[Pharma]

Swap your preservative for one which dissolves better in water.

[Pharma]

With these, you may work with the HLB system.

Also, unlike @Paprik stated, the number does not correspond to the moles of ethylene oxide! It’s the case with many other surfactants but not with polysorbates. The ones you’re asking for all have 20 ethylene oxide monomers per molecule and differ only in the type of fatty acid, ranging from lauric acid in Tween 20 over palmtic (Tween 40) and stearic (Tween 60) to oleic acid (Tween 80). The latter is liquid due to the oleic acid which is a factor to consider. Depending on your product, one or the other might be a better partner if you use them as co-emulsifiers (which most do).

[Pharma]

Microemulsions and suspensions of sub-micro particles often have a blue hue.

[Pharma]

Different in which regard? They aren’t the same chemicals but closely related… see PICTURE.

[Pharma]

ifamuj said:

Why are polysorbates and parabens incompatible? 

We don’t know why and they aren’t just incompatible with polysorbates but several nonionic emulsifiers as well as a bunch of other cosmetic ingredients. There are speculations about parabens interacting with the hydrophilic PEG chain by hydrogen bonding and thereby accumulating in the interphase instead of remaining in the water phase. Parabens are better soluble in ‘intermediate’ solvents (such as alcohols, glycols, or PEGs) than in water or oils.

Regarding your second post/Q:

A preservative has to be located, at least partially, in the water phase in order to act as preservative. However, many also require a certain preference for lipophilic media so that they can cross microbial membranes and cell walls. A typical distribution between water and octanol (a common approximation for the distribution of chemical compounds between water and cell membranes) for such preservatives is 1:100-1:1’000. In other words, they are rather well soluble in oils and/or solvents but  not necessarily super water soluble. Therefore, several oil soluble preservatives are available but will be incorporated at levels low enough to result in partial dissolution in the water phase without the aid of emulsifiers.

[Pharma]

For niacinamide, water works very well.

To increase solubility of biotin (<0.02% in water), you may increase pH (turning it into it’s better water soluble salt form) using a base such as ethanolamine or use alcohol (solubility of 0.08%) or DMSO (4.9%) as solvent. Still, biotin solubility is generally poor in aqueous solutions at room temperature (if not in salt form) and that’s the reason why better soluble PEG derivatives and other esters/amides have been synthesised. Given that biotin is not soluble in oils, incorporating it as an emulsion is out of question. Using biotin based ionic liquids doesn’t work either if you have water in your product. You might try to adsorb biotin to zeolithe or silica and incorporate that…

[Pharma]

??

[Pharma]

Perry said:

@Pharma - Here is a running list of people who took the advice to use homeopathy and died.  http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html&nbsp;
There is real harm in following nonsense and pseudoscience when you don’t know that’s what it is.

For cosmetics, sure homeopathy may not cause any problems like death but let’s not pretend it’s actually doing anything beyond placebo.  Homeopathy is really no different than a belief in Santa Claus 

I know (rather knew) someone dying from cancer that way. Honestly, they kinda deserve their fate (see darwinawards.com)… it would be better, though, were they still able to learn from their mistake. The spouse of aforementioned person did try amending her decision for supporting his ‘treatment’ by caring for my dying father which was a big relieve and support for my mom though she hated her for it. In hindsight, their ‘stupid’ decision to use homoeopathy instead of chemotherapy turned out as a little miracle for our family and did help a lot (though not the original patient). Ironic, sad, wonderful… life can be a bitch .

Homoeopathy has its place and its benefits within its margins like any other treatment (you wouldn’t undergo surgery for having mild hey fever, would you?). So, in my opinion, homoeopathy much like most other alternative medicines such as Bach flowers or spagyric are philosophies and have nothing at all to do with science i.e. can’t be pseudoscience unless someone who hasn’t understood the philosophy tries to prove/legitimate it by using scientific explanations from a scientific field he/she understands as little as the philosophy. Don’t disgrace homoeopathy and the like, rant about the people trying to ‘scientify’ something with doesn’t fall into the realm of science (yes, by scientific definition, there are two realms, the one we know = science and the whole rest we don’t know which is there to yet be discovered).

