Cst4Ms4Tmps4
Forum Replies Created
-
Dear @Research1,
Nothing to do with your background. Nothing to do with how stupid you are. Definitely not language barrier.
Your apology comes out as sarcasm. See? You are doing it again. You still do not list down your ingredients. You knowingly ignore again. You are doing it on purpose. You rather spend that time to apologise.
I think you are not taking your enquiry seriously. You do not need valid answers, perhaps. You are probably too lonely, hoping somebody to entertain your vagueness and ambiguity. National secret. Maybe world secret.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher -
@mariamu96
Whoa, shrinkage? Is it double entendre? Hahahaha! I am informally known as an infamous shrink.
I ASSume your hair is Afro kind.
In all seriousness, I do not understand my own hair too well. I do not know you want my hair texture. And texture of other people’s hair may not be good for me. Be careful what you wish for, as they say.
I used to admire Afro hair because I had never once heard anyone of them needing to straighten hair and all sorts of styling. Zero maintenance. I was very young and unexposed, to state the obvious. I did not know people with Afro hair have their own set of challenges. The worst I learnt about them is many of them actually use oil to remove frizz. OMG! I am not a clean human but I have my own “OCD” when it comes to oil on things and oil transferring from one place to another. I was not joking nor sarcastic when I said I am a lazy feck. I do not want to wash and clean oil residue daily. OCD and laziness are never friends.
-
People do not do their homework anymore, before asking. It appears @Perry already answered here :
https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/discussion/comment/68710/#Comment_68710
My version is : I do not know what ‘deep conditioner’ is. I am a lazy fcuk. I am a rebel.
Conditioner normally works instantly. There is no need to leave on hair for that much time. Adding time or heat will not make conditioning effect greater than that particular chemical can do. (Of course depends on who is answering)
Likewise, there are many people believe that leaving Cationic sanitiser on their hands the longer the better the antibacterial effect is. Some of them LITERALLY leave it on toilet for 10 minutes or more before they use the toilet. One of them is the most extreme who I know, that is my friend, she leaves it for 30 minutes, this means she has to plan and predict her toilet business. What an extremely stressful lifestyle that is. As if time is not enough, she adds heat, hot water, Chlorine bleach, Chlorhexidine Gluconate, Chloroxylenol, Chlorine Dioxide. If you think I jest it can only mean you never come across an extremist like that. Not OCD. OCD is an abused and misused word. Irrational bollocks is the right terminology.
Another real-life example is I do not use heat nor fancy gadget to do rebonding or to straighten my hair. (Do not judge my profile image. It is an old one. My hair now look a bit like that of Julian Cullen’s in The Bureau Of Magical Things. LOL!)
Imagine how much time and money I need to spend doing simple and easy stuff, even if it is DIY. This is the reason why knowledge is indeed power.Back to deep conditioner, VO5 seriously has no oil as Perry mentioned. LMAO! It is just another conditioner, only with very high price.
Psychology 101 - some people feel hero by complicating things. Some people feel complicated (expensive) things must be quality. If there is demand, there will be supply. There is always something for all types of idiots.
All right. You probably argue that the chemicals (ingredients) penetrate hair “better” with heat and possibly time. Or “other people” say. You and other people are right! However, my answer is yes and no. You need to know your chemicals well enough, and how hair work. No different to some people preach and propagate bad science about certain chemicals can penetrate skin creating cancer when they do not even penetrate more than the outermost layer of skin. Another irrational bollocks. The same people spreading nonsense still (secretly) use what they say is evil.
-
Quality of answers provided by yours truly and other (real) chemists are as good as the information you provide us with.
Many people are insanely secretive about the ingredients that they use and how much they use to the point as though national secret. Good luck to those people trying to get valid answers.
You seem to be one of those with national secret.
https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/discussion/11447/ph-buffer-at-ph-6-80-7-20
@Perry and @Pharma are really knowledgeable and realistic people.
Pharma will tell you extra things that you never ask, but super useful. You simply missed the chance to learn the true ‘secrets’.You did it and you did it again. Thus, you will continue to miss the chance. Very likely they will not bother to engage in your future posts if you continue to be secretive. I say GOOD LUCK TO YOU! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I could pretend to be a nice person and respond by presumptions. With vagueness, of course. As vague as somebody I recently responded to. LOL!
1) 0,15% low. Higher %.
2) Xanthan Gum. Suspend good. Texture bad. You choice.
3) HPMC no good. Viscosity reverse temperature.
4) You test flaw.
5) “…it does not separate at all. Only slight sedimentation”???? What you talking?!?!?!?! That 100% separate. Googal SEPARASHYUN TECHNIKZ.
It is separation even if you split the same water into two different containers. You split gasses that you see no visible difference is still separation. Slight or severe sedimentation is still separation. Engineers worked hard to create detection devices that detect the slightest separation of any stuff which the scamming human eye and the unreliable human brain fail to detect.
-
Another quality and (real) scientific response by @Perry.
I like confirmation bias. LMAO!Hello to you again, @Abdullah.
You can prove and convince yourself by covering a part of your skin with plastic.More realistic proof is parts covered by clothes are normally naturally moist/oily.
