[ketchito]

Thank you @Perry !

[ketchito]

@michalby If you just want to increase viscosity, you sould add a high HLB emulsifier (like Polisorbate-80 or Ceteareth-20). If you want to have a cream gel consistency, you could add a polymeric emulsifier like Sepigel 305. 

[ketchito]

@marymargaret Just one quick question, is this a new law that will enter into force anytime soon?

I believe you refer to TiO2 used as opacifier rather than a UV filter, right? I’m checking Cosing (european database for cosmetic ingredients), and what I found is that the only restrictions for its use is the purity criteria and the particle size (TiO2 nanoparticles shouldn’t be used in products that could lead to lung exposure by inhalation): https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_v2&id=97172, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_v2&id=99289. 

[ketchito]

Thank you @chemicalmatt. Would there be an issue (oxidation, change of colour, excess water loss, etc.) by not having PVA as part of the tube? As I mentioned, it’s a very standard conditioner formula, with only minimal amounts (not more than 0.01% of some extracts and vegetable oils). 

[ketchito]

@KimberlyLars As @chemicalmatt mentioned, you need to have materials resistant to peroxides, which not be the case with your current formula. If you want to make a gel, you can find some gelling agents that work well with oxidizing agents (like Carbopol 674 although, not sure if it’s approved for cosmetics). You could actually build a gel using surfactants. 

[ketchito]

@karima I’d keep Glycerin to the minimum (not more than 0.5%), since it can potentially reduce the potency of ethanol. Also, use Carbopol 980 instead of 940, since 940 has some traces of benzene.

[ketchito]

@Tyss I agree with @Bill_Toge, you might need to search for a less sensitive opacifier, like Opulyn 305 mentioned above. You could also try with a stearate based opacifier (although, you’d need a suspending agent for this). 

Alternatively, you could try a sample without opacifier, to see if the issue persists; if it does, then it’s rather your surfactant/polymer system the one being sensitive. I don’t believe terpene from the fragrance is responsible for the phenomenom, but you could do a knock out test for this one as well. 

[ketchito]

@Tyss Which type of opacifier are you using? Styrene/acryltes opacifiers are sensitive to eectrolytes, but they don’t settle; rather, they go to the top. Stearate based opacifiers are not salt-sensitive, but they require some specific type of suspending agents (like Carbopol’s, for instance) and high viscosity. If you’re using a suspending agent at good level, and you have high viscosity, then you should chenck your surfactant/polymer system, which can (and that’s very common) be sensitive to electrolytes.  

[ketchito]

singhc10 said:

@Fekher I have worked on an Air Freshener using PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil as solubilizer. To solubilize a fragrance, the ratio of fragrance to solubilizer atleast be 1:4, if you are solubilizing an essential oil, then you would need even more solubilizer. Adding more solubilizer to your current formulation would make you air freshener too foamy.
In my opinion, you need to decrease your fragrance levels and  you can add ethanol to solubilize the fragrance and decrease foam

I agree with @@singhc10 This mixtures are abalance between water-alcohol-solubilizer-fragrance. If you use high amount of fragrance (especially heavy ones), you have to either increase the amount of solubilizer (which increases foaming and doesn’t let the fragrance bloom), or increase your alcohol level (which allows you to use less solubilizer, helping fragrance to perform when applied). Try with either PEG-40 HCO or/and Polysorbate 20, they are cheap and very effective.

[ketchito]

DaveStone said:

Paprik said:

 
Funny you mentioned cutting your wrinkles. Microneedling does kind of the same thing. You just don’t cause any “serious” damage, that could leave scars. You basically damage the skin, so the body responds to it and starts to heal it - builds collagen, elastin, fibroblasts …. 

How come microneedling isn’t foolproof then?

But getting back to the original question…would a cut over a wrinkle conceivably get rid of it? I would assume all the tissue in that spot would be regenerated.

The problem here is the way your body synthesizes proteins. When we age, the amount of crosslinks between collagen proteins is higher (crosslinks are what give skin its strenght and flexibility, but a higher degree of crosslinks can make it stiff), so it doesn’t matter if you cut the skin, the way it heals will always follow the same pathway according to your age.

[ketchito]

PhilGeis said:

Don’t have the info for this product.

Re your 2nd question - there is info.  Micro recalls are certainly up  for cosmetics esp. in last decade, and virtually all with natural/naturally compliant preservatives systems.  FDA talked about this https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lam.12995

Thank you @PhilGeis!

Graillotion said:

After further review….the above is a slightly different product…but wait….it gets worse.

The recalled product advertises…with gem stones…and is sold in a clear bottle, and looks like a scoop or river gravel from the Ganga river is included in every bottle… OMG.

Damn  :#

[ketchito]

@ajw000 Yes. By increasing the thickness of your interphase, you increase the stability of your emulsion.

If you’re heating at 170F (emulsion phase), try to keep that temp during the whole emulsion process (which should last between 20-30 min, depending on your mixer…homogenizers require less time). But you shouldn’t see any separation during the entire manufacturing process. Make sure after emulsion, to start cooling down while at the same time, decrease the mixing speed which should only be high during the emulsion.

