EVchem
Forum Replies Created
-
None that I could find! all I’ve heard to compare the two is that mandelic has higher MW and so it penetrates slower than glycolic. My guess is it’s just marketing pushing for people to use mandelic
-
here’s a sample formulation i saw on UL prospector that includes full procedure, I’ve never made anything like this but I’ve seen talk about it before
-
This is super interesting to me because we have seen something similar in a recent product as well, but not to that extent.
We have none of the same ingredients, our mixing is done in hdpe containers but we do use a stainless steel hopper. Do you have any chelator? What is your packaging made of? You could try taking some of the smaller batch that shows no color change and putting it through the same equipment the scale up batch touched and see what happens.
-
On the brochure I have from Schulke I see preservatives containing both those materials rated with a max temperature to 120 C (no info on time at max temp or degradation).
The easiest answer would be to get some kind of microbial test kit like mikrocount, it won’t be perfect but it can tell you if you have obvious failure.
-
So we have used both isolate and broad spectrum distillate (looks like a resin) in a various formulations. I haven’t seen the raw materials themselves change color, but once they are in solution we are noticing color change, I would say more so in the case of broad spectrum. We make premixes of the distillate into caprylic/capric triglycerides for ease of use and I’ve seen colors ranging from pink/purple to a dark amber. Might have more to do with whatever metal contaminants we have than from cannabinoids themselves?
I made some 500mg/70g products with isolate and they turned a nice little pink in our accelerated stability ( w e do run one chamber extra high at 50C and this was where it was most noticeable)
-
On UL prospector I see a couple formulas using it from 6-20 %. Maybe try a direct swap with glycerin and see how it compares.
-
So I would guess the cationic emulsifier/conditioning agent the article mentions is not meant to hold the product together so much as it is there for deposition on the hair. This bit from the article also supports that idea:
The majority of instant, deep, and leave in hair conditioners sold globally are lamellar gel network (LGN) based oil in water formulations using a cationic surfactant to swell fatty alcohols. LGNs are combinations of low and high hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) surfactants that can thicken water and shear thin when applied to hair. LGN bilayered structures can easily slide toward each other to provide a slippery, smooth feel to hair during use. The LGN structure is critical for:
- Thickening and stabilizing the formulation
- Increasing cationic surfactant, fragrance, and emollient deposition
The GMS is helping create that lamellar gel network that is important for the slippery feel of the conditioner and enabling the cationics to leave your hair feeling smoother.
I’m probably missing a lot of the finer details, but that’s the impression I got from those two articles
-
With micellar waters that is exactly what people are doing, adding small amounts of surfactant ( almost definitely not higher than 4%) . Whether it is a ‘waste’ or not just depends on user perception.
-
@Pharma thanks! I guess I was worried that not everything was filtering out since the remaining % is so high but sounds like it may not be dried out enough. We don’t even have vacuum filtration here and the ovens are set, 50 is the highest I can go and don’t think heating on a hot plate will dry it out. I guess I could take the sample home to my own oven haha.
-
Still updating in case anyone ever has this problem in the future. So after 4 days drying my sample out in a 50C oven I lost 54.3% wt. I filtered what I could yesterday and left out to air dry overnight but didn’t lose much weight. If I’m understanding right, I lost 55% wt so I’m looking at 45% glycerin + gellants? That seems high so I’m going to continue to filter and let air dry
-
@CAMPESINA there is EXCEPARL® LM-LC INCI Lauryl Lactate. The brochure says valid for ECOCERT. Never used it before so I can’t speak to performance
-
@DIY_Newbie glad you took some of the feedback! It makes a big difference whether the formula is for personal use or for distribution for several reasons.
For example, if this formula was for you to sell I think you would be in violation of the Skinceuticals patent. That’s partly why I asked for the INCI names. And I was wrong in my assumption of the vitamin E type so that’s another case for using the INCI names which are standardized and can help you communicate your goals on this forum better.
Tangentially, I’ve always heard that too much tocopherol can become a pro-oxidant at higher concentrations, but there was a post on here recently that showed the oxidative activity was more dependent on temperature than I thought.
Anyway, gluconolactone finds use in the food and cosmetic industry as a moisturizer, antioxidant and chelant. Chelators are important for stability and product efficacy, but they won’t prevent mold or bacteria formation. Unless you buy some micro slides for testing you won’t really know if your preservative is working effectively, so I’d be careful batching this very far ahead of use.
The low pH is better both for your potassium sorbate and ascorbic acid, but that doesn’t mean it can’t also be irritating to your skin. Again knowing this is for personal use, just be careful.Interested to see your updates and how you revise next!
-
I think the physical state doesn’t matter necessarily (especially because emulsions are made at temperatures where everything is liquid). The intermolecular bonding forces that determine physical state might give you clues to the properties of the materials, but what matters most is the type of emulsion you are trying to make and the properties of all chemicals involved.
