RushGirl
#1 PARTY GIRL
A girl on NC posted some incredible info about silicones.. very interesting info!
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:44 am Post subject: Cones, polyquats, ions, and removal of buildup I've been getting a deluge of PMs about cones and buildup, so I thought I'd share this in a central place.
Water-insoluble means water doesn't dissolve it, but negative-charge ions can remove it.
Water-soluble means water dissolves it.
Soluble means soluble in the bottle.
Dispersible and dilutable in water are generally used to reflect that they are soluble in the solution in the bottle and water breaks down the bond (ex. OneCondition has amodimethicone which is soluble in the bottle but become dispersible in water once on the hair which means the amodimethicone breaks apart from the solvents and is dispersed and deposited on the hair because the water carries it there.)
Many water insoluble cones like amodimethicones (and the other really common one is phenyl trimethicione that's in PM the Cream and Aveda Be Curly) can be removed by sulfates or cocomidopropyl betaine. I know that there needs to be some ionic charge to remove these cones--whether via a gentle or harsher surfactant. Other ionic-charged surfactants (whether with a negative-only charge or a negative-positive combo) would be effective under the same logic. And ionic-charged surfactants also remove polyquats which are positively charged.
A note worth making: some product lines are positively charging just about anything these days. For example, go to http://www.isohair.ca/english/classic/index.html and click on technology (it's flash-driven so I can't link to the specific page).
ISO writes, "The nutrient filled Tri-Active Technology takes vitamins, proteins and moisturizers and positively charges them to work more effectively by penetrating far more deeply into the hair shaft.
Opposites attract. In its natural state, hair carries a negative charge. The more severely hair is damaged, the more negative it becomes. ISO's Tri-Active Technology, with its positively activated proteins, vitamins and moisturizers, works on multiple levels of the hair's structure, delivering the best care directly where it is needed most, and naturally bonds there for longer-lasting results."
While this is a positive and admirable concept for getting hair-happy ingredients to penetrate deeper, the result of "longer-lasting results" is frequently buildup since your hair isn't alive to absorb all these positively-charged ingredients.
Nonionic surfactants, such as sorbitol, decyl glucoside, laureths, and decyl polyglucose, which contain no positively or negatively-charged groups do not remove cones. They do not have any way to attract the cones away from being attached to the hair shaft. They are effective cleansers for natural stuff (like dirt, dead skin cells on your scalp, etc).
WATER SOLUBLE
Dimethicone copolyol
PEG/PPG silicones (the PEG/PPG process does this)
Lauryl methicone copolyol
Hydrolyzed Wheat Protein Hydroxypropyl Polysiloxane (or any other cone in the easily removed list that is chemically combined in a Hydrolyzed process--that's the key)
EASILY REMOVED BY IONIC SURFACTANT BECAUSE THEY BOND WITH A LIGHTER IONIC BOND
Amodimethicone (soluble in the bottle with Trideceth-12 (and) Cetrimonium Chloride but makes NO DIFFERENCE on the hair relative to solubility, just better distribution on the hair because the amodimethicone will be better dispursed in the product's solution, still easier to remove)
Dimethicone
Dimethiconol
Behenoxy Dimethicone
Phenyl Trimethicone
BORDERLINE--NOT SUPER-EASY or SUPER-HARD TO REMOVE, CAN USE IONIC SURFACTANT OTHER THAN SULFATE WITH SCRUBBING MOTION AND LEAVING SURFACTANT ON HAIR FOR FEW MINUTES TO REMOVE
Simethicone
Trimethicone (not common without the Phenyl that makes it easier to remove)
HARDER TO REMOVE, TAKES HARSHER SURFACTANT LIKE SULFATE BECAUSE THEY BOND WITH A STRONGER IONIC BOND
Cyclomethicone
Cyclopentasiloxane
Trimethylsilylamodimethicone/Trimethylsiloxysilicates
Also, keep in mind the purpose of your sources when researching cones. The GE website is telling about products' solubility in a product so product companies will buy them, and they are not necessarily for use on the hair. Their endless possibilities are mindnumbing. And if you combine a water insoluble cone with another water insoluble cone, it's water insoluble. In addition,GE and other marketing-based websites are giving data for material safety datasheets, not for how these products would be removed from hair, because it's about stability in the bottle, not solubility once it's used.
