Shaving Soap - Want to Make It?

[LBussy]

I am sorry but your figures are wrong.

That is the Lotioncrafter MSDS. I used the supplier's MSDS: http://gmzcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/TD_emersol_7036.pdf (which I also linked) I don't know why there's a difference but Jen told me that's where she got it and which product it was so I'm going to take the supplier's MSDS as the more authoritative.

Without a real test to figure the SAP value it's academic anyway, since we don't know the level of impurities. Real Soon Now™ I'm going to get the rest of what I need to do those titrations.

Does the average soaper need to do that? I'd argue not. It is part of what I enjoy about this though - learning the science behind the craft. I approach cooking, music, pyrotechnics, all the things I really love in the same manner. It's definitely a product of some OCD tendencies.

As for price what can you expect, you have to pay for purity, and its you who want to use it. Most stearic acid sold for soap making is the 60% palmitic acid / 40% stearic acid, which i have used for several years and most discussions on this form and others about shaving soaps are based.

The food grade I quoted is not any more or less pure than the other - we just happen to be lucky enough to have a craft supplier that can buy in bulk and pass those savings along to us. I suspect if I want to buy around 250# I can get the same price for food grade SA.

And please don't get me wrong - I know there's nothing wrong with the product as sold and used by soapers since long before this wet-nosed soaper got here. It's 55% curiosity and 45% because I just happened to create a recipe I like with real SA. If at the end I find I can't source it in quantities for the average person, I'll revise my articles (and my recipe) accordingly.

 

[nix]

I think i will stick with my palmitic acid / stearic acid mix, its readily available and cheap. Looking at your recipe if i took out the lanolin and used a NaOH / KOH lye mix, it would be a very good copy of Dapper dragons tallow soap (without the sodium lactate).

 

[not_ally]

Lee, it took me a while to click on this link b/c I am not going to be making shaving soap in the near future. So the part I loved the best was the history. I love reading about how the people I like here came to be, soap-related or not, so thanks for sharing.

Also, if I *do* ever embark on making shaving soap, this would be a very useful guide. Thank you for making it open-source.

 

[LBussy]

I think i will stick with my palmitic acid / stearic acid mix, its readily available and cheap. Looking at your recipe if i took out the lanolin and used a NaOH / KOH lye mix, it would be a very good copy of Dapper dragons tallow soap (without the sodium lactate).

I assure you it is not a copy. Perhaps we ended up in a similar area, which speaks to the strong base the SA/CO provides for the supporting cast.

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

Bear in mind that Dapper Dragon is the company that Songwind runs, he who started the shaving thread here from which most of us have made our start with shaving soaps

 

[LBussy]

Bear in mind that Dapper Dragon is the company that Songwind runs, he who started the shaving thread here from which most of us have made our start with shaving soaps

I understand - still not where I started.

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

Ah yes - but he also started off in the LASS thread on badger and blade before starting the one here. I am not saying that yours (or mine for that matter) is a Dapper Dragon clone, but we all seem to have a similar origin

 

[LBussy]

Ah yes - but he also started off in the LASS thread on badger and blade before starting the one here. I am not saying that yours (or mine for that matter) is a Dapper Dragon clone, but we all seem to have a similar origin

True, John got a lot of us started thinking about what was on the label and how that translated into soap. I owe a lot to him; he broke new ground, and answered a lot of stupid questions before I came hee. That's right, my questions were even dumber back then.

My results are in. To recap:

Soapcalc has Stearic acid at a SAP of 0.198. The new product I have has a SAP that’s ~6% higher. The original recipe used Stearic acid at 45% so that’s an effective difference of ~2.7%. Our superfat was calculated at 5% so it does raise the superfat from 5% to ~7.7%. The difference is small. We’ve also got a different fat makeup now; the difference in the fat profile is pretty simple. The new formulation is +18% Palmitic and -18% Stearic compared to the original.

Both Palmitic and Stearic acid contribute dense stable lather and a harder soap to the mix. To most soapers the two are interchangeable. To settle it, I did what I said I was not going to do in the other article: I re-formulated. I made three small test batches:

A test batch with my original (now dwindling) supply of straight Stearic Acid
A test batch switched 1:1 with the Lotioncrafter product
A test batch with lye adjustments made to take the different fats into account
The testing was randomized and I shaved three times with each one and recorded the results. This was done to help even out the effect of the soap as it ages since it was used relatively soon after the cooking.

Results?

