[johnb]

so I don’t really know what about my post made you so upset.

I am not upset. All I was trying to do was prevent you making a big mistake and that you learn about what you are doing before embarking on something that is out of your depth and that you might regret at a later time.

Also, if you are making products for anyone other than yourself, you must comply with regulations applicable in your area.

[johnb]

I’m afraid I would class oat kernel extract (and oil) as fairy dust but that’s perhaps my geriatric cynicism.

For reference, whereabouts are you located (so we can get a better idea about what might, or might not, be available in your location).

[johnb]

Your vision of cosmetics is totally different to mine. I had never heard of “biomulsion” until I sought the services of Google and found (according to them) it is a vitamin D supplement for children.

It is a long time since I’ve heard of bismuth oxychloride being used in cosmetics - and then it was for forming a pearl finish. It makes me wonder about the bona fides of your materials suppliers.

The owner of this group, Perry, has courses on cosmetics and cosmetic formulation (see the boards on the right of the page). You could possibly investigate these and learn about what you are attempting to do rather than blindly mixing things together yourself and then relying on others when you get into difficulties.

I’m sorry if this seems harsh but I’ve seen so many times people embarking on making cosmetics with the notion that it is some luxury business where they can indulge their passion and then sit back and enjoy a super rich lifestyle. It’s not like that, I’m afraid. Cosmetics is a part of the chemicals industry, no matter what you might have been told or been led to think, and is subject to rules and regulations - more than other chemical manufacturers in most cases.

[johnb]

The combination you are using may be OK for products with little else in them but you have quite a lot of other lipid materials in there.

Why not try with a non-oily oat extract in place of the oil and include an emulsifier with not as high a PEG content - thinking from the “top of my head” a low HLB, low alkyl chain length material like laureth 7 or perhaps a longer alkyl chain in oleth 9 or 10. These are all pH stable (moreso than PEG100 stearate but that isn’t of concern here).

[johnb]

I also noted the high oat oil content. Not a material I would want much of in my formulations (not very stable and quite costly).

You might also be better including a more useful amount of emulsifier. Note glyceryl stearate is not an emulsifier so you have only about 1% of PEG100 stearate present - which is a not very efficient emulsifier when use alone.

[johnb]

If you have experience in formulating “other cosmetics” it should not be a problem for you to source information from your suppliers literature, the Internet or even textbooks.

Almost all cosmetics ingredients suppliers provide example formulations in their effort to increase the sales of their products. Whilst these examples my not be perfect, they do provide a good starting point for tweaking to your own specifics.

[johnb]

Vertofix (as recommended above) has a quite characteristic and persistent odour which may well not fit into the accord offered by your fragrance. There is also the possibility that it may dominate the odour remaining after the main fragrance has evaporated and leave some not very pleasant odour notes.

There is a lot more to fragrance creation than slinging together any old smelly materials hoping that they will create that could be considered a “perfume”.

[johnb]

This “ingredient” should be part of the perfume. Ask your perfume supplier to formulate a more suitable fragrance. There is no “one size fits all” answer to this.

[johnb]

I am a big believer in the idea of KIS - Keep It Simple.

There are several reasons why I avoid high shear mixing:

1. High shear necessitates a high energy input. This energy has to be dissipated somehow and this is usually in the form of heat. The head of a high shear mixer is invariably hot (or at least warm) after use. The temperature reached at the interface of the shearing surfaces can be very high. This temperature effect can have numerous adverse effects on the product being emulsified, not only in delaying cooling but there is a danger of denaturing heat sensitive components.

2. Polymeric materials can easily be destroyed or at least partially depolymerised by the physical shearing action (and high local temperature at the shearing interface). Carbomers are particularly susceptible to this and it is easy for a carbomer dispersion to lose almost all of its desirable properties after just a short time in an Ultra Turrax. Cellulose ethers and similar behave in a similar way but they do tend to be somewhat more resistant.

3. High shear mixers are (compared with a paddle stirrer) very expensive both in initial cost and in maintenance - it is much more difficult and time consuming to clean a high shear mixer head than a simple paddle (this may not count for much on a laboratory scale but can be significant in tonnage quantities).

