chemicalmatt
Forum Replies Created
-
Paula, assuming “NE’ means non-ionic emulsifier, use PEG-40 Peroleate for your bath oil. It works even better than the combo you were used to. On the other hand, if “NE” means non-ethoxylated, as millia suggests, then you are SOL.
-
I never thought the “sulfate-free” trend would get farther than use in color-retention shampoos, for which they are actually preferred; yet there it is. Plenty of customers are now asking for sulfate-free cleansers, even laundry detergents!. Same for parabens: a shame the perception has gotton this far advanced, and we are forced to use less effective anti-fungal preservatives. As for triclosan - no problem and good riddance. p-chloro-m-xylenol was - and still is - just as effective a microbiocide, when coupled with phenoxyethanol, as triclosan, only at half the price. It is accepted as a preservative globally and works at any pH. Sure it has odor issues, but that is easily overcome. I seem to recall triclosan’s original appeal was it didn’t impart a medicinal odor like PCMX, and had better solubility in water. Big deal.
-
cssci21, I’m reasonably sure you are without a fix here. My guess is it isn’t viscosity making your product “stream” instead of spray, it is polymer chemistry. Long-chain polymers, which may comprise one or more of your film-forming gums,do not lend themselves to atomization in a spray format, unless they are at very low levels of concentration. In the event I’m mistaken, however, just add a little salt along with a little alkanolamide (to prevent clogging the spray valve.)
-
David, how about using good old witch hazel as the astringent; and why is menthol out of bounds? Frescolat is menthyl lactate if memory serves, and it will be effective at 2.0% or more (compared to 0.5% menthol). That will get very expensive though. How about Coolact P from Takasago also? Expensive, but cools skin OK.
-
SPF 15 would be the usual target, but if you are not claiming “sunburn protection” , then you need not bother claiming one at all. A little clever semantics goes a long way.
-
Rosa, there is not enough information to make a judgement here. You did not mention the surfactant system, nor any colloid or gum you may be using to emulsify and stabilize this product, which I assume is an o/w emulsion. Also, is the Al-coated TiO2 among the “additives” you mention? If the ingredients listed above are the additives, added last, and the separation occurs before these are added, then it lends evidence of a sytemic problem, not necessarily a compatibility issue.
-
Danny, I can’t think of any one-site source explaining the acronyms you see. I assume you are referring to ingredient INCI names and such. You’ll need to invest time in studying the chemistry of these materials. Go to the manufacturers’ websites for a start. For beginners, know that PEG is polyethylene glycol, which is actually an epoxide polymer adducted to a carbon chain to enhance hydrophilicity, changing the HLB (hydrophile-lipophile balance) of that material. PPG is polypropylene glycol, another epoxide adduct that also changes the HLB. You are on your own from here on.
-
Hello Millia. At least this article does not identify the alleged endocrine disrupters by name, thus sparing our industry the slander (pretty sure the authors are referring to parabens, though.) Endocrine disrupters affecting sperm motility: big deal. Like Ruben notes, doesn’t seem to be a problem, especially in India. BTW, the most vivid endocrine disrupter of all? Sugar. Let’s see what happens trying to ban that!
-
Buy the reagent grade. You will find it has an identical assay level, just not certified as meeting all those lengthy USP standards. Your outcome will be the same.
-
gfeldman, the condition you describe is “soaping” as surmised. It is not necessarily derived from the use of cheap ingredients, just the many anionic emulsifiers that are based on saponification (e.g. TEA-Stearic acid) and their low MW esters (e.g. glyceryl stearate). Formulas containing foaming surfactants will contribute to this as well (e.g. glucosides). You do not have to change your entire oil phase either; just add cetyl alcohol and the whitening will diminish significantly. Be advised the viscosity will increase significantly as well. I know I have adressed this issue here in the past, so I now have the CSNY song “Deja Vu” in my head …”we have all been here before…”
-
Thank you Bob. The thanks of a grateful nation is all we veterans ask, right?
BTW, ever try to actually make liposomes using phospholipids (lecithin) and an agent to be “vesicled”? They make it sound so easy. It is not. Next time somebody asks me for some, I’ll call Salvona or somewhere and make a purchase.
-
If using a high level of silicone derivatives in your formula, I recommend water-in-silicone emulsions, because they are elegant and often much less expensive, depending on the water level used, which can be significant. Check out Dow-Corning 5225C emulsifier or DC5200 if you are also incorporating polar (botanical, vegetable) oils and esters too. Evonik and SilTech also have equally good ( and less expensive) W/Si emulsifiers. Check their literature for processing tips. If you are merely emulsifying a little silicone and a little oil (< 10% total), then I recommend cationic emulsifiers. Behenyltrimonium chloride or acid-neutralized tetiary alkyl amines (e.g. stearamidopropyl dimethylamine) work best for larger MW dimethicone (~10,000 CST +) and the various polysiloxane gums. As for lecithin, put it on your corn flakes at breakfast time for a heart-healthy phoshpolipid punch; stray away from using it in cosmetic formulations unless you are making liposomes.
