Microformulation
Forum Replies Created
-
Pepsi?
-
-
@”Dr Catherine Pratt” This really reflects the lack of a legal definition for the word “natural” in the US, the Marketing misconceptions that arise from the lack of a definition and also the impact on R&D when you proceed without a definition.Here in the US when you are “natural”, your standard can vary greatly. Either you deliver “natural” by adding a whiff of botanicals to a mainstream product (greenwashing) or your client is operating from a deeply held chemophobia/naturalistic fallacy that will cause them to limit the raw material choices in such a restrictive manner that performance will be muted. You would think that the market would slowly evolve the standard to mean something objective, but that has yet to happen.In addition, on a daily basis, I am approached by clients who will lead with “I want my product to be natural.” When I challenge them with the question, “What do you mean by natural?” The clients will believe that it is a defined term and they will counter with. “You know, natural!” Now, in general, many of these clients who lead with this vague standard have derived their definition of “natural” on Marketing terms alone or unfortunately from unqualified sources such as online blogs or discussion groups. As a Formulator one of my first tasks is to work with the client to refine the definition or to work under a natural standard. If you don’t do so, you are really trying to formulate with a shifting standard or to hit a moving target. Every Formulator has seen this effect. I personally have had to deal with a harried client who has spent time in a blog and now wants to know if Glycerin “is really natural?” Or “that doesn’t sound natural.” And this can continue far after you have an approved product and I have even seen it occur after labels and materials have been ordered by the manufacturer. When you proactively define the term, you can lock in the Product Development and avoid greatly facilitate the process.In this Forum, it is also dangerous. Now, we have numerous Industry Professionals, people with Technical Training gaining experience in the Industry and people who are really lost in regards to what “natural” means and when discussing a natural product even we may not be on the same page. You could contribute your input and the other person in may have a totally different idea of “natural.” For example, once a poster was working with the standard that the organic acids were not “natural” since the raw materials were synthesized in the lab but are nature identical. I think that we as Scientists should demand that the term begin to develop an objective and consistent standard.So, with my clients we either a. follow and comply with a Natural standard or b. define the term internally. We may develop a “Natural Materials Standard” such as “XYZ Cosmetics avoids the use of parabens, formaldehyde donors…..AND uses plant-based materials minimally processed to produce safe and effective products. (Note: with sunscreens, color cosmetics and some other products you may need to add “naturally occurring minerals minimally processed.). The materials are “minimally processed” since for example, we can agree that a Botanical Extract would be extracted and standardized or “concentrated” to be used. It is changed in form, but not in structure. COSMOS has a great objective standard on the allowable processes. In addition, one of your fellow countrypersons, Belinda Carli does a great video on her Youtube channel on the processing. Perry has also done several videos as well.So (finally), in summary, I will avoid the undefined term “natural” with clients to facilitate the process and with colleagues in order to further the Scientific process. While they are also still not universally accepted, I use the term “naturally compliant” to discuss a product that follows a standard be it an existing third-party standard or even a lucidly defined term as above. If a raw material is “natural”, I will use the new “naturally derived.” Someday hopefully we will reach one clearly defined so that when we say natural we will all know that we are discussing the COSMOS standard, but until this happens, it is incumbent on us to proactively define the term.
-
@Spadirect Keep in mind that the miniscule difference in the percentages used is really not indicative of any safety factor or a benefit form “using less chemical.” As @Belassi so rightfully points out, your focus should be on the best properties in the final product, not a layperson’s interpretation of toxicology.With your logic, if we have a painkiller such as Ibuprofen where the dose is 800MG, it is 200-400 times more dangerous/toxic (pick your term) than Dilaudid which has a dosage of 2-4MG.Efficacy and cost cannot be ignored in designing a balanced product. Don’t let chemophobia be the directing factor.