The first shave cycle had one sample just maybe being a tiny bit drying. It was still a good shave and all had very similar lather otherwise.
The second shave cycle I thought maybe there was a difference but as I looked back at my notes I realize I was just kidding myself.
The third shave cycle was much like the second. Maybe, just maybe, one was a tiny bit drying. All were good enough to put my name on them though.
When I peeled the tape off the labels, I discovered that in round one I did score batch #2 down just a tiny bit. In round 2 the one I thought maybe was a tiny bit drying was the original (#1). The difference was so slight that it could simply have been a difference in the humidity. By cycle three the one I thought might be drying was again sample #2, the straight swap.

The winner was basically a tie, there was not enough difference to say one way or the other. A better test would include more shaves, different people, all that mess. Since I make this for me I see no reason not to use the Lotioncrafter product going forward. If you do a test, do let me know what you think.

I am going to add this as an addenda to the original story. I have put it here but it is not linked from the original yet:

A New Wrinkle

If you want to have a look at the whole story, the math, the figures, the thinking, have a look. I'll wait a couple days for any of you to correct me if you like, then I'll link the two together.

 

[nix]

My thoughts.

If you enter the original recipe into soapcalc you get the following.

I hope we can agree that this is correct

Now replace the 45% stearic Acid with Palmitic Acid @ 26.55%, Stearic Acid @ 18% and Myristic Acid @ 0.45% with no other change to the recipe and you get.

But wait a minute I need more Lye now, so lets adjust the super fat / discount until we get it back to the original Lye amount and this is what I get.

So that would suggest to me that if you replace the original Stearic Acid with Stearic Acid NF and keep the Lye amount as the original recipe you would have ended up with a Lye discount of 7.12% not 2.19%, this is the complete opposite of what you are saying. I just do not understand how you think the new Lye discount would be 2.19%.

If you stick with your calculation of a discount of 2.19% you will probably raise this back to 5%, in doing so the net effect would actually raise the discount to almost 10% (approx), probably well on the way to being way to high for a shaving soap. What would you then blame for the change in lather? Unknowing in reality your discount is to high.

I must congratulate you on making your three test batches and carrying out your blind tests ( nine shaves in total ) all done in five days, excellent job.

I would speculate here that your original 100% Stearic Acid would have been a similar product to Stearic Acid NF. Was it a similar price or was it expensive. Given that it may just have been a similar product your findings should indicate that there is not much difference between your three test batches and reading your results that exactly your findings.

Sorry two things i forgot to add.

Processing 45% Stearic Acid @ 95%+ purity would be something i would like to see, as it must be so hard to work with, yet 45% Stearic Acid @ 40% purity is workable.

Would be great to get Stearic Acid NF included in soapcalc's oil list, with the correct sap value and fatty acid profile, as most soap makers use this product ( or one with a similar composition )

 

[LBussy]

My thoughts.

Yes please - because you have been ever so pleasant in all of your six posts.

But wait a minute I need more Lye now, so lets adjust the super fat / discount until we get it back to the original Lye amount and this is what I get.

You are correct, and thank you for pointing out I was bass-ackwards. I have a very large/boring spreadsheet where I did it by hand first so I knew what the Soapcalc one should look like - as I was using it in a manner for which it was not really built.

The article was written at several sittings so my mistake (being backwards in describing math like this is not all that uncommon I think you will agree?)

So that would suggest to me that if you replace the original Stearic Acid with Stearic Acid NF and keep the Lye amount as the original recipe you would have ended up with a Lye discount of 7.12% not 2.19%, this is the complete opposite of what you are saying. I just do not understand how you think the new Lye discount would be 2.19%.

I agree, I need to go back and re-re edit. This is why I posted here first, to have a critical eye go over it. How luck for me that you are so willing to be critical.

What would you then blame for the change in lather? Unknowing in reality your discount is to high.

The higher discount being ever so slightly more drying one time could be due to the different rate of cure, or it may be due to the effects of the now unsaponified CO being part of the Superfat. Not really sure. As I think I said in the article, more testing, more samples, more people would certainly have been better. The take-away was that there was no significant difference in comfort and although I was careful, there remains the possibility that doing 100g batches on a scale with a resolution of 0.01g could have injected some variance.

I must congratulate you on making your three test batches and carrying out your blind tests ( nine shaves in total ) all done in five days, excellent job.

Thank you. I often shave twice a day (since I also hone straight razors as a hobby). It gives me more ability to test things out like new to me vintage Japanese whetstones. My beard is all too happy to oblige (I started growing facial hair at 14), and my face is quite used to it.

Oh wait, you were being snide and sarcastic. I almost missed that because your tone is so congenial. That aside, the answer is the same.

I would speculate here that your original 100% Stearic Acid would have been a similar product to Stearic Acid NF. Was it a similar price or was it expensive. Given that it may just have been a similar product your findings should indicate that there is not much difference between your three test batches and reading your results that exactly your findings.

