ketchito
Forum Replies Created
-
Are you making the formula for your own use or for commercial purposes? If it’s for the later, you’d need to use a proven antidandruff active, especially in the USA (those actived are monographed). Now, if you want to use essential oils and depending on the amount, instead of reducing or preventing dandruff, you might cause some dandruff-like reaction (contact dermatitis) in people who are sensitive.
For both benefits (growing hair and dandruff) you’ll have to conduct clinical trials. The first benefit would be the hardest to prove and it’d depend on your country’s regulations since besides minoxidil and finasteride (at some extent), nothing really proved to really work on hair growth.
-
Yes, it should.
-
Perhaps you could post your full formula, to know if there are ingredients at too high levels. Nevertheless, coacervates are simply speaking precipitates that form upon dilution, which deposit maily in your hair. The size of coacervates is usually small, and your shouldn’t be able to see it too evidently, nor that it causes itchiness. Now, your surfactant system should be powerfull enough to remove most of the coacervate on the next shower.
By the way, do you use fragrance or essential olis? These are usually involved in contact dermatitis due to cosmetics, and not only can cause itchiness, the could also upregulate the normal cell proliferation and shedding, resulting in a similar flakiness that you see with dandruff.
-
It dependa on what you like. You can start with 1%.
-
For the actual purpose, yes.
-
For a clear shampoo, you could use PEG-12 dimethicone, or some microemulsions.
-
First, I’d completelt remove Glycerin (not doing much in rinse-off products, but impair your foam). Then, change your guar gum for a more compatible thickener with surfactant based systems. For hard to thicken systems, I’d try with Crothix Liquid, but there are few more. Also, if you don’t want to use SLES, you could still use another anionic surfactants (the foam of CAPB alone isn’t pleasant). Also, EO are always a concern when it comes to allergenicity, so keep them at very low levels (if at all). And be sure you’re using a broad spectrum preservative system.
-
I don’t think there should be any issue from amodimethicone itself, but from CTC. Now, if you want to prevent creaming without an emulsifier (CTC level might be too low to help you there) and only relying in your thickener, that would be quite challenging. If you don’t want to use a emulsifier, try at least some polymer with emulsifying properties (like hydroxypropyl starch phosphate). You might want to keep your HEC since the starch phosphate doesn’t give high viscosity. You could try using a silicone microemulsion instead.
-
It seems to me you’re trying to make an o/w emulsion, but adding the water phase to the oil phase. Am I getting it right? If that’s the case, try adding the oil phase to the water phase slowly, as @Graillotion suggested.
-
I agree with @fareloz . You’re missing lubricants in your formula (silicones performance on hair can’t be matched, not sure how much of your Plantasense would be able to be deposited, compared to a medium-high MW dimethicone, for instance). What’s the product you want to match in terms of performance?
-
Cetyl alcohol is used in shampoos to make a gel phase, but that requires to make a premix with water and surfactant, like Procter does. If you want to make something similar lile Dove, I’d advise you to check their ingredient list, and use it as a starting point. You can even search for the patent.
-
I agree with @ccchem with adding CTC for the static. Nevertheless, for slip, you need a lubricant, like dimethicone or mineral oil.
Btw, don’t you feel yoir hair heavy and a biy greasy with that load of natural oils and butter? Silicones and esters are the most pleasant way to add lubricity, unless you don’t want silicones in your formulas.
I’d remove Aloe Vera Gel and Glycerine since what you really want is to make hair surface more hudrophobic, and those two of course don’t help.
-
That formula has a lot of CAPB. Keep in mind that CAPB can have up to 5-7% of NaCl, and maybe that’s why viscosity breaks when using acrylates.
Is your SLES the one of 25% active, or the 70%? You could make a gel based on surfactants only (use a 3:1 ratio of SLES:CAPB as active matter), but I’m not sure it’d keep your mica from settling, especially in warm weather.
-
Oxidation of a phenolic antioxidant to a quinone requires very specific conditions, like a strong oxidizing agent and a very low or very high pH, both conditions being not so common in cosmetics. Also, that the compound is solubilized in water (phenolics can have different solubilities, but the aromatic ring of course doesn’t help).
-
Can you measure the pH of your product when it got thick? If it’s a little bit lower than 5, then my guess is that CAPB is being protonated, and you have a better interaction between your CAPB and your taurate. If you’re not to low in pH, you don’t need to bring it up.
-
As a first trial, I wouldn’t add Decyl glucoside.
-
I think the active level of the taurate in your formula is a bit low. Usually, a synergy between and anionic and amphoteric surfactant occurs at an excess of anionic compared to the amphoteric. Try a mixture of taurate/betaine with a ratio of 3:1 (active level). Once you find dose in which you see a viscosity response, you can start adding salt. I would’t use Decyl glucoside at the start, since it could impact your viscosity negatively.
-
It’s all a matter of melting point. One of the reasons why you heat is to melt the emulsifier, structuring agents and hard fats, and one of the reasons why you mix is to increase interactions between molecules while preventing crystallization. If the melting point of your materials is low, you might not need to heat and won’t require extreme mixing. You can do that with many polymetic emulsifiers, and also with traditional liquid emulsifiers (polysorbates, CTC, etc). But in that case, you’d need other type of structuring agents like some partially hydrophillic polymer for the water phase or even some minerals.
-
Yes, but at the interphase of the emulsion, cationic surfactants are more active, both to deposit and to help other stuff deposit. That’s why they are they so widely used in conditioners, not to mention the lamellar gel benefits when deposited on the surface along with fatty alcohols, and the unpleasant overconditioning (buildup) cationic polymers bring over time.
-
Are you using any fragrance?
-
Since HPMC is non ionic, in a conditioner, I don’t think it would impair or increase those cationics deposition. Now, Cationic guar could compete with your cationic surfactant (which hair conditioners usually have).
-
Ok, the “help” makes all the difference here.
Would you mind to share double blind randomized placebo controlled studies proving the benefits of those essential oils?
-
@mikethair just a follow-up on @PhilGeis question, when he talks about in-use test, that means that consumers (ca. 30 subjects) use the products you manufactured in normal conditions for certain time (in one of the references, it’s between 2 to 3 weeks), then return those same products to the lab, so the micro testing is done. Is thay the type of in-use test you perform?
-
Is your viscosity ok? It seems it might be a bit too low. Perhaps you could increase the Cetearyl alcohol to improve the stability.
-
Yes, when you dilute the product in just water you see the coacervate since in solution it’s able to agglomerate. The story is different when you take a shower, since particles start binding to different sites the moment they start precipitating. And they attach pretty strongly, so you wouldn’t see them fall as shedded cells from scalp do. Now, even hypoallergeninc fragrances can cause some reaction in a person who is sensitive to some component. Why don’t you reast for a few days and try a sample of your shampoo that has no fragrance at all?
Also, check that your CAPB has only trace amounts of amidoamines, which are known sensitizers.