An even more realistic proof is the folds of skin (joints, fat, wrinkles) on your body. People rarely or never get any imperfections such as acne/pimple in these places, so it is easier to observe.
Those places nearly always having the smoothest and ‘youngest’ appearance without the need for special treatment or product compared to skin exposed to external insults.
The scalp is another very good realistic proof. See those elderly bald people? Only their scalps retain high level of youth while the rest of their bodies die.
@Dtdang I have been using Tretinoin for all my life. I am still using it. According to the Internet, Retinol and Tretinoin are similar to each other. Tretinoin is a controlled item due to its potency (It is banned in certain countries). I am not interested in the types of vitamin-A derivatives in, say Olay Regenerist, because it is too weak OR contains too little of that thing to be useful OR probably does not even have that thing. It is a marketing thing, you know…
I am not sure what you read or told how Retinol actually works. Its primary action is to peel skin. Old skin away, new skin is magically grown. Nothing special to it. AHA and BHA and whatever chemical peels can do the same. Many people even swear that Citrus juices can do the same. I am sure you have heard it over and over. Sometimes concentrated salt solution and sunburn can do the same, these dry/kill the skin, dried/dead and black skin sloughs off, new and white skin mysteriously pops out. What a natural way. LOL! You can see this easily on the beach.
Having said all that, only Tretinoin can touch deep down (messes with DNA). It does not work only at the surface, that is.
Other weaklings vitamin-A derivatives could do it too, I think. But I can say about Tretinoin only because Tretinoin is an extremely well-researched drug for more than 50 years. It is one of those gold standard stuff in medicine.Now, can mess with DNA does not mean it whitens skin and removes wrinkles the way that most people believe or preach.
“Old” skin still needs to come up.
There is a reason why people on Tretinoin treatment for removing hyperpigmentation are STILL asked NOT to be under the Sun without protection.
There is a reason why the same people who successfully remove whatever they want to have removed are STILL asked NOT to be under the Sun without protection.
They will perpetually go on treatment otherwise. Or blame Tretinoin is shit. (The blame part is common and real story all over the world. Many people using Tretinoin have unrealistic goal and understanding.) -
@Perry
Yes. I totally and completely aware that I have been using “enough” frequently these days! Of course you and I are wise people who read with wisdom. What I mean is there are times when enough is not enough, as the example you mentioned in your last paragraph. Although I am not doing what I do for profit or business, I am always improving my formulation.
In cosmetics context, I am talking about formulation versus claims/marketing. I never fail to see the things you and another have been preaching. Preach actual science, that is.
About your preaching - when you strip away all the marketing nonsense such as botanical extracts, au naturel/organik (whatever), hi-tek (whatever), you will be left with the basic stuff that work. Amazingly, majority of lists of ingredients are frighteningly identical among each other at their core. The weirdest sight is Glycerol is nearly always present in almost all products regardless of how high class or high-tech those products are.
Another weird thing is Glycerol is present in high amount. If they use super high-tech ingredient that they claim superior to Glycerol in every facet, then they should not be using Glycerol at that high level. Yet another weird thing is they are so honest to even put Glycerol high up.
Many businesses, misconstrue customer demand or trend as perfection.
Many customers, misconstrue good smell and good feel as perfection. Subjectivity is good money to businesses because the can use the cheapest stuff and earn big profit. As you already mentioned many times that some or many of those labelled/listed stuff may not even exist or exist in uselessly low concentration their products.Unless quality is night and day, or unless one has bioengineered feelers, no one can “feel’ quality. Same as using a dowser to dowse for quality.
I asked a great many people what is quality (of anything, not limited to cosmetics) to them. All they ever tell is by their six senses. The sixth sense is included. I am not jesting. Even if I am, every joke has some truth. So, if whatever product has pretty packaging, it is high quality to them. They judge quality by smell and packaging.
I forgot the name of the psychological test I performed aeons ago. Served ultra cheap wine from a dirty store, re-labeled the whole thing with label of expensive wine, no one can tell the wine is cheap and dirty, all of them believed it is expensive. This experiment is done many times by other people as well but some of them did food and dessert.
Disclaimer and hedge: Ambiance must be right for maximum effect. Relaxing classy music. Classy server speaking classily. Classy color temperature (Usually below 3000 Kelvin).Another one I did is I primed people with a notion (brainwash) that organically grown something is inorganically grown, reversed the other.
Those who were primed to believe that that thing is organically grown said it is the best in terms of whatever their senses told them.
Those who were primed to believe that that thing is inorganically grown said it is inferior to the rest according to their senses.Disclaimer and hedge: That works the best only on people who believe inorganic whatever is evil. It will not work on people who do not care organic or otherwise.
Sometimes, it is not even a substance’s quality issue. Glycerol is sticky naturally, not its quality issue. The highest quality Glycerol from Sigma-Aldrich is still sticky. Is like saying Thioacetone is low quality because its odor is exceedingly horrid.
-
What I will share is strictly not for you. It is all noise to you. It is just that your style of post and response reminds me of my over 17 years of combatting fantastical beliefs and convincers which seemingly realistic, rationally, and logical.
