[Sibech]

A quick abstract on the size of pores:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034515

TL;DR
CONCLUSIONS: Enlarged pore sizes are associated with increased sebum output level, age and male sex. In female patients, additional hormonal factors, such as those of the menstrual cycle, affect the pore size.

[Sibech]

@Shannonho First you need to define what you think of as Natural.

If you are thinking vegetable oils, then they are generally compatible, if you want to non-miscible oils you will need to find a non-polar oil with no hetero atoms (O & N) and a polar oil (Vegetable Oils & Esters).

[Sibech]

@Dtdang Frankly we don’t need it in skincare products, it often has a nice dry feeling - but you can’t satisfy nutritional needs topically.

The issue with using unsaturated fatty acids (and other fats with a high iodine value) is a general lack of oxidative stability.

[Sibech]

@Microformulation I completely agree.

In 1976 Fulton et al. published the article “Non-comedogenic cosmetics” which laid out the most commonly cited ratings.

In 84 another article was published by Fulton, which Belassi mentioned in another thread. (https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/discussion/4798/all-d-c-dyes-comodegenic)

The newer article concludes

Some of our results with other ingredients are not exactly identical to those reported in I976. As there are many sources and grades of cosmetic ingredients and also a possibility for individual variation among rabbits, a variation in results is certainly possible. Examples are cetyl alcohol and polyethylene glycol 300. In our original studies, the cetyl alcohol was found to be noncomedogenic, but on repeat, it was comedogenic. The reverse was true of polyethylene glycol 300. It was comedogenic in our first studies, but the present source was noncomedogenic.

Mills et al. described a human model for assessing comedogenic substances

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/543668

and more recently Draelos addressed a re-evaluation of comedogenicity using a modified version of the test Kligman performed. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962205046001)

Unfortunately, there is little chance this information passively diffuse out to crafting/DIY sites that are misinforming people.

[Sibech]

@ngarayeva001 from a consumer standpoint I agree, the INCI is overwhelming and confusing. I found this box on a blog reviewing the product.

It is also confusing for consumers as all the colourants are below the 1% line, even though they may be present in much greater concentration and can be listed in an arbitrary order.

In my experience, most companies go for lowest to highest CI number or alphabetical order for US INCI-lists.

[Sibech]

@Microformulation That’s an interesting piece of equipment.

What are, in your opinion, the advantages of using an ultrasonic homogeniser compared to a rotor-stator homogeniser when formulating microemulsions? - reduced solubiliser percentages? shorter processing time?

[Sibech]

@ngarayeva001 correct me if I am wrong, but I think you might be tricked by the INCI on the blush.

The blush does not (necessarily) contain all of those colourants, the +/- at the beginning of the colourant is there to inform about which colours may be present and is often seen in colour cosmetics where different shades are available.

[Sibech]

Thank you @MarkBroussard & @Microformulation for being more eloquent on comedogenicity than I am in the wee hours of the morning.

@ngarayeva001 A lot of recommendations given by suppliers is given in good faith, but if they do not specialise with the industry, but retail the raw materials, it is likely they are subject to the same misinformation as most consumers are.

@MarkBroussard could you cite a source on the “natural SPF”, arguably some unsaponifiables could contribute, but I am sceptical of any significant degree of SPF from oils.

I do subscribe to the notion that some oils may better distribute, give a better coating due to spreadability and percieved absorption (I would, for example, feel better applying recommended amounts of sunscreen predominant in light and “dry” oils, than something that feels heavy and fatty).

[Sibech]

They are desceiptive, but have been performed in rabbit ear canals, which are much more sensitive than human skin. In addition the “rating” of raw materials may vary by supplier or even by batch.

[Sibech]

@belassi The comedogenicity test in rabbit ears, while a quick measurement is not directly transferable to human skin (especially as we we rarely use 100% of anything). A formulation can easily have the comedogenic compounds without being comedogenic.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fee9/7be6fedac72eaf02762db962428b2a28b6b3.pdf

@ngarayeva001 I have to ask this; if the makeup didn’t “clog” the pores, how would you actually reduce the visibility of them?

[Sibech]

@MarkBroussard I think the current testing is extensive but also ensures that a product is as expected when a customer buys it and for the period they use it at home.

I generalize somewhat but here but Americans are fond of airconditioning, which is much less used in Europe. Therefore, 80F degrees is to be expected indoors if the outdoor temperature reaches the same level (which it does most summers). For instance I had a tinted lip-balm (ointment type) which seperated into pigments and oil-phase just because of the elevated temperature this year. (Honestly I expect it would have separated in accelerated testing but still). 

I think the statement of one year shelflife or you have a sales issue is somewhat unreasonable. Color cosmetics may used less often than skincare and kept for longer by the consumer, but that does not necessarily invalidate sales as consumers also stock up on items if there is a sale.

[Sibech]

@Fekher you say you want to find the lowest level of soap/active matter which does not need preservatives. I don’t know how you intend to do that but what you should do is send them off to a lab for preservative efficacy/challenge testing.

Regarding having worked with 3 different manufacturers without issues on pH paper only - everyone can be lucky not to have issues, that does not mean it is good manufacturing practice. Get a pH-meter with at least 2 decimal points, the low-end ones they are relatively cheap.

[Sibech]

@ngarayeva001 It could be an allergy, my point is merely it is difficult to tell the difference without training (even with training it may require testing). The rash pattern is usually what visualises what kind of dermatitis it is.

In some cases allergic CD may take longer to present after exposure (24-72 hours) but it can also be more or less instant.

