[Lab]

Hi!

Some suppliers of these raw materials can send you technical materials that have these components in their composition. They’re often a good starting point if you’re undecided (:

[Lab]

Hi everyone, it’s been a while since this thread. I entered a period of recess and finally we resumed the testing. I bring some updates:

- We developed several types of water-based and anhydrous pomades based on the formulas that worked during these months.

- We continued with the Ceteareth-20, which was what we had available.

- We are in the final stages of approving a clear shine pomade, testing with different concentrations of Glycerin as @chemicalmatt suggested. Unfortunately, the manager does not seem to feel any difference between the formulation that has glycerin and the one that does not. Can anyone explain if this difference is more functional (greater spreadability, better fixation) than sensory?

That’s it for now, thank you to everyone who was willing to contribute!

I hope to be able to finish the project soon and be able to celebrate with you! (:

[Lab]

Hi!

Sorry for not updating the topic so far. We’ve managed to establish the base of the pomade and now we’re adding other ingredients to see how it performs. We’ve had success with Ceteareth-20 at 30% in an anhydrous formulation and 17.5%-18% in aqueous formulations (for glossy, spider web-like, and matte formulations). 

Soon we will try some versions with PVP and VP/VA Copolymer.

What I basically did was change the pharmacotechnics to vigorous agitation at 500-800RPM for several minutes on end (~20) while heating the formulation itself. Without it, the pomade didn’t create consistency, so it was a breakthrough. 

I passed on everything you said here to my manager, but unfortunately he chose not to continue with the Ceteareth-25 or Ceteareth-30 because he thought the Ceteareth-20 was fulfilling the role well  . We tested it on some locks of hair that we have in our laboratory and, according to him, the product is very close to the benchmarks that we are using as a reference.

I will continue to follow the adaptations that are passed on to me and, if there is anything new, I will pass it on to you 

[Lab]

Hi!

Some time ago we developed some deodorant and antiperspirant formulations in various models (stick, roll-on emulsion, powder, cream…) and they worked very well. On the sticks part, some benchmarks that fit with what you mentioned can be:

• Positiva 
• Humble
• Tom’s of Maine 

Hope this helps (:

[Lab]

@ketchito We formulated the base with Tapioca Pure to avoid ingestion problems, and it had no fragrance or surfactants. The concept is that you apply it to the feline while spreading it with your hands so that the formulation absorbs the oil and then removes it by rubbing your hands over the animal’s body or combing it… From what I remember it was based on some market products that instructed in this way

[Lab]

I’ve already formulated a product that was called “dry shampoo for cats”, so it was powdered and aimed to absorb oil from the fur. Because cats groom themselves frequently, not all owners will agree to give them recurring baths (but there are plenty of liquid product benchmarks out there). As for the thickener, try something with xanthan gum as @Fekher suggested (:

[Lab]

Hi!

The value in Kg is always on dry clothes, so an 8Kg washing machine can fit up to 8Kg of dry clothes. Different fabrics and types of clothing (bath, bed, cloths) will weigh in different ways and have different configurations in there taking up more or less space.

The indicator in Kg is the maximum that the washing machine can support, but if you can’t put more pieces… then you’ve reached the space limit, not the volume it can support. Normally filling 2/3 of the capacity by volume ensures a quality wash. Forcing too much weight can generate overload and compromise the motor.

Also, manufacturers don’t usually guarantee that the washer, operating at its maximum (8Kg in this case), will perform at its best either - sometimes less is more!

[Lab]

ketchito said:

@Lab I’m not an expert on pomades, but you have in your formula a lot of each emulsifier, but no oil phase. Since Cetearet-20 has nothing to emulsify, you’d only see a physical transformation (liquid when melted, gelish when in contact with hot water alone). Also, if you want instant viscosity you should add structuring agents (like fatty alcohols).

@ketchito Thanks for the reply! If I add the agents you mentioned, would the system still be transparent? Apparently my manager wants to keep it clear. According to him, in the reference benchmarkings, the ointments did not present an oily load, so I believe that is why he did not add any…

chemicalmatt said:

@Lab (really? How about LabMonster or LabWarrior instead? A little creativity here please) First you’ll need to use ceteareth-25 or 30 since CT-20 doesn’t quite have enough hydrophilicity to stay dispersed. Second, if we assume you meant to write PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil not “PEG-40”, you need to increase that upwards. Finally, you need to include a polyol such as glycerin, butylene glycol or propylene glycol (>5.0%) or this will never be anything but useless gloop. The polyol and the PEGylated surfactant both act to stabilize gellation and lower the set point of the final product. Adding a fixative such as PVP/VA is optional but advised if edge control is the game.

