I need help with soy wax (even after a lot of reading)

[Mobjack Bay]

I have read pages and pages of useful information, but will feel better about trying Golden Wax 415 after I have feedback on what I think I learned by reading the various threads.

For the uninitiated, Golden Wax 415 = partially hydrogenated soybean oil.

According to the SoapMakingFriend calculator, the NaOH SAP is .136 for soybean oil and 27% hydrogenated soybean oil, and .137 for 100% hydrogenated soybean oil. As others seem to have indicated in previous threads, it doesn’t really matter which version of soybean oil I pick from the oil list because the SAP varies so little.

But, how do we get the correct fatty acid profile in the calculator? I’m a bit worried about the high percentage of linoleic oil in the unhydrogenated fraction of soybean oil.

ETA: If you don’t want to read all of the details of how I got there, you can find my current best estimate of the fatty acid profile for Golden Wax 415 in post #8.

Golden Wax 415 is partially hydrogenated, but exactly how partially hydrogenated seems a bit up in the air. According to the calculator and the threads, the degree of hydrogenation affects the FA profile as follows - the more hydrogenated, the less linoleic oil. In one of the threads, a contributor mentioned the manufacturer’s spec sheet, which I never found linked, and also linked this paper. Specifically, Table 1 provides the FA profiles of partially hydrogenated soybean oil based on iodine value (IV). The IV for Golden Wax 415 averages around 50, based on the Certificates of Analysis posted on the Candle Science website, here. If the relationship between IV and FA composition is a general one, and the IV is the same as the “iodine” in a soap calculator, then maybe the FA profile of GW 415 can be determined based on the IV (fingers crossed)... Like this:

Edited on October 12, 2019 to remove an approximation of the composition of GW 415 that could be misleading for newbies (like me!). It remains available as an attachment.

ETA: But, looking at it again, I see that the resulting FA percentages don’t match the ones in the table in the paper. (Time to quit for the night!)

If someone has the manufacturer’s spec sheet and would be willing to share it or knows where it is linked and can send me there, please do.

TIA!

 

[Dawni]

I'm not good with numbers. At all. And there seems to be disagreement regarding what percentage of hydrogenated soy is in 415, as you probably saw in that soy wax thread.

I could not get a trusted source for 415. I got the 444 instead. And instead of hurting my brain with numbers it doesn't like, I went n did a comparison between the 444 using what was on the calculator, and lard. Not sure if it'll help you any, but in case there's something there that could, my thread is here, if you've not already seen it.

Which reminds me.. I have to check on those soaps again. Been a while since last update.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

I'm not good with numbers. At all. And there seems to be disagreement regarding what percentage of hydrogenated soy is in 415, as you probably saw in that soy wax thread.

I could not get a trusted source for 415. I got the 444 instead. And instead of hurting my brain with numbers it doesn't like, I went n did a comparison between the 444 using what was on the calculator, and lard. Not sure if it'll help you any, but in case there's something there that could, my thread is here, if you've not already seen it.

Which reminds me.. I have to check on those soaps again. Been a while since last update.

Thank you for that link! I will read it tonight.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

I think I may have to give up on the idea of getting a representative fatty acid profile for 415 soy wax. Apparently, the composition of fatty acids produced during the hydrogenation of soybean oil varies depending on variables such as the type of catalyst used and the pressure in the reactor (source). These are things only the manufacturer will know. I gather from some of the previous threads on soy wax that the manufacturers are not sharing this information .

I did learn a few things over the last couple of days of web research. The “trans” oil formed during the hydrogenation process is called elaidic oil, which has 18 carbons. I’ve read in various places that it behaves more like an 18 carbon saturated fat (steric acid) than the 18 carbon unsaturated oleic acid, although it forms at the expense of oleic acid. Elaidic does not show up as a fatty acid in the soap calculators I tried, which makes me wonder where the fatty acid profiles for partially hydrogenated and fully hydrogenated soybean oil come from, e.g. do they lump the elaidic fatty acid in with the steric acid?

