[Iaskedbetter]

Here is my Top 5

1) Do not request complete/finished formulations.

The best way to get help on this forum is to show that you
actually need help and are not trying to use us to do work for you. With that,
if you have an existing formula that isn’t working out, post it and ask for
some feedback on your problem. If you don’t have a formula, do some research
and try to come up with one yourself first. If it doesn’t work out, then ask
for help or feedback.

BAD: I’m trying to make a nice hair conditioner. Can anyone
provide a formula I can use to start?

GOOD: I’m trying to make a rinse-out hair conditioner that
improves wet combing and gives the hair a lot of shine. I tried this formula:

(Insert Formula)

When I tried it I didn’t get the shine or the combing
performance I was looking for. Anyone have any advice on how to improve it?

 

2) When asking about stability issues, provide as much formula
composition (INCI names with percentages) and batching procedure information as
possible.

BAD: HELP! My cream is showing separation at 45C. Anybody
know why? I’m using (list of ingredients).

GOOD: My cream is showing separation at the top of the jar
in 45C after 1 week and I’m not sure why. Here is the formula:

(Insert formula and percentages)

Here is how I am making it:

(Insert batching procedure)

Anyone have any thought?

 

3) When asking about specific chemicals, try to use standard
CTFA/INCI nomenclature.

BAD: I’m having trouble dispersing my pigments in a BB cream
formulation. Anyone know if I should try Salacos HS-6C?

GOOD: I’m having trouble dispersing my pigments in a BB
cream formulation. Anyone know if I should try Salacos HS-6C (INCI: Polyhydroxystearic
Acid)?

 

4) Avoid the word “best” at all costs. 99.99% of the time,
there will be no objective “best” anything for whatever you are looking for. If
you do use the word “best”, at the very least, make sure it is specific to a
certain formula, chemical(s), or attribute.

BAD: What is the best natural emulsifier for a skin cream?

BETTER (but not good): What is the best natural emulsifier
for a skin cream with 5% Jojoba Oil, 5% Shea Butter, and 2% Isopropyl Myristate?

BEST: I want to make a nice, silky skin cream that spreads
nicely during rub in. I am thinking about using ~5% Jojoba Oil, ~5% Shea
Butter, and ~2% Isopropyl Myristate. Does anyone have any advice for which
emulsifiers I can use that could be considered “natural”?

 

5) When asking about replacements of a chemical or raw
material, in addition to adhering to rules 3 and 4, include the following:

-the reason you want to replace the chemical

-the purpose the chemical is serving in the current
formulation

-any other attributes that need to be maintained in the
overall formulation

BAD: Can anyone suggest a replacement for PEG-40
Hydrogenated Castor Oil?

GOOD: Does anyone have any suggestions for replacing PEG-40
Hydrogenated Castor Oil in my sulfate-free shampoo formula? The formula is:

(Insert formula)

It is being used to solubilize the fragrance. I need to
replace it because our team doesn’t want PEG’s. The final product also needs to
remain clear.

[Iaskedbetter]

Here’s a handy little guide for labeling requirements for “organic” cosmetics.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446 

You’ll find a lot of companies go with the “made with 70 percent certified organic ingredients” or just denote specific ingredients on the ingredient list as “certified organic”. That way you get around the hefty manufacturing price increases necessary to certify products as “organic” according to USDA regulations.

[Iaskedbetter]

“Lisea cubeba (may chang)” is actually supposed to be LITSEA cubeba.

It is possible that the xanthan gum and rice/corn extracts can produce a loose, messy foam as well as some hold (or “stickiness” that would give the illusion of hold). That ingredient list is still mind boggling though.

[Iaskedbetter]

I really tried to let this one go, but for some reason I can’t restrain myself.

@perspicacious You seem to have a very staunch position on your perception of animal testing, but I think you will find yourself in an extreme minority among your peers, especially the more experienced chemists on this forum. Two points I wanted to correct for you:

“Animal testing is indeed going on every day for any newly created chemical compound if it is to have any human exposure, which includes virtually any which are going to be produced for sale. The government regulations are too severe regarding toxicity for the tests not to continue. They are required by the law.”

What government toxicity regulations are you referring to? According to the FDA website:
 Neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific tests to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients.

