Pharma
Forum Replies Created
-
Higher price and toxicity?Also, it’s behaviour is different… not sure how (better or worse in a relaxer?).It’s likely having a better penetration which would weaken hair to the core. -
You have too much allantoin in there, it’s not going to dissolve at that %.A transparent emulsion can be obtained by two means. A: droplet size small enough to not diffract light = micro- or nanoemulsion or B: adjust refractivce index of water phase to fit oil phase.Both strategies aren’t for beginners and your formulation is far off of what it takes.
-
Lactic acid is less likely to interfere with other ingredients and hence is less likely to cause a drop in viscosity. Citric acid and cationics as an example are not the best combo whilst lactic acid would work.Lactic acid (given that you don’t use a super diluted form) also drops pH stronger per gram added. On the other hand, citric acid has a better buffering (something you usually don’t really need…) and an intermediate chelating capacity (wouldn’t rely solely on citric acid as chelate, though).
-
It’s nearly as alkaline as sodium hydroxide.Calcium hydroxide is slightly less alkaline (still medium-strong though) but foremost it’s very poorly water soluble and henceforth doesn’t act as a strong base under certain conditions.
-
In food industry, TEC is used as a processing aid, for example as whipping aid for egg yolk… because it helps with the foaming. I can’t see any reason why TEC should reduce foaming except that enough might decrease hydrophilicity of the water phase. This would shift the apparent HLB or HLD of the emulsifiers to more ‘lipophilic’ = away from the foamy detergent side of the spectrum. But that would likely require quite a few % (as can be found in a deodorant). The same effect can be observed with other ‘lipophilic’ water soluble ingredients such as medium chain fatty alcohols.
-
If you have a solution of salicylic acid at pH 5 (measured in the final product) it doesn’t really matter what else is in there nor how you got to that pH, all that counts is the final pH. At a pH of 5, 99% of your salicylic acid will be in salt form and hence show less exfoliation, less deep skin penetration (which can be an advantage, you don’t want SA in your bloodstream), but better tolerability. Skin antiinflammatory effect is likely still given (reduce swelling, redness etc.).Citric acid will be present as sesquisodium citrate (~50% monosodium citrate and ~50% disodium citrate). It is unlikely to show much AHA/BHA effects.
-
Originally, I wrote ‘widdershins’ but then I wasn’t sure whether or not you’d know what that means and went with anti-clockwise *giggle*.I’m not saying you have to mix it that way (unless you honestly and truly believe that it actually does something useful, then, sure, do so), you just have to pretend… I assume your clients aren’t really into ‘the other business’ at a serious level or they would have specified that ‘vibes rubbish’. Therefore, it seems fair enough to be not too honest about that production step and just pretend (if you’re a good enough actor… else, don’t lie).
-
Forgot to mention:- Change viscoelasticity (the only ‘scientific’ advice which might acutally help).- Move lab. It’s probably located above a water vein, a crossing of Hartmann or Curry lines, or any other earth radiation. If you can’t move, buy an overpriced scam gadget or a quartz pyramide to shield your lab.- Change container; if they look cheap or synthetic… you know where this is going.- Read appropriate literature. If you’re into the older stuff, I can recommend Heinrich Cornuelius Agrippa von Nettesheim and Paracelsus. On your journey, you’re probably stumbling on Aleister Crowley, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the like… skip those, these aren’t helpful for good vibes. Gerald B. Gardner and the generation he inspired might be more useful for the task at hand. For all things more modern, have a look at Llewellyn’s huge book collection. Some weird shit there but also a bunch of inspiring concepts.
-
Add also rose quartz as homoeopathic dilution, use spring water instead of pure one, and tell them that you grounded your machines to shield the product from electrosmog (send in a box from recycled cardbord with wood shavings as insulation) and a hand written card attached with a sisal strin.Get a ‘guru looking’ guy or a ‘witchy gal’ to hold a pendulum over the new products A and B (they’ve been stirred clockwise and anti-clockwise, respectively… at least, that’s what you’re telling them) and have them make the pendulum swing, obviously, clockwise and anti-clockwise for the two products (goes without saying that they know which ones which). Send film as ‘proof’.Or tweak anything small ‘according to recommendation’ by a healer, medium, wicca or whatever.Maybe print/scratch/etch a tiny (tiny enough to be inconspicuous but big enough to be barely noticed) sigil (that’s a rune-like magickal sign) on the container (-> win the approval of their subconcious minds)?
