MarkBroussard
Forum Replies Created
-
Isoamyl Laurate
-
LOL! … “Flaming Lipsticks” … when I first saw the title to this post, the first thought that came to mind was “OMG, is someone actually inquiring about formulating a lipstick that you can set on fire”
-
Yes, both would be considered natural. No, I would stick with the Xanthan Clear, it is by far the easiest Xanthan I have ever worked with. I am not particularly fond of using HEC, I don’t find it be a particularly effective thickener. A couple of other options you might consider would be locust bean or guar. Xanthan will be your least expensive, most readily available option.
-
You can try hydroxyethylcellulose. My recommendation would be Xanthan Gum ( Xanthan Clear … you can purchase smallish quantities from LotionCrafter.com ). For larger quantities, it’s Keltrol CG-T from CP Kelco … MOQ is 25 kg. It hydrates very quickly and yields a crystal clear solution. Use at about 0.3% to 0.5% for a roll-on type application should give you enough viscosity so it does not leak, but will not considerably alter your skin sensorial.
-
This is a really difficult formulation for someone without quite a bit of experience. I would suggest you make your life easier and formulate a straightforward shampoo with effective A/D actives and forget about a cream-type shampoo formulation.
-
Yes, you are correct … Waterglass is the proper variant of Sodium Silicate to use in these types of formulations, but it is quite alkaline. I would not put it on my skin, particularly in the under-eye area without adjusting the pH to slightly acidic.
-
Throw some Sodium Lactate into your Phase 1 … perhaps 3% or so. That usually helps Ferulic Acid stay in solution.
-
@EliseCortes:
Yes, I recently got roped into a shop on Lincoln Road in Miami … Adore Cosmetics … really hard sell tactics … tried to sell me an anti-wrinkle kit with Stem Cells for $2,000 that I could make myself for $20 or so.
These practitioners pray on passerby. I feel sorry for the people who get duped into making a purchase.
-
Actually, the Sodium Silicate is the film former in these formulations. You can supplement with additional film formers, but they’re really not necessary.
And, there isn’t a “cosmetic” grade of Sodium Silicate except for one which are beads meant as a replacement for polymer beads in liquid cleansers.
-
@EliseCortes:
LOL! … Seriously, $1,200! … from the ad copy “This innovative product is the ultimate tool”
They certainly got the ad copy right … only the “ultimate tool” would pay $1,200 for a products whose effect lasts perhaps 6 hours.
-
It’s very commonly used in the Oil Industry as drilling fluid. But, then there are quite a few ingredients that have both cosmetic and industrial uses.
-
e-mail me at: mark.broussard@desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
I’ll see what I can do to help you out.
-
Sure, no problem. I made one product like this for a client and don’t expect to make any other unless the money is good enough … just not something I am interested in, but I will be happy to share with you what I know.
-
Yes, the pH is high, but the trick is as you acidify to reduce the pH it forms a gel and functions as a thickener. I personally don’t like these types of products as the effect is a complete optical illusion with no long-term benefit. But, dropping the pH is the key.
-
What he means is: “I’m a government official and I will not commit to you in writing any specific protocol as it is a function of the particular product you are manufacturing”
You need to evaluate the risk of microbial contamination and your testing protocol on a product-by-product basis. Some formulations may be more susceptible to microbial contamination than others based on the ingredients, final pH of the product, etc.
Based on your experience to date with the formulas you are manufacturing … study the history of each and see which ones have failed your plate count tests or have been marginal. You may have a more rigid protocol for those formulas that others.
-
Super low molecular weight Hyaluronic Acid does indeed penetrate the dermis. Higher molecular weight HA will not, so if the SLMW HA is complexed with nano diamonds, it could possibly enhance the delivery. But, since SLMW HA penetrates on its own, there would seem to be little point in incurring the expense of complexing it with nanoparticles.
@greensara: You’re probably delving into the territory where cosmetic actives complexed with nano diamond could be classified by the FDA as a cosmetic and a drug.
-
You should be fine with 1% … Tocopherol is quite sticky, so the skin sensorials above 1% might get rather unpleasant. There are 3 types, Tocopherol Acetate, Mixed Tocopherols and Tocotrienols. I generally prefer Tocotrienols. You can purchase from J Edwards Intl.
-
Have you considered doing microbial strip testing on each and every batch as a quick in-house test and then outsourcing perhaps every 3rd batch of a product?
The strip tests from Schuelke & Mayr are going to be sufficient as an indicator as to whether there is any microbial contamination and whether or not a USP 61 is required. All you need are the strips and a small incubator.
-
Why not include water and perhaps use an Emulsifying Wax comprised of Carnauba Wax, Lecithin, Candellila Wax to supplement the Palmitic Acid.
-
Since the Oils (not the essential oils) are listed before any of the extracts, you can pretty well assume that the quantity of each extract is minuscule since the LOI does not include a solubilizer to get those oils into solution, they are relying solely on the Soaps to do so. You’re not going to get much oil in solution using only the soaps as solubilizers.
When I see a LOI like this it generally indicates that someone did not know what exactly they wanted their product to do so they just threw everything in there that they could think of. Some of those extracts might be includes at 0.1% or less.
-
You can always ask your ingredient suppliers for a compositional analysis of their product … that information is generally readily available and they are usually more than happy to provide it to you.
-
@zwapp:
“False Wrongs” and “False Rights” … do you work in the Trump Administration? … LOL!
-
If you’re astounded by the variations in CCT … Take a look at the INCI Emulsifying Wax … you’ll find Emulsifying Waxes with completely different ingredient compositions that all have the same INCI.
-
I’m sure there are other ingredients with the same INCI that will have different HLB numbers depending on the raw material source, the processing, etc. as @johnb pointed out.
I think it’s important to also point out that HLB is a relative scale and in cosmetics, it’s not really something that needs to be that precise.
If you’re working on a topical drug delivery then of course it’s going to be a much more critical factor than a cosmetic cream.
-
To clarify something that @Bill_Toge posted, so there is no confusion.
The required HLB for an oil, say CCT with an HLB of 5, is going to be constant regardless of the type of emulsion you are making, O/W or W/O. That CCT will have an HLB of 5 under any circumstances.
If you are making an O/W emulsion, the general HLB range of O/W emulsions is 8-15, so to make an O/W emulsion using CCT, you would use a grade of CCT with an HLB of 11 and appropriate emulsifiers.
If you are making a W/O emulsion, the general HLB range of W/O emulsions is 3-6, so so make a W/O emulsion using CCT, you would use a grade of CCT with an HLB of 5 and appropriate emulsifiers.
You would want to match the grade of the CCT so its HLB is in the range of the type of emulsion you want to make.