[Pharma]

prow18 said:

…
What about Honeyquat as natural conditioner? I know @Pharma mentioned it, and many sites claim it is natural… or naturally derived. Does anyone know what is done to it to make the end product?…

Not sure if it’s really true for Honeyquat but ‘quaternisation’ is a straight forward synthetic approach (wherein you may vary either of the two educts) which is described in a patent I found using Google and 5 seconds of my time:

A moisturizer known as Honeyquat 50 with INCI name of Hydroxypropyltrimonium Honey has been reported to be a better humectant
than glycerin. See the Arch/Brooks brochure titled “Cosmetic Ingredients
& Ideas®”, Issue No. 2, August 2001. Honeyquat 50 is described as
being derived from the reaction of pendent hydroxyl groups (on the
disaccharide) of a “light” deodorized grade of honey with a
chlorohydroxytrimethylammonium derivative. Although this substance has
excellent humectancy, moisturization at low relative humidity still
remains to be conquered.

[Pharma]

doctorbrenda said:

Now that I have been experimenting with formulations for about eight years, I am beginning to question some basic things that I was taught at the outset.  I will try to keep my inquiry brief, and keep in mind that this applies to all oil-in-water emulsions and water-in-oil emulsions, as this is an issue of chemistry and physics. Not chemistry and not schoolbook physics but, well, it’s complicated and not even todays supercomputers are able to calculate these phenomena. At best, mathematics and physics can be used to explain an observed phenomenon.

Here is  my question:  I am wonder how much (if at all) does it really matter whether you pour the oil phase into the water phase, or the water into the oil phase, while creating an emulsion. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t and sometimes pre-mixing with low sheer is required prior to homogenisation.

In this case, the following can be assumed:
1) Both phases were measured separately and heated up in their own separate vessels, up to the necessary temperature (i.e. - highest melting point of the ingredient with the highest temperature requirement for liquifying).
2) After pouring one phase into the other, the high-shear mixing begins within seconds of this action.

NOTE:  On this issue, I have received contradictory responses from many other sources (other formulators and lab technicians).  I am always reluctant to conclude someone is wrong on any issue (unless it’s a clearly objective fact, like a mathematical calculation that doesn’t add up).  I have found in most cases the differences are a mix of facts and opinions, and they are simply talking about different things from different perspectives, and may have not realized it.

More specifically, my question involves the following concepts:

1)  The emulsifying agents are really what determines whether you have an oil-in-water, or water-in-oil emulsion . . . correct? Sometimes right, sometimes wrong If your emulsifiers have an HLB value Stop thinking in HLB unless you use PEG-based emulsifiers that is below 6/7, then you are pulling water in the lipids (the continuous phase), right?  And if the emulsifiers have an HLB value that is higher than 9/10, you are pulling lipids into the water phase (continuous phase), right? Wrong. Lipids remain in the oil phase and water remains in the aqueous phase whilst emulsifiers are supposed to be in the interphase (depending on the emulsifier/co-emulsifier, the bulk may form a depot in either phase) This is assuming that you have an adequate amount of emulifying agents to get the job, and create a stable emulsion.

2)  So whether you begin by adding one phase or the alternative into the other vessel, they both end up in the same place No, they don’t, it’s not that simple. Emulsions are semi- or even unstable systems, not equilibrium states, and as long as the heat is higher than needed to keep everything melted, then it’s really the high-shear mixing (the heat and energy) that form the emulsion . . . correct? Wrong. If you think in HLB, than you use PEG-based emulsifiers which have a phase inversion temperature (higher or lower than melting point possible) above which the o/w system is inversed = a o/w system which phase inverses when dropping below the PIT resulting in a fine o/w emulsion. This isn’t true for other systems. Because an emulsion is a system which carries energy, it depends on how you obtain it and there are different emulsions which can be obtained.

3)  Without getting to complicated, some people have commented that this may create an issue with developing an emulsion that is actually closer to a “WATER-IN-OIL-IN-WATER” (W/O/W) which is uncommon.  Don’t know if anyone here has ever tried to create an w/o/w emulsion, but that may be a separate discussion if it’s not relevant to this specific topic. That’s yet another thing not necessarily related to this topic.

Hopefully someone will have an articulate scientific explanation for this inquiry.

See comments in italic.

Read THIS if you want to understand more.

