Perry44
Forum Replies Created
-
There are a number of things that could be happening. Without knowing the amounts of ingredients it’s hard to give specific, helpful advice.
But in general…
1. Your preservative system has salts in it which can destabilize emulsions. You don’t have a stabilizer like Xanthan Gum so the micelles might be separating more quickly.
2. You didn’t mention what oils you’re using but the emulsion system you have might not be good enough. Try including also some Glyceryl Stearate maybe? Like I said, it’s hard to know without knowing the oils you’re using.
If it were me, I’d get rid of the preservative system you’re using and use parabens instead. They are much less likely to cause stability problems.
-
The term “oil” is pretty flexible in the cosmetic industry, at least when it comes to marketing language. If we want to get technical Jojoba Oil isn’t really an oil (it’s a liquid wax) but the industry is fine with calling it an oil. I’d say pretty much anything that is not soluble in water might be referred to as an oil in advertising even though, scientifically speaking, it wouldn’t be considered an oil.
There was a lawsuit going around claiming just that. Saying that anything that isn’t soluble in water is an oil. Of course, it was dismissed so from a legal standpoint just being insoluble in water is not enough to consider something an oil. https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/regulations/claims-labeling/news/22262614/oilfree-cosmetics-suit-vs-target-dismissed-mostly
cosmeticsandtoiletries.com
'Oil-free' Cosmetics Suit vs. Target Dismissed, Mostly
According to a report by Law360, a proposed class action suit claiming retailer Target misled consumers over claims of 'oil-free' cosmetics was dismissed in 12 of 13 instances by an Illinois federal judge.
-
I agree with @PhilGeis Stability testing should be done in the final packaging. If you are not using air tight packages with your consumer, the test would be almost meaningless.
We used simple 4 or 8 ounce glass jars with twist on caps. They weren’t “air tight” but they were good enough for stability testing. However, we also ran every formula in the package that they were going to be sold in. These were the samples that we used when deciding whether the product was stable or not.
-
I suppose you could put Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride in it or even Polyquat 7 or 10. But the more important question is, what ingredients do your consumers find compelling? If an ingredient is for claims purposes, your consumers need to know the ingredient to be impressed with the claims.
-
Well, that depends on the quality of the tap water. You might be able to use it, but you might not be able to use it.
-
ChatGPT says it’s most likely a micropipette. If it is not that, it could possibly be a Pasteur pipette or dropper pipette. How is the device you are talking about different from a micropipette?
-
It looks like a reasonable formula to me. What kind of feedback were you looking for? Without having samples available there is not much advice people can give. Does it remain stable? Do consumers like the feel? To me, there is nothing obvious about the formula that is lacking just based on the ingredient list.
-
If that is the case then the product is not causing frizz, it is just not solving it. I think the main problem is that you don’t have the best coating ingredients in there. Try adding something like Dimethicone.
-
They are called “gums” for a reason. If you don’t want the gummy effect, use a synthetic polymer like PVP.
-
Cosmetic formulating is very much trial-and-error. You mix stuff together and see what works or doesn’t. It just takes practice and a willingness to fail.
Now, it helps to know some chemistry and to keep water soluble stuff together and oil soluble stuff together (mostly). And then find the right emulsifiers / stabilizers to blend the different materials.
But there are very few general rules. Each system you work with will be a little bit different.
What specifically is the goal you want to achieve?
-
A formulator who won’t use mineral oil or petrolatum when the client says those are fine to use, isn’t much of a formulator. There’s a weird trend in our industry of formulators calling themselves “clean” or “green” formulators. Which is fine from a marketing standpoint. But if they can’t use standard ingredients to emulate benchmarks, that is a significant hole in their skill set. This is what happens when someone takes a class from an organic beauty school and thinks it qualifies them to be a formulator.
Anyway, see the list of chemists on this forum and just be upfront about what you want. If they say they won’t work with petrolatum don’t work with them.
-
Agreed that the question is too vague to answer. But considering cost, effectiveness and versatility, it’s hard to beat good ol’ SLS.
-
I’d add that without knowing the oil that you are trying to emulsify, it’s difficult to advise which emulsifier to use. A polymeric emulsifier like Pemulen could be useful.
-
I would add that there likely are negative results. It’s just that when that happens companies reformulate and test again until they get “good” results.
-
Have you ever looked through America’s Test Kitchen?
-
I do not think cocamide MEA is on Prop 65. Unless they added it this year
-
I suppose that depends on the claims you want to make. Let’s look at an example.
Suppose you have an in vitro experiment that shows active X at 2% gives some benefit. Well if you want to claim that benefit in your product you should use it at 2% in your formula. At least you could make an argument it really could deliver that benefit.
In truth, you should really test in vivo from your formula at the % actually used if you want to make the claim.
But if you word your claim in the right way, you can put a tiny fraction of the ingredient in the final formula and simply imply that it will deliver some claim.
But it would help if we had more information about the ingredient/benefit you are trying to deliver.
-
Yeah, I don’t agree either. There really aren’t cosmetic chemists working in industry who don’t also have to do formulating (unless they have been promoted to manager and have technicians that work for them).
-
Yes. We always made batches to put stability samples up in both glass and the final packaging. It may have been over-kill but it’s generally helpful to know whether a formula is stable without interference from the packaging.
-
The company I worked for regularly used city tap water for batches but it was usually filtered. But in the lab we always used deionized water.
-
You might be increasing the price by including both polymeric and standard emulsifiers. However, if a formula is stable you generally don’t want to mess with it. Also, if they ask you for a reduced cost version, then you can experiment to get the most optimized formulas. Until then, I’d just leave it alone.
-
You didn’t identify any specific synthetic surfactants in your post. Which are you referring to and what do you mean by toxic impact?
-
He’s in the USA
-
The CIR and SCCS do use peer reviewed, scientifically published research. In fact, it’s a requirement of what they use to determine ingredient safety.
You’re being a bit vague on what you mean by toxic effects or “harmful effects”. So, it’s difficult to find any peer reviewed research as you’ve asked because it’s unclear. For example, I would say irritation is a “harmful effect” and a peer reviewed paper has already been posted here that demonstrates Potassium Cocoate is more toxic (harmful effect) than synthetic surfactants. So, challenge accepted and met, or do you mean something else by toxic effect?
-
Well, to be fair, saponification is man made, synthetic chemistry. There is no plant out there making soap that you would use in a cosmetic product.