[DaveStone]

Graillotion said:

DaveStone said:

By the way, would you or anyone else recommend this:

Cholesterol NF-ELL-CHOLES-01

Cholesterol tends to be paired with ceramides.  I don’t think formulators seek it out on its own (that often).  Many of the ceramide mixes…already have the proper balance of cholesterol included in the blend.

Would it be as effective as silicone for reducing TEWL?

[DaveStone]

Graillotion said:

Generally the higher the oleic acid content is…the more occlusive an oil is.

You might find this of some help:

The Best Occlusives to Use in Natural Skincare (botaneri.com)

I would not rely on it as a sole occlusive…unless you are chasing a minimalist framework.  Some other nice ones are candelilla wax, and my personal favorite…Floraesters K-20W® Jojoba.

Imagine adding as much of this as you feel you need…without ever making your product greasy or oily!

Thanks for the info. I was also looking into silicone variants. MakingCosmetics has like a dozen choices for dimethicone. I don’t understand the differences between all them…and what PEG signifies. Then there’s amodimethicone. Do any of these silicones leave a greasy/oily film?

By the way, would you or anyone else recommend this:

Cholesterol NF-ELL-CHOLES-01

[DaveStone]

I wonder if the citric acid (from the lemon juice) helps preserve it. Although I also add sugar.

[DaveStone]

Paprik said:

How long would you keep the iced tea in the fridge? One, two days? That’s cool. If you drink it, your stomach acids will destroy any microorganism. If you leave it for a week, I don’t think you would drink that.  

If you leave a toner for one two days in a fridge, you might not get any microbial growth, but you might. So if you want, you can use it on YOUR skin and see. 
Unfortunately on your skin there is no (hydrochloride acid) stomach acids to destroy any pathogens. 

We can’t stress enough how much preservatives are important.

When I make iced tea, it usually lasts about a week. I wouldn’t know if it had gone bad by then because it still tastes and smells fine.

Wouldn’t the stomach acid only have minimal effect? I mean, doesn’t botulism get around that? You eat contaminated food and it still kills you. Maybe it absorbs through your mouth.

I’d use a preservative regardless. Just wondering why you can get away with it when Iced Tea or other homemade drink is concerned. I could see it not mattering with Lemonade because it’s very acidic.

[DaveStone]

I was inspired to ask this question after having seen a bottle of glycerin at the store that said to put some on a cotton ball and wipe across a moist face. Now I would think the ratio of glycerin to water would be much too high, thus it would be very sticky. But I wasn’t sure. Maybe it’s already diluted even though there wasn’t any other ingredients labeled.  

[DaveStone]

@Perry

From your time in the industry, have you known any of the big corps to pay off organizations that decide/recommend whether an ingredient is cosmetically safe or not? I always wonder if the studies are rigged in their favor.

[DaveStone]

Perry said:

I’ll go out on a limb and say there are no natural oils or materials that will be discovered to significantly inhibit hair loss. People have been looking for thousands of years and if there was anything obvious, it would have been found by now. 

Well, I guess you’re right there. The herbal stores may disagree with you, though!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M6LwTjcjQ8

[DaveStone]

Graillotion said:

pH options for (Face) cream with Niacinamide. — Cosmetic Science Talk (chemistscorner.com)

There is a search bar on the top right corner…. Type ‘Niacinamide’ and hit ‘GO’.

My mistake…I meant to say PC grade rather than PH. I just wanted to know if pharmaceutical grade (for anything, really) is worth the extra money.

[DaveStone]

@Perry

1.  It’s really HARD to find better technologies. Cosmetics/personal care products represent a variety of different types of products. Cleaners, moisturizers, coloring products, anti-aging, exfoliating, conditioning, styling, etc.  Not to mention biological differences in hair & skin both genetically and aging. Then there are different consumer desires. Just defining what it means to make something better is hard to figure out. For example, what would make a shampoo “better”? 

 

True…”better” takes on many meanings. Some things can’t really be bettered. I agree shampoo is one of them. There’s mild, normal, and harsher strengths. They all clean hair. That’s all they are designed to do. Most all the product types you listed can’t be bettered. They were all created a long time ago and have been developed to a tee over the years. However, there aren’t many “anti-aging” cosmetics products out there that do just that. Like you said though, if a product caused a physiological effect, it would classified as a drug. So I guess there isn’t anything major that can be done through cosmetics.

