Product Finder

Category: Personal Care

September 2, 2026

Anionic Functional APGs

Blog
Personal Care

A Solution for Every Need

Alkyl polyglucosides (APGs) are naturally derived nonionic surfactants produced from renewable feedstocks and are well known for their excellent foam, detergency, and relatively low irritation potential. Nonetheless, their functionality is limited in most personal care cleansing formulations, where gel viscosity with low to moderate surfactant concentration is desired. By adding anionic functional groups, Colonial Chemical produces surfactants that keep or even further improve the gentle, plant-based profile of an APG while gaining the cleansing power and foam performance formulators expect from anionic chemistry. In some instances, the APGs are further polymerized to create novel, EO-free polymer surfactants with unique surface properties.


With so many demands today on formulators for high biobased, low irritation, high viscosity, and high foam, where can they turn to? It seems most replacement products have serious negative tradeoffs, but Colonial’s wide range of APG anionics provide excellent solutions for every formulation need. They are all very high (up to 100%) biorenewable carbon and readily biodegradable.

A Portfolio Built for Flexibility

Colonial Chemical’s Suga® and Poly Suga® lines illustrate how much range this chemistry actually offers. Rather than a single surfactant solution, our platform spans several anionic groups, each suited to different formulation goals:


Our flagship sulfonate-based (Poly Suga®Nate 100P NC, Poly Suga®Nate 160P NC, Suga®Nate 100NC, Suga®Nate 160NC) deliver robust foam and cleansing, positioning them as sulfate alternatives for shampoos and body washes. These 100% biorenewable carbon products are produced from Decyl (100/100P) or Lauryl (160/160P) Glucosides to give a wide range of performance and compliance features. SugaNate 160NC is completely unique in the fact that it’s a non-irritant, even as supplied, making it the product of choice for advanced care products for babies, distressed skin, sensitive intimate areas, and more. APG sulfonates are incredibly robust, with excellent clarity and stability even in harshly acidic, caustic, or oxidative conditions. The Decyl Glucoside derivatives have very high flash foam properties while the Lauryl Glucoside derivatives deliver higher viscosity response. SugaNate 160NC has a wide array of certifications, including USDA Biopreferred and NSF/ANSI 305 compliance.


Phosphate-based (Poly Suga®Phos 1000P, Poly Suga®Phos 1200P) derivatives are mild, low-irritation options often used where phosphate esters’ conditioning and emulsifying properties are wanted. These products feature strongly in our SugaDet EcoPearl, providing outstanding control over pearl appearance.


Another unique option is our recently introduced citrate-based APG (Suga®Citrate L1C MB), where the anion is completely biorenewable. It is derived from Lauryl Glucoside and offers many of the same benefits as SugaNate 160NC, but with added COSMOS approval.


Our APG carboxylate (Suga®Mate LGC MB) rounds out the toolkit with a high biobased option that has significant market acceptance.


Global compliance status varies by product, ranging from limited-market clearance to global regulatory acceptance. Please check the sales bulletin and RDS (available upon request) for additional details.
Having options across these anionic groups means a formulator isn’t locked into just one performance profile or claim or regulatory scheme. A sulfate-free shampoo, a low-irritation baby wash, and a naturally positioned cleanser can each pull from the same underlying APG platform while landing on the specific derivative that fits the claim, texture, and cost target.

Where APG Anionics Fit in a Formulator’s Toolkit


In practice, these surfactants show up as primary or secondary cleansers in:

  • “Sulfate-free” and “sulfate-alternative” shampoos and conditioners (properly said, those without SLS or SLES)
  • Facial and body cleansers marketed on mildness or sensitive-skin claims
  • Baby and kids’ personal care lines, where low-irritation profiles are non-negotiable
  • Natural and organic-positioned brands needing ingredients that can actually support the claim, not just the marketing copy


APG-based anionic surfactants are more than a single ingredient swap for traditional SLS and SLES. They’re a category that lets formulators dial in cleansing strength, mildness, and sustainability positioning from one related chemistry family instead of stitching together unrelated surfactants to hit each goal separately. As biobased and environmentally safe claims move from niche to expected, having a portfolio of sulfonate, phosphate, citrate, and carboxylate options built on the same renewable backbone gives brands real flexibility instead of forcing a trade-off between performance and a clean ingredient story.


Since they are not produced from fatty acids or fatty acid chlorides like many other sulfate-free surfactants, our APG derivatives are inherently more stable in low pH environments, which is a problem for many applications requiring high clarity and stability at low pH.


Ready to see which anionic group fits your next formula? Explore the full Poly Suga® and Suga® product listing or reach out to Colonial Chemical’s technical team for formulation support.

