Perry44
Forum Replies Created
-
Not common and not correct
-
You might not need one, but the product will be exposed to the moisture of the lips so it could potentially harbor microbial growth.
The real question is Why wouldn’t you put a preservative?
-
Also, 0.4% seems high. We used a max of 0.2% and got clarity
-
The differences are all just marketing stories. For a formulator, there’s no substantial difference.
-
You’ll need to post the formula or ingredients to get helpful responses
-
Why wouldn’t someone just use octapeptide-3?
-
Why would you use this peptide instead of the other one you wrote about?
-
They are caused by that but in the cosmetic industry if something has even the hint of a problem, they’ll get rid of it if it’s easy to replace .
-
Unfortunately, some questions do not have good answers. This is more of a legal / regulatory question than a formulation question.
The quick answer is yes, stability testing.
But PAO is pretty much a fairy tale since no one knows how long the product has been around before it was opened. What if the user buys a product, forgets it for 5 years, then tries to use the product? That certainly will have a different expiration point than a product opened 2 weeks after it was made.
-
You contact me. Are you still having a problem?
-
Sure you can mix those together. They won’t actually have any real positive effect but they should all be compatible.
-
Yes, I suspect obscuring what they use in their formula was the motivation
-
I don’t understand the problem you are experiencing.
Try clicking this link and replying to the discussion.
https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/discussion/formulating-5/#post-213767
-
I don’t understand what you mean. Can you explain further?
-
To start a new discussion, go to https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/forum/general/ There will be a button on the side column (if you’re on a computer) or a button at the bottom of the discussions (if you are on a mobile device). Just click the discussion and start a new one.
-
Yes, unfortunately we’re still working out some of the glitches in the switch from the old forum software to this one.
To start a new discussion, go to https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/forum/general/ There will be a button on the side column (if you’re on a computer) or a button at the bottom of the discussions (if you are on a mobile device). Just click the discussion and start a new one.
I’m trying to get that fixed but haven’t been able to at the moment. We’ll get it corrected.
And yes, my handle is thejoggler at the moment. I’m going to fix that too.
Perry, 44
-
In your profile. Just click on your username & you can find it there
-
I recognize this is a poorly disguised ad but it raised in me interesting enough questions. (Please don’t keep spamming however)
But your answer is not very helpful. Just stating that one peptide works one one type of wrinkle while the other works on a different type doesn’t explain anything much. If they both work via muscle contraction, why would there be different effects? What different biochemical pathways are the peptides supposed to impact?
-
Why would one peptide work better on different types of wrinkles? I don’t see any biochemical reason one would work differently than the other.
-
Yep. Just tag me at the moment.
-
What’s to stop the “not compliant” marketer from just not listing the parabens to become compliant? I’ve seen it suggested that licorice root extract may be spiked with parabens to get it to work.
-
I’d suggest you start a new discussion with this question
-
Just because things are published doesn’t mean they are true. Backuchiol does not work as well as retinol despite what some people claim.
-
Not really. They are claims or marketing ingredients