[elirit]

jemolian said:

Just to add on from my experience: 

For the lamellar structure, in reference to emulsifiers, it refers to the lamellar or liquid crystal structure that certain emulsifier combinations can achieve or produce. You can read more about some benefits of it when you see the Olivem 1000 & Montanov marketing brochure or product sheets. 

Regarding the mattifying effects of Montanov 202, it provides a matte finish or application on the skin. As it’s not a sebum absorber like Polymethylsilsesquioxane or starches, so it doesn’t really mattify oily skin. For example, one of the reason i use Montanov 202 is that i use about 1.5% to 3% of Squalane for my body lotion, 202 provides a matte look so i don’t look as shiny compared to other emulsifiers. 

Regarding stability wise, my gel creams created with Olivem 1000, Montanov 68, 202, L, etc, has been stable and has never spilt over time, it depends on your combination. I always use Aristoflex or Sepinov EMT 10 as my main emulsifier and the traditional emulsifiers are there to add stability by reducing the oil particle size. Maybe to point out that some oils or esters or lipids in particular are easier to emulsify compared to others leading to a more stable formulation. Some natural derived emulsifiers can be less stable compared to others, some of the Montanovs are mainly less stable compared to others, perhaps 68 & L by themselves in traditional emulsion products. 

Maybe also to add that, normally i’d just use those test batches made with those traditional emulsifiers as cleansing lotion or cream since i don’t want to waste them if i don’t like the skin feel. That would include ones made with 165. 

I agree re feel of 165, however I have not experimented with all esters, lipids to enhance feel. So far I love skin feel of 202, then 68. I have been using test batches as body lotion. 

@graillotion

@jemolian

Thank you all for sharing past experience.

I do remember someone saying the montanovs may be a tricky for a beginner. So far my creams with 68/eumulgin SG/xanthan gum and glycerin with all ingredients AND olivem 1000/eumulgin, gum and glycerin with all ingredients have been stable. It is the soaping that is the issue. Now I elimated soaping by not using the gum but I have to change a lot of my ingredients due to costs and reducing claim ingredients and electrolytes.  

[elirit]

ggpetrov said:

You should set your goals of what type of skin exactly you are making your formula. Oily skin is quite abstract notion. The female oily skin is different from the male oily skin. So you need to test your products on some customers. Also I have tested Montanov 202 many times, and I’d say that it doesn’t have matting effect, also it doesn’t give lighter emulsions than the other emulsifiers automaticaly. I’d say for sure that it’s tricky and quite weak emulsifier. Very often emulsions made with it tends to separate after a week or two, or even a month!

If you looking to make a light and fast absorbing emulsion, you should look at the oil phase first. Maybe in this case esters and silicones are more suitable than the vegetable oils. Even more! Olivem 1000 could be used in an oil free emulsions, so it could be the only emollient there. For the achieve of a matting effect, very suitable is the Emulprot - a milk protein based emulgator, also distarch phosphate etc. From my personal experience, light and non greasy emulsions could be made by glyceryl stearate citrate as a coemulsifier, GSC SE, and I guess that the glyceryl stearate / peg-100 stearate could be a good choise as well.

Thank you. This is for female oily skin. I hope this is not a dumb question, but is it possible to use olivem 1000, gsc SE and aristoflex? Trying to avoid xanthan gum. I will look up emulprot INCI as I do not recall seeing this. Thanks again.

Edit: Emulprot

INCI: Sodium Citrate, Hydrolyzed Milk Protein, Xanthan Gum, Cyamopsis Tetragonoloba (Guar) Gum, Magnesium Stearate

Does hydrolized milk affect clients with dairy allergy?

Thank you.

[elirit]

Pattsi said:

I don’t know what type of product you are aiming for so I am assuming a facial cream.

Are you making an lamellar structure type? I see 202 and 68.
Lamellar structure - you have to understand how its structure works and the way it is processed. It is doable but it need an understanding. 
There is a quote from Pharma explains about it in another thread, I call it “pea soup explanation”.

jemolian said:

#3

3.0% Mont 202 + 3.0% cetyl alcohol + 0.5% aristoflex

Very thin viscosity.

- Remarks: There’s something going on there, if not aristoflex would produce a lotion at 0.5%. Check your pH. 

I think this is weird too, 3.0% cetyl alcohol + 0.5% aristoflex should at least give a lotiony texture.

Aside from 165 I’m with ggpetrov, Olivem 1000 is one of my favorite emulsifiers too.
Glyceryl stearate citrate + polymers is nice too, Rich and soft but not too light not too heavy.

2% aristoflex - too much.

You can look up free formulations from Hallstar, Evonik, etc. and when you grasp the characteristic and the feeling of your emusifier(s) and emolliences you can tweak it to your liking.

Immersion blenders such as Bosch CleverMixx Baby or Dynamix, etc. is a good tool for non-professional if you have the budget I say go for it, I’m planning to get one too but haven’t decided which one so I only have overhead stirrer to play with.

