[Sibech]

You haven’t got a lot to reduce the water activity, giving everything a good base in which to grow. Increasing the concentration would be a decent first step but not necessarily solve your issue. What is the pH of your formula?

[Sibech]

You can make a water in oil formulation as that by choosing a what’s called a high internal phase emulsifier - Alchemy (previously alpha chem) have one called HIPEgel Aqua - it bears mention that it is not an emulsion in classical understanding but more of a polygonal network of droplets.

https://alchemy-ingredients.com/products/high-internal-phase-emulsions/hipegel-aqua/hipegel-aqua-1

[Sibech]

A good example of these would be “Mother Dirt AO+ Mist” which supposedly have live Nitrosomonas eutropha.

They recently started selling in Europe too, but I have NO idea how they scientifically argue for the safety of their product.

[Sibech]

@Microformulation I appreciate your simplified pharmacology lesson for other readers, I wish I had thought of adding that.

I agree that we are making cosmetics. Unfortunately, there is a certain level of dissonance caused in part by differing regulations (To overly simplify, I do not consider sunscreen a drug). 

While cosmetic products with some level of efficacy usually enter into a borderline territory, the compounds added to the skin may, in fact, have an insignificant level of effect on physiological or metabolic function.

(Even adding pure glycerin to the skin would as it changes the osmotic pressure causing increased TEWL).

“My overall point is that facilitating and designing the transport of an Active be it Pharmaceutical or Cosmetic is not an easy process and easily out of the skill set of most if not all the participants in this blog.“

You might very well be right, I have participated actively for long enough to make a proper judgement on that.

” ‘Let me add this penetration enhancer and get this complicated botanical consisting of hundreds of compounds into the body’ since it is natural. THIS IS A PROCESS THAT SHOULD NOT BE ATTEMPTED WITHOUT HIGH-LEVEL UNIVERSITY TRAINING AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT.“

Once again I agree with your notion.

Should the “90% is absorbed” and “Natural is safe” people who pivot and say “Let me add this penetration enhancer for a botanical” decide to attempt such a move, they would likely be disappointed anyway.

That is unless they have the required training to understand and elucidate the composition of their botanical, then manage to find structural analogues for which penetration enhancers are discovered. Otherwise, they would need a deep understanding of thermodynamics or be shooting in the dark when it comes to finding a penetration enhancer as those tend to be fairly specific.

“Likely, I could do the research and make a small crude nuclear reactor next door to you. The documents are declassified and I could use a Medical isotope in some crude manner.: SHOULD I TRY?“

More crude than the nuclear reactor would be is this thinly analogy-veiled threat.

What you are arguing, as I see it, is essentially This is difficult and not safe for people without proper experience and technical support, therefore it shouldn’t be done and that I agree with - but I fundamentally disagree with your original statement of “It is naive and contradictory to Pharmacokinetic principles to believe that you can affect any real penetration or that you can establish a significant blood/plasma concentration with a simple topical product.” because it is factually wrong.

To reiterate:

I am NOT saying that it is easy.

I am NOT claiming it is safe.

I did NOT suggest that systemic absorption was likely.

It is fine to state how difficult it is to design - because it truly is. But saying that it is contradictory to pharmacokinetic principles to effect any real dermal penetration is — while an uphill fight — factually incorrect. 

[Sibech]

@Microformulation first and foremost - you are absolutely right. But you do mention one thing “it is naive to believe that you can achieve a significant plasma concentration (percutaneous absorption)”.

However, that does not (necessarily) exclude dermal absorption into the epidermis where some marketing additives could arguably have an effect on stratum basale for instance (assuming they are druglike in structure).

And some compounds if formulated well can also gain systemic access (although unlikely to be significant).

[Sibech]

I might have misunderstood but in general I hear preservation efficacy test as a challenge test which was mentioned in the original question.

[Sibech]

You have not provided any information on the formulation.

how much emulsifier?, what is the oil phase?, any gelling agents? the list goes on. Basically, show your formula as it is, otherwise no-one will have a chance to help.

[Sibech]

I would expect that adding cysteine to the formulation for use on newly straightened hair or maybe before straightening it, as the cysteine in the product itself would create cysteine bridges.

It should in theory bind to the free cysteine in the hair (for which disulfide bridges were reduced with the straightening iron) and reduce the recurrence of curls.

[Sibech]

I do not have experience with that particular system (and the proportions of the various compounds have not been mentioned.

I can hover tell you that Benzyl alcohol is a well-known allergen (and you cannot claim “fragrance-free” with it) and will likely cause some level of sensitization in a subset of consumers.

Also, about 0.2% of the population will likely display irritant contact dermatitis with benzoic acid (concentration dependent though).

[Sibech]

@ngarayeva001 When working with essential oils in formulations you really need to consider the constituents for compatibility.

When working within safe levels of essential oils, as determined on a case-by-case basis, and remembering that essential oils can function as a dermal penetration enhancer, I personally like following the “As much as needed, as little as possible” approach.

The reason you won’t see statements on the composition (expect well-known allergens or which they should state) of perfumes is that they are considered trade secrets (from a regulatory standpoint and therefore does not need to be divulged) in both the US and EU - I presume elsewhere too, but don’t know for certain.

I do however agree that when buying a predefined perfume “the scent of an orange” can be frustrating because, like with colours, organoleptic properties is perceived differently.

2 books I find interesting on the subject of perfume and essential oils are:
Perfume: The biology and Psychology of fragrance
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9789400912151

It’s a tad old, but I find it interesting and knowledge never gets old, only superseded. 

Handbook of Essential Oils: Science, Technology, and Applications
https://www.crcpress.com/Handbook-of-Essential-Oils-Science-Technology-and-Applications-Second/Baser-Buchbauer/p/book/9781466590465

[Sibech]

1) There is no blanket answer to cover possible risks, it really depends on the chemicals you choose.

