Microformulation
Forum Replies Created
-
They are quite pricey though and only recently started selling at 1 kg levels. You may want to see if the retail price of your finished good would support a high material cost.
-
Interesting. How about skin feel? Cetearyl alcohol has always been purported to show more “slip” and less soaping.
-
Polysorbate 80. PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil. For all intents and purposes, you can treat it as Hemp oil in formulations.
-
Honestly, if you are using a nonionic emulsification system such as that I would add more or less depending on the desired final viscosity. Now, I usually have a Brookfield measurement of a standard and use that to determine how close I have hit the desired viscosity. It is pretty straightforward in that case.
-
It is still not my favorite as it contributes to the soaping in some cases. I have moved onto Ceateryl Alcohol more often for this purpose.
-
Lubrizol Brands mostly, depending upon the application. This is reflective of the fact that the distributor of Lubrizol in the Southeast is outstanding in regards to providing samples and Technical support. If you look at Lubrizol’s knowledge base, they have multiple helpful documents.
I have also recently used the Evonik carbomers as my clients CM had them in stock and wanted the material qualified as a substitute for the Lubrizol product.
-
I recall the thread, but I didn’t make the statement.
That said, there are countless Formulations where Stearic acid is used to build viscosity with a softening effect without neutralizing the product.
“Stearic acid is one of the most widely used ingredients in cosmetics. A basic thick cream can be formulated using stearic acid…”
-
Also, if you follow the knowledge bases on neutralizing carbomers, the recommended ratio is 1.5 parts TEA to 1 Part Carbomer. Of course, you need to adjust the pH of the final product as well to ensure it is in an appropriate range. https://www.ulprospector.com/documents/1017231.pdf?bs=76&b=3758&st=1&sl=59595169&crit=Q2FyYm9tZXI%3d&r=na&ind=personalcare
-
@DAS ” I bought flour, a spoon, and a cow, how do I make a cake?”
BEST COMMENT EVER.
-
@arachne013 I can understand if you might feel a little ganged up on, but there are some pearls here.
Cosmetic Science is indeed a “Science”, one which requires some study and some understanding of the Fundamentals. Indeed, I will use parts of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, and other Scientific disciplines on a daily basis. If you skip or gloss over the fundamentals, it will make it harder to understand how the raw materials work, their interaction with other materials, safety, stability and other factors.
Even a recent Chemistry graduate would have a learning curve as well when entering the Cosmetic field. Many of the raw materials are unique to this market, have unique distributors and in addition, there is a great deal of marketing which you must incorporate into the development of the Formulation.
No offense intended, but rather this next statement is meant to ground you and direct you. One of the key tenets of learning is knowing what you do NOT know. You must accept that you are entry level at best into this field and act accordingly. Refusing to do this and overestimating your abilities will become a barrier to future learning. There is no real and effective shortcut here. It simply does not exist.
So, you state that you are looking for proper guidance in the Industry. As someone mentioned before, Susan Barclay Nichols’s blog (http://swiftcraftymonkey.blogspot.com/) is a great starting point. Look at some of her starting Formulations and repeat them. During the process, look at each ingredient and find credible resources on them in order to learn their properties. If you don’t have a raw material in her Formulas, GET IT. You still have some skills to master before you start looking for alternatives. Honestly, I would suggest that you do this for 3-6 month before even looking back at your product. Depending on your geographic location (this board attracts followers worldwide), there may be some courses that you can take.
Once you gain some experience and look back at your initial posts, you will see why they evoked such a strong instinct from experienced Formulators to tell you to slow down. For example, a product which must be shaken before use is really not stable or even consistent. Consumers will not likely shake a product and you can’t ensure that you exerted enough agitation to create a consistent product or “dosage” of the actives. Throwing out some materials and asking “is this an emulsifier?” shows a need to go back to basics.
Cosmetics and Cosmetic Chemistry can be a great market to work within. Remember though that we must always ensure that we are giving the customer (or family) a safe, effective and consistent product. This is the real reason that many of us are urging you to slow down and return to basics. If you fail to do that, your products and their safety will be compromised. If you do so, your products and their safety will advance slowly as your experience and knowledge grow accordingly.