As I noted in my first post, the iodine value for 415 given in the Certificates of Analysis sheets posted on the Candle Science website, which I linked above, is approximately 50. Using soybean oil, partially hydrogenated and fully hydrogenated soybean oil as variables, I can get another fatty acid profile that has an iodine value of 50. It has a different FA profile from the one I posted above and produces a sat:unsat ratio of 59:41, which is intermediate to the (divergent) ratios I’ve seen posted on other threads. There will be other combinations that produce an IV of 50 or close. I don’t have enough information at this point to know if this in any way approximates the “real” profile and, in particular, the % linoleic which is what I really want to know. I’m not concerned about hardness because of how well 415 is working for the many who have tried it.

Edited on October 12, 2019 to remove the posted, incorrect approximation of GW415 composition in the soap calc. See attachment if you’re really interested, or keep reading for what I think is the better one .

 

[Mobjack Bay]

According to the product sheet, which was right in front of me on the Candle Science website , Golden Soy Wax 415 is Akosoy 5716-00-77.

According to this document, there are no polyunsaturated fats in the product. That means no linoleic or Linolenic FAs, right?



Edited to remove a general question that I posted elsewhere.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

After a bit more reading, I think there may be enough information to create a reasonable profile for Golden Wax 415 (aka Akosoy 5715-00-77).

To recap, here is the information from the manufacturer:

Product label: partially hydrogenated soybean oil, USA, made with 100% domestic oils

Fatty acid composition (typical values per 100 g):

• Saturated fat 44 g
• trans fat 39.4 g
• Monounsaturated fat 16.6 g
• Polyunsaturated fat 0 g

FFA as oleic (%) o.15 max
Iodine value: 45-55

Useful research papers on hydrogenation of soybean oil:

List, G.R., M. Jackson, F. Ellen and R.O. Adolf. 2007. Low trans spread and shortening oils vis hydrogenation of soybean oil. J Amer Oil Chem Soc 84:609-612. Available here: https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/pubag/downloadPDF.xhtml?id=13944&content=PDF

Kummerow, F.A. 2013. The effects of hydrogenation on soybean oil. InTech Open, Chapter 15. It’s a long paper, but the important information is in Section 3. The paper is available here: https://www.intechopen.com/books/so...s/the-effects-of-hydrogenation-on-soybean-oil

And, this website:
History of Soy Oil Hydrogenation and of Research on the Safety of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils http://www.soyinfocenter.com/HSS/hydrogenation1.php

According to both research papers, the predominant trans fat in hydrogenated soybean oil (HSO) is elaidic acid (c18:1, n9). Based on Table 1 and Fig 1 in the List paper, the composition of HSO at an iodine value of 50 is 58% C18:1 (oleic and elaidic), 32% steric and 10% palmitic. (A more advanced analytical technique can resolve 14 different isomers similar to elaidic acid, but the standard technique classifies them as elaidic acid). As a reminder, the iodine value is a measure of the unsaturation of the fatty acids. Based on the numbers in the List paper, at an iodine value of 50, the saturated:unsaturated FAs are 42:58, which is quite close to 44:56 for GW 415 as given by the manufacturer.

Unhydrogenated soybean oil contains linoleic (50%) and linolenic (8%) FAs, but according to the manufacturer there are no polyunsaturated fats in GW 415. According to the soap calculators I checked, 27.5% hydrogenated soybean oil contains linoleic (7%) and linolenic (1%) and 100% olive oil has linoleic (12%) and linolenic (1%) FAs as well. As a result, they can’t be used to approximate the FA profile of GW 415 (I did try this approach). As listed in the calculators, 100% hydrogenated soybean contains no linoleic, linolenic or oleic FA, and has steric acid (87%) and palmitic acid (11%).

