 17.0%.
-
Unsure of the problem statement here. Can you clarify? You allude to waterless formulation yet also mention a foamer canister dispenser for water-based products. Is this product non-aqueous or aqueous or an aerosol?
-
CETAC is redundant. You already have two superior quaternary alkyl compounds in there, both which add emulsification and hair sensorial conditioning. CETAC functions quite well as an inexpensive cationic emulsifier. As for conditioning: meh!
-
I am unsure of the problem statement here. What is the specific concern or dilemma?
-
Are you certain that settling is not due to the mineral(s)? Without a rheology additive, those will always settle eventually. That being said, I have to believe that triethyl citrate and squalane are not miscible for the very reason you mention. If it is one of these lipids settling, then try a coupler ester like coco caprylate or dibutyl adipate.
-
Rapidgel EZ-1 from 3V Sigma USA will do the job handily. This is the acrylic crosspolymer many folks used during the alcohol hand sanitizer bonanza in 2020 - 2021. It is associative so a little goes far if there are fatty alcohol builders involved in your formula.
-
Add the BTMS to the water phase directly at 85 - 90C. Once dissolved/dispersed, then add remaining surfactants, lipids, builders in that order or as a separate oil phase. Cool slowly and mix slowly while cooling. Adding CETAC is not advisable, nor is homogenizing. Best way to crash a cationic emulsion: high shear. If you must add STPDMA, not a bad idea, add the neutralizing acid to the water and BTMS liquid first, then add the STPDMA with the oil phase or even directly allowing plenty of time to melt/blend/neutralize. Lactic acid works way better than citric acid too.
-
A couple of considerations here. Which hormone are you delivering? Progesterone? Progesterone acetate? Other? Prog acetate will be lipid-soluble, while Prog natural more water dispersible with a logP< 5. Also, pentylene glycol and ethoxydiglycol are superior penetration aids to the others. As for amping up concentration, remember your system will always have a capacity limitation, so even 10% may be more than enough, the rest “left on the table” so to speak and hormones are very expensive, right?