For natural oils - many blog/internet recipes use at high % but not many brands use that high other than shea butter or cheap oils, but it is depend on your concept and claim(s) you are making too.

I test polymer(s) with water first to get the general idea how much I need it or how it might play out in the formula.

Morning Pattsi
You’re correct. It is for a facial cream. I was not heating up the 202 hot enough hence the thin viscosity. Making cosmetics takes about 3 weeks to receive product right now. I’m still waiting for gsc in mail. I am excited to try this with polymers. Ideally I would want cream suitable for oily skin as well. Ideally. I will look at Hallmark and evonik as I’ve never heard from them. I wanted to you squalane with slip and slide products. I guess my mindset has changed upon this journey after reading that a lot of ingredients are just for claims. Thank you very much for your input Pattsi!

P.S. I will look up the term “lamellar”.

[elirit]

@jemolian Yes my plan is to try to pair a non ionic with an ionic emulsifier to increase stabilization.

[elirit]

Wickers said:

I got Malachite from Gattefossé. 

Hello,

Did you you find the malachite extract to be effective? Thank you 

[elirit]

@ggpetrov Thank you. I will look them up!
@jemolian Good Afternoon/night
I just finished 3 trials. So far Im liking the 3% 202/3% cetyl alcohol/aristoflex. It is waaay to thick and I think its because of the 2% aristoflex. However, I can tell that I will like it once I decrease the aristoflex to 0.75or 1%.  The reason I havent posted the formula is because I have slowly removed and replaced ingredients. Researching has caused to me to rethink the previous formula that was filled wit so many extracts, natural oils and peptides. I did type the ingredients (above) that I think I will want to remain. I had 1000 actives etc 

Thank you everyone!

[elirit]

@ggpetrov
 What a coincidence that you commented. 20 minutes ago I was looking at a posts from you about issues with allantoin in April 2019.

Wow, thank you for this information. I was just about to do some more trials and now I will add olivem 1000 to water phase to see how that works. 
I was not aware montanov 202 was not very popular. Good point regarding discontinuation of product. 
Another mistake I have been making is that I am not mixing long enough or doing any cool down mixing. The formula I paid for was very vague so I was just “guessing” how long to mix. Why is olivem 1000 one of your favourites?
Thank you for your suggestion for blenders. 

[elirit]

Goodnight or goodmorning Jemolian:)
Again, overwhelmed with gratitude for you and @Graillotion ‘s input today. Everyone in this forum gives advice without expectations. Anyway, enough mushy talk. Tomorrow morning, I am off to doing more trials with everyone’s advice and more reading including your link you sent me. Thank you.

[elirit]

   I am in no position to laugh at anybodys equipment.  Thank you.

[elirit]

Also how do you feel about ethylhexyl palmitate and acne?

[elirit]

Oh yes, I see how close the blade is to bells. My attachment is nothing compared to this. Do you do low shear with the one on the right?

[elirit]

Graillotion said:

elirit said:

:smiley: @ coffee recipes. I assumed my bubbles were from my cheap equipment. I wanted to try to get the formula down pat before investing in an homogenizer and a stirrer. 

You will never get the formula down ….. with that. ::smile:

You will never get the formula down ….. with that. ::smile:

Oh gosh, news I did not want to hear. I thought of buying a blender for now but read so much about aeration etc. 

[elirit]

:smiley: @ coffee recipes. I assumed my bubbles were from my cheap equipment. I wanted to try to get the formula down pat before investing in an homogenizer and a stirrer. 

[elirit]

It is very very cheap. I bought for trials. There were no instructions so I assumed the first tool was most appropriate for high shear. 

[elirit]

Graillotion said:

Directions for using M 202:

Thanks Graillotion!

[elirit]

SDS stated melting point is 74 to 78 so I thought I was being smart by heating to 76 lol. Next time I will look at the actual manufacturer site instead of the suppliers site. Ok I think I understand what you are saying regarding emollients. My slip and slide should be at least 10% NOT including natural oils. I was being cheap and just using oil for sampling.  I forgot to answer your question. These are emulsifier trials. I combine them by heating the water phase, then adding emulsifiers with oil to water phase, stirring with a mini mixer from lotioncrafter. Thank you

[elirit]

Hi Graillotion,
always nice to hear from you. I will try to remember your questions in order. No, I did not heat up 202 to 83. I heated it to 76. These samples are with about 85% water. One is grainy. All of them are bubbly. I think because I am using a cheap mini mixer. I will increase oil phase to 10% for samples. I have never heard of Octyl Palmitate or Isoamyl laurate. I will look them up right now. I hope you have a great evening Thanks a lot for you input!

[elirit]

FYI,
these pics are for the newbies who may be curious how my samples came out. A company mailed me alkyl benzoate instead of GSC so I have to wait to get that in the mail. 

