perspicacious
Forum Replies Created
-
I have made face mask formulations which are quite good, and once played with incorporating a natural source substance found in some banks of underground streams. But, I ran into the bacterial elimination problem and ended up using commercially available sterilized clays.
The relevant information as relates to your situation is that your access to the natural material might not be as good fortune as you envision. You would need to start out with a sterilized clay base and sterilizing that material with an appropriate heating situation (oven) may cause changes in its properties that would make it unsuitable. An option other than heat is radiation. I found two places, one in Canada and another in Texas. You can Google for places which will do that for you. I have tested them for other applications and they are amazing in their completed sterilization of plant origin materials which are loaded with bacterial substances and other organisms in their supplied state. Sterilized clays are readily available. So, that might be your best option.
As far preservatives, you might want to experiment with Optiphen Plus. It’s made by Ashland Chemical. It now has global approval and it is paraben-free and formaldehyde-free. It meets modern market expectations for a preservative system,
-
@emily.flemer ;
Mark Broussard and Anna Lavar are correct. Most contributing members here could post an ad in many ways similar to yours on most of the threads. But, we don’t do that. It’s rude and tiresome. There’s a name for it. It’s called spamming.
If you wish to participate, show your expertise by answering questions. There is a special thread which stays at the top where you can post your company blurb. If people see how informed you are by your contributions in the discussion threads they will be inclined to check out your info up above. Otherwise you are just spamming.
-
The best advice for high-school students seeking collegiate financial aid is to obtain the advice of their school counselors first. That’s their profession and they often know routes for assistance that can be successful. Secondly, decide on a University that is preferably one close to your home. State schools generally have lower tuition and programs for ambitious students (particularly those who can demonstrate financial need because of having lower income parents) to fund their own way with on-campus jobs and tuition breaks. Don’t be misled that state schools don’t have excellent chemistry programs. Some of this country’s best chemists (myself included) did their undergraduate and graduate programs at state universities.
I know of one young man (now in his Junior year) who goes to the University of Mississippi and has been able to fund his entire way working on-campus and summer jobs along with financial aid provided through the school for students who need financial help. I will tell you that if your family isn’t truly poor the system is slanted against you to get assistance. Even though middle income parents are actually in no position to pay the high costs that schools charge today, their ‘break-even” salaries disqualify their children from assistance. It takes twenty years of savings for middle income families to have enough to pay the fees. Of course, if you have a straight A average and top SAT scores, there are many scholarships available. But a B student doesn’t have much chance to get one of those. If you and your family have been a lifelong members of an established church denomination such as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic or Episcopal (and perhaps religions other than Christian) there are programs available to go to one of their Universities on scholarships (often those have on-campus work requirements as well). Those denominational schools have some remarkable chemistry programs as well.
My advice to someone from a middle class background who can’t get financial assistance is to stay home, take a job locally and go your first two years to community junior college (might take you four years to complete that). Then apply to a four year school and because you are now an upper-class (3rd year) student you can go on a part-time basis (even as little as 6 hours or less per semester). I know of two people with college degrees who took ten and twelve years to complete their schooling using that method. And, as surprising as it seems, they grabbed jobs quickly because their history in sticking with it and overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds gave them excellent records for their job applications and interviews.
-
I wouldn’t give up on your Asian source. Failing on first tries attempting to meet a particular demand from a client can (and does) happen with very competent chemists everywhere. It’s often a trial and error game. Just be very polite and communicate patiently what you didn’t like and what you think is needed to meet your requirements.
Be prepared to repeat that testing and feedback multiple times until you get what you are seeking. Lots of the Chinese contract manufacturers have very good contacts themselves outside of their businesses and they will go outside to achieve your objectives. I’ve successfully done business in China, Japan and Indonesia. It’s worth it to keep at it, learning how to communicate more skillfully. Stick with your supplier as long as he is willing to be working with you.
Plus, don’t be afraid to make arrangements and then go over for visit (it’s an investment you won’t regret). I’ve made many trips to Asia (some as far back as the 80’s) and achieved goals that seemed futile when trying to accomplish them by letters, email and phone.
Breaking bread (as the expression goes) with people you are working with goes a long way to cement good productive relationships anywhere in the world, but perhaps more so in the Asian cultures.
-
My advice to someone with no experience in the industry or who lacks technical savvy, wanting to start a business built around chemical formulations is to either hire yourself a seasoned cosmetic chemist or work with a private label firm.