-
From a hardcore chemistry point of view, SLS, SLES, and BTMS are sulfate free because they are sulfate esters and not sulfate salts
. A sulfate ester just happens to contain the word sulfate. Other functional groups get new names such as sulfonate or amid. Correct claims would be ‘free of sulfate ester surfactants’, ‘free of organosulfates’, or ‘free of alkyl sulfates’. Funny that some ‘natural’ (read white-washed) brands which sometimes even claim ‘SLS/SLES free’ or the aforementioned ‘free of harsh sulfates’ but add ‘natural’ and hence ‘mild’ sodium coco sulfate (read SLS from renewable feedstock) LoL.In case of BTMS, the sulfate is the counter ion, not the surfactant part. The counter ion modifies surfactant properties such as harshness. In case of methosulfate, it tends to make the surfactant milder when compared to its chloride analogue.I wonder what sulfateophobes would say were they to realise that many w/o emulsions contain real sulfate (i.e. Epsom salt)… -
It may. As said, all depends on the context… and your definition of ‘potency’.
-
You’d have to add too much to ‘freeze’ fragrance oil droplets; the result will be closer to a gummy bear than a body wash
. However, that body wash likely contains emulsifiers which might do a decent enough job to get away with a somewhat increase viscosity. I would go with hydrophobically modified polymers (’emulsifying’ carbomers) instead. The INCI would for example be Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer though not all of these will work, check out the different types of Carbopols. Carbopol Aqua CC might also work (not the same INCI). They’re not made to emulsify fragrance oils but they’re probably the ones which might work good enough in conjunction with your standard ‘soap’ emulsifiers/detergents. -
@Gordof Melatonin, not melanin .There’s some scientific data which implies a possible benefit for hair growth and a very few clinical studies with a hand full of participants to support this claim. Does this sound like natural Rogaine? Only to a fool.Anyway, melatonin is poorly soluble in water but acceptably well in diverse polar solvents (given this and its instability in solution, suspensions are commonly used) whilst minoxidil is very poorly soluble in most solvents except for alcohol, alcohol/polyol blends and respective mixtures with a small amount of water. Alternative solvents are usually not acceptable due to irritation, unpleasant feel, poor stability, and other factors.One possibility to dissolve both is to use their salt forms… which are fairly unstable in solution, photosensible, and undergo rapid oxidation (discoloration).Notably, both ingredients are fully synthetic (melatonin does exist in nature but commercial one is 100% petrochemistry) and not compliant with any ‘natural’ claim which considers ethanol, isopropanol, or propylene glycols unnatural (they all exist in nature and may even occur at way higher tissue concentrations than melatonin). Sure, propylene glycol isn’t frequently found in nature but microbes can synthesise it at larger quantities than one can currently produce ‘natural’ melatonin for example through fermentation. As mentioned before, propanediol is a suitable alternative solvent but ethanol is still required for good dissolution and water to water the solution down to cosmetical acceptance can and should still be used.Using minoxidil suspensions is a wast of $$ (not sure about melatonin). Maybe add Griffonia simplicifolia extract rich in 5-HTP which is a biological precursor of melatonin and use that as a claim .
-
Glycerin seems to do the job or Alchemy would likely have added a preservative to the Sapogel Q already.However, I would indeed consider a preservative due to the presence of those powsers which may result in an unequal distribution of water and glycerin (on a microscopic scale).Sapogel Q on the lips… doesn’t that taste ‘scratchy’?
-
You don’t need an ebook (unless you want to learn chemistry, then get a chemistey book) and you certainly only need a patent if you want to make sure that you don’t commit patent infringement.Using HCl is a very simple procedure and results in a brownish soup which smells of bouillon.Using enzymes is a cleaner way but you might struggle finding suitable enzymes at a suitable price (especially if you’re not able to recycle the enzymes). Every enzyme requires its own reaction conditions; a supplier might help you out with that but you’d still be forced to do your own trial and error adjustments.Don’t forget that pre-treatment of wool can greatyl affect the outcome of an enzymatic digestin. You might find tips and tricks on Sciencedirect or PubMed.
-
THIS is the only fat burning gel I know… Sorry for the morbid humour o:)
-
Distarch phosphate is probably the starch phosphate you sent me… *cough-cough*Cosmetic names can be confusing or misleading.
-
chemicalmatt said:Respectfully @Pharma, and I do respect you, your advice is unsound. Lactic acid/sodium lactate at pH 5.0 - 5.5 is by stoichiometric definition a buffer system and HAS been proven to maintain a urea-bearing system at a pH 5.0 - 5.5, the sweet spot for stability minimizing decomposition into ammonia and biuret. I’ve discovered in my research on rice starch that is was shown - as was potato starch - to stabilize urea solutions at that pH too. The research paper mentioned that as a side note not as a breakthrough idea. Upon reading this the little light bulb went off inside my head: another means of stabilizing urea, how cool is that!. Since then I’ve formulated 20% urea creams using the classic lactate buffer approach backed up by 3.0% rice starch and have seen nothing but success. @Graillotion is exhibiting the same romance with triethyl citrate that I have. I think I’ve enabled her and perhaps an intervention may be needed.
