PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Masks are quasi leave on - not appropriate for isothiazoloinones and the CMIT is not stable > 7 pH
-
What’s pH?
-
You should start with irradiated clay and supplement with more water soluble preservatives - glycols, organic acids if pH works. What’s your water quality?
CoA <100cfu/ml ? How did they treat the stuff?
-
The sales brochure offers preserved formulae @ pH’s inconsistent with expected range of effect. Think these folks know nothing of preservation. Consider it as a surfactant, not for any preservation potential.
-
Because the label says “deodorant”, is packaged like one and kooks like one. There’s no test it must satisfy. Caveat emptor, esp. with graillotion’s observation.
-
Can’t offer a risk assessment based on what your boss “thinks.” But I understand your position. Just make sure your “boss”, not you, is responsible on paper for this product.
https://www.usptechnologies.com/what-are-h2o2-stabilizers-and-will-they-affect-my-application/
-
Yes - stop it. If you don’t know what’s in your ingredients, you should not be exposing consumers to your product.
-
OK - it’s not as good and fairly useless vs Gram positives and fungi
-
Doubt it’s anything special re. micro. More gee whiz - note they do not compare to other surfactants. Even marketing does not recommend preservative free.
Why phenethyl vs,. phenoxyethyl?
-
Activated charcoal in cosmetics is useless.
You’ll need enough for consumers to see it when they use the product.
-
Net contents must be right per MAV - not under or overfill.
Don’t want product squeezed lout merely holding the bottle.
-
Amen Microformulation!! Recall an instance when poor process design had the preservative precipitate - filtration of “particles” left it unpreserved with predictably contaminated.
-
Ethanol is your antiseptic active so 60% or greater. Very Very unlikely you’ll be successful with foaming.
-
Mike - testing for safety. How was that done and how does your oil supplier maintain their quality. That was our concern. Despite assurances, RM quality control found a cigarette butt in one batch. That with occasional chemical excursion killed it. btw - what is the color of your material?
Reference to “fluid” rather than soap. Is that marketing - did you find consumer perception negative to “soap” in this context?
-
That’s very nice, Mike
-
Mike, our effort for hand soap required analytical qualification of every lot and those results indicated lack of quality control despite supplier’s assurances. The primary driver then was cost - as most folks learn, quality is costly. Think one would need to validate supplier’s “process” as with any primary ingredient.
I’d not get carried away with “biodegradability” beyond the ingredient that appeals to a lot of consumers’ perceptions of natural vulnerability in this context. Appreciate that the product has found a niche in this regard.
-
We explored the use of used cooking oil (“yellow grease”) for soap production and abandoned the idea based on lack of assurance of chemical quality. We were working with a well know global fast food chain. Cost was the objective. Many batches were ok, but the frequency batches with chemical quality issues made this an unreliable source.
-
Mike - is the from “yellow grease”?
-
I was asking for the pH of the product and the question was directed at the OP. Please let them answer.
-
Micro quality?
-
like matt said
-
An idea levels in that commercial product? Chloromethyl might be a stability problem at that pH esp. if any free amines. Methyl is good but needs ~100 ppm.
-
I too await the citations. Pretentious claims for natural ingredient safety are typically based on absence of any safety data. As a toxicologist pal commented - “the only totally safe ingredient is the one that no one has tested”.
-
“Hurdle” is a poor preservative approach in consumer use. There’s nothing esp. “intelligent” about it.
-
Not aware such data exists for others.