[Bluebird]

It’s a very watery toner/serum type formulation. No oil or sugar.

I can’t use a chelator because I may have to add a zinc salt in one of the formulations so that won’t quite work with a chelator, I’m thinking.

Package won’t be as invasive as a finger-in-cream type; it will be most likely a spoid-type dropper dispenser, which does have a chance of contamination form users.

As for glycol I can increase it a bit in some formulations. Would, say 10% propanediol significantly help preservation instead of 5%?

[Bluebird]

Caffeine 5% in water seems way too high to be stably soluble.

[Bluebird]

This mix may clash with this (rather annoying) Inolex patent. Because of the use of CHA and methylpropanediol in percentages covered in Claim 1.

“1. A preservative composition blend comprising about 4.5% to about 15% caprylohydroxamic acid or a salt thereof, wherein caprylohydroxamic acid is the only hydroxamic acid in the composition blend, and about 7% to about 95.5% of a diol selected from the group consisting of a propanediol, methylpropanediol, a butylene glycol, 1,2-pentanediol, 1,2-hexanediol, caprylyl glycol, 1,2-decanediol, caprylyl glyceryl ether, ethylhexylglycerin, glyceryl monolaurate, glyceryl monocaprate, glyceryl monocaprylate, and combinations thereof.”

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10897899B2/en

patents.google.com

US10897899B2 - Preservatives for cosmetic, toiletry and pharmaceutical compositions - Google Patents

A composition for and methods of preserving a topical cosmetic, toiletry or pharmaceutical formulation against microbiological contamination or growth are described in which the compositions used herein include at least one hydroxamic acid, salt or complex thereof, and the methods … Continue reading

[Bluebird]

There’s also this patent, which is even more broad than the one I shared before.

US/8993641/B2

It looks to me that any use of CHA with diol in the US without using Inolex’ product is blocked but I am hoping I’m wrong.

Did you find a clever way to go around this?

[Bluebird]

Potassium sorbate is not good for eczema, trust me… or better still, let your sister test and tell us what she says, haha.

Also if you want to use pot sor you’ll need lower ph like 4-4.5 for efficacy.

Could be jar contamination or incomplete mixing.

Can consider refrigerating and only using for one week or two.

That’s what I do sometimes for my super sensitive skin.

[Bluebird]

Could be that the new preservative mix is more sensitive to the product pH, for there is benzyl alcohol, which may need low pH for efficacy. Just a guess.

[Bluebird]

@mikethair Did the GMP production of the lightly or self-preserved natural products also require or involve washing empty bottles with water, spraying with ethanol, or any other procedure to remove possible dusts and contaminations?

Or was it OK to fill empty bottles bought from bottle manufacturers without further procedure?

I am wondering whether people wash or sterilize empty bottles before filling for microbial safety.

[Bluebird]

thank you for your answers.

[Bluebird]

Hi, there is no chelating agent.

Currently I’m testing with 0.5% of (caprylyl glycol and 1 2 hexanediol mix); the manufacturer recommends 0.5% but does not disclose the proportion of cap glycol and hexandiol, unfortunately. I am thinking of perhaps adding a bit more of hexanediol on top of this to be safer.

[Bluebird]

I have of course tried it already and I have not found the answer to my question still

[Bluebird]

Though this one is not from EU, I guess that has to do with dosage concern.

Here, apparently Canada regulates it, too, in cosmetics,

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredient-hotlist-prohibited-restricted-ingredients/hotlist.html

List of Ingredients that are Prohibited for Use in Cosmetic Products

“Average daily absorption must be equal to or less than 25 µg per day.”

Still haven’t found the exact details of the restriction deal in EU.

canada.ca

Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist - Canada.ca

The Hotlist is used to keep the cosmetic industry aware of substances that are restricted or prohibited in cosmetics

[Bluebird]

I’m talking about vitamin D ban in cosmetics, not as oral supplement!

[Bluebird]

Can you share where you found that EU bans only particular brands’ vitamin D?

From my search, they ban vitamin D2 and D3, which are final forms of vitamin D, not vitamin D from any brand in particular.

They do allow pro-vitamins, which are not truly vitamin D in their final forms.

• This reply was modified 4 months ago by  Bluebird.

[Bluebird]

So sensitization= allergic contact dermatitis, then.

Earlier you mentioned neither PD nor PG is a skin sensitizer.

And yet there are people whose allergy patch panel test shows as positive to PG for a fact

(PG is tested in several concentrations in a patch test).

So am I interpreting it right that when you said PG was not found as a skin sensitizer,

you meant it’s not an ingredient that commonly causes allergic contact dermatitis?

(That allergy is rare?)

[Bluebird]

Thanks, these papers are nice to have.

I’m mostly wondering about allergy, not sensitization/irritation, though I did mention all of those words with regards to anecdotes and that could have clouded my meaning.

I’m wondering whether someone who tested positive in a patch allergy test to PG is likely to be also allergic to PD. This is not really in the realm of chemistry as it’s about allergens and immune reactions. I am asking in case folks long in the cosmetics industry have heard about it either way.

[Bluebird]

Is this how it works, though?

