-
DMDM Hydantoin and FREE Formaldehyde
@Abdullah had asked about DMDM Hydantoin quite a few times in separate posts! I got excited!
I have been using only DMDM Hydantoin as my best preservative. I love poisons and synthetics that actually work and cost significantly less than natural&organic nonsense! Problem is I have been blindly using 55% DMDM Hydantoin! Whatever it is, it is 3300 ppm! 3300 ppm is the maximum use being advertised, recommended, and advised nearly everywhere.@PhilGeis Since you know the numbers (amount of free Formaldehyde) via analytical method, I wager you cannot tell me the calculation. You wrote different numbers as to free Formaldehyde’s concentration, albeit DMDM Hydantoin use level is the same.
2000-2500 ppm usually gave < 500 ppm free formaldehyde
~2500 ppm - 100-200 ppm “free” formaldehyde
After digging some data from the Internet University and based on what you wrote, I realise something is (somehow) oddly ‘consistent’. To ‘roughly’ know the amount of free Formaldehyde is to divide the amount of DMDM Hydantoin by 10. (Despite of vastness of the Internet, not a single site nor page shows the calculation.)
≈2000 ppm DMDM Hydantoin = ≈200 ppm free Formaldehyde
≈2500 ppm DMDM Hydantoin = ≈250 ppm free Formaldehyde
Is that right?
You do not go above 2500 ppm because there is no guarantee that free Formaldehyde will stay below 0.05% of free Formaldehyde, hence escape from the need of “contains formaldehyde” label. Yes?
To confuse myself more, here you wrote “Formaldehyde releasers maintain 100-200 ppm formaldehyde - an effective level with or without bacteria”. (I coincidentally read an article about this. I cannot dig it back!) What I understood is free Formaldehyde concentration is predictably consistent or consistently predictable, which also means free formaldehyde could be calculated to getting an estimation even if it is not precise let alone accurate. If this is true that free Formaldehyde does not fluctuate too much from a certain number/concentration, then I could literally use 4500 pmm DMDM Hydantoin (≈450 ppm free Formaldehyde) and still stay well below that 0.05% free Formaldehyde labelling. Am I correct? Does it even work like this? Hahahaha! If this is the case, you stick to ≈2500-2000 ppm purely due to avoiding any possible skin issues?
This knowledge really could help me tremendously because I have Urea in my concoction. There is certainly no way that I can use Sodium Benzoate as antifungal agent, because Urea is most stable at pH ≈6.2. I could use Germal Plus but it is expensive over here. DMDM Hydantoin is said to be an all-rounder, it can even be fungicide instead of fungistatic if used high enough level. Yes, I know, that is manufacturer’s marketing, cannot put too much trust on manufacturers’ claims and data. This is the reason why I join this community with real people doing real chemistry so that I get valid answers to actual science. Definitely marvelous should DMDM Hydantoin be used at high enough level acting as biocide while staying below 500 ppm free Formaldehyde.
-
12 Replies
-
Free formaldehyde is somewhat formula dependent.
I’ve used 2500-2000 because it worked and was compliant in the formulas I addressed. We were aware of and controlled ingredient that impacted both efficacy and free formaldehyde -
I think Sodium hydroxymethylglycinate has better anti fungal activity too.
-
Hmm. I thought the active killer and inhibitor is (free) Formaldehyde itself, and if Formalin is not good as fungicide, no formaldehyde-donor will be good as fungicide.
Maybe Sodium Hydroxymethylglycinate is indeed better than DMDM Hydantoin overall only because Sodium Hydroxymethylglycinate produces more free Formaldehyde than DMDM Hydantoin at the same given time.
