Perry44
Forum Replies Created
-
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.
-
I’d say when in doubt, do a stability test.
For these specific questions.
1. I’m not sure what you mean but yes you need to test every new formulation. You should also test when you have new packaging.
2. Yes, every new production setup should be tested. But you don’t have to test every batch if you are using the same equipment each time.
3. No, but if you change suppliers than you should do a stability test.
4. Whenever there is a change in manufacturing, packaging, raw material supplier you should do stability testing.
-
If you want a useful answer you should list out all the ingredients in your formula.
-
Glucoside based and other non-ionic surfactants do not thicken with salt. You’ll need something else like maybe a Cellulose thickener. If you have salt in your system a Carbomer thickener will not work either.
-
Here is the ingredient list.
AQUA, GLYCERIN, STEARIC ACID, HYDROGENATED CASTOR OIL, CYCLOMETHICONE, MICROCRYSTALLINE WAX, CYCLOTETRASILOXANE, CANDELILLA CERA, VP/VA COPOLYMER, PVP, POLYACRYLAMIDE, C13-14 ISOPARAFFIN, LAURETH-7, PHENOXYETHANOL, CAPRYLYL GLYCOL, SODIUM STEAROYL GLUTAMATE, PARFUM (AROMA), SODIUM HYDROXIDE, TETRASODIUM EDTA, CARAMEL.
I’m afraid you are missing significant ingredients.
You have nothing in your product to give hold. That is VP/VA COPOLYMER & PVP in the original formula. Also the waxes will help with “movable” hold.
Additionally, you have no silicones in your version so the application and feel will be completely different.
At the very least, you’ll have to add PVP to your formula to give it some hold. -
Yes, product contamination is the concern, not mold on peoples faces.
But it’s still not a good idea to use them.
-
If it’s clear, likely the smallest particle size. SME253 goes down to 20 nm particle size, although it’s a blend so they don’t use that specific ingredient in this formula.
-
Yes, it’s safe
-
Sure.
-
Silicones should work, but without sharing a list of ingredients you’re already using we can’t give much more helpful advice. There isn’t a single “increase glow” ingredient.
-
If it stops sweat, then it becomes an OTC.
-
Sounds like a challenging project. You’ll need someone with access to some analytical equipment if you don’t already know the composition of the polymer. @chemicalmatt any thoughts?
-
Not a significant amount. The way SLS works it just does not form insoluble salts the same way soap does. The SLS micelles are just much more stable.
-
Raw material suppliers are not under the same regulatory scrutiny as finished goods makers. Essentially they can market their ingredients however they want with the flimsiest of evidence. They know they are not the ones ultimately responsible for claims made to consumers. I take what raw material suppliers say (even big corporations) with a grain of salt.
And winning awards at in cosmetics or another trade show is not impressive either. These awards are given out every year but the reality is that very little changes in our industry. There haven’t been significant innovations since the 1980’s in my opinion. But still they have to give an award for something. Sadly that something typically comes down to the best marketing story.
-
This may be the way forward for some innovation in the cosmetic industry (there hasn’t been any real consumer perceptible innovation in years).
However, consider me skeptical that this could make much difference. In my experience people are just terrible at noticing subtle differences in cosmetic products. You can make the greatest formula in the world and if you put the wrong fragrance in it, no one is going to want to use it. Conversely, you can make a lame formula that everyone loves just because it has a well-loved fragrance and a good marketing story.
This is also ignoring the legality of creating products that you know specifically impact the biochemistry of people. This would make them drugs.
-
Since there is no proof of any thing being Supernatural, isn’t everything natural?
-
As to how much of a ratio you use between surfactants, that is just a matter of experimentation. You want to balance performance with gentleness and cost. The ratio / amount is different with different formulas.
-
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.
-
I was trying to use this yesterday and keep getting a 404 error. Is the service coming back?
-
Yes, if they make that claim then it is an OTC. And if it is an OTC Antiperspirant, they have to use some form of Aluminium salt as the active & label it with a drug label.
-
This is an old discussion! But I say PQ-37 is better for leave in because you need to use less of it to get a reasonable effect. You could use 0.2% of PQ-37 that would give you the same effect as say 2% BTMS. So, this would result in hair that feels less weighed down.