Perry44
Forum Replies Created
-
They don’t use proper Drug Facts ingredient listing so I wouldn’t have any faith that they are following the rules and listing all the ingredients. They probably just don’t list ingredients that don’t fit their “organic” story.
-
Typically, you would do stability testing to set a PAO.
In reality, there is no established method and companies are left to come up with their own methods. It is a bit of a ruse because if you don’t know when the consumer first opens the product, you couldn’t realistically set a PAO. For example, if the consumer opens the product 1 day after they purchased it, that will last a different amount of time than if a consumer opened a product 1 year after they purchased it.
-
I’ll start by saying what you’ve learned about proteins is mostly right. Although, it’s not necessarily true that all proteins are too big to penetrate. Proteins represent a wide range of structures from collagen & elastin which are really big to an 11 amino acid TAL protein in the Drosophila.
But the stuff you might use in hair care is all going to be on the big side.
Yes, hydrolyzing a protein turns larger, folded up proteins into straight, polypeptide chains that don’t have much secondary structure. That’s why the protein source doesn’t really matter when you hydrolyze it. Wheat protein, Soy protein, Silk protein, when hydrolyzed all pretty much end up being the same stuff.
There is little to no evidence that hydrolyzed proteins fill in any gaps. I personally don’t think they do much. Especially in rinse-off products because they are water soluble and simply rinse down the drain. Same is true for amino acids.
Comparing Amino Acids to Hydrolyzed proteins, in a rinse-off product you won’t notice any difference.
Hydrogen bonds break all the time in your hair not just during the straightening process. If you comb your hair or just run your fingers through your hair it breaks hydrogen bonds.
During a chemical process of straightening, yes disulfide bonds are broken. If you’re just straightening using heat and a blow dryer than not many S-S bonds will be broken.
The theoretical notion of using Maleic acid (or any bond builder) is that it creates a bridge between Cysteine proteins that have free -SH groups on them. The bond builders supposedly react with the protein and create a bond like S-bond builder-S.
In truth, I think it is a bunch of marketing gobblygook. These products are not building bonds to any extent that you will notice any difference in the fibers. It is simply marketing hype.
-
Some answers…
1. Heating phase is used when creating an emulsion. Typically, you want the emulsion to be created at a higher temperature as that will lead to smaller particles and a more stable emulsion. Also, you often use an “oily material” that is solid at room temperature (like Stearyl Alcohol) and you need to melt it to incorporate it into the emulsion. How fast you cool the system can also change the final viscosity. Without knowing more about the ingredients in your formula, there isn’t much more I can say about your system & why that happens.
2. That depends on what you mean by “large batches”. For a commercial enterprise making 100 gallon batch, no a stick blender/immersion blender is not appropriate. For a 1 kg batch, maybe. It’s not really ideal however because you want to be able to make a consistent batch. This requires you to get the same level of mixing each time. So, it’s better to have a mixing system in which you can control the speed / time of mixing without having to hold the thing yourself.
-
Thanks for the question. In truth, there probably really isn’t any article/data that show the reality of how viscosity affects active ingredient performance. This is because it is already extremely difficult to show any performance benefit from an active ingredient. If a company has optimized the formula to maximize active ingredient effect, they wouldn’t publish that.
In your example, the answer is that it depends on the active and what it is supposed to do. If the active is a sunscreen then the thicker one will likely be better for keeping it on the surface of skin. However, you can make a thin one work too by including the appropriate film forming polymers.
The effectiveness for penetration will also depend on the nature of the thickening ingredient. If the formula is thick because of an oil based thickener, that could help increase penetration for oil based actives.
The bottom line is that active ingredients in cosmetics have such a difficult to measure effect that the thickness of the formula will have little to no measurable impact of the effectiveness of the active ingredient.
-
If you want some useful replies you’ll need to give a list of your ingredients. Betaine generally only helps thicken in the presence of other anionic surfactants. And salt only works with certain surfactants.
-
The FDA has guidance on their website about cosmetic labeling
-
“Redness relief” is a vague enough claim that it would probably be ok in the US. They could just mean that when you use the product, you feel better about the redness. It doesn’t actually have to do anything to actually change the redness.