There are other reasons which I cannot bring to mind at the moment but the above should be enough for starters and remember Keep It Simple.

[johnb]

If your label is finalized, isn’t it a bit late to be still working on the formulation?

A tip about dispersing gums. As well as mixing with a non-solvent (glycerin was suggested here) you could also try premixing/dispersing with any solid components that you have in your formulation.

Reverting to your initial post, it could be that “cellulose” refers to microcrystalline cellulose which is used in a number of pharmaceuticals as a dispersing agent

[johnb]

This cannot be answered without at least some information on the product under discussion. Any antimicrobial preservatives in the product?

For dispensing small quantities, why not just a plastic bag with the corner snipped off? You can adjust the size of the feed by the amount of cutoff. No need for any fancy things like bakers decorating bags and this suggestion is hygenic and disposable.

[johnb]

I was not suggesting that there was anything wrong with Doreen’s preservation system, merely that a preservative that is shown to be effective in the product under scrutiny must be used.

The negative comments by others re dehydroacetic acid and potassium sorbate might just possibly lead to the thought train of “Oh, let’s not bother with these difficult materials” and, instead of replacing with other preservatives which can be proven to suitable (in all respects) they are omitted completely thus leaving a mix that is prone to contamination.

The “personal use” phrase doesn’t count for anything. Contaminant bugs don’t know this and will readily keep growing and reproducing wherever nutrients are available.

[johnb]

Bugs don’t respect how quickly your stuff may be used. For your own safety you should ensure that ALL of your concoctions are adequately preserved.

Remember that a number of micro-organisms can replicate ever 20 -30 minutes so 2-3 months or even 3 weeks is a very long time in the world of micro-life.

[johnb]

@johnb

Each formulation was assessed and a suitable preservative/preservative blend selected to suit. 

This would indeed be the ideal situation…

Not just an ideal situation, an essential one!

The costs involved if anything goes wrong are astronomical.

[johnb]

I never found an all round “one size fits all” preservative when I was working.

Each formulation was assessed and a suitable preservative/preservative blend selected to suit. The whole mix was subjected to comprehensive testing for effectiveness of the preservative system as well as physical and chemical stability of the product.

[johnb]

Phenoxyethanol is normally very cheap.

[johnb]

There are no natural surfactants suitable for use in a shampoo and even the ones described as natural are products of the chemical factory.

Soap is definitely unsuitable.

[johnb]

Far too high essential oil content.

It is a very strange mixture. Where was the inspiration for this? Does it actually clean the hair, or just make it smell overpowering?

I strongly advise you to examine commercial products to get an idea of what is used for conventional formulations and learning about what you are doing before you even think about starting a business.

Cocobetaine is not a natural product and it is almost impossible to formulate a reasonable shampoo based on natural materials.

[johnb]

Yes

[johnb]

Have you looked at the ingredient lists and the method of use of the products you are interested in? You may get some information there.

[johnb]

The patents I and erindlea were referring are both recent.

[johnb]

My previous comments still apply.

Those materials (and sodium chloride additions) are the subjects of recent patent restraints and thus not of much practical applicability to the enquirer.

I do believe from the dates of the latest posting (two months ago) from the enquirer that she has lost interest or is satisfied with previous replies.

[johnb]

Behenyl alcohol, cetearyl alcohol, glyceryl monostearate, or combinations thereof are not usual components of stearate based deo sticks.

[johnb]

You will most likely need considerably more solvent (ethanol + Zemea) to dissolve that amount of fragrance compound in an aqueous base.

Triethyl citrate is a good choice for a pefume diluent/solvent as it has a reasonably good solubility in water (5%) and it may act as a coupling agent.

This reminds me of an air freshener marketed many years ago by SCJ which had a sweet “vapour rub” type of perfume and had a solvent system including an appreciable amount of triethylene glycol (TEG). The TEG was dispersed in the spray as relatively large particles which were supposed to “catch” dust, germs and viruses floating in the air before settling to the ground.

[johnb]

I don’t think osmolality is of much concern to lube makers - see my recent comment in your vagina thread.