Nothing much about Sodium Hydroxymethylglycinate on the Internet compared to DMDM Hydantoin. Maybe you did some tests that you know it has better anti-fungal activity than DMDM Hydantoin. (I am making blind assumptions)
This is something like the comparison among humectants I commonly read in this community. Some people are rich enough to follow marketing. Some people are rich enough to try each and every ‘humectant’. It is all about how much one can afford to buy and a competition rather than focusing on the purpose of a humectant. They “forgot” what a humectant is for. They want superb humectant. They want superb feel as soon as they obtain superb humectant. Because there is no one chemical that has perfect characteristics, they keep adding more and more stuff to mitigate each chemical’s disadvantage/s to the point they do not know which actually works.
They rather start with problem-full stuff only to fix it. Same weirdness applies to people wanting a lot of ‘healthy/miraculous’ oil in a product only to add a lot of stuff to make it dry. Solving one issue by creating a new issue. Creating a new issue in order to solve an issue. Nothing is resolved. Vicious cycle. Endless dissatisfaction.
What they actually want is nanobots. Nanobots can be programmed to release an exact amount of something at the exact timing and stop exactly when they detect a certain concentration of that something is reached. Otherwise, unless it is marketing, “smart” chemical does not exist in this universe, or universes for that matter.
I am directing towards DIYers. Unless a DIYers have too much money to waste or are funded by other people, it is not fun doing what businesspeople do. Businesspeople get their money back by selling what they make even if something is less-than-perfect because what truly sells is the claims and stories. DIYers will suffer tremendously financially should they follow that trend. Few of them told me that they are profiting whatever they make. Getting a bit of money back, to them, is considered “profit” even when they are perpetually at a lost. They are literally doing charity.
-
@Cst4Ms4Tmps4
Not sure where you got your profile of “businesspeople”. Business models for P&G, Unilever, L’Oreal; Estee are not to sell less-than-perfect. Whereas claims range from puffery to validated, the elements under direct control - package design, preservation, safety, consistent/accurate production, stability, supply, even case stacking on pallets are executed in a prescribed manner for cost-sensitive efficiency.
Agree dyi-er’s will go broke for costs of safety testing alone. If there is less-than-perfect -the 1st place to look is dyi. -
I love the DIYers and encourage them to test and experiment and make their own products. They may actually be able to create a product they like better than anything they can buy.
However, too many are given empty promises about what they can actually accomplish. For the most part a DIYer will not be able to make a product that works as well as the best products made by big companies. They also will not be able to make the product for less money than it would cost to just buy a finished product.
The most likely result is creating more expensive products that don’t work as well (for most people).
It’s not surprising in the least that the vast majority do not make any money at it.
The biggest reason for that is because marketing sells beauty products. If you are a DIYer and want to start your own beauty line, focusing your efforts on making a great formula is a waste of time. You only need to make a formula that is “good enough”. Consumers are just not very good at noticing the difference between a brilliantly formulated product and one that is good enough. Put your efforts into learning marketing if you want to have your own product line.
-
@Cst4Ms4Tmps4 it is according to suppliers data
It may not be and effective antifungal alone but it is better than DMDM hydantoin according to them.
-
If Hydroxymethylglycinate has some antifungal efficacy, it’s not due to greater formaldehyde release. Glycinate derivatives can have chelation potential and fungi are more sensitive to chealtors than bacteria.
I’d still use an antifungal. -
What I will share is strictly not for you. It is all noise to you. It is just that your style of post and response reminds me of my over 17 years of combatting fantastical beliefs and convincers which seemingly realistic, rationally, and logical.
1. Fake physicist explaining good science.
https://youtu.be/C91gKuxutTU (Stand-up comedy routine about bad science)To make matters worse, two physicists and one mathematician are comedians! Never trust comedians making fun of serious stuff!
2. There is no such thing as false dichotomy or illusion of choice in life. Convert -> subjugate -> slay.
3. Does not matter pseudo-science, junk-science, non-science, non-sense. Something is legitimate as long as something sounds science-y.
4. ‘Business model’ is DEFINITELY NOT brand loyalty and DEFINITELY NOT profit. Even fraudsters/defrauder have been using such meaningfool language since ancient time.