-
@Max These essential oil-based preservative systems appeal to the market, but in my experience, I have seen many fails. Again, they do require a hurdle approach and good cGMP. Even then, I still insist that if a client wants to use a newer less tested preservative, that PET is a must!
-
@Dtdang I am going to ask you a question and challenge you to research the answer. In most lotions with an emulsifier (not a serum where the gum provides primary viscosity) and an internal oil/external water phase, are you using the carbomer or Xanthan gum for viscosity, or is there another function that it is providing? If you learn this answer, you will get much more stable emulsions in the long run.
-
@Belassi I understand your point regarding synthesis and as a Chemist it does appeal to me. However (and I am sure you can appreciate the aspects) since I have these products readilly available and my primary goal is to create products that reach the market, the actual synthesis is really not feasible. I do envy you the fact of having some time to return to the synthesis basics.
-
Here is a knowledge article from Lubrizol on neutralizing Carbomers and related products. It may answer your questions but also give you a clear overview of the concept as well. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z_yRupdCA8cWpMplKpLzYqpW5DUFApKx/view?usp=sharing
-
Honestly, as @mikethair correctly points out, it is not unusual for a saponified product to be at a pH of 10 or so. In fact, dropping to a pH much lower will destabilize the product and in fact reverse the saponification reaction.
-
An Organic product (in the US) is a product that is produced and certified under the USDA NOP Cosmetics program. It is one of the few defined terms in this area.That said, I believe you would need to reveal the Formula (materials, percentages, phases) to really give anyone the tools to adequately troubleshoot the issue and suggest appropriate materials.
-
@Dtdang What happens if you reduce it to 0.3% is not going to be answered in a Forum. It will be answered at the lab bench when you do a knock-off experiment with that as the focus.
-
Carbomer is actually the name of a group of products rather than a single product. It comes in different grades. Lubrizol makes its line the Carbopol series which is ubiquitous in the Personal Care and Pharmaceutical Markets.I hate the term “natural” undefined as in my opinion treating this term as if it were defined is a huge barrier in R&D, but that is another topic altogether. I will use the term “naturally derived” in my post.The “naturally derived” gums are also useful if you must meet this standard. In some instances, they can have unpleasant characteristics which must be addressed in the Formulation (stringy texture, stickiness). I have had some great success of late using a combination of Acacia and Xanthan Gum in a product called Solagum AX from Seppic.Keep in mind that this is an area where there is a slight cost in performance/product feel when you go “natural.” I recall working in the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry as we were moving away from the “natural” gums and the Carbapol series was expanding with new grades. We were happy to see the movement away from the natural gums. However, this was the mid-80’s and the “natural” craze was still limited. Also, different markets such as Pharmaceuticals couldn’t give two toots if the product is “natural.”I would say that this is a topic I would NOT explore fully in a format such as this. If you want more information on Carbomers, Lubrizol has some Technical Documents in pdf form that are wonderfully helpful. I would look at some Cosmetic Texts for more guidance on the use of the naturally derived gums as well.This is likely an area that will require more than a precursory “discussion board” approach. Overly simplifying these materials and their uses is a mistake and will keep you from using them as effectively as you may be able to with a good background.
-
The AMTcide Coconut and the Leucidal Liquid SF were combined together into a new product called Leucidal Liquid Complete. It has an advantage of also adding to the moisturizing effect as well. It can be weak in yeast/mold so some Formulators will augment that. Also, from the Technical Services at Advanced Micro Technologies, using a chelant can be helpful as well. This product can be purchased directly from Formulator Sample Shop in smaller retail amounts. http://www.formulatorsampleshop.com/Leucidal-Liquid-Complete-p/fssm15024.htmLooking at my Prospector account, they list Lexguard GMCY and Lexguard Natural (Inolex Products) as being approved as well.Keep in mind though that one would be remiss in not learning and following the “Hurdle Technique” of Preservation, especially when trying to be “natural” (horrible undefined terminology). This approach identifies multiple factors such as pH, secure packaging, glycols, and other factors that will influence the efficacy of your preservative system. It is not simply an issue of adding the appropriate level of preservative and mixing until homogenous.Lastly, a respected author in Cosmetic Preservation has said on multiple occasions, “The best preservative is good cGMP.” This points out that while all the above issues are significant, good manufacturing practices and sanitary processes will contribute greatly as well.