-
Yep, it’s most likely a mixing issue. If you’re using purple you’re likely using a non-water soluble dye? If it is water soluble then you can first mix the colors in water and then add it to the main batch.
-
I see a few problems with your formula.
1. You include too much essential oil. The whole purpose of a shower gel is to REMOVE oil. When you put oil in your formula you cause two problems. First, you reduce the amount of surfactant available to clean the surface. Second, the essential oil is already tied up in a micelle and will just rinse down the drain. It is a complete waste of resources to include an essential oil, especially since you already have a fragrance! There are only two reasons to include an essential oil in a cleansing product. You need it for the odor or you want to tell a marketing story. If it’s a marketing story, you only need to add like 0.1%.
2. If your home stability test did not involve a Preservative Efficacy test then you haven’t really done a stability test.
3. Determining the correct amount for a 2-year shelf life is done just how you’re doing it. Use the highest amount you can safely add. Then when you find that is effective you can try to optimize the formula by using less. Of course, for that preservative you also need to keep the pH near or below 5.0 since Sorbic acid is one of the ingredients.
4. Niacinamide is water soluble. It is simply rinsing down the drain and doing nothing in your formula. Using it at 1.5% is just a waste of money. In a rinse-off cleanser, it is what is known as a “claims” ingredient. You put a tiny amount in there to get consumers to buy the product. It doesn’t have any effect on the skin.
The separation is most likely caused by the essential oil separating. Reduce the level since it is a pointless ingredient anyway.
Finally, if you are going to sell the product you need to have it stability tested by an independent lab. Home stability testing is just not appropriate for a commercial product.
Hope that helps!
-
People have been washing their faces with soap for nearly 2000 years. I think if it caused a significant amount of damage, we would have noticed by now.
But I imagine if a person did a lifetime half-face test where they washed one side of their face exclusively with soap and the other with more gentle, non-ionic surfactants, they might see a slight difference. Although, the impact of UV exposure, gravity, aging and the environment are much more significant contributors that even if they ran this experiment, they wouldn’t see any significant difference.
-
Identifying a good contract manufacturer is a key first step. Also, identifying benchmarks of products they want to emulate is crucial.
-
Agreed. I wouldn’t use CMI or MI for leave-on products. Even ones that would be wiped off.
-
Acid value test tells you how much free fatty acids are in a sample. If you got a 0 result I would make sure they ran the test again. That is an incredible drop. If the result is real it means there was some significant oxidation (poor storage conditions) or microbial contamination. Either way I think the material would smell weird. Most likely it was just a bad test.
-
You use different mixing equipment, you shouldn’t be surprised if you get different viscosity.
-
I’ll start by telling you that an ingredient like Bakuchiol is primarily a “claims” ingredient. It is put in formulas at tiny levels just so marketing people (and the media, bloggers, etc.) have something to talk about. The ingredient does not actually have a consumer noticeable impact on performance. That is why the real answer to all your questions is “do whatever you want because it doesn’t really matter.”
But if we pretend it does matter, here are my thoughts.
1. The reported pH range should be pH 5.5 - 6.5. This supposedly maximizes stability but honestly, there is little evidence to prove this is true. A level of 1.5% is a fine enough starting point. If you want to save money, 0.15% is enough too.
2. The supposed optimal pH range for AA is 3.0 - 3.5. It needs to be in the acid form to “work” so this makes sense. 1.8% or 1.0% likely makes no difference. The AA will steadily oxidize in your formula so after a couple days you won’t have any active AA in it whether you use 1.8% or 1.0%.
3. Again, this is just a number someone writes in a paper. Without knowing what you mean by “functions best” it’s hard to say. I can say whether it’s at pH 3.5 or pH 3.0 or 4.5, you personally won’t notice any difference. It’s not an ingredient that provides consumer perceptible differences in my opinion.