Solicitor/lawyer/attorney scam is not a thing.
Daylight robbery is actually legitimate as long as nobody sees, knows, catches, complains.
5. Any and all, each and every business never defrauds because it is a customer’s willingness paying for something. Therefore all blames go to customers and purely customers.6. P-hacking and lying with numbers. Numbers never tell lies.
https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q (Is Most Published Research Wrong?)
https://youtu.be/1tSqSMOyNFE (How We’re Fooled By Statistics)https://youtu.be/eqrv-Lq4a5E (P-Hacking Explained)
https://youtu.be/u_jxEpQsOfI (Dropping Conditions that “Work”)
https://youtu.be/jiXmVjJTSmM (Multiple Measures Misuse)
https://youtu.be/kGM2jT60SiE (Covariate Misuse)
https://youtu.be/qO57DH8gG9Q (Selective Stopping Rules)
https://youtu.be/faOGQxtNlYg (P-Curve)One is a physicist, and the other is associate professor of marketing.
Never appeal to authority. You should seek a genuine homeless person for all your financial and hygiene needs. Seek a humble carpenter if you need dental treatment or heart bypass procedure.
7. Comparisons among products and ingredients must be as vague, ambiguous, and evasive as the way some of us say or write. You see plenty like these in brochures/leaflets/product sheet.
8. The first principle is that you must fool yourself, because you are the best person to fool.
9. Every customer knows nothing about formulation nor business.
On the flip side, every chemist in a business knows what he or she is doing even when they do not do chemistry by merely following manufacturers’ data. Big companies have R&D spending millions of dollars annually making extremely good products by changing packaging and rewording (and rebranding) with the same content and same practices.
Change only a few molecules with pinpoint marketing accuracy. Consumers are stupid anyway, and they do not have equipment to know.
10. You can fool all humans all the time, and you can fool God anytime.
11. The problem with the world is the intelligent is cocksure, and the stupid is full of doubt.
12. Intellectual dishonestly is a human construct. Time is not a human construct. Ask any honest mathematicians, they have the numerical power to prove or disprove everything in every universe.
13. If facts do not fit opinion, change facts.
Modify law or theory to fit hypothesis, if hypothesis is wrong.
Count the hits, ignore the misses.14. If something is working well enough, conventional wisdom states you should basically change nothing, but pretend like you change a lot. Add or minus even one molecule of something is a big thing with the help of beautifool language. Customers are stupid and have no equipment to know the truth anyway.
15. Change nothing as long as no one complains. Fortunately, no one business gets a single complaint or lawsuit to date, because no one business sells less-than-perfect.
16. The heart of any businesses is to rationalise in order to justify everything. Shift the goalpost on end.
17. Rationality, logic, and skepticism are a poison to the profit of businesses of any sorts. Keep customers in the dark, the more stupid they are, the more money can be sucked out from them.
18. There is something for everyone is fake. Desperate people never exist. No stupid is born every minute. Barnum-Forer Effect is as marvellous as Puss-in-Boots and Cinderella.
19. One of the best practices is reject evidence or proof that are given to you, and you endlessly demand for proof or evidence. Keep moving the goal post when proof or evidence is presented to you. Your proof to others is not as important as proof from others to you.
20. Deny and distort what you have said and yet to say. Throw in “You take/quote it out of context”. Throw in some philosophical fallacy labels and (immature) psychological defence mechanism whenever you feel attacked, threatened, misunderstood, disapproved, disagreed.
21. Giving silent treatment or smart retort believing that all people are a troll, passive aggressive, waste or your time, or other things is your personal choice which may or may not exist only in your own mind and not outside of your mind.
There are many more. I cannot recall. It has been quite a long time since I last proactively had fun with those people. I would remember if you cook up some responses giving my memory electroshock therapy. Maybe I do remember, it is, however, best to bespoke and not to culture appropriate.
