OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
Thanks for your question. Just some thoughts
If you are really looking to make it last “as long as possible at room temperature” then using synthetic preservatives is the way to go. Parabens to fight against mold & fungi and aldehydes to fight against bacteria.
But I suspect you don’t really mean “as long as possible.” Rather you want to know how to make it last as long as possible “without using standard preservatives.” Correct?
Well, your options are limited. Microbes are great at contaminating things & nature hasn’t evolved broad spectrum based ways to stop it. See the recent discussion here about natural preservatives. You’ll have to decide for yourself what you consider natural enough.
While you’re not a chemist you would find it helpful to develop an understanding of what Aloe Vera Gel is & what it has been demonstrated to do (not just claimed to do). This article may be helpful. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551117/
In that article you’ll find that Aloe is made up “of more than 200 bioactive chemicals“. But it is also made up of 98% water. Even if you dilute it with 2:1 aloe:glycerin there is still going to be a >30% water in the system. Tocopherol is not a microbial preservative so it will have zero effect. Glyceryl Stearate is not a preservative either and will have no impact on microbial contamination.
HEC is certainly an option to provide a consistent texture. However, it is a chemically modified ingredient and does not occur anywhere in nature. Is that natural enough?
In science, there is a reductionist philosophy where when you find a substance that has an effect, you try to figure out what component of that substance is giving the effect. Then you try to create a product that will maximize the effect while minimizing components that reduce or have no impact on the effect.
Synthetic cosmetics were created because the natural stuff found out in the world is not nearly as nice or effective as the synthetic stuff. (e.g snotty gums).
-
No, you set a viscosity specification. Then you measure the viscosity over time. Ideally, the viscosity will remain unchanged (or changed within specific limits). If it falls outside the limits then the product is unstable.
-
Well, only you or your company can decide whether something passes stability testing or not.
Generally, a product is considered stable if it maintains characteristics within a specified range for that characteristic. For example, if the pH range of a product is set at 4.5 - 5.5, a product can be considered stable if the pH remains within that range for the length of time of the stability test.
-
There are a few misunderstandings here.
PEG stands for Polyethylene Glycol. The claim “PEG free” doesn’t have a specific legal definition so some people will make the claim as long as they think they can get away with not getting sued. Obviously if you have an ingredient with PEG in the ingredient list it would be much easier for a consumer or litigious actors to notice and sue you. Most people don’t know much about chemistry so as long as an ingredient doesn’t have PEG in the name, you can probably get away with claiming PEG free.
What you don’t seem to understand is why people think PEGs are bad. That is because these ingredients are “ethoxylated” which just means they are made by running a chemical reaction with some ingredient and ethylene oxide. Whenever you see the term “-eth” in an ingredient name, that means it’s been ethoxylated.
The concern is that ingredients that are ethoxylated have residual ethylene oxide or 1,4 Dioxane. Here is the fearmongering take on it - https://www.safecosmetics.org/get-the-facts/chemicals-of-concern/ethoxylated-ingredients/
The reality is that there is zero evidence that ethoxylated materials as used in cosmetics represent any health risk. Dose matters and the level of these materials found in cosmetics represents no known health risk.
So, no Sorbithix is not considered a PEG but it does contain ethoxylated materials and all the exaggerated health concerns about PEG would apply to Sorbithix.
-
What do your users mean when they say it caused dryness?
You might try substituting Polyquarternium 10 rather than Polyquat 7. Also, your level of Polyquat 7 is too high, 1% is max necessary.
Also, what is the total % active of surfactant. More than 15% is very high.
-
As far as water goes, yes that is probably condensation. 50C for 1 month is pretty extreme testing. Typically, 45C is the max used for that long of a time.
-
I try to focus on what consumers will notice. And the truth is, they don’t notice subtle differences. So, if a consumer won’t notice whether an ingredient is in there or not, I’m inclined to not include it.
Fewer chemicals = less chemical exposure = less likely to cause negative reactions
This is why I’m not a fan of natural extracts and things because they are made up of dozens or even hundreds of chemicals many of which we haven’t even identified.
Now you might say, “what about preservatives? Consumers don’t notice those.”
True, at least you hope consumers don’t notice your preservative. But they would notice if their product gets contaminated by microbes and starts to smell, discolor or spread disease.
