cosmeticchick
Forum Replies Created
-
This brand started very small (selling at markets), and has evolved over time. I have tried them and the shampoo formulations are pretty good, some of the other products I didn’t love. I imagine the formulas have changed recently with the buy out from a larger company - along with cutting a lot of product lines, new packaging etc.
Keep in mind they also have a lot of (somewhat self imposed) restrictions about what ingredients are acceptable or not. e.g. no palm derived ingredients is hugely restrictive.
As the commenter above me also said, having a product that’s pretty good and great marketing does the job for most brands. If people love the idea of the brand their perception will also be more positive. Most consumers will not perceive a marginal improvement in performance and ultra-perfectionism about formulas is probably not going to be rewarded with booming business. 😅 It’s the marketing!
-
Thanks everyone - it was definitely Stearic Acid that was the issue in the end. 🙂
-
I had a little play with Chat GPT once and it told me some absolute nonsense about what particular ingredients can be used for. The problem as far as I understand is that LLMs are designed to emulate human language and create answers that ‘sound right’, not to give answers that are actually factually correct.
-
Some of these brands are not exactly small (although none of them seem to be owned by the big multinationals), hence why I thought I could be missing something.
The only other thing I can think of is that the release of citric acid means that the mostly insoluble magnesium hydroxide actually dissolves as it neutralises the acid. But that could also mean that the mechanism of the product is ‘used up’ more quickly than without that addition, as obviously sweat itself is slightly acidic and this reaction is taking place anyway. But I can’t find any references to anything like that anywhere so that’s just an out there attempt at justification.
It might just be that people find it marketed as a deo active, it’s oil soluble so it works in their anhydrous formula, and away they go.
I actually have tried adding it to a product and IMO it made the product less effective, but I only tried it on myself. ????
-
You would need to trace the source right back to manufacture which would be very difficult. Most surfactants come from palm but there may be coconut mixed in somewhere down the line so you can’t be sure. This part of the manufacturing process is not very transparent.
There are a couple of amphoteric liquid surfactants from Colonial that claim to be coconut free.
https://colonialchem.com/products/colateric-bbs/
https://colonialchem.com/products/colateric-hbs/
Unfortunately I don’t think you’ll be able to find a powdered anionic surfactant that you can absolutely guarantee has never had coconut introduced in any part of the process.
-
By the way - is there any way to edit your post? I’d like to remove the INCIs now as I don’t want to be seen as disparaging any businesses. I can’t seem to edit any of my comments.
*actually I can edit this comment, as the edit button is showing. But it’s not showing on any previous comments or the main post. Hmm!
-
Also random question, but how do you know its bad without trying it? A lot of cosmetic formulation is trial and error.
Also some surfactants alone (like SLS) might be irritating due to the small micelle size they form, however combining surfactants creates a larger micelle size that doesn’t irritate the skin as much. So you can’t necessarily determine whether a formula is good or bad based on individual ingredients.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by cosmeticchick.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by
-
They didn’t start as a large corporation and I don’t believe her motive was profit only. She could have made formulas that are a lot cheaper. They were really one of the first brands to offer plastic free alternatives to liquid products and personally I admire her vision!
-
Magnesium Hydroxide has a high pH but because of it’s low water solubility it can never bring a solution (in this case the sweat under the pits) to a pH above neutral. This is why it’s so often used in water treatment facilities, and as an antacid. It doesn’t present the same issues as a very high solubility alkaline ingredient like sodium bicarbonate.
-
????????
-
Thank you! I might do that! Probably shouldn’t have put the INCIs there - oops!
-
That’s very good to know! And when you publish your guide please post it in this forum - would love to read it.
-
Thank you!
Yes currently we sell a powder format that you dispense each time you use it. People seem to find this difficult to use (personally I find it easy and I have thick hair, but I guess people are used to liquid products… or maybe it’s just a matter of time and ‘education’ like with shampoo bars).
I’m thinking that one of the products above they’re relying on boiling the water to kill gram - bacteria which is why they specify to use just boiled water (although just says lukewarm which is a bit scary considering that’s ideal temp for pseudomonas aeruginosa). I’d be really interested to know how specifically they conducted their preservative testing!
-
Thanks Phil - P. aeruginosa was what I was concerned about as I have seen the recent cases with the eye drops (although noted they were unpreserved). The Geogard product info *says* that it is effective against it but obviously they are selling their product.
My other thought was that consumers will not necessarily use it within 6 months just because it says to.
Is it correct that in the article you’ve linked below this was a finished shampoo that was then diluted further? The preservative obviously only intended to preserve the original product?
Do you think there is any preservative on the market that would be suitable for the purpose of powder-to-gel products?