[Pharma]

Doreen said:

Aren’t alcohols relatively weak on mold/yeast?

The formulation of @RE50 contains 75% IPA and that is more than any mould/yeast can take. Relatively means that they grow at ethanol % up to wine strength (max. ~15%), killing starts later.

I can imagine that, at an alcohol concentration sufficient to stop microbes from growing, weak acid preservatives greatly lose efficacy because you can not disturb a metabolic process which, at that moment, doesn’t take place.

[Pharma]

You could test it for yourself to see my point:

Fill your
ultrasonic humidifier with a high % solution of either H2O2, bleach, or
formaldehyde. Alternatively, use an ozone generator. These will
effectively turn you completely immune to any viral respiratory disease
because without airway mucosa….

BTW I’d highly discourage from using alcohol instead, it creates dangerous fumes (pun intended).

[Pharma]

That’s ridiculous, you’ll not going to find any serious person with that demand. Certain germs may be reduced to a certain level but forget about viruses. Best there is is called ‘scam’.

[Pharma]

If you want a peptide to show any skin penetration, you have to apply it with a special formulation or a fancy injector device. Example reading HERE.

Biochanin A is an isoflavone with weak oestrogenic activity (used in menopause instead of hormone substitution) and possible cancer preventive action (did test related compounds during my postdoc). Apart from a hypothetical ‘feminising’ effect, I don’t know of any reason why red clover or its constituents should help against hair loss.

[Pharma]

Now, I’ve found the original publication referenced in that book.

Managed to get a copy of it and read a bit. Turns out that the book may be misleading or give a wrong idea (although that book is intended as scientific inspiration, not a formulation guide). It’s also easy to read and meant as a proof of concept using arbutin and octadecenedioic acid as theoretical examples. The latter was then used for a trial formulation with the intention to show that they could really predict the outcome from theoretical considerations regarding driving forces for skin penetration of active ingredients. Apart from me still being not happy with their choice of ingredients and lack of appropriate controls (which would have been overkill for their aim), the publication is good for what it is intended to be and does not claim more than there is.

Notably, the proposed formulations can not be copied/used for anything other than octadecenedioic acid but their calculations (with emphasis on polarity) can be used as starting point for more efficient formulations. And that’s exactly what basic research is all about.

BTW I don’t know how new their insights are. The single theories are fairly old but, as they mentioned too, are often not put together and neglected in cosmetics development. They are however considered by pharmaceutical companies, if I’m not mistaken.

[Pharma]

First, I didn’t read the whole copy-paste.

Second, I don’t agree with everything @Perry says. Sure, scientists too often use things which are not directly transferable to an everyday use. But this here is fundamental research, proof of principle. It’s not about developing something for industries or consumers but create basic knowledge and a deeper understanding which, somewhere down the line, helps others to adapt it to more mundane uses.

Octadecenedioic acid is actually used, just not mainstream. It’s way more interesting than hydroquinone for several reasons: It’s new (= more likelihood for being the first to publish), it’s mechanism of action is new (= more reads), solubility in products contradicts skin penetration (= challenge). A more suitable alternative would be azelaic acid due to comparable difficulties with solubility.

Anyway, the study is heavily flawed for other reasons. Either they deliberately cheat to boost sales and substantiate marketing (if authors = company selling product = I just changed my mind and am all with @Perry) or they are just researchers who didn’t think fare enough or have not much clue about galenic formulations and skin physiology. I suspect the latter.

Comparing formulation A with B is not representative because the used emollients are VERY different in how they affect skin barrier, a very poor choice a good scientist wouldn’t do. Since there is neither a link nor a full title to the study, I don’t know whether they specify what the SE in glyceryl stearate SE is (something a smart person would do, a smarter one wouldn’t use an emulsifier in one formulation and omit it in the other). Besides, studies on the influence of solubility of pharmaceutical drugs for dermal delivery are anything but new or innovative. That factor of about 3-4 may be statistically significant but it’s just okayish. A factor of 10 (on penetration, not bleaching) would be the least I’d judge worthy of publishing even as proof of concept. Besides, their concept is somewhat against the current dogma without proving it wrong. It’s more of a misinterpretation which shows that different solvents may have different effects… but that finding is an old hat.