In truth, the best thing you can do for your skin is moisturize daily and use sunscreen. None of these “active ingredients” will have a noticeable impact on your fine lines and wrinkles beyond what a moisturizer is going to do. You also won’t remember what your face looked like 2 or 3 months ago. If you’ve done all the work of applying product daily and you’re paying more attention to your face, of course you’re going to think that it looks better. In truth, it probably looks the same.
However, if the routine of using products and paying attention to your face makes you feel better and think it looks better, than keep doing what you’re doing. Reality does not matter as much as how you feel.
-
There is no “natural” emulsifier that will work. You need something like a PEG but the exact ingredient you need depends on the oils you are using. Cosmetics are not natural or “organic” (as used in the world of marketing). They are synthetic creations that often require synthetic ingredients to make them work.
-
See this discussion about Thickening Glucoside systems.
-
Not typically. A shampoo and cream are both “Colloidal solutions”. But an emulsion is a colloidal solution that contains a large amount of oil suspended in the solution. A shampoo is simply a solution of water and surfactant. That is why you generally don’t need to heat up a shampoo (unless you have a pearling agent or silicone or something).
-
Hello Chelsea & @paprik
You can see a replay here. https://vimeo.com/969701362?share=copy
-
Yes, if you signed up you should get an email alerting you to the replay. If you don’t get it within a couple days let me know and I’ll post the link here. The replay is being edited at the moment.
-
You’re right! I fixed it. Thanks
-
Lots of things can impact viscosity including…different mixing conditions, different raw materials, different amounts of ingredients used, etc.
Ideally, you should not be making many adjustments so set the specification such that you minimize adjustments. However, you also don’t want to sell products with wildly different viscosity levels. While a consumer can’t usually tell the difference between 4000 and 6000 cps, they can tell a difference between 4000 and 25,000 cps. You want to set the specification such that it is wide enough that you don’t need to make batch adjustments, but narrow enough that consumers can’t tell a difference.
Only through multiple batch making will you be able to determine what the best range should be.
-
Disagreement in science is good! It is difficult to have an experience where you come to a conclusion about what is going on and not feel compelled to accept the explanation.
But I’m reminded of a Feynman quote about science and discovering what’s true.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Bakuchiol may very well have positive effects that are beyond what a moisturizer could provide. But without scientific, blinded, controlled studies, I remain skeptical.
-
That was an excellent reply and I’m very glad you linked a study that has convinced you. But in my view, this study is nothing more than an academic exercise with the sole purpose of generating a marketing story for brands & companies that use Bakuchiol in their products.
Before I get into the details, lest you think I’m just a cynic, there is a very simple study that could be conducted to demonstrate Bakuchiol (or any other anti-aging active ingredient) is effective.
The study that should be done
First, get a group of at least 100 people. Then give 50 of them an excellent moisturizer with no special active ingredients in it. Just standard emollients, humectants, occlusives, etc. Make it smell and feel great. Then give another 50 people that same formula but with the 1.5% Bakuchiol or any other active in there. Then, on a blinded basis, have the people use the product for 3 months and report back on the results. If the test group reported better satisfaction then Hurray! We’re on our way to proving something useful. This is such a simple study it makes me wonder…why hasn’t someone done this?
I’ll tell you why. Because if they did this, they would not get any positive results. People just don’t notice differences that these ingredients are claiming to affect.
What does the study you linked do?
Instead of running the test I suggested above they first try to prove Bakuchiol is an antioxidant, and they do. I say…So what? Why should a consumer care that Bakuchiol is an antioxidant just like thousands of other materials they could use?
They tested “wound healing” which is a drug effect so not a cosmetic, but ok, they did a half face study comparing Bakuchiol to NO treatment. Why not compare it to a good moisturizer? Because if they did, they would have gotten no positive results.
Then they look at proteins and genetic markers and report all these things and again I’m left saying…so what?
Where is the study that looks specifically at the way you are going to use the product?
It doesn’t exist. My contention is that it is such a simple study to run they either…
1. Ran the study and didn’t have any positive data to share
2. Didn’t run the study because they don’t really want to learn that it doesn’t do anything more than a moisturizer.
This is exactly how research works in the cosmetic industry. It is not real science because it’s not done to find out what is true. It is done to verify what the researchers want to be true.