Microformulation
Forum Replies Created
-
Not my favorite emulsifier, Igepal CO-530. More common in Industrial uses.What they are describing is a micro emulsion using a surfactant. Sonimech is pushing this technology to my CBD clients. It would be unusually expensive and unnecessary in this case.I would suggest that you do a short course/review on silicones. Tony O’Lenick (Siltech) has several online. Silicones are a large group encompassing materials with varied different molecular structures (linear, cyclic, etc.) We tend to over simplify the class. I believe in this case you will find that there are more appropriate silicones of other sub-classes.Dimethicone will definitely kill your foam. Before you proceed, remember that the consumer has certain expectations in a shampoo, one being foam, This product would likely miss this benchmark. -
@Belassi Good advice once again. Too few people look at what the market will pay for a product. They feel that they will sell without regard to cost, since they are “natural.” If they do a marketing study, they will find that even the “natural” versions are within those constraints. I get requests foir revisions last minute all the time “I know you said it would be expensive if we did “x”, but now it is too expensive to make…”
-
Another great preservative system that is also extremely Process dependent. Without good cGMP these are really “unknowns” which should be tested as you did. I just imagine that there are an incredible amount of products on the market that use these products and do not test. PET failures waiting to be tested.
-
Leucidal Complete already has the AMTCide incorporated.Based upon the positioning of the product in a “naturally compliant” market, EDTA was off limits. We used Dermofeel PA-3.If a DIYer or Hobbyist uses these “natural preservatives”, they must take extra care. cGMP, Cleaning and Sanitation are crucial. As David Steinberg once told me, “The best preservative is good cGMP.”
-
Leucidal SF has proven to be ineffective. AMT has added the Coconut AMTCide to the product and the combination is Leucidal Complete. It still has some gaps in yeast/mold coverage. It also needs to be used as part of a hurdle technique and the final Formulation should be sent off for PET (Challenge Testing). Interestingly enough I worked on a project with the AMT Technical Department and we saw increased coverage with a chelant as well.
-
Belassi said:Do NOT try to compete with brand leaders in low-priced products. They have economies of scale that make your source costs look crazy.
That might be some of the best advice you ever get. Know your market.
-
@Daniel3359 What is your SPF active?
-
Yes, but to hit on the root issue, when the MAJORITY of lines promote that they are “natural,” they are not referencing a standard, nor are they in many cases even defining the term either “internally” or by following such a standard. Many lines will meet a murky marketing driven “feeling” of what “natural” should mean. In these lines you will often see some cases here and there where they use a raw material not allowed under any credible third party standard (EWax) or a “nature identical product” while declaring confidently to be “100% natural.”As a Formulator, this is a barrier to clear R&D which we have to overcome. When the client and I have a clear standard under which to work, we are able to quickly vet raw materials.I am a HUGE supporter of the standards. You allude to the dangers of “false advertising” and I would add the FTC Green Guides to a required reading list as well. However many clients, especially start-ups will sometimes have a harder time producing under the NSF and/or USDA NOP Standards. Raw material compliance is easy, it is sourcing the certified manufacturers which adds to the costs. In addition, I don’t believe that any standard has really been successful in gaining any real market recognition. Inside of our small group we have all heard of these standards, but has the typical consumer? In this case the client will define a credible standard in their “story.” Something such as “XYZ Cosmetics avoids the use of {the raw materials with strong market bias} AND uses plant-based materials minimally processed to produce safe and effective products.” As far as what “minimally processed” is, I would reference the COSMOS Standard’s Appendix’s as one of the best objective standards. You need to introduce “naturally occurring minerals” to the standard if you do Sunscreens and Color Cosmetics. I know this is not a perfect “internal” standard, but it is exponentially better than the non-defined “marketing” standard.Lastly, I see many lines which are arguably start-ups or emerging lines. I see them look at natural and they feel that their poorly defined standard will make them natural. In turn, being “natural” will set them apart from the rest of the market. Keep in mind that in the emerging markets which many of these lines will sell, EVERYONE is “natural.” It is more of a requirement than a defining advantage. You will be successful based upon looking at performance/safety, great marketing (!!!!) and retail price/profits as well. It is not one dimensional.
