johnb
Forum Replies Created
-
Ryoo,
It’s not so much a case of not being open to advice, I think you are venturing beyond your capabilities, especially as your original enquiry was a pretty general one asking how in cistern toilet blocks worked. This developed into the ingredients of the blocks and finally to my seeking out suppliers of suitable products with availability in small quantities for the offered formulations.
Your current query is not for advice, it is asking for development information for new ideas. This takes time and money on our part and it is a bit much asking for this on a general forum.
If you do wish to pay for work to be done, there is a section at the top of the home page of people offering development services, although the negatives mentioned in my previous reply still hold true.
-
Parabens do tend to be inactivated by nonionic surfactants but, each situation should be checked for that effect. I have use a parabens/phenoxyethanol blend for a long time and found it very effective but then there was one formulation where it just didn’t work. I don’t know why, it was just “one of those things.”
I don’t do formulation work any longer. I am retired and physically disabled which makes things somewhat difficult.
So what do (did) I use as preservatives? Well, the blend I just described (Phenonip) either bought in or made up myself or any other material that fitted my ideas at the time. What I would NEVER use is any of the thiazolones (Kathon). It was known at launch (1978 (ish)) that these things were skin sensitisers yet Rohm & Haas persisted in persuading worldwide regulators that the stuff was safe. Even now, thiazolones are seen to be benign in some quarters and do not get even a small fraction of the publicity that is heaped on parabens.
Having said I don’t do formulation work now, that’s not quite true. I do get assistance in doing some practical work for me on some small molecule topical pharmaceutical products I am developing. These have a high content of glycols which makes them self-preserving.
-
Shaving soaps/creams/foams are, as Belassi says, based on soap.
Soap has the characteristic of decomposing before or in wastewater treatment systems and biodegrading - it doesn’t then detrimentally affect ecology.
Your original question was about cistern blocks which I think I answered adequately and in detail after a very protracted series of replies.
The question you are asking now is about a new concept. This being the case, it is or innovation. Nobody here is a charity and new work had to be paid for. If you are happy to pay for development, fine. If not, it is time to either forget the whole thing or start doing some work yourself.
A few points:
1. If you have several inches of persistent foam in the toilet bowl, what then is the point of the cistern block providing colour to the water?
2. “Eco-friendly foams” and “persistent foams” are a contradiction.
3. You mentioned thickening agents. These are for totally different products. Be careful not to conflate completely different product types
-
A couple of points:
I made an error in the book authors it is Davidsohn (I missed out a “d”)
A mention ought to be made of HAPPI magazine (Household And Personal Products Industry).
-
My first job after being employed in UK government research was with a very large soap manufacturer (thousands of tonnes of soap per week). As an auxiliary to this the company also made laundry detergents (using the soap base they manufactured) detergent products based on synthetics - laundry detergents, hard surface cleaners, fabric softeners and suchlike. These were all for industrial/commercial use.
I started work there with a knowledge level on the product range of almost zero. There was little at the time in the way of formal learning or teaching of the subject and my university chemistry knowledge was effectively no use whatsoever. It was a case of learning from what had been done before (by reading company formulation books and records) and from intense practical work in the lab. There was a little information available from raw materials suppliers (nowhere near as much as there is now) and it seemed that the whole industry was part of a secret society.*
I soaked up knowledge and information like a sponge (you can do that when you’re young) and it’s stayed with me for many, many years. I was with that company for four years and in that time developed several products that reached the (industrial) marketplace. During my time there the company rearranged and the division where I worked merged with the retail products division involved with finished soaps and all sorts of toiletries. (This is where I began my work in cosmetic products).
During that time and ever since there is much freer exchange of information between manufacturers and suppliers (they realised, probably way too late, that secrecy did nothing toward the advancement of their industry) and the whole scenario is much different.
Anyway, after all that, to return to the real subject or the discussion. Much useful information can be obtained in the way chemicalmatt has intimated.
I know of two books that I have found useful both by Davisohn & Milwidsky. one is entitled Polishes, the other Synthetic Detergents. Both are out of print but secondhand copies are available (I checked this morning) on Amazon. The information contained is necessarily dated but it gives a very useful insight and also formulation information of numerous products.
*This secrecy remained much longer in the cosmetics development industry.
-
I don’t know your whereabouts but, I am still doubtful that it is practical to make this yourself.
A supplier of a vegetable based shaving soap is http://www.stephensonpersonalcare.com/products/opal-vss
-
A development lab I moved to after a change in employment was equipped with several Ultra Turrax machines of various sizes as my predecessor had a strange idea that they were necessary to form even the most basic of emulsions. I’m sure the machines are very good at what they do but, what is that?
I worked in that lab for four years. The Ultra Turrax’s just sat on a bench completely unused and unloved.
I have to say, though, that the Ultra Turrax manucturer, IKA, makes excellent quality (but expensive) laboratory equipment and all the propeller stirrers/magnetic stirrers in that company were from IKA.
Regarding your preservative query. It is good practise, or even necessary to test the effectiveness of all new preservation systems. It is easily possible that a complicated mixture like a cosmetic product will demonstrate unexpected behaviour at any point. Many preservatives can be rendered ineffective by ethoxylated surfactants.