Finally, the porousity of your hair can make a product and its ingredients more difficult to remove or a lack of porousity can make even a cyclo-cone easier to remove than most. Everyone's hair is different! So one person may have a horrible time with even easier to remove cones. Another person may be able to use cyclopentasiloxane and get the frizz-taming results that the cone was designed for (a note: most straighties are loving this stuff).
Therefore, the relative easy of removal for cones is just that--relative. I can state that x cone is harder to remove than y. How much harder depends on the individual, his/her product choices, and climate (where it's super-humid and hot, ingredients seem to take advantage and be able to penetrate further into the hair shaft, even on the same head of hair).
Then someone else made a reply with some more info:
XXXXXXX wrote:
Nonionic surfactants, such as sorbitol, decyl glucoside, laureths, and decyl polyglucose, which contain no positively or negatively-charged groups do not remove cones. They do not have any way to attract the cones away from being attached to the hair shaft. They are effective cleansers for natural stuff (like dirt, dead skin cells on your scalp, etc).
Excellent post!
I just wanted to clarify or expound upon the information contained in the quote above.
Most silicones are not ionic at all, and they are attracted to the hair due to their overall hydrophobicity (water-hating) tendencies. Surfactants, by nature, all have a hydrophobic portion, and like attracts like. Therefore even non-ionic surfactants can and will attract oils (which are hydrophobic) away from the hair. This is how they are meant to work and how they do indeed work. This is the basis for oil-in-water detergency, where oils are emulsified by being absorbed into the center of a micelle, which is solvated in water by the surrounding shell of hydrophilic head groups. (The hydrophobic effect, micelle theory, and all of that is a part of colloid chemistry, which is based upon some very fundamental principles of thermodynamics, which maybe we should go over some time for everyone.)
The limitation upon many commonly used nonionic surfactants is that they have a larger hydrophilic (water-loving) head group. These bulky head groups are repelled from one another due to a phenomenon known as "steric hindrance" (basically - things all need to occupy their own space, and the larger things are - the more space they need). This impacts the geometry of the micelle that is formed, making it less able to hold as much oil in the interior (one can do more research on this by looking up "the priniciple of opposing forces"). For this reason, these surfactants are less efficient. They can have a similar effectiveness as ionic surfactants, but that would require them being used in larger quantities. Most often, the two types are mixed in formulations, because together they enhance one another's capabilities in micelle formation and detergency. So in summary, the ability of a surfactant to remove hydrophobic materials from our hair is more closely correlated to the size of its polar head group than to the nature of its ionic charge.
I wish I had a chalk board here, because I feel that colloid and surace science are so much easier to teach when I can draw pictures.
Hope this helps those who are interested in more info about silicones!
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:44 am Post subject: Cones, polyquats, ions, and removal of buildup I've been getting a deluge of PMs about cones and buildup, so I thought I'd share this in a central place.
Many water insoluble cones like amodimethicones (and the other really common one is phenyl trimethicione that's in PM the Cream and Aveda Be Curly) can be removed by sulfates or cocomidopropyl betaine. I know that there needs to be some ionic charge to remove these cones--whether via a gentle or harsher surfactant. Other ionic-charged surfactants (whether with a negative-only charge or a negative-positive combo) would be effective under the same logic. And ionic-charged surfactants also remove polyquats which are positively charged.
A note worth making: some product lines are positively charging just about anything these days. For example, go to http://www.isohair.ca/english/classic/index.html and click on technology (it's flash-driven so I can't link to the specific page).
ISO writes, "The nutrient filled Tri-Active Technology takes vitamins, proteins and moisturizers and positively charges them to work more effectively by penetrating far more deeply into the hair shaft.
Opposites attract. In its natural state, hair carries a negative charge. The more severely hair is damaged, the more negative it becomes. ISO's Tri-Active Technology, with its positively activated proteins, vitamins and moisturizers, works on multiple levels of the hair's structure, delivering the best care directly where it is needed most, and naturally bonds there for longer-lasting results."
While this is a positive and admirable concept for getting hair-happy ingredients to penetrate deeper, the result of "longer-lasting results" is frequently buildup since your hair isn't alive to absorb all these positively-charged ingredients.
Nonionic surfactants, such as sorbitol, decyl glucoside, laureths, and decyl polyglucose, which contain no positively or negatively-charged groups do not remove cones. They do not have any way to attract the cones away from being attached to the hair shaft. They are effective cleansers for natural stuff (like dirt, dead skin cells on your scalp, etc).
