OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
“These data demonstrate that a proprietary combination of ceramide PC-104, palmitamide MEA, glycerrhetinic acid, and grape seed extract in a glycerin, dimethicone, and petrolatum vehicle was effective in reducing the signs and symptoms of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis and other types of pruritic dermatoses (e.g., senile itch, cosmetic intolerance syndrome) in children and adults.”
In my view this is a pretty terrible study if they were looking to prove that ceramides were responsible for doing anything. It doesn’t prove that at all.Ignoring the small sample size (50 people), the test method only looked at with treatment vs without treatment. The treatment contained ceramides but also other things including known moisturizers like Glycerin, Dimethicone, and Petrolatum.
The only thing this study can be used to prove is that applying a lotion to an affected area of atopic dermatitis was beneficial. You cannot conclude from this that the Ceramides had anything to do with the benefit.
If they wanted to show Ceramides specifically had a benefit, they would have treated 2 sites. One site with a cream that had ceramides and another site that had a cream that did not have ceramides. Then they could compare the difference.
This would have been such a simple test design and it would have been extremely persuasive if done this way and the results were in favor of ceramides. The fact that it wasn’t suggests to me that they probably didn’t get good results so they didn’t want to report that.
I suspect the study was funded by the makers of NeoCera™ who obviously have a stake in demonstrating their product is effective & remaining ignorant to whether the data supports other explanations.
You could just as easily conclude from this study that Petrolatum, in combination with some other vehicle ingredients, was useful for treating atopic dermatitis.
-
In the toner you don’t have a suitable emulsifier. Tea tree isn’t going to stay in solution & I doubt lime or orange will either.
-
The ingredients in that formula are…
INCI: Aqua, Coco-Glucoside, Sodium Coco-Sulfate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Glycerin, Disodium Cocoyl Glutamate, Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate, Sodium Surfactin, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Glyceryl Oleate, Hydrogenated Palm Glycerides Citrate, Sodium Chloride, Citric Acid, Tocopherol, Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Benzoate, Parfum.
The ingredients that make this product work are Coco Glucoside, Sodium Coco-Sulfate and the Cocamidopropyl Betaine.
Sodium Surfactin isn’t doing much of anything in that formula. It’s probably in there at a tiny percentage (e.g. 0.2%)
A “good” main surfactant is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) or Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES). Both of these are vegan. An adequate main surfactant might be Decyl Glucoside or Lauryl Glucoside. But Sodium Lauryl Sarcosinate, Sodium Lauryl Taurate could also work. They don’t work as well but might fit better with a “sulfate free” marketing position.
But from a functionality standpoint, the “good” surfactants for shampoo are SLS and SLES (or ALS and ALES).
-
Probably not.
Are there any products on the market using Sodium Surfactin as a main surfactant? I didn’t see any.
There is very little information available about sodium surfactin, but what is available says it’s only a secondary surfactant used at levels under 1%.
https://www.brenntag.com/media/documents/bsi/product_data_sheets/life_science/kaneka/kaneka_surfactin_brochure.pdf -
It sounds like a completely different formula.
Without Styrene/VP copolymer you won’t get any hold.
Without the silicone you won’t get much glide or shineHoneyquat and Varisoft essentially do the same thing so putting both in is a bit of a waste (except for marketing reasons)
Tocopherol isn’t going to provide any benefit. Rice ferment won’t do muchRice protein might provide some film forming or humectant effect but not as good as glycerin plus the Styrene copolymer.
At this point, you’re not trying to copy the formula anymore. It might be better if you list what benefits you’re trying to get rather than a formula you are trying to copy.
-
Thanks! My brother had actually designed it but passed away before he was able to fully implement it. I’m happy to have gotten it completed.
I’m still tinkering with the organization but thanks for the encouragement.
-
There are much better ingredients to use instead of silver for pretty much any personal care application. For example, silver is not an FDA approved treatment for acne.
-
If that is the case, you could probably recreate the product with the following ingredients
Water
Isoceteth-20
Glycerin
Dimethicone Copolyol
Styrene/Vp Copolymer
Disodium EDTA
Citric Acid
Phenoxyethanol
(Plus ingredients to change the odor) -
What does this hair primer do? How is it supposed to be used?
It looks to me like it is a leave-in hair conditioner with some styling hold possible.
-
@Aziz - You may have misunderstood me. The arbitrary numbers are the specific decimal points that you’ve listed.
For example, you say a facial wash needs to have a pH of 4.5 - 5.5 but a hand wash should be 4.4 - 5.8. There is no way you could possibly tell a performance difference if someone formulated a facial wash with a pH of 5.5 and another with a pH of 5.8 even though the claimed range is 4.5 - 5.5. These ranges are just rough guides. Not meant to be taken literally.