Private label firms can provide you with starter formulations and manufacture them for you either in bulk or provide completed packaging ready for distribution. They have their own labs and chemists and will work with you for a special customized line to suit your fancy. This will let you enter the market quickly, allowing you to focus on packaging design and marketing. Once you have established distribution and brand identity (and many have used this approach) then you can incrementally bring on your own chemical staff (and equip your own laboratory).
Next, one-by-one (this might be a three to five year plan), you create your company’s own unique products, substituting those (if they are better) for what you are buying from the private label house.
-
Excellent post from Perry. I have been a developmental chemist for over 30 years (I’m not available for hire, because I have my own manufacturing and marketing organization), creating many products which were at their time of introduction unique in the marketplace. My lab is well equipped, but it is not some sort of slick operation created for photo ops. After all those years, it’s what you might call “funky and cool.” I never permit visitors, but if you saw my lab operation… the best way to describe it is it looks like the venue of a “mad scientist” from a B grade movie. Only one time in my entire history did I allow my photo to be taken in front of one of my lab benches playing with beakers and flasks (I thought that was corny and I have never done it again). Of course, lots of beautiful labs are fantastic in what they accomplish. So, I wouldn’t dissuade you from that criteria. But, sometimes loner chemists working out of their basement home labs are the ones who produce the formulations for some of the leading products sold all over the world. Inventors like that all over the country (and the world) walk into some of the biggest cosmetic houses and they are treated like royalty based on their record of developments (not on their curriculum vitae or web presence or their appearance).
However, I do know of a prestige lab located in Dallas, Texas that will exactly meet your criteria. They have a multi-million dollar facility with teams of well educated and experienced chemists. You can visit them and tour their facilities. They have a phenomenal record of producing successful products for many companies, including startups. Their display case of famous products they have formulated will blow your mind. I have been friends with some of their executives going back to the late 70’s. The current iteration of the company was founded 25 years ago in 1991. Look them up and give them a call. http://cosmeticlaboratories.com/ Schedule a visit and jump on a plane to check them out in person. You will not be disappointed.
-
Swabu, if you were to describe the characteristics of a product which you believe has market potential and be specific about the objectives, including the problems experienced with current products on the market, then I think you will get some responses.
I developed, in a long time past, what was generally categorized as an “ethnic hair” product. It was for men with characteristic “African” hair seeking a gel type material that would enable hair to be combed, but not be “greasy” or shiny. But, I did that in response to some rather specific requirements and with a ready group of individuals to test samples and give feedback. The completed product was a market success because it was unique from other products in the category. However, that work was (and remains) confidential, and I won’t be able to divulge that formulation, but I only mentioned it here to illustrate that an anglo-saxon chemist such as myself can work in the ethnic market successfully.I think that if you were to describe your needs specifically that you will get more of the response you are seeking. There are those here who do an amazing job of answering chemical compounding questions which are phrased to provoke answers to address specific product needs and meet well defined performance objectives. -
Perry,
That is a very good observation. That “workplace” reference is quite significant.I interpret that to mean that if I am selling hand cleaning products distributed “solely” for use in factories and shops that no ingredient label is required under FDA regulations. That’s interesting for test marketing innovative items where I wish to keep the concepts confidential for a limited time..Some of my products fit that definition, but others, sold in hardware stores and auto parts stores (or any place which sells to the public),do not. Even large industrial distributors (like Grainger) while selling for the workplace, are open to the public (negating the “sold solely for the workplace” exception).That still leaves the OSHA SDS ingredient listing regulations, which certainly applies to the workplace. That “trade secret” provision I mentioned in the SDS instructions looks similar in wording to the FDA trade secret provision, but that FDA one is quite detailed that you must apply for approval to the FDA for using a trade secret exclusion and those requirements are quite stringent. I am searching to find if there is a similar OSHA provision for applying for approval to designate an ingredient as a “trade secret.”If the SDS trade secret exception provision requirements are the same as the FDA then that’s not really an option for ingredient listing on the SDS. If that’s the case, then there are many “waterless hand cleaner” products on the market which have deceptive information sheets (as Bob seems to have observed). One main player waterless product is listing (on both label and SDS) as a primary ingredient, “microemulsion gel” with no disclosure as to what makes up that mysterious gel.In the realm of cosmetics labeling (and especially in the hand cleaner segment) there is a lot of “what can I get away with?” thinking as opposed to “what is the right and legal thing to do?” mentality.I am really glad that Bobzchemist broached this subject. If I have a new waterless formulation which is superior to existing market items, I want to be on a level playing field with what’s out there in reference to labeling and SDS ingredient listing requirements.So I am very much am interested in seeing this topic explored fully. -
Bob, this is an excellent topic which is an ongoing interest of mine because industrial use products comprise a good part of what I develop and manufacture. For years I enjoyed the carte blanche freedom which allowed some rather daring formulation techniques, however, as time progressed over the last three decades I became more skilled (informed) and I learned to appreciate and value products which are non-toxic and sensitive to the environment.
