MarkBroussard
Forum Replies Created
-
It all depends on the molecular weight of the Hyaluronic Acid you are adding. If it’s Super Low Molecular Weight, you can add it to the water phase prior to emulsification.
If it is a higher molecular weight HA, you’ll want to add it post-emulsification, at cool-down since it gels/thickens and will interfere with the formation of the emulsion if you add it pre-emulsification.
-
That certainly is possible. I’ve always found that particular study to be strange, even from a marketing perspective since the results don’t show that Moringa Butter is better than Petrolatum, just that is it almost as good as Petrolatum.
@Perry, you are probably right … perhaps they did not find any level of Moringa Butter that was equal to, or superior to, Petrolatum.
-
Here’s the strange thing about that Floratech comparison of Moringa Butter to Petrolatum. Why would you compare Moringa Butter @ 2% load versus Petrolatum @ 5% load?
You would think the more appropriate test would be Moringa Butter versus Petrolatum, both at 5% load. And, then show the quantity of Moringa Butter that performs as effectively as 5% Petrolatum … which presumably is somewhere around 3% or so.
The only logic I can think of is that 2% Moringa Butter costs about as much as 5% Petrolatum.
-
You might want to re-think your formulation. What are you really gaining by including 1% Ascorbic Acid in a cleanser? Not much, if anything at all.
50% Glycerin? … that must be one really nasty cleanser to use.
Why not just add some kakadu plum extract and be done with the ascorbic acid and glycerin. Or, sodium ascorbyl phosphate … you would have a better pH match with your surfactant blend.
-
I don’t think you will ever find a study that will “support” the tear free claim … this is really more appropriately a “non-irritating” claim … but, when you’re eyes are subjected to an irritant, you tear to wash the irritant from the eyes. It’s really only a matter of your test panel noticed irritancy, stinging, burning and tearing and to what degree or not.
Rabbits, btw, do not have tear ducts … so they never were a good model. The type of test used depends on the type of product you’re developing.
-
I’m surprised that anyone is still using the Draize Test (and methodology - animal testing) for tear-free claims. Most are now done on human volunteers and evaluated by participant responses and ophthalmologist evaluation.
-
There’s only one way to know … make a batch and have a test panel use it to see if performs the way you want it to. I suspect “a little dab will do you” to quote an old hair products commercial.
-
Yes, a Sucragel gelled oil will wash off quite easily in water. In fact, that’s one of the interesting attributes of Sucragel Gelled Oil formulations … as soon as they come into contact with water, the gel immediately “milks” and becomes water-thin and rinses off quite readily.
What you are proposing would be no more sticky than a pomade, but it may not have much hold/styling power and, as noted, would probably weigh-down the hair
-
Why don’t you try a mixture of 1,3-Propanediol and Glycerin.
-
Concur with Perry … to get good foaming action from a foaming pump, it will need to be water-thin. I’ve used Decyl Glucoside on several foaming products with success.
-
Probably not since the pH is so low … should be around 2.0 to 2.5
-
You might try Hydrogenated Lanolin. There are other natural Petrolatum alternatives.
-
To further clarify my point … there are bacteriostats/fungistats that allow for a “preservative free” claim … just because a product is claimed to be “preservative free” does not necessarily mean that the product does not contain non-traditional ingredients the effectively function as preservatives.
Zeastat™ INOLEX Incorporated - Supply Chain Info
-
INCI Name:
CaprylhydroxamicAcid (and) Propanediol
Zeastat™ is a complete system for preservative-free cosmetic and personal care products. Zeastat™ contains no biocides or typical preservatives. Instead it uses multifunctional agents that have excellent efficacy as biostatic and fungistatic agents. Zeastat™ is ideal for personal care products where a paraben-free or preservative-free claim is needed. -
“Preservative Free” is just a marketing claim … generally, all it means is that the product does not contain a traditional listed preservative, not that is does not contain any ingredients whatsoever that provide for preservation.
-
Two points:
(1) This is an anhydrous emulsified clay, so you really don’t need the Polysorbate 80, nor any other solubilizer. If it were not emulsified, then the Polysorbate 80 would be helpful in “binding” the product so you don’t have a film of liquid seeping out of the concoction.
(2) You probably can get away without using a preservative, but if it’s going to be in an open jar and consumers will dip their fingers into the jar to scoop out product, you will introduce water and could get contamination. So, there is no downside to adding a preservative. Best to take the precaution and add a preservative.
-
You can dissolve allantoin in water at approximately 50C to 55C without any additional solvents at up to 0.5%.
-
As mentioned earlier, the LexFeel series might work for you. Or, you can try Isoamyl Laurate.
-
You won’t be able to pour much below 40C, so drop in the EO’s between 45 and 42C, stir and pour.
-
It all depends on what you are trying to achieve:
Certain oils are “dry” oils that absorb rapidly giving a better sensorial.
Certain oils contribute a natural SPF so you would selectively use these oils for sunscreens.
Other oils have a fatty acid profile that closely resembles human sebum.
And, there is a finite universe of carrier oils that you can use, so pick your carrier oil combinations to best achieve your objectives.
-
The simple answer to your question is “No” … Studies done several decades ago on rabbit ears and there is no correlation between the assigned comedogenicity value assigned an individual ingredient and the comedogenicity of the finished product.
You would think that someone, somewhere would update the comedogenicity scales using human subjects.
Now, if you are developing cosmetics for rabbit ears, yes, they are accurate.
-
Yes, I have encountered that too. Had a product that performed well in stability testing and on-the-shelf testing at my lab. But, when I would send it to the client in California, the gel would shrink. We tried several different types of packaging … damned thing shrank every time it got to California.
-
I have also lived in Europe, so I understand your commentary about air conditioning as I lived without it during the years I lived there … as I mentioned, this is not a position that is relevant for all geographies.
Color cosmetics … I generally consider skin care products and color cosmetics in completely different categories … my comments were intended to be relevant to skin care / hair care products.
-
Well, let me offer this perspective … if you need a product shelf life of longer than one year … you have a sales & marketing problem, more than you have a product stability problem.
-
Here are the main ceramide components of Evonik’s SK Influx:
Ceramide 3; Ceramide 6 II; Ceramide 1;
Phytosphingosine -
That’s part of my point, Perry. Preservative Challenge Testing ensures safety, but whether a cream breaks down or not is not really related to safety, but to usability. So, if the product is a pass on PCT and holds up for predictive of 1 year shelf life …
I seriously doubt that many consumer products are exposed to temperatures much above 80F throughout their life of use, except for perhaps sunscreens and things people may leave in their car. Otherwise, they are all used indoors, generally under temperature controlled conditions. Now, in less developed countries, it’s a different story.
The question is more along the lines of: Are the testing protocols that were developed for a different era still valuable/necessary testing protocols in a more advanced era where a lot of the conditions that were being controlled for no longer exist for the most part.