Fedaro
Forum Replies Created
-
No, in fact, most extracts will provide no benefit to your formula but introduce potential allergens. They are really there for marketing purposes—to tell a story. That is why you will usually find them towards the end of an ingredient list. You can use them at less than 0.1% for claims purposes, or exclude them completely. I doubt you will notice any difference with or without them.
-
From those options, I would recommend Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride. There is a reason it is used in the majority of the best-selling commercial shampoos, like Pantene, Dove, Tresemme, Garnier, and Suave.
-
Xanthan Gum is anionic (negatively charged), so it is incompatible with cationic (positively charged) ingredients.
-
You could try Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Quaternium-80, or Polyquaternium-10.
-
Chemistry And Technology Of The Cosmetics And Toiletries Industry
vdoc.pub
Chemistry And Technology Of The Cosmetics And Toiletries Industry [PDF] [50pur2mitms0]
Chemistry And Technology Of The Cosmetics And Toiletries Industry [PDF] [50pur2mitms0]. This second edition has been designed to monitor the progress in develop ment over the past few years and to build on t...
-
Can you share the formula or at least the other ingredients in it?
-
Have you identified which ingredient is causing the yellow tint? Could you try adding a small amount of titanium dioxide to the formula?
-
In my opinion, you have too many restrictions. You are effectively restricting all of the ingredients that will help you achieve your goal. Glycerin is relatively useless in rinse-off products, but I have heard it can change the feeling upon application, though I’m not completely sure about that. Hopefully someone else can chime in. Good luck!
-
Bumping this up. 👀
-
I would suggest reducing the extracts to claims levels (~0.1%) since they are generally not that effective and you will cut down the cost of production while still being able to list them on your label. You could also reduce the aloe juice to claims levels.
-
I have several suggestions for you to help refine your formula:
- I believe the IFRA recommends a maximum usage rate of 1% tea tree oil for leave-on face products. I would suggest reducing it to around 0.1-0.3%. It is worth noting that essential oils can be irritating to sensitive skin.
- Plant extracts can also potentially irritate sensitive skin, and they are generally not that beneficial in cosmetics. At best, they probably act as humectants, which you already have glycerin and propylene glycol for. I would reduce them to claims levels (~0.1%) if needed for marketing, otherwise consider removing them.
- 5% D-panthenol sounds quite high; you only need around 0.5% to achieve the desired effects of this ingredient in a moisturizer.
- 5% shea butter could be too heavy for acne-prone or oily skin types. I would suggest reducing it to 1-2%, as you should still get the occlusive benefits it provides.
- Polysorbate-80 is more of a solubilizer than an emulsifier for lotions and creams. I recommend replacing it with glyceryl stearate, which pairs well with PEG-100 stearate. This is commonly sold as a combination emulsifier, and you can try using it at around 2-3%.
- Reduce Tetrasodium EDTA to 0.1-0.2%.
- 1% hydroxypropyl methylcellulose might be too much, depending on the grade. I would suggest reducing it to ~0.5%. If you need additional thickening, consider using fatty alcohols like cetearyl alcohol.
- Keep in mind that fragrances have the potential to irritate sensitive skin. Your usage is relatively low, so it may not pose a problem, but the tea tree oil (if you choose to keep it in) will already provide a scent to the moisturizer.
-
Hi @natasha-acendra ,
In my opinion, you could simplify this formula without affecting the performance significantly, and maybe even boost the foam in the process.
Since the Chemoryl SFB blend already contains Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate, and Cocamidopropyl Betaine, you could try increasing its usage level instead of adding separate Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate and Cocamidopropyl Betaine. The blend is likely optimized for synergistic ratios. I recommend testing the formula with 10–15% active matter of Chemoryl SFB and seeing how it performs in terms of foam and cleansing.
Since you already have Cocamidopropyl Betaine as a secondary surfactant and foam booster in the blend, you might not need Hydroxysultaine. Removing it could help simplify the formula without impacting performance significantly.
Sodium C12-14 Olefin Sulfonate is a strong cleanser, but it might not be necessary if the Chemoryl SFB provides sufficient cleansing on its own. Consider removing it and testing the blend’s performance. If more cleansing power is needed, you can reintroduce it at a lower percentage.
Using both Polyquaternium-10 and Polyquaternium-7 may be unnecessary. I’d suggest keeping Polyquaternium-10 as it tends to work better in shampoos and contributes more to conditioning and detangling. Removing Polyquaternium-7 could simplify the formula and reduce the chance of build-up.
