Does EO add to superfat?
- Thread starter jnl
- Start date
Help Support Soapmaking Forum:
Generally accepted method is not to count the eo in your sf %
EOs and FOs do not saponify, so they aren't included in the lye calculations and don't count as part of the lye discount that prevents lye heavy soap. They are not emollients for the skin, so they are not considered to be superfatting ingredients that would build mildness into the soap. If you are using a high % of EOs or FOs, the added liquid can make your soap initially softer and harder to unmold, much like adding a bit too much water. If you do anything, you might increase your lye concentration a bit to compensate for the added EOs/FOs.
Last edited:
There actually is one EO I've researched that actually has emollient properties, amyris EO, and is used in skin care - never undiluted, of course!! That's the only one, though.
LBussy
Well-Known Member
And if you dilute it with one of the standards?
I know that generally one does not count these, but my brain tells me there would be some impact at some level in a manner consistent with superfat.
LBussy
Well-Known Member
So before we go on; I know there are things that we’ve always done, there are common accepted standards and we need to have those things to speak the same “language.” This whole thing has had me thinking since the last thread started. As DeeAnna says, if an oil is not saponifiable it does not add to the Superfat. I’ll use the capitalized version of the word when I mean that. Superfat is the conjoined twin of “lye discount”, so this is a truth. There no “figuring” that goes into a recipe when we use a non-saponifiable oil whether it be mineral oil or an FO. I’m not at all arguing this.
There are different reasons to want superfat, in this case I am referring to oils left in the soap after it is complete. There are some reasons (such as lather) where the amount becomes too much. We currently have no way to account for this. We “know” that lanolin can make a slimy soap used in too high a concentration. None of the calculations tell us this. Is the oil (wax) left over after we make the soap? It is. We can feel it and it kills the lather. Do we have a way to account for that? We do not. An “oil” that has a low SAP value will potentially have more of an impact on the finished soap than one with a higher value simply because we count one and not the other.
Want a clearer example? Jojoba oil. It has a SAP of 0.092 compared to that of Coconut oil at 0.257. If we make a “balanced” 0% superfat soap with each, which one is going to feel greasy? Which one is not going to lather? We have this un-calculated “what’s left” from oils that we do not account for yet they can have a profound impact on our soaps. Maybe we should not call them “Superfat” but I suggest that we can better understand the end product of a hypothetical recipe if we know what will be left at the end. Maybe we need an “Un-SAP” value?
So I agree that we do not count EO/FO as Superfats. Should we?
That’s the part I have issue with. Merriam-Webster tells us that an emollient is a substance “having the quality of softening or soothing the skin.” Petroleum Jelly has these properties as does mineral oil, yet neither are saponifiable.
There are different reasons to want superfat, in this case I am referring to oils left in the soap after it is complete. There are some reasons (such as lather) where the amount becomes too much. We currently have no way to account for this. We “know” that lanolin can make a slimy soap used in too high a concentration. None of the calculations tell us this. Is the oil (wax) left over after we make the soap? It is. We can feel it and it kills the lather. Do we have a way to account for that? We do not. An “oil” that has a low SAP value will potentially have more of an impact on the finished soap than one with a higher value simply because we count one and not the other.
Want a clearer example? Jojoba oil. It has a SAP of 0.092 compared to that of Coconut oil at 0.257. If we make a “balanced” 0% superfat soap with each, which one is going to feel greasy? Which one is not going to lather? We have this un-calculated “what’s left” from oils that we do not account for yet they can have a profound impact on our soaps. Maybe we should not call them “Superfat” but I suggest that we can better understand the end product of a hypothetical recipe if we know what will be left at the end. Maybe we need an “Un-SAP” value?
So I agree that we do not count EO/FO as Superfats. Should we?
Some people do add petroleum jelly or mineral oil as their superfat to add emollience or skin conditioning or whatever word you want to use to describe the function of soothing or protecting the skin. I wouldn't personally use these ingredients in my soap (or the lotion I make), but I know it's done. In the sense of superfat to ensure the soap is not lye heavy, these ingredients don't qualify. In the sense of superfat to add some benefit to the skin, yes, these ingredients do qualify.
No EOs and FOs don't qualify as superfat in either sense of the word. First, they don't saponify, so they cannot act as insurance against lye heaviness. Second, they evaporate fairly quickly, so they can't contribute emollience or skin conditioning.
No EOs and FOs don't qualify as superfat in either sense of the word. First, they don't saponify, so they cannot act as insurance against lye heaviness. Second, they evaporate fairly quickly, so they can't contribute emollience or skin conditioning.
I probably shouldn't even post my science-challenged thoughts after you guys. Frankly, it has never occurred to me to count eo's as fat elements. Largely b/c (warned you this was non-sciency), a pure one is supposed to evaporate and not (eg) leave an oily smear on a testing patch after it has been tested, I guess I would have assumed that anything that is an oil/super-fat adder would do that.
That is what you chemistry geeks get for sharing a board with us non-chemistry geeks.
That is what you chemistry geeks get for sharing a board with us non-chemistry geeks.
Last edited:
I would say superfat is the residual oil in the soap. Preventing excess lye is a separate matter of a lye discount. If successful, that might result in a superfat. Or it could have come as an intentional addition to otherwise neutralized fatty acids.
I don't think we have to get too technical about EOs. There may be emollients or substances that react with the caustic in many of those, but that's not practical or necessary to take account of. They are understood to be fragrance additives.
Whether you consider non-fats as part of a superfat is somewhat semantic. You can find many industry references to soaps being superfatted by the addition of free fatty acids, which are not fats. It's not a big stretch to include wax esters and fatty alcohols that might come from the inclusion of jojoba or meadowfoam oil. If you analytically determine the SAP value for an oil mixture containing jojoba and use that amount of caustic, your superfat would entirely consist of those waxes. I don't have a problem with that terminology.
I haven't yet tried to find industry references for that, but fwiw Dunn referred to it as the "special case" where you can control your superfat.
I don't think we have to get too technical about EOs. There may be emollients or substances that react with the caustic in many of those, but that's not practical or necessary to take account of. They are understood to be fragrance additives.
Whether you consider non-fats as part of a superfat is somewhat semantic. You can find many industry references to soaps being superfatted by the addition of free fatty acids, which are not fats. It's not a big stretch to include wax esters and fatty alcohols that might come from the inclusion of jojoba or meadowfoam oil. If you analytically determine the SAP value for an oil mixture containing jojoba and use that amount of caustic, your superfat would entirely consist of those waxes. I don't have a problem with that terminology.
I haven't yet tried to find industry references for that, but fwiw Dunn referred to it as the "special case" where you can control your superfat.
"... a pure one is supposed to evaporate and not (eg) leave an oily smear on a testing patch after it has been tested, I guess I would have assumed that anything that is an oil/super-fat adder would do that..."
Yep, you are on target with your explanation -- pure EOs evaporate cleanly, leaving no oily residue.
Yep, you are on target with your explanation -- pure EOs evaporate cleanly, leaving no oily residue.
Yay, I am right for once on chemistry, even if inadvertently. Huge pats on my own back. Imagine dancy emoticon.
Aside, truly understanding the science aspect of these things is hard, I am so proud of myself when I get even a little bit of it. I know it can be overcome - my sister failed Organic Chem the first time and had to take it again after she graduated college to get into med school - but it is a big challenge, and it really helps when you guys translate.
Aside, truly understanding the science aspect of these things is hard, I am so proud of myself when I get even a little bit of it. I know it can be overcome - my sister failed Organic Chem the first time and had to take it again after she graduated college to get into med school - but it is a big challenge, and it really helps when you guys translate.
Last edited:
I think it's really neat to translate a difficult science or math idea into plain language (well, as plain as I can manage) so others can understand it better. I taught math, science, and computer classes at the community college level for 10 years, so I really tried to develop that skill to help my students, many of whom really struggled with geeky subjects. I like math and science pretty well, but I like it even better when I can help others really "get it."
LBussy
Well-Known Member
EO's and I don't get along so I have not had the chance to enjoy that."... a pure one is supposed to evaporate and not (eg) leave an oily smear on a testing patch after it has been tested, I guess I would have assumed that anything that is an oil/super-fat adder would do that..."
Yep, you are on target with your explanation -- pure EOs evaporate cleanly, leaving no oily residue.
Maybe the positions taken contrary to what I am saying are because it started with EO's ... I guess I was thinking past that. The original thread had 2.5% of "something" that I assume had oil in it. Whether it did or not it got me to thinking about the "stuff" we don't account for. Similar to Dr Dunn's scientific approach, I thought this was a way we could more closely predict the qualities of the finished soap.
Ignoring EO's and FO's for a moment, don't you (anyone) think that there might be value into taking unsaponifiables into account when crafting a new recipe?
"... there might be value into taking unsaponifiables into account when crafting a new recipe? ..."
Certainly there is value, Lee. I have to point out, however, that the discussions here and in the other thread have strayed far afield from the OPs' topics and are also starting to follow somewhat parallel tracks. I know discussions often morph and wander, but perhaps it may be more productive to start your own thread????
Certainly there is value, Lee. I have to point out, however, that the discussions here and in the other thread have strayed far afield from the OPs' topics and are also starting to follow somewhat parallel tracks. I know discussions often morph and wander, but perhaps it may be more productive to start your own thread????
Try putting a single drop of EO on a strip of coffee filter paper or typing paper. It will look wet or oily at first. Take notes of how its scent changes over time for future reference.
If you are comfortable putting a bit of the pure EO on your skin, try rubbing a tiny smear of EO between your fingertips and evaluate the feel. The EO might feel oily, watery, waxy, or sticky at first depending on the particular EO, but the feeling should dissipate quickly and your skin should have a neutral, normal feel after a short time. If your skin continues to feel obviously oily or waxy after, oh, about 10 minutes, this is not a good sign that the EO is a pure EO.
After about 24 hours or so, you should see little or no trace of the EO on the paper if the EO is pure, even though you might still get a whiff of scent. (I will say some EOs from resins may leave a trace of color on the paper.) If an EO is cut with a carrier oil, however, the carrier oil will leave an obvious, greasy spot on the paper that will not dissipate, just like greasy spots on your napkin when you eat fried food.
If you are comfortable putting a bit of the pure EO on your skin, try rubbing a tiny smear of EO between your fingertips and evaluate the feel. The EO might feel oily, watery, waxy, or sticky at first depending on the particular EO, but the feeling should dissipate quickly and your skin should have a neutral, normal feel after a short time. If your skin continues to feel obviously oily or waxy after, oh, about 10 minutes, this is not a good sign that the EO is a pure EO.
After about 24 hours or so, you should see little or no trace of the EO on the paper if the EO is pure, even though you might still get a whiff of scent. (I will say some EOs from resins may leave a trace of color on the paper.) If an EO is cut with a carrier oil, however, the carrier oil will leave an obvious, greasy spot on the paper that will not dissipate, just like greasy spots on your napkin when you eat fried food.
hmlove1218
Well-Known Member
Just adding that some EOs, particularly the darker colors, will stain. *glares at bergamot EO*
