Perry44
Forum Replies Created
-
Sure I’ll fix it for you. We did a site update in 2021 & we had to make new accounts for everyone.
-
Agree with what is written thus far.
3. Ingredients that are water soluble will show little to no benefit in a cleanser as they simply wash away. Oils wash away also. Perhaps a polymer like polyquaternium 10 might help but the best answer is to use a less drying surfactant or reduce the levels of what you are currently using.
-
Whatever you put in your product you have to be able to demonstrate safety. So, if you put kefir milk in your product, how would you demonstrate that the product is safe to use?
When you use standard industry accepted ingredients, the suppliers will have conducted safety testing and you can be better assured that the product will be safe to use. If you put ingredients like food or from other industries, then it is up to you to conduct safety testing like HRIPT, stability testing (which should be done anyway), preservative efficacy testing, etc.
So, yes you can put it in the formula. But only if you are going to conduct proper safety testing.
-
Despite what you may believe, it’s unlikely the herbal extracts are efficacious.
But even if they are, from a formulation standpoint it is a better strategy to figure out what component in the extract provides the benefit, then add that ingredient and add the extract in the formula at claims levels. That ensures you get the benefit desired, the marketing benefit of talking about the extract AND you can clean up the extract in any, non-coloring method you want.
-
I haven’t done it but based on the ingredients, yes you can probably incorporate it into the formula. That’s not to say there will be any benefit to it. The vesicles will likely break open, the retinol might leak out and then degrade while it sits on the shelf. But if you mix it in water it will likely be compatible.
-
I have to agree. We don’t know enough about the microbiome to certify something as good or bad. But that just means anyone can make up any standard they like and grant a “certification”
-
Thanks everyone!!
-
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.
-
I think @PhilGeis summed it up pretty well, but also assuming a company did sponsor the research & shows that parabens aren’t a problem. Would anyone believe it?
CIR and SCCS are already independent groups who have said these ingredients are safe. That’s not convincing to paraben phobes. I can’t imagine a study sponsored by a company that sells parabens would convince anyone.
-
It also matters what the % solids of the extract is. I was once formulating with Aloe Vera Gel. We put it in our formula at 1%. In truth, the raw material was 90% water and only 10% “solids”. So, that 1% in the formula was really 0.1%. Unless your extracts are powders, they are in the formula at considerably less than 1 or 2%.
-
What is the 1 or 2% indicative of? Is that a percentage of the formula or is that the percentage of the solids in the extract?
-
I like this approach. Make them put some money down upfront. If it moves on to production you can just credit them some amount (depending on how much extra work you did) towards the price of the first production run.
-
Yes, that’s their business model.
1. Create a microbiome standard that they think is believable.
2. Solicit businesses to get them to agree to be certified.
3. Get enough companies to pay them to get certified so they can start claiming that it is an “industry standard”
4. Repeat
But no regulators or large companies in the industry recognize them as an industry standard. Anyone can create a standard today that is just as valid as theirs.
This is also the case for something like the COSMOS natural standard. They just made that up. It’s just that they have convinced enough companies to follow the standard that (at least raw material companies) that it means something in the industry.
-
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.