PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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.
-
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.
-
Compounding factor - the journal is a Chinese predatory POS.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.