[Lab]

Hi friend, good morning!

In terms of functionality, there won’t be much difference between shampoos: they’re a cleansing system to remove dirt and oil.

What happens is that in addition to specific assets for specific marketing stories for specific audiences, there may be some small particularities (which may be fruit of common sense and reproduction by the industry or actually have a solid and scientific base)

Summarizing what my experience has shown me so far:

- Body wash (body): basically a traditional shampoo, what you use on your hair can usually be used on the body without major problems (because when you wash it it “runs down” your body), but the pH can be a differential to suit the skin more than the strands

- Shampoo (hair): traditional, it can contain actives, have a variable pH range, have a conditioning agent included or not (2 in 1), etc… there are several possibilities here, choose a market niche, research and have a lot of fun creating (:

- Intimate cleanser: usually has a lower pH and mild surfactants to match the intimate area without irritating (they are usually fragrance-free)

- Shampoo (infant/baby): they use milder surfactants and often add the appeal of “tear free”, reducing the possibility of irritation is essential… I read some papers that reinforce that for babies the use of syndets is most recommended precisely because they are smoother, but I don’t know the extent/truth of this information. The simpler and shorter the formulation, the better.

Hope this was helpful. Other members feel free to correct me if I said something incorrect or rash (I’m still not very experienced as I’m very young)

Have a good day! 

[Lab]

chemicalmatt said:

You will want to add lactic acid to gain the viscosity and stability build with STPDA, generally 3:1 amine to acid (depending on the acid), and as Perry points out, pH4.0 is best. Different acids have pronounced effects with STPDA, i.e. glutamic acid gives you 4X more viscosity than lactic, but is 4X more expensive. You can have a lot of fun here. Another aspect of your conditioner, a Perry also knows, is if your final batch viscosity is running on the low side, just add a little salt solution and it will thicken up big time. Who needs guar HPTC? Just gets in the way.

Wow, this about the salt solution is really interesting! Never heard of it before, do you have any more information about it? My knowledge is still a bit shallow, so I figured that only sulfated systems (shampoos, body washes, etc) thickened with salt (and that this didn’t apply to conditioning systems in general). :dizzy:

The reason they chose GHC is that it was in the benchmarking that the formulator used to assemble the formula, so he chose to keep it in the system in order to get closer to the market product. 

Also, an update: I received the technical materials I requested earlier and one of the suppliers instructed the following proportion relate to acid vs. concentration (for every 1g of STPDA). It’s in Brazilian Portuguese, but the order is: hydrochloric acid, anhydrous citric acid, phosphoric acid and lactic acid.

[Lab]

Perry said:

My answers come from the experience of using both of these ingredients in numerous formulations & batches. I never neutralized SAPDA nor acidified GHC. 

But that’s how they behaved in my systems. Perhaps your experience will be different 

Thanks again for your time, Perry!

I ordered some technical materials directly from the suppliers who send us these raw materials and I will try both ways to see if there is any visual or sensory difference at the end. If I don’t see any relative differences, I’ll opt for the simplest process (as you mentioned) (:

[Lab]

Thank you so much for your quick feedback, @Perry ! I will pay attention to your guidelines. 🙂

I’m just not sure about the ingredients in topic 2, as I’ve heard a few times about the need for neutralization for Stearamidopropyl Dimethylamine and that GHC thickens better after acidifying the system. The technical materials I found diverge on this information, which makes it a little confusing :confused:

[Lab]

@MarkBroussard - Thanks! Sometimes we’re so immersed in the processes that we don’t think beyond what we see 

I will do as you said, thank you very much!

[Lab]

ozgirl said:

What type of antiperspirant are you making? Solid/ stick, roll on / emulsion, paste, spray? The manufacturing process will depend on what you are making.

We make a roll on antiperspirant (emulsion type) with Aluminium Zirconium Tetrachlorohydrex gly and add slowly it to the cool down phase with moderate speed stirring at less than 40C.

I know that the Aluminium Zirconium Tetrachlorohydrex gly is not suitable for spray type products.

We just use standard safety precautions (e.g. gloves and eye protection) when handling.

Thanks!

I think I’ll make one type of each to test (less aerosol).

I was in doubt because I didn’t find much information about the compound itself, usually the ingredients come with some indicatives such as “add in phase X” or “incompatible with strong bases”.

[Lab]

Perry said:

That’s because natural is not a consistent concept.

Exactly, Perry! And it seems the more we know, the less we know  :#

[Lab]

Pharma said:

Several polyglyceryl esters are used for that purpose (examples are PG-4 oleate and caprate or PG-3 stearate). They aren’t ‘natural’ depending on definition but they can be made from 100% renewable feedstock e.g. glycerol and fatty acids and are usually allowed by the labels in question.

Thank you, Pharma! I’ll suggest these ones to her and find out what she thinks about it.

