# Bubble bath



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

Is there any type of bubble bath that is safe for little girls? When I babysat as a kid every little gilr had some sort of allergic reaction to Mr. bubble so that I know is out. Do they make safe gently ones thses days?


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

I reacted to mr. bubble too when I was a girl.

Know what I use? Dish soap!


----------



## steff (Apr 7, 2004)

My daughter so far, reacts to all bubble baths that I have tried.

I use Johnsons baby shampoo. The bubbles don't last as long but it still works. I just tell her the bubbles are done playing, when they run out.

Steff


----------



## EmeraldStar8 (Nov 12, 2002)

I agree with the dish, mum suggested that when my little one was little.


----------



## steff (Apr 7, 2004)

Dish soap? Never thought of that. That won't hurt them any where.

Steff


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Compared to some bath soaps, dish soap is cheap. And a lot of them are wonderful smelling as well. Bubble bath stuff just doesn't seem to bubble up as much either.

mmm.. bubble bath...


----------



## dreadmama (Jan 8, 2004)

Healthy Times makes a lovely line of baby herbal bubble baths, shampoos, and conditioners. They are very gentle, nice smelling but not overpowering, and much cheaper than California Baby.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hipumpkins* 
Is there any type of bubble bath that is safe for little girls? When I babysat as a kid every little gilr had some sort of allergic reaction to Mr. bubble so that I know is out. Do they make safe gently ones thses days?

The thread is 3 years stale, but just in case someone else searches, I'll add this note. I invented (US pat. 5,336,446) a formula for exactly the problem of urogenital irrit'n from bubble baths or soaps in gen'l. It even makes denser, more lathery foam than existing formulas, and costs only slightly more than average to make (and less than the ingredients in some fancy formulas like California Baby has used). In invented it for a friend's children, as you can read about at the link I supplied above.

So why has every company I approached turned down my formula for their products? I've been hoping to get a groundswell going for it for years. I've only gotten serious interest from very small fish who haven't succeeded in the business themselves, and I've no interest in going into the soap business myself just to get this one formula out there.

I'm also trying to get it used for foam dancing (foam parties), or for anything else, really. It's just so frustrating for me to be reading for years questions like hipumpkins's and having the answer, but not having a product in the stores.

Robert


----------



## APmom2Libby (Mar 18, 2006)

We use the California Baby Bubble bath and my dd has never had a reaction to it.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamid* 
I reacted to mr. bubble too when I was a girl.

Know what I use? Dish soap!

As a general rule, dish detergent isn't going to give you a less irritating product than bath products will, and on average will be even more irritating for a given amount of foam. Not only that, but the ultras, possibly because of their high alcohol content (necessary to keep that amount of cleaners dissolved in a bottle that small), tend to make bubbles that break faster than their non-ultra predecessors. Plus, the makers of hand dish detergents have finally convinced users they don't need such a heap of suds in the sink, and that lower suds will rinse a little faster. Thru the 1970s, hand dish detergents were very cost effective bubble baths, but not so good now.

Probably the best major dish detergent formula to use as bath foam was Ivory Liquid ("Gentle White Detergent", the one for dishes) during the late 1980s when they were using the Bissett & Mao patent. It was basically ether sulfate, palmitamidopropyl (cetamidopropyl) betaine, and amine oxide. Among formulas based on alkyl or ether sulfates, that was about as mild as it gets, as well as sudsy. The palmitamidopropyl betaine was found to smooth flaky skin in tests on humans and on dandruffy pigs! Consumer's Union also found it to be among the better products to use as hair shampoo. But the betaine may have been too expensive for them to keep using, so today's Ivory Dishwashing Liquid is neither as foamy nor as nice for skin & hair.

Many dish detergents still use dodecylbenzene sulfonate, which is one of the more irritating anionic surfactants. Also one of the more irritating household detergents to use as bath foam, and this may surprise you, is Dr. Bronner's liquid (or anybody else's) soap. Put enough of it in your bath to make it sudsy (and that may take a lot, depending on your water's mineral content) and it'll be more irritating than most suds would be. And strangely enough, some of the dishwashing products labeled as being for sensitive skin are more irritating than some of the ones with regular labeling. There also seems to be a trend back toward the direct alkyl sulfates (like SLS) and away from the gentler ethoxylates (which also tended to make bigger, though not necessarily more, bubbles, and work better in "hard" water), maybe partly as a result of the dioxane scare.