August 28, 2026

Sustainability and Tailored Performance Can Be a Reality, A Review of Bioderived and Bio-Produced Surfactants

Publications
Household & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Personal Care

A trend towards biorenewability and sustainability has incentivized the increased commercialization of natural classes of surfactants; bioderived (e.g., alkyl polyglucosides) and bio-produced (e.g., sophorolipids and rhamnolipids). Bio-based surfactants also offer the formulator marketing advantages around renewable carbon or bio-based formula content and less reliance on petroleum-based ingredients. They demonstrate favorable safety profiles including low skin irritation, as well as negative sensitization, and genotoxicity results. Sophorolipids and rhamnolipids are capable of significant surface activity and antimicrobial properties. However, there are also limitations involved when dealing with bio-produced surfactants including an inefficient manufacturing process, high-priced material, and lack of application flexibility. In contrast, alkyl polyglucosides, are versatile and can be further functionalized synthetically allowing the chemistry to be geared towards specific applications. Additionally, functionalized alkyl polyglucosides can also be altered to different ionic classes of surfactants such as anionic, amphoteric or cationic. This allows them to compete with petroleum-based surfactants in many industries in terms of performance while enhancing sustainability. This article explores bio-based surfactants, their advantages and limitations.

Read the Article Here:

Read Here

Cited:

Lucas R. Moore, Barae Jomaa, Garret Bryant, Zechariah Avello

Sustainability and Tailored Performance Can Be a Reality, A Review of Bioderived and Bio-Produced Surfactants. Journal of Surfactants and Detergents (2026)

https://doi.org/10.1002/jsde.70093

August 5, 2026

Salt-Free Thickening (A Slight Return)

Blog
Personal Care

First of all, I want to thank everyone for their valuable feedback on the blog. It really does help us tailor content for your specific formulation needs. Please keep that feedback coming, either to [email protected] or to me at [email protected]

Missing Details

Our salt-free series generated interesting feedback, and I also realized that there was an important point that I glossed over quickly regarding how to thicken these formulations. Using anionic surfactants as primary surfactants is deeply entrenched in the industry, and for good reasons. They tend to have relatively compact head groups and long aliphatic tails (the classic tadpole), making them outstanding foamers and detergents. They also have a very high potential to form wormlike micelles which are needed for surfactant thickening.

There’s one thing that stands in the way of anionic surfactants readily forming wormlike micelles at low concentration: since all the surfactant heads are the same charge, they repel each other and the surfactant monomers cannot pack closely enough to facilitate the transition to wormlike micelles. There are two methods for fixing this fundamental property:

Electrolyte Addition

Adding electrolytes, usually in the form of Sodium Chloride (though advanced formulations may incorporate alternative salts) reduces the electrostatic repulsion between anionic head groups and facilitates the transition to wormlike micelles and highly viscous solutions at relatively low concentrations. A traditional surfactant like Sodium Lauryl Sulfate will generate substantial viscosity at 10% active matter or less with sufficient addition of electrolytes. But the amount tends to be quite high relative to the amount of surfactant and the aesthetics of SLS by itself are not conducive to a product with a high degree of consumer delight.

Secondary Surfactants

Another way to facilitate the transition to wormlike micelles at relatively low surfactant concentration is through the addition of a wide variety of secondary surfactants. Their efficacy is variable but the effect is the same; they reduce electrostatic repulsion between anionic head groups and ensure viscous solutions are achievable. Most commonly the secondary surfactant system is a combination of amphoteric and nonionic chemistries, allowing for extremely high efficiency and outstanding aesthetics.

Specific effects of secondary surfactants can vary from subtly shifting the salt curve toward lower salt addition or dramatically increasing the overall viscosity performance, widening or narrowing the salt curve, and dramatically shifting the salt curve. Specific formulation goals will help dictate which secondaries to use and how much. There are few hard and fast rules here and it’s mostly left to the formulator’s discretion how they want to approach this.

The Surfactant Triad

In a forthcoming webinar I’ll be discussing in more detail what I call The Surfactant Triad, a practically ideal combination of anionic, amphoteric, and nonionic chemistries that become the basis almost all personal care cleansing formulations. In “Low-No Salt Shampoos Part 3” I mentioned the use of nonionics as key additives for those systems. This is due to their potent ability to shift the salt curve so that no additional salt is needed to achieved the desired aesthetics. While rare, there are commercial examples of products that have been streamlined down to simply an anionic and nonionic surfactant together to achieve good aesthetics for body wash. The most commonly used nonionics are alkanolamides like Cocamide MIPA (Cola®Mid CFPA) or Cocamide DIPA (Cola®Liquid DC-5) but I have helped formulators use more unique ingredients like Glyceryl Laurate (Colonial Monolaurin) and Polyglyceryl-3 Oleate (Cola®Mulse 3GO) as more potent and mutli-functional additives. Additionally, we have explored non-traditional amphoterics in depth via two posters and a webinar as potent viscosity boosters that can also quite dramatically shift the salt curve toward low or no salt addition.