-
You would need to post the entire Formula in order for anyone to really weigh-in. For example, your E Wax level seems high and oftentimes this is used as a standalone emulsifier as it is easy to use, common in DIY/Crafter Formulations and readily available through retail sources. It is not a favorite of many and I urge you to continue to look at other emulsification systems.The HLB System has some benefit, but it isn’t the end all be all. Learn it and use it, but don’t miss the fact that you will really have to “prove” the emulsification system in the lab. If you read about the HLB System, it is really meant for specific and limited emulsifiers. Ewax for example is usually calculated based upon your oil phase percentage. Newer “naturally compliant” emulsifiers also do not follow the HLB System.
-
I don’t think that there is really a bias against “natural” as much as there is confusion about what “natural” means, but that is an entire thread in and of itself.It is possible to preserve a Product in a way that is “naturally compliant” but it really requires using the “Hurdle Approach” as well ensuring that your Production facility follows rigorous cleaning and handling SOP’s. See page 25 of this pdf; http://www.midwestscc.org/blog2/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Jan2012CurrentTrendsinCosmeticPreservation.pdfIn the end remember that the ONLY way to be 100% confident in your Preservative System, DO TESTING! Get Challenge Testing.
-
How is Emulsifying Wax, NF “natural?”
-
1. I truly believe that you need to re-examine the emulsification system. 2. Other than that, I agree with @Belassi that you also have a process (manufacturing) issue. What are you using to mix, heat, monitor heat and check pH?
-
I recall that we used a component that did pre-mix the solutions, but it was with rather low viscosities. I remember the product because the packaging was easy to get, but the filling was a pain. It had to be addressed in the QA/QC SOP’s as well as the filling records. Essentially it was two separate fill stations.
-
Remember, certain grades of Carbomer are better suited for clarity. Lubrizol covers clarity in their knowledge bases. As far as Disodium EDTA, I have never had an issue with carbomers and I have used quite a few.
-
Usually your Regulatory Agency (for example, the FDA in the US) will designate materials as being Safe and Effective. In the EU they have a banned materials list. As such, it is more f a Regulatory issue and not really a Supplier issue.
-
That component already exists. I have worked on several products using two chambers such as that. I believe that we purchased them from ABA Packaging in the US.
-
You would need to post your entire Formula, as each material potentially has some effect.
-
Sodium Chloride USP is iodide free and flow modifier free. It only allows the presence of Na Cl. It is easilly obtained and as such there is little reason to use table salt, especially if you want to be technically accurate.
-
Water Activity (Aw) must be measured (the equipment is uncommon), it can not be extrapolated. It is not as one-dimensional as simply water percentage in the Formula. Also, like any preservative system (as has previously been stated) it must be proven with testing.
-
Ok, that is a different story. They should have invoiced you at the start. It prevents these issues. The real question is are you a large enough of an account to exert any pressure on the CM? In most cases the answer is usually no.
-
While the Science can be disputed, here is where the Cosmetic Market is different. Is the Science valid? Meh, who knows. But, does a need exist? I think you are making a case for it.I draw an analogy to Gluten-free. We could debate the Science (there are old threads, lets leave it to that) all day, but there is a demand. How hard is it to formulate Gluten free? Not hard at all.Here I think you will have a harder time. Palm and Coconut are primary feedstock (initial material in a reaction) in many Cosmetic materials. I would simply suggest that you decide how conservative you are. For example, phenoxyethanol being “coconut derived” is a false equivalency as in the final raw materail you have only the phenoxyethanol in solute, neither of which would have a coconut complement.
-
Did you mean Xanthan gum?
-
So, your assertion is that they are allergic to any raw material that starts as Coconut or Palm feedstock? (initial materials of the reaction). Reports of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated coconut allergy are rare and
only a handful of cases have been reported in the literature in adults
and children. ost bias I have heard against Palm was due to sustainability, a concern that has been partially dealt with through the RSPO. -
So, they changed their pricing? The old PO reflects the old pricing?CM’s and Consultants will review their pricing structures every year and it is not uncommon for them to sometimes raise prices, especially if they are far below market prices. While not a great practice, it is their right.For example, last week I was contacted by a client from several years ago. In that time my prices have risen. I did not honor a 4 year old price quote.Ultimately you might have to use a different CM. Have you addressed this with your Sales Person?