@chemicalmatt LOL! Maybe I should have chosen LabDestroyer but I think it’s better not to reveal all my potential at once …  Yes, I meant PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil! I apologize, I didn’t pay attention to that… Thanks for your directions Matt, I’ll stick with what you suggested! (:

I hope to bring updates soon, thank you both!

[Lab]

About “Thank you”:

I think it is a great idea! Perhaps the author of the post can “highlight” a comment among those received and write a response below. In addition to being a space to thank the author, everyone would be informed of which of the answers was most effective for the author. In cases where there are several contributions from different users, you can quote them in the chosen answer stating that they also helped with the problem in question.

About “Like”:

It’s interesting, but maybe it’s being looked at the wrong way. There could be “favorite” and “don’t contribute” buttons similar to the ones on Twitter, where you state your position on the answer in question. The amount of people in each of them doesn’t need to be visible, but it would make it easier (or harder) to find that answer (something like a “most relevant” filter)

I also think it would be interesting to put a filter of answered and unanswered questions, so it can make it easier to find questions equal to the current doubt without the need to revive old topics or create new duplicates. Maybe if there was something like an “up” button this could also work for unanswered questions that other users (than the original author) also find valid and would like to see an answer to, but have fallen by the wayside.

[Lab]

ozgirl said:

Not sure where the information about the flash point came from but on the  SDS I have it is listed as having a flash point of greater than 93 C. This is the cutoff value for flammable liquids so it just means it is not a flammable liquid.

I usually just melt it around 70 to 80 C with the CAPB which works well.

Sorry, my bad. I forgot to mention the SDS i found. I also took a look internally at the technical material we received, which indicated >96 ºC

[Lab]

@PhilGeis - If my memory serves me right, dogs don’t have the acid mantle that humans have on their skin, which makes it harder for them to deal with potential pathogens when the pH is altered. Different breeds can have different pHs (a lot varies from dog to dog, not just the breed), so the final pH value can be changed according to needs or kept to an average.

As I’m not sure and I could be wrong since I’m not a veterinary expert, I can look for some scientific literature that addresses the subject. But I remember a veterinarian specializing in dermatology once telling that infections and skin problems in dogs are a huge area and that many non-specialist veterinarians can be oblivious to canine needs.

@MarkBroussard - Thanks for emphasizing these points! Really, licking is a concern, as is smell. Other example of carelessness (off cosmetic topic) I’ve heard of was when a pharmacist was developing a dog biscuit and almost used grape seed flour by mistake. This is a (potencial) highly toxic ingredient for dogs, unlike golden flaxseed, coconut and green banana.

[Lab]

I used SCI only in solid (anydrous) formulations, such as bar shampoos and so on, so I end up adding the powder in the oil phase (while heating) and mixing everything until it completely incorporates.

However, we have an ingredient of INCI Sodium Lauroyl Methyl Isethionate (Iselux® Flakes by Innospec) that presents in its technical material a high indication for cleansing systems, mainly transparent ones. Its melting point can be a little high and present some difficulties, but in general if you add little by little, waiting for it to melt before adding more, it can work. I have also only used it for anhydrous systems, so my main recommendation would be to check with your supplier for the most appropriate procedure.

Also, in a quick search I found that the SCI flash point is +/- 96 ºC. I don’t know if it’s correct, but I wouldn’t recommend reaching 100ºC as you said 

[Lab]

Dogs’ skin is often thinner than humans, which makes them relatively more sensitive in many ways. Mark’s suggestion is a very good one, keep a pH closer to neutral and formulate with mild surfactants just like you would for a children’s product.

Also, avoid fragrances as much as possible (I know there are some hypoallergenic ones on the market, but I’m always afraid to pick the wrong one). Essential oils are a no. As much as there is a certain tolerance in dogs, I consider the risk of reaction to be very high. Fragrance-free is a good appeal if your marketing wants to use this to their advantage (:

[Lab]

Great discussion!

• I also believe that the search function can be improved, in addition to the search for terms itself, in terms of filtering. Maybe include a filter that makes it possible to sort the responses (newest, oldest, most relevant, least relevant… and so on).

• As much as some browsers have the automatic translation option, it might also be interesting to include translation buttons somewhere. Many sites use country flags or a checkbox to display posts in the chosen language (of course there are always some “wrongs” in the translations, but this would make it easier for many people who don’t have such a broad understanding of English).

