MarkBroussard
Forum Replies Created
-
I have used both preservatives you mentioned, but not combined together. While I don’t have lots of confidence in the Leucidal series of preservatives, when I combine Leucidal SF Complete (3%) with Zemea Propanediol (3%) and Phytic Acid (.1%) it did pass PCT.
You might want to consider adding a Chelating Agent (Phytic Acid) and 1,3-Propanediol to your brew to help boost the preservative efficacy.
With Dissolvine GL-47 (tetrasodium glutamate diacetate) as the chelant, you get a 50% boost in preservative efficacy with Gluconolactone+Sodium Benzoate, so that would be another option.
-
Just my personal perspective, but Retinal is a non-starter for me as an ingredients for a variety of reasons … high cost, supply from China, stability issues. I have not dealt with the powder, but I suspect it is oil-soluble not water-soluble, but I could be wrong on that specific point
-
You’re going to have to source Retinal from China if you want it in bulk.
-
Some Guars require a certain pH to “activate” and you usually get better results with heat.
Check the specs and manufacturer’s recommended formulation guidelines.
Yes, you can make slurry with Glycerin & Guar … easier to disperse that way.
As noted above, Xanthan and Guar are generally not compatible and will precipitate out.
-
No, that’s on the heavy side on the HS60 … you would only need to add that at 4% to 5%. Sodium Cocoamphoacetate @ 6%, Sodium Cocoyl Methyl Taurate 10% and the remained Glucosides
-
The Glucosides are notoriously difficult to thicken … they seem to not respond to anything other than Gums. But, if you throw in some Sodium Cocoyl Methyl Taurate, Sodium Cocoamphoacetate and Antil HS 60 (Cocamidopropyl Betaine + Glyceryl Laurate) you can get some decent viscosity out of a Glucosides formula.
-
You don’t have to worry about “safe” ratio of Lactic Acid to Sodium Lactate. Adding Sodium Lactate to your peel product will impart all of the benefits you have indicated, but the major effect from a formulation perspective will be that Sodium Lactate will raise the pH.
If this is a consumer peel products, in the US, the pH should be 3.5 or higher. So, the answer to your question is that you should add as much Sodium Lactate (the sodium salt of Lactic Acid) in sufficient quantity to raise your pH to 3.5.
-
I really don’t think you need to calculate the buffering effect. Simply add L-Lactic Acid @ 5% and use Sodium Lactate (the sodium salt of Lactic Acid) to adjust the pH to 3.85 which is the pKa of Lactic Acid.
-
Try Phytic Acid (Dermofeel PA) from Dr. Straetmans. It has some benefits for dental formulations.
-
“Another way to phrase the question - how big do you need to be before you really need insurance?”
If you manufacture/sell skin care products that consumer put on their skin, you’d best have insurance, even if you are small. It is simply a prudent business decision, and as Perry pointed out, without insurance many distribution channels will not even think of carrying your products.
As I mentioned, one of my clients was threatened with a lawsuit with the claim that the consumer suffered burns from a Hyaluronic Acid serum … that’s like claiming you were burned by water. But, the consumer saw “Acid” was in the product and there you go … a potential lawsuit over something that is simply impossible to have occurred.
@Gunther: The cost of product liability insurance depends on the product and it’s likelihood of causing adverse reactions. An AHA-containing product will cost more to insure than an all-natural moisturizer for instance.
-
Define “reasonable budget” … they type of work you are looking for is generally quite pricey.
-
Any person with a lawyer can sue anyone at anytime over virtually anything. Obviously, you have already have made up your mind that you don’t want to get insurance and are looking for some reason/comfort to justify your decision.
So, here you go: No, you don’t need insurance. I, for one, have never, ever heard of consumers suing a small skincare company because consumers know they’re likely to get stuck with a lawyers bill and no money. And, on top of that you won’t get ruined. Don’t waste your money buying product liability insurance.
-
I have a client who was threatened with a lawsuit by a consumer who claimed they were “burned” by my client’s Hyaluronic Acid Serum … the product only contained Water, Sodium Hyaluronate & Preservative.
The answer to you question is: Anyone who can convince a lawyer to file suit against you, may do just that … the attorney’s figure that you have product liability insurance on your products and they’re looking for money from the insurance claim more than damages if you are a small firm.
-
Dr. Pratt … perhaps you are new here. But, the protocol is that formulation service providers are to not hawk their services in discussion threads.
It is particularly annoying to click on a thread only to find that it is an old (ie: “dead … no longer current”) thread that you have bumped from a year ago to advertise your services.
Please refrain from doing this in the discussion threads. Just e-mail the poster directly if you want to offer them your services.
-
Highly unlikely that just changing fragrance would cause a fail on a PCT, but your best bet from a legal liability perspective would be to do the PCT on the formula revised with the new fragrance and charge-off the cost to the client requesting the fragrance change.
Why take the risk for the sake of saving $500? … If the delay in getting into production is the issue, make one batch to get the client going, do a plate count on the batch and cull out a sample to send for PCT.
