[ketchito]

@Abdullah Most structured cosmetic emulsions now have a lamellar gel network. Unfortunately (because not everyone has access to the equipment) the only way to really know if you got one is through x-ray diffraction. 

[ketchito]

I’m with @evchem2 on this. I’d go even a bit lower than 6, closer to 5. And giveit some good mixing before adding surfactants.

[ketchito]

@Ichlas For some consumers, SLS and SLES based formulas can be a bit sensitizing, especially if the product is not well fomulated. That’s why Cocamidopropyl betaine was introduced in cleansing cosmetics, to reduce the irritation protential from those anionics, so you could use either SLS or SLES but balancing it with some amount of CAPB.

[ketchito]

@Csears If you’re using cationic guar, then it needs an acid pH to completely swell….but decyl glucoside actually makes pH more basic, and that might explain the clumpping. I’d add cationig guar at the beginning, and after some mixing, add either citric acid or edta (they both help bringing pH down). This will help cationig guar to swell properly. Then, you can add your surfactants.

@Camel I don’t think it’s always a waste to include fatty alcohol (or other type of oils) to cleansers. There are actually few nice patents (and research) from P&G and L’oreal using this type of technology. Sometimes, a cleanser is not just a cleanser. 

[ketchito]

@niecie2k Did you try your formula without the Poly 7? I believe that for a hair gel, you don’t need to include it. 

It’d be very hard to work with both carbomer and Poly 7 in current formula. Usually, shampoos can include both ingredients, since anionic surfactants help reduce Poly 7’s charge density by forming a complex, but there’s nothing in your formula that can do the same. But again, I believe you’re ok without using it.

[ketchito]

Abdullah said:

ketchito said:

Abdullah said:

You can test it. 

Usually an emulsion with only non-ionic surfactant+water+oil will separate in one day. Now add ha and see if it makes it more stable or not.

@Abdullah That would depend on the type of emulsifier, oils and ratios. Non-ionic surfactants are actually the best emulsifiers (and solubilizers) due to their better packing (no charge repulsion) which allows micelle formation at lower cmc values than ionics. Because of this, they help you get very stable emulsions of different type (including micro, nano, etc).

Also, you have them in a different arrays of ethoxylation, to meet every need. 

Yes they are best emulsifiers and should be used in every cream or lotion but they by themselves have nothing to stabilize that emulsion. So unless he has a polymer, an ionic surfactant or fatty alcohol, the emulsion with not be stable. This is my experience. 

Micro and nano emulsions yes but i think she is talking about macro only. 

Non ionic surfactants provide the most important tool for emulsion formation and stability, which is the micellar structure, shielding the dispersed phase. Fatty alcohols and water soluble polymers are structuring agents, which make the interface thicker. This of course gives a boost to stability, but I wouldn’t say surfactants alone cannot produce stable emulsion, especially for low viscosity emulsions or microemulsions.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah If you want to make a O/W emulsion, then the 30% should correspond to the GMS. But keep in mind that for better interaction between the high HLB surfactant and the los HLB surfactant, they have to show some similarities in their structure so they can interact properly (lile glyceryl stearate has with peg-100 stearate).

[ketchito]

@Stephanie Could you make a sample at pH of 5, and another at a pH of 6? I believe the acidity might be modifying the structure of the emulsion. Check how they behave in the oven. 

[ketchito]

@Abdullah If SPDMA refers to Stearamidopropyl dimethylamine, and since you usually neutralize (it changes from neutral to cationic) it to make it work as a conditioning agent, it wouldn’t formaly comply with the HLB method, since it is for non ionic surfactants. There are other methods that are actually more updated. Also, Cetyl alcohol is not usually considered a surfactant but a co-surfactant, helping build more rigid structures. GMS is usually considered a low HLB surfactant, and paired with PEG-100 stearate. Consider that when combining a low with a high HLB surfactant, they need to have good packing, and for that, part of the structure should interact significantly (that’s why GMS and PEG-100 stearate are used together). 

[ketchito]

Abdullah said:

You can test it. 

Usually an emulsion with only non-ionic surfactant+water+oil will separate in one day. Now add ha and see if it makes it more stable or not.

@Abdullah That would depend on the type of emulsifier, oils and ratios. Non-ionic surfactants are actually the best emulsifiers (and solubilizers) due to their better packing (no charge repulsion) which allows micelle formation at lower cmc values than ionics. Because of this, they help you get very stable emulsions of different type (including micro, nano, etc).

Also, you have them in a different arrays of ethoxylation, to meet every need. 

[ketchito]

@Asad_Nazir Either increase your CAPB and Cocamide DEA, or add a cationic polymer (like PQ-7 or Guar HPTC)….or both, if you have enough budget.

[ketchito]

Happy birthday Perry!!

