Bluebird
Forum Replies Created
-
Caffeine 5% in water seems way too high to be stably soluble.
-
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
-
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?
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
thank you for your answers.
-
Okay, thank you both.
I guess, following Abdullah’s advice, using pH 5 (which seems to lead to 37% activity, at least purportedly), and also increasing the concentration to 0.3% potassium sorbate would likely work, as it should lead to 0.111% in the active form. To @Perry44 I want to go low pH as you said for preservative reason but it seems one of my active ingredients is unstable at a low pH.
-
I am a bit surprised by the certainty that people have here in the OP and the replies.
In the reply from Carina Organics, they said their pine extract provided antimicrobial efficacy.
So let’s examine the pine extract parts from the recalled product vs the current products.
In their recalled product’s 2009 formula, they listed Pinus divaricata (pine) extract, Pinus banksiana (pine) extract, whereas in the subsequent formula you mentioned, they listed Pinus elliottii (pine) extract, pinus banksiana (pine) extract.
So Pinus elliottii replaced Pinus divaricata.
There are some studies showing anti-mold and anti-bacterial properties of some pine extracts.
Without exactly testing the pine extracts used by Carina Organics, or testing their products and subjecting them to the challenge test, I am a bit surprised that you and everyone else feel SURE that these formulations do not work to functionally preserve the products.
My conclusion from reading your post and doing a quick search on pine extract is that it seems hard to tell for sure yet whether their formulation is functionally preserved or not without more in-depth digging about pine extracts of various sorts, and even then maybe, without doing the challenge test on their specific products.
-
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%.
-
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
-
Which reference or standard is to be followed for checking what the MAV is for each weight for cosmetics?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This reply was modified 10 months ago by Bluebird.
-
This reply was modified 10 months ago by
-
@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.
-
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
-
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. 🙂
-
Also, lock your door at night, because extvolat companies may come knocking at your door. 🙂
cosmeticsandtoiletries.com
[update] Pine Aqua's Extvolat Proven to Self-preserve
Gentle coaxing is what it takes to extract holistic plant properties, according PineAqua, Ltd. As the company explains, the resulting "monoproduct" serves as a water replacement for preservative-free cosmetics.
-
As an appreciation to your comment, though, here’s a bedtime reading that may be interesting to you, too. This discussion now got me interested in pine extracts, I think I’ll really start to dig a bit into pines.
This is the discovery from the first find:
MIC to S. aureus of pine needle extract, 2.5mg/mL.
That number’s not great, but is not terrible (not obviously out of the range for use).
Just the first one to find; more to follow. Enjoy!
“The dialyzed samples were isolated using ultrafiltration (MW 30,000 and 10,000). According to the results shown in Supplementary Figure S1, all ultrafiltered fractions (>30, 10–30, and <10 kDa) inhibited E. coli and S. aureus. Among these fractions, the antimicrobial activity of the sample ≤10 kDa in size was the highest. In addition, this fraction was most effective in inhibiting S. aureus (2.5 mg/ml) compared to E. coli (5 mg/ml) and showed the same results as the dialyzed samples.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8172577/
-
@PhilGeis Hi PhilGeis, of course, being superficial with microbial contamination or preservation is bad.
At the same time, natural extracts deserve to be assessed without prejudice, for or against it.
Blind belief in them leads to damage, but so it is the other way around. I am now under the impression that EVEN IF Carina Organics did find extraordinary pine extracts that do work well, their finding would have been dismissed by you in the same way without examination, because you already have ideas on pine extracts as a whole and there is no room for redemption. I prefer to remain more open and at least examine possibilities and data when available before making a more definite judgement on stuff. That’s just me, in general, we can take different approaches. Life can be more interesting when there are different approaches.
If Carina Organics said they extracted pine extracts from their backyard I missed it. But I was under the impression they did not. and if by getting pine extracts “from their backyard” you are simply being dismissive, well, I don’t know. They are Canadians, so they may have the best pine trees in the world in their backyards. No offense meant, if there is any Scandinavian, Russian, or East European friend here with proper pride in their own pines. 🌲
I did not expect me to be an unofficial spokesman for Carina when I wrote and I don’t intend to, but since you somehow trivialize my customer experience to n=1 bottle, let me at least clarify that I was, in the past, an avid consumer, probably used close to 10 bottles. So it is very minutely slightly more significant than n=1. Or one could say, ten times more, in which case both would be right. I wonder whether Carina’s pine extracts are at least 10 times better than your assessment in the same way, though, their extracts may still suck or be great, I simply don’t have data to tell.
-
This reply was modified 10 months ago by Bluebird.
-
This reply was modified 10 months ago by
-
I think he may indeed have a good reason, and I am glad I asked and got to hear his reason. As to what you said, I don’t think P&G would have necessarily bought pine extracts and use them EVEN IF they were effective, because they would be more expensive.
-
Yes, MIC tests better be quantitative, not qualitative, and in the right contexts. I would imagine batch to batch variability you mentioned is a variable that may indeed affect things like pine extracts, or at least make them more challenging to use consistently.
I am not being an apologist for BS, I was genuinely curious why people were so sure. Well, you gave one answer on the possible variability and MIC tests.
I actually did use Carina Organic’s shampoo and body washes some years ago and quite liked the products as a customer with a very sensitive skin. That does not mean, of course, that their products, if not suitably preserved, won’t have contamination issues. However, I am surprised that if their products are indeed very poorly (or not at all) preserved, why contamination during customer use is not visibly much, much more frequent. I mean, I’d really expect mold or cloudiness to be visible if their products are not preserved and I bring them in the shower. I’d have expected monthly reports of contamination and recalls, not once-in-a-few-years recalls. But maybe I was bathing in invisible bacteria, I wouldn’t know.
-
Oh just regular deo components. I imagine for deo, surface action is quite important, but of course I’d be eager to use enhanced/deeper delivery. I didn’t know glycerin propandiol, DMI could aid, as well as surfactants/emulsifiers (I suppose emulsifier part is what Graillotion was hinting at, though I didn’t completely understand). Thanks, I’ll look more into these.