I like your comparison with Santa Claus. He, like alternative medicine, does more than placebo but ‘resonates’ with our hopes, dreams and the subconscious mind. He can even bring joy and happiness to someone who does no longer believe in him like a dad who organised his uncle to play Santa for his kids. Homoeopathy is not a treatment of a disease, it’s a tool to help the patient to a better quality of life much like palliative care.

I know, I know, completely OT. But I like trying to persuade you that there are truly hidden psychological powers in non-science which can work ‘wonders’ way beyond placebo if you let them. Sure, always use reason, too. And that’s meant as a scientific perception from the PhD scientist in me. Someone who makes cosmetics for a living should understand what I mean.

[Pharma]

Perry said:

…Homeopathy is a fairy tale…

Not even that. Fairy tales aren’t built on lacking knowledge and misconceptions. Homoeopathy is a philosophy, either you believe it (or live it) or you don’t. It’s not all bad and useless, though. Placebo is a scientifically proven effect which makes up about 40% of the effect of common pain killers. Arnica (homoeopathic one) does help against pain (I guess with about 40% compared to common pain killers). That’s nearly half the effect for zero chemistry/toxicity . Sure, it’s not going to hold up to a placebo controlled trial given that the placebo will show the exact same 40% effect. If you can’t take drugs (for example pregnant/breastfeeding women), take homoeopathy (which sounds better than placebo and is, due to psychological reasons, better and taken with more compliance).

It’s like cosmetics: They don’t make you younger but make you feel younger and hence happier. I call that a win for the seller and the buyer (and confusion and desperate head shaking for the scientist). It’s not all science out there, it’s people. We’re not test tubes but human beings with all their flaws and faults and an erratic, poorly understood subconsciousness influencing even the brightest and most rational minds on a constant and daily basis.

[Pharma]

It doesn’t have one .

[Pharma]

You could simply hydrolyse the HCO and acidify it afterwards to obtain hydroxystearic acid. Sure, usage level is around 1% but it would give you another ingredient and another ingredient to further use in synthesis.

Producing methyl hydroxystearate might be an easier and more versatile molecule to be used for further chemistry.

Using glycerol instead of water for the hydrolysis would yield glyceryl hydrodystearate… not the one commonly available but a mixture also containing 2-hydroxystearoylglycerol instead of fairly pure sn-glyceryl ester alsongside possible di-esters and unreacted glycerol though differences will be rather small. This may be used in a similar fashion to glyceryl stearate.

And if you were to use isopropanol instead, you’d get isopropyl hydroxystearate. That’s similar to isopropyl myristate but with a higher melting point.

You could also make sodium soap with it and use that. With some zinc sulphate at hand, it’ll be possible to turn the alkali soap into zinc hydroxystearate.

Basically, you can do pretty much the same with hydroxystearic acid as can be done with stearic acid only that the products will have a lower melting point and are less likely to form solid crystal structures. Just some reactions risk cross-linking i.e. reaction of the acid head group with the hydroxy group on the chain of a second fatty acid molecule.

[Pharma]

Esterification works when coupling a PEG to an acid such as stearic acid. Castor oil is a triglyceride with atypical fatty acids containing hydroxy groups in the middle of their chains. These -OH are where ethoxylation takes place and the bond formed is hence called an ether. Ethers aren’t as easily synthesised as esters.

Now, you could try to bypass that issue by using a linker such as dicarboxylic acids (e.g. succinic and sebacic acid are most often used in cosmetics). However, chances are high that standard esterification will create considerable amounts of side products (di-PEG succinate/sebacate or cross-linked semi-pegylated HCO). Succinic anhydride or protecting groups on the dicarboxylic acid should work to avoid that and get a purer product. Although, cross-linked HCO might not be that bad (= polymeric emulsifier) but it’ll be an uncontrollable mess 🙂 .

Alternatively, use PEG to hydrolyse HCO (transesterification, might be easier with a detour via methyl ester) and produce PEG-12-hydroxystearate. That would be a lot neater and result in a way cleaner product.

Regarding alkylbenzene sulfonic acid: You’ll have difficulties removing that from the reaction mixture. However, toluenesulfonic acid is a common acid catalyst .

