OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
The heat of vaporization of Cyclomethicone is ~ 172 kJ/kg
For comparison, the heat of vaporization of Water is ~ 2257 kJ/kg
So, at a given temperature, pressure & humidity level, cyclomethicone will evaporate faster than water. -
Probably, use a different mixer. What type are you using?
-
To understand buffers, see this video
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-chemistry/buffers-titrations-solubility-equilibria-ap/buffer-solutions-tutorial-ap/v/buffer-system1. Yes. Generally pH in a shampoo shouldn’t change much as long as water isn’t evaporating.
2. Water evaporating, microbial contamination, oxidation of some feature ingredient could all affect pH.
3. You shouldn’t need a buffer in a shampoo system but you might if the pH is drifting that much. -
If you are talking about a finished product, sure you can add water to reduce the viscosity of shampoo.
However, adding water will also…
1. Reduce the concentration of surfactant so it won’t clean as well
2. It also won’t foam as well
3. Reduce the concentration of preservative so it will be more prone to microbial growthIt could also destabilize any type of colloidal / emulsion system that may be present.
Generally, it’s not a good idea.
-
The presence of Mg in Talc and not is SiO2. They are just different chemicals.
-
@MarkBroussard - this is where I think all of these natural standards organizations are dropping the ball. None of them have made any substantial inroads with building consumer awareness of the standard thereby driving consumer demand.
Anyone can come up with a standard, create an impressive looking logo and put it on their label. This would have as much impact on consumers as an official seal from Ecocert or even EWG.
Companies already do this same thing with a bunny. You put a rabbit logo somewhere on your package & consumers think it’s cruelty free. The Leaping Bunny standard is not really extra convincing.
-
They are an organization who has adopted a certain philosophy and will use science whenever it supports the conclusions they want to make about ingredients. Of course, they will also ignore science when it conflicts with what they believe.
Additionally, they are a business designed to make money and have demonstrated they will loosen their standards if it makes business sense. For example, they used to not allow sulfates but now they do.
-
@Paprik - Thanks!
-
@Paprik - do you have a link to the SCCS opinion saying 1.0% is ok in leave on? The CIR says 0.25% is the limit.
-
Well, your question inspired this post.
-
@Kot - yes BTMS is a cationic surfactant so it helps with antistatic properties too. It works the same way as CTAC and BTC
-
CTAC is antistatic. But so is Behentrimonium Chloride.
Cyclomethicone will slowly evaporate so it needs to be in some kind of packaging. -
@abierose - it’s not that you are necessarily sacrificing effectiveness, it’s just that you are duplicating effort and more of it is rinsing down the drain.
Think of it like this.
Behentrimonium chloride has 22 carbons per molecule
Cetrimonium chloride has 16 carbons per moleculeLet’s make the assumption More carbon left behind = better conditioning.
Let’s make another assumption that a strand of hair can “receive” 10 molecules of conditioner.So, if you treat it with a Behenyl only system you’ll get 220 carbons on the hair
and a CTAC only system will have 160 carbons on the hair.If that was the case, the Behenyl system would be seen as “better”. Whether you would notice or not is a matter of opinion but let’s just say it is.
Now, if you mix Behenyl and CTAC they will each compete from the 10 slots equally so maybe you get 5 behenyl and 5 CTAC which would be 190 carbons on the hair.
Of course, this is just simplified and theoretical but hopefully you get the idea of why mixing them could result in lessened conditioning.
-
Sure, if you’re using the Behentrimonium chloride to emulsify your system you’ll want to have a co-emulsifier to improve stability. It’s a trade off. You may be improving stability but reducing conditioner effectiveness. Or maybe you won’t notice. If you need better product stability, include the CETAC. If it is stable without it, don’t.
-
@amitvedakar - One study, on a minimal number of volunteers, with subjective ratings, not comparing it to the gold standard treatment, hydroquinone? What is it about that study that you found compelling?
-
I think the main problem with recycling plastic is that each time you recycle it you get a lower quality product. This is due to impurities that can’t be separated from the product.
I agree that bacterial breakdown might be our best hope but can you imagine if some of that got free into the wild? Plastic would start breaking down before we would want it to and that could be bad.
-
@abierose - if you look at the most popular Argan oil hair products, they contain silicones like Dimethicone and Cyclomethicone to get the effect.
-
@Mel55 - that’s right, in leave-on products you can use water soluble ingredients to better effect. But you should also reduce the level of things like BTMS and CETAC since they can cause irritation if left on at higher levels. You also don’t need to use as high a percentage of the ingredient when put in a leave on product.
-
Of those 3, Will it Fly will help you figure out if you have a good idea.
-
An excellent book I’d suggest is Will It Fly by Pat Flynn.
Another one is the $100 Startup by Chris Guillebeau.
Finally, Ready Fire Aim by Michael Masterson
These two will help you figure out if you have an idea that is any good. The key though is to come up with a compelling story. I see way too many startup brands out there saying “paraben free” or “clean beauty” without providing any useful benefit.The reality is that you can’t make a cosmetic product that will provide a unique benefit. So, you’ll need to come up with some origin story and develop a following of fans who like your stuff. Then you can sell them a product that solves problems they have. Sure they can buy other things that solve the same problem but if they like you, they’ll buy from you.