I have in recent years become an advocate in my business practices for product safety (personal and environmental), including accurate product claims and appropriate labeling. I now impose very strict standards in my own developmental discipline.But, as I have been adhering in my formulations to rigid rules regarding safety and disclosure I have been puzzled by the lack of compliance and enforcement of the in place regulations, specifically regarding labeling and use of certain ingredients.
From my understanding, industrial skin cleaning products (including those for auto mechanics) are to be regarded as cosmetics and the same regulations apply (regarding labeling, safety and claims). I know I have seen that information, but I would like to find current links to the documentation.Not only are there the FDA cosmetics regulation considerations, but there are OSHA requirements which include the new SDS (they dropped the M), safety data sheet reporting requirements. However, I noticed in the instructions for the SDS that they seem to allow “trade secret,” which appears to take away any need for disclosure. Look at section 3 about trade secret in the following link:I have seen some industrial hand cleaners where “proprietary ingredient” is listed on the label and in their SDS and if that complies to the rules then all the teeth is taken out of the reporting requirements.California has led the way regarding regulation with their Proposition 65 which includes a list of forbidden ingredients which could find their way into the water supply (down the drain). The list contains a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that are known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. These chemicals include additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents.From what I have read, the EPA is adopting the California provisions nationwide. I’d like to find that link again as well.California has also been the leader in the regulation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). They publish a list of ingredients which can’t be used in commercial products in California. Ingredients found in some waterless hand cleaners are on that list (d limonene and dipentene, among several others). From my understanding US regulation will soon duplicate the California VOC laws (where I saw that I don’t know right now… link needed).I would like to see a compilation of links (or quotes) of what’s current and coming in regulations regarding cosmetic products. -
Quoting from Wikipedia:
“Glycerol is a stable preserving agent for botanical extracts that, when utilized in proper concentrations in an extraction solvent base, does not allow inverting or reduction-oxidation of a finished extract’s constituents, even over several years.Both glycerol and ethanol are viable preserving agents. Glycerol is bacteriostatic in its action, and ethanol is bactericidal in its action.” -
The French cosmetics company L’Oreal has a current ad slogan, “440 patents creating the perfect chemistry - because you’re worth it.”
Of course, cosmetics are sold with promises and hope and patents probably aren’t the primary motivation for the women who spend their money on beauty products.But, actually, L’Oreal is underplaying its number of patents. According to the Patent Office, L’Oreal has 28,462 patents. 20,000 are for lipstick, mascara and nail polish products. And data searches will confirm that all the other major (and many minor) cosmetic contenders are just as aggressive in pursuing the patent accumulation campaign.The logic is that L’Oreal (and virtually every other significant cosmetic developer) believes what recent litigation and licensing experience is showing; that patents (and trademarks) are increasingly becoming weapons around which marketing wars are fought.If you’ve created something truly unique, a $20,000 investment (the price you’d pay for a budget automobile or a modest boat for the lake) in attorney fees could be the best marketing move you could ever make. In fact, if you’ve got something that will turn some heads you can make a fortune just on licensing fees (the bulk of my income for the past 40 years as a developmental chemist has come from licensing).But, I will also agree with Perry’s statement. You can be quite successful with well done “me too” products using proven public domain technology or taking advantage of newly patented technology being offered from your chemical ingredient suppliers. If you create an excellent product employing those resources, then, yes, your available cash is very wisely spent on marketing.Patenting is a gamble. You should follow the same rules with patenting that you take to the horse track or to Vegas, “don’t risk any more than you can afford to lose.” -
Take a look at pramoxine hydrochloride. It’s a very good topical analgesic. Combine that with camphor and conventional moisturizers and you are on your way to a soothing preparation.
-
You can indeed obtain a very strong patent on a formulation which uses a unique combination of ordinary commercially available ingredients or even merely employs a unique method of compounding such ingredients (even though that particular combination has already been in the public domain), provided that there is an obvious comparative benefit realized that can be described as a distinguishable improvement over what has already been disclosed or made public.
