-
Preservatives, IPCS, FB groups
I am currently doing the IPCS diploma and when I see things like this, I have to question if I’m doing the right course. The idea was for me to get my foot in the door, hopefully get some work experience (plus, Perry’s course isn’t recognised in Australia :() anyway…
I notice that @Graillotion has now left the faceboook group this was in, he was the only reason why I was still there (just to watch him school some of these people ever so patiently like he does).
Someone commented that they put Geogard ECT in every formula. To which I replied that I had seen Geogard ECT fail PET and that it was better suited to a lower pH product and always with a chelator. This is correct right? It has two acids - so is better suited to pH 5.5 even though supplier advertises it’s up to 8.0pH. @PhilGeis ??? your input on this would be appreciated.
This is what I said:
“just because IPCS send it doesn’t mean anything and it’s decent if you keep the pH low and add a chelator. It has two acids in it so it needs to be under 5.5 no matter what the supplier says. the active ingredients in Geogard ECT, benzyl alcohol, salicylic acid and sorbic acid, are more effective at killing microorganisms at lower pH levels. This is because they are less able to penetrate the cell membranes of microorganisms at higher pH levels. Over 5.5pH you should be added something for fungi. As I said, I’ve seen it fail PET so just beware. Go to chemist’s corner and search Phil Geis, better yet, read his book on bugs.”This was the response I got:
“You do understand that suppliers get their inputs and pH ranges by scientists who do vigorous testing on the ingredient. It isn’t just blindly advertised. Every ingredient undergoes significant clinical trials to ensure they are safe at a specific range as well as pH range. And any preservative can fail for a number of reasons, it doesn’t mean that the preservative is not broad spectrum. It means that the formulation has incompatibilities which is why the preservative is failing.”Would love to know if my thinking is correct. Am I doing the right thing with Geogard ECT? I don’t completely trust what suppliers are telling me but I’m not going to reply to that last comment, I do not feel like engaging, it’s why I liked that Graillotion was on that group. I could watch him argue with the DIYers without getting involved.
It does seem to be added to a lot of IPCS formula builds (which I’ve been treating like ULP ones) use geogard ECT even at pH 7+
This isn’t the first time I’ve been disillusioned by IPCS teaching. In lab sample size, IPCS have us using a whisk and stainless steel bowl - which I refuse to use because I do not believe that I can get high sheer via hand whisking. They do talk about sheer and using equipment, but, in basic lab formulations - it is usually a whisk unless they state otherwise and if you look at their youtube channel, in a lot of the videos, Belinda is seen using a whisk and stainless steel bowl. By no means, do I think they are advocating using a whisk but it does make me question why they’d teach this. When I asked my trainer about this and was referred back to text, which mentions high sheer.
I did email them in regards to the way they teach vitamin E usage (input, when to add etc) and the response I got from my trainer was to “watch [xx] video”, the video was what led me to questioning their vitamin E usage in the first place.
So, I don’t believe there’s any point in emailing my trainer to get clarification on why they are calling fatty acids and fatty alcohols emulsifiers.
Yesterday I came across that they are defining stearic acid as an “emulsifier” -
“Stearic acid is an anionic emulsifier (holds a negative charge) which helps oil and water combine together. Cetyl alcohol is a nonionic emulsifier with the same function as stearic acid. Anionic emulsifiers help with the stability in warm climates but are relatively irritant to the skin, which is why they are used at low inputs.”
which I think would confuse a lot of new formulators? My understanding is that it has some very weak emulsifying properties but it has a high HLB and is better used as a thickener/stabiliser etc. You can react it with an alkali to form an emulsion base though, I’d still call it a co-emulsifier. I am pretty certain that stearic acid struggles to form micelles on its own. It does help other surfactants form micelles by creating a coating surrounding the droplets in an emulsion and making it harder for droplets to interact with each other in this kind of stearic layer thus helping to prevent coalescence.
My question, to the brain’s trust, is why? Why would they be teaching that stearic acid is an emulsifier when at best, it’s a co-emulsifier? Am I missing something?
