[Perry44]

I’m confused. What does this have to do with floor cleaners?

[Perry44]

New name for a thing that has been around for decades. Any ingredient derived from a plant or animal can be called “biocosmetic”.

This reminds me of renaming surfactant solution as micellar water.

[Perry44]

What are the ingredients?

You’ll likely get better/more responses if you include the list of ingredients. But yes, it’s possible to replicate any product on the market. Also, no you don’t have to include all 42 ingredients to do it.

[Perry44]

In the US, there aren’t really bans on ingredients except things that have been proven to cause harm. I know this is true in the EU too but they also will ban ingredients that “might” cause harm.

[Perry44]

What were the lessons you learned (besides don’t hire someone who will drive your business out of business)?

What kind of bad marketing decisions did they make?

Presumably, they thought they were making good decisions.

Did you have the power to approve what they were doing with your brand?

[Perry44]

I’ll answer some of this (other stuff I don’t know). If you have an INCI and CAS number you should be able to market the ingredients. However, you’ll also need to have evidence that the ingredients are safe for use in cosmetics. Some testing or report or something.

[Perry44]

ACV (Apple cider vinegar) is an acid, specifically Acetic Acid. So yes, it will change the pH of a water based system. It will definitely lower the pH of something higher than pH 6

[Perry44]

When you say “split” I’m assuming you mean it separated? 1.6% EO is very high so that is likely your problem. Also, I think Allantoin can contribute to separation.

If you were selling the product you should probably throw it away. If you are using it yourself, just Shake before use and it should be fine. Unless, of course you have some microbial contamination. Then you should just throw it away.

[Perry44]

This is the best of our courses to get you started.
https://chemistscorner.com/learn-more/practical-cosmetic-formulating/

• This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  Perry44.

[Perry44]

That’s wishful thinking. If you put Citric Acid in a formula, it should be listed. However, you can just note your objection and the company is going to do what they want. If it is just a label run-out, the chances of them being found out is not high. Make sure they change it when the next round of labels are printed. It’s still wrong & they should print new label (really how much could that cost?) but if they are such a small company that they worry about a few thousand dollars for labels, they’re probably small enough to get away with it.

[Perry44]

You saw my thoughts on “cruelty free” and why I think that is a dubious claim. Similarly, “vegan” can be dubious because plant based ingredients can be contaminated with bits of insects killed while harvesting the ingredients.

But as a marketer, you can only do so much. Anyone can claim anything is “cruelty free” or “vegan” as long as they feel confident they can defend themselves in court if they are sued over it.

As for solutions. Unless you are going to come up with your own definition of what cruelty free or vegan means (I don’t recommend this), you are going to have to look to some unofficial certifying bodies who have already come up with these definitions. For vegan you can use…

Examples of Vegan Certifications

1. BeVeg Vegan Certification:

   • Covers cosmetics, makeup, skincare, and toiletries.

   • Includes ingredient identification and factory audits to verify vegan claims

2. EVE VEGAN® Certification:

   • Guarantees no animal ingredients in products or packaging.

   • Ensures no animal testing and supports organic vegan agriculture

3. The Vegan Society’s Vegan Trademark:

   • Established in 1990, widely recognized globally.

   • Found on over 70,000 products, including cosmetics

4. VeganCert by Vegan Action:

   • Certifies cosmetics free of animal ingredients and testing.

   • Does not guarantee organic plant-based ingredients

I personally don’t think these certification guarantee products are cruelty free however, you aren’t going to get sued by me if you make those claims. As long as you can point to some certifying body you could use that information as a defense in court if you do get sued.

[Perry44]

Yeah. Some people actually believe the cosmetic industry is as unregulated as the NGOs and bloggers say. And if your brand is small enough you can get away with it for a while before the FDA / FTC catch on.

[Perry44]

Do you worry about the allergens found in lavender oil?

[Perry44]

You need to add a suspending polymer like Carbomer or Xanthan Gum.

