Microformulation
Forum Replies Created
-
Well, firstly keep in mind that water activity (Aw) must be calculated, not inferred. David Steinberg does a great explanation of this concept in his book, “Preservatives for Cosmetics, Third Edition.”
Secondly, preservation must be done conservatively and must err to the most cognizant protection of your end user. Supposing a “partial” dose of a preservative skirts this caveat. What real benefit are you achieving by limiting the “dose?” Preservatives are generally safe when used properly so I argue that you are doing more of a disservice with this approach.
Next, you must keep in mind not only your production preservation scheme but in products such as this the introduction of water and microorganisms by the end user. This particular product is a textbook example of when this needs to be a factor.
Lastly, I would be sure to adequately preserve but “when is it enough or alternatively what is the right usage rate?” This comes about through experience. Ultimately, the only real and subjective answer would come about through PET testing.
-
The glyceryl caprylate serves as a preservative booster as well. While I am unsure if they have done it purposefully with Aw measurements, I would wager that the free water is very low. At a glimpse, it looks anhydrous, but I would guess that you could have some water in the surfactants.
-
The NDA was in hopes of making Retinol an OTC and hence opening up all markets. I am not a fan of NDA’s since (at least for now) the FDA is glacial in approving them.
-
I am sure you didn’t mean MAP (the accepted abbreviation for Magnesium Ascorbyl Phosphate) as MAP is formulated at a higher ph (>6) due to discoloration.
Magnesium Aluminum Silicate (Veegum line from RT Vanderbilt) has commonly been used in these Formulations because it is quite stable in the pH’s that these products are made and when used properly it actually has some wonderful properties in regard to skin feel, It is for this same reason (pH stability) that you see Veegum also used in the highly alkaline Sodium silicate under eye anti-aging product.
C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate is also used since it is reasonably priced, ubiquitous (hence easy to obtain), solubilizes many other materials and has great skin effect. While not impossible, you will find that in regard to solubilizing, many other emollients may not be as attractive and may be more expensive. In my experience with these products, the raw material costs can build quickly and you will need the cost saving benefits.
Lastly, if you are looking to best marry the exfoliating and the moisturizing abilities of the AHA’s, a spread of different AHA’s is effective. As you move from Glycolic to Lactic to Malic (several others in between), you may see better overall effect.
-
@DRBOB@VERDIENT.BIZ I actually was contracted to do some work on the NDA for Retinol for Acne. The NDA is still wallowing. In fact, Retinol has the same limitation. There are possible medically supported claims, but you must limit claims to Cosmetic claims. It is in fact, the same exact situation. Trans-retinoic acid aka Tretinoin (Retin-A, Renova) is the prescription post-cursor which fulfills most of the Medical uses at this time.
-
@johnb is absolutely right. In Cosmetics all you can essentially say “great anti-oxidant” and then build the claims on diffuse benefits from anti-oxidant activity. Even exploring the Medical benefits is a dead end.
-
Glad to hear it! I work with a lot of start-ups as well as my Commercial accounts. Generally, the initial consult starts out with “I want it natural.” I counter with “What do you mean by natural?” At this point, they react as if I am touched in the head and I have to explain that there is no established legal definition, at least yet.
Here the first step is to craft at least an internal definition. Get away from the blogs and DIY sites. Perry did a great introductory article here. The article is a few years old and the market is continually evolving.
If you do not define this standard in advance there are various pitfalls. Less commonly you will be too lax and you will make a product that is not naturally derived and this is called “greenwashing.” Lately, this has been dangerous as the FTC and Attorneys have started confronting these products. More likely you will be so restrictive and you will limit the performance of your product and/or increase the final retail price. REMEMBER, a good product in this market is like a 3 legged stool with a leg for natural compliance, one for performance and one for the price. As this market has evolved, the clientele has accepted less and less “wobble” in your stool, as in a balance of natural, price and efficacy.
Lastly. avoid the bloggers to some extent and try not to let unqualified blogs with limited reach direct your development. Almost every Formulator in this forum can relay a story where a product was accepted, raw materials and packaging was ordered and labels were printed. We then get that call “Mommy Blogger 123, who has no Chemistry background, says we can’t use raw material x.” It is a nightmare!
