[ketchito]

@Graillotion Funny thing that a client recently patch tested the following:

- Shampoo w/fragrance 1
- Shampoo w/fragrance 2
- Conditioner w/fragrance 1
- Conditioner w/fragrance 2

Both shampoos and conditioners share the same formula (except for the fragrances)…and both shampoos were slightly irritant (irritation index around 0.21) while both conditioners were not irritants at all (irritation index about 0). So, same fragrances but different carriers (patch tests diluted at 2% -both shampoos and conditioners, but separately and with different subjects-). Maybe P&G was right about adding Cetyl alcohol to all their shampoos after all. 

[ketchito]

@Abdullah Could you try one without STPP?

[ketchito]

@Abdullah That’s too much precipitate to be the CMC. Maybe you’re salting out your surfactants. Could you try reducing the STPP? 

[ketchito]

@Robert I believe @PhilGeis meant only ZPT, for which EDTA would capture Zn2+ from the ZPT complex, reducing the safety of the active due to the increased absorption of PT (reducing also the bioavailability of Zn). ZnO is a crystalline compound, therefore, Zn is harder to remove from this structure.

[ketchito]

@GeorgeBenson Even though there’s no amount specified in the FDA guidelines, there is some criteria to determine incidental ingredients, like processing aids (reaction catalysts, acidifiers/neutralizers, etc) or substances that at the levels present in the final product have no technical value (eg., the preservative from a botanical blend that is added at 0.1%, has no technical value in the final product because it’s greatly diluted).

[ketchito]

@Abdullah If you want a milder dishwasher for hands, then play around with your surfactant system.

If you want hands to feel softer, you could try using Sodium cocoyl glutamate or PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate. You could try using a cationic polymer, of course…it just wouldn’t be my choice (I don’t recall any big brand doing it, but I might be wrong). 

[ketchito]

At pH used in cosmetics, CAPB will only be cationic and zwitterionic. The zwitterion would interact better with highly anionic surfactants. In your system, the kraft point could be a bit low, and adding salt would make things worse. So, either find out what’s the limit of salt you can add, add a hydrotrophe (like Sodium xylene sulfonate) or increase your pH (sometimes that helps, just not too high, since enzymes can be destabilized).

Btw, that’s not a cosmetic, right? I’d worry about the effect of proteases on skin. Also, you need a stabilizing system if you work with enzymes.

[ketchito]

@Berry_8 Did you do a knock out test removing each of the 5 ingredients of phase B at a time? I see a potential incompatibility between Iselux Ultramild and Honeyquat (you’d need to add Honeyquat at the start, followed by some of your betaines and then the Iselux). 

[ketchito]

Abdullah said:

ketchito said:

@GeorgeBenson Hydroxysultaines are very beautiful molecules: for the anionic part of the molecule, they have a sulfonate group (as any other high foaming anionic surfactant), but the hydroxyl group next to it can hydrogen bond with one of the oxygens, reducing charge density and making the molecule milder. Then you have the cationic nitrogen that changes how the molecule behaves when interacting with anionic surfactants (same as what CAPB does). 

So, when used alone I’d say CAP Hydroxysultaine is almost as mild as CAPB but more foamy. This is more evident when you pair them with an anionic surfactant. The downside with CAP Hydroxysultaine is that it impairs coacervate formation (but for a shower gel, that wouldn’t be an issue).

Why does it impair coacervate formation? 

Will lauryl hydroxysultaine also impair coacervate formation? 

In my experience if we replace CAPB with lauryl hydroxysultaine the conditioning effect on hair improves. 

@Abdullah Our ability to “measure” things is always limited and biased (that’s why for example, there are blinded studies and even double blinded, to remove any bias also from the researcher). If you want to compare conditioning from a cleansing formula, you could start by doing a coacervation (dilution) test.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah The question would be why do you need to add them. If it’s for softness (on hands I believe), there are other ingredients. If it’s for foaming or detergency, there are other more suitable polymers as well that do nos deposit as much.

[ketchito]

@lesmith1018 Did you or can you make sure that product is safe for the dog? Some things that we think are harmless, can be quite toxic to them.

[ketchito]

@GeorgeBenson Hydroxysultaines are very beautiful molecules: for the anionic part of the molecule, they have a sulfonate group (as any other high foaming anionic surfactant), but the hydroxyl group next to it can hydrogen bond with one of the oxygens, reducing charge density and making the molecule milder. Then you have the cationic nitrogen that changes how the molecule behaves when interacting with anionic surfactants (same as what CAPB does). 