[Not a pissing contest]I never mentioned a pH 5, I wouldn’t dare saying that lactic acid/lactate isn’t a well established buffering system (what is a stochiometric definition? The two compounds don’t need ‘to be stochiometric’ to behave as a buffer), and I also didn’t mention that it’s not working.According to my sources (which aren’t cosmetic journals but pharmaceutical in nature), urea is most stable at pH ~6. Lactate buffer would indeed work as buffer up to a pH of 5 (and downwards likely even at 5.5 though that’s of no concern here)… however, as I mentioned, it’s not about buffering (for that, the amount added is often not even enough to buffer considerably beyond the self-buffering capacity of a cosmetic emulsion, let alone handle 10%+ urea) but about setting a pH range wherein urea is most stable. A simple no-brainer.I know that lactic acid/lactate is used to adjust pH in urea products and I’ve found patents as well as cosmetic and even scientific publications wherein they used a ‘lactate buffer’ with best results (from what I recall, the alternatives were poorly chosen and failure wasn’t too astonishing). In most of these it was quite obvious that the autors had no clue what they were actually doing. Again, doesn’t mean something won’t work just because one doesn’t know what’s actually happening.BTW biuret is not generated.Regarding rice starch: I’ve looked into that as well and found what others (for example published in DAZ) have found out too. The first published documents showing starch as a means to stabilise urea used starch as adsorbent in anhydrous formulations… not the same as adding starch to an emulsion. Later, others used starch too but didn’t realise that urea won’t stick on starch once water is added (see where this is going?). Nonetheless, I’d appreciate if you could post the DOI of the publication you mentioned. Always keen on learning new things.Urea degradation is not a simple 1+1=2 and small factors can have considerable effects. End of the day, nobody asks why it’s working but only if it’s stable or not. 🙂 -
When your solvent is water, solubility increases with increasing pH and can be estimated for any given pH using the pKa of salicylic acid (~3). At a pH of 4, 90% is in salt form and at a pH of 5, about 99% is in salt form. I don’t know solubility of betaine salicylate (and less so the salt formed with whatever you use to set your pH) but assume that it’s good enough. Hence, all you have to calculate is the corresponding amount of salicylic acid (in the example, 10% and 1%, respectively, of the added total amount). If that one is below the solubility limit of salicylic acid, you should be fine.A factor which may influence solubility is the fact that betaine mixed with salicylic acid at the right proportion results in a liquid. I don’t know how said liquid behaves in different solvents and to which degree it can be diluted with water before failing. Also, changing pH of this ominous liquid will change the required proportions, make it fail at one point, and alter tolerance to different solvents.Hence, you should go with simple maths, for safety reasons stay below the theoretical limit, and simply try it out.
-
No, there isn’t any rule of tumbs. Depending on stability of urea in your system, more or less (or none) TEC has to be used.The BASF formulation uses a phosphate buffer. I don’t like phosphate buffers in cosmetics though it’s effective over a broad pH range including urea’s stable zone.
-
@Anca_Formulator Missed that. Thanks for sharing! That’s the things happening when people thing outside the box. I like that! 🙂
-
I heard stories that, back in the day, niacinamide (also food & pharma quality) came with up to 10% nicotinic acid. Nowadays, you can expect less than 0.1% total contaminants. The sensation nicotinic acid can produce is well known and not allergic in nature. Weird enough, some people get the effect easier, others only at really elevated levels.
-
- Stem cells are omni-/toti-/pluri-/multipotent immortal cells = they can turn into anything they want (as long as it’s fruit-related) and live forever… until they get extracted and just look like ordinary fruit juice diluted with solvents.- They produce a set of highly active growth hormones and ‘rejuvenating’ factors… too bad these are plant specific and don’t work on animal cells (with few exceptions such as salicylic acid though the effect is completely different).- Scientists have developed these, are grown in bottles on synthetic nutrient media, come out of fancy labs, and sound super futuristic… hence, they have to be good (especially with that price tag)!
-
Traces aren’t enough to cause any issues at any inclusion rate or I wouldn’t use the word traces 😉 .
-
Heating sensation is usually not caused by niacinamide but by nicotinic acid present as contaminant. However, good quality niacinamide should not contain more than traces thereof.Content may be much higher than those 0.01-0.1% 😉 . I doubt that as little would do anything other than making your LOI longer and boosting marketing claims. ‘Scientific’ publications (cosmetic science articles are often borderline between scam, marketing, and a desperate attempt at justifying claimed benefits of a sponsored ingredient) I’ve found which show benefits in partially controlled setups use something in the range of 1-5%.