My new best approximation of the sat:unsat, iodine value and FA composition of partially hydrogenated soybean oil similar to Golden Wax 415 (aka Akosoy 5715-00-77) is based on using a combination of oleic acid and 100% hydrogenated soybean oil (soy wax). I end up with a bit too much steric and not enough palmitic, but that is less problematic than including linoleic and linolenic when they’re not there. With the inclusion of oleic acid, which has an NaOH SAP of .144 in SoapMakingFriend, the NaOH SAP for this mix of FAs is going to be a bit higher than any of the values I’ve seen in the calculators for soybean oil and the hydrogenated soybean oil choices (typically .135-.137).

Here it is!
ETA: now as an attachment.

I seem to recall that some GW 415 users were ending up with a relatively soft soap. I think this exercise suggests that a little more lye may be needed, but I think a more experienced soap maker should weigh in on that before anyone tries it.

ETA: a further exercise would be to use palmitic and steric acids instead of 100% hydrogenated soybean oil.
ETA: I did this for the next post.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

In addition to learning a lot about trans fats in the last few days, I’ve also read about their effects on humans. I was interested in Fred Kummerow, the author of one of the research papers I linked above, because it seems that he must have been quite old when he wrote the paper, based on the dates of of some of his earlier research he cited. I looked him up and learned that he died in 2017 at the age of 102 after working his entire career to get manmade hydrogenated trans fats eliminated from our diets. His interesting obituary highlights the very heavy resistance he encountered throughout much of his career, including heckling he had to endure when he presented his research at scientific conferences. Luckily for the extreme vegan soap makers, hydrogenated soybean oil is still available through candle making suppliers if not at the grocery store.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

Here is my latest approximation of the fatty acid profile for GW 415 using FAs in SoapMakingFriend. I’m happy enough with it to have hand calculated a soap recipe for my first batch with GW 415.

This approximation has these key features:

• FA profile is very close to the data given in the List research paper
• iodine value falls within the range given by the manufacturer
• sat:unsat matches the ratio given by the manufacturer

Based on the lye required at 0% superfat for 100g of oil, the SAP obtained using the FA approach is .144, which is similar to lard (.141), palm (.142) and tallow (.143). This SAP is higher than the SAPs in the calculator for unhydrogenated soybean oil, 27.5% hydrogenated and 100% hydrogenated, which are .135-.137. Using an NaOH SAP similar to unhydrogenated oil for 100% hydrogenated soybean oil and GW415 makes absolutely no sense to me given that they have no linoleic acid, while unhydrogenated soybean oil is loaded with it. If you think I’m off track here, please let me know.

One last thing to note is that for some reason the soap calculator would not give me a sat:unsat relationship of 44:56 without taking the palmitic + stearic down a hair and the oleic acid up a hair.

 

[KiwiMoose]

Good work Mobjack! You've cracked it! Some of this goes over my head, but I get the general gist of it all. What does this mean for me though when using a lye calculator, given that all lye calculators are using an incorrect SAP value? Should I just increase my lye percentage? Will all the online calculators change their calcs eventually to accommodate this information?
NB - I don't usually have a problem with soft soap, unless I use a lye percentage of 28 ( which I do sometimes), but even so, once fully cured it hardens up very well and by 6 months it's pretty much rock hard.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

@KiwiMoose I think it will be best to consider the higher SAP estimate as still in the experimental stage, with further testing needed unless the manufacturer is going to share the actual FA profile, or a chemist comes along and checks my interpretation of the technical info and my calculations. As I discuss below, it may not matter all that much because most are using GW 415 as a lowish percentage of fats, i.e. between 10% and 30%.

In practice, using a SAP that is too low for a fat results in a slightly greater SF than calculated. For example, for a recipe based on 1000 g of fat of which 20% is GW 415, the difference in lye amount needed using SAP .144 versus .136 is only 1.6 grams, based on the following :

200 g x .144 = 28.8 g of lye (0% SF)
200 g x .136 = 27.2 g of lye (0% SF)

That’s just slightly more than a 1% change if the recipe requires 140 g of lye. The easiest way to deal with the slight increase in SF introduced by using the lower SAP value would be to drop the SF a little (1%?).