[ketchito]

@SaraLee Make sure you’re adding both Xanthan gum and EDTA to the water phase. Also, try adding PEG-100 stearate at the same level of your Glyceryl stearate. Also, add Sodium benzoate in the cool down phase (around 50°C).

[ketchito]

@Zabi The precipitate at the bottom if Sulfonate. Sulfonic acid doesn’t actually like NaCl, so the more Sulfonic you use, the less NaCl it can resist. 12% is quite some Sulfonic. Either you cut down your NaCl (try a sample without it), or Replace part of the Sulfonic by SLES. If you want to use that much NaCl, you should cut half the amount of Sulfonic, but it depends on your system, so try with different ratios of Sulfonic/SLES.

[ketchito]

Thank you @PhilGeis. Do you have any idea of the suppossed preservative system they used in the aromatherapy spray formulation? I couldn’t find any information on that (perhaps they’re just using essential oils?). 

It’d be great to have a chart of number of recalls against the type of preservatives used, so the authorities can finally realize the big danger of leting poor preservative systems to be freely advertised and used. Perhaps a monograph like the one for sunscreens would be useful?

[ketchito]

@ajw000 You can try with Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer (carbomer would only increase the viscosity of your water phase even more, and that might be the issue). You could also try replacing the Ceteareth-25 by Glyceryl Stearate and also replacing part of the Carnauba wax by Stearyl alcohol (this would increase thickness of the interphase). 

[ketchito]

@ajw000 Yes, water soluble polymers can be difficult to include in some emulsions. One thing you could do is to add some polymeric emulsifier (like Sepigel 305). Another option would be to replace PVP/VA copolymer by a mixture of Hydroxypropyl starch phosphate and Polyquaternium-55. 

[ketchito]

@JMc That’s one of the risks of using uncoated inorganic filters. Both TiO2 and ZnO are catalysts (TiO2 being more active than ZnO). So, the best way to avoid (or at least delay) photocatalitic reactions in your sunscreen is to use coated inorganic filters (stabilized with alumina and coated with some fatty ingredient to increase dispersibility), antioxidants and excited state quenchers.  

[ketchito]

@Abdullah Just out of curiosity, where did you get the max level of 0.25% for CTC? Here’s the current european regulation (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_v2&id=92330):

I remember there are some studies that the safest level to avoid irritation from CTC in leave-on products for hair was below 1%, but this is the actual regulation, at least in Europe.

[ketchito]

@Cherma I’d advise you to check a very interesting book: Soap manufacturing technology (edited by Dr. Luis Spitz). You can find a lot of useful information there.

[ketchito]

@Abdullah You’re right, I missed one “0” when I checked the levels. As few members here mentioned, you should check then the addition method. Try with Ashland (they have very good literature on both guar gum and cationic guar). They usually recommend to add cationic polymers to the water, then CAPB, non ionic surfactants, and then the anionic surfactants.

[ketchito]

@bahey What @PhilGeis mentioned is very important, you need to be careful with the preservative chosen for an aerosol product, since it’s different for a preservative to be applied topically, than to be potentially inhaled. 

Also, as @ariepfadli mentioned, you need way more alcohol. In your originally formula, you’re solubilizing fragrance in water, which means you won’t have much free fragrance to be released once the product is applied; instead, increase drastically the amount of alcohol and reduce (or eliminate) the solubilizer, so when alcohol evaporates, you’ll have free fragrance to be released. 

[ketchito]

rima said:

I have read that the best ratio is 2 to 1 CDEA/SLES but i couldn’t understand the reason .
could anyone explain it if possible

@rima Perhaps the ratio is backwards. You usually need the most surface active molecule to be in higher amounts, and that one is SLES. Nevertheless, for practical and economical reasons (SLES is cheaper than CDEA), it’s better to have an even higher ratio, like SLES:CDEA 4:1 or 5:1 (as actives). Now, in laundry detergents it’s actually better to use a mixture of LABS/SLES since that’s a more synergistic (and economic) mixture. You’ll see in that mixture that LABS is more surface active than SLES, and that’s one of the reasons it goes in higher amounts. 

[ketchito]

@Dreamer77 I’m sorry, but you’re being disrespectul with some of the best formulators in the industry which are here in this group, and that tried to help you. The reason why you were asked for the list of ingredients (which will be public anyway if you sell your product), is to spot potential interactions that might cause the issue. No need to post percentages…without that info it’s impossible to give you advice, but it’s your choice.

I’m glad you managed to solve the issue (it’s better though to test the stability over time). About reliable source of information, patents are only informative (they are not peer reviewed evidence), being clinical studies (with robust methodologies and published in peer reviewed journals) the most reliable source of information for efficacy, which are scarce due to the high costs and the standards for being approved. And most of the high cost actives fail to pass this test (that’s one of the reasons suppliers almost never publish their results in peer reviewed journals). 

I hope you succeed in your project, and keep in mind that we are here only to help, but we need information to do that.  

[ketchito]

@Abdullah At such low level of anionic surfactants, it’s for sure that either Cationic guar gum or/and PQ-10 will form an insoluble coacervate. You need to have an excess of anionic surfactant compared to your cationic polymers to dissolve the coacervate.