[Zink]

QACS in Greece does quality and cheap USP51 testing.

[Zink]

I’ve read to use max 1% in dog applications as it has some toxicity for em.

[Zink]

Thanks Doreen for the detailed analysis!

I agree that posting percentages is good, although I’d like to see 3rd party pr batch verification and stability data - a lot of (at least smaller) brands lie about expensive actives, and I’ve seen reports of TA being unstable.

Also seen Acne.org use Glycyrrhizate! A good active to test. Got any tips on stabilizing Ascorbyl Tetraisopalmitate btw?  Guess Tocopherol?

[Zink]

Interesting, even at 5% the material cost of TA shouldn’t be more than $10, so quite overpriced at $56. How is cyclopentasiloxane emulsified into the formula do you think?

[Zink]

Thanks Przemyslaw, they’re definitely interesting and have very glidy skin feel (they’re used in hair conditioners in part for this reason), what advantages do they have over GS+PEG-100 apart from not containing any ethoxylated compounds?

[Zink]

Unless the FDA with more data deem any of the “insufficient data” ingredients to be not GRASE like they already did with PABA and trolamine salicylate - not so unrealistic? But no idea about the time-frame would be curious to know.

What I do know is, this is solid marketing juice for companies only making mineral sunscreens! 

 

[Zink]

US/EU! Supplier says 82 is best for sunscreen, but who knows.

[Zink]

Arguably NIOD and to a lesser extend Hylamide are confusing messes, the Ordinary is their big hit and the reason Estee Lauder bought a stake hence why I focused on it. But yes, certainly not leading with natural or “free-of” marketing:)

[Zink]

@MarkBroussard eager to know which companies of the last 5 years leading with a natural message have done better! The honest company comes to mind, but they only recently got into skincare. I’ll stick to Jojoba esters for now.

@ngarayeva001 the acrylates were the only ingredient in one of the formulas, and it lead to statistical increase in TEWL. There was also a Phd dissertation finding something similar.

Drunk elephant is mostly a packaging and design play, they did a great job making a (overpriced and ingredient wise nothing special) total package that resonates with their target market and they knew how to market it.

I don’t think a fraction of people can differentiate between ecocert, different organic labeling, what a product should be free of etc. It’s all confusing and you won’t stand out from just being natural. You might as well call DECIEM The Ordinary, which went viral and exploded open a new market combining unprecedented low price, transparent labeling of effective dosages and great design. Young prosumers into DIY / tailored skincare went mad for it and understandably so! Nothing to do with their free-of chart.

[Zink]

@MarkBroussard You made the point for me, everyone is doing it. I wasn’t saying natural isn’t big, it’s just not a strong differentiator any longer IMO.
The biggest hits in skincare the last few years didn’t come from focus on being natural, e.g. drunk elephant, curology, the ordinary etc, correct me If I’m wrong.

Also, skincare statistics vary a lot depending on source, the typical CAGR I’ve seen for natural skincare is around 8-10% and 4-6% for skincare as a whole.

@ngarayeva001 acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17300239

Olive Oil is around 70% Oleic Acid which disrupts the skin barrier, and has been tested as a penetration enhancer for this reason, I don’t have the exact study but here’s one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12520175/

[Zink]

@MarkBroussard I’m pragmatic, only I have a preference for natural and organic ingredients if they don’t compromise performance significantly so there’s a point for me to debate the effectiveness of petrolatum. I use it myself sometimes too.

Everyone is making “natural” products these days, it’s not a huge selling point IMO unless you can actually make something USDA organic certified, or some gimmick like “edible skincare”, but that typically leads to too many compromises re: efficacy.

I am concerned with long-term safety and effects, for instance, one Phd dissertation/study I remember indicated that a common polyacrylate emulsifier had long term negative effects on the skin barrier (also true for olive oil for that matter).

[Zink]

@Perry indeed, they have another study where they compare 2% KW20 ester to 10% petrolatum where petrolatum wins out on absolute terms http://www.floratech.com/PDFs/ClaimSheets/CS10-021.pdf

Their 2% KW60 that outperformed 5% petrolatum in the other study I believe is simply a 3x more concentrated form of KW20. Since they haven’t used any higher percentages, 2% KW60 that might be the ceiling of good sensorials with their esters, who knows. I’ve used a tewameter and it wasn’t fun.

Another big question making multi-active formulas is whether the ingredients have additive effects or not, if panthenol decreases TEWL, is it likely additive with Glycerin or not? How long does the individual ingredient effects last? Where do you get to diminishing returns? 

