OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
It’s not surprising that a run of 500 doesn’t get a lot of attention. For a printer that is not a big job.
You might get a quote from this company. http://www.sklabel.com/ I’ve used them in the past and found them reasonable. -
You could pretty much market anything but the question is, what would you claim that the product does?
I wouldn’t advertise the taste or that it’s an edible product but there are personal care products marketed that way. e.g. this cotton candy lotion. https://www.simplyforlovers.com/product/Emotion-Lotion-Cotton-Candy-4-oz -
Ah yes, 1% active. You are correct. And AMP is a good choice too.
-
I don’t really have an answer for this, but I wonder what made you ask the question?
You must be thinking that there is something wrong with standard emulsifiers like Glyceryl Stearate or Stearic Acid. What made you think that was a problem?For anyone to give you an answer you have to let us know what property you are trying to find the best for. Glyceryl Stearate is the “best” for most systems although it is really going to depend on what oils are in your formula.And the polymeric emulsifiers are probably even better choices as they have less probability of negatively interacting with skin.It’s a difficult question you ask without more specific details. -
Wow. Yeah, if your acrylates copolymer is just in there for thickening you should be able to use around 1%.
-
@jjackson - People can market anything. That doesn’t mean they are doing it safely or legally.
-
To determine salt levels see our post on the subject. https://chemistscorner.com/salt-curve-analysis-how-to-control-cleansing-cosmetics/
But salt will not have a large impact on foam. It’s just that if you use too much you don’t get viscosity control plus it can be stinging to eyes. -
6.89% salt is too high too.
-
Putting eucalyptus oil in your product is killing your foam.
-
Amphoteric surfactants are ionic surfactants. Amphoteric just means it has the capacity to be both positively and negatively charged. It’s still ionic.
Nonionic surfactants are nonionic and do not create salts when put in a solution. -
You are probably creating a salt with the cetrimonium part and the cocoamphoacetate part. I would be surprised if it is stable. Also, it is unlikely to have a conditioning effect since you’ve tied up the cationic surfactant with the anionic surfactant.
-
It’s a co-emulsifier but won’t be much good on its own. It also provides opacity & thickness to formulas. It is not a preservative.
-
@Chemist77 - yeah your method works too.
-
I’ve never heard of doing this but it might be a good predictor.
-
The reason I suggested lowering the level is because you may be delivering more of an ingredient than you need. I slightly disagree with @Chemist77 and basically believe the opposite. (Although @Chemist77 approach works too).
When formulating you should start with the highest level suggested by the supplier. But that is not where you should end up. The supplier will tell you the maximum amount because that is what they want you to use. They make more money that way. However, that doesn’t mean you need that much of the ingredient.I believe in following for Minimalist Formulation Philosophy.Basically, your goal should be to use the least amount of an ingredient that you can while demonstrating a consumer perceptible difference.In my work, I’ve found that most people (formulators included) couldn’t tell a difference between a formula with 4% BTMS vs 2% BTMS. So, there is no reason to go as high as 4% at least if conditioning is you primary consideration. But your consumer might be able to tell a difference. You just have to experiment.Remember to blind your experiments though. It is very easy to fool yourself without blinding. -
It’s most likely a fragrance issue. Maybe Polysorbate 20 will not be suitable. You could try Oleth 40 or Polysorbate 80 or something else.
But like @David said, you need to test your formula without fragrance to determine whether that is the problem. It most likely is. -
Thanks Mark!
You can do that through here. https://chemistscorner.com/members -
Those are good starting points. You could probably get away with using half that amount though.
So, 2% BTMS and 1% Stearamidopropyl dimethylamine. You have to make the prototypes and determine if they give you the results you are looking for. Whether something weighs down the hair and provides good wet detangling is a matter of opinion & you’ll have to decide for yourself (or you consumers) -
Well, it doesn’t sound like a preservation problem then. You didn’t list fragrance as an ingredient. Is that something you are using? Or maybe your supply of PVP or Polyquat 11 is not a high enough quality.
-
What % level of the preservatives have you tried?
Microcare PEHG should work if you use it at a high enough level.Also, have you micro tested the hazy samples to see if you are having a micro problem? -
I would suggest you contact @chemicalmatt His company specifically fills packets.
-
A blend of DMDM Hydantoin & Methylparaben would work great.
-
Cetrimonium chloride will form micelles. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20175982
Salt can help change the packing structure of the particles in the product which could help boost stability. It also might be an ingredient that is brought in with another ingredient in production. You could probably make the formula without the salt but I’m not sure.what is the viscosity of the product? They could also be adding salt to reduce viscosity or maybe for some claims purposes. -
@bobzchemist - great idea
-
Yes, Glycol Monostearate. It’s the pearling agent in this shampoo.INGREDIENTS: Water (Aqua), Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Sodium Chloride, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Fragrance, Glycol Stearate, DMDM Hydantoin, Polyquaternium-7, Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose, Disodium EDTA, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Glycerin, Citric Acid, Red 40 (CI 16035), Red 33 (CI 17200), Red 4 (CI 14700), Polysorbate 20, Propylene Glycol, Tocopheryl Acetate, Soymilk, Panthenol, Fragaria Vesca Leaf Extract (Strawberry), Ascorbic Acid, Niacinamide, Biotin