2) The reason no preservatives are needed in the customization concentrates is simply due to a lack of water. the water activity is actually reduced in the concentrates compared to the raw materials. No water no microbes (generally speaking). - The cream-base would still be in need of preservation. 

[Sibech]

@EVChem I think the problem is not only person gains and financial reasons, I think a lot of journals would be hesitant about publishing negative findings - It doesn’t bring a lot of exposure to the journal. My guess would be a higher proportion of such papers in open access journals.

@Perry Can’t you and Randy make “The International Journal of Negative Findings” with Brains publishing? - Think of all the subscription fees from Libraries.

[Sibech]

@bsingle What @Doreen is saying is that you might have the ingredients, but to create a product from scratch takes time, experience, plus an understanding of the raw materials and their interactions.

In essence what you are asking for is “how do I make an emulsion”.

There are several online sources for this and even some accredited distance learning courses.

A few pointers: make sure the to phases are approximately the same temperature water can be a little higher. When combining use a mixing method that introduces less air than you current one (aka, don’t use a whisk)

[Sibech]

@Doreen dang, it seems you are right - I didn’t even notice the subtle color difference! 

[Sibech]

CI 42090 - Brilliant Blue FCF
CI 19140 - Tartrazine yellow
CI 17200 - Acid Red 33

All of which are water-soluble dyes, not pigments.
Does the colour of the product change during/after precipitation

Seeing as you have to wait for several months you can add antioxidants as @Gunther suggested and do a knock-out (removing one ingredient) with all possible ingredients (except water of course)?

[Sibech]

@Doreen Well, first your start by actually finding a picture of a Baked Alaska! - there is no ice cream in that picture. 

[Sibech]

@MJL Based on what you write with skin that is so damaged that it “Freaks Out” (which I read as; invokes an inflammation) on contact with nearly anything, you should consider visiting a dermatologist who will likely prescribe something along the lines of a corticosteroid to reduce inflammation.

As for the question “is it a waste of time”, from what I’ve read, a lot of formulations actually allowing for water-soluble “actives” to show penetration beyond the stratum corneum are formulated with a high level of emollients and oils to “force” what lies beneath the oily layer to migrate into the skin where it is more favorably dissolved than in the oil-phase.

@Perry There are available peer-reviewed scientific studies on the efficacy of ingredients (even positive ones), but I think the most difficult part about scientific evidence of cosmetic efficacy, is that sponsors and authors are usually working for a specific company and experimenter bias is a real hindrance, and I my opinion only double-blinded studies can be trusted.

[Sibech]

No, C12-C15 Alkyl Benzoate is not banned in cosmetic products in the EU.

[Sibech]

@Bill_Toge you are right that MI was added on its own “recently” in 2005.

3:1 MCI:MI mixture was originally allowed at 50 ppm (provisionally) and then reduced in concentration to 30 ppm and then finally to 15 ppm due to a concern of sensitization. The last change of concentration was in 1989.

As a result, the actually permitted limit of the compound MI was 3.75 ppm.

The current legal use level of MI is based on the historical safety of the mixture, which was in fact allowed in leave-on cosmetics (with the possibility of variance in local regulations).

The mixture is now restricted to rinse-off products due to the presence of MI.

With that said, I don’t personally mind MI in rinse-off products (I am using a shampoo daily containing the compound). The poor choice suggestion was, even if poorly worded by me, made specifically for the original post using 0.1% for a leave-on hair-styling product.

@belassi In defence of MI, I doubt the scabs were causally linked to MI in the shampoo, the compound rarely elicits irritant contact dermatitis at the allowed limits, while you haven’t mentioned the chronology of the event and I can’t say for sure not being a vet, but it seems unlikely to be an allergic response (even in dogs) as described.

[Sibech]

@bill_toge you are likely right that it may be sufficient when used with the right products. I also concur that we generally have some generous regulations.

Considering the reduction of the permitted amount was reduced, based on sensitization,  from 100 ppm in all products to 15 ppm in rinse-off only, which even for those unfamiliar with toxicology should be sufficiently indicative of the sensitization potential.

I still maintain they are a poor choice, especially when considering marketing and sensitization potential.

It is, however, seemingly a non-question in this case as their thermal stability should lead an exclusion in this product (the more you know).

[Sibech]

Methylisothiazolinone is so skin sensitising that the EU has practically banned its use (Technically legal in rinse-off formulations at 0.0015% - 15 ppm!).

It might be an effective antimicrobial, but it is a terrible ingredient to use (and if you use it instead of parabens due to the paraben scare, then you will likely experience the exact same scare level for MI).

[Sibech]

1) Correct the auto-correct, include an image or do something! Anti-Coke does not make sense to anyone.

2) No one here can actually tell you because products may be similar but are not necessarily identical. and we don’t know what product you’re talking about.

3) Have you tried looking at the ingredient list on the product? It generally helps in order to find out what the ingredients are.

4) Water… The main ingredient is probably water.

[Sibech]

Try taking a look at this discussion:

https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/discussion/1807/water-soluble-pomade

It was a pretty similar issue and might be enough to help you?

[Sibech]

@dtdang I think the lack of replies is due to the way you describe what happens. Try searching for Soaping on the Forum, it sounds like that effect.

[Sibech]

Regarding cosmetic labeling, there are specific rules and regulations as @DAS wrote links to.

Strictly speaking, you only need to write the ingredient list on the product, and I don’t know of any regulations disallowing you to write something different on your website including more detail - you might, however, get in a pinch if they differ too much (misleading marketing and such).

You can also add an ingredient page with information of each ingredient you use or, what I would do, have an explanation be shown when every ingredient in the ingredient list when the mouse hovers over it.