I was staying away from soy wax mostly because of the uncertainty surrounding the FA profile and fear of DOS. If we believe the manufacturer, GW 415 does not contain linoleic and linolenic FAs. They are PUFAs and the spec sheet indicates 0% PUFAs. Combining the manufacturer’s specifications with the data provided in the research papers tells us that GW 415 very likely contains saturated FAs c18:0 (stearic) and c16:0 (palmitic) and unsaturated c18:1 FAs (combined oleic and elaidic) at a ratio of 44 (saturated) to 56 (unsaturated). Of the unhydrogenated fats we use, it is most similar to lard, palm and tallow based on FA profiles, except that the unhydrogenated fats all contain small amounts of PUFAs and sometimes short chain FAs as well.

With 5 lbs of GW 415 on hand, I have more than enough to make small batches of a recipe where the only intentional variable is the SAP used for GW415. But, that’s work when what we really want to do is make soap. One option would be to hand calculate a recipe using .144 and 5% superfat knowing that the actual SF could end up being a little lower if a SAP of .144 is a little too high. An easy and conservative approach to get closer to the SAP and FA profile I estimated would be to let lard (SAP .141) stand in for GW 415 in the calculator and perhaps adjust the SF down to 3 or 4% to account for the possibility of too little lye. (ETA: Relative to my estimate of a higher SAP for soy wax, not the SAP given by the calculators for soy wax) The FA profile won’t be spot on because lard contains 6% linoleic acid and the steric and palmitic percentages are a bit off, but IMHO it will be closer to a reasonable FA profile (and sat:unsat is close at 42:58) compared with using the existing hydrogenated soybean oil options*. At some point I can also try applying the method others have developed for subbing vegan options to replace tallow or lard. That would be based on using the last GW 415 approximation I did with stearic, palmitic and oleic FAs where the weight of GW 415 used in the recipe would equal the sum of stearic acid, palmitic acid and oleic acids used in the calculator.

*Note: At first glance, the 27.5% HSO option looks at least as good as lard as an FA stand in for GW 415, but the SAP is .137, the sat:unsat is 24:76, and the sum of the FAs, using both the SMF and SoapCalc calculators, is only 73%. The only explanation I can think of is that the FA profile does not include the trans fats from the hydrogenated fraction. The “missing” FAs are not accounted for in the final FA profile when using 27.5% HSO in a recipe.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

Over the last week, I made two batches of soap with 20% GW 415, but using lard and then beef tallow as a proxy for GW 415 in the soap calculator. The calculators return SAP values in the range of .135-.137 for hydrogenated soy bean oil, .141 for lard and .143 for beef tallow. Both of my recipes have just over 3% SF when accounting for additives. The interior of the loaf made using the lard SAP did not zap at 24 hrs. I just cut the soap made last night using the tallow SAP and it does not zap! Woo hoo! At the 18 hr mark, it popped right out of the little silicone mold and is not at all soft or sticky.

The results are encouraging and consistent with the information I used to arrive at .144 as the SAP value for GW 415. My next step will be to use oleic acid as the proxy (SAP .144).

 

[Mobjack Bay]

Seventeen hours after putting the soap in the mold, the small gelled loaf I made yesterday using oleic acid (SAP .144) as the proxy for GW 415 does not zap on any exterior or cut interior surface. The soap came out of the mold easily and is not sticky. I also made two small ungelled soaps that I left sitting open on the counter overnight. They popped right out of the molds, but are still just a tad soft. The one I cut one in half is slightly zappy in the middle at the 17 hr mark. I will test it again at 24 hrs. The saponification of the cold soap should be slower compared with the soap that gelled, so it doesn’t surprise me that it is a bit behind and still a little zappy.

Would anyone be willing try the higher SAP in a recipe? If so, I suggest making a small batch of whatever recipe you usually make with GW 415, but use SAP .144 for the soy wax by selecting oleic acid as the proxy in the soap calculator. If you don’t want to go that high, you can sub in a more conservative SAP by selecting lard (.141), palm (.142) or tallow (.143) as the proxy in the soap calculator.