1. Fake physicist explaining good science.
https://youtu.be/C91gKuxutTU (Stand-up comedy routine about bad science)To make matters worse, two physicists and one mathematician are comedians! Never trust comedians making fun of serious stuff!
2. There is no such thing as false dichotomy or illusion of choice in life. Convert -> subjugate -> slay.
3. Does not matter pseudo-science, junk-science, non-science, non-sense. Something is legitimate as long as something sounds science-y.
4. ‘Business model’ is DEFINITELY NOT brand loyalty and DEFINITELY NOT profit. Even fraudsters/defrauder have been using such meaningfool language since ancient time.
Solicitor/lawyer/attorney scam is not a thing.
Daylight robbery is actually legitimate as long as nobody sees, knows, catches, complains.
5. Any and all, each and every business never defrauds because it is a customer’s willingness paying for something. Therefore all blames go to customers and purely customers.6. P-hacking and lying with numbers. Numbers never tell lies.
https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q (Is Most Published Research Wrong?)
https://youtu.be/1tSqSMOyNFE (How We’re Fooled By Statistics)https://youtu.be/eqrv-Lq4a5E (P-Hacking Explained)
https://youtu.be/u_jxEpQsOfI (Dropping Conditions that “Work”)
https://youtu.be/jiXmVjJTSmM (Multiple Measures Misuse)
https://youtu.be/kGM2jT60SiE (Covariate Misuse)
https://youtu.be/qO57DH8gG9Q (Selective Stopping Rules)
https://youtu.be/faOGQxtNlYg (P-Curve)One is a physicist, and the other is associate professor of marketing.
Never appeal to authority. You should seek a genuine homeless person for all your financial and hygiene needs. Seek a humble carpenter if you need dental treatment or heart bypass procedure.
7. Comparisons among products and ingredients must be as vague, ambiguous, and evasive as the way some of us say or write. You see plenty like these in brochures/leaflets/product sheet.
8. The first principle is that you must fool yourself, because you are the best person to fool.
9. Every customer knows nothing about formulation nor business.
On the flip side, every chemist in a business knows what he or she is doing even when they do not do chemistry by merely following manufacturers’ data. Big companies have R&D spending millions of dollars annually making extremely good products by changing packaging and rewording (and rebranding) with the same content and same practices.
Change only a few molecules with pinpoint marketing accuracy. Consumers are stupid anyway, and they do not have equipment to know.
10. You can fool all humans all the time, and you can fool God anytime.
11. The problem with the world is the intelligent is cocksure, and the stupid is full of doubt.
12. Intellectual dishonestly is a human construct. Time is not a human construct. Ask any honest mathematicians, they have the numerical power to prove or disprove everything in every universe.
13. If facts do not fit opinion, change facts.
Modify law or theory to fit hypothesis, if hypothesis is wrong.
Count the hits, ignore the misses.14. If something is working well enough, conventional wisdom states you should basically change nothing, but pretend like you change a lot. Add or minus even one molecule of something is a big thing with the help of beautifool language. Customers are stupid and have no equipment to know the truth anyway.
15. Change nothing as long as no one complains. Fortunately, no one business gets a single complaint or lawsuit to date, because no one business sells less-than-perfect.
16. The heart of any businesses is to rationalise in order to justify everything. Shift the goalpost on end.
17. Rationality, logic, and skepticism are a poison to the profit of businesses of any sorts. Keep customers in the dark, the more stupid they are, the more money can be sucked out from them.
18. There is something for everyone is fake. Desperate people never exist. No stupid is born every minute. Barnum-Forer Effect is as marvellous as Puss-in-Boots and Cinderella.
19. One of the best practices is reject evidence or proof that are given to you, and you endlessly demand for proof or evidence. Keep moving the goal post when proof or evidence is presented to you. Your proof to others is not as important as proof from others to you.
20. Deny and distort what you have said and yet to say. Throw in “You take/quote it out of context”. Throw in some philosophical fallacy labels and (immature) psychological defence mechanism whenever you feel attacked, threatened, misunderstood, disapproved, disagreed.
21. Giving silent treatment or smart retort believing that all people are a troll, passive aggressive, waste or your time, or other things is your personal choice which may or may not exist only in your own mind and not outside of your mind.
There are many more. I cannot recall. It has been quite a long time since I last proactively had fun with those people. I would remember if you cook up some responses giving my memory electroshock therapy. Maybe I do remember, it is, however, best to bespoke and not to culture appropriate.
Let us learn fictitious science. https://youtu.be/MF6JYqQLZqQ
I gotta jet! I’mma tracking Santa with NORAD! That ancient mythical being is now above the Solomon Sea travelling at Mach 8.35! Unbefakinglievable! -
Hmm. I thought the active killer and inhibitor is (free) Formaldehyde itself, and if Formalin is not good as fungicide, no formaldehyde-donor will be good as fungicide.
Maybe Sodium Hydroxymethylglycinate is indeed better than DMDM Hydantoin overall only because Sodium Hydroxymethylglycinate produces more free Formaldehyde than DMDM Hydantoin at the same given time.