-
Resist the instinct to even use the term Chemical free. Firstly, at marketing seminars I have attended, experts say that it is actually more damaging to your marketing since it will lose you credibility. Most educated consumers understand the logical fallacy. Also, we are Scientists at heart. You can’t co-opt a word and give it new meaning. Scientific terms are clearly defined and fixed.
My clients generally use a more refined approach which has been HUGELY successful. Say something like “XYZ Petcare Products uses plant-based materials that are minimally processed to produce high quality, safe and effective products.” There may be little need for it in a pet care market, but some clients will add that they specifically avoid some of the materials with an established marketing liability such as parabens, formaldehyde donors, etc.
I have done a significant amount of work in the pet care market of late and I want to touch on something that Bob Zonis mentioned. An “Organic” product will be significantly more expensive. One recurring theme in the pet care market is a very tight price range. In general, pet owners are NOT buying more expensive products but rather sticking to a very narrow price range. In mainstream products, there is a potential to market a “prestige” product, but sadly there really isn’t a parallel in the pet care market. I am sure others will agree. As such, the majority of pet care products sold are sulfate based products or alternatively saponified soaps.
With a statement that you are suing plant-based materials minimally processed (most natural standards define the allowable processes), you may have better luck.
Again. this is a Science based board, so your co-opted definition of what a chemical is really doesn’t cut it. Sorry.
-
Even an empty bottle would contain Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2 and all other sorts of “chemicals.” What they need is to private label my “Chemical Free Vacuum Beauty Serum.” The packaging is expensive since it is a Dewar Jar evacuated to an almost perfect vacuum. Unfortunately, it has a short shelf life. Once you open it, it degrades in nanoseconds.
-
You have to dig down into the website to find the ingredient lists but they are there.
They use some careful terminology (for acne prone skin), but I think they are playing it pretty close. However, they also come out and clearly ay “Acne treatment.” This makes them noncompliant in the US Market.
In summary, unless a product is not specifically listed in the Acne OTC Monograph, it can NOT be marketed for the treatment of acne. Period. They could use the data as part of a New Drug Application (NDA), but the Botanicals aren’t patentable, their data is a mere sliver of what is required and the process is lengthy.
They may not have been caught. Never mistake “not caught yet” with legal and allowed.
-
The Investigation initiated in the local District Attorney’s office. FBI and FDA investigators were involved. Local DA’s don’t have authority over tax issues (US Federal) and IRS Investigators were not involved. Hence it isn’t a tax issue.
-
The list is incomplete. Firstly, what is the vehicle which the botanicals are in? Is it water? Water/Glycerin? As the INCI declaration is incomplete, I would wager that when you referred to more complete documentation, you will see a preservative (Phenoxyethanol perhaps) listed as well.
-
Main Article (more detail)
I was told about this by another Formulator. Her customer was contacted and simply told “their records had been seized as evidence.”
-
“I am not an educated chemist, I am self taught and passionate about skin care!”
This alone should discourage you from attempting this project.
“I am not an educated Veterinarian, I am self taught and passionate about animals”, yet my neighbors get angry if I try to spay or neuter their pets.
-
An account I know of had their paperwork “seized as evidence.”
-
Many of us do this for a living and as such are reluctant to just “give away” a Formula. In essence, we are not here to feed you fish, but to teach you how to fish (an analogy, not literal).
-
Interesting article on this product posted in my feed today
-
You can sign an NDA and this may give you some peace of mind. Also, use a Manufacturer who you feel you can trust. Other than that, I can’t think of anything elese.
Remember, the vulnerability of your products being knocked-off is not altogether a bad thing. It can be the impetus you need to continue innovating. Your best defense is strong marketing.
It is funny, but one of my first clients I worked with when going into Private Consulting faced the same issue. They made a shampoo/conditioner combination for a very targeted market. After selling the product for several years, they noticed a competetor “pop-up” on the market. When they looked, the product was similar and funny enough was made by their contract manufacturer. This was the motivation to reformulate. As you watch the Cosmetic Materials market, you will see that raw materials with “Cosmetic Claims” are constantly evolving. Their root product was 4-5 years old, they reformulated, launched a “new and improved” product utilizing some newer raw materials, promoted it to their existing fostered clientelle and actually increased sales. They turned it into a positive.