Again, I can’t read the original paper and hence, it’s difficult to really judge. Ranting is easy .

[Pharma]

Hydrogenated ethylhexyl olivate is very similar to ethylhexyl palmitate. The only difference comes from the unsaponifiables (mostly squalane with smaller amounts of glycolipids and yet smaller ones in phytosterols). All depends on amounts and proportions present: unless added extra, the unsaponifiables make up about 1 meagre %. At least the claim is an improved effect on skin barrier and skin flexibility. I have to point out that I don’t have any personal experience with that product! Simply as an educated guess, I’d say that all an expert tester may feel is presence of tiny amounts of squalane which is a bit lighter in feel, easier to spread, and absorbs faster but else feels fairly similar to ethylhexyl palmitate… In other words, 99.99% of consumers won’t feel the slightest difference.

Hydrogenated olivate is simply less processed and hence less pure palmitate and it’s palm oil free -> this makes for good claims for being ‘more natural’. If you feel like going a small step greener, go with olivate, else only consider $$ or go with palmitate which has a superb batch-to-batch consistency, nicer optical appearance (no colour nor odour), and good availability even in larger quantities.

[Pharma]

Olivate (if not hydrated) is rich in mono-unsaturated fatty acids and contains about the same cocktail of fatty acids as olive oil whereas palmitate is commonly derived from purified palmitic acid. As a rule of thumbs, unsaturated fatty acids such as oleic acid (the major constituent of olive oil) but also all their derivatives have a lower boiling point than corresponding saturated fatty acid derivatives. Hence, they feel more liquid, spread better, have more ‘slip’, tend to be drying, and reduce formation of solid crystal networks. In case of ethylhexyl esters, the effect is less pronounced than comparing for example olive fatty acids with palmitic acid, Tween 80 with Tween 40, or glyceryl olivate with glyceryl palmitate because the ethylhexanol moiety shows a similar effect than unsaturated fatty acids and therefore, the difference between the two compounds is more or less just half as much.

[Pharma]

Go with anisic acid (and levulinic acid), not with their salts. The salts are not active and are water soluble. As @EVchem pointed out, in order to turn a salt into an acid, you have to lower pH and that is not possible in an anhydrous formulation.

Why did you decide to add sodium anisate and not something else?

[Pharma]

I don’t see any benefit from infusing oils with tea leaves since all the good stuff in tea leaves is water soluble. All you get into the oil is some flavour and chlorophyll.

Depending on how you package, what and where you do with your product, your anhydrous formulation doesn’t need preservation.

[Pharma]

SUBMARINE AND SPACE SHUTTLE PRODUCERS

My name is Martey John Doe, I am
looking to produce Perfumes Flattops Fragances Submarines and essential oils space shuttles. Could someone
contact  me teach me how to go about it. I am new to this field. Thanks

PS Read between the lines, it says ‘It’s not that simple’

[Pharma]

DLR94 said:

…but I want products that won’t pollute water or have a bad affect on the environment. 

Although synthetics perform better, can they have bad side effects in other aspects? 
…

I completely understand what you mean (me too, I try to use as natural ingredients as possible/feasible), so please forgive me for being sarcastic: if you care that much about nature, why do you use cosmetics & makeup in the first place? They ALL pollute nature, they are ALL non-ecological, and they ALL have a bad effect on the environment, no matter their origin or production process.

Also, many ‘natural’ ingredients are as bad as petroleum based ones, think palm oil from monocultures (production from monoculture in general with special emphasis on canola/rapeseed but certain palm oil producers in particular). Cosmetics & makeup are luxury goods and more often than not don’t serve a purpose necessary for survival and they are all linked in some way or another to unnecessary pollution regardless of their carbon footprint.

Furthermore, simply because they are ‘natural’ doesn’t make them easily biodegradable. ‘Normal’ oils (triglycerides and ester oils) are less biodegradable and pose a serious threat to soil life compared to certain ‘synthetic’ water soluble derivatives. Life and cosmetics aren’t that simple.