A general rule of thumb to follow prior to even considering investigating the possibility of obtaining a patent is simply to be able to answer affirmatively that you have created something which performs beyond what has ever been done before (advances beyond the state of the art).For example, suppose you discovered that mixing common material A (for example, mineral oil) with common chemical B (for example, a common surfactant) in a certain proportion under certain conditions (such mixing technique or apparatus, in a vacuum or under pressure, in sub zero chamber or under high heat, or some other procedure) produced a material which you could rub on skin that would remove hair instantly with a wipe on/wipe off action. That would meet the requirement of providing a distinguishable benefit which nothing else can offer, but there would be nothing remarkable about the ingredients, just the way you put them together. Basic rule: You can describe it as, “No one has ever seen anything like this before.”
If that’s the case, then it is time to go find a good patent attorney. But, that doesn’t mean you will get a patent for certain, because someone may have already discovered what you did, already patented it, but have yet to produce it. A good attorney though may be able to find just enough differences that you may be able to have some survivable claims. So, don’t try to rule out your patent worthiness on your own. Remember the rule about the “man who acts as his own attorney has a fool for his lawyer.”
In addition, you can copy an existing formulation (even a brand name product which you bought right from the store shelf) duplicating their ingredient listing, even disclosing in your patent application what commercial product you copied and receive a patent (known as a utility patent) if you describe and claim as your invention as usage which has never been described for the product you copy by the manufacturer of the product or in any publication; in other words, “not public knowledge.” For example, suppose you found that a brand name eye liner remover would remove warts when applied and covered with a bandage overnight. You could patent that formulation, describing how you purchased the eye liner remover for its intended use and accidentally discovered that it would remove warts. You would identify yourself as the inventor of the formula as a wart remover. That patent actually will keep the original inventor of the eye liner remover formula from selling it as a wart remover.
Incidentally, I had this happen to me not long ago with one of my products, copied by one of my distributors, (I am actually mentioned by name as the original producer of the material he copied in his patent). It is possible that in my situation I may be able to challenge the patent holder’s (who is now selling millions of dollars per year of my formulation under his brand) ability to keep me from competing because I had made some general product claims which reasonably may include his subsequent narrow usage and I may take legal action soon to do that.
So, don’t limit yourself on considering patenting your product just because you are using ordinary or commonly available ingredients or even if someone else has product as similar formulation. Patenting is all about claiming a benefit which no one else has ever “discovered.” See a good patent attorney who will tell you the truth about whether you have something patentable.
-
You need to be careful with your salt concentration. There is a curve which defines its thickening ability and past a certain amount (3 percent plus is often the danger zone) the viscosity of your formulation loses stability (curve goes down). With DEA or MEA that thickening stability is more critical because they are electrolytes as well. Experiment by slowly adding the salt (add it last) until you understand its limitations for this particular formula. Then stay below that point where instability begins.
Salt for thickening can be tricky getting the right balance. Maybe you should rely on one of the many cold process gelling agents which are readily available.
-
I didn’t want to leave this hanging with my last post appearing as though Mark didn’t reply. We have been communicating by private messaging and Mark has been quite gracious in his response.
-
I am preparing to purchase one of the Biospec homogenizers. You mentioned having a machinist to fabricate a custom head for the one you bought. Would it be possible for me to have the contact info for that machinist? I would like to have the same thing fabricated for my unit.
-
Edited previous post to correct a typo.
-
So, Perry, based on what you are saying, the culprit’s forum identity shall remain unknown except to those who have been defrauded. That’s perplexing because it tends to make any of those offering their formulating services on this and other forums suspect. Now I do agree with you that just calling out someone as a crook without supporting evidence isn’t something your site would want to do from a moral position or could afford to do from a legal standpoint.
My suggestion is that you approach the ladies who have described their experiences with this person and if you find their assertions credible then remove the accused from any services offering listings. I like your website and I am impressed by the work you do. In this situation I just think you need to be a bit more paternal than is usually called for. -
One economical approach is to get documentation from each of your ingredients’ manufacturers asserting biodegradability. Then in your promotional materials describe the biodegradable certification of your ingredients. Non biodegradable materials such as salts can be described as non-pollutants with appropriate supporting references.
-
If the accused is someone who has posted on this forum it would seem appropriate to post his username. Also, one of those accusing him mentioned that he had posted elsewhere. Those other sites should be listed along with his website or wherever he posted his photo. .
-
There are several cold process emulsifiers which will allow large oil loads in an Oil in Water emulsion (some up to 80%). I would suggest, like others have, to experiment. A good place to start is lotioncrafter where a neophyte can purchase small amounts of a wide range to try. If you have the business creds which indicate that you are a real formulation and production business, try Croda for samples (they have a nice selection, many of which are available from lotioncrafter).