The Prodew 500 blend already includes arginine, so adding extra arginine might be redundant. You could remove the standalone arginine without affecting the formula.
I would recommend cutting the Panthenol to claims levels or at least in half.
You might also consider using Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose to thicken your shampoo, it is said to work as a foam stabilizer.
Good luck!
-
There’s not much I can add to the great answers above, but I will mention that Stearamidopropyl Dimethylamine can be a great choice for finer, thinner hair, while Behentrimonium Chloride or Methosulfate might work better if you’re targeting thicker, coarser hair types, but can generally be used for all hair types.
It may be worth taking a look at popular conditioners and seeing which surfactants they are using. For example, Pantene (P&G) is using Stearamidopropyl Dimethylamine in their Daily Moisture, Volume & Body, and Curl Perfection conditioners, but in their Gold Series which targets curly and coily hair, they opted for Behentrimonium Chloride.
I think another important factor could be concentration. Finer, thinner hair might need less active conditioning material to prevent weigh down, while thicker, coarser hair might need more active conditioning material. I say this because you will find conditioners marketed for “all hair types” that use Behentrimonium Chloride (for example), so it’s not like it’s exclusively for one hair type.
-
I would recommend adding a silicone like dimethicone or even better, amodimethicone. This should help add slip and detangling properties to your formula. You are already using 2.5% active BTMS and some Polyquaternium-37, so I don’t think you need more conditioning agents.
Here are some other suggestions you can consider:
- Remove glycerin and save it for leave-in products. Not very useful in rinse-off.
- Reduce cationic guar to ~0.2-0.5%.
- Reduce Vitamin E to ~0.1%, you only need a little.
- You probably need a better preservative than just phenoxyethanol. I would suggest to at least add ethylhexylglycerin at 0.1% but even this could not be enough.
-
Most likely an anhydrous body butter, but I am also curious.
-
For those questions, I will have to defer you to @ketchito 🙂
-
Try testing it in water first. I observed that a 0.5% concentration of Polyquaternium-37 in water remained fluid, while a 1% concentration formed a thick gel—thick enough that the mixture wouldn’t move even when the bottle was flipped upside down.
-
If you don’t want to reduce the proteins, could you try increasing your thickener to compensate? Polyquaternium-37 is a pretty substantial thickener in my experience, you could increase it to ~0.5% and see if that helps.
-
That is a question for the expert, @PhilGeis 🙂
-
Yes, there should be no problem.
-
Be careful, those are not true preservatives but rather preservative boosters. You will still need to add a true preservative, like sodium benzoate.
-
From my research, Chemoryl SFB has an active matter of only 32%. This means you would need to use approximately 47% of the blend to achieve a 15% active surfactant matter in your shampoo (without adding other surfactants). The loss in foam production you observed might be due to insufficient active surfactant matter—at 28% usage, you’re only getting around 9% active matter. Another possibility is that Sodium C12-14 Olefin Sulfonate contributes more to foam formation than the blend or acts as a foam booster.
Regarding the viscosity issue, have you tested the blend’s responsiveness to salt? I came across a supplier formula that used 2% salt as a thickener with Chemoryl SFB at 50%, which might help address the viscosity loss.
My suggestions would be to either:
-
Test the shampoo with the blend at 47% and no additional surfactants to see if the foam improves, or
-
Reduce the blend slightly and compensate for the loss of active matter by reintroducing some Sodium C12-14 Olefin Sulfonate to boost foam and cleansing power.
-
-
It is a good one, I really like the shampoos I’ve made with it. However, having to heat it up adds a lot of time to the process for me. Cola®Det DEF-61 is only 40% active compared to Cola®Det COCO which is 60% active, so you’re definitely right that it will cost more, but I feel like the time and energy savings may be worth it. Thanks for your feedback!
-
I am so glad to hear that! Thank you for the update.
-
Silicone-free can be tricky and I don’t have experience with it. However, you could try to replace the oils in your formula with esters and silicone alternatives. Just keep in mind that none of those will really match the performance of a true silicone, despite what their descriptions suggest. LexFeel® N350 MB
(Diheptyl Succinate and Capryloyl Glycerin/Sebacic Acid Copolymer) seems to be a popular choice, though I have never tried it. I have worked with Plantasens Olive LD (Hydrogenated Ethylhexyl Olivate and Hydrogenated Olive Oil Unsaponifiables) and liked the results. Could be worth a try.