[DeedeeUkulele]

Sponge said:

Polyethylene is a great all-around structure enhancer. To choose waxes effectively you really need the background with regards to crystallinity, oil absorption, melt point, syneresis, etc. I don’t have this background. Based on my base level knowledge I’d say go with microcrystalline/ozokerite with the larger proportion starting off as microcrystalline. 

Much appreciated! From what I’ve learned, ozokerite contributes firmness and higher melt point, while microcrystalline helps with oil bleed and stability. A lot of LOI’s I’ve come across have ozokerite way below microcrystalline wax so your suggestion is spot-on. Thanks!

[DeedeeUkulele]

steamedrice said:

Below is their LOI:
Water, Potassium Cocoyl Glycinate, Kaolin, Bentonite, Disiloxane, Glycerin, Methylpropanediol, Propanediol, Coco-Betaine, Sodium Cocoyl Apple Amino Acids, Laminaria Japonica Powder, Magnesium […]

Is that the Phykology one? The most famous bubble clay mask now is the Elizavecca Milky Piggy Carbonated Bubble Clay Mask. I don’t know about the Phykology one, but the Elizavecca foams up like crazy seconds after you apply it:

Elizavecca’s LOI: 
Water, Glycerin, Methyl Perfluorobutyl Ether, Acrylates Copolymer, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Disodium Cocoamphodiacetate, Lauryl Glucoside, Retinyl Palmitate, Allantoin, Arginine, Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Ascorbyl Glucoside, Ethylhexylglycerin, Ceramide Np, Sodium Pca, Sodium Chloride, Saccharide Isomerate, Polyquaternium-10, Potassium Cocoyl Glycinate, Potassium Cocoate, Hexylene Glycol, Butylene Glycol, Citric Acid, Hydroxyethyl Urea, Citrus Limon (Lemon) Peel Oil, Limonene, Citral, Sodium Citrate, Disodium Edta, Phenoxyethanol

It seems Methyl Perfluorobutyl Ether is what makes the Elizavecca one bubble like crazy: https://labmuffin.com/how-do-bubbling-oxygen-masks-work/

As for the Phykology mask, it doesn’t seem to foam up as much as the Elizavecca one, if at all. You can tell because they only claim to have ‘micro bubbles’ and there’s no perfluorocarbons in the LOI.

[DeedeeUkulele]

Hi Perry, thanks for taking the time to answer. 

The formula is 60% clay, 10% lactic acid, and 30% distilled water.

Thanks for the link as well, it’s going to be a very helpful. 

[DeedeeUkulele]

It’s the salicylic acid. What is the % of SA? You don’t need the alcohol. I’ve had success dissolving 2% SA in 10% PG with or without heat. I forget how much water I added, but I initially got some precipitation until I titrated the water down to a certain amount.

[DeedeeUkulele]

Ada said:

Thank you @Belassi. Is it possible to do without carbomer? e.g. by enhancing concentration of xanthan gum

You could try 0.25% xanthan gum and 0.25% guar gum. Xanthan gum works synergistically with different kinds of gums without the snotty texture.

[DeedeeUkulele]

I’m initially including 3% PQ-7 since Swift mentioned a preference for that. But one of these days, I’ll have to experiment with different amounts of PQ-7. (Having a clingy toddler constantly barging into my home lab really limits my time!)

[DeedeeUkulele]

Perry said:

Having multiple cationic polymers is just overkill and most of it just runs down the drain. You could probably simplify and just put 4% Polyquat 7.

I’ll try that. Thank you!

[DeedeeUkulele]

Gunther said:

Too many cationics can leave a sticky afterfeel, despite it being a rinse off products.
I don’t think they’ll be comedogenic. If anything, cationics usually have some antibacterial activity.

Okay, that’s a relief to hear. Thanks!

[DeedeeUkulele]

mrlv90 said:

Belassi said:

Try it and see. I doubt it.