Sometimes it’s a little complicated to reconcile all these natural concepts, each one wants something different (customers included) 

[Lab]

@tecnico3vinia how much mica are you planning to use? I think 9040 would do the job. But you would have to mix it with 245 as far as I know. 

Also, @evchem2 do you think adding an oil such as Rosehip Oil would break the viscosity?

[Lab]

That was more or less my line of reasoning. I’ve always wondered how it would work with such a short application time and such “simple” ingredients (which we often know don’t do much). It’s exactly this lack of change that intrigues me, I thought I was missing something important (apart from people’s ability to believe something is working when it isn’t necessarily).

Thank you, Perry! As you said, experience is what ends up being bought in the end - and that’s okay with that. 

[Lab]

[ LONG TEXT ALERT ]

Hi perry, happy to hear we have a webinar coming soon! This is a very interesting topic for a number of reasons, even more so in post-Brexit times where initially there was a lot of confusion in the sector (Ireland united again? Who knows!).

My opinion may be a little out of date as I don’t live in the US, so it’s based solely on comparisons I can make with my country’s legislation, which can lead to bias on my part as things are a little stricter here. I apologize if I’m incorrect at any point.

Well, I believe more regulation is needed. For me, it’s a little strange to see so many people talking about “making cosmetics” so naturally. You see, I’m not condemning the “craft movement”, but it hurts my ears a little to see so many people who don’t have a basic knowledge of good manufacturing practices mixing things up at random and saying “eureka”. I think it is important to nurture a love for cosmetics in this case, but common sense should not be exceeded. Lemon is a good fruit, many like it, it can have several health benefits, but we don’t even pass it on the skin. But there are still people who don’t know this, and when we apply this concept to a whole world of unknown ingredients, things get more complicated.

Around here, it’s difficult for anyone who doesn’t own a company to buy raw materials, suppliers don’t sell because they don’t want to risk it if something goes wrong (and obviously to avoid problems with the law). There are supplier companies that sell to industries in large quantities and supplier companies that sell to small businesses, such as laboratories and pharmacies, but even these are not at risk. Anyway. That wouldn’t stop anyone from not trying to become an alchemist. You can find many ingredients available on online platforms that sell all sorts of things (Amazon, Mercado Livre, and so on…), but many come without documentation, which is really, really bad if they catch you.

Anyway, in my eyes, yes, anyone should be able to make cosmetics. There is no exact training for this, nothing would prevent it… but this must happen within a specific scenario, with rules, regulations, training and safety. I’m not talking about banning “controversial” ingredients, I’m talking about personal safety and the safety of the people who will buy the product. I imagine that it is often not well known the environment where the cosmetic was formulated, by whom, with what equipment and the source of the raw materials. But…

… But I also don’t think we can blame people for being distrustful of big brands and wanting the best for their own health and that of others. The fault, in general, is the lack of information that affects them. And we know “who” is behind it. Wanting good for themselves, people end up doing themselves harm or subjecting themselves to high risks. In addition to a whole regulation/registration (which I imagine makes these people turn up their noses and not immediately understand some more complex things) there could be an incentive on the part of some government agency or program that encourages (and supervises) the production of products safely while maintaining the autonomy of people within this context so that they don’t feel so limited despite the rules. It’s a gradual way of changing things and it generates a long-term adaptation - at least no one is even more unhappy. It sounds more like a fairy tale I know.

Wow, sorry for the long text! It’s hard to express an opinion from an outsider, but I hope it made sense.

Thank you! 

[Lab]

When we formulate, in addition to being aware of the concentrations indicated by regulatory bodies as you mentioned, it’s important to keep in mind that “more is better” is not always (I’ve seen some cases where 1% of an ingredient had the same effect as 10% of it, if no more)

Anyway. Everything must be backed up by evidence, just because a cake calls for 2 eggs in the recipe doesn’t mean you’ll get 2 eggs from every chicken in your backyard. Some actives alone can be quite irritating at low concentrations (depending on each person), so a combination of several of them could increase the risk of adversal effects like Abdullah said.

Agreeing with helenhelen, I don’t think it’s prudent to invest so much in it, especially financially. Simple is sometimes better, just look for something that works for you, and if you still want to make your own product, try to reproduce it (:

[Lab]

The FDA periodically issues some recall reports on the following website. In it you can see the name of the product (which consequently takes you to the list of ingredients if you search for it) as well as information such as the reason for the recall, the responsible company, classification, etc. They also often specify the affected lots and their origin, but in many cases some information is missing. As for pH, I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm#tabNav_advancedSearch

Example: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ires/index.cfm?Product=192665

[Lab]

@Zahra could you explain your question? What exactly do you want to know about this synthesis? Or is something related to procedures, features, combinations with another ingredients?

