Your actives are fine. The carrier is the problem.

Judge it on four things rather than on marketing language. First, the size class: delivery behaviour changes below roughly 200 nm, and a credible supplier publishes a design target and characterises against it. Second, whether the structure is engineered before the product is made rather than produced by whatever mixing the factory happens to do. Third, whether it is measured, by dynamic light scattering, on every batch rather than once at launch. Fourth, whether the carrier can hold more than one kind of active at the same time. NanoBase™ is built to that specification: a tri-domain architecture engineered to a ~185 nm design target and DLS-characterised each batch.

Most formulas are emulsions built on HLB, a 1949 surfactant framework designed to keep oil and water together in a jar. HLB sets an emulsifier target for shelf stability and does not specify particle size, surface charge or colloidal structure. Brands that want those properties specified choose a base designed to them.

Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance is a classification method for surfactants published by William Griffin in 1949. It is a good tool for the job it was written for, which is predicting whether an oil and water mixture will stay combined on the shelf. It is not a delivery framework. It does not describe particle size distribution, surface charge, or how an active partitions once the product is on skin, so a formula designed only to an HLB number is designed for shelf stability and nothing else.

Three environments coexisting in one Architecture rather than one: a nanocolloidal domain, a liposomal domain, and a nanomicellar domain. Ingredients partition between them according to their oil and water affinity, expressed as logP. A single-domain carrier forces every active into the same environment, which is why oil-loving and water-loving actives usually cannot be carried well in the same product. Three domains remove that trade-off.

Not automatically, and the distinction matters. Regulatory definitions of a cosmetic nanomaterial turn on intentionally manufactured, insoluble or persistent particles with at least one dimension in the 1-100 nm range. A carrier engineered to a ~185 nm design target, using organised nanostructured domains rather than persistent nanoparticles, sits outside that definition. NanoBase™ is not classified as a cosmetic nanomaterial under current FDA, EU or ISO cosmetic definitions, so a finished product built on it carries no nano-labelling obligation on that basis. Confirm against the requirements of each market you sell into.

Only if the nano structure has to be created on the production line. If the architecture is engineered and characterised upstream and supplied as a finished raw material, the brand completes the formula with the standard cosmetic equipment it already uses. No nano-processing equipment, no particle-size instrumentation, no specialist tech transfer. That is the difference between buying a finished nano-colloidal Architecture and building a nanotechnology line.

NanoBase™ makes no delivery or performance claim of its own; the brand that completes a finished formula substantiates that formula's claims. Smaller is not automatically better: below about 100 nm a material starts meeting regulatory definitions of an intentionally manufactured nanomaterial, with the labelling that brings. NanoBase™ itself is a cosmetic raw material designed to an electrostatic (DLVO) stabilisation specification, with a ~185 nm design target, DLS-characterised every batch. Ask any supplier for their target and for the method they verify it with.

Ask three questions. What is the stated size target, as a number? What instrument verifies it, and is it run on every batch or once? And is the distribution released against a defined signature rather than a single averaged figure? A supplier who answers all three is describing something they measure. A supplier who answers in adjectives is describing something they hope for.

Yes, if the architecture ships as a finished raw material. The capital cost in nanotechnology is the equipment, the instrumentation and the people to run them, and all of that sits upstream with the supplier. A new brand buys the finished architecture, formulates on top of it, and manufactures at any qualified contract manufacturer. Pensive Beauty® designs the formula and delivers an 8 to 14 page executive summary free for qualifying new brands, on every product rather than only the first. Bench formulation, materials and stability work are quoted separately.

It depends entirely on the agreement, and it is the question most worth asking early. Many private-label arrangements keep the formula with the lab, which means the brand cannot move production or negotiate. The alternative is that the brand owns the formula and the safety data sheet outright and can manufacture with any qualified contract manufacturer. Ask for that in writing before development starts.

They are three different carrier structures. A nanocolloid is oil-phase material dispersed in water at nanoscale, suited to oil-soluble material. A liposome is a phospholipid bilayer around an aqueous interior, suited to amphiphilic and bilayer-associating material. A micelle is a surfactant assembly that solubilises material which will dissolve in neither phase alone. Most systems use one. Carrying all three at once is what allows a single formula to hold actives that would otherwise be incompatible.