Nothing much about Sodium Hydroxymethylglycinate on the Internet compared to DMDM Hydantoin. Maybe you did some tests that you know it has better anti-fungal activity than DMDM Hydantoin. (I am making blind assumptions)
This is something like the comparison among humectants I commonly read in this community. Some people are rich enough to follow marketing. Some people are rich enough to try each and every ‘humectant’. It is all about how much one can afford to buy and a competition rather than focusing on the purpose of a humectant. They “forgot” what a humectant is for. They want superb humectant. They want superb feel as soon as they obtain superb humectant. Because there is no one chemical that has perfect characteristics, they keep adding more and more stuff to mitigate each chemical’s disadvantage/s to the point they do not know which actually works.
They rather start with problem-full stuff only to fix it. Same weirdness applies to people wanting a lot of ‘healthy/miraculous’ oil in a product only to add a lot of stuff to make it dry. Solving one issue by creating a new issue. Creating a new issue in order to solve an issue. Nothing is resolved. Vicious cycle. Endless dissatisfaction.
What they actually want is nanobots. Nanobots can be programmed to release an exact amount of something at the exact timing and stop exactly when they detect a certain concentration of that something is reached. Otherwise, unless it is marketing, “smart” chemical does not exist in this universe, or universes for that matter.
I am directing towards DIYers. Unless a DIYers have too much money to waste or are funded by other people, it is not fun doing what businesspeople do. Businesspeople get their money back by selling what they make even if something is less-than-perfect because what truly sells is the claims and stories. DIYers will suffer tremendously financially should they follow that trend. Few of them told me that they are profiting whatever they make. Getting a bit of money back, to them, is considered “profit” even when they are perpetually at a lost. They are literally doing charity.
-
Looks like you want to be a reseller, or you are already a reseller.
1) I buy all my chemicals (Edible or not. ‘Food grade’ or otherwise) from resellers. Of course, I choose reliable resellers. Sadly, some resellers although are reliable, their data are from suppliers/salespeople.
Those chemicals do not come with desiccant. No clumping or ‘sweat’ issue. Even extremely deliquescent ones are nice and dry when they arrive to me.
They can do it because they do it in air-conditioned room. They are not foolish enough to keep getting return, and refund people. Depending on where you sell, your personality as a seller, or where you buy those chemicals. I buy at Lazada. Lazada offers 7 days refund, excellent after-sales, and it has many well-behaved sellers (because they are forced to be well-behaved! LMAO!). Shopee is the worst in all things that I do not bother buying at that site.
2) I live in Malaysia, a tropical country. I was battling against high relative humidity for few years since I started DIY cosmetics madness. I lost, of course. Hahahah!!
The use of Silica gel, Calcium Chloride, Calcium Oxide, and any other chemicals to drying stuff is futile when the relative humidity is very to extremely high daily.
Absolutely too expensive to use and to regenerate Silica gel, Calcium Oxide, Calcium Chloride. (Good luck to you if you try to regenerate Calcium Chloride). I learnt the hard way. Expensive lesson.
I cannot afford to keep buying and throwing chemicals. The most expensive chemical I bought and threw is Carbomer. I used only once, merely 0.1g of it, the whole thing hardened. I bought, used only 0.1g, and threw. This is the reason why I am forced to using Xanthan gum instead.
Resealable bag or whatever ‘airtight’ is useless. Vacuum works very well, and I thought I was clever. I may win the battle but I lost the war. The reason is that every time the container/bag is opened, moisture gets in.
I could make concentrated Carbomer solution, another clever way. I tried. But still not possible for me to use all up at once. I think maximum of a few % Carbomer can be dispersed in water at low pH. Even so, it poses its own new problem.
Back to Carbomer versus water in the air.
You literally see Carbomer (powder) changing right in front of your eyes as soon as you expose to air. No amount of super human speed can escape from ambient humidity the same ways as no one can escape from ambient temperature. Deliquescent chemicals such as Sodium Hydroxide, Magnesium Chloride, Calcium Chloride, and Fructose sweat and melt before your very eyes. That proves how high relative humidity over here is.
I know for sure air-conditioner can bring down relative humidity. Same reason why temperate climate generally has low relative humidity. I eventually bought a portable dehumidifier. Modern air-conditioner has dehumidifying mode but I ditch the idea due to financial reason/s.
First time using dehumidifier and I metaphorically yelled with happy tears. I could finally work with almost any chemicals which are super sensitive to ambient humidity. Not very dry because I deliberately set it to keep relative humidity at approximately 50% to 55%. Dry enough that my skin itches and dry enough that I could leave deliquescent stuff exposed to air long enough for me to do what I need to do with them. Because I am not rich, “enough” will prolong the compressor’s life. Like using 1% to 3% Glycerol is enough to see and feel the effect. Increase that Glycerol to 20% to 60% causes unnecessary issues. More is sometimes not better.
Short-term expense is high buying a dehumidifier, yes. But saves me money in the long run compared to me keep buying new or regenerating desiccants.
-
@Perry
The question with a question mark, is the question. And it is not rhetorical. Hahahahah! I understand that I might have (or really) “drowned” my question.
