ngarayeva001
Forum Replies Created
-
With polysorbate 80% mixed with very polar ester 15-20% works pretty well. Some people with drier skin would say 10% is fine. But if you want no oily residue at all 15-20% is a good amount. Same with Cithrol 10 GTIS. I know some people use Olivem 300 quite sucessfully but I can’t comment on % as I haven’t tried that one.
-
what is the reason not to use cetyl alcohol with btms? it doesn’t have enough to assure good viscosity. stearic acid is draggy. can it be used? yes, but the product won’t be aesthetically pleasing
-
There is an artisan perfumery in west London https://www.4160tuesdays.com/ I think you can try
to reach out, as everything is online now. I have been in their workshop and they have an impressive range of both natural and chemical ingredients. -
btms-50 would need a thickener, so yes. I normaly add a non-ionic emulsifier for stability too.
-
GMS alone isn’t an emulsifier but a thickener. It becomes co-emulsifier when mixed with emulsifiers (PEG-100 stearate or Ceteareth-20)
-
there is no emulsifier here.
-
write ‘polymeric emulsifiers’ the search box of this forum and go through old materials. You will find the answer there.
-
You need to read the patent and see what exactly is patented. For example in case with L’Oreal’s C E Ferulic, a specific combination of ingredients at specific ranges (they took rather broad range for all of components in that patent) is what patented. But it doesn’t mean you can’t use individual ingredients.
-
@PhilGeis, you are right, I have chosen a bad example. I was trying to make a point that in most cases cosmetics doesn’t do anything noticeable when it comes to changing how skin actually looks (unless it’s a drug). So I think a good marketing should be focused on experience because most of claims are misleading by nature.
-
I agree with @Graillotion on that you can’t just rely on suppliers’ claims. Lecithin isn’t an adequate emulsifier and is challenging to preserve. Glyceryl Stearate alone isn’t an emulsifier unless it’s the SE version.
Speaking of comedogenicity, it’s not as straightforward as a rating of single ingredient. It should be considered all together (what else is in the formula etc). -
You need basic knowledge of chemistry to formulate. I would argue that formal chemistry education isn’t an absolute must provided a person is willing to read and isn’t planning to apply to places like L’Oreal as a formulator. In theory, you don’t need to be a chemist to follow instructions, but majority of formulas shared online (including suppliers’ formulas) are not good. You need to understand why you are mixing phases. What is in those phases, why you shouldn’t mix certain things etc etc. The most affordable way to learn formulating is to get a subscription to swiftcraftymonkey blog. It’s just $1 per month. She is good at O/W and syndets, she doesn’t do w/o.
And archive of this forum is a treasure. -
Re formula, I am with @Pattsi and @Graillotion, the emulsification system isn’t adequate. Get a proper emulsifier. I always suggest Arlacel 165 (ala lotionpro 165, aka Glyceryl Steatate+ PEG-100 stearate) but there are other options such as Ceteareth 20 plus Glyceryl Stearate. Even one of those diy ‘ewaxes’ (poly 60/cetearyl alcohol mix) would work bettee than lecethin and behenyl alcohol. I prefer ethoxylated but you can create a stable emulsion even with ‘green/natural’ emulsifiers, just make sure you pair them and use stabilisers (which you already do)
-
@TheSocksTooBig I have this one Swift SW350B Siedentopf Binocular Compound Microscope for Adults,40X-2500X,Wide-field 10X and 25X Eyepieces, LED Illumination, Abbe Condenser, Double-Layer Mechanical Stage https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07LGYR99H/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_8W9YDC1KZMZWRKH1QD8H?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
But, you can see emulsion droplets and pigment distribution with 25x eyepiece plus 40x magnification (even 10x eyepiece work). My point is the 100x lense that’s used with oil isn’t needed. The models without oil lense are cheaper.
-
I saw it in some blend that was suggested to use as lash growth booster. After a quick search I came to conclusion that there’s no good back up. Even caffeine showed more sustantiated results (althogh the research was a bit nonsensical). Don’t waste your money on peptides.
-
@Pharma, I don’t have access to a proper lab and I invested in a decent quality optical microscope some time after I moved to w/o. I totally agree that it helps a lot as I want to know righ away whether emulsion will separate in two months or not.
Having said that, it’s hard to mess up o/w. So if o/w separates - back to reading.
-
Marketing shouldn’t be deceptive, marketers are just lazy. It’s easier to throw unsubstantiated claims like ‘cellular’, ‘genefique’, ‘antiaging’, ‘stem cells technology’ than creating an experience. I remember commercials of camay soap in 90’s. It was all about experience and ‘luxury’ and having a fine perfume added to a bar of soap. It was a popular soap back then. Consumer happily pays for experience. Having said that unsubstantiated claims come from both sides. In case of large companies it just gets proof read by the legal department.
-
Sulfate-free surfactants vs traditional SLES/CAPB could be a good one.
Expanding topic in sunscreens: mineral vs non-mineral (my personal debate here is that mineral isn’t elegant but at least in theory can be reapplied less often).
And I like @Microformulation’s idea on penetration enhansers. I was baffled with it when started formulating. It could be expanded to active ingredients in cosmetics: do they do what marketing claims or not? And penetration enhansers as subsection.
-
Speaking from my experience of working in a large international company (in professional services not personal care) there is no “man” behind a product. The larger the company the more replaceable people are and the operation is designed this way intentionally. I assume that the same happenes within large players in personal care industry, such as L’Oreal, Unilever, J&J etc. It’s not a one talented formulator who put together a particular product. It’s probably several departments working together on each formula where every individual is extremely specialised. I would never want to make formulation a career, as I love it too much to be limited to a narrow area the same way I am limited at my job.
-
@natzam44, [disclaimer this is semi-anecdotal semi-confirmed] for example retinol (I am refering to INCI retinol not retinoids in genereal) is much more offensive in o/w emulsion than in anhydrous vehicle. And this works no matter whether you add penetration enhansers to that o/w or not. So, it’a about the formula as a whole. Also, don’t listen to what consumers say they “want”. Majority of consumers will freak out if you give them retinol that actually “does something”. The more active the ingredient is, the more irritation it will cause (in most cases). People want gain without pain, so big companies just stick retinyl palmitate (that has no proven effect on skin but conveniently doesn’t cause irritation as other derivatives do) to their products and call it a day. L’oreal reformulated C E Ferulic when they bought SkinCeuticals because 20% of LAA stings and burns and people don’t like it.
-
You step into drug category with penetration enhancers because as you mentioned cosmetics should stay on the surface. Also, it’s not as straightforward as adding DMI or propylene glycol and hoping your active ingredient would perform better. The entire formula matters.
-
sorry, I haven’t worked with polyamide-3 to make any assumptions. I actually should get it in two weeks, so if I discover anything useful I will post here. Again, if I have to guess, the issue you encounter is most likely due to polarity.
-
Some might find this video interesting: https://youtu.be/V7UlWTU_K6s in summary, Brad Mondo tried bleaching two strands of black hair, one with olaplex, one without olaplex. The result wasn’t impressive. No difference except the strand with olaplex wasn’t as light.
-
EMT10 is cloudy as well and it’s isn’t as electrolyte resistant as Zen. Zen is the best option when clarity and resistance to low ph is important.
-
I think it’s the smaller companies who should be blamed for paraben-free insanity. They started greenwashing and chemophobia to distinguish themselves as they cannot compete with the big guys due to economy of scale. Now when the consumer is brainwashed even large companies have to put ‘natural’ options on the shelves which promotes unscientific narrative further. I don’t buy many personal care products (to encourage myself to make it) but when I do, it’s L’Oreal, J&J and alike.