ketchito
Forum Replies Created
-
Preservation is arguably the single most important thing when developing a product that can be contaminated, like the mayority of cosmetics. Then, it’s our responsability to deliver safe formulas. For that, I’d advise you to get more education on the topic, like this book: https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Cosmetic-Microbiology-Philip-Geis/dp/0849314534.
You can alternatively watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s5VTSHEucs.
-
I believe @PhilGeis will give a better explanation, but Cetaphil used that combo of parabens for many years, since they are effective and safe (you can check the dermal info from their CIR and Opinions from the SCCP).
For the cleanser itself, if the product is more or less thick and foamy, then they made a lamellar gel (not a lamellar gel network since the oil part is missing), which is not only mild but helps retain more moisture on the skin due to the interlamellar water.
-
Just in case someone is interested in good old evidence-based science, here are some interesting systematic reviews on the topic of supplements 🙂
1) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5227980/
2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK72264/
And those are for the most studied supplements. The rest lack of sufficient evidence, and that gives room for all types of health claims.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Our aim was to assess the efficacy of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer by using meta-analytical approaches. Electronic and hand searches were performed until August 2016. ...
-
Propylene glycol is fully miscible in water and not in the oil phase. Also, the reduction on interacial tension of the water phase is marginal. That’s achieved by surfactants which have a hybrid structure able to interact with both phases, so I wouldn’t worry much about glycols on that regard.
-
Sorry for chipping in, but I feel this like deja vu, hehe. Here are some systematic reviews (which are the best source of evidence):
1) This is an Opinion on Essential Oils from the EU SCCP: https://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_risk/committees/sccp/documents/out218_en.pdf. In there, you can read the following:
“An important problem
with fragrance substances of ‘natural origin’ is the difficulty of quality control. There may be
considerable variation in the content of toxic/sensitising chemicals; oakmoss is an example.
There is no demonstration in the peer reviewed scientific literature that fragrances compounds of
natural origin are ‘safer’ than synthetics.”2) This is the Annex I to the same review “Clinical evidence regarding sensitisation to
individual fragrance chemicals and to natural extracts”: https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_073_annex1.pdf. From the page 68 onwards, you can find a catalogue of natural extracts and essential oils.I was going to post more things, but I have to do husband stuff. Enjoy!
-
Sensitivity to CAPB is very rare as shown in systematic reviews. In the case of sensitivity, you can of course choose to replace the ingredient, or a more chemical approach which is inactivate the impurities (amidoamines are responsible for the sensitization) by formulating more acidic products.
-
Remove Glycerin and Decyl glucoside (you could replace the last one by Coco glucoside, if you want).
If the Alpha olefin sulfonate is at 40%, double the amount.
Replace Lauryl Hydroxysultaine by Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine.
That should give you a thicker system, and if you require more, add a bit of salt or Cocamide DEA (or similar).
By the way, your preservative system is not robust, but @PhilGeis would be more suited to comment on that.
-
It feels like deja vu…I’ve seen so many posts about shampoo phase separation where there’s a glucoside and a gum. Can you try a sample without coco glucoside? Also, add your cationic guar right at the start, after the water with vigurous mixing. After 10 min, add your disodium EDTA to speed up hydration. Your solution will turn thick and less yellow.
-
Although I don’t agree with having high doses of hygroscopic humectants as the only way to achieve moisturization (emollients and occlusives are also needed for a full benefit), you can certainly make a cream with high doses of urea. You can check at this patent: US20050042182A1 - Topical compositions of urea - Google Patents
Now, get rid of unnecesary ingredients and focus on the ones that make the emulsion (don’t forget about the glycol -some papers suggest a mixture of water:PPG is the way to go-, structuring agents, preservatives and a chelant, of course). Adding urea during the cool-down process makes it more prone to crystallization since there’s less free water to dissolve it. You could alternatively add urea in the water phase at the start of the process (T increases urea solubility) and make your emulsion perhaps at 60-65°C, but keep at this T not for long….so the emulsion should be fast and furious.
patents.google.com
US20050042182A1 - Topical compositions of urea - Google Patents
US20050042182A1 - Topical compositions of urea - Google Patents
-
I’d also would like to know what your emulsifier is (they vary in structure despite the HLB number). Also, I wouldn’t reduce your fatty alcohols (they are your structuring agents) but would use cetearyl alcohol at 4% instead (if you’re using the 50:50 version) and 2% of cetyl alcohol. Also, I’d reduce the shea butter to 2% (butters are hard to emulsify) and your CCT to 6%.