-
I can’t say too much, but you are definitely moving in the proper direction.
Also, this might be review, but look into the raw materials first and decide what is best.
Wort is the malt after it has been sparged and allowed to soak in the water. It has not been acted upon by the yeast and fermented well. Some lines are looking to promote the benefits of the malt extract and feel this is the proper material.
Hops are often added at this point as well. Sometimes they are dry hopped continuously as whole leaf products or added as extracts.
After the yeast has been allowed to convert the malt sugars and produce alcohol (won’t belabor this, we all know fermentation I hope). At this point it contains alcohol (generall 4.5-6.5% ABV although with certain yeast strains they can go higher). At this point it is not carbonated. This was the material most lines used as it was difficult to flatten the product in prodcution.
In R&D I simply opened the beer and allowed it to “flatten” under refrigeration for 48-72 hours.
One big hurdle we had was that the aromoa of the natural hops is VERY subtle and fades quickly. Hence the reason for the Hops CO2 extracts which could be used to heighten and extend the hops fragrance.
Marketing wise IPA’s (very hoppy) were preferred in Shampoos and darker beers (Porters and Stouts) were preferred in Conditioners. There is a subcategory of Stouts, an Oatmeal Stout which had some additional perceived marketing benefits as well.
Decarbonate! Otherwise you will have stability issues. Augment the fragrance. The native fragrance will break your heart in the longrun.
One of the stresses on the profit margin was shipping beer and it’s empty water components. Hence the reason some lines went with malt extracts and Hops fragrance.
-
Remember the beer is based on malt which may present some preservation challeneges. We tried a similar preservative to yours and it failed challenge testing.
-
You really are missing what sets apart a line. It is much less the Formulation and more importantly the marketing.
I do Custom Formulations and honestly, the need to replicate or repeat Formulas is limited. The first step is the Product Design where the Marketing is reconciled with the raw materials and the Chemistry. As the process continues, you do get a unique product that will generally be unique to your Marketing direction.
Remember, any product can be essentially copied through utilizing the Ingredient declaration (required by law), familiarity with the raw materials and some lab time.
However, pragmatically getting the stable and effective formulation is about 20% of your effort. What will set you apart is your Sales and Marketing. The greatest product with flawed or ineffective marketing will get outperformed by the most pedestrian product with a great Sales/Marketing strategy.
-
I have made a few of these projects. I homebrew beer so it has always been an interest.
In the US at least these beer shampoos pose several issues. Of course with the alcohol taxes, you do have to either pay up or get your foot in the door with a brewery and either use the wort of the beer before it is carbonated. Then as the volumes get larger, shipping beer gets to become expensive.
Usually, I have found that Beer soaps are more successful. In shampoos and conditioners, many lines have found it easier to use a malt extract and a hops fragrance. The Hops fragrance is hard to emulate and keep persistent. I would recommend using a CO2 Hops extract much like available through Melco.
Test your preservation! It takes some care.
Ultimately my lines reached the US National level and they were in all the Whole Foods in the US. They didn’t go much farther. They were seen as gimmicky. We did see some good business in making smaller lots specifically for the craft brewers themselves to sell through their e-commerce sites.
-
EWG? I wouldn’t use that as a source.
-
In my experience I have found that a combination of glycols will give better effect. Many others can weigh in as well.
-
In our experience, we have seen zero compromise in humectancy by switching fro PG to Zemea, especially when used in combination with other products such as Glycerin and Methyl Gluceth-10.
PG allegedly has some penetration enhancement and I have yet to see if Zemea also has this property.
“Propylene Glycol; Among the polyvalent alcohols, propylene glycol is the
most frequently used co-solvent in dermatology. The action as a real penetration enhancer is debated controversially in the literature.”http://www.nanobiotec.iqm.unicamp.br/download/Trommer_skin%20penetration-2006rev.pdf