3.5%Mont 68  

0.25 % eumulgin
1% C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate
0.2% gum

3% glycerin
7.5% oil
Rich cream, however soaping still excessive. It could be brand of xanthan gum or need to increase C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate

2.0% 165 

0.25 % eumulgin 
1.1% cetyl esters
0.2% gum

3% glycerin
7.5% oil
24 hour pic. Can take up to 48 hours to thicken. Very thin viscosity so far.

3.0% Mont 202  

3.0% cetyl alcohol 
0.5% aristoflex

Very thin viscosity.

3.0% Mont 202  

0.25 % eumulgin 
1% C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate
0.2% gum

3% glycerin
7.5% oil
Medium viscosity, however soaping still excessive. It could be brand of xanthan gum or need to increase C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate. I like the texture of this one the most minus the soaping. 

Next sample will include 165 with GSC and 202 with GSC. 

Thank you.

[elirit]

Cst4Ms4Tmps4 said:

Ah ha! I thought I am the only one not getting notifications! I have to keep tabs open and keep checking for answers. This is certainly inefficient!

Maybe notification works only if people tag names. This is bad if it is true because we, the non-experts, miss lots of good stuff. And those who answer may think that we are not serious hit(ask)-and-run.

Agreed. For example, I did not get a notification for your last comment. I just happened to check my recent discussions:)

[elirit]

jemolian said:

To add to the recommendation of testing, i’d recommend to patch test all your functional, structural & additive ingredients if you are not familiar enough with them yet. So, mainly your lipids, emulsifiers/thickener, texture/sensory  modifiers. It’s good to know kind of performance in terms of skin feel, viscosity, look they have at different percentages. This is more or less a one time thing, so just note down your observation. This way you can more or less whip up a formulation quickly based on your work done.  

For example, i’d patch test the Aristoflex at 0.3%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1% in 30ml batch. Then to patch test the lipids or oils, test it straight at 100%, then test at 2%, 4%, 10% in Aristoflex or other emulsifiers which you have previously tested. Also test humectants in similar way at different dilutions, just not 100% unless they are safe to be applied that way. 

In terms of product design wise, for my current specific themed moisturizer, i’m at my 27th revision. I note the look, pickup, texture / skin feel, smell, performance in higher humidity (~70%) & slightly lower humidity (~50%).   

For example, the 27th revision that i whipped up yesterday, i’m testing a few things at once: 

• the new ingredient that i’m testing is Tremella (humectant)
• the new emulsifier combination i’m testing is Aristoflex with Hydrolyzed Sclerotium Gum
• i’m also testing a lower lipid percentage

If you know what you are testing and which part of observe, it’s possible to make multiple changes to it. So for example for the Tremella, i’m testing if it would cause a tightness as it’s a well known film former, for the emulsifier combo, i’m testing the look, pick up and skin feel. The lipids, i’m testing the moisturization / emolliency. If the ingredients you are testing overlaps in terms of things you want to observe, it’s best to make a separate batch for observation. 

Thank you Jemolian,

Invaluable information. I will definitely try these ratios and note my observations. I love this idea:)

[elirit]

emma1985 said:

It’s fine. Peptides can denature in low pH environments, therefore the “can’t mix peptides with Vitamin C” rule ONLY applies to Ascorbic Acid, the active, acidic form of Vitamin C. None of the derivatives are acidic. Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate is oil soluble so it doesn’t even have a pH, technically.

Thank you Emma. I just wanted to make sure. Have a great weekend:)

[elirit]

Thank you @Graillotion

[elirit]

Graillotion said:

elirit said:

Graillotion said:

Yes….emulsifiers…depending on your goals….are ALL about textures.  It is a matter of getting a texture you want, and then also creating the stability that you need….a tight rope act!

Not sure about others…..but always takes me 30-40 iterations…to get what I want.  Maybe I’m just not any good at this?  

Lol. Im sure you’re great at this. You are probably just a perfectionist

Weird question, because my amount of oil is so low, about 7.5%, is glycerin considered oil? Im not sure if I am supposed to count that as oil. Thank you.

Nope…does not count.

If you have an oil and water phase…..generally….EVERYTHING in the oil phase is considered.

Guessing your glycerine…is in the water phase….right?

Yes, chemist told me mix glycerin with xanthan gum then add to water. I asked because I am now realizing through this forum that some emulsifiers do better with high oil content and vise versa. 

[elirit]

And so far I love the texture of montanov 68.

[elirit]

Graillotion said:

Yes….emulsifiers…depending on your goals….are ALL about textures.  It is a matter of getting a texture you want, and then also creating the stability that you need….a tight rope act!

Not sure about others…..but always takes me 30-40 iterations…to get what I want.  Maybe I’m just not any good at this?  

Lol. Im sure you’re great at this. You are probably just a perfectionist

Weird question, because my amount of oil is so low, about 7.5%, is glycerin considered oil? Im not sure if I am supposed to count that as oil. Thank you.