[doctorbrenda]

That makes sense the Jojoba Wax would help.  Prior to that, I do not understand how that formula could ever be expected to solidify when the great portion of the ingredients has ingredients that are liquid at room temperature.  I have found that if you want something to be solid at ambient temperatures then the product would have to consist of ingredients that would be solid at the same temperature in which they are intended to be used.

Another good wax to add to make, like eye shadow stick or lip sticks is Sunflower Wax.

[doctorbrenda]

Thanks.  Good to know that I’m not the only one that attempts to save a batch, and that it could be okay as long as the post-testing is done.

[doctorbrenda]

I am very curious about that too, but would include other cosmetic ingredients or chemicals.  I also use stainless steel vessels for making emulsions (so there is a lot of heating and lengthy mixing).  I have been trying to find answers about possible reactions with stainless steel vessels when making emulsions.  I wasn’t able to find any consistent, reliable information to address that question.

[doctorbrenda]

The oils are not the problem.  Do you some research on “oil cleansing”; the use of vegetable based oils is very useful in deep cleaning IF mixed with the right emulsifiers and surfactant blends; they can really help loosen up and remove dead skin cells.

The percentages of your ingredients could be altered to give you a better outcome, specifically the ratios.  Increase the amount of oils, and decrease the amount of polysorbate.  For example, increase total oils to about 10% of the formula, and decrease the Polysorbate to about 10% or 20% of that in proportion to the oils, so try 1% to 2%.  The other surfactants could remain the same.  The amount of glycerin looks fine for this formula.

I would definitely ELIMINATE the chamomile essential and the sodium pca.  Both of these could be causing more irritation, and removing them might solve the concerns you have by itself.

As far as why youre formula is clumping, could be many different reasons, and may have more to do with mixing methods.  Don’t know what temperature you’re working with, but try slightly warm warm water (around 105F to 115F).  This may help, rather than mixing at room temperature (70s Fahrenheit).

Lastly, where is your water thickener?  I see you are using 7% acrylates copolymer, which is good, but you may want to use more of a gel base in this formula, to address sensitivity and dryness.   A thicker gel formula is important to keep it from penetrating too deeply, too quickly, which can irritate skin.  You want to keep the solution up on the surface of the skin.  Try xanthan gum, HEC (hydroxyethylcellulose) or other gels that are designed to be used in cleansing surfactant systems.

Hope that helps.

[doctorbrenda]

Would you like me to give you some feedback that may be useful?  It will contradict some of what has already been written in these comments, so I don’t want to confuse you or set you up for unproductive arguments.

[doctorbrenda]

Thanks, because I was a little confused; now that makes sense.

[doctorbrenda]

Thanks for putting your answers in italics throughout the text so I can see what you are specifically responding to for each part of the inquiry.  Yes, I was only referring to formulas use non-ionic emulsifiers, specifically the PEG or other ethoxylated emulifiers.

I am thinking of moving towards other emulsification systems because at least if they work or don’t work, you don’t have to spend so much time obsessing over the issues related to peg-based non-ionic emulsifiers.

I know there are pros and cons to both, which keeps it interesting, but challenging.

Thanks for your feedback.

[doctorbrenda]

That’s good, because it is more valuable.  Besides the fact that most of the companies that have third-party sources performing their cosmetic testing employ unskilled workers, little or no education/training, and there is little or no supervision to ensure the protocols are performed accurately… the biggest issue is that researchers with real science degrees are inclined to agree that there is no evidence that animal experiment data can be extrapolated to predict results in human subjects, nor provide any useful information to construct hypothesis testing in the future.

[doctorbrenda]

Lisa,
The preservation efficacy and potential for allergen/sensitizing reactions are two separate things.  Efficacy tests are much easier to provide accurate results for because the testing methods are pretty straight forward, with less margin for error.  The results of the latter will be quite different (more variable data) depending on how the patch tests were done.  Did you do these on animal or human subjects?

[doctorbrenda]

OKay that makes a lot of sense.  That visual was better than some of other rudimentary ones I’ve seen.  So that must be why the polyunsaturated feel so much heavier.  Instead of just a “kink” or “bend” in the carbon chain length, the double bonds make more of a curved “hook”, which would make them even more inflexible.  Thanks.

[doctorbrenda]

Thanks, that’s very interesting.

So when they refer to something as being “lighter” weight, that means it just “feels” different, either more flexible or stiffer… right?  It’s not truly “heavier” or “lighter” weight by the technical/scientific definition.