-
You will not be able to incorporate any more urea than 40% (if that much), since you’ll exceed it’s water solubility saturation point. Urea only softens skin - and callouses. It does not actually “treat” callouses or remove them like a keratolytic agent would. That is likely the reason FDA hedged. I would classify urea creams as homeopathic remedies. They have been around for over 70 years.
-
Assuming you mean dimethicone, kfox, the answer is: yes, you may use it, but no, it will not work. Try Plan B.
-
Thanks, David. I’ll contact Rowayton. I’ve got a few drums of a hair fixative polymer I want to move.
-
VInta, check out food ingredient suppliers in your area for both cocoa shell powder and salt. Their prices tend to be lower than the distributors peddling to the personal care industry. Salt can be had from any industrial chemical supplier also.
-
Before you get too far using that article linked from makingcosmetics.com, cherri, be advised there are glaring misrepresentations in that article about inverse-phase emulsions. Do not add polymeric thickeners to the internal (water) phase - ever - unless you really want to drive yourself crazy. I don’t know where they came up with that one, but it is categorically wrong. (Who writes this stuff?) Also, magnesium sulfate works better than NaCl in stabilizing W/O emulsions about 90% of the time, so start with epsom salt always. That article also fails to mention the best W/O emulsifiers in existence, the silicone-based ones. See Evonik, Siltech and Dow-Corning product guidelines for these. In case you haven’t deduced this yet: you have to begin from scratch here; you cannot simply “change” from O/W to W/O.
-
Maya, bentonite, laponite or good old Veegum (magnesium aluminum silicate) would solve your stability issue, even with the oils incorporated. Clays tend to deactivate formaldehyde donor preservatives, (and others I suspect), especially when added after incorporation. Always add your preservative first to the water, before adding the clays and colloids. Perhaps someone else in the Forum knows the best preservative to use with clays. I have to believe simpler molecules like benzyl alcohol, sodium benzoate, sodium dehydroacetate would do well; PCMX would be a slam-dunk.
-
Do not ever be embarrassed asking for advice on this forum,chicagogirl.That’s why Perry ( a Chicago boy like me) founded it. We studied chemistry and physics so you didn’t have to. FYI, the solvent concentration (water in this case) does affect penetration too. Less water, less penetration. Also, you may have a case here of less is more. I don’t think you need more than 1.0% dl-panthenol in a o/w lotion to be effective in softening the skin. Add a little urea and all the better. Cheers.
-
Kim, assuming there is no SDA (ethanol) in this toner, and the pH is in the 5.6 - 6.5 range, why not switch to Geogard 221 (benzyl alcohol & dehydroacetic acid)? Safety profile and regulatory status is the same.
-
It won’t.
-
I cannot think a beeswax-borax w/o emulsion would be stable without the borax. Those who claim stability likley had a very high level of lipid components and likely at least one other low HLB surfacatant without knowing it. I have a lot of experience with these formulas and its intriguing to think of them as a “nouveaux” natrural emulsifier, which of course they are. There is no other w/o emulsifier as natural as this, by the way. The glucosides are chemically modified. Beeswax is also useful as a stabilizer in w/o emulsions using other emulsifiers, which can also use microcrystalline wax for the same purpose. Beeswax is not cheap these days, like it was only ten years ago, but you may be onto something here in exploring its use. White beeswax with an Acid Value of 17 - 24 works best as I recall.
-
SPF testing is expensive, but here goes: in the Eastern U.S. try Essex Testing; in the Midwest try Advanced Testing Laboratory; in the Western U.S. try Bioscreen Testing Services.
One (1) cfu is absolutely nothing to worry about. Usually that would be annotated as <10 cfu/ml, which is well within acceptable control limits.
Perry & Making are correct in their assessment. Given the high profile given the naturals, this formulator conveniently left out the unnatural ingredients. This is a common scam within the “natural cosmetics” industry. And, they likely did process this at 35 - 40C by using an associative thickener to hold it all together, e.g. Seppigel 305 or what not. Listing all that neat almost-edible stuff would be undermined by also listing “Acrylamide” too. There oughta’ be a law! Oh wait, there already IS one.
-
Yup…..that’s the isosorbide thingy allright. Arlasolve DMI (dimethyl isosorbide)? Not an ester either, but a modified heterocycle. Another strangely expensive chemical too if I recall. Even more so now that Croda markets it, I suspect.
-
You need to know your nomenclature for fatty acid homologs: deceyl = C10, dodecyl = C12, Lauryl = C14, Palmitic = C16, Stearyl = C18, Behenyl = C22, all saturated carbon chains. Unsaturated ones (olefins) have different names. Perry ought to add a link someplace to study these. You cannot go wrong with coco glucosides, though building viscosity is a small hurdle to overcome, you are well advised to make it the base surfactant for your wash and begin from there. I do not have much experience with SMC Taurate, though I do know it was used early on in the “sulfate-free” game. The glucosides and sarcosinates are less expensive and foam better than the taurates, if memory serves. Those glutamates are superb - but wierdly expensive in my opinion. Glycerin is vastly over-rated in body washes, for the reasons mentioned earlier.