[Pharma]

Graillotion said:

…Can I use cetyl esters and behenyl?…

Cetyl alcohol or cetyl esters? You may use cetyl or behenyl alcohol whilst cetyl esters such as cetyl palmitate or cetearyl olivate aren’t quite the same. For some applications, you may use either or a blend of alcohols and esters. For hand creams, fatty alcohols are more often used than esters and they are often also used at higher amounts than in other formulations .

[Pharma]

A: In many countries, lidocaine 5% is considered a prescription drug

B: It’s light sentitive

C: pH for best stability is 6-6.5

D : You may want to add BHT or similar to increase stability

E: What the heck is a salve serum solution?

[Pharma]

As said, todays food, pharma, and cosmetic grade ascorbic acid is L-ascorbic acid. Only technical grades may sometimes still be the racemate.

[Pharma]

@ngarayeva001 Why? Back in the good old days of alchemy, their measures were even worse but they seemed to feel quite confident using things like mercury, lead oxide, deadly nightshade, and goose droppings in their salves and ointments. On the other hand, why should non-metric measures mean that someone is supporting the free from boom? Wouldn’t the USA be all organic and fairtrade if it were so? :smiley:

[Pharma]

May I ask for the full list of ingredients?

Have a look at publications on oleogels and organogels (especially the edible ones). And then, there is the search function on the top right of this page .

[Pharma]

By preference, you should use the same production means for trial formulations as will be used for upscaling.

[Pharma]

Gordof said:

…I Live in Switzerland near Zurich… I am
looking forward to get in contact… Head of R&D…

Sali Tobias

I au (aso näb Züri wone, ned de Job).

Döfi fröge weli Ferma?

PS I hope you understand Schwiizerdütsch.

[Pharma]

Heike said:

… Perhaps someone knows my (german) website »olionatura.de«…

Sure do and love it. A really nice site I frequently use to look up things I’m too lazy to note for myself. :smiley:

BTW glad you joined chemists corner.

[Pharma]

The white colour of emulsions isn’t actually white colour of the emulsion but kind of an optical illusion resulting from light being reflected and diffractioned in any which way by the inner phase. This means: droplet size is what gives ‘colour’ to the emulsion. Rough emulsions tend to have hints of the inner phase (>100 um), fine emulsions are white(maybe 5-50 um), very fine ones become opaque to translucent (<1 um), and ultrafine ones would be transparent (in the nm range). Droplet sizes are out of memory and approximations.

[Pharma]

ngarayeva001 said:

I tried a lot of L’Occitane’s products. Their hand creams are nothing special. Which one is it? The standard one in metal tube?

It’s the standard 20% shea butter in a metal tube. I like it and it does absorb astonishingly well for that much butter.

It’s not a no fingerprints at all product but in my opinion and that of several folk I know amongst the ones which is nicely nurishing/caring for a good time and still okay during work.

They seem to use Sepigel 305… not sure if that does something useful/exceptional to it regarding greasiness, if it’s the sterols, or just good formulationg or plain luck?

Else, it looks like any straight forward hand cream: water, butters/oils, glycerol and other humectants, fatty alcohol, glyceryl fatty ester. The rest is obviously emulsifiers, dimethicone (against soaping?), gelling agents, claim ingredients (I guess the extracts are just doing marketing), and obviously preservatives amongst other necessities.

[Pharma]

Define natural.

There are lots of very different ingredients which may gel oil. However, not all are suiteable for all applications and some require too much or affect the product in an unwanted way.

Best would be to do some reading… you know, books and stuff .

[Pharma]

singhc10 said:

…Vinyl Dimethicone Crosspolymer…

That’s what I was looking for but kinda had a black out. Thanks for the AHA-moment 🙂 .

@Graillotion It’s called Soft Focus Technology. This ingredient does reduce shine (hence its use in mattifiers) and is great to visually and instantaneously reduce wrinkles and skin imperfections due to an optical illusion (also employed in Light Diffusing Technology which is basically the same). Natural materials which can have such an effect (depending on quality) are for example talc and cellulose which both also absorb oils and sebun to further reduce gloss.

