PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Prob too lazy/ignorant to relabel for US
-
You need to worry about the consumer / that is a garbage preservative system.
-
Right a mislabeled drug
-
For preservation. /Assume you’re using pe 1090 type source for phenoxy/EHG (9/1). It’s ok in a rinse off context but not great - isothiazolinones or a FA releaser would be much better. Suppose you’re not considering EDTA for policy reasons.
Suggest you have too much - cut it to 0.6%. I’d also add 0.26% Benzoate.
-
This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by
-
How hard is your water?
-
This reply was modified 1 month ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 1 month ago by
-
<div>Webinar - PCPC <b style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Beauty at the Border: How Tariffs Are Reshaping the Cosmetics Industry</div>
<b style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Next Tuesday 9/30
https://www.personalcarecouncil.org/event/beauty-at-the-border/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-kA5mx8FahVRA3b-aGCVVGROt8Vy1NbEouFWeqxW2BkXA6oMwQTI9ODz4IDHTV2VjTjTpxHDGpBf2lgwjw4Xu8QXHsFQ&_hsmi=382280993
-
Airless doesn’t relieve preservation unless sterile making and packing or post packing sterilization ala retort of food canning.
-
not relevant to function - but I’d use DMDM at no greater than 2500-3000 ppm active.
-
I doubt you’ll have a micro problem but why buffered pH 10? Drop the CMIT - it’s not stable at pH 10 - EDTA/Formaldehyde/alkaline pH are uniquely effective and you’re not going to find too many bugs happy with the pH.
BUT buffered at pH 10 - risks substantial hair damage.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ics.13029
-
Benzoic acid/Phenoxyethanol - what are pH targets? Phenoxy is too low - suggest 0.5% and add a chelator. You’ll need to qualify with challenge testing.
-
Catalase is a bad idea. Spraying enzymes can provoke sensitization by inhalation with risk of subsequent anaphylaxis. It’s pretty rare but too serious to risk if it does occur. You can see the stuff in smaller brands where they don’t have expertise to understand risk. .Big brands esp. avoid as they look to years of sales with millions of exposures.
Example: major detergent (with enzyme) manufacturers test their plant employees routinely and reassign if they show sensitization.
-
1) Terastat N, Nipaguard SCE are antimicrobial preservatives and neither is superlative. They target fungi (yeast and mold) but poor versus bacteria - esp. Gram negative bacteria, the most common source of micro problems. Totally useless in surfactant and rinse off products. Supplier info is BS - neither is broad spectrum, neither is natural.
Tocopherol is used as a chemical preservative antioxidant, no micro help.
2) “Clean” is just a meaningless marketing claim. Folks claiming it generally use fewers ingredients and poor preservatives such as you named.
3) As #1, don’t think they’re that effective in any product and your facewash will be the biggest risk for consumer contamination. Would need formulas, packaging and making info to calibrate risk.
Good luck.
-
No, as i said it can have biocidal activity esp. at levels ~8%. Never is a long time.
It does not take a PhD to read the literature in this field where experience and data are certainly more compelling. Good for Neutrogena - we do not know the levels and perhaps this is a unique formula where this works for efficacy and formulation - as I noted above. In any case, we do not know the policy and risk assessment applied.
I remain concerned for fragrance free claim re your fragranced product. Would expect from marketing folks but not from technology. Do you make a preservative-free claim for the diol system?
-
sorry for late reply - been traveling.
A PhD in anything hardly qualifies one for cosmetic preservation expertise. Mine is Microbiology and Mycology and my understanding is based on experience and data that are often counterintuitive to conventional technical understanding.
Diols at high levels can exert biocidal activity. I’ve found these incompatible with enough formulas that these they don’t serve product dev cycle time. They can be compromised by consumer practices in use practices more so than classic preservatives. Data rather than a lecture might be better for discussion - but of course you can share data at your discretion.
I was responsible for with environmental risk assessments of P&G beauty products and am not familiar conventional preservative offering relevant risk . Perhaps you can share you data/perspective that responds to harm to the environment as a factor in preservative choice..
Help me on this - you don’t like free-from claims but don’t mind making one for a fragranced product?
-
Add phenylethyl for fragrance and claim fragrance free? Do you think that ethical?
@8% glycol if formulas can take it why again do you need diversity - can you share data?
-
Why so many diols and why phenylethyl vs phenoxyethyl? Think weak v fungi and staph
-
I like EDTA of EGTA as it has a higher affinity for Mg and I’ve used it for a long time.
I know benzoate seems pretty weak at that pH BUT in combination with surfactants the effective pKa goes up so it works. Some folks (esp. Unilever) find it be enough, I don’t. But please recall preservation is not for shelf life - it’s for consumer contamination.
-
0.02% formalin - 74 ppm formaldehyde at high pH and EDTA -this is prob good enough.
Objective if preservation is to protect consumers - CMIT will be long gone. If buggy ingredients get some good stuff.
I’d not be confident that rinsing will prevent damage.
-
Compounding factor - the journal is a Chinese predatory POS.
-
Thanks graillotion - your comments are spot on. I’ll add the “pay for play” is a piece of the action. Not the cost of the effort but a percentage of the revenue.
-
Sampling in vivo is real hard - saliva itself is as poor as a skin swab. Bugs are in tissue, in and around teeth, gingiva and subgingiva, regurgitated, from sinus and nasal.
-
Don’t get carried away from “might”. As noted in the article, much in vitro data and little re. microbiome in situ.
“dental practitioners should be seeking to advise antiseptics that maintain a “balanced,” healthy, and diverse microbiome when they are used to manage any microbial-induced oral disease”. This is pretty useless BS.
-
Amazing!!!! A week and no response.
-
With the right process and package, poor (i.e. natural) preservative systems can work but you need something for Gram negative bacteria.