thebrain
Forum Replies Created
-
@Belassi: Excellent, I will try that-thanks again! My formula has a good percentage of APGs (i.e. decyl glucoside) and sodium methyl cocoyl taurate. I don’t know how good they are as emulsifiers, but everything was fine until I tried to go above 0.3% essential oils. At 0.45%, it’s opaque. I’ll try your pre-mix method and see if it makes a difference. If not, I’ll try adding a better emulsifier.
-
@Belassi - Thanks for explaining the science behind the phenomenon. Yes, I’ve been adding the essential oils after cool-down to the diluted solution. I can certainly try to pre-mix the oils with the best emulsifier, but that brings up two questions: 1) What surfactants emulsify (or solubilize?) best? Is there a handy benchmark guide to determine which surfactants are best at this, or do I have to guess (and test)? 2) How would I pre-mix the oils with a surfactant if I need to apply heat? I add the oils to my cool-down phase because most of them have very low flashpoints and can’t handle high or even moderate temperatures.
-
Thanks for the answers.
@Perry - I have the same opacity issue when I use GCC as a thickener or salt. Does the salt also have a solubility issue? It’s clear until I add the oil (or the oil+surfactant is clear until I add the salt). -
I’m curious; EOS claims that their products are hypoallergenic. Because some of the essential oils are known to cause allergic reactions, how can they make the hypoallergenic claim? I assume they’ve done claims testing. Any idea what the threshold is to make the hypoallergenic claim?
-
@Bill_Toge: You have worked with the powder? Do you think my safety precautions are adequate then?
-
@melanie: Lots of good information and suggestions here. I also second the recommendation to try out Iselux. It’s too bad the isethionates don’t have any “natural” certifications (e.g. Ecocert), but I think it’s Whole Foods approved, which may be more important depending on your market. I’ve tried most of the non-sulfate anionics, and the isethionates are nice. The only “downside” is that it produces a dense foam. If you’re looking for copious large bubbles, you’ll have to add something else to your blend. IME, doing so usually results in lower overall foam height in exchange for better bubble variety. We’re in the same boat, so I wish you good luck!
-
@ozgirl: I agree, I think it’s people being lazy. I asked my supplier for coco-betaine and they sent me cocamidopropyl betaine. I had to call and explain that I was looking for a different CAS number. They shorten cocamidopropyl betaine to COAB and coco-betaine to CB.
Anyway, thanks everyone for your input. -
@chemicalmatt: Yes, your response is very helpful, thank you. So, is “coco betaine” CAPB or “coco-betaine”? I often hear CAPB (cocamidopropyl betaine) mixed together with coco betaine, which is really confusing.
-
Oops, nevermind about salt not reducing foam: It looks like I had a baseline for my tests and I saw a 5% reduction in foam volume with the addition of salt. That being said, I was using kosher salt from the grocery store. It’s supposed to be 100% pure (no calcium silicate or other filler), but who knows. I’ll have to get some cosmetic grade stuff and re-test to be sure.
-
Actually it looks like I misinterpreted my tests. It’s not clear if the salt reduced foam; I think the conclusion of my tests is that GCC and Lamesoft increase foam volume.
On a related note, for some reason I’m getting more of a foam boost from Lamesoft compared to an equivalent (by active surfactant matter anyway) amount of coco glucoside. That’s pretty odd considering Lamesoft only has two ingredients: coco glucoside and glyceryl oleate. It’s funny how you can make assumptions based on how ingredients work individually but when you combine them, it often doesn’t work out how you expect.
-
I hate to bump an old topic, but I’ve been experimenting with StepanMild GCC, and so far I’m very happy with it.
@chemicalmatt: Can you elaborate on StepanMild GCC’s limitations with APGs? I’m working on a product formulation that’s a mixture of APGs and anionic surfactants, hence my interest. The only problem I’ve seen so far is that I need more of the GCC than I’d like (2-3%), unless I add salt (which I try to avoid because it reduces foam).
-
-
@Belassi: Ah, OK, that makes sense. What standard(s) are you going to follow? I’m definitely working on a sulfate-free formulation, but I haven’t decided if I’m really aiming for “natural” just yet.
-
Wouldn’t just about any sulphate-free shampoo qualify as vegan? What exactly makes a “vegan” shampoo different?
-
@Belassi: I’m curious, is your own blend a combination of taurates and isethionates? I’ve been doing a lot of testing of my own with these ingredients and I’ve been pleased with the results. My focus is currently on foam and lather production, but I haven’t had any problem thickening with salt.
-
@chemicalmatt: I’m with you-I’m still reading up on surfactant properties and chemistry. I suppose I was asking for a shortcut to testing and reading, but in any case, your post is really helpful. Thanks!
-
It looks like something separated. It might be helpful if we had the complete formula. Maybe there’s something in there that’s pH sensitive?
-
Thanks David. I’ve seen those brochures; unfortunately, it doesn’t really answer my (many) questions about betaines and their alternatives. I guess I’ll just have to do more testing and try to figure it out on my own.
BTW, I checked out your website. It looks nice! I’d buy your soap
-
I did a lot of research trying to find the best homogenizer for cosmetics. In the end, I decided to go with a Silverson mixer/homogenizer because it seems to be well-regarded in the industry and especially with the group here. If you buy one, they include several working heads that you can easily change depending on what you’re trying to make.
-
@heatherbeeeconomics: Just FYI, but if you’re planning to sell this formulation, you might need to tweak the coco:decyl glucoside ratio a bit to make sure you’re not infringing on Colgate’s patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2012011892A1?cl=en -
@David: I have oftentimes been mislead by product literature, so I strongly recommend you do your own testing. Search this forum for blender foam testing. I’ve been doing this kind of testing with the dozen or so surfactants that I own to get an objective comparison. Some of the results were expected, but many were pretty startling since I had made assumptions based on TDSes and other manufacturer data. I think you and I are in the same boat-we’re relative newbies here, and I think you’ll learn a lot from the testing; I know I did!
-
@Belassi: I’m confused-what’s the problem? Why is it an issue that it’s sweet? You’re not supposed to eat moisturizers (unless they are marketed for such purposes).
-
I’d start with this:
http://swiftcraftymonkey.blogspot.com/2010/04/surfactants-sulfosuccinates.htmlAnd then read this before formulating or purchasing:
I’ve been experimenting with all kinds of surfactants, and I can’t say I’ve been very impressed with DLS, at least from a foaming/lather performance standpoint. I think there are better options; however, it could be that I just haven’t found the right synergy (e.g. DLS and SLSa are commonly combined).
-
I have used both interchangeably in formulations as a substitute for cocamidopropyl betaine. Functionally, I can’t tell the difference, which is why I’m curious if anyone has any other insights. Why would I use one over the other, besides cost, or is that the only difference?
-
@Bobzchemist: I’m working on it
In the meantime, assuming you have access and you don’t mind, can you fill us in on the differences in the aforementioned chemicals?