‘Natural’ is often used to describe products which contain a certain amount of ‘non-petro’ compounds without necessarily mentioning how the final product has been obtained from raw materials. With ‘natural’ ingredients it’s often not known whether or not they are synthesised ‘biologically’ using microbes (often biotechnologically modified), ‘biologically’ using highly purified enzymes (often genetically modified), ‘biologically’ using heat and pressure (using electricity from a nuclear power plant), ‘synthetic’ using recyclable catalysts (these days, many are recycled or repurposed), or ‘synthetic’ using a blend of mostly ‘natural’ with ‘a bit petro and old-fashioned dirty chemistry’.

It all boils down to your personal definition of good and evil and how well you sleep with the decisions you make and products you buy.

Regarding your question: Yes, everything can have a bad side effect. Life is not possible without water and water is healthy and wonderful. But try telling that to a shipwrecked sailor 1000 miles away from the next shore *glugg-glugg-glugg*. And don’t forget, the deadliest poisons are natural (100 times stronger than VX)!

Cosmetics ingredients much like food additives and many more things are required to be safe (until proven otherwise). Is there a higher chance for a ‘synthetic’ ingredient to show side effects than a natural one? No. It may however happen more often with ‘synthetics’ because they haven been newly developed whereas the ‘natural’ ones are in use for millennia. If you were to compare a newly discovered ‘natural’ ingredient with an ‘old’ synthetic one, things would look exactly the other way round. So yes, we messed up more than once with new and ‘safe’ synthetic compounds. Like our ancestors must have messed up things when trying to survive on all natural stuff: ‘Hmm.. I wonder if I can eat that huge worm-like animaaarrrrggghhhh…’.

[Pharma]

It will work, even better than equal % of ethanol but less effective than equal % of IPA. If your reference product calls for 70% ethanol and you use the blend at 70% instead, it will be slightly more efficient and showing a broader antimicrobial spectrum.

[Pharma]

Depends on the exact composition of that blend.

[Pharma]

em88 said:

…I think that 0.20% Sodium PCA and 0.30% Glucam P-20 are very low to actually have a noticeable effect. 

Not necessarily. Don’t forget that the alcohol evaporates fast and hands are treated several time a day. This means that the total amount deposited on skin per day might be more important than the actual % added to the sanitiser.

Whether or not a noticeable effect is needed is questionable since proper usage would not rise the demand for a humectant in the first place. Regularly applying hand or barrier creams would be a more efficient way for people abusing or badly using hand sanitisers.

[Pharma]

What I could find out is, regarding Europe (for example ECHA), that sodium stannate is allowed (or used?) at up to 0.03% for pure H2O2 or up to 0.5% in hair care products (IKW). Depending on application and pH, different acids (e.g. carboxylic or phosphoric acids), inorganic salts (e.g. nitrates, pyrophosphates, phosphates, sulphates), and some organic substances (e.g. silicates, acetanilide, 8-hydroxyquiloline) are used. Several of these only work in diluted H2O2, become inactive if diluted or pH is adjusted, are inactivated when mixed with cosmetics, and/or are not suitable additives for cosmetics. At least in Europe, tin (i.e. sodium stannate) is more and more replaced with less problematic stabilisers (often at the cost of stability and/or product flexibility) although it is not forbidden from use for example in tooth whitening products.

Regarding H2O2 in cosmetics: THAT‘s one document I found regarding cosmetics (interesting pages: 22 & 23).

[Pharma]

ngarayeva001 said:

…sometimes I fall for “shiny objects”… 

That’s why I organised some IPD… tried a wee bit but wasn’t impressed. I kinda expected pink glitter, rainbows, and unicorn farts shooting out of the bottle but my first impression is that of propylene glycol. I should do some more trials but IPD rapidly dropped down the priority ladder after that.

[Pharma]

MurtazaHakim said:

Is it appropriate using technical grade Isopropylol for producing Hand Sanitizer gel or liquid ??? Technical grade is a blend of ethanol and Isopropylol.

Depends… most regulatory organs of western countries only allow pharmaceutical grade. Furthermore, certain technical grades may be harmful and cause, especially if regularly used, health problems.

Given that you have a grade which lacks problematic contaminants (ask supplier for specs) and you live someplace where there are really no other options (which include social distancing, clean water, and soap), than using technical grades may be better than not using anything.