-
Correct Gunther. Regulatory bodies typically do not conduct scientific testing on a cosmetic formula to confirm the ingredients … way too expense and unnecessary. They will only undertake an investigation if there are multiple complaints against a manufacturer. Such adulteration could only occur if the company does its own manufacturing or is in cahoots with its contract manufacturer.
In this case, it would be one person complaining that the product actually works … so something MUST be wrong! … SMH!
-
This whole conversation is quite a bit unhinged … calling regulatory authorities because a product actually works, but is all natural, therefore it must be adulterated?! … Seriously?
The effective moisturizing ingredients in this formula are glycerin, shea butter, cocoa butter (No, Shea + Cocoa is not drying to the skin. In fact, it is a classic combination used in most natural moisturizing products). The tea tree oil may provide some antimicrobial effect.
I would suspect that the glycerin is included at a quite high percentage and this is the main moisturizing ingredient.
This is a fairly straightforward moisturizer formula, very similar to Palmers (also based in the UK that is a drug-store brand that consistently wins in blind testing against much more expensive brands as best moisturizer). It is simply a good combination of ingredients that work.
Since this product is made in the UK, it would have had to have undergone a Safety Assessment by an independent third-party professional and registered with the EU for sale. Anything is possible, but highly unlikely that the company would risk their reputation and lawsuits by adulterating their products.
-
The pearlizing agent in Euperlan is Glycol Distearate. I am assuming that your surfactant mix is clear, transparent before you add the pearlizing agent. If you want a solid white pearlized product, just add 1% Sucrose Stearate ( Sisterna SP70-C ) to the water phase … it will make your aqueous phase solid white without increasing the thickness. You will then have a pearlized solid white product.
-
Pearlizers are dispersible in surfactant systems, but not soluble which creates the “swirl” effect. To reiterate the comments above … sounds normal and like your pearlizer is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
-
If your preservative is not working, you should see some microbial growth on a test strip within 72 hours or so. For a $400 investment, it is well worth it.
I use Schuelke test strips and find that they are excellent predictors of a pass/fail on a PCT. Look at it this way … if using microbial test strips saves you from only one failed PCT, that savings covers the cost of your incubator.
-
I’m a degreed Microbiologist and formulator and I would not conceive of ever trying to do my own in-house challenge testing. This is from both a business/product liability and practical perspective. It simply is not practical and I suspect way beyond your technical capabilities to set up for in-house challenge testing (no offense intended)
As Mark noted above, send your products out to a professional laboratory for Preservative Challenge Testing (reduces your liability) and when you’re making production batches, use microbial test strips as an internal check, coupled with plate count tests performed by a third party lab.
Product Stability Testing: Simply buy an inexpensive oven for elevated temperature and use your home freezer for freeze/thaw testing.
-
@MJL:
Panthenol in a water-based serum is going to be sticky at anything above 1% … it will absorb into the skin fairly quickly, but you will have a sticky residual sensorial for a couple of minutes or so before it fully absorbs.
The question you should ask yourself is: Does 5% Panthenol provide any substantial benefits over 1% Panthenol relative to the additional cost and sticky sensorial?
In this particular formula, the 1% hyaluronic acid will give a “slippery” feel that may mute the sticky feel of the Panthenol somewhat. It is also a function of the type of hyaluronic acid you are using. If it is a mid-range molecular weight hyaluronic acid (800-1200 kDa) or greater, this will be a very viscous serum at 1% hyaluronic acid.
I think you would get substantially the same results as your reference formula using 1% Panthenol and 0.5% hyaluronic acid.
-
Dr. Oz … he was hauled before the US Senate not too long ago and forced to address the issue that he often never tests or personally uses the products he hawks on TV or the info he gives out on his show.
He’s a TV Quacktitioner on par with “Dr. Phil.”
He’s called Dr. Oz because there’s nothing behind the curtain! … LOL!
But, getting on his show can give you lots of exposure … which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
-
No offense taken, Perry. I ‘m just pointing out that you can’t judge a book by its cover.
Dr. Grunderman may have been paid as a consultant to compile all of the available scientific information on Aloe Vera for the journal. He does not appear to be peddling in woo, he just compiled the information from what I can tell. You will note that his conclusion is that there is no valid scientific evidence to support that Aloe Vera has any significant effect which is exactly the same conclusion reached by your source of information.
-
“@MarkBroussard provided a link to a journal that purportedly was reviewing the literature for the effects of aloe vera. It’s very thorough, unfortunately, the journal he cites is the official journal of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. Nautropathy is not science. It’s voodoo fairy tale stuff and a total scam. They are not a credible source for rigorous scientific information.”
I’ll take issue with this comment:
Here are the credential of the author of the review on Aloe Vera:
Oliver Grundmann, BPharm, MS, PhD, is a clinical assistant professor at the University of Florida in the Department of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy.
In his review, which is very thorough, he cites approximately 120 published articles from a wide variety of journals.Just because it is published in the Naturopathic Journal is not by any means indicative that the information in his review is not scientifically credible.
That may be the Argument From I Didn’t Actually Read The Article