[emma1985]

I almost can’t believe that there are still people who think sun damage is a myth. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and scientific consensus that the sun ages the skin more than anything else. It is estimated that 80-90% of visible aging of the skin is caused by UV exposure.

Unless you believe that there’s a massive conspiracy in the worldwide scientific community to make people think, erroneously, that the sun ages the skin, I don’t understand how anyone could think UV induced sun damage is a myth.

EVERYTHING ELSE, in terms of impact on the skin, pales when compared to sun exposure. Diet, lifestyle, etc. 

[emma1985]

DaveStone said:

Perry said:

Sun damage is not a myth. Just look at the skin of people from Arizona or Florida vs people from Minnesota. If you’re not from the US these are sections of the country that are sunny (Arizona / Florida) and less sunny (Minnesota). People in sunny places have “leathery” looking skin in my opinion.

So, if you care about having skin that doesn’t look aged or weathered, wear sunscreen. Theoretically, sunscreen use should also protect against skin cancer. However, the data on this is much less convincing. 

Sunscreens are not regularly added to moisturizers because it would make formulas more expensive without providing a benefit companies could claim. Also, the ingredients are drug actives (at least in the US). 

Never been to Florida or Arizona, but I have been to Southern California. I hadn’t noticed anything different about people’s skin other than that it was tanner. If I looked closer, I’d probably see more wrinkles. Tanning is bad for the skin. I always hated when someone would tell me to “get some color”. I would tell them I’d rather look like Casper than the Cryptkeeper.

I didn’t mean that sun damage in general was a myth…just damage when out of direct sunlight. But that article helped clear it up.

Tanning is literally sun damage, by definition. It is the skin’s physiological response to the trauma of UV exposure. UV induced aging of the skin happens over time. Those tanned Southern Californians will be looking rough as hell in a few decades. That’s how it works.

I’ve been wearing sunscreen every time I leave the house for 7 years. That doesn’t mean my skin is necessarily less wrinkled than those my age currently. But it almost certainly means my skin will be less wrinkled, less pigmented, more elastic and more firm than my peers 10 years from now. Also, my chances of developing skin cancer will be exponentially reduced compared to my peers who didn’t wear sunscreen.

[emma1985]

Are you adding your lipids extremely slowly? “Dropwise?” (Literally drop by drop)

[emma1985]

Preventing hair loss whether in humans or animals through topical application of anything is not a thing, unfortunately (with the exception of Rogaine, an FDA approved over the counter treatment.) 

I see so many people in my Facebook groups trying to make hair loss shampoos. It seems like such a futile effort. There are extremely complicated physiological processes in place that control hair loss and growth. 

[emma1985]

If you absolutely want to keep the electrolyte load in there, I would recommend high molecular weight Sodium Hyaluronate. It’s very elegant and an effective humectant in its own right (supposedly the most effective humectant in the industry.)

I used HMW Sodium Hyaluronate in my Lactic Acid serum because I had the same problem. (Lactic Acid is considered an electrolyte.) 

It is a bit expensive though. 

In situations where electrolytes are not the issue, my favorite gelling agent is Aristoflex AVC and Sodium Carbomer.

[emma1985]

I don’t think either are true penetration enhancers the way Dimethyl Isosorbide is, for example. It’s like when people say glycerin is a penetration enhancer. 

[emma1985]

No other antioxidants are evidence based for stabilizing C as far as I know.

You don’t really have to make an emulsion, though.

You can use a small amount of Polysorbate, or even something like Olivem 300 to solubilize a small amount of Vitamin E (in Vitamin C serums, E is used at 0.5% or 1%.)

The bigger problem is Ferulic Acid. In my experience it’s almost impossible to solubilize. This is why I’ve personally given up on DIY Vitamin C. I buy commercial formulations that stay stable/unoxidized/effective for a stunning amount of time (the ones I use limit water content and switch out large quantities of water for glycols. That’s the trick.) 

[emma1985]

It’s extremely expensive. (And not really evidence based.) You would have to charge so much for it (if you’re selling.)

If you haven’t, try searching under the name “Granactive Retinoid.” Sometimes it’s called that. 

[emma1985]

It’s definitely drier than Shea but still a bit greasy. I love it. But as a formulator my priority is not to make non greasy products (I like rich and emollient textures) so might be different for others. 

[emma1985]

raiyana said:

I dont make lipsticks, but i do make diy cleansing balms and cleansing oil for my friends and family. Water free formula.