And when you say something takes up more “volume of space”, or “less volume of space”, does that mean there’s actually unidentified matter in the unoccupied spaces, or some other chemical element?  I hope I’m asking the question in the right way.

[doctorbrenda]

I agree.  I don’t think that was an “amateur” question that doesn’t deserve a simple suggestive response.  If you have experience that has been successful (or not), why not just let others know what has worked (or not worked) in your personal or professional experience.  Sure, everyone knows how to Google, but when somebody is selling something, they don’t always tell you ALL the pros and cons of what you’re about to buy/try.  That’s why consumer reviews are SO HELPFUL to people.  If I found 10 gadgets that I thought could help me with cosmetic formulating, I would still want to know what other formulators have found to be easy to use, a good investment, or things that may be unknown to the buyer that could be disappointing or frustrating.

If a post is not of much interest, or you think it’s beneath your level of expertise, then just ignore it.

[doctorbrenda]

Very fascinating.  Makes sense that they’d want to do transesterification of vegetable oils for many other uses, not just cosmetic stuff, if it’s low cost and higher yield (for medical/pharmaceutical, industrial, etc.).  Thanks everyone, for sharing input.

[doctorbrenda]

Okay, thanks for that information, that’s very helpful to have that understood.  So then, what I am curious about is the “Stearyl Palmitate” product I’ve been buying that indicates it’s an ester of Stearyl Alcohol and “Methyl Palmitate”…. why would the Palmitic Acid need to be methylated first?  I’m assuming that methyl alcohol was combined with palmitic acid, and then esterified with stearyl alcohol, right?  But why wouldn’t it just follow the same process that was used to produce Cetyl Palmitate?  I don’t believe cetyl palmitate is “Cetyl Alcohol” esterified with “Methyl Palmitate”… so I don’t see why there would be a difference in the processing aspect of Cetyl Palmitate vs. Stearyl Palmitate.  Make sense?

[doctorbrenda]

Interesting study on how it affects rats… if only rats and humans had the same system, we’d learn so much more.

And then they extrapolate that to humans, and concluded that it may have an analgesic effect on the skin… so I guess there are some people that didn’t do research prior to their formulating ventures, or they just think it will improve their sex life to be a little numbed up…. I guess if you like rough sex then Capsaicin should be a good prophylactic to the after-soreness.

Funny!

[doctorbrenda]

As a very general rule, I would give it 24 hours to see the fully thickening effects of any emulsion.  I have actually noticed a difference within the first 4 to 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 36, and even up to 48 hours, after that it seems to finish stabilizing and remains the same no matter what it’s made up of (as a generality, so don’t jump all over that statement).

As a side note, because Cetyl Alcohol is a C16 (and the fatty alcohol equivalent to palmitic fatty acid), it will be a bit lighter and stiffer than the next step up, which is Stearyl Alcohol (C18 - the fatty alcohol equivalent to stearic acid), and is a bit denser, smoother… even though they are both common/good thickeners.

Of course no matter what qualities they have on their own, all that matters is what you’re combining it with, because the conglomerate is the outcome.

Just let it sit for a couple of days before drawing any major conclusions.

[doctorbrenda]

Wow.  First of all, on the issue of trying to formulate products that will “stimulate arousal” for females, it’s not really a “vaginal” issue, but rather a “clitoris” and “labia” issue… and what will work for females is similar to what would work for males in the “perineum” area.  What you want to do is to increase circulation and dilate blood vessels.  The nerves in the vaginal cavity are totally different and you don’t need to go there for this project.  The reason why Viagra and Cialis work is because they dilate blood vessels and increase circulation.  It was originally being research & developed as a heart medication, and they discovered it has an unintentional, powerful, and

Strangely I don’t see how this is the category of “cosmetic”, but I suppose that category is getting broader these days with Botox, Restylane, etc.

As far as menthol and capsaicin, I would stay away from those.  Capsaicin will produce a “heating up” feeling, but that’s not necessarily the kind of stimulation you want, because it’s also a vasoconstrictor, so it can actually end up having an astringent effect of continually used in the same area.  Menthol will dilate, but has other properties that can dry out skin, especially in that delicate area.  You should actually stay away from all essential and aromatic oils because they can end up irritating long before they have any effective “stimulating” effect.

Have you researched Gingko Biloba?  There are some plant based extracts that are not “aromatic” and don’t have a high potential for irritation, but can really open up the blood vessels.  I have heard it’s a natural alternative to Viagra, but certainly much less effective; and some claims have been more in the area of improving “cognitive clarity”.

