PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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.
-
In science AI risks profound BS..
A post on Researchgate raised my suspicions so I read a university educator’s most recent a published article. Checked a couple of references that seemed kind sketchy. Neither existed (not in Google Scholar or in the journal he claimed for them). Went on to find most of the references were fictional, and one that existed was misquoted. AI check of its abstract at three sites - all concluded it was AI generated.
Haven’t decided what I’ll do about it - it’s not in my field. BUT do not take AI as accurate.
-
483 from last January. You can see a little of the relevant 483. Looks like real poor GMP’s - not even documenting making. Bet they were dinged for not following making SOP’s. Bet they blew off the agency.
https://www.fda483s.com/fdadocs/a-p-deauville-llc-easton-united-states-of-america-5/
They’re talking the AP product https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/fda/fdaDrugXsl.cfm?setid=927db52f-90c8-4f4b-a61d-b84cc5a38fe7
Deauville has been in trouble before https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/ap-deauville-llc-586306-11082019
-
These are drug products (antiperspirants) so FDA has more power of recall than for cosmetics. I’ll look for FDA’s documentation and get back to you.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by
-
To what purpose? Micro testing, product stability?
-
Can you tell us your formula, packaging, water source and pH.
As Jennifer said, you might preserve around phenoxyethanol. Not enough by itself and “microbiome friendly” is a BS claim.
-
Again on the negative side - there are hundreds of publications - usually from academics - that would have some of the silliest preservative systems useful.
-
Are these pure powder form or solution?
Of these hexyl resorcinol is most vulnerable.
-
fda.gov
How to Report a Cosmetic Product Related Complaint
Bad reaction to a cosmetic? Please tell FDA!
-
Check for micro contamination. Even if clean, your product is very poorly preserved.
-
Prob need something for Fungi/Gram positives and EDTA if it works.
-
Hopefully a pump or some other protective package.
Risk in making is process water and hygiene quality - somewhat mitigated by heat of process. Adding a preservative (as aq. solution) in cool down will likely not help.
W-in-O emulsions are fairly resistant to contamination in use. Primary risk would be water added in use and you can’t protect vs. that. 221 is weak but does target mold.
-
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.
-
This reply was modified 1 day, 21 hours ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 1 day, 21 hours ago by
-
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.
-
I asked ’em for data - let’s see what they say.
-
Yes - Gram neg’s (esp.pseudomonads) can “eat” benzoate.
Walmart - yup. Walmart’s contract packer’s formula.
-
Sorry - I can’t help.
-
SLS and prob some other surfactants change the apparent pKa of Benzoic acid enough to preserve efficacy approaching 8. Used this in P&G shampoos.
Maybe these guys have found the same effect with polyamine. Wonder that it’s enough to function that well in finished product (even even at the recommended the 2-3% level).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0001868689800028
-
4 and with differing pKa’s
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/159581/acidity-and-structure-of-edta-at-different-ph
-
This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by
-
It’s ok - was in soap biz for many years never used EDTA (may be Mike can comment) and of course you can/should use in emulsions e.g.https://incidecoder.com/products/olay-regenerist-micro-sculpting-cream.
Can destabilize some gels.
We used either, not both.
-
This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by
-
The big guys invest in environmental assessments for product, package and each ingredient - that can include expensive testing. Considering the huge volumes and global coverage, this is a clear corporate responsibility. Looks like they’re trying to leverage that into a claim. Certainly more substance than clean beauty but feels strange claiming priority for a basic responsibility.
-
Sorry! My error - was distracted with “Lotioncraft” and missed the PE. That should be a good system.
Still - have you checked for micro contamination? That is a reasonable source of rancid odor.