Here is yesterday’s soap where SAP .144 was used for GW 415 and the soy wax was 20% of the recipe. This recipe adds small amounts of French green clay, Spirulina, and ground genmaicha tea. Interestingly, there is a bit of ash on the swirled top of the gelled loaf and almost none on the ungelled soaps.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

At the 24 hr mark the ungelled test soap is still zappy. Next test will be tomorrow morning, if I remember!

 

[Jackie Tobey]

Seventeen hours after putting the soap in the mold, the small gelled loaf I made yesterday using oleic acid (SAP .144) as the proxy for GW 415 does not zap on any exterior or cut interior surface. The soap came out of the mold easily and is not sticky. I also made two small ungelled soaps that I left sitting open on the counter overnight. They popped right out of the molds, but are still just a tad soft. The one I cut one in half is slightly zappy in the middle at the 17 hr mark. I will test it again at 24 hrs. The saponification of the cold soap should be slower compared with the soap that gelled, so it doesn’t surprise me that it is a bit behind and still a little zappy.

Would anyone be willing try the higher SAP in a recipe? If so, I suggest making a small batch of whatever recipe you usually make with GW 415, but use SAP .144 for the soy wax by selecting oleic acid as the proxy in the soap calculator. If you don’t want to go that high, you can sub in a more conservative SAP by selecting lard (.141), palm (.142) or tallow (.143) as the proxy in the soap calculator.

Here is yesterday’s soap where SAP .144 was used for GW 415 and the soy wax was 20% of the recipe. This recipe adds small amounts of French green clay, Spirulina, and ground genmaicha tea. Interestingly, there is a bit of ash on the swirled top of the gelled loaf and almost none on the ungelled soaps.

View attachment 42116

I would like to try the Oleic acid (SAP .144) with GW 415 at 20%. I usually use lard, tallow in my recipes but will try it without. Probably cocoa butter or some other butter as I like my Palmitic + Stearic around 37. I understand we have no real numbers for properties of GW 415, just the SAP. Is there a stearic number I can use when calculating my recipe out for the GW415 that will give me a close idea to its true Stearic number? I also plan to use NaOH/KOH 95/5 and 3% SF. And will attempt gelling on heating pad. Low on CO as I do not like my cleansing number > 12. I will not have time to do this until later in the week. But will be happy to share the final recipe and outcomes.

Thanks Mobjack Bay for all your hard work on the GW 415. I am following closely and appreciate all your effort.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

I would like to try the Oleic acid (SAP .144) with GW 415 at 20%. I usually use lard, tallow in my recipes but will try it without. Probably cocoa butter or some other butter as I like my Palmitic + Stearic around 37. I understand we have no real numbers for properties of GW 415, just the SAP. Is there a stearic number I can use when calculating my recipe out for the GW415 that will give me a close idea to its true Stearic number? I also plan to use NaOH/KOH 95/5 and 3% SF. And will attempt gelling on heating pad. Low on CO as I do not like my cleansing number > 12. I will not have time to do this until later in the week. But will be happy to share the final recipe and outcomes.

Thanks Mobjack Bay for all your hard work on the GW 415. I am following closely and appreciate all your effort.

My current best estimate of the fatty acid profile is in post #8. It accounts for 99% of the FAs, which I think may be due to rounding issues:

Palmitic - 10%
Stearic - 34%
Oleic - 55% (this is for the oleic and elaidic acids; elaidic acid, the trans fat, is also 18:1)

I just tried the calculation as follows:
1. I calculated the recipe, but used oleic acid at 20% of recipe as a placeholder (proxy) for a recipe with GW 415 at 20%.
2. I wrote down the weight needed of the GW 415 placeholder for the batch size. As an example, 200 g if the total oils = 1000 g
3. I added palmitic and stearic acids to the list of fats in the recipe.
4. I added/adjusted the weights for the estimated components of GW 415 as follows:
10% palmitic: 0.1 x 200 g = 20 g
34% stearic: 0.34 x 200 g = 68 g
55% oleic: 0.55 x 200 g = 110 g (it was 200g as a placeholder)

The total recipe is a wee bit short of 100% because I’ve only accounted for 99% of the FAs in the GW 415. You could up any of the oils a tiny bit to bring the total percentage to 100%.