Just remembered, on the pre learning component, there was a question “What is cetearyl alcohol commonly used in personal care products for?” which I answered as follows: “Cetearyl alcohol is a non-ionic surfactant that is often used as a co-emulsifier. Typically, it has a limited number of uses when used all by itself. Co-emulsifier (has HLB of 15.5) / fatty alcohol. It is a mix of cetyl and stearyl alcohols. Cetearyl alcohol is a fatty alcohol thickener and stabiliser.”
In the pre-learning materials their (IPCS) definition of Cetearyl Alcohol:
“Cetearyl alcohol is commonly used in the personal care industry as an emulsifier because it helps two immiscible substances, such as oil and water, to be mixed. It also has surface <i style=”background-color: var(-bb-content-background-color); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(-bb-body-text-color);”>active properties because it contains a water loving (hydrophilic) and water hating (hydrophobic) portion.”
Maybe alarm bells should have gone off when they used this definition of cetearyl alcohol, which again, I wouldn’t call an emulsifier but rather a co-emulsifier.
I am concerned now that I’m doing another course that is as bad as formula botanica. Hopefully as modules go on, it will become more involved.
-
This discussion was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by
Juggsy.
-
This discussion was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by
-
36 Replies
-
I am in the same FB group, and I was looking forward to hearing more from Graillotion on his preservation posts. Bummed he left the group, it was my favorite group because of his contributions.
That being said, I remember previous conversations in various FB groups where others from IPCS were INSISTING that certain fatty alcohols and or thickeners are emulsifiers. Like vehemently, rudely, obsessively insisting they were correct. It was bizarre. I am in the US, I can’t give advice on how beneficial the program would be career wise, but best wishes to you.
-
this is what I am finding too. It’s kinda shocking. It feels a little more like formula botanica in terms of the fact that they are just trying to make money? and they seem to have some die-hard followers? I know money is what drives them but I had higher expectations and have spoken to a couple of people who come from chemistry and biology backgrounds who were disappointed too. I am trying to look at it as “basics” and getting my foot in the door, but I had expected it to be more in-depth than what it is.
My only other option is down in Melbourne (monash) as even the programme at Cincinnati isn’t accredited here. The only one that seems to be accredited is IPCS and the Monash programme. This would have been helpful if I had decided to change careers 15 years ago 🤣 when I lived there. -
Hehehe…..I am still writing the article on said preservative. I have been consulting with 4 different PhD’s on the topic, including Dr Phil Geis…. I just needed a break from the group…to gather my sanity… Plus my kids are visiting from the mainland.
The certificate holders….will become extremely violent…when I post it…. I need to be rested up. 🙂
Aloha.
-
excellent! wherever you post, I will follow haha. Enjoy your time with family!
-
-
-
I did my diploma with IPCS as a hobby. If possible, try to think outside of what they teach, kind of a school vs industry reality. What they teach can varies a lot from what is being done professionally because of the available equipment or formulations, it’s not like we can’t evolve from that. People will need to realize that their structured formulations isn’t the industry “bible”.
Their mentors have to follow their guidelines so they can be slightly ridged in their answer. For my assessment, sometimes even though i have another answer, i still try to follow the answer because of the guidelines, sometimes i try to add the screenshot proof for certain ingredients, if not i will have to redo the formulation for resubmission.
-
I think I have a non-IPCS mentor. They have been assigning me work and have been encouraging me to think more “industry-like” - which has been a huge help. I would wager, I’ve learnt more from their teaching, and the resources they have linked me to than from IPCS at this stage. I don’t think IPCS is bad, I just don’t think they are the “be all and end all” - I have mentality that we are continually learning, no matter at what point we are in life. I also think that if you take any book, research, information or whatever at face value without checking sources then you shouldn’t be doing anything that requires critical thinking.
-
Definitely, critical thinking of what has been taught is very important. I think the mentor you have been assigned is more flexible than mine but i’ve always assumed that since it’s a course then i should stick to the guidelines to get the grades that i need, lol.
-
-
-
You’re right - what efficacy ECT has is at the lower pH, but it is a poor combination even in acidic context as it has a gap vs Gram negative bacteria, the primary contaminants of cosmetics. The pH range and “broad spectrum” are marketing hype. The response you received is silly - preservatives are in Annex and have favorable risk assessments from CIR. The supplier is not going to run more safety studies on the combination. I’m aware of no data and supplier offers none showing the combination is magic.