-
@GreenFrog Yes, but the final definitive testing still must be sent off. They are best used as an internal screening tool to minimize outside testing costs.
-
It requires a overall hurdle approach and is tricky to use. It is very much cGMP compliant. It is not a starting preservative.
-
Sodium Levulinate is not a great preservative for a Beginner. Walk first.
-
I disregarded the emails and called. Once you get through the phone maze, you will get someone who will help. A real person.
-
But honestly, at least an initial review of his list of ingredients shows that in most cases he is not likely to find a less expensive alternative or more easily obtainable material. The list is made-up of what could be called Cosmetic essentials (Glycerin, Carbomer (grade?), Petrolatum, Cetyl alcohol, Dimethicone and a very widely used preservative).
-
-
Questions about Proposition 65? Check our Frequently asked Questions page or contact the Proposition 65 office: (916) 445-6900 or email P65.Questions@oehha.ca.gov (link sends e-mail).
-
@Chemist5000 I am going to give you a better answer. The State of California has a number I call with questions and I have to admit that they are helpful. I found it with a few simple google searches but I don’t have it in front of me right now.Honestly dealing with VOC Testing was more of a burden than Prop 65.
-
Polysorbate 60 is an ethoxylated compound which in the past did contain concerning levels of 1,4 Dioxane, a compound we now classify as a carcinogen. However, if you consult with a regulatory person, Prop 65 has a low permissible of 1,4 Dioxane. (Remember, it is the dose that makes the poison). New processing of these materials has greatly reduced the levels. If you look at a CofA for these materials, they quantify the level of 1,4 Dioxane with it generally being in the parts per million.I have some experience in this. Several clients over the years have called in a tizzy. In the end, we simply had to provide documentation showing the 1,4 Dioxane levels were below the permissible thresholds.
-
@Sibech I will counter with a thought-provoking question in response. “How difficult is it to meet a vegan standard and how many truly animal-derived products exist that you must have and for which other alternatives do not exist?” I know the answer and as such, meeting a vegan claim doesn’t make me lose a great deal of sleep. In my opinion, a vegan claim places a great deal less challenge on the Formulator to meet than an undefined “natural” standard.For me, it is much the same with”Gluten-free.” We can debate the Science. We can dwell on anecdotal claims from people who say they absolutely can not use gluten-containing topical products. There are relatively so few materials out there that contain gluten (Perry posted a list a few years ago), that if the marketing wants it and it doesn’t have a huge impact on the final Formula, give them “gluten-free.”
-
IN the US, the term “Organic” in regards to the Cosmetic Market is limited to products that have been certified by the USDA NOP Cosmetic program. Unlike “natural” it has a legal and enforceable definition. Hence, we can’t use “organic” as such a broad and marketing driven term. Semantics, but critical in the US Markets.The US Market is evolving and I am not in anyway opposed to the direction it is going. We had some very over reaching claims and as I tell myclients, honest credible claims communicated to the end customer will sell. Also, as a Pragmatic approach. Have you ever tried to develop a product for a client that doesn’t define “natural?” In the end they will disembowel your great Formulation based upon pseudoscience they derive from blogs. It is like formulating at a movingtarget. It becomes a real barrier to R&D.
-
There’s not really anything there needing preserved.This is patently false. A medium with a high level of free water (Aw) can foster bacterial/yeast/mold contamination. Can Hydrosols become contaminated? Absolutely yes. I have seen opened containers of Hydrosols that have had a pronounced yeast/mold coverage as demonstrated by a black ring of mold/fungus on the interior of the closure.