[Pharma]

Bisabolol is fairly stable and I don’t know of any interactions, reactions, or incompatibilities with other common cosmetic ingredients.

[Pharma]

Perry said:

…
The idea of ingredients working in synergy is a nice concept but is that really happening in your formula? Maybe, but you have to test it. Just putting two ingredients in the same formula doesn’t mean they are working together. Instead, using two humectants just means they are competing against each other…

Some really do form some sort of synergy but it greatly depends on which you pair (two of the right kind would be enough) and more importantly at which ratio you combine them (it gets a bit tricky when using more than two and fairly unpredictable when using more than 3).

I haven’t found the time to properly try if that ‘synergism’ improves anything or even makes it more draggy or slower absorbing. It also remains elusive whether or not such a combination shows better water binding once assimilated.

[Pharma]

attapol said:

…I can not find the data that H2O2 kill the skin cells. Can you share the scientific claim for that?…

The scientific ‘claim’ (we in science do not use the word ‘claim’, cosmetics and marketing does) is simple, H2O2 is a strong oxidant which does not distinguish between ‘bad’ microbes and ‘good’ skin cells. Hydrogen peroxide and other reactive oxygen species are also used by the immune system to fight ‘foes’ but are known to hit ‘friend’ as badly. A good part of convalescence after an infection is your body cleaning up the mess it made on itself. You’ll going to find thousands of scientific publication regarding that topic on pubmed and sciencedirect.

Furthermore, H2O2 is known to hamper wound healing and granulation; that and the ‘stinging’ is the reason why many countries do no longer use H2O2 as disinfectant and only in certain cases for wound debridement (Italy still uses it widely but they also overuse antibiotics and cortisones and administer a bunch of pharmaceuticals in the gluteus maximus using the pink needle although there are as effective pills available). Low concentrations may however be beneficial if not used repeatedly (example HERE).

It’s also a common phenomenon that wrongly applied or overly used bleaching products for teeth lead to a damaged buccal mucosa, canker, and/or inflammatory reactions and can even damage your teeth. Ask your dentist.

[Pharma]

I think I read this paper (or a similar one with that 5% & 5%)… weird enough that IIRC only the mix performed outstanding and sorbitol alone had some effect whilst isopentyldiol alone wasn’t mentioned. It probably didn’t do much and was hence suppressed from publication.

Regarding hair ‘health’, don’t look at the pattern (colouring) but the edge of the hair (shape) to see whether there are ‘scales’ pointing out like an old pine cone or if it’s all straight and smooth like a copper wire. Trying to ignore background (which is more disturbing in the untreated hair, especially on the right half) and zooming in, I can’t see much of a difference.

In the treated hair, the white specks may simply be invisible because they are filled with sticky liquid with a similar ‘optics’ under an electron microscope. An educated guess would be that sorbitol shows that masking effect but since it’s only liquid if water is present (which may not be enough if used pure), the effect of the mixture (sorbitol dissolved in isopentyldiol) looks more pronounced. But that’s only a guess, I’m not versed in electron microscopy.

[Pharma]

Graillotion said:

alan123 said:

you can try Hydrogenated Ethylhexyl Olivate or 

Isoamyl Laurate

Are you saying…. IPM will not help reduce a greasy feeling?

IPM, ethylhexyl stearate, isoamyl laurate and most other synthetic esters are medium (IPM) to strong (isoamyl laurate) spreading and absorb fast which results in a dry feeling. They do only reduce oiliness if you replace part of the oilphase with them. Just adding them on top won’t do much regarding greasy residue but will modifying haptics and rheology (less tacky feeling during application).

[Pharma]

Graillotion said:

…at what rate should it be included, to achieve a noticeable difference?….

You will have to try because it depends on the formulation. 2-5% is a good point to start. More than that is unlikely to give good results.

[Pharma]

jesshall28 said:

…In a cold water bath….

That’s good! You could measure temperature of the finished product. Well possible that it’s still towards 30°C when you think it’s already fully cooled down. 30°C would likely be too hot and chances are that there’s going to be more pronounced hardening.