Conclusion

I don’t expect the number of formulator requests for improved foam and higher viscosity in “sulfate-free” systems to decrease any time soon. Adding “salt-free” as a claim on top creates a new level of difficulty and challenges that few formulators are prepared to handle. I hope this provides some additional insight into how to tackle these challenges. As always, we eagerly anticipate your feedback.

June 23, 2026

Low-No Salt Shampoos – Part Three

Blog
Personal Care

Salt‑Free Technologies, Low‑Salt Surfactants, and No‑Added‑Salt Strategies

Welcome to part 3 of our analysis of formulating cleansers to meet claims regarding “salt-free” or “no salt added”, especially for hair care. In part one we looked at the reason for these claims. In part two we examined some commercial products and how they’re navigating the claim. We learned that while the primary approach was toward surfactants that contained minimal or no sodium chloride by‑product, it’s worth noting that many of the surfactants were themselves salts, and may carry other salts as processing aids (chelants, preservatives) without disqualifying a well structured claim.

Since amphoteric and zwitterionic surfactants are the largest contributors of salt byproducts, they’re often the first product formulators are switching out. Some amphoteric/zwitterionic options that are free of salt byproducts exist:

  • Aminopropionates (e.g., sodium lauraminopropionate) and iminodipropionates (sodium lauriminodipropionate, Cola®Teric HLA) are true ampholytes with pH‑dependent charge, structurally related to β‑alanine derivatives.
  • Amphopropionates (sodium cocoamphopropionate, Cola®Teric CA-35, disodium cocoamphodipropionate, Cola®Teric 2CM-40CG) are already workhorses in mild shampoos; they bring low irritation, good foam, and no NaCl byproduct.
  • Amine oxides (lauramine oxide, Cola®Lux LO, cocamidopropylamine oxide, Cola®Lux CAO-35) contribute foam and thickening, and can behave as cationic at low pH, although they are often classified and used as nonionics in practice.

On the anionic side, straight sulfated alcohols (SLS/SLES, ammonium laureth sulfate) are typically avoided in salt‑free, keratin‑care contexts due to the negative perception of sulfate surfactants in general. Alternatives include:

  • Sulfonated olefins (sodium C14‑16 olefin sulfonate, Colonial AOS-40 UP): low‑cost, high‑foam sulfate replacements.
  • Isethionates (sodium cocoyl isethionate): very popular sulfate replacements with good foam and improved mildness; widely used in syndet bars and liquid systems.
  • Sulfosuccinates (disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, Cola®Mate DSLS-BA, disodium oleamido MIPA sulfosuccinate, Cola®Mate OPV): mild, but weaker viscosity builders, often requiring co‑surfactants or nonionic thickeners.
  • Phosphate esters (e.g., potassium lauryl/laureth phosphate): potentially attractive, but salt content is highly route‑dependent and must be confirmed with the supplier.

Nonionics are the primary viscosity and solubilization tools in no‑added‑salt systems:

  • Alcohol ethoxylates (laureth‑3, laureth‑4) act as dispersants and co‑thickeners
  • PEG‑150 distearate and PEG‑7 glyceryl cocoate provide emollience and rheology control
  • Polyglyceryl esters and polysorbates solubilize oils and fragrances
  • Alkanolamides like cocamide MIPA (Cocamide MIPA) or dimethyl lauramide boost viscosity and foam.

Properly balanced, these packages can deliver shampoo‑like viscosities without a NaCl addition, with good freeze–thaw behavior.

Some surfactant options can be considered “low salt”, not technically salt-free, but with minimal amount of sodium chloride:

  • Low‑salt surfactants such as ether carboxylates (trideceth‑7 carboxylic acid, laureth‑6 carboxylic acid) are supplied substantially anhydrous and neutralized in situ, with typical free NaCl specs below 1%.
  • Reduced‑salt CAPB is technically achievable via processes like reverse osmosis or solvent fractionation, but tends to be costly or involve flammable solvents, and there are few commercial examples. As a result, formulators usually lean on inherently low‑salt amphoterics and nonionics rather than demanding ultra‑low‑salt variants of standard betaines.

As we’ve explored in part two, most formulators trying to meet the “salt-free” claim simply take a no‑added‑NaCl route. There are several ways to build a formulation similar to existing salt-thickened systems. Strategies include:

  • Pushing total surfactant actives higher so that base viscosity is adequate without salt.
  • Increasing amphoteric content, exploiting their inherent thickening and synergistic effects with anionics.
  • Increasing nonionic content (PEG esters, alkanolamides, alcohol ethoxylates) to shift the salt curve upward and create structure at zero added NaCl.
  • Using pre-blended “no salt needed” concentrates like Cola®Det EQ‑18 (Decyl Glucoside, CAPHS, CAPB, Cocamide MIPA, disodium laureth/ lauryl sulfosuccinate), Cola®Det EQ‑19/EQ‑20 (olefin sulfonate or laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate with cocoamphoacetate and CAPHS), and Suga®Det Mild (laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, CAPHS, crosslinked glucoside polymer, sodium stearoyl lactylate).