[Lab]

ketchito said:

Hi,

I was just reading a magazine, and I found this very interesting comment from Dr. Lochhead.

Reference: https://www.rodpub.com/email/hap/Whitepapers/eBook/2/evonik_eBook.pdf

Thank you @ketchito!

I looked through the references and found the following patent linked to this comment: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/73/e4/b9/a05e8b915c7d79/US9642787.pdf

I admit that I’m particularly skeptical about patents because I don’t really understand if there’s really a backing for all of them (even though this one in particular is from The Procter & Gamble Company)… but as @PhilGeis said Dr. Lochhead is an expert on the subject, I tend to believe more

Thank you guys (:

[Lab]

I’ve waited so long for an update! Glad to hear that everything is going according to plans, aligned with the four elements

Congratulations, Warren! Now you make “Cosmicts” :joy:

[Lab]

As stated above, stirring (and remelting) can be quite effective in this situation. But you can also consider some other approaches:

- Instead of heating the system until everything seems to melt, make sure it reaches a specific temperature. Research the technical materials for the ingredients you are using to confirm at what temperature each component melts. This is important because when you look at a formulation as it heats up you might think “Ok, everything is melted, let’s take off“, but some small particles stay and can reassemble after a while. I always use 75ºC as a base for everything that needs heating, but I go higher when a harder ingredient is present, like Carnauba Wax for example.

- If possible you can also try to heat the container where you will put your batch, just a little to warm up. This heat allows solidification to take place more evenly and prevents the formulation from breaking and showing grain aspect - as everything will be at the same temperature.

Also, what oils are you using? If you plan on doing the heat approach, make sure you don’t go over their limit as well.

[Lab]

Thank you all! I’m writing down all your suggestions (:

[Lab]

Pretty funny discussion!

Whenever I see a “young mystic” talking about something like that they make a point of emphasizing the sun - so let your formulation shine and rise, my friend! 🌞

Maybe you could buy a tarot deck and play some cards to try to get an “enlightenment” of what to do in your formulation. 

I watched a documentary once (which talked about how a certain indie game was made) where one of the developers said that he did exaclty that to have a “direction” - just for fun - and it yielded very great results! 

[Lab]

ketchito said:

@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).

I’m sorry, I understood that he was saying to all kind of leave-on products in general, not specifically to copper removal only.

I’ll try that concentration of 0.3%, but now I’m wondering… how would I know if it works afterall? Maybe with a test with hair in lab until green fades away?

Abdullah said:

Lab said:

@Abdullah do you think this concentration (0.3%) should be applied to all leave on products or just for the ones to remove copper?

I’ll keep what you said about viscosity in mind, thanks!

not necessary for all products. 
You said 0.1% didn’t work so i said you can use higher amount.

Sorry Abdullah, I expressed myself badly. I meant that I’m used to add 0.1% EDTA to any products I made (that need chelators) like creams, shampoos, conditioners, lotions, etc. Sometimes I prefer other chelators, but this is just an example of the concentration I’m familiar with. Thanks for your help with that!

[Lab]

@Abdullah do you think this concentration (0.3%) should be applied to all leave on products or just for the ones to remove copper?

I’ll keep what you said about viscosity in mind, thanks!

[Lab]

Hi guys! A little update here.

As recommended, I switched my focus to copper instead of chlorine in my research. But still no clue about the concentration… I already use 0.1% Disodium EDTA as a chelator in many products I formulate, but in all the technical materials I’ve found they don’t say anything about % in this type of product I’m trying to make.

Does anyone have knowledge about this to share? I looked for articles and didn’t find anything either (still doing my research). I don’t know if it’s a very specific topic and if there really are any in-depth studies on it, but I think I’m more skeptical about these products now.

Oh! And should I use Disodium or Tetrasodium EDTA? Is there any difference in this case? I never worked with the second type.

Thank you in advance!

[Lab]

PhilGeis said:

sure others have more info - certainly fade hair coloring but prob needs repeated exposure to really damage

This is very interesting and certainly worth further research. I’ll try to see if I can find something out about it too!

Oh! And do you guys know how much EDTA I should use to ensure a true effect like @ketchito said? I looked in technical materials from suppliers but concentrations are always the standard for chelators (typically 0.05% - 1%). I don’t know how far I could go without it becoming a waste.

[Lab]

Oh, I understand better now! Thanks @PhilGeis / @ketchito !

I really thought these effects were because of some specific active ingredient, but they are all well-known raw materials (and this explains why I didn’t find anything different on the labels I looked at).

I appreciate your help!

[Lab]

Thank you for your help @Abdullah / @Bill_Toge !

I’ve seen a lot of people complaining about their hair turning green after swimming in pools, do you know if only with these ingredients that you indicated my product would be able to help remove this unwanted color too? Water alone should neutralize de pH I guess, but I’m not 100% sure about that.