Always cloudy. Any insight on how this formula is completely clear? I can’t figure it out.

Water/Aqua/Eau, Propanedoil, Glycerin, Glycereth-7 Triacetate, Polysorbate 20, Rosa Rubiginosa Seed Oil, Sodium Levulinate, Citric Acid, Potassium Sorbate, Gold (CI 77480), Citrus Aurantium Dulcis (Orange) Peel Oil, Limonene, Disodium EDTA, Aroma, Cellulose Gum, Linalool

It can be done. But only because that formula is most likely a microemulsion. Try more Polysorbate 20 and MUCH LESS oil. Probably no more than 1%.

[DeedeeUkulele]

JPS said:

Good luck with the cleansing balms! Are you wanting the formula to rinse off into a milk as well? That’s something I’d be interested in experimenting with too after I get this balm down

Yep, that’s the plan! Just perfecting the ratios for texture and thickness and I’m good to go. Let me know if you have questions RE: cleansing balms!

[DeedeeUkulele]

I don’t have experience with Lauryl Laurate but I’ve been experimenting with cleansing balms for a while. I’ve found polyethylene to be a good, non-greasy thickener. I’ve also tried Essachem BW (behenyl olivate), which purportedly gels oils at 8%. It barely gelled when I tried it but you might have more success.

You might want to look into cera bellina wax as well. It’s a beeswax derivative that also supposedly gels oils.

[DeedeeUkulele]

Perry said:

This is a good question. The quick answer is you should add claims ingredients if it will make your consumer more inclined to buy your products. If you don’t know what will make your consumer buy your products, you need to find that out.

Now, the longer answer.

The reality is that having “minimalist, science-based formulas” is not unique. Anyone can make formulas like this. The Ordinary makes products like this & they have storefronts & a big social media footprint. Also, lots of brands already claim they are “science-based” too. These are not unique selling points.

Lots of brands add claims ingredients as a unique selling point. Some brands like Pantene focus on one (Panthenol) while other brands like Aveeno focus on a special blend of ingredients. These companies have big enough advertising budgets that they can “own” the ingredients by becoming identified with them. You probably can’t.  And while none of these ingredients affect the formula performance much, it helps them tell a story.  And without a story, there’s no compelling reason beyond price to buy your products.

It’s pretty hard to stand out in the cosmetic marketplace. The most recent successes have been achieved by brands that are “personality” driven. People don’t buy Kylie cosmetics because of the ingredients in the products, they buy for the personality behind the product. Sunday Riley, Drunk Elephant, Tata Harper, are all brands that have fine enough working products but are really personality driven. They talk more about what isn’t in their products than what is in them.

In my opinion, you’ll be most successful if you first develop the personality behind your brand. Create a character who people admire & respect. That character should have an ethos & beliefs that consumers can buy into and adapt to their own worldview. Would that character put honey and aloe in the formulas? 

You really can’t make your products stand out in terms of performance (unless they’re really bad). You can make them stand out with a unique ingredient or special ingredient blend, or you can make them stand out because they were invented by a personality that the consumer admires.

Thank you! I appreciate your input on the matter, Perry.

I’m inclined to go with science-based formulas because here in my country, local products tend to focus more on “all-natural” and “organics,” and most of them tend to be badly-formulated (e.g., no preservatives, etc.). I did some research and it seems a growing number of consumers here are looking for better formulated alternatives. It’s a small segment, but it’s there and it’s growing so I’d like to tap into that.

However, your idea on creating a personality is very interesting. I’ll have to look more into that and combine the concept with my philosophy of going science-based.

[DeedeeUkulele]

Dr Catherine Pratt said:

Science based formulas are great and becoming more and more popular, even in the natural arena. References to clinical studies are still ‘Claims’!

Got it. Better than no studies at all!

[DeedeeUkulele]

MarkBroussard said:

You’re not going to fool an educated, discerning consumer who is skilled at reading LOI’s with claims ingredients.  In fact, you will just call your credibility into question if you focus your marketing on the claims ingredients instead of the true functional ingredients. 