[Pharma]

Do you have a chemistry lab? You’d have to make ethers which don’t work that easily starting with PEGs and HCO. Usually, ethylene oxide is reacted with castor oil, this is called ethoxylation. Hence, you don’t start with PEGs but a highly reactive and toxic gas (and you have to prove that there is virtually no residual ethylene oxide left in the final product because it’s carcinogenic).

[Pharma]

PhilGeis said:

A quIck glance.    I’ll pass on your insightful comments.

You know that guy?

Here’s some examples:

- Geraniol doesn’t have a triple bond

- Cinnamic aldehyde isn’t a phenolic

- Quote: ‘TTO is a straw-colored mixture, consisting of a complex mixture…’ LoL

- ISO doesn’t just define a minimum concentration but a maximum as well. Listing for example sabinene content as minimum in ‘traces’ is nonsensical but <0.01-3.5% makes sense. BTW ISO as well as table 3.1 list 15 constituents and not 14 as mentioned in the text.

- The text does only imply that azadirachtin, nimbin etc. were terpenes. They’re actually terpenoids = slightly different biosynthetic route. Also, azadirachtin isn’t really antimicrobial (true, most things are, if used at high enough concentrations) but acts against arthropods.

- Usnic acid would be a new sub-chapter and shouldn’t start with a dot

- Sub-chapter ‘Herbs and Spices’: Not the best choice for a title if the corresponding table contains almonds and oranges and the like. It’s not wrong but not good either.

- Citric acid does only act antimicrobial due to lowering pH and/or chelating trace elements, not as proton shuttle like the other listed acids.

As said, that’s just from skipping over the text.

[Pharma]

PhilGeis said:

…Might take a look at recent chapter Dr. Amoroso (P&G) wrote on the subject.https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Xq0CEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT46&dq=amoroso+natural+preserve&ots=JXysHfmSwm&sig=k6pIcE2zBD9jHdis9VFXAhUnpG4#v=onepage&q&f=false
…

I had a quick glance at that book chapter preview and thereby found several errors. From poor English and formatting errors, over false chemical structures, to simply completely wrong statements. IMHO that book chapter sucks.

[Pharma]

@PhilGeis True, the ‘as little as possible’ is not an accurate measure. I (and likely whoever came up with that phrase some dunno how many decades ago) mean that a preservative shouldn’t be added in unreasonable excess. Correct, the in-use protection requires more than what a pharmacopoeia recommends.

@Szilvia Salicylic and sorbic acid work best at low pH. Gluconolactone doesn’t chelate as well as phytic acid at low pH but anything is better than nothing. I use pentylene glycol too, kind of a standard for my DIY creations (and it allows me to avoid glycerol).

[Pharma]

What kind of dark active ingredients do you have? Basically, are they water or oil soluble?

Montanovs might not be the best choice because they are lamellar network forming emulsifiers. Try one which results in very small uniform droplets (of the coloured phase within an uncoloured continuous outer phase). These emulsions tend to be whiter. As an example, should you have a coloured water phase, switching to a w/o emulsion.

Play with pigments (ZnO, TiO2, boron nitride, aluminium oxide aka synthetic sapphire etc.) which are dispersed in the outer phase (might require surface modified ones) and/or try nano powders or the like to reduce whitening after application.

Adsorb the actives onto a powder (this might even help to get a water soluble one into the oil phase and vice versa, just make sure it goes into the inner phase and also make sure that you have an inner phase).

Pearlisers might help as well (IIRC especially together with pigments).

Bleach/refine/charcoal-strip the extracts of switch to purified constituents.

[Pharma]

With 8% ethanol and pH below 4, you can use more or less all natural preservatives. I wouldn’t go with ferments and herbal extracts from Active Microtechnologies given that they are either a scam, ineffective, or of unknown/dubious composition -> an educated guess would be that they contain lipopeptides and these may not be stable for prolonged periods of time at such low pH.

You certainly have to define (for yourself) what you consider natural.

In addition to that, maybe use some % of one or several glycols. They mostly boost other preservatives, may slightly increase viscosity, and give good hydration (except if used in a rinse-off).

Also, add a chelate. A natural one is phytic acid.