[Perry44]

Yeah, everyone “steals” from everyone else. If you are a small brand and are doing well, a big company wouldn’t hesitate to take your idea and try to make it bigger. Or if the idea is too hard to copy, they’ll just buy your company. This shouldn’t be surprising.

[Perry44]

Yes

[Perry44]

You have to be able to prove that your products are safe. If you do not have paperwork, how would you be able to verify safety? Even if you use food ingredients you’ll need proper documentation to prove your products are safe.

[Perry44]

In California, some types of Aloe are listed on Prop 65 which means if you use them you have to put a cancer warning on your label.

[Perry44]

Respectfully, a hard disagree. Natural compounds are much more likely to cause allergic reactions than synthetics.

[Perry44]

Yeah, the GHPC is probably fine. It’s also possible that your PQ7 is a little high 0.6%. Typically, 0.2% is enough. I don’t know the nature of your separation but 1/4 the volume seems pretty high. This usually means an oil but it could also mean a polymer, like PQ7. It’s water soluble so it shouldn’t be a problem but you never know with these things.

[Perry44]

I agree. It is very easy to be mislead by AI because it presents answers as if they are just true. If someone does not know enough about a subject they can easily accept misinformation that would be obvious to a subject expert.

[Perry44]

What synthetics are more hostile to skin than EOs?

[Perry44]

Google is not necessarily more reliable than the AIs and the AI also gives a description of how it calculated the results. So, there are some good reasons to ask the AI a question like this.

[Perry44]

I ran this on Deepseek and got the following…
“Final Answer:

For 300 ppm hard water, you need 0.6–0.9 grams of STPP per liter, depending on efficiency requirements. For 100 liters, you’d need 60–90 grams of STPP. Adjust based on exact water chemistry and system conditions.”

This is much closer to what ChatGPT was saying. I don’t think there can be an “exact” answer because some of the answer relies upon real world conditions. ChatGPT gives you the theoretical maximum.

Interestingly, I asked ChatGPT why there was a discrepancy and it said this…

ME: “did Deepseek make an error? Shouldn’t your responses be the same?

ChatGPT said:

Great question — and you’re absolutely right to ask this. Let me give it to you straight:

Did DeepSeek make an error?

Not exactly — but it was inconsistent across answers.

In DeepSeek’s first answer (3.5–5 mg/L STPP), it clearly underestimated the amount needed to soften 300 ppm hard water. That amount would only remove about 5 ppm of hardness, which is nowhere near 300 ppm.

In DeepSeek’s latest answer (600–900 mg/L STPP), the recommendation is much more realistic and aligns closely with mine from the start (~1.1 g/L for full chelation).

So what happened?

DeepSeek initially applied a rule of thumb commonly used in detergent or light-duty cleaning formulations (where you’re just reducing hardness a bit to prevent scale or improve cleaning), but misapplied it to your question, which was about fully softening 300 ppm hard water.

Then, in the second response, it corrected course by:

Applying proper molecular weight ratios (STPP 368 g/mol vs. CaCO₃ 100 g/mol)

Recognizing that you need a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio to account for real-world inefficiencies

Recommending 0.6–0.9 g/L, which makes sense

Should our responses be the same?

Yes — ideally, all responses should be consistent if the question and assumptions are clear.

In this case, my response and DeepSeek’s final corrected one are aligned. The inconsistency came from their initial answer being too low.

Summary:

DeepSeek’s first answer (~3.5–5 mg/L) = way too low for 300 ppm

DeepSeek’s final answer (~600–900 mg/L) = realistic, consistent with stoichiometry

My original answer (~1.1 g/L) = slightly more conservative, full chelation basis

Bottom line = we agree now

Let me know if you’d like a version of this written for a report or presentation — I can lay it out cleanly.

[Perry44]

It depends on what else is in your formula but that might work if you keep the pH at 5.0 or lower.