OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
When you are working with a material, you can look up its solubility profile in various solvents. You’ll almost always find solubility in water number.
For alpha lipoic acid, it is only barely soluble in water. (0.24 g/L) This means the highest concentration you can use in an aqueous formula is 0.024%. Heating the water will not help.
It is soluble in ethanol so you might try making a serum with that or creating some kind of emulsion.
-
You might find this write-up from the EU helpful.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/docs/citizens_parabens_en.pdfBasically, use level of methylparaben & propylparaben would be 0.2 - 0.4%
-
It’s tough to say whether the formula is “any good” without knowing what you consider “good.”
This is what I consider good.
1. Formula delivers the expected / claimed benefits
2. The formula remains stable for a reasonable amount of time (~1 year)
3. The formula uses an effective preservative system (this is related to stability)
4. The formula looks, smells, and feels pleasing to the consumer
5. The formula doesn’t use superfluous ingredients at significant levels. (low levels are fine for marketing).So, from what you’ve listed based on my standards I would say this formula is not good.
1. You’ve listed no claims or benefits you want out of the formula so it is hard to say whether you achieve any.
2. It may be stable except…
3. …this is a terrible choice for preservation. Lactobacillus ferment is not a reliable preservative. I personally wouldn’t use it. Use a proper preservative system (parabens, formaldehyde donors, or phenoxyethanol at least) especially when you have all these plant extracts in it. Plant extracts are chock full of natural microbes which can cause problems.
4. Hard to say. You have no fragrance in there so it is probably not the best smelling formula.
5. Here’s the biggest problem with the formula. Ingredients like flower water & plant extracts are claims ingredients. They will have no significant effect on performance. Or at the very least they are not the best choice for pretty much anything. Glycerin is a better choice than Hyaluronic acid for moisturization. (No you can’t use 7% HA. Over 2% it becomes a thick gel).
You also have way too many ingredients. Every ingredient you use should have some specific purpose. For example, why would you use ADANSONIA DIGITATA LEAF EXTRACT? What is it supposed to do?
In my opinion, to make this formula better, first get rid of all the superfluous ingredients including all extracts & juices. And get a functional preservative system.
-
What do you mean “strung up on which surfactant to use”? What specifically is causing you to not just pick one? If you want to try one a sulfosuccinate or a sulfoacetate, then just try it. There is nothing particularly more natural or even more gentle about these ingredients but saying they are “not sulfates” probably gets you all the marketing mileage you need. Yes, you can use 2 detergents to make a workable formula. You could even make a shampoo using 1 detergent.
But there is a difference between making a “workable” product and making a “good” product that people want to keep using.
If you want to make a product that is good that people keep using, you should use a sulfate formula. All of the best-selling drugstore brands use sulfates & even most of the best sellers on Amazon use sulfates. This is because despite what consumers are told by marketers, the Internet, and stylists, sulfate formulas work better. But I digress…
In a shampoo you typically have a primary surfactant and one or two secondary surfactants. The primary surfactant can work by itself but with a secondary surfactant you can modify the foam characteristics, the rinsibility, and even the level of “gentleness.” 7 surfactants seems ridiculous & amateurish to me to include in a formula but sometimes people just use blends that the raw material companies send them.
-
It would seem to me making soap would be easier and more effective than a soapnut / herbal blend.
-
@Agate - I can’t confidently speak about EU regulations. But for the FDA, it’s written in the regulations that you can’t do this. Technically claims ingredients are not allowed either but that gets ignored.
This is however, a legal question not a scientific one. If you do this, you better have a good lawyer as you would face significant fines if the FDA decides they want to go after you.
-
Ah. Well, here is the EU regulations on colorants. They also have a list you are supposed to follow.
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/cosing-list-of-colorants-allowed-in-cosmetic-products -
@deneuxben - FYI on colorants. It is illegal (at least in the US) to use colorants in cosmetics that are not approved by the FDA. Plant derived colorants that are not listed on the FDA approved colorant list cannot be use.
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredient-names/color-additives-permitted-use-cosmetics -
@Pharma - I think the hope is that they will break down before getting to the consumer. That way they are not producing illegal drugs but still get the marketing story benefit of the ingredients. Pretty standard cosmetic marketing.
-
There isn’t one that will have the SAME cleaning effect. Products will necessarily perform worse.
SLES and sulfates in general have been under fire for at least 2 decades. And in those years formulators from companies around the industry have been looking for suitable replacements. There aren’t any that match performance / cost. If there were, the industry would be using them.
Use SLS or ALS. Then formulate with other ingredients to mitigate the harshness.
-
@RDchemist15 - I think there is some responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that their product is used properly. Simply putting words on a container and expecting consumers to follow what is said is not enough. You have to also anticipate how people will actually use the product too and do things (maybe with the packaging) to increase the chances people use it right.
