OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
@EVchem - yeah, that advice about vitamin E is all over the place and just mistaken.
-
@MurtazaHakim - Yes.
-
You might add some Glyceryl Stearate to also help with emulsification. ~0.5% or so should work.
-
@PhilGeis - I think you mean “lactic acid is NOT an approved active” right?
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/qa-consumers-hand-sanitizers-and-covid-19#:~:text=Only%20two%20alcohols%20are%20permitted,specifically%20refers%20to%20ethanol%20only. -
Ah, so when you buy it, it may be low free formaldehyde but when you use it you release enough to get you over the 10 ppm level
-
@PhilGeis - I was just looking up Glydant 2000. The Lonza datasheet claims it has 0.09% free formaldehyde. Even if you use 1% of the ingredient you would be below the 10 ppm level (9 ppm) right? Am I missing something?
-
Wow, that’s a significant development!
-
This discussion may be helpful.
-
@Cafe33 - The scheme could have gone something like this.
1. A company hires them to conduct a test on 30 human volunteers
- Typically, volunteers get paid $50 - $100 depending on the test.2. Instead of getting 30 volunteers they get 2 or 3 then make up names and data for the rest of the subjects.
They pocket all the money from the fake subjects. Multiply this by thousands of tests a year & the money adds up.
-
No idea.
But if you compare this punishment (some jail time) to the family who was responsible for the Opioid crises here in the US (fines with no jail time for anyone), the priorities of our system are really screwed up.
-
White collar crimes are treated relatively softly in our society.
-
That depends on what characteristic you are talking about.
From an element standpoint, they have the identical chemical formula
From a structural standpoint, Ascorbic acid is a blend of l-ascorbic acid and d-ascorbic acid. (isomers). On a molecular level these compounds are mirror structures like you left hand and right hand.
From a functional standpoint, reportedly only the l-ascorbic acid isomer is biologically functional. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673383/
-
This sounds like a solid product?
-
You have to understand, the purpose of a body wash is to remove things from your skin. Putting oils in a body wash simply makes your body wash clean less effectively.
If you want oils on your body, you should add them using a moisturizer after you use a body wash. Body washes shouldn’t be used for delivering ingredients to skin. It’s for taking things off.
-
@twokchu - A quick Internet search shows that the ingredient is a food supplement. These products are pretty much unregulated and they should not be considered quality products that you would use in a formula. Anyone can put anything in a bottle and call it whatever kind of food supplement they want.
In fact, the FDA has found that the majority of food supplements do not contain what they claim.
I recommend you avoid food supplements. You certainly shouldn’t formulate with them.
-
The only thing that has been proven to prevent hair loss (in some people) is minoxidil. Tumeric and olive oil extract have not been proven to work.
So, it’s difficult to suggest active ingredients because there isn’t anything proven to work. If you are willing to use things that people say work or have been traditionally used then there are lots of things like peppermint extract, henna, honey, etc. None of these actually work.
As far as your surfactants, SLES may be a bit more gentle. SLS may clean better and give more foaming.
-
Well, this bacteria was revived after 100 million years. Suffice it to say it’s going to take a lot longer than 5-7 days. That is how many types of bacteria work. When conditions become inhospitable turn into spores which can last a really, really long time. When conditions become better, they’re ready to grow again. The only way to stop bacteria growth is to kill the spores.
-
Looking forward to it.
-
@Dreamer77 - I guess what I’m asking is if the ingredient works as well as you’ve described, why hasn’t P&G or L’Oreal or one of those gigantic companies who already have the marketing skills & brands using the technology? Anyone can buy the ingredient and incorporate it into the formula.
And these big companies have innovation teams dedicated specifically to adapting promising technologies to beauty products. Why haven’t they?
The only reasons I can think of (maybe you have more) is…
1. They tried it and it didn’t work
2. They tried it and other technologies were better
3. They never tried it - (unlikely since big companies try anything promising)What am I missing?
-
@kiwigirl71 - I applaud your skeptical approach and inquiry. But I will add that just because you ran one experiment and didn’t see any explosion doesn’t mean that everyone who runs the experiment will not see an explosion. Or even that every time you run the experiment you will not see an explosion. You could have just created superheated water.
But the two videos linked by @Sincityfire above show people who did mix water into Sodium Hydroxide and saw an explosive action. In fact, the first one showed violent reaction even when adding the solid to a liquid that was already too hot. This just means that it does happen, just maybe not every time.
So the advise is taking a “better safe than sorry” approach.
I’m sure a person can cross a road numerous times without getting hit even without looking both ways. But they should still look both ways before crossing.
-
@kiwigirl71 - There’s a balance. If you have too little water there won’t be much happening as the excess water may all just boil off. If you have too much, then heat capacity effects take over. If you want to discover the range where you get a bad reaction, try an experiment where you adjust the ratios of solid and liquid. (I don’t recommend this!!) But if you want to prove it to yourself start with 50 g of NaOH, add 5 g water. Then try the same experiment with 10 g water. etc. up to 50g. Be sure to wear gloves, glasses and stand back.
But as @MarkBroussard says, it’s about safety and probabilities. Why take a chance when you don’t have to?
-
You will get more help if you list all the ingredients in the formula.
-
You’re missing something. It is not an Internet myth.
The thing is this reaction is fast and exothermic (creates heat). Well, that heat has to go somewhere. When you add the solid to the liquid, heat gets transferred to the excess liquid. The temperature of the liquid water will increase and may even boil. However, water has a relatively high heat capacity which means it takes a lot of energy to raise the temperature. The more water, the more energy it takes to increase the temperature. Also, the water will only interact with the surface of the solid so the reaction is slower.
But imagine you do it the other way (add water to the solid). It’s the same reaction but this time when the heat gets transferred to the liquid, there is a lot less liquid around. This smaller volume heats up more quickly and can rapidly boil & possibly explode.
Now, if you’re working with small amounts and you’re adding the water rapidly perhaps you won’t experience a problem. But it’s much safer to add the solid to the liquid.
-
I haven’t used hyaluronidases so can’t offer formulating advice. But I am curious.
If this product (which would be an illegal drug in the US) works as well as suggested, why hasn’t a big pharmaceutical corporation already developed it? Why isn’t something with this technology already out on the market? How will you protect the IP?
Also, how is this formula different than the other revolutionary skin product you previously talked about?
-
I’d say don’t bother with refrigeration.
It’s unlikely you will be able to detect any differences in performance between a product that was refrigerated and one that wasn’t.
The main questions to ask yourself is how can you tell that the serum is “potent” at all? What are the measurable benefits that you have experienced?
Does it really matter how fast it oxidizes or how “potent” it is if you can’t actually notice any difference?