ketchito
Forum Replies Created
-
Hi. Is this a 2 in 1 SH+Cond bar? For a shampoo bar, it has very low amounts of detergent and high levels of waxes and oils. This might not let the bar foam properly, and force consumer to rub it more than usual, and that would explain why it lasts so little.
-
What you wrote at the start was actually your surfactant’s ASM:
10% SLES, 3%cocamidopropyl betaine and 2%sodium cocoyl glutamate and 1.5% decyl glucoside
Your formula in terms of surfactants it’s Ok. I’d suggest you to remove Glycerin (no real benefit in a cleanser) and Decyl glucoside (it’s a good degreaser, but it can be “too efficient” sometimes). This will give a good foam at the end (if you need even more, increase your SLES from 14.2 to 16.0%).
Now, for conditioning, 1% of your Amodimethicone emulsion is not that much. Since you mentioned you experienced some disconfort with it, I’d use DC 1785 (or similar) instead, which is an emulsion of Dimethiconol in TEA-dodecylbenzenesulfonate. Use 2% and up.
-
As @chemicalmatt mentioned, it’d be nice to have full INCI names for your ingredients. If PEG-40 is PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil, then your Polypropylene glycol won’t probably be enough to give thermal stabilization of your viscosity.
-
I’d advise you to check the pdf version instead. What you see as two numbers, is just due to the use of two decimals in those numbers.
-
I agree with @chemicalmatt. Also, it’d be useful to have more details on the process. For what I see, adding a gum after surfactants would not let if fully hydrate and properly interact with surfactants (I bet high mixing required to add the gum generated a lot of foam). I never had good experiences with xanthan gum in cleansing products (separation was always the issue).
-
Boron is used to increase crosslinking of guar gum. This increases viscosity, and that’s why boron free guar HPTC gives less viscosity than its boron alternative.
-
That’s a liquid dish soap, right? Put a sample in the fridge. If after few days that turbidity turns into a precipitate that settled at the bottom, then your sulfonate might me salting out. For that, you need to add some sodium xylene or cumene sulfonate. It’d also be adviceable to check before if there was any significant pH drift from when it was manufactured.
-
Could you try removing potassium sorbate (you don’t actually need it in that formula)?
-
You have lumps dispersing CMC because you’re adding too much. Start with 0.5% of CMC and only 1% of PG, drop your extract to 0.1%, switch the levels of CAPG and APG, and add CDEA as final ingredient. You’ll notice you’ll need less CDEA.
-
You can make a solution of your Lactic acid, so it’s easier to measure the amount you need. Or perhaps you meant that because of the high viscosity of your product, it was hard to mix the acid.
-
@Abdullah it’s bonding energy which is related to complex stability. Here’s a very good read on the topic: https://www.dow.com/documents/113/113-01388-01-chelation-chemistry-general-concepts-of-the-chemistry-of-chelation.pdf?iframe=true&.
-
Please, add a preservative. I don’t think you’ll get too low in water activity not to need one(s). Many weak preservative systems (that when used in real life fail) pass challenge tests, so be cautious about those results.
-
That is related to the energy of the newly formed bonds between the chelant and the metal ion when forming a complex. While citrate can form readily a complex with divalent ions, it can also easily lose it since the binding energy is not that strong. EDTA forms more stable complexes due to the higher binding energy.
-
It’s your fragrance not being properly solubilized. You either increase your polysorbate (as previously adviced) or increase your alcohol. Since when you write you can’t see the original message, I don’t remember if you’re using ethyl or isopropyl alcohol. Use ethyl alcohol (ethanol) preferably, and increase its level (this will give clarity increasing also fragrance potency and helping on your overall preservation).
-
I second @chemicalmatt. Low shear mixing during cooling is very important in these type of elulsions. Just out of curiosity, what’s your final pH?
-
They use sodium citrate with citric acid to create a buffering system. As a side benefit, sodium citrate can sequester cations (water softening) and help to build some viscosity. Using it mainly as a water softening agent is not advisable since it forms weak complexes with metal ions comparado to EDTA.
-
If your formula has 10% propanediol, that might contribute not to build viscosity. Remove it completely, or keep it at claim level. Also, 2% of fragrance is too high amd can also have impair viscosity. Usualy 0.5-1.0% is enough. Lastly, the nature of your surfactants doesn’t contribute on building viscosity. You could add some anionic surfactant to take advantage of micellar transitions.
-
Not sure it’d be enough against gram negative bacteria, but I believe @PhilGeis will have a better opinion.
-
You could gradually reduce your emulsifiee, rosehip oil and squalane to a point where you are comfortable with the amount of foam. Also, fix your manufacturing process to also reduce foam.
-
That’s a very unbalanced formula. Also, shampoos are not emulsions (you barely have any oli in there to call it O/W). First, remove your extract and your propylene glycol. Specially the last one might not let you thicken your product, and perhaps that’s why you had to add so much thickener (3% is very unusual…you might require something around 0.5%-1%). Replace your oil for a conditioning agent (like Guar HPTC) and use more CAPB to thicken and less CDEA. Also, make sure you have a very robust preservative system.
-
If you can, replace your Vegeluron (Gluconic acid and Calcium gluconate are probably buffering your system) for Glycerin. If you can’t, at least reduce Vegeluron amount to the minimum.
-
It’s also added to increase viscosity. I used to do that in a liquid dishwasher. You can also check some patents from P&G and they will mention the same.
-
There are many patents from P&G and Colgate, they both use carrageenan. Here’s an example: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4457908A/en
patents.google.com
US4457908A - Stabilization of carrageenan-containing toothpaste - Google Patents
A method for stabilizing a cosmetic composition containing carrageenan, specifically, a toothpaste, wherein microwave radiation, preferably in the 0.8 to 3 gigahertz frequency range, is directed onto the toothpaste so as to raise its temperature to at least the gel-sol … Continue reading
-
You need to define what is safe (what toxicologist consider as risk and exposure). Consider that 1,4-dioxane not only is present in ppm, it is water soluble and volatile. So, it’d only pose a risk if you drint the product, but in normal cosmetic use, it’ll either go down the drain without having any effect for consumers, or will evaporate (in case of leave on products), again without any effect on consumers. On the other hand, soaps have not only a high pH but also free alkali, which impairs people’s lipid barrier (this has been shown in different studies). So, this is what toxicologists took into account to don the safety assessment. To the case of contaminants, unless you’re in a lab doing a controled synthesis, you’ll always have some byproducts. In real life, even the water you drink has contaminants (check some specs and you’ll be amazed), but they are at such low level, that they don’t pose a risk. On the other hand, pure deionized water will for sure cause nasty tummy issues. Just saying.
-
Carrageenan is the usual choice