[ketchito]

@ShawnL9022 If you want a co-surfactant that increases viscosity without adding a thickening polymer, and since you have CAPB in your formula, you cound increase CAPB and add a non-ionic surfactant of the amide type, such as Cocamide MIPA or MEA, which will have a synergy effect when added to a formula that has CAPB.

[ketchito]

@Hanismaik I believe one common issue even amongst formulators, is that we’re usually highly biased. The only way to prove some benefit from a particular ingredients is either conducting technical analysis (using equipment that most of us don’t have access to) using solid protocols, or through placebo based double blinded clinical trials (which are expensive and require a good number of participants). Our experience or even the feedback from a small group of people is mainly anecdotal evidence. 

[ketchito]

@Camel Interestingly, Behentrimonium chloride or methosulfate have a max allowed dose (5% I brlieve) according to Cosing, precisely because of cationic’s irritation potential, while SLES has no restriction. Also, SLES is always used at significantly higher dose than BMTS, which is not a fair comparison.

[ketchito]

@filiz Even though vegetable oils can make your formula feel heavy, ester in your formula can also contribute, especialy the ones you are using. Try replacing part of them for more volatile lubricants like Emogreen L9 or some of cyclomethicone replacements (Inolex has some nice ones).

Also, that amount of Isopropyl myristate can increase irritation. Plus, some vegetable oils can be comedogenic, so don’t use too much of them.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah Only if you use too much of gums so that you get a gel instead of a viscous liquid (lather is harder to form from surfactants in a gel matrix compared to a solution). On the other hand, cationic modified biopolymers (such as HPTC guar or PQ-10) can actually boost foam and detergency.

[ketchito]

As a general rule anionic and cationic surfactants shouldn’t go together in the same product, but certain type of catonic surfactants at specific ratios can actually be mixed with anionic surfactants, creating clear gel structures (soft complexes) rather than precipitates, showing synergistic behaviors. This read is actually very nice: http://www.scientificspectator.com/documents/Olenick%20Compilation/Ch%2015%20Cationic%20Anionic%201.pdf. 

[ketchito]

@smallpiglet I had the same thought about liquid nitrogen. You could alternatively try to freeze the cotton in your freezer, and try to grind it…if that’s not possible (since the amorphous region of the fiber might not crystallize), then spray a bit of water on the surface of cotton, and try again.

[ketchito]

@smallpiglet Cotton (and silk) are first made as a protein solution (fibroin) and then spun through specific channels (with changing variables such as pH, ionic strenght, shear and elongation) ’till they are made into solid fibers. Wool (and hair) are made through a bit different process, but they both result in the formation of solid protein materials with specific structures, which haven’t been replicated completely so far (nylon and kevlrar were discovered trying to synthesize  spider silk in the lab). 

If you want to dye cotton fibers, there are many patents that can guide you through this process. Nevertheless, due to the different conformation (and the presence of melanins in human hair), I don’t think you could be able to get the exact same shade as your hair. 

[ketchito]

With that variety of food for microbes, it might not be enough for some bacteria either. 

@MarisaLR It’d be better to add an antioxidant for your antioxidants (especially for ascorbic acid) like a phenolic-based to quenche free radicals. Also, it might be worthy to add a UV filter. 

[ketchito]

Abdullah said:

@ketchito doesn’t chelating a metal eliminate whatever effect that metal has?

For example you chelate iron in a product, it doesn’t do what iron does in a product anymore. although that iron is always there. 

@Abdullah Yes. My comment was more about leave on products, which are mostly creams, so difussion of the chelant would be difficult enough to reach the metal ion. In the case of cleansers, you have water as your medium so it’s easier for the complexing process to happen, that’s why I believe it’d be more effective to add the chelant in high doses in a shampoo, for instance. 

[ketchito]

@Lab Not sure if it’ll work in a leave on product. The strategy works mainly in rinse off products since you need some solvent (water) to allow mobility and later removal. 0.3% is a fair level to start with (I think I saw a product with 0.5% EDTA, but again, it was a shampoo).

[ketchito]

PhilGeis said:

Chlorine (hypochlorite) - it’s very reactive with protein.   If uncomplexed, you can rinse it away - otherwise it’s prob complexed with hair protein.

@PhilGeis You’re right, I was just thinking about uncomplexed hypochlorite, but there’s certainly some affinity giving some contact time. I once tried to dissolve human hair using different solvents (ionic liquids did the trick!), and hypochlorite was one of them. Although it didn’t do the job, it ceirtainly reduced hair strenght and there were some signs of discoloration, although to be fair, the concentration of hypochlorite was extremely high compared to the ppm used in swimming pools. 

[ketchito]

@ProfessorHerb Besides the occlusive and humecting ingredients, emollients (like isopropyl myristate or caprylic/capric triglyceride) help complete the combo.