Let us learn fictitious science. https://youtu.be/MF6JYqQLZqQ
I gotta jet! I’mma tracking Santa with NORAD! That ancient mythical being is now above the Solomon Sea travelling at Mach 8.35! Unbefakinglievable! -
@Perry
Yes. I totally and completely aware that I have been using “enough” frequently these days! Of course you and I are wise people who read with wisdom. What I mean is there are times when enough is not enough, as the example you mentioned in your last paragraph. Although I am not doing what I do for profit or business, I am always improving my formulation.
In cosmetics context, I am talking about formulation versus claims/marketing. I never fail to see the things you and another have been preaching. Preach actual science, that is.
About your preaching - when you strip away all the marketing nonsense such as botanical extracts, au naturel/organik (whatever), hi-tek (whatever), you will be left with the basic stuff that work. Amazingly, majority of lists of ingredients are frighteningly identical among each other at their core. The weirdest sight is Glycerol is nearly always present in almost all products regardless of how high class or high-tech those products are.
Another weird thing is Glycerol is present in high amount. If they use super high-tech ingredient that they claim superior to Glycerol in every facet, then they should not be using Glycerol at that high level. Yet another weird thing is they are so honest to even put Glycerol high up.
Many businesses, misconstrue customer demand or trend as perfection.
Many customers, misconstrue good smell and good feel as perfection. Subjectivity is good money to businesses because the can use the cheapest stuff and earn big profit. As you already mentioned many times that some or many of those labelled/listed stuff may not even exist or exist in uselessly low concentration their products.Unless quality is night and day, or unless one has bioengineered feelers, no one can “feel’ quality. Same as using a dowser to dowse for quality.
I asked a great many people what is quality (of anything, not limited to cosmetics) to them. All they ever tell is by their six senses. The sixth sense is included. I am not jesting. Even if I am, every joke has some truth. So, if whatever product has pretty packaging, it is high quality to them. They judge quality by smell and packaging.
I forgot the name of the psychological test I performed aeons ago. Served ultra cheap wine from a dirty store, re-labeled the whole thing with label of expensive wine, no one can tell the wine is cheap and dirty, all of them believed it is expensive. This experiment is done many times by other people as well but some of them did food and dessert.
Disclaimer and hedge: Ambiance must be right for maximum effect. Relaxing classy music. Classy server speaking classily. Classy color temperature (Usually below 3000 Kelvin).Another one I did is I primed people with a notion (brainwash) that organically grown something is inorganically grown, reversed the other.
Those who were primed to believe that that thing is organically grown said it is the best in terms of whatever their senses told them.
Those who were primed to believe that that thing is inorganically grown said it is inferior to the rest according to their senses.Disclaimer and hedge: That works the best only on people who believe inorganic whatever is evil. It will not work on people who do not care organic or otherwise.
Sometimes, it is not even a substance’s quality issue. Glycerol is sticky naturally, not its quality issue. The highest quality Glycerol from Sigma-Aldrich is still sticky. Is like saying Thioacetone is low quality because its odor is exceedingly horrid.
-
DMDM Hydantoin can be a bit tricky to navigate, especially with formaldehyde release concerns. Your calculations are on the right track, as the general rule of thumb is that about 10% of the DMDM Hydantoin can convert to free formaldehyde. So, for example, 2000 ppm would indeed yield approximately 200 ppm of free formaldehyde. However, you’re right to be cautious about going above 2500 ppm, as it can push you into a riskier territory regarding formaldehyde labeling and potential skin irritation. Staying below the 0.05% threshold for free formaldehyde is definitely wise to avoid any labeling issues.
-
Sadly - I think the EU limit is 10 ppm so free formaldehyde per se is irrelevant- don’t use FA releasers in that regulatory climate.
FA releasers are also banned in Washington state. https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/washingtons-department-of-ecology-plans-to-ban-formaldehyde-releasers-from-cosmetics/
Ignorance is the only excuse.
-
to the chemistry, I found the primary formula variable controlling free formaldehyde was perfume.
Log in to reply.