To formulators tasked with creating a “salt-free” or “no added salt” shampoo to meet the associated market demands: Fear not: a wide variety of salt‑free and reduced‑salt options exist. It is technically possible to formulate truly salt‑free systems, but they sit further from “workhorse” architectures and are rarely necessary outside niche constraints. Thoughtful ground rules including pre-determining what counts as “salt,” which ions are excluded, and how strict the brand wants to be, are essential to effective product selection and credible claims.

May 13, 2026

Low-No Salt Shampoos – Part Two

Blog
Personal Care

Commercial “Salt‑Free” Shampoos and What They Teach Us About Claims

Welcome to Part 2 in our series on low and no-salt shampoo formulations! In this part we’ll look at how brands bring to life the claims of “salt‑free” and “no added sodium chloride” while still using conventional surfactant chemistry. From a formulation standpoint, they provide instructive case studies in both formula design and claims.

Keratin Complex Keratin Care Smoothing Shampoo is a top salon brand in this space, available on Ulta and in salons throughout the USA. It claims the following benefits:

  • Fights frizz and smooths for all hair types
  • Helps restore resilience, smoothness, and brilliance
  • Locks in moisture and enhances softness, smoothness, and shine
  • Formulated without sodium chloride to protect the longevity of Keratin Complex smoothing treatments
  • Can be used with or without a smoothing treatment
  • No added sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)

Note the claim regarding Sodium Chloride. Looking at the ingredient list we see:
Water/Aqua/Eau, Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate, Cocamide MEA, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Ammonium Laureth Sulfate, Hydrolyzed Keratin, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Hydrolyzed Wheat Protein, PEG/PPG-20/6 Dimethicone, PEG/PPG-4/12 Dimethicone, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Glycol Stearate, Propylene Glycol, Citric Acid, Tetrasodium EDTA, Imidazolidinyl Urea, Methylparaben, Benzyl Alcohol, Benzyl Benzoate, Benzyl Salicylate, Hexyl Cinnamal, Fragrance/Parfum.
The presence of Cocamidopropyl Betaine indicates one of two possibilities: the claim covers added sodium chloride, ignoring the sodium chloride typically found in the betaine or the product is formulated using Cocamidopropyl Betaine that has been specially treated to substantially remove the sodium chloride byproduct (it is technically impossible to remove it entirely at commercial scale).
The label indicates a higher than typical loading of Cocamide MEA, which is enabling this formulation to be viscous without the addition of sodium chloride.

Acure Simply Smoothing Shampoo, often recommended by bloggers for keratin‑treated hair, does not claim “salt‑free” on pack but is a formula for a similar consumer and the ingredient list indicates no added Sodium Chloride:
Water / Aqua / Eau, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium Lauroyl Methyl Isethionate, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe) Leaf Juice, Glycerin, Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Liquid Endosperm, Sclerocarya Birrea (Marula) Seed Oil, Rubus Fruticosus (Blackberry) Fruit Extract, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, Euterpe Oleracea (Acai) Fruit Extract, Rosa Canina (Rosehip) Fruit Extract, Calendula Officinalis (Marigold) Flower Extract, Aspalathus Linearis (Rooibos) Leaf Extract, Punica Granatum (Pomegranate) Extract, Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea) Butter, Eugenia Caryophyllus (Clove) Flower Oil, Citrus Aurantium Dulcis (Orange) Peel Oil, Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Oil, Persea Gratissima (Avocado) Oil, Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis (Sweet Almond) Oil, Coffea Arabica (Coffee) Seed Oil, Juniperus Mexicana (Texas Cedarwood) Oil, Aleurites Moluccanus (Kukui) Seed Oil, Dipteryx Odorata (Cumaru) Seed Oil, Levulinic Acid, Sodium Levulinate, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Cocoglucosides Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate, Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate, Betaine, Trisodium Ethylenediamine Disuccinate, Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Benzoate, Leuconostoc/Radish Root Ferment Filtrate, Citric Acid, Sodium Hydroxide, Vanillin, Limonene
The high loading of Cocamidopropyl Betaine allows for the formulation to have good viscosity without adding Sodium Chloride.

NYK1 Salt Free Sulphate Free Aftercare Shampoo makes every effort to highlight its formulation claims around salt: “Salt Free and Sulphate Free Shampoo… to protect hair keratin and colour treatments.”
The ingredients tell a more nuanced story:
Aqua (Water), Sodium Lauryl Sulphoacetate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, Decyl Glucoside, Glycerin, Polyquaternium-7, Phenoxyethanol, Peg-150 Distearate, Peg-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Oil, Parfum (Fragrance), Benzyl Benzoate, Coumarin.
Anionic surfactants themselves are salts and even if you think this is being pedantic then the Sodium Chloride byproduct of the Cocamidopropyl Betaine (even if substantially removed as discussed earlier) or the Sodium Sulfate byproduct of the Disodium Laureth Sulfate must be considered salts. Again, what’s important is that no salts have been intentionally added to build viscosity. A combination of high surfactant solids and Decyl Glucoside can easily account for the lack of added Sodium Chloride to build viscosity here.

