[Ruben]

@student54 I don’t know a lot about hair, but according to my little understanding, hair is negatively charged and therefore you need a cationic compound to produce a conditioning effect.

[Ruben]

@David08848  To get ungated as a skin-care manufacturer they ask any of the following: FDA registration, GMP certificate, or a certificate of analysis. For the GMP, they want from a third-party inspection service. For the COE, I don’t know exactly what they want. I assume microbial count and some chemical analysis, such as heavy metals, but I am not sure. This is what I asked @Zink but got no response.

[Ruben]

@Zink Can you share what the COA included? I assume microbial and chemical. Although, I don’t know what type of chemical analysis would be enough to satisfy Amazon’s requirements. Thank you

[Ruben]

You could use retortable pouches. These pouches can be sterilized in a retort using overpressure. Google “retortable pouches” to get acquainted with the technology. This probably would be more feasible than aseptic processing.

[Ruben]

Few thoughts about this.

1. When canned, food products with a pH above 4.6 are sterilized, which means the product is heated to temperatures around 121oC for a certain time. If the pH is below 4.6 the product can be pasteurized at temperatures below the boiling point of water. So if you want to use “canning” as a preservation technique, your product has to be able to withstand high temperatures.
2. The type of Gerber food products you are talking about are sterilized by Aseptic Processing. In this case, the product is sterilized before being filled in a sterile container. Again, the product needs to be heated. I don’t think you will find a food co-packer willing to put a non-food product in their Aseptic Processing System. Maybe a pharmaceutical manufacturer will do it.
3. How are you planing to prevent microorganisms from growing on your product once the containers are opened?

[Ruben]

@Wolf For finished products you need to contact a lab that specializes in cosmetic product analysis. The reason is that there are specific protocols for cosmetic products. For any product that contains preservatives, as cosmetics do, the preservatives need to be neutralized before running microbial tests otherwise they will interfere with the analysis. Cosmetic testing labs are very familiar with this. 

You need to run at least total plate count for bacteria and standard plate count for fungi (yeast and mold). You can expect to pay around 20 bucks for each analysis. 
There are several labs around the country. I send my samples to Microchem Laboratory, LLC in Texas.

[Ruben]

I wonder if there is a patent somewhere for this mask. I searched on the USPTO and found nothing.

[Ruben]

When selecting a viscometer make sure to pick one designed for the range of viscosities found in cosmetic products. Brookfield offers 3 series: LV, RV, and HA/HB. Cosmetic applications normally fall in the LV category.

[Ruben]

pH is probably high because it has been adjusted by addition of base.

[Ruben]

Olivem 300 is not an emulsifier. It is an emollient.

[Ruben]

@MarkBroussard
There are no many packaging options for shower scrubs. Most shower scrubs contain sugar-or other big particles-so it is not something you can put in a bottle with a pump or in a standard tube.
I’ve seen tubes with a big orifice that eventually could be used for a scrub, but it doesn’t work for scrubs with a thick consistency. Also, these are not easy to find.
So at the end of the day, most people, including some popular brands, end up using jars.

[Ruben]

@Margreat Both, lard and tallow contain up to 50% of unsaturated fats, mostly monounsaturated. Lard can have up to 10% of linoleic acid. This is why reheated pork in most cases releases a characteristic off-flavor that in the industry is known as “warmed-over” flavor. Same thing happens with poultry.
Most of the lard comes protected against rancidity with BHA/BHT

[Ruben]

Yes, jars are a problem. Most of them are tapered and there is no way around if you use rectangular labels. However, there are many pumps and treatment pumps that do not have a taper.

[Ruben]

@CC7 I did a lot of experimentation on printing my own labels and got some good results. Color laser printers don’t work. I used an HP Jet Pro 400 M451, which is a very good office printer. It prints well on weather proof polyester labels, but the colors are not vivid. Labels look very dull.
Then I tried an inkjet, specifically a Canon PIXMA MX922,  with weather proof gloss stock from OnlineLabels.com and the results were amazing. I had to play with the settings a little bit and had some alignment problems, but at the end I was very satisfied with the results. I think it is a good alternative until you have enough volume to get the labels printed.

[Ruben]

Also gluconolactone gets converted into gluconic acid when dissolved in water, which may help to drop the pH

[Ruben]

@Belassi
You deactivate the enzyme by increasing the temperature to the denaturation temperatures. After that, you normally don’t separate the denatured enzyme from the hydrolyzate. It could be done, but it is too expensive. Besides, the level of enzyme is very low.

Papain is very powerful. I used one called Liquipanol quite a bit to hydrolyze animal protein (not for cosmetic applications). Vegetable proteins are a little bit more difficult to hydrolyze, but it is possible to do it. Depending on the degree of hydrolysis you would like to attain, you may need more than one enzyme.

You need heat to around 55-60oC for the papain to start working. Once you finish your hydrolysis, if I remember correctly, you heat to 80oC to deactivate the enzyme.

[Ruben]

Proteins are better hydrolyzed with enzymes. It is a less harsh and more consistent process. You can use HCL and then neutralize with NaOH, but you end up with a lot of salt in the hydrolyzate that in many cases can be a problem.

[Ruben]

Try this:
http://www.yourboxsolution.com/
They do short runs at a reasonable price

[Ruben]

@ botanicalsecrets
Did you try to copy and paste your pictures? I just tried and worked.

[Ruben]

I think the sodium lactate is the cause of you problems with pH reduction. Do you really need it at 2%? Sodium lactate comes from a strong base and a weak acid, so when dissolved in water will give you a basic pH.

Also you have protein, which may be buffering your formula and making it even more difficult to reduce the pH.

[Ruben]

Assuming your have the right column, mobile phase, detector, method, etc this is what I would do.

I would prepare one formula with your compound and one without your compound, run through the HPLC and then overlay the chromatograms.

if you see that in the chromatogram without your compound nothing is eluting at the time your compound elutes then you are fine.

 

[Ruben]

In fats and oils, fatty acids are not present as free acids, but as triglycerides. Inevitably, some free fatty acids are produced during the extraction process due to hydrolysis, which is something the industry tries to minimized because high concentrations of free fatty acids is considered a defect.

For that reason, I wouldn’t expect that free lauric acid and lauric acid as part of a triglyceride, like in coconut oil, are going to taste the same because they are different compounds.

[Ruben]

@ Belassi I’m just curious. Do you get any effect at 0.25%?

[Ruben]

@MarkBroussard Do you get your preservatives directly from Schulke? I assume they sell only large quantities.

[Ruben]

The reason I asked is because all the information on the web indicates that emulsifying wax NF, including Polawax, is an emulsifier. All the sites that sell small quantities of ingredients list E-wax as an emulsifier and most homecrafters use E-wax as the only emulsifier.

That being said, I have to admit that I assumed E-wax was an emulsifier that could “emulsify” other things besides itself. However, judging by its composition, Cetearyl Alcohol (and) Polysorbate 60, I always had my doubts about the  emulsifying power of Ewax NF because it  basically contains just one emulsifier: polysorbate 60 (HLB 14.9). A search in Prospector doesn’t suggest the use of E-wax as an only emulsifier either,

So Bob’s comment that “Polawax is a self-emulsifying wax, NOT an emulsifier” sheds some light on a question I had for a long time: is E-wax really an emulsifier? It also explains why few emulsions I did with E-wax as the only “emulsifier” were not very stable; and why these emulsions improved their stability after adding Glyceryl Stearate (HLB 3..