OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
2. The gold standard of safety information about fragrance ingredients is IFRA. https://ifrafragrance.org/safe-use/library
1. The truth is this research hasn’t been done. Dermatologists give the general advice that products should closely match the pH mantle but that is based more on a hunch than on specific evidence. And I’m certain no one has specifically investigated whether a product at pH = 4.0 is better/worse than a product at pH = 5.0. This is an interesting review of skin pH, the state of research and some recommendations.
-
@Zara - It’s a question of whether you want something that actually works, or whether you want something that has a story that it works.
If you want something that works, silicones are it.
If you want to avoid silicones, then just put in some oil and tell people it’s protecting their hair from heat. It won’t work that well, it’s inferior to silicones in performance but it would be suitable for the story.What’s more important to you? A product that works, or a story that is compelling?
-
There’s so much to know in the field of cosmetic science, it’s easy to have holes in your knowledge. In participating in this forum, I find gaps in mine all the time.
-
Yes, lower levels of conditioning ingredients are needed in leave-on versus rinse-off. It’s up to you to experiment but say you use 1% Dimethicone in a rinse-off, you could probably get the same effect using 0.1% in a leave-on.
Leave-on conditioners also allow you to use water soluble ingredients that just get rinsed down the drain in a rinse-off product. So you can use Glycerin or Propylene Glycol for a humectant effect. Or you could use Dimethicone Copolyol which is water soluble.
The other main difference is the use and level of cationic surfactants. They are the main conditioner in rinse-offs. Unfortunately, they can be irritating when left on the skin too long. Cetrimonium Chloride actually has a safety limit of 0.25% in a leave-on product. But for leave-on you don’t need cationic surfactants.
pH should be around 4.5 - 5.0. Rinse off conditioners have a lower pH because you want the cationic surfactant to stick better. But with leave-on, this is less of an issue.
-
@qwerty - You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what causes irritation. The sodium part of a molecule is not what is causing irritation. It’s the counter ion that causes irritation. So, Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate is just as irritating as Sodium Lauryl Sulfate. The “Lauryl Sulfate” part causes the irritation.
“Maybe what I am chasing doesn’t exist…”
I doesn’t.
If it did, a company would have already come out with the product that you describe. P&G, Unilever, L’Oreal spend millions in research & development and have scientists dedicated to creating products just as you describe. Everyone wants an effective, gentle, non-irritating shampoo that foams great and leaves hair feeling great. The stuff on the market now is the best that has been discovered. Just know this is a complicated problem that isn’t easily solved.
I’d also recommend you reexamine your formulation strategy. What is your goal? Do you want to create the most effective product for the conditions you described? Or do you want to make something that is less effective by using ingredients that don’t sound as scary?
Companies don’t use sulfates because they are motivated to make cheap, irritating, dangerous products. They use sulfates because they are the best option to use. If Soap nut powder and Quillaja Saponaria worked better, big corporations (and everyone else) would use them.
It may be hard to believe, but you can make a non-irritating formula using sulfates. And you can also make an irritating formula that is sulfate free. Sulfate does not equal irritation.
I hope you find these comments helpful. They are not meant to be critical. We all want to produce great products.
-
preservativo = lol
-
Well, it may matter to any individual consumer. But there is not some simple formula which says “if you have this type of skin, you need this oil in this amount.” There are way too many factors involved.
I can confidently say that research in this area is not so advanced that anyone could make specific claims about what fatty acids skin needs and how much. It’s a compelling marketing story but not supported by science.
-
@raveena - I’m not saying that the company is lying or making up studies. I’m sure they are sharing work that they actually did. But let’s consider a few points.
Here is a brochure about the technology for reference.
Their brochure makes a claim that “two factors have been identified as the main causes of greying.” Is that true? Perhaps, but there are certainly many other important factors too. We don’t exactly know why greying happens or when. The company is overstating but in a way that is not specifically lying. However, this claim supports the story they want to tell.