Going back to the preservatives: The choices you have (i.e. a system which really works) depend on your formulation (ingredients), whether the product is for sales or personal use only, intended shelf life, availability/MOQ, price, and your possibilities to run challenge tests. Using a combination of multifunctionals has the advantage that you can more easily go overkill… though the general recommendation is ‘As little as possible, as much as needed’ and that’s a very good advice when using potentially irritating or smelly preservatives such as formaldehyde releasers, sorbic acid, phenethyl alcohol etc.

[Pharma]

The safe thing about many EM products is that they contain most likely no living organisms, just fermented ‘soup’ and residual enzyme activity.

The nice thing when using lactic acid bacteria as EM is that LAB are usually not pathogenic, do not produce toxins, do not produce smelly metabolites, are easy to cultivate also in a selective way even in the kitchen, lower pH by producing lactic acid (helps removing scale and ‘inactivates’ ammonia and related products -> useful to clean dog/cat piss), and last but not least are very trendy (probiotics). The products I’ve tried were okayish, actually better than I expected… like using diluted acid and soap water though didn’t quite work as advertised for dog pee odour.

[Pharma]

@Paprik was spot on and very professional. No kiddin’!

[Pharma]

Paprik said:

….or you would be cleaning surfaces with bacteria, mold and yeast “infused” product. That would be lovely, aye?  

It’s called EM (effective microorganisms) and they are THE hype in eco-friendly cleaning and sell for way more $$ than traditional cleaning products no matter their effectiveness! I’d recommend something based on lactic acid bacteria (LAB is another great sales pitch) .

[Pharma]

You might get away with the marketing for a copper complex product if, say, you also add copper peptide and/or other copper salts… which are usually blue and might turn your product cyan.

Else, you’ll have a very hard time justifying chlorophyll in a product. In some countries, chlorophyll is used to mask off-putting smells such as halitosis. If you could add a stinky molecule as ‘active’ and mask its reek with chlorophyll…

(Sorry, I guess I’ve been watching too much Rick & Morty lately :blush: .)

[Pharma]

First of all, try to adhere to the metric system. Oz is THIS and not a useful measure.

Varisoft EQ and honeyquat are cationic emulsifiers/conditioning agents which are, theoretically, incompatible with anionics such as SCI and Plantapon LGC. At the right proportion of cationic to anionic emulsifiers and in the right mix with non-ionics (the ‘Sorb’ in Plantapon :smiley:) and/or amphoterics (CAPB), they may be semi-compatible and deposit on the hair only during washing out (i.e. precipitation upon dilution). Such an incompatibility can reduce leather.

Also, the more ‘useless’ stuff (proteins, extracts, EOs) and w/o emulsifiers (glyceryl caprate/caprylate and glyceryl stearate) you add, the more surfactants you ‘use up’ and that reduces foaming ability and foam stability.

[Pharma]

Mildness is, on a scientific level, not well understood and based mostly on observation and trial & error experiments. There are some rules of thumb regarding mildness of surfactants (you can google these). Turns out, mixing a mild one with a harsh one renders the latter milder.

BTW if you start with a super diluted form, only ‘monomers’ are present up to the solubility limit where free monomers reach their maximum, this is called critical micelle concentration. Above this CMC, you will still have the same maximum concentration of free monomer, pretty much like most solutes (take table salt as an example). With table salt, all added surplus will simply not dissolve and sink to the bottom. However, with surfactants, these molecules will still go into solution but then form micro-aggregates, so called micelles. These are the entities which actually do all the work a surfactant is commonly used for. Once your shampoo is in consumers hands and thereby diluted with water, its concentration obviously falls. In fact, if you use too much water or start with a too diluted product such as you plan on making, the concentration may fall below CMC and that means your shampoo will no longer work as a surfactant/cleaning agent = epic fail.

[Pharma]

Cleaning requires wetting and that is due to reduced surface tension. That’s where surfactants get their name from and that also means they will foam.

If you’re looking for something which dissolves sebum and reduces surface tension without producing foam, use ethanol… however, you’ll have to get ONE OF THESE if you need solid booze.

You could try to adding an anti-foaming agent; alas, these quite often reduce cleaning performance as much as they reduces foam.

Another option would be porous material like zeolite or silica which act as oil-binders and abrasive cleaning agents.

Good luck!