Finally, Damila Salt & Sulfate Free Shampoo follows a similar formulation platform closely mirroring the NYK1 product above.
Across these examples, several themes emerge:

  • “Salt‑free” in practice almost always means no intentionally added sodium chloride as a separate component, not absence of sodium salts or zero NaCl analytically.
  • The surfactant cores are high‑foaming anionic/amphoteric systems (sulfoacetates, sulfosuccinates, isethionates, taurates, amphoacetates, betaines) already familiar to sulfate‑free formulators.
  • Rheology is managed with the ratios of surfactants in the formulation, overemphasizing amphoteric and nonionic surfactant additives.
  • The product claims focus on protecting keratin and color treatments, aligning with salon and brand narratives that sodium chloride and sulfates prematurely strip treatments, despite limited published quantitative data.

For chemists, these market formulas reinforce that “salt‑free” is first a labeling and communication strategy, then a formulation challenge. Understanding exactly which salts marketing intends to exclude guides raw‑material selection and helps avoid over‑engineering systems where “no added sodium chloride” will suffice as a strategy. Ultimately, the goal should be first and foremost to achieve the claim of hair smoothness and maintenance of a home or salon hair smoothing treatment. Specific “free-from” ingredient claims may distract from this goal, but are important for many consumers and cannot be ignored.

In Part 3 we will more thoroughly explore formulation strategies and ingredient options for formulators trying to achieve claims of “salt-free” or “no Sodium Chloride” or “no added Sodium Chloride”.

Next: Low-No Salt Shampoos – Part Three
April 22, 2026

Low-No Salt Shampoos – Part One

Blog
Personal Care

Why Salt‑Free? Drivers Behind Low‑Salt Hair‑Care Formulation

Welcome to the first part of a new blog series! In this series we’ll be examining the claim of “salt-free” or “no added salt” in shampoos, from consumer perception to the existing market to product suggestions for formulators trying to achieve high quality formulations around this concept.

The “salt‑free” conversation in personal care starts from a foundational concept in formulating foaming gel cleansers: sodium chloride is routinely added to anionic/amphoteric systems to navigate the salt curve and deliver aesthetically pleasing viscosity at modest surfactant actives. It is cheap, easy to titrate at the bench and at scale, and familiar to every shampoo formulator. At the same time, it is seen on the product list of ingredients, and that visibility has become a marketing liability in certain categories.

Chemically, anhydrous sodium chloride behaves as a desiccant, readily binding water from the environment (imagine caked salt in humid climates). Extrapolating from that behavior, online content often frames sodium chloride in shampoos as intrinsically “drying” to hair. In practice, in‑use conditions are very different: a few percent NaCl in an aqueous surfactant matrix, rapidly diluted under the shower and rinsed off. The dominant contributors to perceived dryness remain cuticle damage and lipid loss from oxidative dyes, perms/relaxers, keratin/alkali treatments, high‑heat styling, and frictional grooming on wet fibers. Scanning electron micrographs of damaged hair show lifted, chipped cuticles that generate high inter‑fiber friction and “dry” feel, independent of actual water content. Conditioning agents and cationic polymers are what meaningfully reduce friction at those edges and restore slip.

Another major driver is keratin smoothing. Many brands and stylists explicitly instruct clients to avoid shampoos containing sodium chloride and sulfates after treatment, claiming that these ingredients accelerate loss of the deposited keratin layer. Peer‑reviewed data isolating sodium chloride in realistic shampoo usage is sparse; most published work focuses on surfactant‑driven lipid extraction and internal porosity rather than salt itself. Nonetheless, the perception that “salt strips keratin” is entrenched.

There are also rational engineering cases for low‑salt systems. In unlined steel aerosols cans or other metal packaging, total ionic strength and specific ions can significantly influence corrosion, making low‑electrolyte formulations attractive. Certain industrial and institutional applications similarly require tightly controlled conductivity or ion profiles.

Against that backdrop, “salt‑free” emerges less as an absolute electrolyte prohibition and more as a practical design problem. How does a formulator deliver mild, high‑foaming cleansing systems that (a) do not list sodium chloride as an intentional ingredient, (b) satisfy keratin/color‑care marketing narratives, and (c) still hit target rheology and aesthetics? Most of the market resolves this by formulating “no added sodium chloride” systems, accepting trace sodium chloride byproducts and leaning on amphoterics, alternative anionics, nonionics, and polymers for structure.

For product developers, the industry needs honest technical positioning, acknowledging the limits of current keratin‑specific data, focusing on surfactant mildness and cuticle preservation, and treating sodium chloride as one variable in a broader damage and perception landscape rather than a villain.

