OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
The outer layer of skin is dead. It does not breath any more than a pair of leather gloves. No, you can’t suffocate skin.
I’ve not seen any evidence that women’s skin ages faster. This sounds like a marketing story that helps convince women to buy more products.
-
@Abdullah - We’ve got one coming up this week (although I’m doing it in conjunction with the IFSCC). See the pinned post up top.
Typically, I post the previous Q&A in the sidebar of the forum. You can watch the one with Belinda right now.
-
I’d guess that you have too much silicone for the amount of surfactant in the system. Typically, a 2-in-1 shampoo will have about 1% silicone at most.
-
I also think because it’s a biomolecule that is naturally broken down over time. It’s the same reason the collagen and elastin that your body produces doesn’t last forever.
-
I believe it is mostly the result of formaldehyde causing chemical bonding within the protein chains in the hair. The formaldehyde may also be able to attach some of the product keratin to hair through the same bonding process. However, the keratin doesn’t actually do much and if you made a product with just a high level of formaldehyde, you could get the same results without the keratin. But like you said, telling people it’s the formaldehyde straightening system is not nearly as appealing as calling it a keratin straightening system.
-
@Abdullah - It should put a number by your name when someone includes your name in the quote. But I’ll see if there is a way to also include a notification when someone quotes you.
-
@DaveStone - Deep conditioning treatments work to make hair feel smoother, look shinier, and comb more easily. But the protein in them has little to do with it. They work because of cationic surfactants, cationic polymers and silicones.
Hydrolyzed keratin is water soluble and rinses down the drain when hair is rinsed. The tiny bit of protein that might be left behind has no proven beneficial effect.
But it makes for a better story to tell people protein is improving the condition of your hair rather than synthetic silicones or cationic surfactants.
-
@Pattsi - you can see Mark’s Q&A here.
https://vimeo.com/581168649/301fee65cc -
Papers like these are similar to the vast array of papers you can find about compounds that kill cancer or viruses. Lots of things can work in the lab under highly controlled (or contrived) conditions. But in practice they don’t work for whatever reason. That’s why the most useful data is real life use conditions.
If putting an egg on your head had some consumer noticeable benefit, it would have been done much more frequently by many more people. Scientists would have isolated the ingredient that made hair grow and would have filed an NDA already. The fact that it is still just a novel, home remedy demonstrates that it doesn’t actually work to any significant extent.
And as far as reports from people who have used it and reported positive results, I think from a scientific perspective we can discount anecdotal evidence as far as proof of anything. Someone who puts egg on their head would certainly be motivated to notice some improvement & say positive things. The alternative would be to admit that they were being fooled…and no one wants to admit that.
-
What effect is it supposed to have?
Protein is water soluble and unless you don’t rinse, it is washed away without doing anything.
-
Specifically what they mean is not known. But this is how I would interpret it.
In their shampoo, they include 1% silicone.
Some amount of that silicone gets left on hair during use.
Each polymer increases the amount left on hair by the % shownBut that doesn’t mean that without polymer 0% silicone is deposited.
It more reasonably means the following.
1. Say without polymer, 0.01% of the silicone is deposited
2. With polyquat 10, 0.0106% is deposited
3. With PQ-7, 0.0113% is deposited
4. With Jaguar c17, you get 0.0153%Is it more? Yes
Does it matter? I don’t knowSounds more impressive when put in a graph and you don’t look at the actual numbers. But that’s advertising.
-
You’d need to get access to VA/Crotonates Copolymer which may be difficult to get in small quantities. Probably not from BASF but maybe another supplier. https://cosmetics.specialchem.com/inci-ingredients/va-crotonates-copolymer
-
Looks great. Congratulations.
-
Not a specific answer but you might find this article useful.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ics.12740 -
@Bill_Toge - thanks! Admittedly, this is the kind of question we farmed out to our QA/QC department. It seemed they routinely ran IR on everything. Your solution is much more elegant!
-
Ideally, you would take a sample and run it through an IR Spectrophotometer. Then you could just compare it to a standard. That is what big/medium sized companies do. You should also have a Certificate of Analysis which lists specification ranges. You could also check for 1,4 Dioxane levels. SLS should have none while SLES might have some detectable levels.
-
You’ll have to better define what you mean by “safer”.
How would you measure one thing is safer than another? -
@Pharma - When working with raw materials, it’s difficult to know what the chemical makeup actually is. Just because a supplier calls something one thing doesn’t mean that is what they are actually delivering. This is why I encourage experiments like knockouts to figure out what’s going on.
-
What I would suggest you do is a knockout experiment.
https://chemistscorner.com/do-you-know-the-fastest-way-to-become-an-expert-cosmetic-formulatorNow, in your formula you wouldn’t have to make a separate batch to knock out every ingredient. I would say you could test
Arlacel 165 1.0
Crodamol SS 0.5
Sensolene Care DD 1.5
Capuacu Butter 1.0
Tucuma Seed butter 2.0
E gas 1.5
Jojoba oil 2.0
Macademia Oil 1.0
Gransil Si WHA 3.00So make a series of batches where you don’t add one of those ingredients. (replace the missing volume with water). Then see which one turns brown. The batch that doesn’t turn brown is the ingredient that is causing the problem.
-
Thank you all! Can’t wait to have the Cosmetic Formulation Q&A with @Pharma (coming later this month)
-
I’m not sure if you are creating products for yourself or for customers, but the better people to answer a subjective question like this is your customers. This really comes down to a preference.
If you objectively look at the question then the answer for most people could be found in looking at what products most people use. For an online customer brands like CeraVe, Aveeno, and Jergens seems to be the best.
-
@linne1gi - When you formulate a shampoo with SLS or SLES the pH is typically adjusted such that it is around pH 5.0 - 5.5. It is not particularly problematic for skin. In fact, the SLS in that formula is pretty low. I think the bigger problem is the glucosides which can cause allergic reactions or irritation.
-
@Abdullah - I do not believe film formers increase volume in any significant way. It is simply an interesting marketing story.
But ingredients that are used in the industry are cationic polymers like Polyquaternium 7, Polyquaternium 10, and the Guar polymers.
-
Cationic polymers deposit on hair in two ways.
1. Through electrostatic interaction (as you said)
2. But also through a dilution/deposition method.The second mechanism works like this. In a shampoo, there is enough surfactant to keep the cationic polymer in solution. But when it is put on hair and mixed with water, the surfactant level falls below that which is required to keep the polymer in solution. This causes it to come out of solution and deposit on the hair. Thus dilution/deposition.
-
@Syl - we always assumed that it was film forming but I don’t really know.
I don’t know if increase the pH would change the perception of volume. I doubt it.