When you lower pH of the salt of an organic acid, wouldn’t you still expect higher solubility than its organic acid counterpart in low pH, because there is the balancing counter ion?

Ex, sodium benzoate solubility in water is high even in low pH;

but apparently the benzoic acid solubility in water is low, less than 0.2%.

[Bluebird]

you mean visually inspect of every single bottle before using it in semi mass production?

Or you mean visually inspect random few to get an idea?

Also why do you expect/are concerned most about Gram neg bacteria in tap water as opposed to mold, yeast etc? Are they just more often found in tap water than others

[Bluebird]

Which reference or standard is to be followed for checking what the MAV is for each weight for cosmetics?

[Bluebird]

Yes, fully depending on MICs reported only by sellers would be quite risky to base one’s own product development, I agree. There are many academic studies that examine MICs of natural substances as well, though, with no conflicts of interest. Even these are not to be trusted fully. Nevertheless, reported MICs are useful for parties who have means to further conduct tests and studies on these substances on their own after. Not very difficult for a team with microbiologists/cosmetic formulators combined. Interesting to know about the in-house testing method of P&G. I think it’s a very good way to test.

[Bluebird]

MICs are relevant because one can first read what these numbers are to get an initial idea of plausibility (yes from broth and agar assays); when MICs are promising, then one can proceed to do one’s own work in testing killing efficacy in more realistic settings, such as in-product preservation efficacy.

[Bluebird]

Regarding: “And please stop with the MIC’s - those have little relevance to in-product efficacy.”

I beg your pardon-MIC is an extremely relevant metric for antimicrobial efficacy in science.

It has high relevance to in-product efficacy in cosmetics if you apply it right.

Knowing MICs is an extremely valuable place as a starting point to judge whether an antimicrobial substance has even a potential or not in the beginning. If something has an MIC of 1g/mL, and if the substance is expensive, one should automatically know that it is out of bounds, P&G or not, because it will likely not be cost-effective.

However, if something has an MIC of 0.0001g/mL, and if the substance is cheap, then you know this is a promising candidate to start with.

If a pine extract has the MIC of 2mg/mL, that is within the range of possible uses in cosmetics; next, elements such as cost, compatibility with other ingredients, stability need to be tested.

MIC is a very valuable starting point. And so is the cost of the molecule.

All these are part of science and rational decisions in formulating.

MIC is the most widely used metric in antimicrobial science and it has a place in cosmetics. It is not something that should ever be dismissed with “please stop; MIC is irrelevant; you know nothing about P&G and cost” type of comments.

[Bluebird]

Also, are you saying that because P&G has researched natural compounds extensively, no other companies, startups, entrepreneurs, and scientists can find something that P&G has failed to find?

I disagree on that point.

Disruptive innovation often happens not in huge companies, but from smaller players and innovators who have more freedom to try things and who have more freedom to think differently. And those who are humble enough to NOT think:”I’ve tried everything, I know everything the best. No other person can possibly know something I don’t in this.”

I am not saying Carina Organics is such an innovator (as I’ve stated multiple times, I need more data and probably need to try their real products and pine extracts in order to specifically judge this case).

However, there were, are, and will be innovators who find things that P&G fails to find.

[Bluebird]

@PhilGeis PhilGeis, if you are an American, you had better read and respect the First Amendment: freedom of speech. Applies to you, too, @Graillotion.

Trying to literally shut others up when they ask questions, engage in discussions, voice their opinions that may be different from yours, is immature and does not foster growth in anyone.

ESPECIALLY in an open forum, which, by definition, is: “a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchange. This is neither your personal journal, nor your personal shrine where what you say is God’s words. This is where fact and data-based discussions as well as rational and civil exchange of ideas should prevail, not blatant “I know stuff you don’t, so shut up” kind of rudeness.

You could have, in the first place, share what you have written here about pine & P&G in previous replies, but you had not done so. In previous replies, you just tried to shut me up without sharing any explanation or knowledge.

Furthermore, what you said is factually not true. Not all natural extracts have no efficacy in practical uses.

I, for one, know of one or two that work extremely well.

You seem to think that your knowledge and your world is the absolute truth. Hence that defines your own limitation and boundary you will never cross.

Cheers.

[Bluebird]

No.

Please read what I had written and take them literally without adding serious misinterpretations or putting words into my mouth.

I had merely asked why do you guys feel so sure about pine extracts not being effective as the preservative. I was looking for some scientific or at least rational discussion.

Not low-quality responses of “I’m the P&G guy,” or the “go find mommy’s blog” types.

In fact, I am disappointed by these responses and believe they reveal something about those who responded this way.

Answers to my question on pine extracts that I would have found respectable include:

-Batch-to-batch variability in natural products

-MIC may not be effective

-I have tested them and they were not effective

-Carina Organics record of lying,

etc.

The unacceptable answers, in my opinion, are:

-because P&G guy says

-because the expert says, I just believe it without using my own head to analyze anything

-because it’s a stupid company

-because I’m more experience than you

-because I want to believe so without data

[Bluebird]

Also, “Your expectations are not consistent with reality or apparently experience.” This is quite a statement to make to someone. If you continue along this line, Dr. PhilGeis, I will also tell you what is in my mind without a filter. 🙂