PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Prob too lazy/ignorant to relabel for US
-
You need to worry about the consumer / that is a garbage preservative system.
-
Right a mislabeled drug
-
For preservation. /Assume you’re using pe 1090 type source for phenoxy/EHG (9/1). It’s ok in a rinse off context but not great - isothiazolinones or a FA releaser would be much better. Suppose you’re not considering EDTA for policy reasons.
Suggest you have too much - cut it to 0.6%. I’d also add 0.26% Benzoate.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
-
How hard is your water?
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by
-
<div>Webinar - PCPC <b style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Beauty at the Border: How Tariffs Are Reshaping the Cosmetics Industry</div>
<b style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Next Tuesday 9/30
https://www.personalcarecouncil.org/event/beauty-at-the-border/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-kA5mx8FahVRA3b-aGCVVGROt8Vy1NbEouFWeqxW2BkXA6oMwQTI9ODz4IDHTV2VjTjTpxHDGpBf2lgwjw4Xu8QXHsFQ&_hsmi=382280993
-
Airless doesn’t relieve preservation unless sterile making and packing or post packing sterilization ala retort of food canning.
-
not relevant to function - but I’d use DMDM at no greater than 2500-3000 ppm active.
-
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.
-
-
I like EDTA of EGTA as it has a higher affinity for Mg and I’ve used it for a long time.
I know benzoate seems pretty weak at that pH BUT in combination with surfactants the effective pKa goes up so it works. Some folks (esp. Unilever) find it be enough, I don’t. But please recall preservation is not for shelf life - it’s for consumer contamination.
-
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.