For example cetyl alcohol (HLB 15.5) is a solid a room temperature, but it would be a poor choice of emulsifier for an emulsion with cocoa butter (required HLB 6).
I’m no expert but that’s what I thought of!
-
Have you already made this formula or is this just your plan?
My thoughts on seeing this are:
-good god how is the smell
- Do you have any idea of stability of this formula is over time? I’ve had serious issues with CoQ10, resveratrol, and ferulic just individually, and these are all at significant percentages. You also have 15% Vitamin C? Is this L-ascorbic acid? you’re definitely going to see stability issues
- your preservation system looks weak, you have chelators but your only preservative is potassium sorbate at 0.2%? need to add something else
- pH strips are not very accurate, a pH of 3 could be very irritating.
-Vitamin E oil (vitamin E acetate I assume, side note try to use INCI names for all ingredients) is not an antioxidant until it penetrates the skin and from what I’ve seen on this forum the conversion rate is not good. you could switch to tocopherols.If this is for personal use that’s one thing but if you are planning to sell or distribute this formula I would make some heavy revisions.
-
well you should consider that a face wash will not be on the face very long at all, and will have some kind of surfactant so its inherent design means that it’s not a great system for delivering ‘actives’.
There are ingredients you could try like AHA’s or Sal acid, but I hesitate to recommend them because you need to have a strong formulation background to avoid making something potentially unsafe.
Maybe you should start by looking at products you like that have the same claims as what you are interested in, and take a look at their ingredients lists.
-
So I retested today and I didn’t see total viscosity loss until I had added a significant amount of EDTA (almost 2%), however this raised the pH from 6.8 to 8.3.
I’m still drying my other sample out in the oven so can’t test for non-water content yet.
On another interesting note, I also tried a sample with this ingredient:
(ESP A+ Powder is an all-natural dry blend of Seaweed extract (Algin) and Aloe (200X Inner Leaf Aloe Vera powder) and Tricalcium citrate.
When I prepped it according to the supplier’s instructions, I was able to obtain a very thick clear gel albeit with yellow tinge. However when I added small amounts (0.1% each) guar, xanthan, and methylcellulose I noticed a drop in viscosity, even though the pH didn’t change much (from 4.6 to 4.
. I’m surprised at this, wondering if the gel will set back up over time or not, I’ll make an update if I notice any change! -
Where are you located? I see that Seppic has a product that includes glycosphingolipids (sds says greater than 50%)
CERAMOSIDES™ HP: Pore Minimizer
-
Company:
SEPPIC
-
INCI Name:
Glycosphingolipids (and) Glycolipids
-
-
pH last I checked was 6.7 I think the alginate and the guar are balancing each other out. So you don’t think its possible they were using sodium alginate and some kind of calcium solution to thicken? Would the sodium be exchanged for calcium?
-
I did a very rough test with the EDTA (i was very heavy handed, but that still shouldn’t affect the other gums I think) and I saw a complete loss of viscosity-so that makes it likely that the sodium alginate is the major gellant here right?
I’ll still try the method you proposed and let you know if it works for me!
-
Wow really appreciate your thoughts here!
The alginate might be at a lower percentage but the benchmark has this slick feel that made me guess it was a major contributor. I agree with your guess on the 1% line, I’m worried I will have to deviate from that to get a similar product since I have limited options.
We used to have a scale that could handle loss on drying, I should try with what we have here and see if I can get any usable results. Dumb question but how exactly would I force flocculation? With a centrifuge?
Good thought on the chelators as well- at least that will be an easy test.
The alginate and methylcellulose I’m using are actually from a shop for gastronomy since they have the smallest MOQs.
-
could be!
yeah that’s definitely part of the issue I’m having- there are so many grades of these gums and I’m limited to whatever we can stock with low minimums. I’ve got an organic guar and guar hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride and then methylcellulose, xanthan gum in two different grades, and the sodium alginate. My original thought was that the methylcellulose and xanthan gums are not the major thickeners here, but since the guar can work synergistically with xanthan maybe I should revisit that idea
-
Hmm I’ll play with it longer, @Pharma do you think the benchmark could just be using CaCl2 without listing it on the ingredients? I’m very skeptical that they were able to get the Ca needed from extracts alone, especially given how clear the gel is. They also list guar gum even before algin, and the tests I’m doing with the guar I have now are not reaching that level of clarity. I suspect some of that is due to my processing but it’s hard to reverse engineer this product when I’m doubtful of the LOI and I don’t have enough experience with these kinds of thickeners
-
Yeah I made a 1% CaCl2 solution and was adding that to a revision, not sure how much is needed to cause the gelling because I added ~4% (so only 0.04g CaCl2- considering there’s probably not much more calcium from the extracts than that)
-
For something that will directly contact the skin I definitely wouldn’t go above the range you suggested for essential oils. Not sure that the perfume/fragrance naming guide would apply here. You might have trouble with stability of these oils over time as well.
-
the white powder might be SAP or the HA coming out of solution, if you put the substance into water does it dissolve?