I agree you could probably tell a difference between a hand was at pH 8 and pH 5 (although I doubt most consumers would notice).
When you wash your hands you remove 92% of the resident bacteria so the pH doesn’t matter that much as far as the microbes go. See this study. https://www.dropbox.com/s/5zqzfjsbrf30hst/hand-washing.pdf?dl=0
Here’s a paper that shows commercial shampoos range in pH from 3.0 - 9.0.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158629/ Claiming that it needs to have a range of 5.5 - 6.2 is not reflective of what the cosmetic industry is doing. It is just an arbitrary range written down by whoever wrote the textbook. It is not based on any science. If someone make a shampoo with a pH of 5.0, that’s perfectly fine.Just because people write things down in text books doesn’t mean those things are necessarily true or based on science. Most of the specific research on these things hasn’t been done. The pH ranges you see for products should only be thought of as useful guides. They are not scientifically validated.
Yes, it makes sense to keep cleansing products at a pH range of 4 - 6 (depending on the system) but anything more specific is mostly a fairy tale.
-
Just don’t drink it!
https://www.wired.com/story/does-colloidal-silver-work/?verso=true -
Or there is no difference. Certainly no major differences. Really, these can be exactly the same formula marketed in a different way.
For example, there is no scientific validity that a hand wash needs a pH range of 4.4 - 5.8 and a face wash needs pH 4.5 - 5.5
These numbers are essentially arbitrary. Same with pH of shampoo and shower gel.
In fact, you could make a single formula and call it a body wash, hand wash, facial wash, or even a shampoo.
-
It depends on how much you use and what else is in the formula. @sven is right, cocamidopropyl betaine can offset irritation. Some people use SLES in conjunction with SLS for the same purpose (offset irritation).
-
If you want a useful answer, please provide a list of all the ingredients in the formula. If you want a much more useful answer, list the percentages of ingredients too.
-
To get a useful answer to the question you should provide a list of all the ingredients in the formula.
-
It all comes down to the existence of -OH (oxygen/hydrogen) bonds in Glycerin that are not present in Carpic/Caprylic triglycerides.
This is a vast simplification but in general molecules that have -OH groups tend attract water. Thus glycerin is a humectant.
Triglycerides have no free -OH groups plus they have a large segment of carbon-hydrogen bonds. So, they do not attract water or behave in a humectant way like glycerin.
When capric/caprylic triglycerides are made, the glycerin used to make them is used up in the chemical reaction. It no longer has any of the properties that glycerin once had.
This is true of most any chemical reaction. Hydrogen is a gas and Oxygen is a gas but when you combine them to make water, you get a completely different molecule which behaves in a completely different way.
-
What was your whole formula?
-
To make a 98% organic claim, you’ll need to get certified by the USDA.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Cosmetics-Body%20Care%20Products.pdf -
You need a more robust fragrance. It doesn’t sound like you have enough base notes & middle notes in the fragrance.
-
Cetrimonium Chloride is not the same thing as Polyquaternium-7. They are different molecules.
-
For the curious, the INCI name of spectrastat G2-N is Caprylhydroxamic Acid (and) Glyceryl Caprylate (and) Glycerin
I personally don’t think it is a good choice for preservation. Others might disagree.
-
No cosmetic, natural or otherwise, is “good for you”.
The cosmetic industry does not want to better define natural, organic, or synthetic. Brands want these terms to remain as vague as possible so they can claim whatever they want. For the most part, consumers will just believe whatever a brand they like tells them.
For example, decyl glucoside does not exist in nature. It can only be made through a synthetic manipulation of an ingredient you get from nature. This is no different than a petroleum derived ingredient too. But people have convince consumers that decyl glucoside is somehow more natural than sodium lauryl sulfate.
-
What did you use to mix it?
-
1. Sure - although you should use a vitamin C powder that adheres to some reasonable standards (e.g. https://www.gcchemicals.com/docs/AscorbicAcid%20-%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf)
2. Same answer as above. Find an hyaluronic acid source that has good specifications.
3. It’s unlikely any of the active ingredients will show a consumer perceptible, lasting effect so the amount you use doesn’t matter much. No one has ever tested these ingredients combined and delivered from a powdered facial mask. So, you would expect three possible outcomes.
a. Skin is improved
b. Skin is made worse
c. Skin is unchangedThe most likely of those three occurrences is C, skin is unchanged.
Product performance is not what sells masks. The experience of using them and the marketing of them is what sells masks.
Consumers will believe whatever they want about their experience using the mask and it will have little relation as to whether it actually provided a benefit or not.
My advice would be to make a formula with as little of each ingredient as you can and compare it to a formula using the amounts you listed above. On a blinded basis, I doubt you will be able to tell a difference. I doubt even more that a consumer would.
-
If you had some specific question you might get more helpful responses.