You would speculate incorrectly. The stearic acid I have (now = had, I did my last batch using it yesterday) was purchased from a chemical surplus dealer I work with to purchase chemicals for my fireworks. In fireworks, stearic acid (or stearine) is used as a mechanical lubricant for production, and as a cooler temp clean fuel for the production of blue stars. The two are interchangeable in that setting because any difference in fuel value is well within the margin of error for that process.

Like with soapmaking, people who create fireworks for themselves use significantly smaller amounts of many products compared to the intended target industry. One can often purchase say a truckload of written-off chemicals for a considerable discount. While I opted to not have that product run through GC (I was quoted over $1K); the original packaging, assumed intended target industry, and the difference in physical properties observed between it and the new product, all combine to give me some assurance I did have straight SA. The point is moot however since I can't get any more and I have reformulated to the new product.

I'm not really sure why you are such a jackass here, or why you choose to lock horns with me, but just take the opportunity to not read my posts if you want to be argumentative. That's not really how we roll here.

 

[LBussy]

My spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10m3g2GNnjpV2_smfSlpnmbCK_1xTD-Fs9xa2hjDex_E/edit?usp=sharing

(not really sure if it will survive Excel to Google Docs conversion)

Would be great to get Stearic Acid NF included in soapcalc's oil list, with the correct sap value and fatty acid profile, as most soap makers use this product ( or one with a similar composition )

I agree, I sent them the following feedback via the website:

I was doing some figuring and discovered that the listing you have for 'Stearic Acid' is for Stearic acid - but 100% Stearic acid is not commonly available to us. The most commonly available product is Stearic Acid NF which is a food grade product made of Palmitic, Stearic, and a touch of Myristic acids.

This Stearic Acid NF product, as obtained from Lotioncrafters, has a calculated SAP of 0.210 where the listing you have is at 0.198 - a ~6% difference. In a high Stearic recipe, such as shaving soap, this error can become significant enough to make a difference.

I was wondering if maybe you could add a new entry for Stearic Acid NF at 0.150 for NaOH and 0.210 for KOH?

 

[nix]

I don't know if your aware but your superfat oils (50% of the Shea butter and 50% of the Lanolin) that you add after passing the zap test and cooking for two hours, after all the lye has reacted with the oils, are included in you lye calculation. As the superfat oils are put to one side and not saponified with the other oils, this will at the point of passing the zap test, reduce the lye discount to only 1.7%. Is this achievable and repeatable given weighing and product variation.

 

[LBussy]

I don't know if your aware but your superfat oils (50% of the Shea butter and 50% of the Lanolin) that you add after passing the zap test and cooking for two hours, after all the lye has reacted with the oils, are included in you lye calculation. As the superfat oils are put to one side and not saponified with the other oils, this will at the point of passing the zap test, reduce the lye discount to only 1.7%. Is this achievable and repeatable given weighing and product variation.

I'm not quite sure of the question. If I understand you correctly, you are cautioning (?) that the lye discount is 1.7% (actually calculated to no discount now that it is re-formulated for the new product). If so, yes, I agree and that's intended. Is it repeatable? Every batch so far. That does suggest that I am either extremely lucky or there is a slight lye discount built in somewhere.

I don't think this approach is unique, given the feedback from the other HP soapers here who use a similar superfat process.

 

[Soapboiler]

These articles are intended to take a non-soaper who wants to make shave soap (like a few of us were) through their first batch. Here they are:

Very informative. I was concerned about the smoothness of molding HP soap, and like how you formed the pucks.

Noticed you went with all KOH instead of a KOH/NaOH combination. Is that due to the use of stearic acid?

 

[nix]

I don't think you understand my question, I don't mean drop the lye discount to 2.3% using the original recipe so it calculates correctly.

Let me try and explain.

This is your updated recipe with Stearic Acid NF but entered into soapcalc as palmitic, stearic and myristic acids giving a SAP of 0.210

From the above recipe you will remove 11.34g of Shea butter and 11.34g of Lanolin reducing the total weight of oils to be saponified to 430.91g, the lye amount remains unchanged at 101.66g, you have now reduced your lye discount to 1.7% not 5%

Now after cooking and cooling you add 11.34g of Shea butter and 11.34g of Lanolin which is 5.265% of 430.91 giving a superfat of 5.2%

As your recipe states 5% discount this is what is confusing (sorry)

Is it not 1.7% lye discount and 5.2% superfat giving an overall discount of 6.9%

 

[LBussy]

This is your updated recipe with Stearic Acid NF but entered into soapcalc as palmitic, stearic and myristic acids giving a SAP of 0.210

That's the SAP of the Stearic Acid NF, yes. The batch SAP is 0.213. With 5% superfat that calculates to 101.86 which is what my spreadsheet tells me and is pretty close to being the same as SoapCalc. So far so good.