Next: Low-No Salt Shampoos – Part Two
March 5, 2026

A Case Study in Substitution: From Sodium Laureth Sulfate to Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate

Personal Care
Blog

Introduction

As formulators seek to respond to market needs with easy to use and affordable technologies, one very common substation we’ve seen is the replacement of Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) with Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate (AOS). In this blog post we’ll examine the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a replacement strategy.

Technical Differences

While SLES and AOS follow similar reaction schemes, there are important differences in feedstocks and end products. For SLES, Lauryl Alcohol is ethoxylated, typically with anywhere from 1-4 moles of ethylene oxide. Biobased carbon content cany vary from 0 to 100%, depending on supply chain. For AOS, narrow range hydrocarbons with a terminal (alpha) double bond follow a similar reaction process. Biobased carbon content is 0%. Both reaction schemes will produce sodium sulfate as a byproduct. Depending on the exact process, Sodium Chloride may also be produced as a byproduct. SLES will also produce 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct, which may be substantially removed by post-reaction treatment.

Performance Drivers and Stability

The INCI designation “Sodium Laureth Sulfate” can encompass a wide range of performance attributes. The purity of Lauryl Alcohol and degree of ethoxylation strongly influence performance characteristics like foam, viscosity building, and irritation potential. Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate can also exhibit a range of performance attributes, driven primarily by the precise alkyl distribution. Most grades of SLES will not exhibit a Krafft temperature above freezing, while most grades of AOS will exhibit a Krafft temperature, typically around 10°C. AOS also exhibits superior hydrolytic stability in low-pH formulations due to the inherent stability of the sulfonate functional group. In contrast, SLES shows poor stability below approximately pH 5, where sulfate ester linkages become increasingly susceptible to hydrolysis. As a result, AOS is generally preferred for highly acidic formulations.

Foam Profile & Viscosity Response

The foam profile of AOS is comparable to higher-ethoxylated SLES grades such as SLES-3, but lower than low-ethoxylated grades like SLES-1. With optimized formulation strategies, AOS systems can achieve near parity with SLES-2. In terms of salt response, SLES-based systems typically achieve peak viscosity with lower salt levels compared to AOS-based systems, which may require higher levels of secondary or tertiary surfactants.

Irritation Potential

While the stated goal of replacing SLES with AOS is for improved mildness due to the “harshness” of sulfates, AOS has been demonstrated in formulated systems to be close to SLES with the lowest degree of ethoxylation. More frequently used higher ethoxylates of SLES like two and three mole

versions have much lower irritation potential, even in formulated systems. Increasing the use of secondary amphoteric surfactants and/or introducing other zero irritation surfactants in AOS-based formulations can allow formulators to achieve much closer parity in irritation or even improvements on the most commonly used grades of SLES.

Cost, Regulatory & Market Drivers

AOS is experiencing rapid global adoption primarily due to its cost advantages. These are driven by historically low crude oil prices, high lauryl alcohol costs, fewer processing steps, and the absence of dioxane removal requirements. SLES production requires additional processing and specialized equipment to reduce 1,4-dioxane levels.

Regulatory & Marketing Advantages

Regulatory pressure, particularly in the United States, has significantly impacted SLES usage due to strict limitations on 1,4-dioxane content. Achieving ultra-low dioxane levels is increasingly challenging. AOS, which does not generate dioxane, offers a clear regulatory advantage. From a marketing standpoint, AOS enables ‘SLS and SLES-Free’ and ‘PEG-Free’ claims, aligning strongly with current consumer and brand owner preferences.

Sustainability & Future Outlook

Although not yet widely commercialized, suppliers are actively developing AOS derived from biobased olefins. This development could enable AOS to transition from 0% to 100% biobased content, significantly strengthening its sustainability profile. This evolution is expected to further establish AOS as the surfactant of choice in the coming decades.

Conclusion

While SLES remains a well-established surfactant, AOS is an increasingly popular option with superior short-term advantages in cost efficiency, regulatory compliance, formulation ease, and consumer acceptance. Long-term continued development in biobased olefin technologies will improve its environmental footprint. Some reformulation work to maximize benefits of AOS is expected and needed to ensure all stated goals are met.

February 12, 2026

Lowering Dioxane in Formulations – Part Four

Blog
Household & Industrial
Personal Care

Going Dioxane-Free: Replacement Emulsifiers and Solubilizers

In parts one and two of this blog series, we discussed how ethoxylation is a tremendously useful tool for building surfactants that is under fire due to concerns over a potential byproduct, 1,4 dioxane. With stricter dioxane regulations pushing formulators away from traditional ethoxylates, what are the alternatives? In this segment we’ll discuss alternatives for emulsifiers, including oil in water (o/w), water in oil (w/o), and emulsifiers for fragrance microemulsions, sometimes referred to as solubilizers.