I used to have issues like this but now my cleansing balms dont go rancid as fast. The one i made 2 years ago still smell okay.

What i did, i changed most of my plant oils to synthetic ingredients. The products mostly made of:
Caprylic capric triglyceride
Mineral oil
C12-15 Alkyl benzoate
Isododecane
Some sunflower oil and castor oil
Other plant oils (i limit to 1% max)
BHT as antioxadant at 0.1%
Fragrance and essential oils (max 0.05%)
For natural wax, i only use white beeswax

I dont use preservatives as long as the product is kept away from water and stored properly (not in the bathroom!) Never had any mold. But my “clients” are just friends and family and i always remind them to keep the products dry.

Not to derail the discussion, but I’m wondering if you have any issues with syneresis? (Precipitation of oils due to non-compatible polarity.) I ask because isododecane is highly non-polar, whereas some of your other ingredients are polar (like sunflower seed oil.)

I’ve recently started experimenting with Rice Bran Wax as it is said to prevent syneresis, and it’s going well so far!

I’m interested in trying microcrystalline wax as well, right now I’m using emulsifying waxes, Rice Bran Wax, Cetyl Alcohol and Stearic Acid. Are you happy with the microcrystalline wax?

ETA. Sorry, I see someone already asked about syneresis LoL. Ignore.

[emma1985]

saraahsan said:

Graillotion said:

saraahsan said:

PhilGeis said:

How much water?  Have you seen any mold or other microbial contamination?

my Lipsticks are water free. but after one year they start smells rancid my clients want more shelf life. at least 2-3 years 

Sounds like you are trying to preserve your oils… You are barking up the wrong tree with parabens…. You need to be looking at antioxidents.

ROE / E / Bisabolol / Oil soluable C….etc..etc.

i am adding vitamin e t-50 for oxidation but they smells rancid after one year. my point is how to resolve this issue so that my Lipsticks stay longer at least 2-3 years 

Combine Tocopherol with Rosemary Oleoresin. That’s what I do with a lot of my raw ingredients and some of my emulsions.

[emma1985]

domicanica said:

@emma1985 I have the dynamic minipro and i bought that exact beaker because I saw someone in another thread say that the minipro fits perfectly in the beaker, but the beaker is too narrow for the machine. are you using the standard attachment that it comes with?

I have used the regular attachment that it comes with many times with that beaker. Try rotating the MiniPro slightly, it only fits at a certain “angle.” Try rotating and inserting until it fits. 

[emma1985]

ngarayeva001 said:

There are many red flags, EWG, saying that cosmetic companies add those compounds and ‘don’t disclose’, not specifying who exactly does it, using word ‘chemical’ multiple times in a negative way, etc. So I am guessing those could be impurities as result of manufacturing (thus not disclosing) that are present at negligible amounts not presenting health hazards. Or they completely pulled it out of .. blue sky. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/SkincareAddiction/comments/o0mmjo/research_toxic_forever_chemicals_widespread_in/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Already have people talking about how they’re going to throw out all of their skincare, mascara, etc.

And SCA is not chemophobic AT ALL, so I can only imagine how the “natural” skincare consumers are reacting.

[Research] Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ widespread in top makeup brands, study finds
by inSkincareAddiction

[emma1985]

Graillotion said:

suswang8 said:

 I really don’t see how you can use the Dynamic (with Blender Tool) for 100g without introducing a lot of air, but I’m glad (and a bit amazed ) you are able to pull it off.  I do feel like the Dynamic has a head that for some reason is extremely powerful/efficient — more so than the OCIS — perhaps mostly due to the size/shape.

Naturally the ability to keep the head submerged is directly correlated to the shape and size of the beaker you are using.  

The following link will take you to a beaker that is perfectly matched to the Blender tool.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01L0JBZPI/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I always make 150gm test batches, so I have plenty of room to spare.  Even when I am working with just the water phase….The head is completely immersed.  I use a lot of powders in my water phase, so the mini-pro sits in the water phase through out the heating process, giving it a number of spins.

Good point!! I don’t know how I forgot to mention that. Appropriate beaker size/shape makes a huge difference.

I love these ..

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006VYY09Q/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_XCGV9385MF12VDHCP3NX?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

Both the 250 mL and 500 mL work just fine with the MiniPro.

[emma1985]

suswang8 said:

@Graillotion   Jeez.  I wish they were sold as a combo many months ago when I had been shopping around. 