TL;DR : That is the way I write in virtual reality. I say things in similar or identical fashion in reality. I am long-winded for valid reasons.There are a great many people who I come and came across. They have different “peculiar” ways of understanding things. My way of writing and speaking has been what is called “long-winded”. I do it due to valid and obvious reasons. Not that I like to do it as it wastes my own time.
I have read posts and comments in this group/site long enough to see the dynamics. A few individuals are known to shoot back with “Why not you test/try it out” and end of story, rather than offering actual assistance. Response like this is evident in posts which have questions that are simple and direct. It is therefore “wise” for me to first do my homework in order to cover all possible counterarguments/questions. This way, I get answers in the shortest time possible without people keep digging me for clarification. Hence why the long-windedness.
Thus, my posts and questions are always towards people who matter. Not just any people, of course!
“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.“(Incorrectly known as “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler“.)
Ah, yes, yes. I absolutely understand what you mean (referring to you last paragraph). It is named “sunk cost” in psychology. The more they pay for something, the more they want to believe and convince themselves that that something works even when that something is obviously not working. But of course, their definition of “works” refers to short-lived-ness. By their logic, then everything works! The word “improvement” would not have existed! Learning and progress would be impossible! Makes sense! They are stagnated in where they are!
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves while the wise is full of doubt. Even those of the intelligent who believe that they have a nostrum are too individualistic to combine with other intelligent men from whom they differ on minor points. -
I wonder why no one responses to this ‘humble’ post of mine. LMAO!
-
Hmm. @Bill_Toge did you mean eutectic mixture?
Now that is odd. According to some articles I read, there is no long time or hard work to dissolve/hydrate Poloxamer 407. What pops up the most is “low temperature” at about 5 to 6 Centigrade.
So… there is the check list :
1) Easily dissolve/hydrate in cold water (only water and Poloxamer 407. Nothing else).
2) Oh. Mine comes in round thing. I think it is called ‘prill’. No chance to seeing powder clump in water. However, prills do not get dissolved/hydrated in water fast. It does take a long time to disappear even in cold water, so probably this part is the “long time and a lot of shear”.
3) It does generate foam. Not some. Loads of foam. I manually shake the whole thing and therefore explains the crazy foam. Hahahahah!
4) It does solubilise/emulsify oil. Oil droplets stay as droplets for a very long time. This is at 16%. Not 30% one. “Very long time” in this context is approximately 24 hours.
5) I do not spend much time playing with alcohol. In that show time, however, Poloxamer 407 does not appear to budge.
Sounds and looks like characteristics of Poloxamer 407, yes? But it just does not gel at body temperature or higher. Not even at room temperature (approx. 32 Centigrade) at 30%. This is peculiar.
After reading so much theory rather than practical (because it is impossible for me to get any species of Poloxamer in this country in small amount), my educated guess is it could be Poloxamer 188, could be the molecular weight not high enough.
Average molecular weight of Poloxamer 188 is 8400, and Poloxamer 407 is 12600.
Having said that, I do not know whether Poloxamer 188 gels at similar temperature as Poloxamer 407 or not, because all pharmaceutical ones focus only on Poloxamer 407. Maybe Poloxamer 188 does not gel the way Poloxamer 407 does so Poloxamer 188 is not used.
-
My Gad! That is beau! A lovely sight!
My process cannot be wrong. I am not denying. Hahahahah!
I do not know how it can be wrong when it is straightforward. Most importantly, that thing is fully ‘gone’ in water. Smooth thick liquid.
Some people say cold or hot method matters. Cold method is superior to hot method. Only cold method can ‘take in’ more of the chemical. The upper limit could be 30%. And so, I do the cold one. 30% is a lot but it mixes with water nicely.
I did all I could and within my means and understanding. The next logical ‘blame’ is putting the blame on the seller. I initiated the refund, only then the seller was willing to ask his/her supplier. Too late! Return/refund is limited to only 7 days. I am not playing their game. Only science knows how long they make me wait.
I do not know where their Poloxamer is from! I do not even know whether it is truly 407 or something else! The seller says they are only trader and hence they know nothing. This is what I mentioned before this. Loads of sellers doing that mind-fecking people. It is a game of tolerance, persistence, and idiocy. They are happy if you do not catch them and not elevate the issue because they got more money by selling the worst and cheapest stuff. Confidence game.
-
I did mention that I later made 30% of it. Still not gelling at any ‘high temperature’.
Yes. I put the whole thing in the refrigerator to “do the work” for me.
I asked the seller if it is a gel. He/she says it is gel. I wondered how is that a gel! I showed that person what a Poloxamer 407 gel looks like, that seller still defended themselves and asked me to make it more concentrated.
I asked how concentrated it needs to be to gel. That seller says as concentrated as it needs to be. This is already a joke. Pointless to argue anymore. That seller clearly is either fooling me or does not know what he/she is selling, or both. I will return it and get my refund. Thankfully I can return it!
Not an issue for micellar/solubilising/emulsifying part. I randomly added cooking oil at random amount, oil droplets stay divided.