As far as oils, DO NOT use any vegetable based oils, or any fatty acids rather, because it can imbalance that area, and each person’s biochemistry is different.  Although oils are naturally produced and excreted in that area, there is a lot more going on, with much more complicated substances that go along with it, including a very delicate balance of live bacterias… this can all be imbalanced and lead to infections without proper chemical formulations (like adding probiotics).  I think that would get way to complicated for this project, so I would recommend you just stick with a benign combination of lubricants/slipping agents like propylene or butylene glycol or the wide variety of silicones/siloxanes that are available.

Good luck… that’s an interesting venture!

[doctorbrenda]

Yes, the olive squalene and squalane is a separate product by itself, that is ONLY that substance; when you buy olive squalene/ane it should not have any other substances in it.   With the “unsaponifiables” it can include a list of other things, that are mentioned above.  Even though a significant portion of it includes both squalene and squalane, they can only estimate a general proportionate range, and no one’s going to guarantee any specific amounts.  If someone really wanted to just have squalane/ene they could buy that pure substance on its own.  And “BobzChemist” makes a good point that it’s a triterpinoid, so lots of double bonds, and could be comedogenic for some face formulas.  I think it’s very complimentary to body lotions, and I find it ideal for use in a luxurious hand cream.

[doctorbrenda]

What I have been told by one chemist now, and his colleague concurred, is that since there is a significant fraction of “squalene” in olive oil, this will be the majority of what makes up the “unsaponifiables” portion.  Because it’s an unsaturated hydrocarbon, it cannot go through the saponification process the way fatty acids do, but still remains well in tact at the end.  Once you hydrogenate natural squalene, it becomes “squalane”, but still provides the same texturing, moisturizing, and other aesthetic properties of it’s unadulterated counterpart “squalene”; it just has a much longer shelf life after that.  He commented that there could be small remnants of other phytosterols, polyphenols, and vitamin or antioxidant compounds, but those will have little impact because it would be such a small fraction.  So I will just accept that the unsaponifiable portion of the olive oil is squalene (or squalane once it’s been hydrogenated).  I really like the results it provides in the emulsions I’ve put together.

[doctorbrenda]

Oh, I didn’t think that it was some kind of a trade “secret”, but rather just not important for most people to care about exploring…. that’s why I said it’s kinda nerdy to be wondering.  So I agree with your layman’s explanation of “all the stuff that’s left behind” after turning fatty acids into soap… but I guess another way to ask my question is, by putting fatty acids through the saponification process (and I know that separates out the glycerin), there is something about that “stuff” that leaves it UNABLE to be saponified… so WHAT is that stuff that cannot be saponified (I’m wondering in terms of the chemical structure)… it would have to have a different chemical structure that the original fatty acids, otherwise you could just take the “leftovers” and put it through the process of saponification again… I’m sure there’s a reason why it cannot be “saponified” and I’d like to know what those substances are comprised of… I think this is still in the realm of chemistry… if we were dealing with energy, I’d ask a physicist.

I can’t be only the one that’s ever had this question, so I’ll to find the people that got to the bottom of the answer… know where they are? LOL!

[doctorbrenda]

And to “Zwapp”, thanks for the article link about cosmetic pharmaceuticals… I’ll add it to my long list of reading material that I never seem to finish (LOL).  And I loved your philosophical interlude!  Thanks for everything you add to the discussion.

[doctorbrenda]

I’m really starting to like you folks!

What “JohnB” mentioned about the INCI labeling of ingredients is an important in that it was only intended to help with consumers need to pre-screen what they expose themselves to.  If a consumer knows they are hypersensitive or allergic to any particular substance, it would not make much of a difference the type of grade or variation, you would want avoid that substance all together.  So naturally the manufacturer is under no obligation to get really specific about the chemical composition, even though many cosmetic formulators would love to know that information.  Which leads to the other point made by “MarkBroussard” about Emulsifying Wax.  There can be many different types and combinations of ingredients that can fall under that label, and the manufacturer does not have to disclose the exact composition.  The parameters are wide, but usually include a mix of fatty alcohol waxes with emulsifiers that are of a higher HLB (usually between 11 and 15), that way it will take care of emulsifying almost any list of cosmetic ingredients.  It is really intended to be a “stand alone” emulsifier that a homecrafter or beginner formulator can throw in to make sure the job gets done as they are experimenting with developing a good base lotion or cream.  Even the concentration of “active” emulsifier is a range that does not have to be guaranteed.  So it’s not really possible to use it when you’re aiming to get precise calculations.  That’s why it’s just called “INCI: Emulsifying Wax NF” (using National Formulary guidelines).  CRODA is very protective about what theirs could consist of, and I think there’s many people that have tried to figure it out because it has a reputation of having a really nice texture and performance across the board.  Someday we’ll probably find out that it’s like the ever-popular proprietary recipe of “Coca-Cola” not just being a simple soda… see how that little spike of cocaine made all the difference!  LOL!

