Any idea how one would find out if the unsaponified matter of specific oils/waxes (e.g. jojoba or hemp oil) is of actual value (moisturization, conditioning, vitamins, texture, etc.) or provides no benefits?
The unsaponifiable matter of this jojoba is listed at 46.4% (http://www.gracefruit.com/butters-oils-and-waxes/liquid-oils/jojoba-oil.html)
Basically:
Jojoba "oil" reportedly has skin-loving properties. Would saponified jojoba keep said properties? Would they come from the saponified portion, or from the unsaponifiable matter? Commercial soapers (Bronners?) probably employ a filtering phase and remove unsaponifiables alltogether (in this case that would mean 50% of the jojoba gets tossed) - would a filtered soap have any of the before mentioned properties?
Contributions to lather/cleansing etc are obviously a different story as they most certainly come from the saponified portion.
...Much the same, commercial beer filtering phases remove many substances from the beer, sacrificing them in exchange for clarity. Craft beer sellers do not filter the beer, claiming better taste and quality in exchange for cloudyness.
Edit: More questions:
Im wondering if there is a difference between superfatting before and after saponification in HP/LS:
1.Presumably, if SF-ing after saponification, the SF matter stays, chemically speaking, an oil (some mono, some di, but mostly triglicerydes+glycerol).
2. Do the mono/di/triglyceride+glycerol bonds get trashed (yes, my terminology is awesome), if SF is done at the very start of the processes, despite not being enough alkali to ultimately saponify them, leaving us with a different kind of superfat (free fatty acids+glycerin)?
If so, which would be more desirable?
As a practical example of the possible difference im talking about: if you 3% SF a LS from start, clarity and an all around normal soap is expected. But if you made a 0% LS and dumped 3% oil on top of it, you'd probably get floating oil on top, and a 0% SF LS below. Talking out of my arse, but it seems that the SF from point 2. is more readily emulsified and has different qualities than the original oil.
The unsaponifiable matter of this jojoba is listed at 46.4% (http://www.gracefruit.com/butters-oils-and-waxes/liquid-oils/jojoba-oil.html)
Basically:
Jojoba "oil" reportedly has skin-loving properties. Would saponified jojoba keep said properties? Would they come from the saponified portion, or from the unsaponifiable matter? Commercial soapers (Bronners?) probably employ a filtering phase and remove unsaponifiables alltogether (in this case that would mean 50% of the jojoba gets tossed) - would a filtered soap have any of the before mentioned properties?
Contributions to lather/cleansing etc are obviously a different story as they most certainly come from the saponified portion.
...Much the same, commercial beer filtering phases remove many substances from the beer, sacrificing them in exchange for clarity. Craft beer sellers do not filter the beer, claiming better taste and quality in exchange for cloudyness.
Edit: More questions:
Im wondering if there is a difference between superfatting before and after saponification in HP/LS:
1.Presumably, if SF-ing after saponification, the SF matter stays, chemically speaking, an oil (some mono, some di, but mostly triglicerydes+glycerol).
2. Do the mono/di/triglyceride+glycerol bonds get trashed (yes, my terminology is awesome), if SF is done at the very start of the processes, despite not being enough alkali to ultimately saponify them, leaving us with a different kind of superfat (free fatty acids+glycerin)?
If so, which would be more desirable?
As a practical example of the possible difference im talking about: if you 3% SF a LS from start, clarity and an all around normal soap is expected. But if you made a 0% LS and dumped 3% oil on top of it, you'd probably get floating oil on top, and a 0% SF LS below. Talking out of my arse, but it seems that the SF from point 2. is more readily emulsified and has different qualities than the original oil.
Last edited:
