I make a basic shampoo bar usin SCI noodles, in which I grind up and use in my recipe. Ok, in order to “save“ a step I purchased powered SCI, I made my usual recipe and boy it was not even close, the dry vs wet was way off, way to dry, it wasn’t even close. Is there a way to convert the powder vs noodles? obviously I would have to use way less of the powder vs noodles! Any help or insight into my misstep. I don’t want to discard the powder and have to repurchase the noodles…….
Syndet shampoo bars
- Thread starter Big J
- Start date
Help Support Soapmaking Forum:
I don't know that I'd use less SCI, but instead look into whether you're getting the SCI dissolved properly. The ground-up noodles might give a more fluid mixture than the powder if the SCI isn't fully dissolved.
But since you haven't really explained anything about your recipe or method other than you grind up the noodles, I'm pretty much guessing here.
But since you haven't really explained anything about your recipe or method other than you grind up the noodles, I'm pretty much guessing here.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
- Messages
- 17,612
- Reaction score
- 8,158
You might check this link: A Gorgeous DIY Shampoo Bar Recipe Without Lye
Do you measure by weight or volume?one cup of noodles will weigh less than one cup of powder.
Itsie
New Member
The sci noodles have stearic acid in them to form them into noodles and the powder doesn't, this may be why they came out differently.
Oh - I’ve never heard that. Wouldn’t it be listed in the ingredients? Going off to have a look now.
I wasn't aware of that, either. Here's what Humblebee & Me says in their dictionary:
Active Surfactant Matter ~84% (always double check with your supplier as this number can vary)
What is the other ~16%? “Sodium cocoyl isethionate may contain the following impurities: … sodium chloride (0.8% max.), free fatty matter (10% max.), sodium isethionate (5%), free fatty acid (18%), and sodium soap (3%).” (source)
EDIT: When I clicked on the "source" link, the full quote actually says:
As reported in the original safety assessment, sodium cocoyl isethionate may contain the following impurities: arsenic (3 ppm max.), iron (25 ppm max.), lead (20 ppm max.), sodium chloride (0.8% max.), free fatty matter (10% max.), sodium isethionate (5%), free fatty acid (18%), and sodium soap (3%).
Active Surfactant Matter ~84% (always double check with your supplier as this number can vary)
What is the other ~16%? “Sodium cocoyl isethionate may contain the following impurities: … sodium chloride (0.8% max.), free fatty matter (10% max.), sodium isethionate (5%), free fatty acid (18%), and sodium soap (3%).” (source)
EDIT: When I clicked on the "source" link, the full quote actually says:
As reported in the original safety assessment, sodium cocoyl isethionate may contain the following impurities: arsenic (3 ppm max.), iron (25 ppm max.), lead (20 ppm max.), sodium chloride (0.8% max.), free fatty matter (10% max.), sodium isethionate (5%), free fatty acid (18%), and sodium soap (3%).
Wow @AliOop! Sometimes i really don’t want to know stuff. I never thought to click on “source “. Unfortunately for scalps worldwide i think all shampoos contain sciI wasn't aware of that, either. Here's what Humblebee & Me says in their dictionary:
Active Surfactant Matter ~84% (always double check with your supplier as this number can vary)
What is the other ~16%? “Sodium cocoyl isethionate may contain the following impurities: … sodium chloride (0.8% max.), free fatty matter (10% max.), sodium isethionate (5%), free fatty acid (18%), and sodium soap (3%).” (source)
EDIT: When I clicked on the "source" link, the full quote actually says:
As reported in the original safety assessment, sodium cocoyl isethionate may contain the following impurities: arsenic (3 ppm max.), iron (25 ppm max.), lead (20 ppm max.), sodium chloride (0.8% max.), free fatty matter (10% max.), sodium isethionate (5%), free fatty acid (18%), and sodium soap (3%).
. Nothing seems safe anymore.A caution here. One SDS is not all suppliers' SDS. And that word "may" is not will, or does.
Further, drinking water usually contains a few ppm of lead, IIRC, and nobody is eating SCI.
I suggest getting the SDS from your supplier before freaking out.
Further, drinking water usually contains a few ppm of lead, IIRC, and nobody is eating SCI.
I suggest getting the SDS from your supplier before freaking out.
Ya I’m not freaking out. That was just a statement. We have to live with all these products so there is no getting around anything. We have what we have 
Also, realize that the upper safe limits are strongly researched; and that there's no reason at all to assume that raw materials are bumping up against that limit.Ya I’m not freaking out. That was just a statement. We have to live with all these products so there is no getting around anything. We have what we have
Furthermore; the heavy metals limits in cosmetics are primarily reached in those cosmetics which contain clays and earth colorants.
I'll drop in a link to the FDA about that, but remember too that surfactants are not made from clays and oxides. They're made mostly from coconut oil and fatty acids; nothing in their feedstock lines is going to be a source for heavy metals.
Assuming that SCI will be contaminated with the maximum allowable lead in cosmetics limit is like assuming that the lettuce you buy at the grocery store has beef in it, on the grounds that grocerys can have lots of animal products.
From the FDA site (I encourage ppl to click around the site and read their statements regarding lead etc. in cosmetics, they're easy to read & understand)
FDA's Testing of Cosmetics for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Lead, Mercury, and Nickel Content | FDA
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/poten...romium-cobalt-lead-mercury-and-nickel-content
"The FDA-validated method used in the first survey always gave values equal to or higher than the values obtained with the method used in the second survey.
Both surveys showed that products such as eye shadows, blushes, and compact powders contained more heavy metals than other types of cosmetics.
This suggests that most of these substances in cosmetics come from minerals used as pigments and as fillers, such as clay and talc. We would not expect heavy metals bound up in minerals to be absorbed through the skin."
FDA's Testing of Cosmetics for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Lead, Mercury, and Nickel Content | FDA
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/poten...romium-cobalt-lead-mercury-and-nickel-content
"The FDA-validated method used in the first survey always gave values equal to or higher than the values obtained with the method used in the second survey.
Both surveys showed that products such as eye shadows, blushes, and compact powders contained more heavy metals than other types of cosmetics.
This suggests that most of these substances in cosmetics come from minerals used as pigments and as fillers, such as clay and talc. We would not expect heavy metals bound up in minerals to be absorbed through the skin."
Do not worry folks…i love my homemade syndet shampoo bars and won’t go back to liquid shampoo in bottles if i can avoid it. I love my conditioner bars too.
Took both to Australia last month, and they travel well and no issues with going through the checkpoints.
Took both to Australia last month, and they travel well and no issues with going through the checkpoints.