Here’s one study that seems to show that glycerin has a shorter TEWL reduction effect duration alone compared to silicone oil, but extends the duration and effect size of silicone oil when used together with it.

Comparing TEWL before application and 30 minutes and 6 hours after application of six creams with or without glycerin, hyaluronic acid and/or silicone oil, the cream including both glycerin and silicone oil showed the most decreased value of TEWL and the longest holding time. The second on the result was the cream with both hyaluronic acid and silicone oil, followed by the silicone oil cream, the glycerin cream and the hyaluronic acid cream. Although glycerin, hyaluronic acid and silicone oil affect increasing skin hydration and decreasing TEWL, our data showed that the product containing not only silicone but also moisture factors such as glycerin and hyaluronic acid is more effective rather than applying the product with silicone oil only. 
http://www.e-ajbc.org/m/journal/view.php?number=640

@MarkBroussard target market are young professionals 20-35 who want time-saving multi-function products, primarily women but also men. Keep in mind the idea is to make a base common to several products similar to what Cerave has done, then add actives ranging from mineral sunscreen (hence the emulsifier) to retinoid nightcream.

[Zink]

@Perry it’s definitely an interesting yet very limited study, as you say, there are definitely better ways to decrease TEWL. I wouldn’t add panthenol due to that effect!

Occlusive agents to reduce TEWL - nothing is better than petrolatum / mineral oil

Floratech claims that their Jojoba esters outperform Petrolatum in TEWL reduction, and the sensorials are certainly better IMO at the concentration used in the study. https://www.floratech.com/PDFs/ClaimSheets/CS10-030.pdf 
 
If the results are true, and it wouldn’t be too hard to validate this in a formula, it’s a greener, label-friendlier, more effective and elegant way to reduce TEWL at a negligible cost differential in most say >=$15 products.

My favorite quote from the review article:

The search for an ideal moisturizer is a vain task, for the needs and results are highly subjective.

[Zink]

Here’s an interesting study on the effect of 0.5, 1 and 5% Panthenol on TEWL, 0.5% seems like the lower limit for it doing anything, and only 1% reaches statistical significance. x

http://www.beauty-review.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Skin-moisturizing-effects-of-panthenol-based-formulations.pdf

[Zink]

I believe you have way too many ingredients. You will have no idea what ingredients have any real effect. Start simple, then build from there.

Good president for the ingredients working in the literature, and I don’t see why there’d be any negative interaction between them. The dosages are however not set, and it’s interesting to try to elucidate what the minimum effective dosages are - if we only have studies on e.g. 4% niacinamidie, can we expect 1% to have any significant effect (based on the effect size and confidence seen in the studies/the pharmacology) or would you more likely be doing label beautification?

The philosophy is that of a multivitamin, add relatively low amounts of ingredients that should be long term beneficial to 99% of skin types/conditions. Then make versions more suited for people with acne, e.g. increasing Niacinamide or adding an OTC active potentially, or more suitable for dry skin increasing the amount of film formers and lipids etc.

You could argue that most people won’t see benefit from e.g. 0.5% Panthenol or 2-4% Niacinamide used daily, or that we don’t know if they’re safe for long-term use - interested in hearing your perspectives.

But how would you have an idea anyways if you’re not doing studies to quantify the effects? I would definitely like to study the effects on a molecular and clinical level of different ingredient combinations (how someone got that Vit C patent), but that would require more funding than I have. It’s an interesting question most formulators face.

[Zink]

I would increase Niacinamide to 4% and reduce Panthenol to 0.2%. Reason for that, Niacinamide is proven to work and Pantehol is proven to add stickiness.

1% Niacinamide might be on the low end to have effect, but do you think 4% is high in a daily use formula, why 4%? 1% Panthenol seems to work ok in this formula re: stickiness since the emulsifier is very “glidy”, but going down to 0.5% could be good here - thanks!

Regarding dimethicone, I would suggest adding more to support TEWL claim. To be honest, nothing is better for reducing TEWL than petrolatum…
The questionable thing here is your emulsification system. Why coco-glucoside? Any particular reason for choosing it?

The idea with the formula is to reduce TEWL over time in a low viscosity formula with great sensorials using skin identical lipids in certain rations and amounts + subtle film formers, good president for this in the literature, we’ll do a TEWL study later on. Not sure dimethicone is even needed.
Coco glucoside works very well with mineral pigment should one want to add that, also it has better sensorials IMO than e.g. Ewax.

