Valerie George03.21.23
Dear Valerie: I’m currently using a 5 centistoke dimethicone in a lotion, but I need to find a natural replacement. Any suggestions?
—The Replacements
Dear The Replacements:
The good news is there are many options for replacing low centistoke dimethicones. They spread quickly and feel slightly dry, so the perfect place to start looking is at novel esters from the past decade plus.
I really enjoy BASF’s emollients, like Coco Caprylate/Caprate. If you need to make it a little heavier, consider varying ratios of Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride. If you want to make it a little lighter try mixing it with Coco-Caprylate, which is extremely lightweight and spreading. I actually think Coco-Caprylate is a little too thin, so I like the idea of enrichening it with something else!
Alternatively, Inolex does offer some silicone alternatives with varying molecular weights to replace these maligned lubricants. They specifically offer a 5-10 cst offering, Diheptyl Succinate (and) Capryloyl Glycerin/Sebacic Acid Copolymer. It feels pretty close to a dimethicone, but I still feel, depending on the formulation, you’ll need to evaluate whether or not it needs to be blended.
Lastly, it’s important to note that silicones afford rather distinguishable characteristics when added to formulations; it’s hard to find a 100% offset, but perhaps you’ll find the right one that’s compatible with your formulations and can be close enough to where a consumer wouldn’t notice a difference.
Dear Valerie: Do UV protectants really work in hair care products? I have seen a few shampoos with Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate and wonder how it works in a shampoo product?
—Burned Bangs
Dear Burned:
I never understood why brands stick organic sunscreen filters in rinse off products, although I supposed it’s better than using zinc oxide. Unfortunately, these types of filters don’t really work in shampoos. Or conditioners. The only thing they do in these types of products is get rinsed down the drain because they’re not functionalized to stick to hair.
And if we’re going there, I never really understood the allure of putting them in leave-on hair products, either. They’re intrinsically greasy feeling and not many hair types can tolerate appreciable amounts of them. Furthermore, I haven’t seen evidence in literature that they work in leave-on products.
There is evidence, though, that the sun’s UV rays are bad for hair. They’re detrimental to keratin, the protein responsible for hair’s integral structure.
If you’re searching for UV protectants for hair, look for quaternized materials or ones that have the ability to form a film on the hair. These at least will adhere to the hair fiber and can afford properties to the hair that will negate the negative effects of sun’s ultraviolet rays.
Be sure the supplier not only has color-safe studies, but has damage studies on the integrity of the hair with the “UV protectant” applied.
Dear Valerie: I’m making a new O/W emulsion for a leave-on skin product but am going to use a tried-and-true preservative from our inventory (a 0.35% blend of DMDM Hydantoin and Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate). It’s our policy not to run PET on known preservation systems that work. What are your thoughts?
—Testing, Testing…
Dear Testing:
You’re right when you say this preservative is tried and true! I actually really enjoy using this combination, although my experience with it admittedly is only in hair. I particularly select it for leave-on styling products because it’s economical and doesn’t cause too many issues with the formulation. I’ve also found it really effective against Burkholderia cepacia, which is a hot button for the FDA. I’m a little sad it’s becoming outmoded due to recent litigation with brands.
However, no matter how tried-and-true a preservative is, the only way to really know if the preservative will do its job is to run a challenge test, where the product is intentionally contaminated with microorganisms and then evaluated for its ability to ward off growth.
Even if you use this preservative frequently, every formulation is different and may have ingredients that inactivate the preservative or reduce its efficacy. This is a lesson you don’t want to learn the hard way. Always think of it this way—there is price and cost.
The test has a price, but the cost of not doing the testing and getting nailed for it down the road when there is a contamination could be much higher.
Better to be safe, than sorry.
Valerie George
askvalerie@icloud.com
Valerie George is a cosmetic chemist, science communicator, educator, leader, and avid proponent of transparency in the beauty industry. She works on the latest research in hair color and hair care at her company, Simply Formulas, and is the co-host of The Beauty Brains podcast. You can find her on Instagram at @cosmetic_chemist or showcasing her favorite ingredients to small brands and home formulators at simply-ingredients.com
—The Replacements
Dear The Replacements:
The good news is there are many options for replacing low centistoke dimethicones. They spread quickly and feel slightly dry, so the perfect place to start looking is at novel esters from the past decade plus.