I see sunscreen as a bit different because if they don’t use enough, they’ll get burned. Next time, they’ll use more. They won’t know they used a hand sanitizer wrong until they catch a disease which could be fatal.
-
@lmosca - in general, I find academic papers about cosmetic ingredients to generally be naive. For example, this paper suggesting Zanthoxylum rhetsa bark extract can be used as a sunscreen.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926669016308226Sure, it can provide an SPF value of 3.6 or 6.9.
Who cares? Modern cosmetic products minimally should give SPF 15 but better is SPF 30 or 50.
Or the Darbe paper which concluded that parabens from deodorants were somehow connected with breast cancer. Parabens aren’t generally used in deodorants! There is a researcher who screwed up but just keeps plugging along.
And pointing out mistakes and exaggerations is a losing battle. There’s no money in it. It takes a lot of time. And there are marketing departments who specifically benefit from the misinformation. Consumer beware.
-
@lmosca - wait someone wrote something on the Internet that wasn’t true? lol
There really is a lot of formulation misinformation being published. I guess it’s true of probably any topic though.
-
Use some SLS to replace SLES
-
Welcome @naomi_w! Let me know if you have any questions as you go through the material.
-
You’ve got it mostly right but in reality Lauryl is not strictly C12. It’s just more C12 than the Coco version. According to this standard, SLS must contain not less than 85% Lauryl. In the cosmetic industry, I think the purity to call it SLS merely has to be 80% C12. Which means 15 -20% of it may not be Lauryl. If derived from coconut oil this can be C8 - C18. It can also be derived from petroleum which gives better control over the final composition.
Sodium Coco Sulfate is made from coconut oil too which contains about 45-50% C12. Like SLS the other stuff is anything from C8 to C18.
As far as differences, I don’t have specific references to point you to except to say that it seems SCS is slightly lower in skin irritation than SLS.
https://www.hanser-elibrary.com/doi/abs/10.3139/113.110599But as far as performance, SLS has been the industry standard for years and if SCS performed better, than more companies would have adopted it. Empirically, we can conclude that SLS is more efficient, produces a more reliable foam, and cleans better. This is just my experience talking though, I don’t have a research paper to point to.
-
Welcome to the forum!
-
0.05% is plenty. It won’t really make the hair regrow but that works for marketing purposes.
-
You’ll have to experiment to find out what you prefer. There is no simple answer to this.
-
@lmosca - like I said, I’m appreciate your input. It’s always good to get science-grounded opinions.
The reality is that the cosmetic industry and cosmetic science in general suffers from a lack of scientific rigor (in my opinion). Much of the “research” is sponsored by companies who are motivated to get formulators to use their ingredients or cosmetic marketers who want to convince consumers that their products are better than someone else’s. And there are a lot of opinions from people with years of experience who pass along information they’ve long believed but is not necessarily scientifically validated. In truth, I believe many questions are left unstudied mostly because there is no financial value in learning what’s true.
However, Dr. Lochead is actually one of the few researchers involved in the cosmetic industry with both formulating and academic research experience so I respect his views on the subjects for which he offers opinions.
-
I agree it’s a problem. I’m not sure if banning them would be effective however. Things are shared just as easily on social media as they are through email. But certainly big media outlets should not be propagating these formulas.
-
Cationic surfactants work by depositing on hair where there are negatively charged sites on the proteins on the fiber. Since there is a limited number of these sites, all the extra surfactant you put in the product will simply rinse down the drain. Whether 4% is the max depends on the level of damage on the hair. However, that sounds pretty high to me. 2% is probably plenty.
You just have to test though. Make a sample with more and test to see if you notice any combing differences.
-
@em88 - the video was put together by one of the most respected polymer scientists in the industry. Dr Lochead does not work for the Carbomer manufacturer and this isn’t propaganda.
As to the veracity of the video, I cannot comment as polymer science is not my area of specialty. I’m in no position to dispute what Dr Lochead has communicated. He could be correct, or he could be wrong. I certainly wouldn’t suggest his work is suspect based on my own ideas & a solution I made up in my kitchen and tested on my hands.
Just as I’m not going to tell climate scientists they are wrong because I’ve read a few articles on the Internet & noticed winter is colder these days, I’m also not going to say Dr. Lochead is wrong & he’s certainly not pushing propaganda.
@lmosca - I appreciate your input and you raise interesting questions. I too find it surprising that such a mechanism would be necessary for these hand sanitizers to be effective. But I have no good reason to doubt him & have no reason to trust your alternative assessment (although you could be right).
-
You might find this tool helpful.
https://www7.lonza.com/products-services/consumer-health/personal-care/formulaprotect/formula-protect.aspx -
Polyquaternium-7