The previous 16% also has no problem, oil droplets stay divided.
Oil droplets probably do not stay separated at 1-2%. It works, on paper. I have not tried it actually because I already have bias against the seller selling me something else. I am already frustrated compounded by such idiocy of such seller. It is nearly impossible to get the right answer and the right thing in where I live. Too many sellers and businesses here are dismissive and ignorant, but they treat customers as if every customer is stupid as feck. Many sellers here intentionally stretch their luck by selling “wrong things” to buyers so that they (sellers) earn more money if buyers are stupid enough not to notice, analyse, interrogate, and return. Insanely many businesses in this continent are unscrupulous.
-
Hmm. Must be a misunderstanding. I did not write/explain clearly, perhaps.
It is already properly dissolved and hydrated. There is no ‘lump’ that can be seen.
What I mean it the ‘gelling effect’ at a certain temperature. It is said that (or I read) it ‘gels’ at a certain temperature at a certain high enough concentration.
In (most) pharmaceutical compounding, it gels at about 37℃ when concentration is about 15%.
I made it 16% to HOPEFULLY see that it gels. Higher concentration, more guaranteed. This is what I thought. It does not gel, sadly.While typing my question over here yesterday, I made 30% of it. Still does not gel at ambient temperature which is about 32℃!
Not gelling at such high (enough) temperature still does not gel is exactly the reason why I am frustrated about, and metaphorically screaming for assistance.
-
What the…! I made my first eutectic mixture! With easily found and inexpensive chemicals!
Camphor and Menthol crystals. 1:1. Crushed them. The mixture turns liquid right before my eyes.
Sadly, the mixture is oily. I understand that all properties are unchanged except melting point.
May I know what is the ratio of the least amount of Camphor that can be used with Menthol to create eutectic mixture? Camphor scent is not particularly nice compared to Menthol. Hahahah.
-
Oops! I made a “mistake” in my previous message.
I keep coming back to this Urea stuff because I love Urea. And because I am madly poor. LOL!
It is NOT meant to be a buffer! Not even a buffer. Just pH. As long as the pH is 6.2 will do the trick. Basically, make water or solution slightly acidic.
Buffer, as @Pharma explained is “a lot” of “it”. Too little of it is not qualified as buffer.
Urea is stable at a given pH. No amount of buffer will stop Urea from explosion. (This is assuming no other chemical is messing with pH whether delayed or instantaneous.)
Keyword here is STOP.I live in a tropical country with temperature as high as 30 Centigrade. Sometimes 40 Centigrade. My amateur Urea moisturiser NEVER bloats nor produces that sweet smell of Ammonia.
I did not understand why people in temperate countries worry so much about Urea getting bad when I am not getting (or making) it bad with this kind of weather. It got me worried, so I started to make duplicates of the exact same formulation of my moisturiser and put it in vacuum dispensing bottle (Can visually see the evidence of gas expansion). Some with buffer and some without buffer.
Only one or two bottles expanded, and it took damn many months for it to happen damn little. I was even waiting for it to pop! I did not bother which ones had buffer and which ones had none because it is not ‘statistically significant’. I said to myself “Why bother”, and so I never bother about buffer. Moreover, I do not make a whole 25kg drum or sell it in malls/supermarkets which will wait for a long time to see strange thing happening. I make about 100g of product each time.
With that said, I think it is due to the water is hard in temperate countries which expedites the decomposition of Urea. This could be the reason why people in those countries worry so much about Urea stability. Water over here is soft; pH is about 6. I never need to add any acid to lower pH of any products as what 99.999999% formulations require. And so, it proves that pH that matters in this context, not buffer.
-
What @Pharma is saying is :
1. ‘Buffer’ does not have to be strong to ‘suck’ up every Ammonia (from Urea) molecule.
2. Just enough buffer to achieve pH +/-6.2. If you want to stabilise a given amount of Urea to the maximum, you will need A LOT of buffer to the degree that you can bathe or bath with it.
3. I am still not clear about why certain acids and their salts do not make good buffers in context of Urea. After reading so much of Pharma’s arguments, I think he has been talking about pKa. He did not say this straightforwardly, it is only my educated guess. If it is about pKa then Citric Acid can make the ‘best’ buffer to stabilise Urea at about pH 6.2 because one of Citric Acid’s pKa is 6.4.
4. Must be ‘tight’. Pharma mentioned he dislikes Phosphate buffer because its pKa is too wide. Not a specialist to stabilising Urea, in other words.
5. Other than pH and pKa, water content or water activity needs to be low. The lower the better. Nothing to do with stopping bacteria/fungus/mould growth. Urea decomposes quicker with more moisture/water. Urea in Petroleum Jelly practically has no issue with weird Ammonia smell. I keep Urea in vacuum bag, never has Ammonia smell.
My conclusion : Citric Acid may not be the best because Carbonic Acid and Tellurous acid have the nearest pKa to 6.2 AND the tightest pKa compared to Citric Acid. Citric Acid is the best only because it is ubiquitous, and it is inexpensive which even poor kids can buy it.