As a byproduct of the 30+ years old cosmetics ingredient labeling statute in the USA, you can now see the ingredients of particular dish detergents if they make a cosmetic claim -- such as the ones that claim skin condition improvement or that recommend use as "hand soap" (which are almost always ones claiming "antibacterial" when used for hand washing). Then you can take advantage of the fact that they'll be trying to keep their mfg. costs down, and just assume that the other version of their product (without the "antibacterial hand soap" claim and hence without specific ingredient disclosure) is exactly the same but missing the triclosan. In some cases they'll list patent numbers, but frequently the patent claims are broad enough that you may not get too close an idea of their ingredients. Anyway, compare to other sudsy household products such as shampoo and bath foams, and you may be either pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised.

Robert


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

Wow ! robert you sure know your stuff..and your bubbles








My DD is 4 1/2 now and she doesn't even liike bubble baths anymore. I did use dish soap a couple of times and it gave great bubbles but it really dried out her skin so I stopped. I added some extra baby shampoo now and then until she totally soured on the idea of bubbles b/c she can't see her toys and the soap gets in her eyes and even baby soap burns it.

Good lukc with getting your product to market...I will tell you this; if you get it out there and I try it and love it I am great advertisement. I am one of those people that tells everybody about the great...whatever I jsut found.
So keep us updated!!


----------



## being (Jul 31, 2005)

We've used Aveeno Baby Wash & Shampoo w/ no ill effects..
used dishsoap once -proved irritating to our dd.


----------



## Maluhia (Jun 24, 2007)

we've used California Baby - but the Bubbles don't last TOO long - but by then she's on to pouring water around so it seems to work for us.

Good luck on your new bubble stuff Mr. Goodman!

Kulia


----------



## rere (Apr 21, 2005)

I use bath gel made by JASON.It bubbles up really well.And doesn't irritate.


----------



## bunnybartlett (Aug 27, 2002)

Mr bubble in the white bottle.Fragrance and dye free!!


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KailuaMamatoMaya* 
we've used California Baby - but the Bubbles don't last TOO long - but by then she's on to pouring water around so it seems to work for us.

Good luck on your new bubble stuff Mr. Goodman!

Thanks. I learned something that may work to my advantage today. If someone were to bottle my stuff *just as is* and label it as to ingredients, while California Baby rates a 2 on the Environmental Working Group's safety concerns scale, this would actually beat it with 0. It works like that because of the interplay of cosmetic labeling requirements in the USA and the EWG's very mechanical way of coming up with their ratings.

A lot of the things that "score" on EWG's safety concerns scale are preservatives and fragrances. Well, my stuff doesn't have fragrance (it just smells soapy). But the surfactants in it are preserved. Because those ingredients are just sold by their name, however, the preservatives that come with them are considered incidental and don't have to be listed on the label of the finished product. However, most manufacturers of liquid products based on surfactants (such as California Baby) add water and other stuff, so they have to add additional preservative, which then would show up on the label and hence produce a score in EWG's safety concerns.

I also seem to benefit from the "no news is good news" aspect of EWG's method. My mixture uses lauramidopropyl betaine, which rates 0, while other products use the similar (but less bubbly & slightly cheaper) cocamidopropyl betaine, which shows up as a 2 in the safety concerns, probably just because it's used more so it's been studied more. No reason to think they'd differ in safety, and EWG just chalks that up in the "data gap" column, where the percentages are IMO unrealistically high anyway. Similarly with the sulfosuccinate esters I use (rating 0) instead of the ether sulfates some others use (rating 1), although there I have to say the sulfosuccinates are milder too.

I'm using the example of my mixture here because I'm familiar with it, to illustrate the problem with a superficial but seemingly authoritative rating system like EWG's. (I'm sure California Baby's mixture is safe too; I have some of their earlier version around here, when they were using a strategy closer to mine of avoiding fancy ingredients.) I have the same problem with organizations that try to rate political candidates objectively according to mechanical criteria. Nice try, but not a substitute with real familiarity and judgement, which is necessarily subjective.

hipumpkins wrote:

Quote:

she totally soured on the idea of bubbles b/c she can't see her toys
Yep, can't please all children. The denser, more soap-lather-like you make the foam (better to play with but also more opaque), the more it blocks their view of their toys, not the first time I've heard that complaint.

Robert


----------