Here’s a strategy I would suggest.
1. Find an audience you want to serve. (narrower is better but not too narrow that there isn’t any money in it). Find in Facebook, Instagram or other social media.
2. Interact with that audience and figure out what their problems are. Also, give helpful solutions without trying to sell them anything.
3. Once you’ve been useful to people, then you can start pitching your products.
4. Keep a consistent presence on whatever social media channel is successful for you.
5. Identify key words or phrases that your audience is using to find solutions to the problems you are solving. Then start a website that is optimized for search engine traffic based on those keywords.
6. Once you have enough of an audience, develop products and invest in your first production run.
7. Then focus on getting your marketing message out.
8. Don’t give up until you’ve sold all your inventory! Many a garage are filled with unsold first production run of products.
Good luck!
-
When formulating, you really need to start simple. And it helps to know how ingredients work.
For a rinse off conditioner to work the conditioning agents have to stay behind on the hair. There are 3 ways that happens.
1. Electrostatic interaction
2. Dilution deposition
3. Combination of the aboveCationic surfactants follow the first mechanism. Oils & silicones the second. Cationic polymers can adhere in both ways.
In general, you don’t want more than one ingredient operating through each of the mechanisms.
So, you have Behentrimonium Methylsulphate and CETAC. Why? Both of these are cationic surfactants. They both will stick to the hair in the same way and essentially compete against each other for places to stick. When you are first starting a formula, don’t use multiple cationic surfactants. Start with just one.
You have Chamomile extract, hydrolyzed protein & B5 which are all (mostly) just rinsing down the drain.
You have Argan oil which may deposit a bit but then you have Dimethicone and Cyclomethicone which also deposits. With silicones in your formula you aren’t going to notice any effect from Argan oil. (If there is any anyway). And you don’t really need 2 silicones, Dimethicone would suffice.
If you want to add a polyquaternium, you could but as has been suggested if you have dimethicone so you probably won’t notice anything.
I’d say start with a simple formula and build from there.
WaterBTMS 50Cetyl alcoholDimethiconeFragrancePreservative -
I worked at a large manufacturer. The Purchasing department was always finding better deals on ingredients from different suppliers, so they frequently wanted to switch suppliers.
However, to use a different supplier for a raw material we would have to conduct a full stability test on 3 different lots of the raw material from the new supplier, plus do a panel test with consumers to ensure there was no perceived difference in performance.
We even went through the same procedure when a raw material supplier started making an ingredient at a different manufacturing plant.
In no case did we ever just switch without doing a significant amount of testing.
-
My best arguments against using plant extracts.
1. They have minimal to no impact on performance. The reality is that the amount of plant extract that is in the typical formula has no effect on the product performance. If you compared a product with and without a plant extract there would be no difference. As @MarkBroussard pointed out above there is very little plant material in an extract. When put in a finished formula the amount is cut by even more. We used to use 0.01% of a plant extract that was 1% active.
2. Their use is misleading & misinforms consumers. A consequence of argument 1 is that using extracts in formulating tricks consumers into buying products they might not necessarily want. It also spreads misinformation that plants have some benefit that they aren’t proven to have. This also helps propagates the natural fallacy which leads to increased chemophobia.
3. They are filled with potential allergens. Plant extracts are made up of numerous chemicals many of which we haven’t even determined yet. Each type of molecule in a formula is a potential allergen. So, using plant extracts (that have no benefit at low levels) is simply increasing the potential of negative reactions in your formula. And if you use extracts at higher levels with the thought that using more might have more of an observable effect, you increase the chances of a negative reaction.
4. They represent an extra microbial risk. Naturally derived materials are more contaminated by wild microbes than synthetic materials. So, using extracts increasing microbial risk and also leads to the requirement of a higher load of preservatives in a formula. Since preservatives can have negative consumer reactions, you have now increased that problem too.
5. They are environmentally wasteful. We have a limited amount of land available for humanity. Using farm land to grow ingredients for using in cosmetic products rather than food seems morally dubious & unethical to me.
Thanks for making me think about this. I may bring up some of these questions in our upcoming IFSCC Natural Formulating debate. Be sure to sign up!
-
Carbomer - best texture, most versatile
Xanthan - seen as more naturalBut as @”DRBOB@VERDIENT.BIZ” said, both work for specific systems.
-
Thanks for the kind words.
This is more of a legal question so I’m sure you could find a lawyer who would give the company the advice that they could do it that way. This would be bad advice and goes against the rules as laid out by the FDA and the INCI Dictionary, but that kind of thing happens in the cosmetic industry frequently. Especially with small companies.
I think you’re correct. Listing amino acids rather than the INCI named peptide would be a mistake. And listing them in alphabetical at the start of the ingredient list is also incorrect. There is a lot wrong with that list.
But in the US a company could get away with it initially, at least until the FDA discovers them and sends a sternly worded letter threatening fines.