Emulsifier Alternatives

When looking for ethoxylate (PEG) replacements, formulators are expected to weigh several factors: biorenewable content, toxicity profile, ease of use, efficiency, cost, and how well the ingredient fits brand positioning.

For small molecule emulsifiers to replace common emulsifiers like Steareth-2 and Steareth-20 along with polysorbates, some options include:

  • Glyceryl Stearate with Stearic Acid: Typically 100% naturally derived, though the stearic acid is very pH-sensitive. This has become a workhorse option today for simple, economical o/w body lotions.
  • Polyglyceryl Esters: This is an incredibly diverse class of emulsifiers with various chain lengths and substitution patterns, allowing for robust emulsion stability and good control over aesthetics. Polyglyceryl-3 Oleate (Cola®Mulse 3GO), for example, is an outstanding w/o emulsifier that’s suitable as a co-emulsifier or as a key ingredient in oil cleansers to incorporate small amounts of water-based additives with high clarity.
  • Amino Acid Esters: This emerging, innovative group of emulsifiers can be naturally derived and customizable, but come with a higher price tag for premium facial care formulations.
  • Phosphate Esters: This class of high biobased emulsifiers is well known for their highly elegant feel and ability to stabilize o/w emulsions at low or high viscosity. Cetyl Phosphate (Cola®Fax CPE) and Potassium Cetyl Phosphate (Cola®Fax CPE-K) are go-to emulsifiers for organic sunscreen or skin protectant formulations.

For those preferring polymeric emulsifiers, there are synthetic acrylate-based options (low cost but petroleum-derived), natural cellulosics and crosspolymers, and silicone-based options (luxurious feel but facing other consumer perception challenges).

Fragrance Solubilization Options

Fragrance solubilization is really about creating microemulsions; emulsions with oil droplets so tiny that light passes through without getting refracted, keeping products crystal clear. This typically requires high-HLB emulsifiers at relatively high product loading, though product performance varies widely by emulsifier chemistry as well as the fragrance or essential oil chemistry. Due to the unique challenges of this application area, this has been one of the hardest application areas for formulators to find simple replacements.

The leading dioxane-free approaches include:

  • Polyglyceryl Esters: Benefit as mentioned before by bio-based content, though no single “workhorse” product has emerged yet. Formulators usually need to blend different types for each specific formula.
  • Small Molecules: Some surfactants like Decyl Glucoside (Suga®Det D) have been demonstrated to have some efficacy, in particular for highly polar fragrances.
  • Surfactant Combinations: Using a combination of surfactants can be extremely effective, though this adds multiple ingredients to the label.

Testing shows that some newer technologies like Sorbitan Oleate Decylglucoside Crosspolymer (Poly Suga®Mulse D9) can actually outperform traditional ethoxylated solubilizers for certain essential oils. The key is matching your solubilizer choice to your specific application and fragrance.

What are your challenges as you search for lower dioxane alternatives in the formulation work you do? Reach out and let’s discuss how we can best serve your needs!

January 23, 2026

Lowering Dioxane in Formulations – Part Three

Blog
Household & Industrial
Personal Care

Gentle Cleansing, Better Thickening: Dioxane-Free Alternatives for Surfactants and Emollients

In parts one and two we discussed the reasons why ethylene oxide is a tremdously useful chemical intermediate and why shifting regulatory and consumer landscapes are causing formulators to consider products made via alternate synthetic routes. Moving away from ethoxylates means abandoning industry staples like SLES for cleansing and PEG-based thickeners and emollients for rinse-off products. Here’s how formulators are creating effective products with extremely low or non-detectable amounts of 1,4-dioxane.

Low-Irritation Cleansing Surfactants

The challenge with replacing SLES isn’t just avoiding dioxane—consumers are increasingly avoiding sulfates altogether. Fortunately, several alternatives deliver gentle cleansing:

· Alkyl Polyglucosides like Decyl Glucoside (Suga®Det D) and Lauryl Glucoside (Suga®Det L) are 100% bio-based and biodegradable, though they can be tricky to formulate with for achieving target viscosity. These are better employed in smaller amounts to modify foam or salt response.

· Colonial’s Alkyl Polyglucoside derivatives like Sodium Laurylglucosides Hydroxypropyl Sulfonate (Suga®Nate 160NC) and Sodium Laurylglucosides Hydroxypropyl Citrate (Suga®Citrate L1C MB) have a substantially expanded application range. Our testing shows these products can dramatically reduce irritation when blended with traditional anionics. They also improve viscosity building of non-traditional anionic surfactants like olefin sulfonates and amino acid surfactants (see below)

· Sulfosuccinates like Disodium Lauryl Sulfosuccinate (Cola®Mate LA-40) provide very good foaming potential. Formulators should watch out for stability issues at pH extremes. Surfactant mixtures like Suga®Det LSDG and Suga®Det LSLG provide formulators with an easy to handle way to incorporate these useful ingredients without the traditional challenges of pre-heating.