You’ve got to understand, companies that are selling products (ingredients) want to present the ingredient in the best light to convince you to buy it. It’s illegal to lie so for every claim they make, they need to have done some study. But they don’t need to publish EVERY study they do. They only publish studies that support the claims they want to make.
If they were really interested in science, they would do studies to demonstrate that the product doesn’t work. They would challenge their hypothesis. Only after you’ve exhausted all the ways you can think of to disprove what you want to believe, can you really say that you’ve made some discovery. That’s science.
So the studies published in their brochures are going to be the best case scenario. The before and after pictures are decidedly unimpressive. And this is as good as it gets! And they also have no control. Maybe just rubbing your head every night for 3 months is enough to stimulate melanogenesis?
A technology that can reverse grey hair would be extraordinary. Whenever an extraordinary claim is made, there must be some extraordinary proof. The studies presented here are the best case and they just don’t rise (in my view) to extraordinary proof.
-
That set-up should work.
-
At pH 8 - 9, acids become ineffective salts. So, you can’t use either if you want them to actually do anything.
-
Marketing - what story do you want to tell
Technology - You’ll want to include silicones to detangle hair, make it more shiny, and make it feel better. Humectants can help too.
Nothing will actually repair the hair. All you can do is to create a thin coating on the hair that makes combing, shine, feel, and manageability better.
-
Thanks for the question and welcome to our forum.
The problem with your question is that there is no specific answer. First, skin doesn’t “need” any oil from a cosmetic product. There are people around the world who have never used skin lotions and their skin is perfectly fine. You need to clarify what you are trying to accomplish. Why do you want people to put oil on their face? What skin characteristic are you trying to change?
Second, your question is like asking a cook, how much salt do you add? The unsatisfying answer to your question is “use enough oil to make a product that your consumer likes to use.”
Formulators who say to use 10% or 20-30% are just guessing. That advice is not based on any settled science.
What is true is that when making an emulsion (lotion) there is a range of ingredient amounts that people use. For light lotions that range is 10 - 40% oil. Then you use about 5% humectant and enough emulsifier to keep the formula stable.
But if you’re looking for some specific answer, you’ll need to define better what you are trying to accomplish.
I apologize if this answer is less than satisfying. But it reflects the reality of formulating.
-
Ethylene Glycol Mono Stearate
-
@CreatuveHands - That’s a good idea.
-
@GabyD - experimentation with most cosmetics is fine. Usually, bad experiments will just leave your hair or skin feeling bad. No significant harm. But something like sunscreen where a bad experiment can result in sunburns or worse is not a good place to tinker.
-
Are they liquids? Then yes.
Are they solids? Then no.
The ingredients are supplied in different forms, so it depends. -
I can see how my comments come off as sounding cynical. They weren’t. Text is not always an efficient method for communicating the whole meaning of a thought. While I’m skeptical of the benefit of these ingredients, I am genuinely curious how you came to the conclusions you did. Maybe I’m missing something.
While you may be convinced by the studies of amino acids (hydrolyzed proteins) for hair, I’m not. But I can’t dispute the nebulous claim of “just search any study.” Here is a study looking at amino acids and hair. It says nothing about hair health/strength. Here is a link to a Google Scholar search of “amino acids hair“, there are no studies here supporting your claim. So, I ask what specific studies have convinced you?
My skepticism of the benefits of amino acids and hydrolyzed protein come from personal studies and formula product development for hair care brands like Tresemme and VO5. I’ve tried these ingredients in formulas. I’ve done blinded tests. I saw no significant benefits.
Walnut shell - fair enough.
On supplier studies. While suppliers can provide some interesting avenues of investigation, the studies they publish are not reliable. These studies are designed to convince you to buy and use an ingredient. They aren’t science and should not be trusted. It’s like relying on what a used car sales person tells you about a car they are trying to sell you.
Alcohol evaporates off the surface rather quickly & will have no significant, negative impact on hair. I don’t really know what you mean by “disrupts the surface lipid balance.” Could you clarify?