-
Please, please, please Bob. I would like to say that you can’t be that naive, but of course you are (I don’t think that you mean to be dishonest, but are just uninformed).
Animal testing is indeed going on every day for any newly created chemical compound if it is to have any human exposure, which includes virtually any which are going to be produced for sale. The government regulations are too severe regarding toxicity for the tests not to continue. They are required by the law.Now the “out” for cosmetic manufacturers (like most of us on this board) is that our completed formulations don’t have to be tested for toxicity. However, each of our ingredients with a CAS number must have been. And we have to report the results of that toxicity testing on our new SDS forms (used to be called MSDS, which were much simpler). They are now more specific and detailed.“Toxicity testing” (that’s the nice term for it) is a multi-billion dollar business here in the US (and yes, it still includes rats and rabbits for skin and eye testing and for lethal dose testing), I know because I have had to have testing done and have had to contract for that testing when I was in the business of producing an ingredient chemical. I won’t post the name of the mega-giant US testing lab (which has labs in virtually every state) because I still use them for VOC testing for my cosmetic products, required now on all formulations.I am now only in the business formulating and manufacturing finished cosmetic products and fortunately don’t have to make arrangements any more for animal testing to be done on our products (that’s all done for me by my ingredient suppliers).If you think for a moment that the animal rights activist organizations are lying about the amount of animal testing going on you are (putting it nicely), simply mistaken, They would not leave themselves in such a legally vulnerable position. Do a Google search for LD50 (the dose which killed 50 percent of the animal test group) and notice that the bulk of the entries are from the prominent USA animal rights groups (similar and even more detailed than the UK group I quoted). Lots of true data about what’s going on is described on those sites. I personally would like to see methods developed for toxicity which don’t require animals (I don’t want animals to suffer either) and I hear that some progress is being made, but we are not there by a long shot.Like I said, this is the best kept secret in America (and I should have said “the world”). And what perpetuates the lie (yes, the bold faced lie) is that so many cosmetic companies advertise, that they don’t do animal testing. Of course, they don’t (no formulators do animal testing), they just all use ingredients which have been animal tested. But, none of them are honest enough to provide that information along with their “no animal testing” statements.Some companies are so dishonest they tout that their products are “cruelty free” even getting a PETA seal of approval to display. I guess it isn’t cruel that many animals suffered (that does includes fish) and many died to make the ingredients for those products (talk about deception). -
Bob,
It is in the “Requests/Opportunities” section. It’s not so different from many others in that category. -
Bob, to correct your “misconceptions,” the following is a quote from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (United Kingdom):
. — Begin quote-Testing chemicalsMillions of laboratory animals are used worldwide in tests to assess the safety of chemicals.Chemicals form the basis of, or are added to, a huge variety of products in everyday use. This includes paints, dyes, plastics, pesticides, household cleaners, cosmetics and food additives (also see: medicines and vaccines).EU and UK laws tell manufacturers how they must test their chemicals for safety. Different laws cover different types of product, and abiding by these laws usually requires the use of animal tests. Because many chemicals are very poisonous, the safety tests can involve considerable suffering and animals are always killed at the end of a test. The types of animals used include large numbers of mice, rats and fish as well as smaller numbers of rabbits, guinea pigs, birds and dogs.To be able to use chemicals safely, it is necessary to know exactly how poisonous each one is, both to people and to wildlife. Some chemicals are very dangerous and, even at low doses, can cause the death of people exposed to them. Others are safe unless people are exposed to them at a very high dose, or for a long period of time. The types of tests, their exact purpose, and the suffering they cause to animals varies. Examples of tests include:— using guinea pigs to assess whether a chemical may cause an allergic skin reaction— studying whether exposing rats and mice to a chemical over their whole lifetime causes cancer—End of quoted text-Because of the strict new SDS requirements (worldwide)for statements regarding safety and toxicity, animals are still used to establish safety (or lack of it) for skin irritation and for eye contact. Some chemical can cause severe eye damage, even blinidness. Humans are not used for these types of tests. Every new ingredient which is sold for use in cosmetics requires these eliminative tests in order to establish its safety character. -
Vibration tables are quite effective. Many models are on the market for removing bubbles in a range of products, not just cosmetic formulations. I’ve seen an ultrasound unit that was amazing. Some companies build their own vibration tables using commercial massage therapy vibrators.
