PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Annex 3 addresses labeling for presence, whatever the source in the formula.
Benzyl alcohol is commonly and intentionally used as a preservative and is labeled in that regard.
-
Isothiazolinones for rinse off and FA releasers, now phenoxy, with additions for leave on. Unfortunately, go to preservatives are largely eliminated by those playing the natural/clean beauty game.
Please don’t chase “hurdle” and multifunctionals unless you have the depth of testing - esp. in- use to validate. They’re more often excuses for anti preservative marketing than commitment to quality. Hurdle is generally a bad idea - any one of the weak unvalidated (esp.in-use) elements compromised compromises the product -
-
CMIT can be used in drug products. Context of CHG scrubs can involve broken skin so you’d need a relevant risk assessment.
Do you have any alcohol in your product?
-
The liquid shampoo, soap based as this one, was 1st developed and marketed in 1927 by Hans Schwartzkopf. He’s also credited the synthetic detergent shampoo followed shortly by L’Oréal and P&G.
-
2500-3000 ppm of each - buy think you need also something more directed at Gram negative bacteria - maybe phenoxy.
-
This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by
-
These 2 organic acid compose a pretty weak system. What is your pH?
-
Primary as oz girl commented the ATF CFR 27 chapter 21.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-I/subchapter-A
ecfr.gov
eCFR :: 27 CFR Chapter I Subchapter A -- Alcohol
eCFR :: 27 CFR Chapter I Subchapter A -- Alcohol
-
Total BS
“…anti-microbial properties especially beneficial for the use in AP/Deo formulations. It reliably reduces odor-causing bacteria…”
as is the preservative system
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by
-
BHT is not an antimicrobial preservative.
What’s pH?
-
Is this your ferment or some thing you purchased?
-
True - you can be sure that every cosmetic recalled for micro issues passed a USP 51 type test.
-
Sorry - I’ve not enough information to answer with validity. My approach has always been Edisonian
-
Be aware the study addressed the Chinese market. Few alternatives are legal preservatives in most of the world.
-
Please Mike - regulators know crap all about preservation. Not a one has preserved has relevanmt experience and judgement.
-
Mike - it’s not lab testing that reveals hurdle as inadequate - it’s in-use consumer testing. USP 51 and the like are unvalidated and not useful in addressing moderate divergence in pH, Aw, etc. GMP and QC are irrelevant to preservation. They’re the price of entry - if we can’t make it clean we shouldn’t be in the business.
One can effectively preserve so-called natural products (esp. with a increasingly bastardized definition of natural)- it demands more labor and systems are pretty limited in that they don’t carry over well between products.
-
Maybe a bit weak v Gram + bacteria. In right packaging, should be ok, esp if from Estee. I’m more familair with chlorphenesin in makeup and color cosmetics than high water products.
-
Ethanol (even down to ~5%)/CHG can be an effective in a preservative context.
-
Mike - the same Schwartzkopf https://www.schwarzkopf.com/
-
Prob too high for organic acids.
-
pointed out these were boosters -so why do they think effective. Answer was paste and cut from supplier for “Hydroguard” (composed of the 2), no data.
-
Asked ’em on facebook - right they said propanediol and hydroxyacetophenone.
-
Neither/both will not preserve.
To Perry’s point such small/startup brands not only screw up out of ignorance (a generous interpretation of these formulas), they can forget to add things like preservatives (e.g.https://www.drunkelephant.com/voluntaryrecall.html) and certainly can’t be relied upon to establish safety in formulation or ingredients.
-
Sure - 1000 ppm -= 0.1%
So 0.25-0.30%
-
thanks - and it’s Phil
-
4.5 is the dilurted product - not the product itself.
How much water is in the product itself?