@emma1985   I ended up getting an OCIS (plus Dremel), which I do like, in part because I really don’t see how you can use the Dynamic (with Blender Tool) for 100g without introducing a lot of air, but I’m glad (and a bit amazed ) you are able to pull it off.  I do feel like the Dynamic has a head that for some reason is extremely powerful/efficient — more so than the OCIS — perhaps mostly due to the size/shape.

Here’s a picture of the emulsion I made last night.

A few air bubbles but nothing that is a deal breaker for me, and I’m super intolerant of visible air bubbles.

I think it would be even better with larger batches, so I’m going to increase my test batch size to 150 g.

[emma1985]

They quoted EWG in the CNN article. Can’t take them seriously.

[emma1985]

Paprik said:

I actually think Sepimax ZEN will work. It is really electrolytes resistant, you can do nearly anything to it and it works. It is really easy material to work with, foolproof.
The only way to ho test it out tho is to try it. Good luck, let us know

Thank you so much! I really really appreciate it ???? will report back.

[emma1985]

ngarayeva001 said:

If you are going to buffer it then none of polymers based on acrylic acid won’t work. I am not a big fan of xanthan but there are varieties that are less nasty than others. If cost isn’t an issue, the high molecular weight HA will do.

Thank you! I was trying to avoid HA because of the cost, but will use it if I have to.

I actually love how Sepimax feels at 0.4% (just Sepimax and water, tried it last night.)

pH as supplied is ~1. I was planning on raising to 4 after adding all of my ingredients but BEFORE adding Sepimax.

So this won’t work?

[emma1985]

Abdullah said:

Some times we do something because we like it or because we can’t do otherwise. I did the same. I liked Glyceryl Caprylate as preservative because it had natural name, was mild and inexpensive. Although I knew it is not very effective Preservative, i was hopping that someone tell me it is a robust Preservative. Change is the best thing we can do. 

I bet if you make the Product one phase, it would be more effective with less cost and you would like it. 

https://youtu.be/0CfQbz2x8KM

[emma1985]

Abdullah said:

Some times we do something because we like it or because we can’t do otherwise. I did the same. I liked Glyceryl Caprylate as preservative because it had natural name, was mild and inexpensive. Although I knew it is not very effective Preservative, i was hopping that someone tell me it is a robust Preservative. Change is the best thing we can do. 

I bet if you make the Product one phase, it would be more effective with less cost and you would like it. 

I have emulsified serums in my line. They are nice and some of my bestsellers. This is a completely different product concept. If it absolutely fails, and no one buys it or no one likes it, that’s totally fine. 

I’ve been through 2 30 mL bottles so far and the oil and water phase ratio did not change beyond 60/40. 

The product is not thin and runny. I have high molecular weight Hyaluronic Acid in the water layer, and oils with higher viscosity in the oil layer.

I disagree with your statement about no one liking “runny” products. “Runny” products like toners and essences are absolutely essential in the Korean skincare user community, for example.

There are no actives in this product, and no fragrance. I do not formulate with essential oils or fragrance.

Biphase products are very well liked in the skincare communities that I belong to, so it’s not like this is something unheard of or something I totally made up. One of the formulators that I follow just made one on her YouTube channel. Institute of Personal Care Science has several biphase product formulations, as well. So I disagree with your overall attitude that no one will like a biphase product. It seems plenty of people do.

As I said, I have extremely robust preservatives in both the oil layer and the water layer, and will be testing for contamination in a few weeks. 

I have a hard time believing that biphase products are impossible to preserve as you claim, given that there are so many on the market. Biphase makeup removers have been around for several decades. As Mark said, using a preservative in each layer with appropriate solubility is a good approach. I’m using Liquid Germall Plus and Phenonip, which are both as close to bulletproof as preservatives get. Maybe you weren’t using an effective preservative in your separated emulsion.

You said “change is the best thing we can do.” Well, that’s exactly what I’m doing. It’s about experimentation and innovation. It’s the creative part of skincare formulation which is the biggest reason I formulate skincare. 

https://youtu.be/1_UAzzq84jM

[emma1985]

Pigmentation from blue light is mostly a concern for deeper skin tones, Fitzpatrick 4 and up.

[emma1985]

I wouldn’t use Blue Butterfly powder in a product containing water.

When I first got into formulation, I played around with natural colorants like Alkanet Root, Hibiscus powder, Rosehip powder, Acai powder, etc. For starters, they’re usually not pigmented enough to contribute to the color of a final product. But also, they oxidize in products containing water.