Reference : My conversation with Pharma three years ago. I am not influenced much by marketing, so my ‘moisturiser’ has always been Glycerol, Urea, Xanthan Gum, DMDM Hydantoin, and Sodium Citrate as buffer made in-situ. Pharma is a pharmacist and he concocts his own poisons with food stuff for himself and his wife. I coincidentally use most chemicals from the bakery supply shop.
https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/discussion/3122/improving-ureas-stability-in-cream
-
You joined only for 15 months but already have 71 questions. All of which are already answered previously. I assume you never bother using the search function.You even repeat the same question. Some are questioned differently but still the same content. Example how to dissolve 70% SLES.You even ask odd questions. I mean, you said you already did/doing something and you still ask people to know the result. You should know the result if you did it or are doing it. Example you mentioned ” I use Stearamidopropyl Dimethylamine %1″ and in the same breath you asked “How does it effect foam?”. I was like WHAT THE FAAAK THIS PERSON DID IT OR NOT! It is like saying I already jumped from the 10th floor and died, and then I asked you whether will I die or not. If I am still alive to ask you that it can only mean I never jump. Not even Schrodinger cat.Another strange one is you said “If we add in high quantity cost will increase a lot” and then “If we add in small quantity how would foam compare to above surfactants?”. Another WTF moment for me. That means you never even do it to see it/compare foam. All you love doing is ask and ask. You fundamentally never try before you ask. Very cunning of you!I joined only for 20 months but I posted only 3 questions. I am not as intelligent as you are. What I do is I use the search function, use YouTube, use the Internet a whole, and above all I do lots of tests and observations.
-
Urm….what…LOL! I am a little confused now. I am cracking my head wondering why there is a need for you to mention that you were the most intelligent student in school and university.Since you were the most intelligent student in school and university then I bet you can figure everything out on your own!
I was not and I am still not as intelligent as you are, therefore I better not say anymore lest I humiliate myself with my own stupidity!
-
@klangridgeOMG! You’re right! I found Citric Acid disrupts cells and is destructive! It is from SCIENCEDIRECT! Oh no! We should all stop using Citric Acid in anything! We should all stop eating fruits and vegetables! Good news for meat-eaters!No wait! There is more! I found Red Corpuscles NATURALLY produce Hydrogen Peroxide! It is from PUBMED! Hydrogen Peroxide is an oxidiser! Oxidiser is toxic and expedite aging! We should all throw away our blood and crush our bone marrows!PUBMED and SCIENCEDIRECT prove that water is dangerous and is poisonous! Countless people died of drowning in water and diseases in flood! Stop drinking water!PUBMED and SCIENCEDIRECT prove that countless people are allergic to pollen! Summer allergies are real! Exterminate every plant on Earth and never them them regenerate/breed!I never deny peer-review as it is ultimate infallible evidence! Please DO NOT believe me! Please dig all those evidence from SCIENCEDIRECT AND PUBMED to convince YOURSELF! Google University is your best friend! Please post all the links to those evidence here because there are a mountain of evidence! The more links the more solid the evidence are! (Not a single soul believes you if you post only one or none) If that is not enough you have WEBMD!I am not being sarcastic! I fear for my life! I believe in science! science is my religion! Above all, I appeal to white coat and any and everything that sounds sciency!
-
You are welcome.Will neutralization of 10g salicylic acid give 10g sodium salicylate or a different quantity?Err…wait a minute….what…..I do not want to sound insulting but do you have some chemistry basics? Science?I am afraid of going deeper into hell for sharing too much with you. Hahahahaha!And since this Salicylic Acid thing has been a highly sensitive topic in this site and at the same time becoming a hot topic of late. I think due to COVID.I love sharing and this community is about sharing. But looking at the trend the experts are avoiding the topic like the plague, it is wise that I follow the trend. I dislike being a sheeple but I do not want to be sued or get into unnecessary trouble, especially when I have my actual photo displayed. I also do not want to get this site into preventable troubles.After looking through your posts, I have an impression that you are trying many stuff and just starting out. You do have crazy many chemicals!
-
Oops. I forgot about another two questions of yours.Solubiliser + Surfactant + Heat + Thickener = Salicylic Acid crystals very small, suspended, stable. No need for homogeniser or sonicator.I have no luck mixing Salicylic Acid in oil or Petroleum Jelly. Maybe I have not used enough high. I am not interested in oily stuff to do more test.From what I understood it is not soluble in many things including all kinds of oils (mineral oil, vegetable oil) and Petroleum Jelly. Rather it is being suspended in oils.Yes. You can use Sodium Hydroxide to make Sodium Salicylate.1. Can i adjust the pH of salicylic acid in oil phase or befor adding it to oil phase before making the emulsion?Try as you might but it is impossible to neutralise it in oil phase! It has to have water. Vehicle without water (e.g., Petroleum Jelly) has no pH.Maybe you could do it as you use Sodium Hydroxide which I assume is already mixed with water. You can do it if there is water…so yes before and after probably makes no difference.2. In how many days usually crystalization of salicylic happes as my lotion is stable until now?Only ‘God’ can answer! LMAO!This is an impossible question to be answered! YOU have to be the judge. It is not a mathematical question. There are too many variables. I never see mine recrystallise for many months, it may recrystallise on you in days. Some people found that it recrystallises the second day.If you have lots of solubiliser, surfactant, etc, etc, then very unlikely that it will crystallise even if the temperature is low. I am pretty heavy-handed with those stuff.3. If crystalization happens, does it destabilize the emulsion?