With phenoxyethanol, remember that it is also an ethoxylate (produced by the ethoxylation of phenol).
-
I think that you will find the odour of vanillin and furaneol overpowering at the concentration required to act as a preservative but also, the odour will prevent any added fragrance from being effective or even noticeable.
I truly believe that you are wasting your time in this.
-
I feel I am wasting my time.
-
It is not feasible to manufacture hard shaving soap yourself. It requires specialist equipment both to make the soap and to form it into bars/sticks for consumer use.
A specialist soap finisher should be able perform these things for you.
Regarding stearic acid for shaving cream, the grade termed triple pressed is suitable.
-
I doubt that reducing the potassium hydroxide will achieve anything positive. The secret is to be patient and allow time for the crystallisation of the stearic acid to take place.
One thing to make sure of is to have a high quality stearic acid if there is much unsaturated acid(s) - oleic acid for instance - the pearling effect will be inhibited or prevented completely.
-
Are you sure you want to use these components?
Furaneol has a VERY powerful odour. Vanillin, similarly, has a very powerful odour and it is also prone to discoloration in many situations likely to be found in cosmetic products.
Regarding the antimicrobial properties of paracoumaric acid, I’m not sure. There is a strong structural similarity between that and the parabens and cinnamic acid. Whether that carries over to the paracoumaric acid, I don’t know.
I think you have some testing work to do!
-
Another thread resurrected from the archives.
The original premise was the mucilages produced by marshmallow, slippery elm and burdock. It is now discussing extracts - which are not necessarily the same thing and looking at some small suppliers pages marketing these extracts, the term mucilage does not fit with the products on sale.
Before any realistic further discussion takes place, there ought to be a definition of the subject.
-
Hand dishwashing liquids require a detergent with a fairly aggressive action to be able to deal with sometimes quite tenacious soiling of dishes and pots/pans.
Things like SLS and SLES are not really suitable for this - they are more suited to personal products.
The main “power” detergent of hard surface cleaners is an alkylbenzene sulfonate salt e.g sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. This is often mixed with SLES or similar and an alkanolamide to provide a foam - often demanded by the consumer but which have little to do with cleaning properties.
The art of formulating a good dishwashing liquid is to have the cleaning power finish at the same time as the foam collapses.
The list you have given jivanijignesh doesn’t have a lot of meaning or enough detail for me to be able to make a reasoned comment.
-
The pearlescence and correct texture appear only after several weeks of storage. When I was involved in the commercial production of this product type it would take a month to six weeks post manufacture before it was released for sale.
Regarding the inclusion of soda (NaOH). This material stiffens the product so something to be sold in a jar may require NaOH whereas tube products do not.
-
That formulation approximates quite well with the formulae I am familiar with. You might wish to increase the potassium hydroxide slightly but, if you’re happy with the product you have made, good!
-
I don’t have any specific knowledge regarding potential adverse properties of biocidal ingredients other than realisng that any word ending with the term “-cide” or “-cidal” indicates an adverse affect on the viability of living organisms
On the subject of parahydroxycinnanic acid, please note that Exsymol is the name of the manufacturer/marketer, not the name of the product. Also be aware of the notice on the sheet to which you gave a link:
“PARAHYDROXYCINNAMIC ACID is not a bacteriostatic, and classical preservatives must be incorporated into formulations.”
I don’t know where you are located, EliseCortes, but in most areas, what can and cannot be termed a cosmetic preservative is controlled by law and I am not aware of any legislative locations that include parahydroxycinnanic acid in their list of approved preservative materials.
I found the Wikipedia monograph for parahydroxycinnanic acid interesting:
-
What color process are you using that requires this scale closing acid shampoo?
-
You must stir your slurry but this can be done in a gently manner, not with the molecule ripping high forces introduced by a homogenizer.
Ensure there are no lumps in your slurry before you add the water.
Full dispersion may take a few hours to complete but there is no need to stir for all of this time. Once the mixture begins to thicken, stirring can be reduced in frequency.
-
I think you will find adverse properties in all materials with a claim to biocidal activity.
-
If you count me amongst your veteran formulators, I’m afraid I’m too veteran to have used these wonder products.
-
You need to consider the design and size of the paddle/stirrer head.
-
Most cosmetic creams acquire their full viscosity and body only after cooling to room temperature. Stirring is frequently stopped at about 40degC. whilst the cream is still sufficiently fluid to allow it to be poured into containers.
-
Remember the adage (in regard to your “cheap” requirement):
Buy cheap - buy twice.
Buy well - buy once.
-
“Does hyaluronic acid for example absolutely need to be sifted, and mixed by a homogenizer? Or can it be done by hand?”
It is best NOT to homogenize hyaluronic acid - or any polymeric or high molecular weight material. Aggressive treatment as induced by the high shear forces encountered during this type of processing often results in degradation of the material.
A better way of dissolving these materials is to first of all mix into a water miscible non-solvent (ethanol, a glycol or such) then add the required water with (low shear) stirring.
I’ve been in this game a long, long while and the only times I needed a homogenizer I could count on the fingers of one hand. As I said in another thread, judicious formulation can, more often than not, avoid the need for high shear mixing.