[OldPerry]

Yes, I think that is normal for SLS. At least that was what happened with the VO5 shampoo formulas.  Although we used a 30% solution of SLS, not powder.

SLS has a salt curve in which salt will either thicken or thin the system.

[OldPerry]

Most likely Phenoxyethanol.  That’s the downside of avoiding parabens.

[OldPerry]

@MarkBroussard is right. The only difference is in the way the products are marketed. 

As far as there being a difference in testing, there are no products on the market that are more thoroughly tested with a more diverse group of consumers (and in a lab) than the products put out by companies like P&G, Unilever, and L’Oreal. These big companies have money to put into R&D.

These two “clinical” brands are likely thoroughly tested.
Skinceuticals - owned by L’Oreal
SkinMedica - owned by pharmaceutical giant Allergan

These “clinical” brands likely have the minimal required testing. They focus their business spends on marketing. Brands like Olay have more testing behind them than the following brands.
Colorescience
Neocutis  
Obagi

[OldPerry]

You should probably use multiple preservatives. Yes, you can use those types together.

[OldPerry]

It depends on the formula but 15% or so would be a place to start. 
Yes, you’d need something to adjust the pH to make the sodium benzoate work.

[OldPerry]

I’ve never found humectants to be particularly important in rinse off cleansers.

[OldPerry]

What I mean is that if you have a product (skin moisturizer) and you post-add ingredients like the ones you’ve described, you will not see any significant benefit over just using the product alone (without post adding anything).

For example, here is an article that outlines the benefits of Vitamin C in dermatology.

They say… “A variety of creams with Vit. C derivatives are available in the market. As a dermatologist, it is important to know that not all preparations are physiologically effective. Some are not delivered into the dermis in an adequate quantity, while others do not chemically convert to the biologically active form of Vit. C in the skin.”

[OldPerry]

@MarkBroussard - agreed.

For cosmetics, it will give you the same benefit that other oils in formulas will give you…emollience.

[OldPerry]

@margi - One of the things you have to realize is that companies put many ingredients in formulas for marketing reasons only.

Apple cider vinegar will not “close the cuticle.” I know people on the Internet think it does and that is why companies put it in their products. But the reality is that it doesn’t and consumers would have no way of telling whether their cuticle is open or closed. If you get your hair wet, your cuticles will be “open.” It doesn’t matter what is in your formula.

Let’s look at the example you shared from sheamoistrue. This is their ingredient list…

Water, Decyl Glucoside, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium Lauroyl Lactylate, Sodium Cocoyl lsethionate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate, Glycol Distearate, Glycerin (Vegetable), Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice, Panthenol, Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea) Butter**, Theobroma Cacao (Cocoa) Seed Butter, Ricinodendron Rautanenii (Mongongo) Oil, Cannabis Sativa (Hemp) Seed Oil, Hydrolyzed Rice Protein, Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil, Hydrolyzed Adansonia Digitata Seed Extract, Avena Sativa (Oat) Peptide, Olea Europaea (Olive) Fruit Oil, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Chondrus Crispus Extract, Vinegar, Fragrance (Essential Oil Blend), Sodium Benzoate, Caprylhydroxamic Acid, Caprylyl Glycol

I could make a product that works pretty much exactly the same using only the following ingredients…

Water, Decyl Glucoside, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium Lauroyl Lactylate, Sodium Cocoyl lsethionate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate, Glycol Distearate, Glycerin (Vegetable), Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Fragrance (Essential Oil Blend), Sodium Benzoate, Caprylhydroxamic Acid, Caprylyl Glycol

Everything I’ve omitted is simply a marketing ingredient included to help boost their marketing story.

[OldPerry]

I do not believe post-mixing things into your skin care products will have any measurable improvement in the product.

While it may be a popular trend, there’s scant evidence that it has any real benefit.

[OldPerry]

Yes, polyquats, silicones, and less detergent would be the approach I would take.

However, I wouldn’t go so far as saying “adding all those oils makes no sense” as this becomes a question of aesthetics & product performance which is a subjective judgement.

As far as ethnic hair differences go, I don’t believe the science is complete enough to definitively say there are or aren’t biological differences in hair protein structure. This study suggests there aren’t many differences but that doesn’t look at the types of treatment people use on their hair. I also don’t necessarily agree with their classifications of caucasian, black and asian. Human populations are more complex than this. 

[OldPerry]

I agree with @ngarayeva001 - this isn’t a suitable formula for a shampoo.  You have filled it with ingredients that don’t work in shampoos including…

Cetyl alcohol
Shea butter
Glycerin

Then you have ingredients that are just “feature” ingredients (they have almost no functional benefit) that shouldn’t be included in the formula at levels higher than 0.1% including…

Slippery elm
Aloe Vera
Apple cider vinegar
Silk protein
Wheat amino acids

So the only ingredients worth using and experimenting in trying to develop a formula are… 

Water
Coco betaine      (secondary detergent)
Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate           (detergent)
Citric acid            (pH adjuster)

But I think you are asking the shampoo to do too much.  Shampoos can do 1 thing well, clean hair.  (2 in 1 shampoos don’t work as well as a separate shampoo+conditioner)  Shampoos are not meant to coat the hair, they are meant to remove things from the hair.

If you want to coat the hair, make a conditioner.

