Microformulation
Forum Replies Created
-
Did you get a passing PET in a water-based gel through testing or is this based upon manufacturer supplied testing results?
-
Do we really believe that they are “using nano-technology to penetrate the epidermis” by “shrinking the collagen molecule?”I have done many sunscreens also and in the case of Zinc oxide, we are arguably dealing with nano-particles with some products but not in this case.
-
“I would increase the skepticism. I just looked at their “Reviews” where you have to input a name - yet all reviewers decided to go with a full name some including middle names or abbreviations - in addition, all 39 are 5 stars, seems off to me.”This is a great observation by @Sibech, that being to be wary of reviews. I have personally sat through a meeting where the Marketing people were openly challenging the staff to get all their Facebook friends to put-up positive reviews. I see these clusters of reviews all the time. Similar names and close dates. Not a single negative review.So when a client pushes a bad product with the statement, “It gets great reviews”, I am hardly impressed.Lastly, I agree. If you want to practice Cosmetic Science, it helps to act and research like a Scientist.WOW! I just went back and read the “Science.” They state, ” Collagen Rx Plus uses Nano Technology to shrink the Collagen Molecule so it can easily be absorbed into the skin.”Honey, I shrunk the Collagen!
-
As @MarkBroussard pointed out, the lower molecular weight forms will penetrate slightly more. They do cost more and keep in mind that unlike the standard Regular Molecular weight, they contribute less to the thickening of the product.All this is NOT nanotechnology though.
-
If you read about baby shampoos, the tear free benefit is not linked to sulfate free or even pH at 7. It is the selection of the surfactants that being amphoteric surfactants. Here is a great summation from the Beauty Brains webcast; http://thebeautybrains.com/2010/06/how-is-baby-shampoo-different/
-
Thank you, Doreen. Yes, it is naturally derived, but what other real advantages would this have over a purified Calcium carbonate?
-
@ngarayeva001 What testing did you perform to get an oddly specific refrigerated shelf life of “7-8 weeks?”Honestly, again getting fixated on the L-ascorbic acid vice one of the more stable derivatives is a huge compromise if stability.
-
This is honestly a board for persons producing Cosmetic products and less about suggesting products for an incident and inadvertently giving Medical advice. I would call the clinic that did the procedure and seek their guidance.
-
@DTDang I disagree wholeheartedly. “Natural ingredients such as rosehip oil, turmeric extract, the natural ingredients are extracted from herbs or botanicals, etc……”, “chemical ingredients are from petroleum or made from labs (synthetic).” is entirely incorrect that first you are redefining a hundred(s) year old established term accepted by million unilaterally because you think it works better with your naturalistic fallacy. You will need to look at what this term really means and ask why you feel it means differently. Ultimately the bulk of us are Scientists and I doubt any one of these contributors can support your fallacy.
-
What kind of ingredients are not chemicals?
-
They have a link above to these sources.
-
Yes, Schulke will do the testing if you use their product. Contact them or your rep for the shipping details.
-
I used the product once for a very similar product. What I recall most is that it was a very process dependent Formulation.As @@Bill_Toge pointed out, we had a thread on this topic months ago.
-
That is a pretty basic question. Generally, we see Glycerin used. However, you can buy Ethylhexylglycerin separately (Sensiva SC50) to use as well. Essentially an elegant Formulator will also use this as an opportunity to increase the moisturization as well. I use a lot of Glycerin/Zemea and Glucam (Lubrizol) for this shared function.What glycols do you have in stock?
-
It is a case where the process (procedure with proper equipment) is crucial. If there is an upside, I have seen that it is much less an issue in larger manufacturing batches.So, it will be a challenge until you invest in the proper blade and ensure you have a good overhead variable speed mixer.
-
I would contact the NY Chapter of the SCC for some initial guidance. https://www.scconline.org/portfolio-view/new-york/
-
If you find who their rep is in your area, they will sample.
-
I have found that by selecting the proper mixing blade and the proper speed (minimize aeration), you can practically eliminate this aeration issue.
-
Keep in mind that Schulke recommends that you use PE9010 with a chelant.In addition to that, I would look at using a Glycol to decrease water activity.What is your packaging? The more secure the packaging the better. Jars are the worst on that spectrum.Lastly, examine you lab procedures. You should be mirroring the cGMP standards that exist in a credible manufacturer with your own cGLP sop’s.As someone, I greatly respect said, “The best preservative is ultimately good cGMP.”You have a leave-on product. As such be sure to look at appropriate levels for a leave-on product. Simply increasing to 1% may put you over those limits.
-
While holding my coffee in one hand and typing with the other, it took me all of 3 minutes to find a sample W/O starting Formula where the water is at 73.5% yet it is still a Water in Oil Emulsion. If you search the Forum, I can recall at least one thread regarding the fallacy of using the water to qualify the type of emulsion. Making a W/O emulsion is harder but there are NUMEROUS emulsifiers for this purpose AND you can even use the HLB to create a W/O emulsion. As for documents, there are far too many to cite.
-
I was about to respond, but honestly, @Perry answered it more elegantly than I could have.There are some fallacies that MUST be overcome if you want to be an effective Formulator.
- The fact that a product is “natural’ (it is an undefined useless marketing term with no technical definition) does not mean that it is safer. This is a Marketing fallacy, Safety has no link to the source of the material. This is chemophobia.
- Natural products do not work better always. This is the naturalistic fallacy. A smart Formulator looks at the claim or property he is trying deliver, considers the Marketing as a guide and then selects the best material he feels can deliver this claim.
As Perry pointed out, the final Formulation is an elegant product that supersedes that target fixation of “natural” and performs as a whole. There are much larger concerns than “natural.” In fact, the one-dimensional “natural;” marketing strategy of 2005 (I was doing these products then) is outmoded. The general feeling is that we are evolving to a LOHAS Market. (Read up on that.)
Lastly, this is a Cosmetic Science Forum. Saying that Grapeseed Oil treats acne is absolutely false and a claim that can not be made. From a Formulators standpoint, Grapeseed Oil is one of the most oxidatively unstable oils available and using it in a product could have an adverse effect on shelf life. Stability Testing would show the extent of this negative effect.Cosmetic Science is…a Scientific pursuit whose beauty and elegance derives (for me) in its objectivity, the Scientific method of critical thinking and experimentation. -
Good Lord. The naturalistic fallacy is strong in this post.
-
Honestly, you can’t say an emulsion is O/W or W/O based on a percentage of net water. You must see the entire Formula as there are ways to make high internal water phases. It is not so simple.
-
If you read the documentation and look at the sample Formulations, Yes, it can be used in a hot process.
-
Try Sepimax Zen. It has worked well for us in some high electrolyte Formulations.
