[OldPerry]

Thanks! @abierose - There is a Vanilla update due soon so perhaps while that is being updated I’ll make sure the search is updated for the mobile version.

[OldPerry]

@Abdullah - it was a consulting job so I can give product details. But it was a leave-on product that used 1% phenoxyethanol.  Alternatives were from Lonza or Schulke (benzyl alcohol blends).

[OldPerry]

I don’t know for sure but it is a drug active that requires a prescription. So, then it comes down to why are you adding the ingredient. There is no non-drug reason to add it so that would make it illegal.

That you find creams on Amazon is not surprising. It is difficult for the FDA to keep up on all these different products.

[OldPerry]

Yes. I worked on a project to replace phenoxyethanol specifically because some percentage of customers complained about “flushing” or irritation.

[OldPerry]

The alternative word to “nasties” is “microbes”

[OldPerry]

Yes, they would clash. They will all compete for the same damaged protein sites on the hair. So, on some level it is all just redundant. Most of the conditioning ingredients will just wash down the drain. 

It’s a bit like instead of just putting sugar in your tea, you put sugar, honey, agave, and coconut sugar. Both will be sweet. It’s just that one option requires you to have a lot more ingredients in your pantry without much benefit.

[OldPerry]

@helenhelen - based on the ingredient list, that hair botox is simply a hair conditioner. https://cocochoco.ie/product/cocochoco-hair-botox-1000ml-clarifying-shampoo/  I imagine you could get the same results or better if you just use a flat iron and a standard hair conditioner.

[OldPerry]

It sounds like you didn’t completely dissolve the HEC in water.

[OldPerry]

The safety of it depends on the pH level.
Use only enough to adjust the pH to an appropriate level and you’ll be fine.
It dissociates in water to H+ and Cl- ions.

[OldPerry]

I don’t think a formal test of this has been done so it just becomes a guess.

My guess is that you won’t notice any difference whether you wait 1 minute or 1 hour.

[OldPerry]

@Pattsi - I’m a little confused. Does the definition allow you to be sustainable in one area but not others?

For example, could someone claim “sustainable petroleum” if they don’t use child labor to get it?

Because Mica is not really different than Petroleum in terms of availability for future generations.  

[OldPerry]

@DaveStone - because thioglycolate products smell awful!

[OldPerry]

No, the amount of foam produced during production should not affect how much foam the final product produces.

[OldPerry]

Yes, the lye version would work better. No lye generally is less effective.
It’s not surprising that it starts out straight but slowly reverts. That just means the bonds were not permanently broken and neutralized. It was simply being straightened via hydrogen bonding (like when you use a flat iron to straighten hair).

[OldPerry]

I’ve always thought “Sustainability” refers to it’s environmental impact.

What you are describing (ethically mined) would have no impact on the environment or on the product performance.

[OldPerry]

It means the “R” group is the hydrocarbon portion of isopalmitic acid.

But no, it doesn’t contain isopalmitic acid. The Isopalmitic acid losses an -OH group and bonds to the ascobic acid to form an ester.  - C - O - C -

Unless there is some residual, unreacted isopalmitic acid, the end product does not contain it.

[OldPerry]

The latest technology will be produced by P&G or Unilever

So try…
Old Spice
Dove
Ban

Stuff like that.

[OldPerry]

Just don’t add fragrance.
Or, reduce the level of ingredients that smell bad.
Or you might try Cyclodextrins to absorb the odor.

[OldPerry]

Looks good to me.  I might add some Petrolatum, Mineral Oil or Lanolin but it depends on how you want the formula to feel.  The  propylene glycol seems a little redundant (with the Glycerin) but I suppose it could change the feel.

[OldPerry]

@Iwana - Use less butter and oil.

[OldPerry]

@vitalys  - What evidence has convinced you of this?  

“The long term use of the preparations with high Glycerin content leads to even more severe symptoms of xerosis and related inflammation, especially if Glycerin is the only humectant in the formulation.“

I tend to believe that “less is better” (except in cases where it is not). 

So, the ideal moisturizer would contain…

Water
Petrolatum
Glycerin
Mineral Oil

Do you have any published evidence that this notion is mistaken?

[OldPerry]

@Abdullah - The important parts of this sentence…

“Subjective grading of xerosis by the investigators and visual analogue scales used by the patients showed a general trend toward better (though not statistically evident) improvement with coconut oil than with mineral oil.”

So, this subjective test (no formal measurement) found a general trend (whatever this means) that was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that it is likely to be a real difference. When something is not statistically significant, that means it is unlikely that there is actually a real difference.

Think of it like this. Say you flip a coin two times & it comes up heads both times.  You could say that there is a “general trend for this coin to favor heads over tails”.  Would you believe that the statement is actually true?

Suppose you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads 6 out of 10. Again, you could say there is a general trend for the coin to favor heads over tails.  Would you believe it?

When making a claim about any ingredient / technology, you can essentially reject anything that is not statistically significant. Ingredient marketers or other motivated people say things like “general trends”. That doesn’t mean anything.

Incidentally, it also doesn’t necessarily mean anything even if something was statistically significant in one study. It is only through multiple studies over time that we can really learn anything. 

No, this study does not even come close to proving coconut oil is better than mineral oil.  At best, you can say it’s not worse.

[OldPerry]

Interesting.

It’s notable that SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate) is NOT ethoxylated.  You may be thinking of SLES (Sodium Laur-ETH Sulfate) which is. They are different ingredients though.

[OldPerry]

@Syl - It’s difficult to answer “why” questions when it comes to regulations.

As far as soaps go, if you limit yourself to the FDA definition of soap then it’s not regulated by the FDA. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/frequently-asked-questions-soap  But if you make any cosmetic claims about the product, then you are bound by the FDA rules.

The list is limited because people have raised safety concerns about ingredients over the years. It’s a lot harder to get a new ingredient approved than to get one taken off the list, so there are just a lot fewer than when the FDA started.

The FDA was originally begun as a response to people getting injured by cosmetics (1930’s). Some of these injuries, like blindness, were due to toxic colorants that were being added to cosmetic products. So, when they were making their regulations they focused primarily on color additives. Anything that imparts color to a cosmetic is considered a color additive & the regulators wanted guarantees that people wouldn’t go blind.

[OldPerry]

George says that the optimal pH is 6.0 for Niacinamide. 
https://knowledge.ulprospector.com/294/pcc-benefits-niacinamide/

I don’t know if I agree but he may have looked into the subject more than me. I do know that I’ve never seen any real data that shows matching the “skin’s natural pH” has any impact on the performance of anything. It’s just a marketing gimmick as far as I’m concerned.