I’ve attached an article from Cosmetics (MDPI open access Journal) on trends in the occurrence of contact allergy to cosmetics during a 25-year period, and the cosmetic allergens detected in patients tested in 2010–2015.

[Sibech]

@Fekher You are right that when it’s about oils microbial growth is unlikely, but when you make a liquid soap diluted with water then you need to consider microbial contamination.

The reason bar soaps don’t have to worry about microbes is as I mentioned alkalinity and the lack of water. True you can have a water-rich product with a high pH and no growth, just like you can have a low-water product with a neutral pH without growth. The two does not need to both be present - but pH and water activity are crucial factors in liquid soap without added preservatives.

To simplify, what you define as “Concentration of soap” can be directly translated to “Less water present and available”.

When you say the KOH shampoo is great, do you base that on your personal opinion or tests conducted on tresses to show improvement of the hair cuticles? 

@Perry mentions soap makes a terrible shampoo, here is why: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25210332

[Sibech]

Imagine a location with hard water, I would presume it could lead to a lot of calcium and magnesium buildup in the machine and on the clothes. Also formation of soap scum from lipase cleavage of triglycerides.

the EDTA or other chelators are of course also needed to allow the detergents to function properly.

[Sibech]

@Fekher antioxidanrs have nothing to do with microbial stability. The reason your soap bar does not need preservatives is a combination alkalinity and extremely low water activity.

The diluted and pH lowered soap allows for microbes because of the addition of water and a near neutral pH.

[Sibech]

@ngarayeva001 they porbably had a small amount of xanthan from one of the many extracts you mentioned them using.

I have one question though, do you know for sure it was an allergic reaction and not just and irritant reaction? It could be both, but allergy requires multiple exposures to the product and sensitisation to the compound as it involves the adaptive immune system, whereas irritant dermatitis does not.

You could give her small samples of the raw materials and get her doctor to perform a petch test and determine what she responds to, and if it is truly an allergic reaction.

[Sibech]

@DAS but are fire extinguishers a GMP issue or an HSE issue?

@belassi I bet you are right about that!

[Sibech]

@Microformulation the thing is, I did walk over it (Not only did I go over the FDA shortlist but the actual ISO standard) and since most of them are documentation, which obviously is not shown, or subjective/vaguely worded, I am at a loss as for what else could be wrong.

I am even doubtful as for if the separate/defined RawMat weighing area is an issue as it is hardly shown in the video.

But by the sound of it everyone else commenting knows all GMP requirements well enough to mention numerous issues, so it appears logical to ask for help.

[Sibech]

@Perry I didn’t see any suggestion of incompetence at all, just mentioning my personal bias.

While I see this article as “okay they work better than water carbomer” it is likely to be a “one feather turning to five hens” situation in mass media through the standard exaggeration pathway and after a few cycles it would be cited in a magazine as: clinical study proves: Ceramides are the best moisturizing factors!

[Sibech]

@Perry Thanks for the study.

I generally agree with your observations It has a small sample size, sadly I feel this has come to be the standard in cosmetics.

In academic publishing, such minor differences might make or break the possibility for a second article. So if you want to answer “does ceramides work to reduce TEWL”, it could be construed as less significant to answer if it works better than a standard lotion.

a little bias: I find V. Rogiers to be competent, she is also a member of the SCCS.

[Sibech]

@ngarayeva001 Something tells me they add a small amount which is negligible in the formula. Regardless they have to prove microbial stability to legally sell it on the European market so I can only assume yes (that, or they disregard the rules and sell illegal products - who knows)

[Sibech]

@SJane confidence in the product is a great thing to have, why would the customer believe you if you do not believe it. However none of your available “Science” is proper.

As it is mentioned earlier - Nano does not refer to the size of a molecule but the size of a particle (or agglomerate of particles). With that said it is also impossible to shrink a molecule.

[Sibech]

@Microformulation Thank you for providing a link, it seems to be an abbreviated version of the ISO 22716:2007 with the addition of a definition of adulteration for the US.

The EU is a bit odd on the GMP for cosmetics. You must produce under GMP, however, it technically does not have to follow ISO 22716:2007. In addition, you do not need certification as long as the product is produced following GMP guidelines (local regulations may apply and it is just EASIER to follow ISO 22716:2007 as an inspector may question your choice of GMP standard). However, how often an inspection occurs may vary from country to country.

After watching the video, the first time I re-read the ISO 22716:2007(E) and watched the video again to spot new errors. Now I just went over the FDA list as well and rewatched the video, yet again (she is getting too many views from me I tell you).

With numerous GMP issues please assist me in completing the list of currently 7 apparent issues in the spoiler (to reduce post length):

• Openable windows (with/without proper screening - I cannot discern that from the footage).
• Lacking hairnets and facemasks for powder handling.
• Seeming lack of cleaning (or easy access to doing so based) & shelves in “Poor repair”.
• Raw materials stored poorly - for instance on the floor.
• Allowing non-trained personnel in the production facility

@mikethair mentioned

• Poor flow of production allowing for cross contamination and errors.
• Lacking separate/designated weighing area for raw materials

[Sibech]

@mikethair thank you for the examples!

Maybe I missed that part but what in the video showed weighing of raw materials right next to production (/not in a separate area)?

To be the devils advocate even though I agree;
What defines appropriate clothing and protective garments for avoiding contamination of the products?

Premise design should be based on the type of product, existing conditions, cleaning and sanitizing measures used.
Why does this not qualify the flat tables for bath bombs?

Technically the ISO requires only sufficient space And separated or defined areas (Again I agree there is not sufficient space, but isn’t that subjective?)