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceRegulation/LawsRegulations/ucm074162.htm#Who_is_responsible

“And we have to report the results of that toxicity testing on our new SDS forms (used to be called MSDS, which were much simpler). They are now more specific and detailed. “

Again, where did you get this information from? The HCS (Health Communication Standard) does not require any specific information be present on the SDS, but rather requires that the information available be organized and reported in a specific manner. 

“Section 11: Toxicological Information - This section identifies toxicological and health effects information or indicates that such data are not available.”

https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3514.html

[Iaskedbetter]

Wish it were that easy friend. There is no magic “ratio” that works every time. A lot depends on which emulsifier you are using, what your formula is composed of, and the levels of the various chemicals.

[Iaskedbetter]

@mikeyd Most stability testing is conducted by placing samples into varying temperature conditions. 45C, Room Temp, Refrigerator/5C, and Freeze/Thaw. You can test emulsions by centrifuging them as well.

[Iaskedbetter]

You will need to be more specific. “Hair products” encompasses a wide variety of formula types.

[Iaskedbetter]

I do not believe “Cetearyl Alcohol” is specifically a 50/50 ratio of cetyl and stearyl. It is supplied as blends of other ratios (30/70 for instance).

[Iaskedbetter]

Interesting. I wonder how that affects their UV claims and water resistance. If they have a static SPF 30 but the SPF goes up to 35 after water resistance testing, are they claiming SPF 35 or 30?

[Iaskedbetter]

You can do yourself a lot of favors by abandoning text book/scientific definitions and learning the lingo of the industry. 

Consider a hypothetical scenario in which a customer or marketing group asks you to make them an “organic sunscreen lotion”. What does “organic sunscreen lotion” mean? Common sense would tell you that your science based definition (a carbon-based sunscreen) is likely far from what they’re asking for. However, even with this in mind, the most experienced chemist would still need clarification on whether they are requesting a sunscreen lotion with “organic” sunfilters (avobenzone, octyl salicylate, OMC, etc.) or a sunscreen lotion that is going to be marketed as “organic”. There are probably other reasonable guesses too, but the point is that the scientific definition for the term is farthest from what was meant, which is all to often going to be the case.

[Iaskedbetter]

“By definition, humans are in fact also animals…”

That right there is your problem. You see, depending on your perspective, “definitions” are either different, or simply do not exist in this industry. The philosophical question you asked (“How can we claim as cosmetic chemists that our products have not been tested on animals…”) is one of many that exist in the cosmetic industry. How can you claim a product is natural when it has a synthetic chemical in it? How can you claim a product is “anti-aging” when it is impossible reverse age?

The answer to those and your question is, you can because nobody is going to tell you that you can’t. You can claim “cruelty free” and “not tested on animals” because there is no legal definition for these terms. So your assertion that “by definition, humans are in fact also animals…” is not correct, because my definition for animals excludes humans (not actually, but just trying to emphasize a point).

[Iaskedbetter]

Polyglyceryl esters are typically low HLB emulsifiers so I am almost positive this is a W/O emulsion. I wouldn’t be concerned about the water level as I have made stable w/o emulsions with as high as 70% water. The key is the electrolyte (magnesium sulfate) as that is what keeps the emulsifiers at the interface.

An easy test you can do to check what kind of emulsion you have is to take a drop or two of the product and put it into a small amount of water and mix it. If it the droplet “dissolves” or you start to see it sort of disintegrate into the water right away, then your continuous phase is most likely water (thus, an o/w emulsion). If it doesn’t really dissolve and the droplet stays pretty well intact with mixing, then the continuous phase is not water soluble (thus a w/o emulsion).

You can also try measuring the pH. If you see a lot of drift or if your meter doesn’t stabilize, you’ve got a w/o emulsion (or a broken pH meter).

[Iaskedbetter]

From a formulators perspective I think the primary advantage is creating unique formula types. Thin functional liquids, sprays, serums, etc. are less common formulation types so it is easy to find unique ideas using these types of “vehicles”, which is where microemulsions shine.

Functionally, I believe there is research suggesting that microemulsions can penetrate into deeper layers of the skin compared to regular emulsions. If you pair the formula with liposomes loaded with an “active” substance, you might find that using a microemulsion enhances the activity of your “active”.