Nothing wrong with putting in Honey and Aloe, just don’t focus on them in your marketing … sophisticated consumers will just gloss over those and they may help attract some less sophisticated consumers.

I thought about that. Why would an educated consumer believe in my formulas when I’m touting the benefits of the latest exotic extracts? But the other side of me is also asking, are there actually enough advanced consumers out there?

I guess my problem is, do I want to impress advanced consumers or, while I’m at it, attract everyone else? From a marketing point of view (especially for a new brand), I really have no idea what to go for. The more I think about it, however, focusing on science-based formulas is what will probably make me stand out, especially in my local market that’s saturated with chemophobic products.

[DeedeeUkulele]

helenhelen said:

If you are going for the “advanced” skincare consumer with “minimalist, science-based formulas”, you probably already have something in mind about what the products do for the skin and how they do it? If so, you shouldn’t need to add claims ingredients like honey and aloe for the sake of adding them. You should work on selling on the “science” if that’s what you think is giving your products an edge.

I’m an advanced skincare consumer who reads ingredients lists, and I wouldn’t fall for any marketing based on honey and aloe. To me, it sounds like a Garnier Ultimate Blends sort of thing!

Okay, that settles it. The truth is, thinking about having to add claims ingredients just gives me a heavy feeling, so I’m glad to hear your input. Thank you!

[DeedeeUkulele]

natzam44 said:

I don’t have a whole ton of experience in selling products but with the little knowledge that I do have, I would say that adding claims ingredients usually pays off in the long run. 

While those who are more informed may not care if there are no claims ingredients in your formula, they surely won’t mind if any are present. As for people who are not as informed, the claims ingredients should help you attract their attention from your competitor’s products. 

I would say that adding claims ingredients usually pays off.

That makes a lot of sense, I never thought of it that way. With claims ingredients, though, do I have to focus on them when marketing a product (“With honey and aloe extracts to soften your skin!”)? I feel it would be very misleading to do so and I don’t want that for the brand. From a consumer point of view, is it enough that these claims ingredients are found on the list without having to announce it?

[DeedeeUkulele]

mikethair said:

I would suggest you have someone help you with a Business Vision & Brand Guidelines. Based on your target audience and what you come up with in this branding guideline, the questions you ask will be answered. Important to be consistent in your brand messaging.

Will look into that. Thanks!

[DeedeeUkulele]

Perry said:

If you’re working with powders and worrying about it, you might get a portable lab fume hood. Then you can weigh your powders in there.  But typically, you don’t have to worry much about powders if you are measuring a small amount and you have good ventilation in the room you’re working in.

Thanks for the suggestion, Perry! I’ll look into the lab fume hood.

The setup used to be in a walled-in corner of the library with a window at the opposite end of the room. I moved the entire setup by the window (with blackout curtains to protect light-sensitive materials when not in use) and plan to put up a little fan blowing out. As a professional, do you foresee any problems with having the lab by a window? 

[DeedeeUkulele]

ngarayeva001 said:

Good stick blender would be more useful than kitchen aid mixer. It creates high shear and doesn’t introduce as much air as a mixer, which is crucial for lotions.
You need thermometers, precise scale (0.01), glass beakers, and hot plates for both water and oil phase (miscowave is a bad idea).

Thank you! 

Yes, the scales and thermometer were a given. I currently use 2 scales and a candy thermometer.

Okay, microwave bad idea. 

For the kitchenaid, I was thinking it would be good for low shear mixing? 

[DeedeeUkulele]

Note: As much as I’d like to get a brand name overhead stirrer, I’m going to have to buy from China because:

1. Ordering from the US and forwarding to the Philippines would essentially double the price of the equipment; and
2. Even if cost was not an issue, there’s the problem of 110V (US) vs 220V (Philippines).