Pharma
Forum Replies Created
-
These are all pathogens and/or opportunistic pathogens. In other words, potential ‘side effects’ (or rather a result of an infection) can go from nothing to death and anything in between. It doesn’t even need to be just immunocompromised people though these are the most susceptible ones, depending on the serovar/strain, all those five germs can cause mild to severe infections in healthy humans (and frequently do so).Besides that, some microbes such as certain A. niger strains produce carcinogenic and hence potentially deadly toxins such as aflatoxins under nutrient poor conditions or spores which can cause allergies, asthma, and headaches. But that’s just an example; all these microbes can produce a broad array of more or less unpleasant to life threatening toxins. -
The problem with isothiazolidinones is their extremely widespread use going into the thousands of metric tons each year. Some speculations go as far as 50-80% of everything which comes into contact with water during its production or use contains them to some degree. This, as you pointed out, caused a fairly widespread sensitisation and, because there are alternatives (though usually more costly ones), should IMHO no longer being used in things which come into direct contact with skin. The amounts for cosmetics are a lot lower than for, say, paint and pet shampoo has the same limits as paints, not as cosmetics and that’s why I call these products ‘nasties’ (I agree with you, microbes in the wrong places are as nasty as it gets). Other products which I deem ‘nasty’ are for example certain antioxidants, formaldehyde, and to some degree F-releasers (= in human and pet care products if used at levels otherwise found in paints, surface cleaners, and the like) as well as a bunch of usually undisclosed ingredients which should not get in contact with life like free reactive monomers or certain plasticisers intended for wall insulation or electric circuits and such alongside many other chemicals which are regarded as safe in the right places for the right reasons but not in others where they are still frequently used because, you mentioned that too, the human species is fairly stupid, $$ driven, and lazy.I hope you now understand what I mean and why I decide to use a single word which I thought would explain it easily to most readers without having to elaborate for 15 minutes… which I just did because, well, I didn’t bother collecting a list of all things I don’t like having on my pets including a lot of stuff which I don’t even know is in the pet care product because it’s not required to be labelled and there’s nobody to control these products…
-
My guess (and a guess is as good as it gets) is the following order of happiness where all will be happy, just to a different degree: mould > yeast > Gram - > Gram +.
-
PhilGeis said:Nasties? Please rememnber preservatives control “nasties.”
You misunderstand me. What I mean is that there’s a difference between proper skin tolerable preservation and stuff which I don’t even like in technical materials such as isothiazolinones. Sadly, these are ‘okay’ in pet products because animals are considered ‘objects’ in most legal regards.
-
AFAIK pet products fall under the same legislation like dishwashing liquids, car-wash and laundry detergents, floor cleaners… So, you’ll easily find pet shampoos which don’t list any ingredients other than something like <5% anionic detergents and <15% non-ionic detergents… and I bet these also contain MIT, MCI, and other nasties ;( .Regarding pH of dog skin: They show higher deviation and a broader pH range than humans which depends on the pedigree, the climate they live in, and other factors such as indoors/outdoors, food, grooming etc.. You’ll find publications wherein they found quite acidic skin types and such with neutral one… lots of seemingly contradicting information if you don’t look closer. However, there’s one lesson to be learned: The more acidic the skin, the less issues and skin problems the dogs have. Much like with humans: acid protects from microbes
.On the other hand: Pet shampoos show an even broader pH range due to lacking control, lacking knowledge, and different believes. I prefer baby shampoo for my dogs, they are safer and more reliable regarding honesty of ingredients. -
Depends on what GMCY should do. If it’s as preservative, it’s dispersable in water and, according to theory, will lose in activity if brought into solution with the aid of an emulsifier… Do you cold or hot process?You can try gelling the oil phase simply by preparing the oil phase alone, let it cool, and see/feel how viscous it gets and at which temp it melts. Gelling oil is seldom like gelling water (although there are a few polymers which work) but more often involves high melting stuff like waxes or saturated fatty acids. Sure, try magnesium stearate (and don’t forget to adjust your pH if need be).It’s a w/o emulsion, sweating underneath is part of the deal, if you will. Switching PGPR for more modern and more robust emulsifiers like Isolan GPS allows for the preparation of HIPE gels (PGPR is said to work too but I have my doubts that you’ll manage to easily produce something stable) which contain less than 20% oil and are therefore less occlusive.
-
Dreamer77 said:
So, in other words, those companies that actually formulate hyaluronidase-containing solutions for injectable use, for correcting the excessive hyaluronic acid injectable treatment done from plastic surgeons and dermatologists, where are they buying it from since there is no actual producer of the raw material? Do they meditate asking Santa Clause to bring it during the Christmas holidays?
As I mentioned in the beginning: Hylase is available in the strength 150 IE and 300 IE which, at least for plastic surgeons, isn’t enough because they need 1500 IE. And yes, they currently have no other option as to pray to whomever they pray to and hope that their product will soon be back in stock. Why do I know? Because I tried to organise it for the beauty clinic nearby just two weeks ago.