I use 3% SF, but don’t use KOH so I don’t know if that will make a difference. I look forward to hearing about your results if you give it a try.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

Update on the ungelled test soap pictured in post #12, up in the right corner.

@ 40 hrs - possibly still a wee bit zappy, hard to tell (previously cut soap cut in half again)
@ 50 hrs - not tasting good, but not zappy (I cut the second 2 oz. bar in half for this test)

 

[KiwiMoose]

I would like to try the Oleic acid (SAP .144) with GW 415 at 20%. I usually use lard, tallow in my recipes but will try it without. Probably cocoa butter or some other butter as I like my Palmitic + Stearic around 37. I understand we have no real numbers for properties of GW 415, just the SAP. Is there a stearic number I can use when calculating my recipe out for the GW415 that will give me a close idea to its true Stearic number? I also plan to use NaOH/KOH 95/5 and 3% SF. And will attempt gelling on heating pad. Low on CO as I do not like my cleansing number > 12. I will not have time to do this until later in the week. But will be happy to share the final recipe and outcomes.

Thanks Mobjack Bay for all your hard work on the GW 415. I am following closely and appreciate all your effort.

I think you'll find that if you are using a combo of 20% SW, 20% OO and 20% RBO as I do, you'll have no problem hitting that palmitic/stearic number. Oh - I also use 10% Shea in mine which helps. Then the other soft oils.

 

[Jackie Tobey]

My current best estimate of the fatty acid profile is in post #8. It accounts for 99% of the FAs, which I think may be due to rounding issues:

Palmitic - 10%
Stearic - 34%
Oleic - 55% (this is for the oleic and elaidic acids; elaidic acid, the trans fat, is also 18:1)

I just tried the calculation as follows:
1. I calculated the recipe, but used oleic acid at 20% of recipe as a placeholder (proxy) for a recipe with GW 415 at 20%.
2. I wrote down the weight needed of the GW 415 placeholder for the batch size. As an example, 200 g if the total oils = 1000 g
3. I added palmitic and stearic acids to the list of fats in the recipe.
4. I added/adjusted the weights for the estimated components of GW 415 as follows:
10% palmitic: 0.1 x 200 g = 20 g
34% stearic: 0.34 x 200 g = 68 g
55% oleic: 0.55 x 200 g = 110 g (it was 200g as a placeholder)

The total recipe is a wee bit short of 100% because I’ve only accounted for 99% of the FAs in the GW 415. You could up any of the oils a tiny bit to bring the total percentage to 100%.

I use 3% SF, but don’t use KOH so I don’t know if that will make a difference. I look forward to hearing about your results if you give it a try.

So I worked on a recipe last night during some down time. I’m going to post these for your review to make sure I’m working this correctly. I noted that when I plug the GW415 amount in for Oleic Acid that my lye amount was the same as when I put it in separately in the oleic, Stearic, Palmitic to calculate the correct properties number. Is this because of such a small batch. I did look at the SAPs for each and noted the oleic and stearic are close. The palmitic being higher but for such a small amount it didn’t really make a difference. Then when I plugged them I. With a 30% of GW 415 the key started to increase. Am I looking at this correctly?

In addition I changed the recipe to using just NaOH instead of 95/5 of dual lye as I realized I wasn’t sure what the KOH SAP value should be for GE425. Did you mention this elsewhere? I’ll post the recipes below. Thanks.

 

[Jackie Tobey]

Here are the recipes. Thanks for looking at them.

 

[Mobjack Bay]

View attachment 42168 View attachment 42169
Here are the recipes. Thanks for looking at them.

Jackie - do you want the GW 415 to be 30% of the recipe? If so, you need to make the oleic acid 30% of the fats in the first version of the recipe and then divide it out into palmitic, steric and oleic. If you want to post the recipe the way you want it using oleic as the placeholder for the 30% GW 415, I will do the calculations so you can see how it works.