I don’t agree with a philosophy in formulating which involves throwing as many active ingredients as you can in a single formula. First, the evidence that most active ingredients really do anything is scant. Second, the evidence of whether there is an interaction (negative or positive) between actives is practically non-existent. Finally, very few if any consumers would notice any difference between a good moisturizer and a good moisturizer + some active ingredient.
The only other good reason for including an ingredient consumers don’t notice is for marketing. And if you’re adding an ingredient for marketing purposes, you only need to put a tiny amount in so you can have it on your label.
-
@vitalys - better than glycerin? I doubt it
-
salt curve analysis - https://chemistscorner.com/salt-curve-analysis-how-to-control-cleansing-cosmetics/
-
Yes, there could be issues if you don’t have a coating on a tube. But stability testing could tell you to what extent.
-
@Abdullah - “my suggestion is if there be a feature to categorize the discussions we have posted or tag them for certain names or make folder for different categories like preservative or surfactant etc, that would be very helpful for some one who want to review his questions evey now and then.“
Thanks for the suggestion. We are updating the forum software soon so I’ll look into adding something like this. But at the moment if you want to tag or bookmark a discussion for later, just click the “star” icon on the top right corner of the discussion and it will save it in your bookmarked discussions.
-
Ideally, the spec range would be the same. But if production is different you can either make adjustments to your production batches to get them in spec, or you could change the spec to reflect what happens in production. Another option is to have an initial release spec & then a final release spec over time.
-
Setting the initial range is simply a guess. I’d wait to change anything until you know where the viscosity goes
-
Yes salt content affects viscosity. Do a salt curve analysis starting with 1% salt and go up from there
-
To be safe I’d put one year after manufacture unless you have stability testing to show otherwise. Plus, that would encourage consumers to replace old products
-
In my experience, people can’t tell much difference in the feel of different emollients
-
As an emollient, sure.
-
We experimented with using a texture analyzer to quantify play time but never made much progress. The problem is that this is a subjective characteristic and it comes down to a consumer opinion as to when a playtime is appropriate and when it is bad.
-
Yeah this seems like it’s pretty much a scientist ignorant of how sunscreens are actually made (using coated zinc oxide) “discovering” something that industry has known about and solved decades ago.
-
I do not believe you’ll be able to make an anhydrous formula that foams in the way you describe
-
@Sincityfire which products are you referring to? You have a link?
-
I guess my opinion is shaped from my upbringing in the USA and my scientific mindset.
In the US, we highly regard the concept of free speech. So unless there is some really good reason for government to limit speech (and advertising is speech) people/companies should be able to say what they want. And if you have a skeptical, scientific mindset you’ll be able to better evaluate claims you see. When someone can make money off of you believing a specific thing, you have to be highly skeptical.
So, in a business to business situation I think it is reasonable for the business that is buying components from a supplier to assume that they may not be getting the entire truth about a raw material. Don’t automatically believe supplier marketing material. I think it is reasonable because the company that makes an end product should be almost as knowledgable about the component raw materials as the company they buy from. Basically, they should be hard to fool.
On the other hand, consumers can’t be expected to know much about the products they buy. There is such a wide range of products to buy from food to cars to electronic to cosmetics, etc. they couldn’t possibly know much about everything. It’s much easier to fool most consumers. So I believe it is reasonable to have more restrictions on what companies can say in advertising when they are selling to consumers.
If we had a better educated, less gullible population then I think we wouldn’t need restrictions on speech. But the way the world is now, I think it makes sense to have the minimal guidelines we have now.
Incidentally, this is why I believe very little of what is published by suppliers about raw materials. I’ll try anything, and come to my own conclusions about whether it really works as advertised.
-
It’s not a silly question.
It’s because labeling rules apply to business to consumer transactions.
The same rules do not apply to business to business transactions.
The assumption is that when raw material suppliers sell you a raw material, they are selling you a component of a product, not the actual product. -
You are correct that there is an optimal level of surfactant/system : water ratio to achieve the best foam. That will be different for the different systems.
When we did foam testing we tested 5ml of shampoo to 100 ml of water. Doing the math that would have been about a 0.5 - 1.0% surfactant:water ratio, depending on the formula tested. But our testing was done in a blender. You would put in the water & shampoo, then mix the blender at a set speed for 1 min. Then you would measure the foam height.
That would give you more consistent results than testing on hair tresses.