Yes if you use chemicals that are pH-sensitive. Many thickeners are sensitive to low pH. Carbomer is the most sensitive. Even if you neutralise Salicylic Acid effectively making it salt (i.e., Sodium Salicylate) Carbomer instantly ‘melts’ in the presence of salts as it is extremely sensitive to electrolytes.
Some emulsifiers will ‘curdle’ in low pH. The name is something ‘mono-diglyceride’ something. I tried only few times and I dropped it. Pointless. It needs some other surfactant to work in tandem. Something to do with HLB. Also, there are many grades of that thing (It is not a pure thing. It is a mixture of something something in different ratios which complicate things). Too much work for my tiny brain.
Actually, it does not need to crystallise to destabilise the emulsion. It is the pH.
-
Oh yes you asked about Sodium Salicylate in another post which no one responds to. This Salicylic Acid topic is super sensitive. LOL!There is one study which says nearly fully neutralised Salicylic Acid works the same as acidic one, although a little slower than acid one.Personally, even at pH 3 it does not peel my skin. Please do not take what I said as fact because maybe my top most layer of skin is already peeled when I was experimenting with 2% SA in Ethanol-Water (My very first test after a very long time of not using Salicylic Acid in any forms). This works beautifully but the next time I used it it is the Ethanol which stings me like no body’s business because the top most skin is already off. It does take some time for the analgesic effect to kick in.At that point even a little alcohol stings. So, I went on to making a non-alcoholic a bit neutralised (≈ pH 3) Salicylic Acid solution as mentioned before. But I increased the amount of Salicylic Acid to 5%.Not much peeling is observed but it appears that acne is somehow controlled, skin is more dry than before which is a good sign that it may be working. I use the solution three times a day, every day. It takes not much money to make it so I can afford to slap it thickly on my face. “Maskne” ruined my pretty face since COVID started, hence I have no problem ruining my face some more with SA.Oh, physical scrubbing is still essential! Without physical scrubbing the ‘dead skin’ will pile up and itches you. Urm…I do not know about you but it happens to me far too many times. Your mileage may vary.Chemical exfoliation per se is not enough for me. Without physical exfoliation my skin is more and more rough, more and more greasy, more and more itch. Dead skin probably hold too much oil and therefore causes itch. As soon as I scrub it…aaaaaahhh I can see and feel the difference!
-
I cannot create new post since the revamping of this site. I do not know why. Maybe only paid members can post, and non-paid members can read only. Do tell me how to post, if non-paid members can also post. This post is considered very old, no one would see it and respond to it. (The old system of this site has a check box asking people if they have anything to contribute to the old post as soon as a post becomes old. Probably only a few months old is already too old.)
I agree with you that there is so little information about sodium hexametaphosphate when in fact it is a common and inexpensive chemical.
You mentioned about it hydrolyzes at pH above 10 attracts me. Seems like you know something about it and I read something about it. I thought it is a cool and smart stuff. Information that I found says it is awesome and sentient. Suddenly, an article says that it is not really used in toothpaste as certain level of moisture/water causes sodium hexametaphosphate to hydrolyze. It does not say much afterwards whether it is a good or bad thing. I presume it is a bad thing because it will have long replaced pyrophosphate in all toothpaste brands otherwise. It also does not talk about pH, only water content in toothpaste that starts that hydrolyzation.
Another confusing thing is pH. No mention of pH-metal ions interactions since information about it is so basic (limited to what it is rather than how it works and how to best utilize it). However, there is an article stating chelated calcium ions are released in stomach acid, returning calcium to the body. I presume sodium hexametaphosphate is useless as a chelating agent in low pH, but I do not know how low is “low” that (the upper limit) it starts to be more and more useless. (It is all about calcium because sodium hexametaphosphate I found the most is in tartar and plaque articles. Zero information about other metal ions)
Questions
1. What happens when sodium hexametaphosphate hydrolyzes? Is it a bad thing? It is rendered useless? It becomes weak in chelating stuff?
2. I mentioned ‘smart’. It is the impression that I get. Sodium hexametaphosphate selectively binds to “teeth type calcium” on teeth creating a protective layer protecting teeth, while selectively removes excess calcium ions and interfering “plaque/tartar type calcium”. If it is not smart then I do not know what is! But, is it true?
3. What happens to sodium metaphosphate in different pH? pH is perhaps the most important factor that decides it works or fails with certain metal ions.
4. EDTA seems to be common and sort of inexpensive (actually twice the price of sodium hexametaphosphate in where I live), and above all, kind of remain effective in a wide range of pH, why it is not used in toothpaste? Because it is not as smart as sodium metaphosphate knowing exactly how to enhance “good calcium compounds” and to disrupt “bad calcium compounds”, and knowing exactly when to release calcium ions?