It seems “better” for many consumers=more natural ingredients that work just as well. Problem is, many haven’t been adequately analyzed for safety. Or they don’t work that well. If they did, all the big corps would grab hold of them. Playing devil’s advocate, I would imagine the big guys wouldn’t want anything “natural” to work out. Otherwise, they could be out of business. If it was discovered that some plant oil or anything over the counter could inhibit male balding, then we wouldn’t need Minoxidil anymore.

[DaveStone]

chemicalmatt said:

@Graillotion, regarding smiles following ingredient names. I can’t help but think “Pimpanella Anisum” would make for an ideal porn star stage name.

It sounds like the name of a play about a 19th century madam.

[DaveStone]

Perry said:

The challenge that cosmetic manufacturers have is this…technology isn’t really improving in ways that consumers notice.

If you went back to 1990 and tried a shampoo or conditioner or skin lotion, they would not work any better/worse than the ones that are made today. 
30 years with no significant improvements.  Compare that to cars, computers or phones. These products from 30 years ago would be almost unusable.

So, when you are in an industry where there is minimal technological improvement, the only way you can make your products stand out is through marketing stories. And there is really no point in putting a high % of an ingredient in a formula when you can get exactly the same story from a low %.  

Why has their been no big improvements/findings? Because scientists haven’t found any/haven’t tested them extensively enough, or merely lack of funding?

[DaveStone]

LOL, true. But isn’t Retinol highly valued around here? I haven’t read anyone put down Niancimide either.

[DaveStone]

What are the scientifically supported anti-aging ingredients (if there are any)?

[DaveStone]

@Perry

Thanks for clearing that up. It doesn’t seem fair that companies can get away with putting infinitesimal amounts of something in their product. They might as well add nothing. No different than selling snake oil.

So much misinformation out there. I think the organic/natural businesses base many of their claims on hearsay, especially if passed down through generations. Like that garlic oil can hinder baldness.

[DaveStone]

Perry said:

Here is a useful strategy to follow whenever evaluating a product that makes big promises.

1. Does it come from a big company?   

---

>  No - then it’s just marketing hype
             |
             |
2. Is it a drug?

---

  

---

>  No - then it’s just marketing hype
             |
             |
Then it narrowly works for many people but maybe not in a way you would ever notice.

In that case, is it likely that the ingredients listed aren’t even included in the product? Can a business get in trouble if their product were tested and found to have different ingredients than what’s on the label?

[DaveStone]

PhilGeis said:

Yes - at the right pH and with EDTA or a good chelator

Is a chelator usually needed, even in simple formulas (like a solution of water, glycerin, propanediol, sodium lactate)?

[DaveStone]

Graillotion said:

Were you looking to buy that….or make it?

As far as I can tell…it would be lacking in things that would make it feel nice…texturizers.  Kinda a mommy blogger formula…with lots of unproven additives.

Based on some of the choices they made….I would not trust it to touch my skin….and probably why I make all my own stuff.

No, my wife was interested in it. She looks at all the natural/organic skincare sites. I told her I wanted more info on it…see if it’s not all puffery. It would be too complicated for me to make anyhow, lol. I prefer something condensed. She definitely thinks more is better.

[DaveStone]

Would Biguanide 20 and citric acid work?

[DaveStone]

Paprik said:

You can’t really tell if the preservative would be sufficient unless you conduct PET (preservative efficacy testing). I’ve never worked with Germall Plus, but did work with Liquid Germall Plus. At 0.5% [Maximum input] I’ve never experienced any growth (at least eye visible - mold, spots, etc … ). If they say Germall plus does not work well in sprayers, I would not go for it. 

If you are home maker, always go for the maximum recommended input. 

Germall Plus is heat sensitive (50°C), do not heat and hold.. If you use clean distilled water, clean equipment etc, you should be fine for cold processing. 

Humectants input - depends. You need to check supplier’s recommended input.
Glycerin - 1- 10% (over 5% will feel sticky/tacky). 
Sodium PCA - 2-5% (more expensive, but high performance, works good with Sodium Hyaluronate)
Propylene Glycol - 1 - 10% (up to 20%?)
Propanediol - 1 -10% (not tacky, I like this one)

and so on. Hope that helps.

