Perry44
Forum Replies Created
-
Typically, the containers you get from the packaging supplier are already cleaned and washed so you don’t need to do anything to them. At least that is the case for large scale producers.
-
They’re probably the same. You’d have to look at the specification sheet.
Most extracts are sold in Glycerin or Propylene Glycol. -
I’m confused.
Do they not think the cosmetic industry has already tried those compounds?
What do you see as the major problems with their study?
Also, to be fair, there are plenty of non-government, academic types who have published equally bad “research”
-
It really depends on the formula / emulsification system. 10% might be fine for some systems.
In fact, we used to do what was called a “quench cooling” method with one of our hair conditioners. We would add 25% cold water after creating the emulsion. This rapidly cooled the system so instead of taking 8 hours to make a batch we could do it in 2 hours. And we didn’t have any stability problems in that formula. -
I agree that the Glycols are helping.
And with the Baby Daily Moisture cream, they also list 1.2% Dimethicone as the active ingredient. This is actually an OTC drug product ( https://www.aveeno.com/products/daily-moisture-baby-cream ) My guess is that it has a low enough water content that Water Activity is also helping with preservation. Also, it is in a pump which helps and produced in an OTC factory which is going to be cleaner than your typical Cosmetic manufacturing facility.
aveeno.com
Aveeno Baby Daily Moisturizing Cream | Aveeno®
Soothe & protect baby's delicate skin. This hypoallergenic baby body cream with coconut oil, shea butter, prebiotic oat moisturizes sensitive skin for 24 hours.
-
You’re almost right! You’ve calculated correctly the amount need for 100g. If you want to make a 250g batch then you’ll need to multiply those numbers by 250/100 = 2.5.
SCI: 9.41g x 2.5 = 23.53g
Disodium cocoamphoacetate: 13.33g x 2.5 = 33.33g
Or if you wanted to make a 500g batch you would multiply those numbers by 500/100 = 5.
-
These are really just marketing terms. When I was working on a shampoo project and our marketing people wanted a “clarifying” version of our shampoo, we simply increased the surfactant level by 1%. Change color, packaging, and viola! You’ve got a clarifying shampoo.
-
Because bacteria and most other microbes can not grow in an alcohol solution greater than about 20%.
-
I’d guess shampoo A because it has SLS
-
If you use Cocamide DEA, yes, it’s possible. With Cocamide MEA, probably not.
-
Agree with @Microformulation - Minoxidil is a drug whether you make claims about it or not. You need to be certified to make products with it.
-
To get closer to a “store-bought” product, you first have to get rid of the ingredients that are either doing nothing or actively making your product worse. Remover (or reduce to <1%) the following….
Glycerin, Bamboo Liquid Extract, Date Palm Liquid Extract, Honeyquat, Panthenol Powder, Vegekeratin Hydrolyzed Protein.
Make that formula first and then see how your needs to be improved. With the exception of Glycerin, the ingredients I listed above are what we call “claims” ingredients. They are just put in formulas (especially shampoos) to give the marketing people something to talk about. They don’t actually work to do anything in the formula.
You don’t include Glycerin because it depresses foam and provides no real benefit to a shampoo.
-
Ha!
-
They might just think they get a better feel or wet comb or something. I personally don’t think it is necessary.
-
Well one thing is that Carbomer doesn’t work very well with electrolytes like sodium benzoate. Also, you should neutralize Carbomer at the end, not at the start.
-
I don’t think making a shampoo at pH 10 or 11 is a good idea.
There is no benefit to it and you might harm someone who uses it.
Keep the pH at around 5.0 and also add some preservative! -
They didn’t give you an ingredient list? It seems pretty pointless without it.
I guess they want you to add some HPMC (cellulose polymer). That could help with viscosity, stability & foam.
-
If someone is trying to sell you something, you should begin with the assumption that they are not telling you the whole truth. This isn’t to say they are lying to you but all facts are dressed up to tell the best story. And sometimes, they are lying.
But to your question more specifically.
This is a slightly controversial opinion, but I do not believe any actives that are not proven drug actives are effective at doing anything noticeable for a consumer’s skin. The one exception are Alpha Hydroxy Acids which pretty clearly cause a reaction on skin.
But things like Peptides, vitamins, extracts, flavonoids, retinoids, niacinamide, or whatever anti aging ingredient is being sold, they just don’t have consumer perceptible effects. Sure, there may be some lab data but when these things get put into moisturizing formulas, any effect they might have had is overshadowed by the obvious effects of just using a moisturizer.
And honestly, the research that is published even in peer reviewed literature is mostly terrible. They rig the studies to ensure they show some significant effect. They never answer the questions that people really want to know. They answer questions that will best help them sell their ingredients.
I’ve participated in running these studies. You don’t pay good money for research just to publish negative results. That means only positive results are published & anything negative is just not submitted.
Now, I don’t wish to come off sounding so cynical as I do believe there certainly is potential for active ingredients in skin care. I just don’t think the stuff out there right now provides consumer noticeable effects for the vast majority of consumers. Good moisturizers is about all we’ve got.
-
Most shampoos don’t use a thickener like Crothix. Better would be something like Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose. That helps with foam. Or you can just use Salt to thicken and use a cationic polymer like Guar Hydroxypropyldimonium Chloride for foam stabilization and conditioning.
-
You’re arguing something different than my point. My point is that saponification is not more natural than the process used to make SLES. In your way of looking at it, I would agree there are less steps, but that doesn’t make it more “natural”. It is still a man-made process that requires synthetic chemistry that isn’t produced in nature. They are both synthetic compounds.
I also disagree with your assessment of the safety of the ingredient and will defer to toxicologist opinions.
-
There are lots of people who ride around in cars without seatbelts and never get hurt. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
-
It’s not that the corporation necessarily imposes their ethos on the bought company, usually what happens is that the small company wasn’t following all the appropriate regulations & rules of the industry so formulas, claims and packaging usually have to be updated. Then companies look to reduce costs by getting economy of scale so formulas are often optimized.
-
No.
Sensitive skin is a term that is not really well defined. And targeting babies is especially problematic when trying to make consumer-noticeable differences. Because babies can’t really tell you if something is working better or not. You’re left with parental observation which is just not reliable for subtle changes.
-
When I was in college, we did an exercise where we were given a substance and some clues about what it possibly could be. Then through using various chemical reactions and techniques we could identify what substance it might be. That is the kind of thing you need done. That would be an Analytical Chemist. Ideally, someone who also has a background in cosmetic science. Unfortunately, that’s a rare combination of skills. And this is also a very difficult (if even possible) problem.
-
I actually have a chapter in the Harry’s book & the Draelos books are good sources. But these books, and other industry standard books, tend to just report on research that gets published. It’s helpful to learn about what is out there and how things may theoretically work. However, these books and the journals that publish the research they are based on, suffer from a positivity bias. They need something new to publish. They can’t publish negative studies that tell people what I believe is generally true: nothing that isn’t a drug active provides any consumer noticeable effect better than a good moisturizer.
The industry is filled with motivated research. It’s not like basic research where scientists are trying to find out what is true. Rather it is research designed to demonstrate what might be true. And that is because most of it is funded by companies that financially benefit from finding good marketing stories to help sell their products.
But if you’re looking to learn the basics of what is believed in the industry and by consumers, those books are good places to start.
I’ll add that AI isn’t going to help much with this problem either. It’s been trained on weak research & just parrots back those results.