-
Astonishingly, you somehow managed to get an emulsion with a magnetic stirring bar… that’s something. Although, I would say the emulsion is not fine enough and you need more than just a magnetic stirrer, a lot more actually, at least something with a propeller but I think you’d still have to give it a quick spin with a homogeniser at the end. Should work well with PGPR, just don’t overdo that step.Further considerations:- GMCY as preservative at that rate would be more efficient if incorporated into the water phase or, if used as co-emulsifier, requires higher levels (though in that case, a different product would be my pick).- Your oil phase is very low viscosity; a wax, hydrogenated oil, butter, or any other type of oil gellant would really be a good thing in the order of ‘you can’t do without’.- You could try to gel the water phase… can’t remember who it was here on board claiming that this is actually a bad idea (sadly, I don’t remember him/her explaining why water gelling in a w/o emulsion is prone to failure).- First try without iron oxide until you get a stable product.
-
As @Abdullah said.You mix with what exactly?
-
Dreamer77 said:…Sigma Aldrich…These are research chemicals and not to be used in/on humans.I don’t know in which country you live but AFAIK in most if not all EU/EFTA countries, a product which contains a prescription drug becomes a prescription drug unless you can proof that the product is inactive and safe if topically applied (which falls in the responsibility of the manufacturer) and is in accordance with cosmetic regulations or the amount contained falls within the OTC range (if that exists) and you register it as drug (in which case you’d have to use pharmacopoeia grade).Given that an enzyme will, even if suspended in perfluorocarbons, degrade quite fast and will not penetrate skin to an effective amount, it actually could be okay*. In my country, it wouldn’t be for several reasons.Depending on where you live, there are workarounds (though I despise all of these):- Knowing the right person- Bribing the right person- Hiring someone as responsible pharmacist and either see that he doesn’t know or gets enough salary so he doesn’t care and use him as scapegoat in case of- Living far away enough to not being bothered with inspections- Pharmacist is a liberal profession = laws and regulations are for pussies*If you think you can stabilise it and get it to penetrate skin, then you must live in a wonderful country where people can store their vaccines and biologicals at room temperature (not talking about igloos) and don’t have to inject insulin because they can apply it topically.
-
W/O emulsions are a bit difficult and tend to break/sediment/cream.Could you give us a complete LOI and production procedure?
-
Once you bring benzoic acid or sodium benzoate into solution and adjust to a given pH, equimolar concentrations of the two will have a virtually identical antimicrobial effect.
-
Thanks! Very interesting. You don’t know by any chance where I might get a smaller quantity? Kokyu has a MOQ of 15 kg ;( .
-
Whatever…If you know everything better, why do you even bother asking?
-
Correct, replace fatty alcohols and/or monoglycerides and/or cetyl esters 1:1 with fatty acids if it’s for the same purpose (see also last phrase in this post). Like you’re used from substituting cetyl alcohol with a cetyl esters, the outcome is similar but still noticeably different and you’ll have to adjust. The 1:1 switch is a good starting point, not necessarily the final solution. Question is, do you replace all fatty alcohol or just part of it? The full replacement will probably give you the best idea on what exactly stearic acid does and feels like. If fear you’re going to hate it :smiley: .If you want a softer version, use oleic acid or glyceryl monooleate instead or as a mix with stearic acid (I think such a mix feels nice and can be a useful replacement but is it really worth using that instead of staying with a good ol’ fatty alcohol?). Reason I mention it, such an ingredient (or blend) might be more in line with octyl palmitate, isoamyl laurate, and the feel of your entire product line. Stearic acid feels ‘hard’, ‘rough’, and ‘dry’ whilst oleic acid and glyceryl oleate feel ‘soft’, ‘smooth’ but also ‘oily’ (they’re on the other side of fatty alcohols, so to speak). They don’t have the vanishing effect of stearic acid but penetrate skin extremely well and deep (but rather slowly).I honestly don’t like low % stearic acid that much because I feel it’s inferior to the other structuring agents or at least doesn’t contribute anything new. Its unique feature shows at higher % and the resulting formulation is something entirely different. Hence, you may be better off formulating a completely new product instead of adjusting an old one if it’s not just for experimenting with stearic acid.Hmmm… now that I think about it: Maybe including or substituting part of the fatty alcohol with stearic acid in your latest night cream samples might give it back what I think they’ve lost compared to the older version… I can imagine that this won’t be really noticeable once applied but only during scooping out of the jar and the first seconds of application??? See, it all depends on what you want to achieve.If you think about using a quaternary ammonium compound as emulsifier, stearic acid (and several other ingredients) will be a no go but might be great if you plan to reduce/avoid GSC. Not saying you should, it’s just an example.