By adequate preservative, I meant would it (Germall Plus) be compatible in that formula. I read that certain preservatives are incompatible with certain ingredients.

WRT to the humectants, I was more so wondering what the total recommended percentage is? My example would amount to a 6% humectant solution. I wanted to know if that’s too little, and what would be too high. Say I used 10% propandiol, 3% glycerin, and 3% sodium lactate…which makes the overall amount 16% humectants. Is that okay?

[DaveStone]

Graillotion said:

There was a thread a while back….that I thought was pretty revealing.  I’m not sure the topic…so I will try and summarize in a way that will answer your question.  (Maybe someone else will remember that thread and link it.)

Drugs are effective and regulated.  Once something typically becomes proven as effective, it becomes a drug.

Cosmetics are essentially not regulated.  Other than providing hydration, humectancy, barrier, and lubrication, cosmetics are generally NOT supposed to have magical powers (don’t confuse this statement with marketing claims you see).  If they do…they then become drugs.

So with this in mind…the mfg’s of cosmetic add ins…are generally having to prove the opposite….that their products are not amazingly effective, hence becoming a regulated drug.  Do NOT confuse this with the spin the marketing department will add.  They will lead you to believe their products grow hair, shave years off your looks, etc…etc.

I would also say…some well formulated cosmetics can actually enhance the health of skin, thereby providing better looking (healthier) skin.

I know this is a feeble explanation of what the original author said…but you get the general idea.  Cosmetic ingredients are only really proven to provide the aforementioned, barrier, humectant, and lubrication niches.  Anything beyond that…is a marketing department trying to sell product.  We use a lot of smoke and mirrors….as you advance you will learn all kinds of tricks for hiding wrinkles with optical blurring and other tricks…hehehe.  Did it remove wrinkles….NO…and sometime we can temporarily plump them…   Or stretch them tight for a short moment in time.

Don’t get me wrong….I am a firm believer that I can create magic via a cosmetic vector.  But this really takes a wizard of science and chemistry to help you, and this is the place to find those people (not meaning me)!  And the grand finale….wait for it… once you create cosmetic magic….you pretty much can’t claim that (legally)!!!  

Thanks for the info “Spring Water” gives away the marketing gimmick. I don’t see how water from a spring could be any better…all water is hydrating. It’s all the other ingredients I was unsure about. GOW uses a lot of fancy ingredients in their products.

[DaveStone]

Graillotion said:

However I do have one gripe with LC… They send every liquid in these little white bottles…..often which seems to have a little dirt sediment in the bottom corner.  I do not know if they get them that way from the mfg…or if they store them in a dusty warehouse for a while…and that dust/dirt sediment finds its way in there at that time.  But it seems to occur….about 75% of the time.

Yeah, I’ve read that warning about resellers in general…that their products aren’t as clean/unpolluted as they are from the suppliers. I don’t how that happens and how often. Many people use them so I guess they can’t be too bad. And most can’t buy from distributors as they either only sell in bulk or sell to businesses (like ulprospector). 

It seems that the consensus is LC has the price and MC has the packaging. Hmm…I know I wouldn’t want to put something on my face that’s unsanitary.

[DaveStone]

By the way, why does the SDS sheet on Sodium Lactate mention to rinse skin if contact occurs? Is is irritable when undiluted?

[DaveStone]

ggpetrov said:

Sodium lactate is much better than the Propanediol as a humectant, but can destabilize the emulsion, also at certain percent can be photo-sensitizing. I use three humectants in my lotions - Glycerine, Propylene glycol and Sodium lactate, but I don’t use polymeric thickeners, only Xanthan.

Better, as in it penetrates deeper? Or holds more water?

[DaveStone]

abierose said:

Propendiol is preferred over sodium lactate when formulating with polymeric emulsifiers that are sensitive to electrolytes. I usually use both Glycerin and Propendiol

Would one work better in a formula rather than standalone (diluted of course)? Glycerin is too sticky for me to use by itself, even when diluted. Does Propanediol, if used conjunction with glycerine, alter the skin feel?