Comparison of Betaine and Sultaine: Two Popular Surfactants in the Personal Care Industry; Amphonil CF+ or Amphonil CAS

Comparison of Betaine and Sultaine: Which Surfactant Is Better for Your Formulation?

Cocamidopropyl Betaine (CAPB), also known as Amphonill CF+, and Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine, known as Amphonil CAS, are two widely used surfactants that serve as key raw materials in cleansing formulations. When comparing betaine and sultaine, Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine is generally recognized as milder and more skin-compatible than Cocamidopropyl Betaine. For this reason, it is often used in products formulated for sensitive skin or those labeled as “mild” and “non-irritating.”

Both ingredients are derived from coconut oil and play effective roles in cleansing and enhancing foam. However, there are key differences between the two compounds that should be considered when comparing betaine and sultaine.

Sultaines are less well-known than betaines. According to data from the Global New Products Database (GNPD) by Mintel, between January 2018 and September 2021, approximately 60,000 products containing Cocamidopropyl Betaine were added to the database, while only about 2,000 products containing Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine were registered during the same period.

Padideh Shimi Jam, a knowledge-based company in Iran, produces chemical raw materials, including betaine and Cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine.

Performance Comparison Between Betaine and Sultaine

Both Cocamidopropyl Betaine (Amphonil CF+) and Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine (Amphonil CAS) are mild surfactants known for their gentle interaction with skin and hair. However, when comparing betaine and sultaine, Amphonil CAS is the preferred choice for products that require rich foam and enhanced moisturization, due to its superior foaming ability, foam stabilization, and conditioning properties.

Sultaines and betaines exhibit similar performance characteristics as ingredients in personal care formulations. Both contribute to foam stability and help lower the critical micelle concentration (CMC) in formulations containing anionic surfactants. This reduction in CMC directly decreases the irritation potential of the primary surfactants, which is a key reason these ingredients are commonly used in mild cleansing products.

To better compare betaine and sultaine in terms of their functional properties, basic evaluations have been conducted and are discussed in the following sections.

Compatibility of Cocamidopropyl Betaine and Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine

In personal care formulations, the compatibility of surfactants with other ingredients is a crucial consideration. Cocamidopropyl Betaine is renowned for its excellent compatibility with a wide range of surfactants and additives, making it a versatile and widely used ingredient in many formulations. Conversely, Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine, due to its unique chemical structure, may exhibit certain compatibility limitations with some materials; however, it remains stable across a broad pH range. This distinction is important when comparing betaine and sultaine.

Skin Sensitivity: Amphonil CAS vs. Amphonil CF+

Both Amphonil CAS and Amphonil CF+ are recognized as mild surfactants suitable for sensitive skin. However, when comparing betaine and sultaine, some individuals may experience sensitivity to Amphonil CF+ due to a higher likelihood of allergic reactions. In contrast, Amphonil CAS generally has a lower potential for skin irritation and is often recommended for people with sensitive skin.

Additionally, sultaines have demonstrated a lower potential for eye irritation compared to betaines, which is a distinct advantage in formulations where sultaine is used as the sole or primary surfactant at higher concentrations.

Environmental Impact of Sultanes and Betaines

Environmental considerations are becoming increasingly important when selecting surfactants for personal care products. Cocamidopropyl Betaine is biodegradable and is widely regarded as environmentally friendly.

However, certain formulations of Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine may contain components that are less environmentally friendly. Therefore, when comparing betaine and sultaine for use in product formulations, it is essential to carefully evaluate the environmental sustainability and compatibility of each ingredient.

Consumer Appeal and Marketability

The superior performance of sultaines compared to betaines, combined with their sustainable production, underscores the potential of sultaines as a viable alternative to betaines. Additionally, sultaines provide distinct benefits that are particularly appealing to today’s consumers. Some of these advantages are outlined below:

Betaine vs. Sultaine in Consumer Safety Ratings

Some formulators rely on the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and its Skin Deep rating system to evaluate ingredient safety and consumer appeal. The EWG also offers the EWG Verified label for select products available on platforms such as Amazon, helping to increase consumer awareness of product safety and ingredient transparency.

In summary, the Skin Deep database evaluates ingredients across 17 broad hazard categories using available scientific data. Based on the weight of evidence, each ingredient is assigned a final score ranging from 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the highest level of concern.

According to the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Skin Deep database:

Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine has a score of 1, indicating a very low hazard level.
Cocamidopropyl Betaine can achieve a score of up to 5, depending on its concentration and formulation.
With a score of 1, Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine ranks among the safest personal care ingredients—comparable to coconut oil itself. This gives sultaines a competitive advantage in the betaine versus sultaine comparison.

OECD and EU Compliance

Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine has been evaluated according to the OECD 301D test guideline and, similar to betaines, is classified as readily biodegradable, making it an environmentally friendly ingredient. Additionally, Annex III of the EU Cosmetics Regulation imposes no restrictions on the use of either sultaines or betaines, further confirming the safety and sustainability of both substances.

Conclusion

Cocamidopropyl Betaine and Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine are both mild amphoteric surfactants commonly used in personal care products. The primary differences between them include their chemical structures, foam-boosting capabilities, irritancy potential, and compatibility with other ingredients.

Cocamidopropyl Betaine (Amphonil CF+) is a cost-effective, highly compatible, and well-established ingredient, making it a versatile and reliable choice for many formulations.

Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine (Amphonil CAS), known for its superior mildness and enhanced safety profile, is better suited for specialized or sensitive skin formulations.

The choice between these two depends on formulation requirements, product type, and target market. It is also essential to consider the environmental impact and regulatory guidelines in each region to ensure the safe and effective use of these ingredients.

FAQs

What is the main difference between Amphonil CF+ and Amphonil CAS? Amphonil CAS is milder, more suitable for sensitive skin, and provides better foam performance. Amphonil CF+ is more widely compatible and more cost-effective.
Which is more environmentally friendly: betaine or sultaine? Both are biodegradable; however, Cocamidopropyl betaine is more commonly used and has been more extensively evaluated for environmental safety.
Why is betaine used more often despite sultaine being milder? Because betaine is less expensive, more compatible with a wider range of ingredients, and has a longer track record of safe use in formulations.

References:

https://thisvsthat.io/cocamidopropyl-betaine-vs-cocamidopropyl-hydroxysultaine

https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredients/701523-cocamidopropyl-hydroxysultaine/

https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredients/701520-cocamidopropyl-betaine/