If IPSC endorsed this combination - I do wonder at their preservative training. As for FB, think it’s a waste of time in any context.
-
It is hard to distinguish what is promoted by the organization, and what is promoted by the graduates. But I would have to think…this is supported by the organization…as a number of graduates have told me…thinking outside the given ‘box’, is essentially prohibited and certainly frowned upon. 🙂
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by Graillotion.
-
Yes, I can confirm - thinking outside the box is prohibited *eye roll*. You have to go with their guidelines and follow the rules. Even though now, in my lab, I am doing things I wanted to and it is working. This sucks. Definitely.
-
this is what I’ve been told by former students who can formulate too. Actually, one said to me “don’t send any more emails challenging their text, just do what they say, get the piece of paper and learn on the job”
I really don’t think my trainer likes me because of the challenges but I also know they aren’t responding because, I don’t think they have the knowledge. Which as you pointed out to me yesterday would be quite limited considering no science degrees.
-
Amen! As I also read somewhere here, when you ask the trainer they tell you to re-read some text or watch their god dammed video. It was so frustrating to get a proper answer from them. I had Tasmin as a trainer.
The best thing is, as mentioned, to finish the formulas as per their guides and tables, do not make any innovation or try to be “extra”, get the paper and learn on your own.
On the other hand, I think that those Facebook lives they are doing [well, when Belinda was doing them] are quite good as they need to answer your question properly and you can respond immediately. Now, Tasmin is doing them and they are not so great.
-
I have the same trainer. My observation is that they do not read answers fully or they are using a marking guide like we would use for multiple choice exams in education. I have only have one revisit but it wasn’t really a revisit, it was because they didn’t read correctly. Until I saw one of those Q&As, I thought they were an ESL speaker. 🤣
Are you working in industry now @Paprik ?
-
-
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by
-
-
For cosmetics, chose a system/combination at concentrations that technically should be effective as broad spectrum and then confirm it has efficacy with a challenge test. The test (USP, EP, ISO, whatever) is not validated. “Pass” merely show some efficacy but not enough to protect consumers - passing criteria are too tolerant and isolates too feeble. What does IPCS instruct in this regard?
I’m aware of a few remarkably “synergistic” combinations - not aware any are marketed as combinations.
ECT is technically not be expected to work by itself.
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by PhilGeis.
-
Basically, they teach to ensure preservative is broad spectrum (B, F, Y, M), taking into consideration synergism of preservatives (or blend) used, pH drift, chemical nature, disperability/solubility, regulatory considerations, cost/availability, product form and marketing concerns. To ensure that it can </font>theoretically can handle microbial load then to conduct PET testing.
However, she is correct that they include it in their packs, and they do use it in a few formulation builds (I treat all their builds, like you would a ULP formula) - however, the builds have been around pH 5.5. So maybe they can get away with it? You wouldn't know without testing. Oh she does encourage us all to get PET testing done to BP pharmacopoeia rather than USP as they have stricter testing.
However, she is correct that they include it in their packs, and they do use it in a few formulation builds (I treat all their builds, like you would a ULP formula) - however, the builds have been around pH 5.5. So maybe they can get away with it? You wouldn’t know without testing. Oh she does encourage us all to get PET testing done to BP pharmacopoeia rather than USP as they have stricter testing.
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by
-
Broad spectrum but ECT is ok? No one with depth of experience would see that.
Sounds like boiler plate. Any elaboration of the cautions - synergism etc.?
BP is marginally better than USP but allows the BS exemption of B criteria and neither includes any bugs representing contamination risk like CTFA. Is there any comment to cepacia?
-
Here’s what FDA says regarding testing - “Formerly, there were no validated tests for cosmetic preservative efficacy (9), although the test for pharmaceutical preservative efficacy in the U.S. Pharmacopeia (2) or the cosmetic test in the technical guidelines of the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) (1) were used. Recently, the CTFA test has been AOAC validated (2b) for use with liquid cosmetics.”
https://www.fda.gov/food/laboratory-methods-food/bam-chapter-23-methods-cosmetics
-
I don’t think they have updated the text any time recently and no mention of Burkholderia cepacia - the only think I know about cepacia has come from your book. And I’m only on page 55 but I used your PET testing procedure in my answer (I’m expecting to have to resumbit though as not based on IPCS text and that seems to explode their heads).