I really enjoy BASF’s emollients, like Coco Caprylate/Caprate. If you need to make it a little heavier, consider varying ratios of Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride. If you want to make it a little lighter try mixing it with Coco-Caprylate, which is extremely lightweight and spreading. I actually think Coco-Caprylate is a little too thin, so I like the idea of enrichening it with something else!
Alternatively, Inolex does offer some silicone alternatives with varying molecular weights to replace these maligned lubricants. They specifically offer a 5-10 cst offering, Diheptyl Succinate (and) Capryloyl Glycerin/Sebacic Acid Copolymer. It feels pretty close to a dimethicone, but I still feel, depending on the formulation, you’ll need to evaluate whether or not it needs to be blended.
Lastly, it’s important to note that silicones afford rather distinguishable characteristics when added to formulations; it’s hard to find a 100% offset, but perhaps you’ll find the right one that’s compatible with your formulations and can be close enough to where a consumer wouldn’t notice a difference.
Dear Valerie: Do UV protectants really work in hair care products? I have seen a few shampoos with Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate and wonder how it works in a shampoo product?
—Burned Bangs
Dear Burned:
I never understood why brands stick organic sunscreen filters in rinse off products, although I supposed it’s better than using zinc oxide. Unfortunately, these types of filters don’t really work in shampoos. Or conditioners. The only thing they do in these types of products is get rinsed down the drain because they’re not functionalized to stick to hair.
And if we’re going there, I never really understood the allure of putting them in leave-on hair products, either. They’re intrinsically greasy feeling and not many hair types can tolerate appreciable amounts of them. Furthermore, I haven’t seen evidence in literature that they work in leave-on products.
There is evidence, though, that the sun’s UV rays are bad for hair. They’re detrimental to keratin, the protein responsible for hair’s integral structure.
If you’re searching for UV protectants for hair, look for quaternized materials or ones that have the ability to form a film on the hair. These at least will adhere to the hair fiber and can afford properties to the hair that will negate the negative effects of sun’s ultraviolet rays.
Be sure the supplier not only has color-safe studies, but has damage studies on the integrity of the hair with the “UV protectant” applied.
Dear Valerie: I’m making a new O/W emulsion for a leave-on skin product but am going to use a tried-and-true preservative from our inventory (a 0.35% blend of DMDM Hydantoin and Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate). It’s our policy not to run PET on known preservation systems that work. What are your thoughts?
—Testing, Testing…
Dear Testing:
You’re right when you say this preservative is tried and true! I actually really enjoy using this combination, although my experience with it admittedly is only in hair. I particularly select it for leave-on styling products because it’s economical and doesn’t cause too many issues with the formulation. I’ve also found it really effective against Burkholderia cepacia, which is a hot button for the FDA. I’m a little sad it’s becoming outmoded due to recent litigation with brands.
However, no matter how tried-and-true a preservative is, the only way to really know if the preservative will do its job is to run a challenge test, where the product is intentionally contaminated with microorganisms and then evaluated for its ability to ward off growth.
Even if you use this preservative frequently, every formulation is different and may have ingredients that inactivate the preservative or reduce its efficacy. This is a lesson you don’t want to learn the hard way. Always think of it this way—there is price and cost.
The test has a price, but the cost of not doing the testing and getting nailed for it down the road when there is a contamination could be much higher.
Better to be safe, than sorry.
Valerie George
askvalerie@icloud.com
Valerie George is a cosmetic chemist, science communicator, educator, leader, and avid proponent of transparency in the beauty industry. She works on the latest research in hair color and hair care at her company, Simply Formulas, and is the co-host of The Beauty Brains podcast. You can find her on Instagram at @cosmetic_chemist or showcasing her favorite ingredients to small brands and home formulators at simply-ingredients.com