WATER SOLUBLE
Dimethicone copolyol
PEG/PPG silicones (the PEG/PPG process does this)
Lauryl methicone copolyol
Hydrolyzed Wheat Protein Hydroxypropyl Polysiloxane (or any other cone in the easily removed list that is chemically combined in a Hydrolyzed process--that's the key)
EASILY REMOVED BY IONIC SURFACTANT BECAUSE THEY BOND WITH A LIGHTER IONIC BOND
Amodimethicone (soluble in the bottle with Trideceth-12 (and) Cetrimonium Chloride but makes NO DIFFERENCE on the hair relative to solubility, just better distribution on the hair because the amodimethicone will be better dispursed in the product's solution, still easier to remove)
Dimethicone
Dimethiconol
Behenoxy Dimethicone
Phenyl Trimethicone
BORDERLINE--NOT SUPER-EASY or SUPER-HARD TO REMOVE, CAN USE IONIC SURFACTANT OTHER THAN SULFATE WITH SCRUBBING MOTION AND LEAVING SURFACTANT ON HAIR FOR FEW MINUTES TO REMOVE
Simethicone
Trimethicone (not common without the Phenyl that makes it easier to remove)
HARDER TO REMOVE, TAKES HARSHER SURFACTANT LIKE SULFATE BECAUSE THEY BOND WITH A STRONGER IONIC BOND
Cyclomethicone
Cyclopentasiloxane
Trimethylsilylamodimethicone/Trimethylsiloxysilicates
Also, keep in mind the purpose of your sources when researching cones. The GE website is telling about products' solubility in a product so product companies will buy them, and they are not necessarily for use on the hair. Their endless possibilities are mindnumbing. And if you combine a water insoluble cone with another water insoluble cone, it's water insoluble. In addition,GE and other marketing-based websites are giving data for material safety datasheets, not for how these products would be removed from hair, because it's about stability in the bottle, not solubility once it's used.
Finally, the porousity of your hair can make a product and its ingredients more difficult to remove or a lack of porousity can make even a cyclo-cone easier to remove than most. Everyone's hair is different! So one person may have a horrible time with even easier to remove cones. Another person may be able to use cyclopentasiloxane and get the frizz-taming results that the cone was designed for (a note: most straighties are loving this stuff).
Therefore, the relative easy of removal for cones is just that--relative. I can state that x cone is harder to remove than y. How much harder depends on the individual, his/her product choices, and climate (where it's super-humid and hot, ingredients seem to take advantage and be able to penetrate further into the hair shaft, even on the same head of hair).
Then someone else made a reply with some more info:
XXXXXXX wrote:
Nonionic surfactants, such as sorbitol, decyl glucoside, laureths, and decyl polyglucose, which contain no positively or negatively-charged groups do not remove cones. They do not have any way to attract the cones away from being attached to the hair shaft. They are effective cleansers for natural stuff (like dirt, dead skin cells on your scalp, etc).
Excellent post!
I just wanted to clarify or expound upon the information contained in the quote above.
Most silicones are not ionic at all, and they are attracted to the hair due to their overall hydrophobicity (water-hating) tendencies. Surfactants, by nature, all have a hydrophobic portion, and like attracts like. Therefore even non-ionic surfactants can and will attract oils (which are hydrophobic) away from the hair. This is how they are meant to work and how they do indeed work. This is the basis for oil-in-water detergency, where oils are emulsified by being absorbed into the center of a micelle, which is solvated in water by the surrounding shell of hydrophilic head groups. (The hydrophobic effect, micelle theory, and all of that is a part of colloid chemistry, which is based upon some very fundamental principles of thermodynamics, which maybe we should go over some time for everyone.)
The limitation upon many commonly used nonionic surfactants is that they have a larger hydrophilic (water-loving) head group. These bulky head groups are repelled from one another due to a phenomenon known as "steric hindrance" (basically - things all need to occupy their own space, and the larger things are - the more space they need). This impacts the geometry of the micelle that is formed, making it less able to hold as much oil in the interior (one can do more research on this by looking up "the priniciple of opposing forces"). For this reason, these surfactants are less efficient. They can have a similar effectiveness as ionic surfactants, but that would require them being used in larger quantities. Most often, the two types are mixed in formulations, because together they enhance one another's capabilities in micelle formation and detergency. So in summary, the ability of a surfactant to remove hydrophobic materials from our hair is more closely correlated to the size of its polar head group than to the nature of its ionic charge.
I wish I had a chalk board here, because I feel that colloid and surace science are so much easier to teach when I can draw pictures.
Hope this helps those who are interested in more info about silicones!
I don't know any science..lol