• I also noticed that some users tend to confuse the concept of post in perfil and sending a DM. On another account I ended up getting what should have been DMs on the perfil and then I got a reply to them in the DM correctly, but they ended up switching between the two, probably without realizing it. If the DMs had a pop-up like in a chat format, maybe it could solve it (but that’s me rambling and giving a more specific suggestion, anything would work)

• And, maybe make the interface more intuitive? But that would be a bigger job, I imagine. Not that the current one isn’t good, if you grew up accessing forums you know how it works and it’s not difficult to adapt even if you don’t have experience, but I see some people lost by the layout (as simple as it is)

• Oh! And I’ve noticed many problems with users’ location. We often don’t know where a person is located, so it’s harder to give concrete answers, especially about legislation and ingredients. If there was an indicator next to the user’s avatar that appears during discussions (and not just on the profile) it would be very useful!

• And, just to finish, many do not read the pinned topics. Perhaps displaying a message when the member registers that they must first read these topics would be helpful. Furthermore, when posting a question, there could be a message informing the most recommended procedures, reinforcing the “how to use this forum” guide. For example, when we’re going to type the message, it says something like “your message here”, but it could be a little longer text and in list saying things you should do/remember before posting your question, like “don’t forget to share your formula.” “inform the final pH of the product, if applicable.” “informing your area of ​​activity can help to obtain better answers” and so on.

Oof! I think I got carried away and said too much! I’m sorry friends I’m trying to help I swear! 

[Lab]

Hey! 

As I understand it, you want the final effect of the product to be matte and not shiny on your skin, right? Well, this shine is not necessarily the same thing as hydration (even many products can be shiny AND have a dry feel). Because they are two different things, I suggest you first define what your priority is: making a product that doesn’t shine on the skin OR a less oily product. Doing both at the same time can be more complicated.

As for the FPS, I don’t know if this helps you, but BASF has a system where you can find the ingredient-percentage-FPS-PPD ratio when building your formula there. The link is this one. It’s been useful around here a few times and it’s a good guideline. 

I particularly suffer from the same problem with sunscreens, it costs a lot to adapt… but you can try a stick or an oil-free version, if it suits you. The result may not be as good as an emulsion, but as the pros say, “the best sunscreen is what works for you, and any is better than none”… just make sure your product is safe and effective.

[Lab]

Same!

Let me try to explain…

100g of powder + 100g of water = 200g (solution)

(we have 50% powder and 50% water; 100g of each)

Molecular weight doesn’t matter in this situation, we’re talking about weight itself, not volume, density or any other scale. You can just ignore the “milliliters” because we’re using grams.

So, you just need to weigh the amount of powder you want and the same weight of water (in grams!). Example:

- In a laboratory, you can use the balance to weigh 10g of powder.

- Then, you weigh 10g of water.
- Mix both.

- You now have a final product (20g) that consists of a 50% solution (half is powder and half is water)

Sorry if your question is different from what I understand, but if you use the same unit of measurement (grams), there is no need to deal with molecular weight…

Let me know if there’s anything else in your question that I should consider (:

P.S. As Pharma honorably pointed out, final weight may vary. To make it simpler to understand, don’t get hung up on it if your question is just about how to make the solution and not about its final weight/volume

[Lab]

Hi!

To obtain a 50% solution, just add the same amount of water (in grams). See, if you’ve decided to use all 100g of powder, add 100g of water and that’s enough. There is not much reason to use another measurement scale in this case.

[Lab]

Dtdang said:

Thank you so much, @ggpetrov and @Paprik.
I get another difficulty is that tara gum is difficult to soluble in cool water. I have to put tara gum + H2O in freezer for at least 2 hours for tara gum dispersing to water. Is there another way to soluble tara gum in water?

Hi! :blush:

Xanthan Gum is known to make the formulation a little less pretty/fancy than other gums in general. But the “paste” technique can be used for this as well as for Solagum Tara.

Basically what you can do is weigh out a quantity of humectant (usually glycerin, but it also works with propylene glycol) and then sprinkle the gum over it (3:1 should work), mixing gently with a spatula until it forms a paste. This ensures gum’s hydration before you add it directly to the aqueous phase. Once you’ve added it, you can try heating it up to speed up the process, but it’s not always necessary. A good stirr is often enough.*

Oh! And if you’re working with mechanical mixers, be sure not to use blades that provide high shear. Naval blades work best on gums as they do not break the structure at all.

I’ve worked with Solagum Tara some times and honestly the emulsion looks really nice and fancy in the end - but it can be a little difficult to work with depending on your formula, shampoo, conditioner, cream, etc.

*Many formulators don’t like this process and avoid it, still others say they don’t see much sense in it and that’s unnecessary… but I think it’s a matter of taste and your level of patience! 

P.S.: I’m considering just the laboratory scale in this comment.

[Lab]

tecnico3vinia said:

Lab said:

Very interesting!

I’ve never seen this kind of product before. Can you tell if this spider web effect has any functionality or is it just a visual appeal?