· Olefin sulfonates like Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate (Colonial AOS-40 UP) offer formulators a low cost option with high ease of use, but are not demonstrated to be as mild as the Sodium Laureth-2 Sulfate they’re intended to replace. With some extra care in formulation design formulators can incorporate products like Suga®Nate 160NC to substantially reduce the irritation potential while maintaining other attractive properties of these useful ingredients.

· Amino acid surfactants (like Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate) offer good mildness and are generally very stable in formulations. The tradeoff here is typically cost, though products produced from synthetic amino acids like Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate (Cola®Mate SMCT-40 launching in 2026) offer a good balance of cost and performance.

Surfactant Thickening Solutions

Have you had challenges replacing PEG-150 Distearate and similar thickeners? Consider:

· Long-chain zwitterions and amphoterics like Oleamidopropyl Betaine (Cola®Teric OAB-UP) and Cetyl Betaine (Cola®Teric CMB). These are very effective viscosity boosters that can significantly increase peak viscosity at low usage levels. Additionally, these products have been shown to improve foam feel and skin after-feel, useful attributes for cleansing systems (more on this later).

· Alkanolamides like Cocamide DIPA (Cola®Liquid DC-5), Cocamide MEA (Cola®Mid CMA), and Cocamide MIPA (Cola®Mid CMPA) are economical, but watch for potential secondary amine issues.

· Amine oxides like Cocamidopropylamine Oxide (Cola®Lux CAO-35) and Stearamine Oxide (Cola®Lux SO) offer excellent performance but are less well characterized for personal care applications. This offers a substantial opportunity for innovation.

Emolliency and Refatting

For that moisturizing after-feel in rinse-off products, formulators are turning to:

· Glyceryl esters like Glyceryl Oleate, Glyceryl Laurate (Colonial Monolaurin), and Polyglyceryl-3 Oleate (Cola®Mulse 3GO) are 100% bio-based. These can be tricky to manage in a rinse-off system as the effect use rates are very small.

· Lecithin and other phospholipids are all natural options with a substantial price tag. Phosphobetaines like Cocamidopropyl PG-Dimonium Chloride Phosphate (Cola®Lipid C) and Linoleamidopropyl PG-Dimonium Chloride Phosphate (Cola®Lipid SAFL) are structural analogs to natural phospholipids and are offered at a fraction of the price

· Long-chain zwitterions and amphoterics are very low cost options that can provide similar efficacy to traditional ethoxylates. As a bonus, they improve viscosity response (as mentioned above)

While industry norms are rapidly changing, formulators are benefiting from existing and emerging chemistries that make formulating to extremely low or non-detectable levels of

1,4-dioxane absolutely achievable. It requires weighing the trade-offs of cost, performance, ease of use, and sustainability. But with regulations tightening and consumer awareness growing, mastering these alternatives isn’t just good practice, it’s the new standard for formulation.

January 7, 2026

Lowering Dioxane in Formulations – Part Two

Personal Care
Blog
Household & Industrial

The 1,4-Dioxane Problem: Why Regulations Are Tightening

In part one, we discussed how ethylene oxide is an important base chemical for producing a wide range of chemical intermediates and formulation ingredients. As with most chemical reactions, there is a potential for the formation of byproducts. When two molecules of ethylene oxide react with each other during the ethoxylation process instead of with the intended reagent, they form a six-membered ring called 1,4-dioxane. This unwanted byproduct has become one of the personal care industry’s most pressing concerns.​

The Hazard

1,4-Dioxane carries some concerning classifications. The National Toxicology Program calls it “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” while the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on animal studies. Beyond cancer concerns, it’s known to affect multiple organs including the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system.​

Unlike ethylene oxide, which breaks down quickly outside of neutral pH conditions, 1,4-dioxane is moderately persistent in the environment. Improper handling of dioxane and dioxane-contaminated chemicals has resulted in high groundwater levels in some areas of the country which persist long after the initial contamination.

The Regulatory Patchwork

Regulations vary wildly depending on where you are. The European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety recommended a 10 ppm limit in 2015. ASEAN countries implemented 10 ppm limits by 2023.​

At the end of 2019 New York State’s Governor signed into law the nation’s strictest rules. For cosmetics (leave-on products), the limit is 10 ppm. For personal care products (rinse-off items like shampoos and body washes), it’s now just 1 ppm. That’s incredibly tight—and the law includes provisions to potentially make limits even stricter if technology allows.​

The Industry Response

The personal care industry has been proactive in reducing dioxane exposure and household products are now not far behind. Surveys conducted before the NY State law took effect showed that about 65% of cosmetic products already contained less than 1 ppm of dioxane, and 84% were below 5 ppm. Manufacturers had been working hard to reduce contamination levels, but the newest regulations are pushing the industry toward eliminating ethoxylates altogether. In parts 3 and 4 we’ll examine the technologies being used to accomplish that.