Click here to visit the Beauty Brains blog.
Welcome to the new Forum. Please feel free to start a new discussion.
Cocamide MEA/DEA
  • jules
    I hear that it's probably a good idea to avoid shampoos that have this in... is it because it's drying/damaging to hair? Will it damage the cuticle? Is it as bad as the ammonium lauryl type of surfactants (i know they don't do the same job)? What are cocamide MEA's equivalents that are less drying?
  • Dreniva
    It is not damaging because most of shampoos have a low levels of this surfactant and it is rarely used as a main surfactant.
  • jules
    Right, so it's a cationic surfactant. But how does it compare in harshness to Sodium Lauryl Sulfate/Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate? And when it's used in shampoos how much is usually used, like for example the "Gentle cleansing" Simple Shampoo?
    And also, when Cocamide MEA is added to a shampoo using gentle/milder surfactants, does it negate all the mildness of that shampoo? Why is this cationic surfactant used anyway? Is it because it's cheap and foams easily?
    Thanks for all your help.

    Also, I read somewhere that Cocamdopropyl Betaine has started to replace Cocamide DEA - why is this? Is CB less harsh than CD?
  • Left BrainLeft Brain
    Cocamide MEA is actually a non-ionic surfactant.  It is generally less harsh than SLS or ALS.
    See this Cocamide MEA
    In a shampoo, you typically would use about 1-2% or less. 
    It will not negate the mildness and would more likely make the formula more mild.
    Cocamide MEA is not a good foamer itself but it does help boost the foam of the SLS or ALS.  It makes the foam feel creamier and gives smaller/tigheter packed bubbles.
    Betaine was used as a replacement for Cocamide DEA specifically because it is a good foam booster and viscosity (thickness) control agent.  DEA is a bit better but about 10 years ago a report came out suggesting that one of the bi-products from the production of DEA was carcinogenic to rats.  This scared all the big shampoo manufacturers into removing DEA from their formulas.  It was probably never a problem but cosmetic manufacturers are very reactionary.  Since they were able to find a replacement, they went with it.
Add a Comment