[ketchito]

@alfie101 Some oxidation processes can be catalyzed by the presence of metal ions (some extracts have them in significant amounts), and that’s why adding a chelant like GLDA makes sense. Try always having one. I’d also replace the sorbate (tends to contribute with some specific odor) by a more broad spectrum (and less allergenic) combination, like Phenoxyethanol and Sodium benzoate.

[ketchito]

@goska007 We usually put samples at different conditions from the start (not only heat). One condition is at 4-5°C degrees, and in an emulsion, it can tell you if you have some risk for crystallization, which you won’t see in the oven, since the oven favors solubility.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah If it’s just plain water, it shouldn’t.

[ketchito]

@Annyeap There doesn’t seem to be anything that impairs cooling effect in your formula. Nevertheless, try without the solubilizer and disperse Menthol in (warm) CDE, to see how it goes.

[ketchito]

Abdullah said:

@ketchito got it.

This part “increases the amount of dilution necessary to get coacervate precipitation.”
Does it mean you will need more water to dilute the shampoo and get coacervate precipitation?

Yes. You need that extra dilution to either remove the even higher excess surfactant, or the charge screening from salt ions. 

[ketchito]

@Paprik I agree with @Perry and @Abdullah. Now -and this is just for fun -, can you increase the cooling rate? like with a cold bath? This might change crystallization pattern. Also, try to increase viscosity at the end, so crystals are immobilized and they can reflect light better.

[ketchito]

I don’t think water would be able to remove cationic polymers (unless you add a lot of salt). Cationic polymers, especially the ones with higher charge density, would prefer to remain bound to hair (unless ionic strenght or pH changes). Also, in shampoos, they deposit as coacervates, which are harder to remove from hair. Even rinsing with surfactants leave some amount of cationic polymers (or coacervates) on hair.

Uncharged silicones (like dimethicones) are of course not possible to be removed by water (they are not soluble in water), but they are easily removed by surfactants. The same would hold for cationic silicones, although they might be a bit harder to remove with surfactants than uncharged ones. Keep in mind that they are still very hydrophobic molecules (unlike water soluble cationic polymers), so detergents would do a good job on removing them.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah The answer is in those 4 points: it depends on your formula. Nevertheless, coacervate forms at the first part of the dilution process during rinsing (once you have enough water to dilute the excess surfactant, the polymer can reach a stoichiometric balance with the anionic surfactant to form the coavervate and precipitate). 

[ketchito]

@Karo_lina If you want viscosity, you need something that strengthens your interface. Try replacing those butters by either more fatty alcohols or cetyl palmitate. You coud also reduce a bit your caprylic/capric triglyceride.

[ketchito]

@kajalthakur You can try Sunspheres from Dow.

[ketchito]

@Karo_lina You have a high load of fats. Butters are specially hard to emulsify. Any chance you could drastically cut on them? Also, you could add a bit more Castor oil, as long as it’s PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil.

[ketchito]

@Farrukh Our soaps don’t contain SLES, so I’d like to ask if you have it already for the saponification, which in fact could produce many bubbles. Also, any particular reason you’re adding Propylene glycol and Glycerol? Keep in mind that Glycerol is also a by product of your saponification, and adding extra Glycerol could modify the composition of your phases (maybe you want to make your soap more transparent).

[ketchito]

@Michelle76 As you can find in @PhilGeis‘ link, water loss overtime is critical and needs to be properly assessed in solid soap bars.

[ketchito]

@Annyeap Which type of solubilizer you’re using? You can try removing the solubilizer, and use CDE for that purpose (warm the mixture a bit to speed menthol dissolution). Also, you can add some menthyl lactate, since both menthyl lactate and menthol have a synergy. You could even search for a mixture of both, that already has a proper ratio (eutectic).

[ketchito]

@kajalthakur I’d like to blame your Omyaskin (inorganic salts not very water soluble), but I see also that your formula doesn’t have many solvents your for UV filters. Usually, you’d expect some amount of esters (like c1215 alkyl benzoate) for this purpose. Also, I prefer Octocrylene over OMC, both because OMC is rather unstable, and because it doesn’t go well with Avobenzone (chemical interaction). Plus, Octocrylene is a good solvent for other UV filters. A good antioxidant could also be needed.

[ketchito]

@GeorgeBenson I’d still compare the pearl effect of a sample without the suspending agent vs another sample with the suspending agent. You can even add some dye to make the difference more visible.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah Usually, mixing two anionics has no benefit over mixing one of them with a zwitterionic or non ionic. The exception is the mixture of SLES and LABS, where you have a spacer in the SLES molecule (the ethoxylated part), wich makes the LABSA interact differently with it. At the end, it depends on the molecular structure. 

Small alcohols (compared to fatty alcohols) can be pentanol or hexanol.

[ketchito]

MariaGarcia said:

The same thing happens if you use glass bottles. I believe that crust is sodium carbonate, formed by reacting sodium hydroxide with CO2 from the air inside the bottle.

Sodium carbonate is actually quite soluble in water. 

@GeorgeBenson Maybe you are using hard water, and what you’re getting is just calcium hydroxide?

[ketchito]

@cjames No, they are two different ingredients. Unlike Guar gum, Cationic guar has a positive charge that confers it conditioning properties.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah I know the question is for @Pharma, but I couldn’t resist to comment. Things that make micelles grow when you’re initially using an anionic surfactant are anything that can give some space between the ionic heads, so they are not too close to each other and repel. For that, you can add either amphoteric or non ionic surfactants, which alternate with the anionic to give mixed micelles. Another wat to do that is by adding small alcohols which work as spacers. Salt can also make micelles grow by providing counter ions to reduce the negative charge of anionic surfactants.

[ketchito]

@SonOfMan I agree with @Paprik. I believe your Anti acne formula ingredient is the one responsible. Now, there are actually very few ingredients that demonstrate anti acne properties, and those make your product a drug rather than a cosmetic. So, if you are addin the Anti acne formula ingredient just for claim purposes, reduce it to the least amount possible (for example, 0.01%).

[ketchito]

There are several sources to find example formulas, like UL Prospector, or formulation books.

[ketchito]

Adamnfineman said:

grapefruit22 said:

Have you tried to dissolve menthol in a polar oil, e.g. caprylic/capric triglyceride?

ketchito said:

@Adamnfineman I believe you need a more polar media for menthol to exert its cooling action. For instance, water base shampoos that use as little as 0.05% of Menthol, already show a perceivable effect on scalp.

@grapefruit22 @ketchito
Would the mixture of soybean oil, beeswax, ozokerite wax, coconut oil, and shea butter I used un the previous batch be considered a polar enough media?

Squinny said:

If it is meant to be a cooling massage oil why don’t you use Peppermint Essential Oil rather than Tea Tree Oil (or a combo of Tea Tree with Peppermint to your usage rate of 1.5%). I find Peppermint Essential Oil has a definite cooling effect and smells better than Tea Tree too. Just a suggestion but make a small amount and see?

@Squinny
It was meant to be an anti-inflammatory massage oil to aid in pain relief. The tea tree oil was in there to boost the anti-inflammatory effect because I though I’d have enough cooling from the menthol.

Pb610 said:

Mineral oil, especially at an 80% concentration, would probably block a lot of your active ingredients from working into the skin, though I’m not certain.

@Pb610  
Do you have any literature about why this happens? or a list of other oils with this effect?

Thank you for your replies

Unfortunately, the polarity of the ingredients you mentioned are way far from that of water. As someone suggested later in this thread, small glycols like glycerin or PPG should also work.

[ketchito]

chemicalmatt said:

@JonahRay Are you sure its oil not glycerin popping out? Switch out the glycerin with dipropylene glycol and see what happens.

I agree with @chemicalmatt. Glycerin doesn’t seem to fit within that mixture. What’s the purpose of your product? Perhaps you can remove it without affecting your claims, or replace it with ethylhexylglycerin.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah I’d choose our good all friend dimethicone, at least for shampoos. Cationic silicones (like amodimethicones) are used more often in emulsions.