-
Failure to mention cepacia indicates a shallow approach. It and aeruginosa have been responsible for most of the recalls.
-
-
-
This is about efficiency of ECT.<div>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14HqkYFzfSK0WegppR_yz8ImP9Xf5-h1b/view?usp=drivesdk
Interesting thing is that even unpreserved products pass the test in several of them. I don’t know why.
</div>
-
Don’t get excited - every preservative claiming broad spectrum has its data that practical experience does not replicate.
-
I think people do not realize that raw material suppliers are marketers first & science is second. So, if they want to sell a “broad spectrum” preservative, they are going to set up their test to ensure it makes any claim they want to make, not false.
They don’t try to set up their material to fail which is what you would do if you cared about finding what’s true. That means there are lots of ingredients that the suppliers have proven to work under specific conditions but they probably won’t work under other conditions.
Raw material suppliers are marketers!
-
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat? You have shattered my world. You mean….they don’t have my best interest in mind…and might be chasing the all mighty $$$… and not the ‘greater good’? 😋
Hehehe… I always thought….if someone were assigned a stand up comedy gig…at a cosmetic conference/convention, you could make an entire comedy routine out of preservation claims. 😂
-
It does amaze me sometimes, the gullibility of some formulators. I guess I can understand the DIYers, but I even see scientists working in the industry that fall for raw materials supplier marketing stories. Don’t they realize that the BS marketing used to sell their own cosmetics is the same type of BS marketing used to sell raw materials?
-
-
-
-
-
Well stearic acid is an anionic emulsifier if you dump some TEA (or NaOH) in your formula. Oh wait it’s TEA-stearate! Nevermind 🙂 I’m a big believer in self education.
-
When you science does not get in the way of your thoughts…. Then stearic acid can be anything you imagine it to be. Ignorance is such a ‘freeing’ concept…where ignorance is bliss. 🙂
-
-
@ngarayeva001 @Graillotion I’m so confused. I have been told this
“If you look at the chemical formula, indeed there is no charge but it is because it is the formula of the molecule when it is solid in the pack. When you put stearic acid in water, it will free a H+ ion in the water (this is what do all acids, including stearic acid) and because this H+ is released in water, the stearic molecule has a negative charge on the O that was attached to the H+ releasedSo in an emulsion there is water so stearic acid will become negatively charged when added to the formula”
okay, yes stearic acid is a weak acid, but I thought it only partially dissociates in water. so like when it is dissolved in water, it releases a hydrogen ion (H+) into the water. This leaves the stearic acid molecule with a negative charge. but it doesn’t make it anionic does it? because it’s so weak?
doesn’t the negative charge on the carboxylate ion just allow it to interact with water molecules
yes I understand that you can react it with an alkali to form an emulsifier. why the F are they saying it’s anionic. can someone please explain this to me. everything I have read suggests stearic acid is a fatry acid that is non ionic - I assumed because the formula is C18H36O2 and there being no +/- ions at the end of the formula meant it was nonionic? what am I undersnding wrong.??? right now I don’t care how stupid I look. I’m so confused.
-
i might seem stupid (right now, don’t care)…. thinking about stearic acid more…. it really is not anionic by itself is it?. it has a carboxyl group (-COOH) at one end which would be polar and would dissolve in water. However, the rest of the stearic acid molecule is nonpolar correct? does this make stearic acid an amphipathic molecule? it has both polar and nonpolar properties. So the carboxyl heads dissolve in water but the non polar hydrocarbon chain forms micelles. When stearic acid is mixed with water, the polar carboxyl am I correct in thinking to make stearic acid anionic, it must be converted to a salt?