I will sum it up and please keep in mind the reasons above. YOU ARE NOT READY YET TO MAKE A PRODUCT. DO the base work. There is no real safe and effective shortcut here. Cosmetic Science needs to be respected. Just because you can find a blog on it doesn’t mean it isn’t complicated. When applied correctly and coherently, real Cosmetic Safety is up there with any of the Professional fields. You wouldn’t neuter a pet by simply watching a few Youtube videos. Accordingly, you shouldn’t expose a Cosmetic user to an unsafe or ineffective product based on the false assumption of “this is easy and anyone can do it.” That is a quick recipe for failure.
-
Solubilizing oil and water doesn’t lend itself to a simpler approach. You can’t oversimplify the process. When you gain some experience, you will see that there are myriad questions and factors that need to be addressed further.
The returning error is in continually believing there is a simple workaround. There simply is not.
-
Definitely not intermediate.
-
@Perry I agree entirely that the Science is not able to support the premise that we could go in, analyze the skin and produce an effective customized product. We see these limitations daily even when it comes to collecting objective data about single finished goods, much less using the testing as a diagnostic tool. Also, I think at some point you could find yourself encroaching on diagnosis. I know of some Dermatologists who did this in the past, but as Clinicians and using compounded Pharmaceuticals. However, in years past I have seen them move more towards using existing products.
-
@Doreen Alas, marketing is a strong driver in this market sector. Much like some other areas such as “gluten-free” where the Science is debatable, marketing will likely win out.
-
I have been approached by small start-ups who have tried to endorse this Business model as the next best thing and their plan to conquer the Cosmetics Market.
My concerns have been;-How to overcome the financial issues of purchasing issues of stocking the wide array of actives that they “propose” stocking.
-The lack of any real plan to validate or execute the “Science” at the level of credibility they propose and communicate to the customer base. In many cases, there is little Science and more hooey.
-Lastly the documentation. I have asked the FDA and gotten mixed answers. My question is, “Since we are delivering a unique product to a client and manufacturing at the final market point, what are the obligations regarding manufacturing documentation (batch records), testing and facility standards?” If you take the strictest interpretation, you are creating unique products with new stability and preservation challenges, with an obligation to follow cGMP and to be in a compliant facility. Take Florida for example, they strictly limit the manufacturing site and would likely regulate this Business model to a point where it would be legally prohibited. -
Working with Retinol and MAP is a tricky advanced Formulator skill. This is not likely a DIY or home product.
For example, most Formulators already know that in a Cosmetic product Allantoin is used at 0.5% or lower concentration. Knowing that makes the LOI easier to dissect.
What is your experience level, if I may ask?
-
But why replace the Allantoin? It is not terribly expensive, easily available from retail sites and any alternatives, if effective, would be likely more expensive.
-
Why?
-
If you get the endorsement of the Certifying body, in my opinion, the 100% Natural moniker is of limited value. If you get the third party certification that should be your focus. I see these certifications as a way to get away from the more marketing driven verbiage anyway.
-
I have made high alcohol toners that were NOT drying. It has to do with including a well thought out spread of glycols.
-
Everything George Deckner puts out is outstanding.
-
No, this is not a place for free Formulations.
-
I tried it for myself in a knock-off of a failed emulsion and Idid see thet it was causing the instability.
-
I have heard multiple opinions on this.
It is common knowledge (anecdotal) from many Formulators that Phenoxyethanol (Euxyl PE9010 with Ethylhexylglycerin) will destabilize an emulsion if added in the initial water phase. So, for years I have (and continue to add it post-emulsification when the bulk reaches <40C. This with a chelant(I always use one) and I have never had challenge test failures I can recall.
On the other side of the coin, I have heard Technical from Schulke speak numerous times and they will sometimes endorse adding it at the initial heated phase since they feel it is more effective at the phase boundaries. However, being pragmatic and getting good results (as outlined in the paragraph above), I take the approach “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”
-
I always thought Arlacel 165 was an HLB of 11 and Polyglyceryl-3 stearate (I have Dermofeel PS in stock was about an HLB of 9? That is a naroow, high range.