From the above recipe you will remove 11.34g of Shea butter and 11.34g of Lanolin reducing the total weight of oils to be saponified to 430.91g, the lye amount remains unchanged at 101.66g, you have now reduced your lye discount to 1.7% not 5%

Removing that results in a change to the effective recipe ... we are now at 47/26/21/3/3% of the ingredients with a total weight of 431.2 and an effective SAP of 0.216. At 0% superfat that works out to 103.62. Compared to the 101.66 that we are really using due to what I'll call "bonzai math" (taking the easy way out and reserving 5% of the oils) we are actually at a 1.8% lye discount. This is also why I have been able to consistently cook to zap free. We're close with each other so far.

Now after cooking and cooling you add 11.34g of Shea butter and 11.34g of Lanolin which is 5.265% of 430.91

Except that it's not figured as a percentage of the lesser amount, it's figured at the percent of the total batch weight we started with (and upon which we calculated the lye requirement).

giving a superfat of 5.2%

This is back to 5% superfat/lye discount because we can simply calculate the lye requirement back at the original 45/25/20/5/5% and 5% superfat.

Is it not 1.7% lye discount and 5.2% superfat giving an overall discount of 6.9%

No, it's 1.8% discount (we're close enough) during the cook and 5% after we're done.

Very informative. I was concerned about the smoothness of molding HP soap, and like how you formed the pucks.

I did a couple subsequent batches in Brambleberry's Column Mold, and a small silicone circular mold I bought somewhere on Amazon. Both were better than the Pringles, but I unmolded the Pringles can batch about an hour after I was done. Letting it sit and cool overnight would probably help. With the Pringles batch, I simply "washed" each puck a bit and they smoothed right out. Most of my soap is still packaged in tins however.

Noticed you went with all KOH instead of a KOH/NaOH combination. Is that due to the use of stearic acid?

I think using that mix is a result of reverse-engineering other commercial shaving soaps. Certainly it would (at least in theory) make a harder soap. I'm really not a fan of real soap pucks - I like softer soap that loads quite a bit easier. So, I opted for 100% KOH up front and even though I found this formula leaves a pretty hard soap, it's still quite soluble and loads well. So, sort of the best of both worlds.

I must admit I've never tried the mix, just as many others have not tried straight KOH - we all tend to stick with what we know. It just seems simpler to do it without the hassle of using two since I know I get what I want the way it is.

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

No, it is not.

Because the oils kept to one side are a part of that original calculation with 5%, not cumulative.

In general, superfat and lye discount can be used interchangeably. But not always.

In this case, the lye discount Is different because not all of the oils that are kept to the end are an average of what went in - there is no coconut, for example.

But this does not mean that the two can be totally added together as the superfat is the % of total oils that is not saponified, NOT the % of saponified oils. An example -

I have a 1,000g oil recipe. If I make that at 0% lye discount and add 50 grams of oil after the cook, it is not a 5% superfat, as I have now have a 1050g batch, not 1000g. If I made a 950g batch at 0% lye discount and add in 50g of oils after the cook, my total batch is now 1000g, 50g of which is not saponified.

 

[LBussy]

Or you know I could make a MUCH shorter to the point post like EG's. :grin:

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

Or you know I could make a MUCH shorter to the point post like EG's. :grin:

I actually thought mine was too long - when we get talking about shaving soap, it's hard to stop us!

 

[tryanything]

I found a few general editing errors. In the first part there is what I think is just a typo. It confused me, but when I figured out what I thought you meant and did the math myself I figured it out. In the below paragraph you say 100 grams of KOH. I think you meant the 211.11 grams. When you do the math of 211.11 times .495 then you get the 104.5 grams of glycerin. You just need to change the 100 grams to 211.11. Does that make sense? Otherwise I wasn't sure where you got the 100 grams from.

That’s a lot of numbers so let’s get to brass tacks. I’m going to use Tallow as the standard for how much glycerin I want just because that sounds right as a standard. Again using SoapCalc, I can see that 1000 grams of tallow requires 211.11 grams of 90% pure KOH. If I multiply those 100 grams of KOH by 0.495, my value from above, we see that I should be able to count on 104.5 grams of glycerin being released. I now know that I want to add 104.5 grams of glycerin per kilogram of stearic acid to this recipe. This works out to an additional 10.5% of the amount of stearic acid in the recipe.

In the second part, under Fragrance Oil, you say you discussed why you chose the FO you did in the first part. I may have missed that but I didn't see a discussion of FO in the first part.

Otherwise, awesome tutorial and I need to make a test batch myself.