[doctorbrenda]

Thank you (MarkBroussard and JohnB) for pointing out the there can be different grades of “INCI: Caprylic/Capric Triglycerides”.  I didn’t realize that at first, but it totally makes sense, because there are many ingredients that have what seems to be a simple INCI name, but you don’t really know everything about their chemical composition.  And that’s why it can be so difficult to truly “copy” an existing formula (unless you have really good tools and skills).  For example an ingredient on the list may be “INCI: Dimethicone” but that does not tell you what Centipoise/or/Centistokes it is, which could be 200, 350, 500, over 1000, etc., and that can really change the final product.  They don’t have reveal that they used “Down Corning 200 fluid, 350 CST”, or specify the grade of any ingredient they use.  I suppose that’s how they keep a little control over their propriety formulas.  So again, there could accurately be some grades of CCT that are a 5, and others than are an 11, so I guess you have to cross your fingers and hope you have accurate information being transferred from the laboratory, manufacturer, to the distributors, and then to the suppliers, and hope nothing got lost in translation so to speak.  I know you can calculate yourself, but it’s a lot of work, and easier to rely on info provided by suppliers.

Quick clarification on BillToge’s comments about HLB.  I think I was a simple misunderstanding.  We were talking about 2 different things, even though neither one of us was incorrect.  One of us was talking about “assigned HLB” numbers, and the other was talking about “required HLB” numbers.  You can criticize me if you feel the need, but I think the term “assigned HLB” is referring to the number given (or assigned) to specific emulsifier based on their emulsification “power”… so the lower numbers (like 3 to 6) or for producing water-in-oil emulsions, while the really high numbers (like 12 to 15) are obviously for oil-in-water emulsions.  It seems most of the emulsions people are producing these days tends to fall in the 8 to 12 range, because they’ve combined a blend to suit the requirements for that formula.  Which brings me to the other side of this point, which is that I believe the term “required HLB” is the number given to any substance that “needs to be emulsified”, which is why it’s referred to a “required HLB”.  Number “X” is what it “required” to emulsify that substance (be it an oil, lipid, or whatever else you want to make reference to).  All of these can be calculated using the Griffin mathematical computations, but since other people already did the work in the past, those numbers are usually passed on down the line every time ingredients are re-produced…. which does make me wonder how accurate they are, and if laboratories are really verifying that the products do have numbers that accurately represent their chemical structure.  For example is most of the “Glyceryl Stearate” (or GMS if prefer to call it), really always right at that “3.8” HLB?  I guess that’s why there is a caveat being thrown in there, that it could be +/-1, but that’s a big difference go up one whole number or down one whole number.  And if you think about a full ingredient list, if almost every ingredient varied by plus or minus one whole number, that could really throw the calculations into a range of inaccuracy that I’m not comfortable with… but oh well, I digressed.

[doctorbrenda]

Thanks.  That what I knew to be true, but it’s difficult to tell other people when they aren’t really accurate.  I’m also interested in learning more about how this plays a role with delivery of active ingredients (i.e., drugs as you mentioned) or other types of dermatological treatments.  I’m glad to find other knowledgeable people!

[doctorbrenda]

Oops!  Typo on the last sentence… I meant it would probably be difficult to make a WATER-in-Oil emulsion if you’re working with more than 50% water.  My understanding is that the required HLB is simply the amount of emulsifying/surfactant power it takes to pull the water and lipids together so that they make nice secure attachments at the interface - which can be micelles or bilayers, but would all include the hydrophilic heads in the water, and the lipophilic tails in the lipids (which of course includes all types of triglycerides, solid fatty acids, liquid oils, sterols, esters, waxes, etc., anything that that is immiscible with water).  The HLB for any substance that is immiscible in water, is given as a single number, usually to the first decimal place (but there’s usually a caveat that the whole thing could be +/-1), but I have never seen 2 different numbers provided for the type of emulsion that you are attempting to formulate.  I’d love to hear more opinions.