(Incidentally, I’m also not convinced that it has a negative impact on the skin but that’s a different topic).
I can’t really answer your question “what ingredients do you agree with” without knowing what you’re referring to. If you are looking for humectants then yes glycerin is a good ingredient. Hydrolyzed protein are also humectants. Water is a good solvent, as is ethanol. But perhaps you mean something else?
Thanks for reading and engaging. My comments are not meant to be critical. As I said, I’m genuinely curious how people develop the beliefs that they do. I try to base what I believe on supported science & when I see claims that aren’t supported by any science I’ve read, I like to investigate further.
-
You’ve already got Polyquaternium 7 in as the conditioning ingredient. You could add more. Or try adding Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride.
PEG 7 glyceryl cocoate will just wash out so I wouldn’t expect it to have much effect.
-
I don’t think it is ruining the preservative system. The preservative system you used doesn’t work, or at the very least, is not effective for your system. It’s more difficult to preserve natural ingredients.
You would be able to create safer, more effective formulas if you avoided using the “natural” preservatives (since they don’t work) and stick with preservatives that are safe and reliable like methylparaben and DMDM hydantoin.
As far as what the crystals are, it’s hard to say without seeing them. They could be bacteria, fungi, or maybe your salts are crystallizing out. Since you say your product smells, it’s most likely microbial contamination.
-
1. Yes, use a preservative.
2. Without seeing the whole formula, I can’t answer. -
You can’t believe every study published. Peppermint oil does not work better than minoxidil. No, castor oil does not make eyebrows grow either. It’s a myth that many people believe.
In reality, there is no non-drug compounds that you can add that will make hair grow. Using essential oils at a high level around the eyes is not a good idea.
My advice is that you stick with the conditioning serum and stay away from making any hair growth claims.
-
Typically, a 1% EGMS level will give a nice pearl effect in a shampoo.
-
What studies have convinced you that palmitoyl tetrapeptide-20 will have any benefit on hair?
Also, what is the purpose of using hydrolyzed silk, clack walnut extract, tulip extract and phytocell argan? What evidence has convinced you that these ingredients will actually do anything for hair?
Finally, alcohol does not dry out or weaken hair. What evidence has convinced you that it does?
-
@Thota - Yes, companies can use extracts at any level they like. Since using less is less expensive, that is what companies do. This is primarily because consumers can’t tell a difference.
What studies have you found impressive? They seem more hype to me. Here is a review paper of green tea topical treatments. In my reading, the main benefit (if there is any) seems to be protection from UV damage. We already have sunscreens that are superior in doing this. And it’s not like you can use a green tea extract in a sunscreen formula and skip the standard sunblock ingredient.
I look at it this way. If a consumer can’t tell a difference whether you use 10% of an extract or 0.01%, then it makes no sense to use more.
-
@driftmark2016 - I understand. The placebo effect is strong and many people do need something to inspire hope.
But I like to know what it real. In my view, if you made that DIY serum recipe you shared and just didn’t put in the ceramides, you would not notice any performance differences.
This is not to say that I’m a cynic. There is logic to the notion that ceramides could be good for skin. But just because something is logical, doesn’t make it true. If there were evidence that ceramides in skin care performed better than just a good moisturizer, I’d be happy to say so. I’ve just not seen any evidence of it.
The problem with just believing things without evidence is then people start to layer stories on top of stories. For example, coming up with things they call “pseudoceramides” and then additional stories about how they work better because you can use higher concentrations. It creates a myth that marketers exploit to the detriment of consumers.
The most likely reason the Curel cream works is because it has Glycerin, Butylene Glycol and a ton of silicones (Dimethicone, cyclomethicone. I don’t know if the ceramides in the formula even matter. Perhaps they are just a non-polar material that could be simply replaced with something like cetyl palmitate or even cetyl alcohol.
Wouldn’t this be something you would want to know?