OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
When the viscosity goes thin, do a salt curve analysis.
If you don’t find a good salt level, you could adjust your formula. Your ratios seem a little off with 1:12 Betaine:SLES. You might try a 1:4 ratio so the final % would be about…
SLES 70% = 12.5
CAPB 30% = 7.0 -
Cons:
+You have to formulate at a pH below 5.0.
+Benzoates can be allergens. https://www.the-dermatologist.com/content/update-benzoates
+They can destabilize emulsions
+Less reliable than parabensPros:
+Can claim paraben free.IMO - the cons outweigh any pros.
-
If you want helpful answers you must include your list of ingredients.
-
It might help if you would list all the ingredients in your formula.
-
Without the ingredient list, you’re not going to get much advice.
-
The melting point of Stearic acid is 69C so you’ll want to heat it to at least that temperature or a few degrees higher.
-
The efficacy of retinyl palmitate is not proven. See this research review article.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5abx1us57s7vuyd/bradley2015-antiaging-skin-ingredients.pdf?dl=0
-
My thoughts are that if you want a long lasting, pH 5.4, low odor, non-sensitizing preservative, you should use parabens.
Alternative preservatives like the ones you’ve suggested are difficult to formulate with and are not always effective. When it comes to preservatives, “natural” is not better and is frequently worse.
-
You haven’t provided enough information for anyone to give a good answer.
If you want serious responses, do the following when asking questions.
1. List all your ingredients
2. List the amount of your ingredients -
@Gunther - Since there are limited regulations on them and no one has the incentive to check, I’d guess companies would just put preservatives in the hydrosols and not tell anyone. Or the ingredients are contaminated and none of the users bother checking.
-
Here is a write-up on how to do a stability test.
-
I’d be skeptical that you could actually tell much difference. Did you do a test on a blinded basis? I’d suggest a triangle test. 2 samples of one type and 1 sample of another type. See if you can pick out the different one.
I doubt you’ll notice any effect of addition of Guar with Dimethicone and such already in there.
-
@Gunther - Well, they have R&D now. They just didn’t for a very long time. While they are fine products, there is nothing particularly impressive about the formulas or performance. I suspect you are correct that the fact that they are heavily marketed to beauty salons (and the salon owners get a kickback from sales) skews their perception a bit.
-
That information is typically private, although within the industry people might figure out who’s making what.
The process really can go a number of different ways.
1. Some companies do it all from building the brand to formulating to production. If demand exceeds their capacity, they hire contract manufacturers to produce for them. The company gives them the exact formula, suppliers, procedure, etc and the Contract Manufacturer makes it.
2. Some companies are just a brand and hire a contract manufacturer to make everything. They pay to have formulas that are customized & unique. Paul Mitchel started out exactly this way and didn’t have any R&D or Manufacturing for a long time. (They do now).
3. Some companies make their their own formulas then hire a contract manufacturer to scale it up. Often, the CM will change the formula slightly based on the raw materials they can get. They also try to lock in the customer so they can’t get their formulas made somewhere else.
4. Some companies pay independent chemists to make the formulas for them. Like some of the chemists listed here https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/discussion/137/need-formulating-services-here-are-some-contacts#latest These chemists then develop formulas and provide them with contacts for manufacturers who can make the products for them.
5. Then there are private label companies who make products but put whatever brand name you want on the bottle. They have stock formulas that all their customers can use with minimal customization.
I’m sure there are more situations but that’s pretty much how most companies work.
Finding a good contract manufacturer is a challenge. There are a lot of bad ones out there. But the main reason is that start ups are not the business most CMs want to get. It’s not steady business and startups usually want to do everything on the cheap. CMs would much rather make products for companies like P&G or Unilever because they make great quantities and are reliable high paying customers.
-
I agree with @jeremien - a polymer no matter how small probably wont help with penetration
-
@Imosca
Excellent! Just what I was looking for. Thanks!
-
Also a silicone like Dimethicone or Cyclomethicone could help.
-
If you want some serious answers, you need to describe your problem in more detail.
What specifically does “more shelf life” mean? How much more?
What is your current formula? Without knowing your formula there are no answers that can be reasonably given.
-
@Gunther - It took some time but we eventually got a formula that matched our DEA containing formula. Originally, the VO5 Shampoo used Lauramide DEA to great effect until we switched to Cocamidopropyl Betaine.
No, I don’t recall a sticky afterfeel from Cocamide DEA.
-
I’ve used AMP before (Aminomethyl Propanol)
-
The industry moved away from DEA products back in the late 1990’s due to concern about nitrosamines causing cancer. This was overblown and there is zero evidence that products like Cocamide DEA should be of any concern in cosmetics, but contrary to suggestions by various NGOs, when an ingredient is tainted with bad press, the Cosmetic Industry generally moves away from it if there are suitable alternatives.
-
But here is a copy.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mdh9ocmxchad001/TEA-safety.pdf?dl=0
-
I don’t think an account is required.
-
This CIR report says 5% for leave-on is max. They don’t list a max for rinse-off products. https://online.personalcarecouncil.org/ctfa-static/online/lists/cir-pdfs/pr594.pdf