-
I like this quote from REAL cosmetic chemist Amanda, from Realize Beauty:
“I’ve noticed quite a lot of formulations come across my desk containing stearic acid with nothing to saponify it! Stearic acid on its own does not act as an emulsifier. It needs to be saponified with a base- sodium hydroxide or triethanolamine in order to hold your oils and water together. On its own it will make the emulsion a little stiffer and buttery but cetearyl alcohol is possibly a better choice for that function. Rule no 1 of formulating: if you don’t know why it’s in there don’t use it . Amanda”
IMHO I think where all this lore stems from, is those without the proper background mistake it for an emulsifer, because they either cannot distinguish a thickener from an emulsifier, or the other angle I would suspect would be….when an untrained eye looks at certain emulsion, and in this example will use a stearic acid based emulsion….they are unable to put all the pieces together. They see the stearic acid, but do the realize the function and quantity of the alkali in the formula, and just assume the stearic acid miraculously went from fatty acid thickener to …. magical emulsifier. As mentioned before…. Ignorance creates an ethereal bliss.
And you have to always remember the Golden Rule of Lore based cosmetics. If it is repeated often enough on the internet…. It must be true!
Sadly I know you will be required to write the wrong answer in your program…but at least you have the cognitive abilities to see through this error, and move on in the future, on the correct path. Good luck in your journey. The correct answers are out there….sometimes you just have to do a little digging. And remember this lesson: Be careful when you blindly follow the ‘masses’…. Sometimes the ‘M’ is silent.
Aloha @Juggsy
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Graillotion.
-
Well, that’s trippy, as I used Amanda’s realise beauty blog as reference when I said it’s not an emulsifier by itself! I was going to ask this in the monthly Q&A they hold, but I already know what they will say, as someone asked their trainer already. Which is how this all came about in the first place. Paying a shitload to be taught things incorrectly. grrr. lol
You know you make me feel so much better now for saying my favourite Australian Cosmetic Chemist is Michelle Wong. I was attacked recently because I didn’t include Belinda on my list of favourites. But, that’s because I can’t stand watching youtube videos. As a hearing impaired human, I dislike YT because subtitles are never accurate. It’s hilarious when watching an ecowell live for instance. And AI picks up Australian accents in a strange way, so often “cream” gets shown as “queen” - hilarious when it’s a hydrating queen.
-
Why would you include B? She is only a formulator not a chemist…and would not qualify for that list???
-
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by
-
-
When I first got into formulating I was watching a IPCS video and she referred to either cetyl alcohol as an emulsifier and I was confused because I had never heard anyone refer to it as that. I left a comment and she did respond but the answer didn’t clear things up. I just tried to find it but it was 3-4 years ago.
-
Obviously there is a lot of ignorance in the field, but there is also a lot of undefined/underdefined terms in cosmetics. Many times things that assist in making a better emulsion (aka builders) get lumped into the category of ’emulsifiers’ because they do help.
I am writing a blurb for beginners on preservatives….and undefined/under defined terms…is what I am realizing is a major hurdle for them.
One of my greatest disappointments in the broad spectrum of the industry…is the ‘under-defined terms’. I realize there is no one entity “in charge” that could grab the bull by the horns…and make these definitions, but it would be nice. Hehehehe…on a side gripe…..then we could also define what a ‘cosmetic chemist’ was…. not just someone that took an online course. 😂 It is so sad to see people call customer service reps at re-packers, and their favorite mommy blogger…a ‘Cosmetic Chemist’. 🤮 (When in doubt…..’Cosmetic Formulator’ works every time! 😉 )
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Graillotion.
-
Absolutely agree with this. I’m glad I’m not the only one who screams at “broad spectrum” - and I often wonder how many formulators are actually looking at the datasheets to see what they do cover. This was a big eye opener for me when I came back to this. Thankfully for me, at home, I’ve no issue with using DMDM or parabens. I’d much rather things be safe even if it’s a lab sample.
John Staton wrote an interesting article about this (online courses) on Linkedin a few weeks back. I asked this morning about his thoughts on IPCS - I’d be interested to know as he works for one of the bigger companies here and often writes for the ASCC magazine that comes out a few times a year - however he hasn’t responded yet, I’ll be surprised if he does. I believe he might work occasionally with the IPCS director. 🤣-
Those with a public presence…. can rarely speak the truth or their mind… kinda like a politician. 🙂
That is the beauty of retirement….Dr Phil and I can call out the BS…and have nothing to lose. 😂
-
-
This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by
-
-
haha, but I know that Dr Phil is going back to work in August, so semi-retirement. Although, I wouldn’t mind your retirement - not sure if I’d call it a retirement since you are always working with the flowers or the formulas. lol
Log in to reply.