So, when used alone I’d say CAP Hydroxysultaine is almost as mild as CAPB but more foamy. This is more evident when you pair them with an anionic surfactant. The downside with CAP Hydroxysultaine is that it impairs coacervate formation (but for a shower gel, that wouldn’t be an issue).

[ketchito]

@GeorgeBenson If you’re making a body wash and you want to work with both materials, some bubbles will be formed. Trust me, it’s better to have some bubbles (that would be released anyway after one day) than ha ing things not mixed properly. You could eventually heat your water so formed bubbles could be released, but again, don’t stressed up about bubbles. Carbopol Aqua SF-1 is actually easier to work with than Carbopol 980 (which I use), so you could either add it at the start (and premix your Guar to be added after surfactants), or you could switch places and add Aqua SF-1 later on.

[ketchito]

@Margaret Not only vitamins would be degraded by saponification, but also in previous steps (bleaching, deodorization, etc.). 

As @PhilGeis, they are just part of the fairy dust of our industry. 

[ketchito]

@Lilly HEC can have that effect. Could you replace some of your HEC with Xanthan gum?

[ketchito]

@sweetflakes Not knowing much about these type of products, I suspect the stucture of your product doesn’t provide enough resistance for your pigment particles, so they just go to the bottom. Perhaps you could add some polymeric material (better if crosslinked) to provide some support. 
 

[ketchito]

@Abdullah Formula B foams more both for having a higher anionic level (as well as total surfactant level), and for having a mixture of SLES and LABSA. It also probably has better detergency.

EMPA soiled fabrics are standard soils used by the industry to evaluate the performance of laundry detergents vs different type of soils (https://www.mrpltd.com/html/empa_soiled_fabrics.html).

[ketchito]

@Abdullah Have you test both products using something like EMPA soiled fabrics, to see the performance vs different type of soils? I’d start by doing that.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah That chart is extremely missleading. First, you’re not comparing the sultaine va CAPB, but each mixed with SLES (they clearly interact differently with SLES). Then, I wouldn’t buy that SLES/CAPB is similar (or even slightly “less emulsifying”) to SLES alone, which contradicts the whole scientific literature and practical experience. 

[ketchito]

@Trng1122 Could you try removing your 1,3-propanediol (keep on mind it is a solvent, so emulsions can be destabilized by high amounts of it), adding your BHA by slowly sprinkling to the emulsion durong the cool down phase, and switching the position of your HEC to the water phase where it will swell freely?

[ketchito]

@Cherma Assuming CSA is cetostearyl alcohol (and not knowing what PJ means), I’d say you have too little of emulsifier (polysorbate 60). That means that the lamellae of your interface doesn’t have many layers, so there’s not real solid or semisolid arrangement to return to after putting pressure on the fluid (like more elastic or viscoelastic emulsions do).

[ketchito]

@Squinny Polysorbate-80 is a monoester, while Polysorbate-85 is a triester; that’s why the water solubility of Polysorbate-80 is higher (it has a higher HLB) than Polysorbate-85. Perhaps that’s why you saw the gel-like phase with the latter. I wouldn’t throw the emulsifier you got, I’d just use it with a more fitted system.

[ketchito]

@krupabrahmbhatt I’d suggest you to check what similar products from big brand use. Just as an idea, poloxamers are used for producta that are applied near eye area, sometimes with some polysorbate.

[ketchito]

@Ghita37 Did you by any chance checked the CIR report for polysorbates? (https://www.cir-safety.org/sites/default/files/polysorbates_0.pdf). In page 35 you can find the review of data for irritation and sensitization:

Irritation in humans

Sensitization in humans

In page 36 there is also new data to the previous review:

If you read the full review, you can even find ocular studies, which also showed their safety. As mentioned before, highly ethoxylated non ionic surfactants are very mild, and that’s why they are chosen for baby (tear free) shampoos and skin cleansers for sensitive skin.

[ketchito]

@Lab Do yoi somehow manage to remove the dry shampoo from cat’s skin after application? I’d be a bit worried that it stays there when theyvtend to lick themselves all the time.

@Biocade21 For the sulfate SH, try playing around with the percentage, as someone else suggested…or include an amine oxide (lile Lauramine oxide).

For the sulfate free, replace Decyl glucoside (hard to thicken) by alfa olefin sulfonate, and add also some Cocamide DEA like you did for the first one.