PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Mike. Sorry it ended but quite a accomplishment and experience.
-
-
Preservative system is pretty weak - esp. versus Gram negative bacteria. Risky as facial wash will bring exposure to tap water. Can you describe your packaging and QA/QC capability?
Why Gluconolactone? If for chelation, advise EDTA.
-
Do not play with pH. Benzoate/sal acid preservation can be effective but is very very formula and pH sensitive. As ketckito said - you should represerve.
-
Phenoxyethanol has very little sensitization risk, less than parabens, and parabens preservation can be effective. But risk assessments are based primarily on finished products, and Cetaphil folks have resources for a complete product risk assessment. Those not so well funded have relied on CIR and classic preservative combinations - notably without HRIPT.
Tho’ FDA is moving slowly, I think there will be an expectation of HRIPT for all cosmetic products.
-
Dietary supplements not cosmetics
-
Ingredient labeling compliance may be tough.
-
Micro risk here is making and packing - formula, process design and raw material control. Cold process does not help. “Tested” by you or supplier. Water - to what level of detection.
-
Prob came in with phenoxyethanol as e.g. PE 9010.
-
what is your process and package?
-
In some contexts
-
Magnolia bark - do not use.
One does not preserve the lipid phase - we preserve the water phase and the lipid-water interface.
Water in oil is a different micro risk. Generally, the bugs offered in use can’t find the water droplets to grow. Since preservatives are in the water phase, the same dynamic will male it difficult to pass an challenge test.
86 (with prejudice) the magnolia bark and add something for fungi. Do you have a chelator? Why must pH be ~7 rather than lower?
-
What are batch volumes and making periods?
Water. Do you make or is it supplied?
A and B are unpreserved. Keep those times brief - in any case < 4 hours. Aloe is often a problem - what info re. CoA and is it preserved?
Do you sanitize equipment before use and how?
-
I’ll clarify - cap glycol is ok , even for Gram neg’s, but at higher levels than folks use. Could you add some phenoxyethanol?
With your packaging, you could live with your current system if you could ensure vs risk of Gram neg contamination in making. CoA’s delegate part of that responsibility to suppliers and I’m not sure you can be confident with water. Not knowing your hardware, cleaning and sanitization practices, process (any heat?) maybe some insurance.
,
-
Thanks. Good for the packaging - what about your production? Do you test your raws or work off CoA’s? How good is your water.
Please do not accept preservative marketers’ BS as valid - “broad-spectrum, preservative-free blend based on caprylhydroxamic acid, ” is both grossly incorrect and unethical. Cap glycol./cap hydroxamate combination offers a major gap re Gram negative bacteria and you are including these for the sole purpose of preservation.
Gluconolactone is unstable and will break down in an aq. product. Your customer will experience its breakdown product gluconic acid, not gluconolactone.
-
While esterases might generate C12 fatty acid in situ, I’d still not count on coconut oil for antifungal or antibacterial effect.
-
Not sure what reactive means. Neogen/Biolumix level of detection is greater than what most folks use.
-
why Biolumix?
-
no - you can worry but can do nothing about it
no
yes
So you’ve no micro capability?
-
how good are you raws - esp. water?
-
Challenge test to see
-
Lume (and its annoying inventor) claim low pH as mechanism for its efficacy.
-
As my friend ketchito said, that is a weak system. How did you come up with it?
Need a primary - CMIT, PE or the like
-
generally, no one preservative has sufficient broad spectrum efficacy and it’s more difficult for a bug to adapt to two preservatives
-
“mm”? Any idea what those data mean? pH is a primary factor in hard surface product preservation.
You have 1%. Are you confident of stability?