I have Blueberry Seed Oil that is blue, but I think you would have to use a ton of it to get the final product to be blue. 

Yarrow is a blue essential oil.

https://www.newdirectionsaromatics.com/products/essential-oils/yarrow-essential-oil-blue.html

Actually more expensive than Blue Tansy from NDA.

[emma1985]

I buy from Lotioncrafter. I really like theirs. 

[emma1985]

abierose said:

@emma1985 ah, so which option do you prefer? Are there any specific limitations to either one of those options? I know that cationic and anionic ingredients do not play together, but in addition to your suggestion above, are there any other combination of ingredients that can work as well as or even better than cationics?

I was also under the impression that cationics have the most conditioning capabilities but then one of the commercial beard products that I decided to use as a benchmark uses Glyceral Stearate and Peg-100 and a polymeric emulsifier, along with some very common butters, oils, and esters….

Thank you for your feedback!! I appreciate it!

I prefer to just use BTMS 50 for hair products, just to keep things simple.

I’m not a huge fan of BTMS for skin, I find it kind of draggy and dry and it certainly doesn’t give me the slip and glide I get when I combine nonionic emulsifiers (like Glyceryl Stearate PEG 100 Stearate) with a polymeric emulsifier, BUT slip and glide is not as important with hair products.

I’ve never used BTMS 25, but I hear BTMS 50 is better.

I also love Dimethicone in hair products, I use 2-4%.

Hydrolyzed proteins work well for hair products as well. 

I will tell you the ingredients I used for my husband’s latest beard cream that he loves.

Water

Glycerin

Sodium Lactate

Panthenol

(I have tons of other humectants and water soluble ingredients, but I think these work best for hair.)

BTMS 50 (7%)
Cetyl Alcohol (4%)
Stearic Acid (2%)
Candellila Wax (just 1%)
Shea Butter

Mango Butter
Argan Oil

Macadamia Nut Oil
Rice Bran Oil
Dimethicone

Preservative

Silk Amino Acids (hydrolyzed protein)
Polyquaternium-7 (I prefer it to Honeyquat as Honeyquat has a smell)

Normally I wouldn’t have used Candellila Wax, but he wanted a beard cream that would work as both a beard conditioner and a styling product, so I needed it to be a bit waxy and very thick.

Next time I think I’m going to increase the Dimethicone. I used only 2% this time.

I agree that Natrasil is the closest you will get to Dimethicone amongst alternatives. I’ve tried Daikon Seed Extract, Isoamyl Laurate and a few others that are recommended as alternatives. I think Natrasil is best if you must use an alternative. But I still think Dimethicone offers something the alternatives don’t.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

[emma1985]

Model96 said:

I just read on the US patent website and like you said the patent covers a combination of vitamin C, E and ferulic acid in a range of percentages. Also, it covers the ph range from 2.5 to 3.0 .

Here’s the link:
https://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050154054%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20050154054&RS=DN/20050154054

In my case, I will use a ph between 3.2 and 3.4 which is superior than the ph range patented. So, I will not have any issues. 

There are many brands that have vitamin C, E, ferulic acid such as Paula’s choice, timeless, geek&gorgeous, maelove… and they use a range of 15 to 20% of vitamin C and a ph from 2.5 to 3.2. 
I don’t understand how some of these products can be in the market if theirs pH are between 2.5 and 3.0 . Maybe they are paying something to skinceuticals? 

Yes, you are right. The packaging is more a marketing decision. 

As a professional chemist, have you ever formulate pure vitamin C serum? The ascorbic acid is unstable so it can be challenging to formulate. Generally, how long does it take to formulate? I know it depends on the product but maybe from your experience you know the average time that it takes to have a good formulation. Also, what are the biggest challenges that chemist face when formulating pure vitamin C? 

Thank you so much!!

I have personally been through countless bottles of Timeless Vitamin C serum. That serum is EXTREMELY stable and never oxidizes (at least, it doesn’t undergo ANY color change,) in the 2-3 months it takes me to go through a bottle. 

It’s made in small batches, frequently, so that’s one part of the equation.

I think the biggest thing, though, is that they have replaced so much of the water in the product with glycols. I think this dramatically improves stability.

They package in an airless pump, but I used many bottles of it while they were still using dropper bottles, and even then, it never oxidized.

Might want to look at their formulation if you are worried about oxidization.