[OldPerry]

“For cancer, all it takes is possibly one mutation, and if EO is carcinogenic, and even if it is in a tiny percentage in a bottle of phenoxyethanol, then the risk for that mutation to occur only increases as application of this preservative is maintained.”

There are actually a couple of things mistaken about this statement.

1.  Cancer is much more complicated than one single mutation. On average it takes about 4 mutations before cancer develops. 

2.  It employs the flawed “gambler’s fallacy” logic.  Basically, each exposure is an independent event and increasing the number of exposures will not increase the chances of causing a mutation. If it is 1 in a million chance with one exposure, the next exposure will still be 1 in a million.

[OldPerry]

A good place to start is here. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

But basically, a certain percentage of naturally occurring potassium is radioactive. Bananas incorporate natural potassium in their fruits and some percentage of that is radioactive.

[OldPerry]

No, it’s not warranted. It is perfectly fine and safe to use at cosmetic levels.
I wouldn’t have faith in Geogard Ultra as I doubt it is generally reliable.

[OldPerry]

No, but I wouldn’t have faith that it works in most any formula.

[OldPerry]

Many companies don’t really mind the fear-mongering. In fact, many embrace it because it is an effective marketing strategy. When you can’t create a product that is measurably different than a competitor’s, you revert to fear marketing to dissuade people from buying your competitor.

Sulfate free shampoos are not better for hair. They are just more expensive and don’t work as well. But if you make consumers afraid of sulfates, they’ll switch to a non-sulfate version even though it costs more & doesn’t work as well.

You’re really putting too much thought into your preservative. Phenoxyethanol is probably fine. There is no evidence that using it at the levels to be effective in your product represents any health hazard. It is a preservative that has been tested & proven in cosmetics for decades. If safety is your concern, use phenoxyethanol. (parabens & formaldehyde donors are safe and effective too).

Fear marketing is the only reason people have moved away from traditional, safe and effective preservatives. Unfortunately, the alternatives like Sodium anisate and sodium levulinate are just not as safe & reliable.

[OldPerry]

I’ve got more to say but let’s start with this…

1.  BASF ethylene oxide - I think you’re mistaken about BASF’s motivation. They are not worried about regulations and it’s not being done for safety reasons. It’s simply being done for PR reasons. This is something they can do easily now, they can get some good press, so they do it. It’s similar to P&G removing (perfectly safe) phthalates and J&J removing perfectly safe preservatives from their products. This does not make the products more safe but consumers think it does.

2.  Regulations - These are not made based solely on scientific data. If they were, there would be no differences in regulations anywhere in the world. If safety was the highest concern, professional toxicologists would be the only people involved in deciding what ingredients are safe and at what level. But it’s not done that way. Non-scientists & industry are involved in creating regulations and they come to conclusions that are not necessarily science based.

…more to come.

[OldPerry]

I don’t think it is legal (certainly not proper) to alter the INCI name of an ingredient. Those are assigned to a material by the PCPC and are identified in the INCI dictionary. Makingcosmetics.com can’t just make their own INCI name.  

They can certainly rename something from their trade name (e.g. Sepimax Zen becomes GelMaker PH) but the INCI name should not change.

[OldPerry]

You can thicken with Hydroxyethylcellulose then cut back on the fatty alcohols.

[OldPerry]

Coconut oil has a required HLB of 8 while Poly Suga Mulse D9 has an effective HLB of 12-14.

That doesn’t mean it’s not an emulsifier. It means it’s not a particularly good emulsifier for coconut oil. 

Try it to emulsify something like Beeswax (HLB 12) or Castor Oil (HLB 14).

[OldPerry]

@MJL - Thanks for the update. I would just caution you that marketing information gotten from a raw material manufacturer should only be used as a general guideline and not a definitive assessment of the performance of an ingredient. 

Those descriptions were most likely written by marketers, not the scientists who know about the ingredient chemistry.

[OldPerry]

You’re using way too many ingredients at too high a level.  If you are making a peptide cream, use peptides. Water, Oil, emulsifier, humectant and peptides.

You don’t need to use Panthenol, watermelon extract, Sodium Hyaluronic, Niacinamide, Allantoin, Bisabolol, Rose extract, Green tea extract, Hydrolyze protein, Vegetable ceramides, or Vitamin E.

More ingredients do not make products work better. 
Fewer ingredients are often more effective and certainly easier to formulate with.

The stickiness can be the result of any number of those ingredients or some combination. But you have so many ingredients in your formula, it’s anybody’s guess on how to fix it.

When formulating, start with a simple, basic formula that has minimal ingredients each of which has a specific purpose that improves upon a previous formula. 

Why use Hyaulronic acid & glycerin? They do the same thing.
Why use Jojoba oil & argan oil, & watermelon seed oil & Caprylic/CapricTriglyceride? It’s unlikely you could tell any difference if you just use the Caprylic/CapricTriglyceride by itself.

Formulating is like cooking…fewer ingredients is better. 

[OldPerry]

Since it’s not possible to know everything in your formula or all the chemical reactions that could be going on, the only way you can answer this is to test it. 

[OldPerry]

You’ll need to be a bit more specific than that.

What specifically do you want to improve?
What characteristics don’t you like?
What benefits do you want to deliver that you aren’t already getting?