It can have some effect in the lubricity of the product but overall is just a visual/sensory appeal. 

Pretty nice to know! Sounds funny to play and apply in the hair, but definitely it’s not for me 

[Lab]

HAL49 said:

VP/VA Copolymer should be added at neutral pH (after carbopol neutralization) else it would form a mass that precipitate out just as you saw , and 2% of it’s just way too low you won’t probably get a lot of fixation at that level , also glycerin can have a negative impact on the performance of VP/VA Copolymer why are you adding it in the formula ? , peg-40 HCO can also have a negative effect try to use as low as possible just to solubilized fragrance , regarding claim ingredient I would suggest to use a water soluble extract of coconut oil(yes they exist) or you would have a lot of problems with clarity and stability

Thanks for your comments! OK, here we go:

- I’m adding the glycerin because the formulator thought it would be interesting due to the benchmarking’s LOI. I didn’t know that it could disrupt system stability (just like the PEG-40), could you explain to me how and why this occurs? 

- I was a little afraid to use more than 2% of VP/VA because when I weigh it it seems like a lot of raw material (I’m making a batch of 100g). What percentage would you indicate for greater fixation? The technical material they sent me doesn’t specify the concentration at all.  :#

- About the coconut extract, I found the idea very interesting. I think I’ve seen something like this here in the lab and I’ll check it out, thanks! 

---

Update: I redid the formula again with 0.5% Carbopol, changing only the neutralization order. My manager suggested to do a test making the formula normally, but neutralizing the system only at the end of the process (after adding all the ingredients and cooling <45 ºC)… In the end, what I got was not much different from the previous version (no viscosity changes), but it turned out a little more opaque in a slightly greenish hue (lol?)

Here are images of the 3 versions (I didn’t include the truly first one that turned into plastic because I discarded Dr. Frankenstein a long time ago) 

First version (1% carbopol)

Second version (0.5% carbopol)

Third version (0.5% carbopol)

P.S.: I think the greener look might be due the fragrance I used (if I’m not mistaken this one had a stronger orange color than the one I used in the second version that was lighter and a little bit greener)

[Lab]

Very interesting!

I’ve never seen this kind of product before. Can you tell if this spider web effect has any functionality or is it just a visual appeal?

[Lab]

Update: I made the gel with 0.5%… it was still sticky, but a lot less than with 1%! I will see if my manager approves this way or prefers more fluidity and then, if necessary, I reduce to 0.3% as suggested.

However, it is not very transparent, it is a little opaque. I think @evchem2 is right! I hadn’t thought that this lack of transparency could be due to coconut oil (although it was related to the high concentration of PEG-40). Sounds like a good idea, I’ll try it as soon as possible!

[Lab]

Wow, thank you so much for the points raised @Gordof ! I appreciate your help! 

Today I will try to manipulate with 0.5% of carbopol to see how it will behave and, in case the result is still viscous, I will follow with your suggestion of 0.3%.

My teammate raised an interesting point, see if you agree with his statement: basically, he noticed that the benchmarking has a slightly strange ordering of components, which may suggest that there is some raw material that is actually a blend and that raises concentrations of other substances listed.

Do you think that makes sense and that’s why the VP/VA finds itself in that position when compared to the PEG-40? Something doesn’t sounds right at all with the LOI

I previously requested the technical material from the supplier and I’m waiting, but you know how it is, sometimes they wind us up 

[Lab]

This will depend a lot on where she is geographically - not just the country, but the location (state, city, urban or rural area, how is access to basic sanitation, etc).  :#

Sorry if this sounds rude, but it’s a little incorrect to label all underdeveloped countries (and all of their regions) in that way - and I say this because I live in one of them . Even in developed countries like the United States there will be places where access to water is difficult and people need to “consume what they find”. 

Do you know exactly why she doesn’t want to distill the water? Would it be economical, due to equipment she doesn’t have, a very complex process, etc?

In my opinion, tap water (when treated) is usually ok (of course, I’m generalizing on this statement). If the region where she is is less likely to have basic sanitation, she can boil the water to get rid of possible microorganisms and unwanted agents and filter it in some way less complex than the distillation itself.

I agree with what you said about chelating agents. Add them even if the region’s water doesn’t have a history of being properly hard. 

Sorry again if I sounded rude, I didn’t mean to! (:

[Lab]

If the point is spreadability and sensory, in addition to corn starch, the combination of beeswax with candelilla was probably responsible. Many products use jojoba oil (which is actually a liquid wax) and cocoa butter, which are harder and even mixed together give more firmness… I would venture that the oil/wax ratio is the key here.

I noticed they used sucralose, maybe this has some specific property in this system when it’s melted for incorporation even in low concentration?