[Iaskedbetter]

If you need a sprayable emulsion, microemulsions are awesome.

[Iaskedbetter]

If you post your full formula with percentages it would be easier for us to chime in.

[Iaskedbetter]

@Bobzchemist you bring up an interesting question. If you are using a product that contains a chemical that isn’t declared on the INCI designation from the supplier, are we supposed to include that in the LOI? 

I see this all the time where a supplier will provide documentation stating that the INCI for the product is simply “Super molecule X”, but the MSDS for the material lists things like Water, glycerin, ethanol, etc. I know that you don’t have to list preservatives that are at negligible levels, but what about carriers?

Here’s a fun exercise:

Let’s say you wanted to bottle up and sell 100% Epitex 66 (from Dow) as a cosmetic.

Here is the supplier literature:

http://www.ulprospector.com/documents/1159004.pdf?bs=5256&b=213899&st=1&sl=32173337&crit=a2V5d29yZDpbZXBpdGV4IDY2XQ%3d%3d&k=epitex|66

Note that the MSDS lists Water at 45-50% and Pentanediol at 1-5%

What does your LOI look like?

[Iaskedbetter]

I’d like to see a study with a larger sample size, longer testing time, and something that accounts for the varying growth phases each hair follicle could be in.

[Iaskedbetter]

http://fscimage.fishersci.com/cmsassets/downloads/segment/Scientific/pdf/foodtrack_summer_07.pdf

“The ASTM D6423 method is a procedure to measure the relative acid strength of high ethanol content fuels containing about 70% or more ethanol. Acid strength is determined by measuring the pHe of fuel, which is similar but not directly comparable to the pH of a water solution.”

pHe is important in the fuel industry because a high corrosion potential can wreak havoc on the internal parts of an engine. For cosmetics, we really only need to conduct package compatibility testing.

[Iaskedbetter]

Have you consider good old fashioned silica? The MSS series from Kobo has quite a few options that will both mattefy and enhance sensorial properties. They are likely going to be more easily incorporated into your formula than the options listed above.

[Iaskedbetter]

Darn good question @Belassi. Looks like it could be a solid conditioner with all those cationics and silicones.

[Iaskedbetter]

@MarkBrousard The product is very thin. Probably only slightly more viscous than water. It is a product sold by a company in Whole Foods. Excellent point about skin irritation though…I hadn’t considered that/ 

[Iaskedbetter]

@MarkBroussard Yes but I did leave some marketing extracts out. After Witch Hazel there’s 5 obvious marketing ingredients (ginger root extract, lemon balm extracts, algae extract, grapefruit leaf extract, white tea extract, and orange extract) then Glycerin.

@Bobzchemist Agree with you on the 1% line (I think it would be below witch hazel) but the mystery is how heavily fragranced the product is. There’s definitely something fragrancing this product and at first glance you would have to assume it would be the essential oils. Yet no solubilizers?

@Vitalys You think there are enough sugar alcohols so solubilize the essential oils? Even if the total was <3%?

Appreciate the thoughts guys.

[Iaskedbetter]

Your formula does not have a pH, as it is anhydrous. You will get a reading when you use a pH meter, but that is not the pH.

Ethanol has a pHe value, which is not the same as pH and requires a specialized electrode. Regardless, I would say you are better off forgetting about pH in an anhydrous product altogether.

[Iaskedbetter]

Wow, tall order. There are likely an infinite number of ways to do this. I think you have some groups in “Aesthetic modifiers” that I personally would classify as “Functional” materials. Things like pH adjusters, solvents and anti-oxidants serve a function for the formula more than improve formula aesthetics in my opinion. I think I would add something like “Stabilizers” where you would put emulsifiers, thickeners, etc. Within your “Colors” branch I would expand and differentiate “dyes” vs. “pigments”. I would change “fantasy” to “marketing”. I think “fantasy” is a little too derogatory.

I could probably spend all day working on something like this, haha.

[Iaskedbetter]

Was it Antarcticine? “Glacial glycoprotein extract” that was touted to have a bunch of skin regenerative effects. I think frostbite prevention was one of them if I recall correctly. I know for sure there was some “cryo-protective” fluff in the brochure I had.