-
@Aniela Your proposals are very real 😀
I especially liked the 1st one. Both bases because of the NaCl (and perhaps the glycosides) could have different micellar structures and therefore, might solubilize differently some fragrance components. Knowing that, perfumers use different chemicals accoding their partition coefficients to design a fragrance for a particular product (that’s not possible with an essential oil).
They other possibility is that the amine content in your PQ-7 could be interfering (or even reacting) with your fragrance.
-
@mikethair Could you please show the part of the COA where they list the components of the fragrance/essential oil? Usually this is shown in a separate document (allergen declaration) where all allergens are listed with their concentration.
Also, how can you test all of them (keep in mind the list of allergens is now of 82)? They vary in nature and you require different protocols, chromatographic columns, stationary phases and solvents/solvent-mixtures? And of course, a MS which is very costly and hard to mantain.
-
I wanted to ask you which type of experts you mean. Are they toxicologists, immunoilogists or cosmetic scientists? If you refer to dermatologists, well, you’ve seen in social media that they are not the real experts on that specific matter (many are biased and even paid)…perhaps dermatologists with research background and publications on peer-reviewed journals (most don’t have) could be trusted.
-
It’s very candid to instead of a commercial fragrance for which you know the risky chemicals in it and their concentration (aka “allergens, which are detailed in the allergen declaration), you choose a distillate for which you have compounds whose identity is uncertain at all (like “compound MW=192”, “”compound MW=222”, “aromatic compound”, “compound MW=220”, etc.) or that you only know their chemical family (like “alkyl benzene”, “sesquiterpene”, “terpenic compound” or isomers without mentioning which one it is), for which there is no safety information. I mean….
-
I’m glad to hear that, we’re all here to help. I never used sodium stearoyl lactylate in an emulsion, but what I’d do is increase your Emulsifying wax 1% more (keeping the Cetearyl alcohol you already have) and perhaps reducing the mineral oil a bit (non polar oils are hard to emulsify).
-
Does your fragrance smell a bit like vanila? There might be an oxidation going on. You could add an antioxidant (BHT or Tinogard TL).
-
What is LLP? How do you adjust your pH? Can you tell more about your manufacturing method?
-
Gums tend not to let bubbles out, but if you do your emulsion at hight T (75-80°C), and then let naturally cool with slow mixing and no shear, that should be enough to let bubbles out.
-
I’ve seen so many times separation issues of surfactant based formulas that have glucosides and gums. I’d replace Xanthan gum. If you have nothing to suspend, then rely on the power of mixing anionic-amphoteric-salt. You could alternatively add a fatty amide (like Cocamide DEA or similar).
-
CAPB is one of the mildest avaliable surfactants. It can produce some skin issues to people with specific skin allergy to the ingredient, which is rare. To be safe, always formulate it along an anionic surfactant (wich will hinder both polar heads by forming a mixed micellar system) and at a low pH (which will neutralize amidoamines and other basic impurities, which can be present in traces). Also, regarding the safety of soaps, better take a look at the available evidence like this CIR review: cir-reports.cir-safety.org/view-attachment/?id=3a3ac6dd-8c74-ec11-8943-0022482f06a6. Our own experience is considered as anecdotal evidence, which is the lowest level of evidence possible. We always need to search for systematic reviews on the topic (like this one from CIR or the Opinions from the SCCs of the EU).
-
No worries @nshu_14 . Usually, a base (like Sodium hydroxide) is added to the water phase. When you add the oil phase (where Stearic acid is) to the water phase, neutralization occurs.
-
Please, neutralize your Stearic acid so it can work as an emulsifier and not as a structuring agent)…that’s the first thing you need to fix.
-
Just to expand on @Fedaro ‘s good points, it’s different to have a sole surfactant (like a solution of SLS which is the way ingredients are tested) than to have a mixture of different types of molecules which interact between each other in a synergistic way to get milder products, higher viscosities, better deposition, etc. Anionic surfactants are usually combined with amphoterics or non ionics to reduce their irritation potential and sometimes increase viscosity. They can also be combined with cationic polymers for the same (plus extra conditioning through coacervation). That’s one of the reasons why EWG’s classification fails to reflect what really happens inside a product.
-
Yeah…there’s a reason why sodium lauryl sulfate is not used as emulsifier: foam and smaller micelles. Those are two reasons actually, hehe. Foam is never good when you make an emulsion, unless you can remove it before cool down. And small micelles (because of charge repulsion) mean less ability to work as an emulsifier. If you want to use a glucoside as an emulsifier, it should be cetearyl glucoside which is part of Montanon 68. And talking about green, I’ve never found natural occurring APG’s 🤓
-
It depends on which emulsifier you’re using 🤓