-
Myrica fruit wax is not a wax, it’s a fat which is called wax . Not too much barrier there, it’s also quite soft for a ‘wax’ and rather equals butters (because, chemically, it is a butter) though it’s harder than most fats/butters. Use it instead of hydrogenated oils and not as a wax replacement.Rice bran wax: I’ve got some not too long ago and it seems nice, certainly something I’ll keep in stock.Candelilla might still be the best because of the highest % in hydrocarbons = closest to petrolatum = least permeable for water vapour = theoretically, best TEWL reduction.Chemically, carnauba is very interesting but quite high melting and not necessarily the best & easiest in creams.As far as I know, other commercially available waxes which may be useful are bees wax and sunflower wax. Most other ‘waxes’ aren’t truly waxes but fats/butters and/or don’t offer anything special. Even sunflower wax is just an ordinary wax…
-
Because ‘natural’ is as much a matter of definition as is ‘organic’, certain labels allow ingredients in ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ formulations which don’t make any sense such as dehydroacetic acid (or, to begin with, cosmetics being ‘organic’). Fair chance that you find a label which allows honeyquat and other quaternized ingredients such as proteins, guar, cellulose etc. or even allows biodegradable quaternary ammonium compounds derived from renewable resources and synthesised with green chemistry like Varisoft EQ 65.
-
RedCoast said:…I think it’s a good idea to have the Gold Bond hand cream I just mentioned as another good reference product… it’s on the “drier” side, and it will give you more ideas how some people like their hand creams…
This one contains cationic surfactants which are said to be drier than anionics and non-ionics. If you’re looking for some diversity of benchmarks, such a product would greatly enlarge your basis and give you new ideas and inputs.
-
The only truly natural cationic polymer i.e. not modified in a way that it results in something not found in nature and which is readily available is chitosan. All the others are semi-synthetic using polymer-backbones from renewable resources and adding synthetic cationic moieties to them.
-
jemolian said:…Diisostearyl Malate…
Care to share some experiences with that one? Thanks in advance!
-
Octyldodecanol is cheap, super stable, and therefore frequently used even at 10-20% inclusion rates. It’s okay for what it is, though I wouldn’t use it in a hand cream. I have it in stock but never really got to love/like it. It takes some time too absorb which is too long for hand creams IMHO. True, it does fully absorbe and doesn’t leave a greasy film though once absorbed, skin protection isn’t really that convincing especially in times of regular washing and disinfecting hands. It can be okay in a body lotion or in something you have to massage/rub in.Octyldodecanol is said to be a lamellar network builder… II don’t know for sure… theory just doesn’t quite add up. Unlike most other lamellar structuring agents, this one has branched chains and therefore is very liquid which translates into the product, like a liquid, dynamic lamellar network rather than a firm one which lends body to the product. If you have a too heavy, dense, and viscous cream, adding a few % of it can turn the cream smoother. But you could achieve that with more natural ingredients or changes in composition too . It’s basically a filler…I never worked with behenyl alcohol. It’s likely less greasy than cetyl and stearyl alcohol but will not absorb as well either.Myristyl myristate is something I wouldn’t try in a hand cream, too glossy. Cetyl esters on the other hand… why not.I think that hand creams are one of the few products where stearic acid, though greatly outdated and non-trendy, might still shine (what a stupid word, it does exactly the opposite of shining LoL) due to its vanishing effect. Although it doesn’t strike me as offering not much protection and caring effects.Though, me, I’m more of a wax person when it comes to hand creams. Waxy
residues on skin protect better and feel better than an oily-smeary film on your hands
although no residue would be even better, at least hypothetically and at work (cause less fingerprints).
You’d have to consider where, when and why people would use your hand
cream. Summer, winter, beach, bureau, hospital, gardening, shopping…
adjust your ingredients to your requirements and select requirements according to your potential customer segment! -
First, you have three very different ingredients with very different characteristics influencing skin penetration. There is no one size fits it all (unless you use carrier vehicles or chemical derivatives).Don’t raise pH above 3.5 as this is said to be the upper end of dermal penetration of ascorbic acid. However, you might want to use a derivative which has a better topical bioavailability rather than blindly choosing a molecule which may or may not increase penetration of certain compounds.Ferulic acid doesn’t need a penetration enhancer, at slightly acidic pH it readily penetrates skin.Tocopherol on the other hand is highly lipophilic and you may have to resort to anhydrous formulations or nanocarriers like liposomes. As a fun fact: Tocopherol is a penetration enhancer for certain pharmaceutical compounds.Read through publications rather than simply picking a magic ingredient X recommended by someone who most likely never measured how much of your three ingredients respond how to the proposed additives. However, if it’s all for claims and giggles… take whatever you feel most comfortable with.
-
Hyaluronidase:- Is a prescription drug- Is indicated for dissolving hyaluronic acid (if too much has been injected or at the wrong place), for certain types of eye surgery, and against certain types of inflammatory diseases and pleura and joint effusions- Only works by injection- Requires cold storage- Will degrade in a serum and even if not, will not work topically- Currently only available with 150 I.E. and 300 I.E., 1’500 I.E. is out of stock in Europe- Doesn’t work with 100% efficacy, especially not against eye bags. Scalpel, needle and thread would be your best choice… however, these are very difficult to dissolve in a serum :p .
-
The issue with ethoxydiglycol is that it may contain considerable amounts of ethylene glycol as impurity. Ethylene glycol is metabolised to oxalic acid and that’s usually the compound which harms.
-
Maybe it’s time you clean your bath? I mean, S. marcescens is a beautiful microbe but I wouldn’t want it all over my bathroom walls. It’s also an opportunistic pathogen which may cause pneumonia and the like and is quite hard to treat due to several inherent antibiotic resistances.