[Zink]

Update on this! I tested another formula with few common ingredients

Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3, 400 IU pr gram)
Dimethicone CPS 1000 and
Hyacare 50 aka Hyaluronic Acid <50kDa

I don’t think it’s vitamin d3 as I used it in an older formula that also had this issue, dimethicone is so widely used that I think it’s fairly certain it’s the HA. What other options do I have?

[Zink]

Thanks Bill, very good thinking. Have you tried it or is it a hypothesis? Regardless seems worth a shot.

[Zink]

The ordinary launched a new cleanser which they claim removes makeup well and is gentle, squalane based pH 5.5. Perhaps something like this could be improved upon to offer more benefit to acneic skin. Let me know if you have any thoughts as to pros and cons with this strategy, apart from the cost.

“When rubbed between your palms for approximately 10-30 seconds, the product undergoes an important textural change from a balm-like consistency to a clear oil-like consistency. This allows the emulsifying sucrose esters in the formula to trap and blend the dissolved makeup and facial impurities with water for rinsing. Being non-comedogenic and soap-free, this formula is designed to be gentle enough for daily use, without over-drying the skin, making it suitable for all skin types.”

Squalane, Aqua (Water), Coco-Caprylate/Caprate, Glycerin, Sucrose Stearate, Ethyl Macadamiate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Sucrose Laurate, Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysate, Sucrose Dilaurate, Sucrose Trilaurate, Polyacrylate Crosspolymer-6, Isoceteth-20, Sodium Polyacrylate, Tocopherol, Hydroxymethoxyphenyl Decanone, Trisodium Ethylenediamine Disuccinate, Malic Acid, Ethylhexylglycerin, Chlorphenesin.

https://theordinary.com/product/rdn-squalane-cleanser-50ml?redir=1&mc_cid=10a0cd2a3d&mc_eid=6e645e906b

[Zink]

Mark/David: It took 2 months between sending the PO and receiving the invoice with the new pricing. We delivered all raws and packaging materials within 2 weeks of the PO. 

Pricing was also recently updated to reflect a new packaging step so not sure what you mean by aged. CM should have notified me that pricing had changed after receiving the PO or honored the PO for this batch. Or do you think we need to ask for verbatim confirmation of pricing with each PO issued? 

CM was in this case also behind schedule. In any case, not a big enough amount to make a fuzz about, but interested in what you think about confirming all PO pricing upon issuance. 

[Zink]

Seems like there’s no obvious / easy way to do this, save it for the future then. My friends say that even cleansing oils aren’t that good and that they prefer to use makeup removal pads.

[Zink]

ngarayeva001 said:

There are surfactants compatible with oils that create clear cleansing oil. Have you considered those?

Maybe add a silicone and increase the amount of surfactant to offset reduction in cleansing whilst improving makeup removal efficacy? What emulsifier would one use here?

I have not considered cleansing oil as the evidence of helping with acne reduction is for low pH water based cleansers, maybe one can create a best of both worlds formula here retaining the water based low pH formula, with some additional oils to aid makeup removal and possibly refattening? 

[Zink]

ngarayeva001 said:

By the way, provided that sun exposure doesn’t make dark circles problem any better, adding skin lightening agents, such as MAP or Alpha-Arbutin to the eye product would make sense. However it’s not specific for eyes, as mentioned already. Regarding retinol, I have been using it for quite a while and it makes skin flaky (normal reaction). This side effect is more visible aroud eyes.

Is that proven that sun exposure makes it worse? What about niacinamide here for skin lightening? Is there actually any peer reviewed studies (of if not, perhaps supplier studies) that confirm any such effect?

Retinol at .2% shouldn’t make you flaky after a few weeks of use, but I guess there might be outliers here

[Zink]

Thanks @ngarayeva001 very good points, yet I believe some surfactants are better than others at removing makeup too?

The like dissolves like approach might be a good way to keep the formula gentle on the skin, perhaps if you emulsified some cyclomethicone into the formula? 

[Zink]

@MarkBroussard thanks for your explanation, this is also my understanding.

What’s your best bet skin tightening ingredient? I think that’s perhaps what makes the most sense for a under-eye specific formula, but it’s something I have no experience with. I like the idea of a temp tightening “makeup” effect combined with actives that give long term benefits such as say 0.2% retinol.

Any specific peptides that could help btw? I was never impressed by the peptide literature, but haven’t kept up.