[Pharma]

Depends

[Pharma]

chemicalmatt said:

…How will the regulators measure this is my concern… 

From my understanding: They usually won’t and if someone does, 10 ppm shouldn’t be an issue with modern technology. It’s up to the manufacturer to guarantee levels below the limit. However, sorry if my brain is toast right now and I’m babbling nonesense, said guarantee is neither obtained by relying on data which show what maximum % of free formaldehyde could be formed nor by actually measuring it but by mathematical calculation what could theoretically be formed = full hypothetical decomposition. IIRC this is already the case. Then again, I don’t trust my memory, not tonight…

Me, personally (=irrationally), I think it’s good to lable the amount of formaldehyde and to lower the current declaration limit. Although formaldehyde is a CMR category 1B compound (Presumed human carcinogen, mutagen or reproductive toxicant based on animal studies) which usually results in a ban in cosmetics, formaldehyde and related ingredients are still allowe with restrictions. It’s not a ban but just a declaration and formaldehyd releasers will still be okay below already defined %.

Does this decrease/increase product safety? For some yes, for others no… depends on the definition of who’s safe and safe from what.

[Pharma]

There are pKa tables available online. However, it’s easier to check each ingredient separately since these lists are not exhaustive.

-Ubiquinone: No and not water soluble
-Taurine: It’s an inner salt and buffers somewhere between pH 8.5 and 9.5
-Melatonine: Alkaline. Poor solubility (and poor stability) in water and hence marginal effect on pH
-Niacinamide: Alkaline. However, I haven’t observed a raise in pH… Dunno why
-Tretinoine: Theoretically acidic but not water soluble and hence no effect on pH
-Caffeine: Alkaline. Rather poor water solubility = low impact on pH. Well soluble in hot water or as salt. Depending on the salt, effects on pH and buffering range will differ (same goes in principle for all acids/bases which are only water soluble in salt form).
-MSM: No
-DHEA: No

[Pharma]

If it’s wet and shouldn’t be, find out which ingredient contains water in the first place and if you could use a dry quality instead.

Which means do you have for drying powders and which quantity do you need drying?

[Pharma]

2007? Dang… Completely missed it. Maybe it didn’t cause too big waves when it was found out?

[Pharma]

Haven’t you noticed, the two LOI are identical ?

Maybe to help with lather or it comes from a pre-mix?

If you switch out talc with zeolith, cellulose with cellulase, and maltodextrin with amylase, then you could use it also for washing your clothes too .

[Pharma]

There is no definite answer because TEWL reduction not just depends on the chemical property of a given ingredient but also the supramolecular structure of the final product. Meaning, a micrometer droplet-type emulsion will be different from a sub-micron emulsion or a lamellar type.

As a rule of thumbs, the higher lipophilicity is, the less interaction with water molecules and hence a lower TEWL. Lipophilicity correlates with longer chains, by tendency also branching, and the absence of a free alcohol function. Cetyl alcohol has likely a poorer effect on TEWL reduction than cetyl ester, behenyl alcohol is better than cetyl alcohol and that one is better than myristyl alcohol. Cetyl esters… well… depends what type of ester it is… likely better than myristyl myristate. Oleyl has a double bond… my gut feeling tells me that it could be superior to the equally long stearyl alcohol though said double bond will have a considerable effect on structure and how that different structure affects TEWL????

[Pharma]

PhilGeis said:

Aspergillus niger exists - and is not the fungus used in the PET challenge test.  That is A. brasiliensis… 

Ah, okay, I see. Thanks!

[Pharma]

PhilGeis said:

…There is no Aspergillus niger - 16404 is A. brasiliensis isolated from the blueberries and has no record of carcinogenesis or aflatoxin production.  That some other fungi produce alfatoxin is irrelevant to cosmetic quality.  Tho 6538 still can infect skin if inoculated heavily - these are fairly innocuous bugs…

According to NCBI’s taxonomy browser it still does like I’ve learned two decades ago though I’m open to changes (as they occur quite frequently in taxonomy). Aflatoxins in cosmetics might actually be a problem (however, one would have to eat said cosmetics) though not post production but in raw materials such as virgin/organic oils and butters such as wild harvests by local communities in the Amazon region.

[Pharma]

Nature only produces the L-enantiomer of ascorbic acid and most industrial processes also produce exclusively the L-form (starting from glucose and using fermentation). On the other hand, certain synthetic pathways may lead to either enantiopure products or a racemic mixtures but these are speciality syntheses which aren’t readily available to everyone or result from the original disused synthetic route, respectively.

Both enantiomers act as antioxidants equally well whilst enzymes depending on it as co-factor can only use the L-form.

There’s maybe a 99.99% chance that whenever you read or buy ascorbic acid it will be L-ascorbic acid and whenever vitamin C is mentioned, it always refers to the L- form.

[Pharma]

Ah, okay. I thought unpreserved and was already wondering… :smiley: