ketchito
Forum Replies Created
-
There’s no reason why cationic surfactants would agglomerate in solution due to electrostatic interaction (if anything, they would repel since they have the same charge). Now, are you warming up your water above the melting point of your harder wax? Also, keep in mind that fatty alcohol and cationic surfctants form a gel network…if your ratio is not adequate, those agglomerates could be your fatty alcohols crystalizing out of your system.
-
For the first question, pH only tells you the concentration of H ions in a solution, but it’s pKa the one that shows the strenght of your acid (its dissociation power in that same solvent). That varies when you change your solvent but for the sake of the argument, let’s assume it’s always water. So, the lower the pKa, the stronger the acid.
I’ll comment on the rest later, since I’m still in bed and only part of my brain woke up ????
-
Could you try removing Hydroxypropyl starch phosphate? It might be binding to copper from your copper PCA, especially at high T.
-
It seems that your gel phase (rich in surfactants) separated from your water, or at least from part of your water. Could you try one sample without zinc sulfate? Some systems are too sensitive to electrolytes.
-
Could you be a bit more specific? What type of solvent you use (I assume it’s water)? what are the materials you’re using in your formula?
-
As many pointed out here, don’t try formulating a sunblocker without the proper knowledge. They are within the most difficult products to formulate. Just as an example, you need to know the ratio of UVB/UVA protection according to new rulings, and that you only get when sending the sample to a certified laboratory. You need to also check the photoprotection during shelf life and photocatalytic activity of your molecules. If you plan to formulate using only inorganic materials, you will fall short (many studies have shown that only-mineral sunblockers provide only a limited SPF, even when using high amounts of ZnO or TiO2…and this is even choosing different particle size filters and using high levels of humectants to help spread them more evenly. Then, there comes the type of emulsion which also impacts both performance and the preservative efficacy.
Now, what FDA said about the organic filters is that there is not sufficient evidence to classified them as GRASE, not that they cannot be used. There are many studies going on to reevaluate their safety, but under a risk assessment, it’s better be protected from UV rays that have limited protection.
-
Check “Handbook of detergents part A: Properties”, that’s a better source of information and very detailed. The section about builders is mesmerizing. Here are some extracts from the book.
-
@Eruio The problem with your initial formula is that you barely had any surfactant in it. If you want to know what’s usual in a similar formula, check this patent from P&G: https://cdn3.evostore.io › vowPDF. For HE machines, the story is different (due to foaming), but those formulas are mainly liquid.
-
This is just a guess (I couldn’t help but jumping into the discussion), but I believe the 90% is used preferentially in deos since by having mostly C18 it has a higher melting point (compared to a 50/50 C16:C18), which gives a harder stick.
-
Is that chart from a supplier? I’d search for a more independent sourse. STPP outperforms silicates in many of those attributes, and that’s why it was the most used water-softner ingredient, which also gave antirredeposition properties, soil suspension, anti-incrustation and alkalinity source to formulas. You can find that info in SEPAWA congresses and from CRC Publishing books on the matter.
-
@Abdullah I found the same issue few weeks ago, but it might be a wrong source of information. As you mentioned, there’s no way it’s over 270 g/mol.
-
Still no picture, at least I don’t see it ????. As mentioned before, fragrance oxidation could be driving color drift.
Regarding your formula, perhaps you don’t need NaCl, since the viscosity increase happens when besides CAPB, you have an anionic surfactant.
-
You can add some anionic (they have synergy with CAPB). Alternatively, you could use an amine oxide like Lauramine or Cocamine oxide.
-
I actually have a sample in my lab. It’s a milder type of sulfonate with many eco certifications. Nonetheless, it’s not cheap so you need to consider that.
-
Actually, BTAC and BTMS form a slighly different type of structure when paired with a fatty alcohol. BTMS gives a better after-feel on hair and higher viscosity, so using both doesn’t seem like a bad idea (if you’re looking to save costs and not use pure BTMS, which is usually more expe sive).
-
Don’t think you’d find that on videos,but rather on papers. Are you a chemist? Chemicla synthesis requires chemical training to be performed, not the same as home making some cosmetic.
-
You need to list all the ingredients in your formula, in order to assist you. Nothing you mentioned there gives the benefits you’re looking for.
-
Unfortunately, stability is usually against activity for an antioxidant. Since an antioxidant is supposed to preferentialy oxidize instead of what you need to protect, it needs to be just stable enough to remain in your product. Acetates must be converted, and that’s not always the case (not fast enough or at all) when applied on the skin.
-
@SunilHiwarkat1965 Here are some calculations:
1) # moles of BTAC = (1.87g x 0.
/404.16 g/mol = 3.7 x 10-3 moles -> assuming a 100g sample, an 80% active ingredient, and that it’s the only emulsifier in your formula)2) # moles of Cetearyl alcohol = 3.12g / 264 g/mol = 11.8 x 10-3 moles -> assuming a 100g sample, and a 50/50 ratio of stearyl/cetyl alcohols
molar rario emulsifiers/fatty alcohols = 3.7 x 10-3 / 11.8 x 10-3 = 0.3135, which is approximately 1:3.189, which is more or less what @Abdullah mentioned….again, that’s assuming you only have one emulsifier (BTAC). Try increase the amount of your Cetearyl alcohol a bit, to get closer to the 1:4, and check the difference (you’ll have a higher number of “rings” which you’d only see through the use of some equipments, but also you’ll notice an increase in viscosity, stability and lower TEWL once applied on a surface).
-
@ProfessorHerb If you were in plant, an in-line high-shear mixer would help you with that, but if you don’t have that equipment (and on the contrary have only a helical turbine mixer), then I’d recommend to just filter ussing a small mesh gauge at the end of your hose (if mostof your guar was properly incorporated and you have only some fish eyes).
-
I agree with @MarkBroussard. Decyl glucoside is not really an emulsifier (high polar head, short alkyl part). If you want a glucoside-based emulsifier, choose Cetearyl glucoside. Check if removing Decyl glucoside solves the issue. If not, then check if the preservative is also destabilizing your system.
-
@Abdullah Your molar weights for both Cetyl and Stearyl alcohol are correct. Perry used the values ChatGPT gave him, but what he wanted to show is how to calculate the average molecular weight for Cetearyl alcohol using mole fractions of Cetyl and Stearyl alcohol.
You do not sum the molecular weight of Cetyl and Stearyl alcohol, since they are independent molecules present in the mixture (they are not a dimer, in which case the addition would be valid).
The instructor in your video (Dr. Ricardo Diez) uses a value of 250 g/mol for Cetearyl alcohol since he’s considering a 50/50 mixture (it should be around 256 g/mol, but he doesn’t need to be precise to show how to make those calculations, nor that the difference would change his results much).
-
Hi! In an emulsion, you’d get a higher viscosity due to a higher melting point of your structuring agent.
-
I agree with @Abdullah . There’s no point on having those two polymers (which are actually your conditioning agents) at such low levels. Glycerin won’t do much in your hair from a surfactant-based cleanser, but it can impair your foam. Either remove it or decrease it. I’d also use Sodium laureth sulfate instead of Sodium lauryl sulfate. I don’t think your Glyceryl oleate is guiving this glue and then powder effect, but you could reduce it anyway and, as mentioned before, increase your guar and your dimethicone.
-
Sorry for the late reply, technical issues. I’m glad to hear that, and those two are very nice books. Good luck!