PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
perhaps to adjust pH
-
What is the product and pH? Other option vs. fungi, you might try IPBC or cap hydroxamate. What do you have for bacteria? Go with about anything before “natural” - whatever that means. Let your challenge test guide you and look for kill.
-
P&G Olay sales are $3+ billions. Extrapolating from Amazon sales may not be valid.
-
What is the product and propellant?
-
This risks inhalation - so please use a robust system. Suggest a formaldehyde releaser but please not the clean beauty natural stuff.
-
Masks are quasi leave on - not appropriate for isothiazoloinones and the CMIT is not stable > 7 pH
-
Right - a specific number of bottles. As trivial as it sounds, this should be a SOP with trained assessors - trained in what is acceptable.
Gram negative bacteria are BY FAR your greatest risk - the primary cause of recalls for micro. Yeast and mold are not commonly found in tap water at any significant level. Gram negative bacteria are common and usually as biofilm chunks.
-
If you’re speaking of virgin bottles - you should put on the specification visual observation of dust and filth. Most do not treat them further. I know some may check 1st 3 receipts from a new supplier by checking microbial content of rinse water of a few bottles. If excessive counts OR Gram neg., bacteria, find another supplier.
Washing with anything is a bad idea as (tap) water typically includes Gram neg bacteria. Don’t try to make up for a sloppy supplier.
If you refer to bottles recovered from the market and reused for fresh production - STOP IT!!
If you plan to produce “lightly or self-preserved natural products” - STOP IT!
-
Agree - 8-10 is typical range
-
I’d not delegate safety, esp. micro safety, responsibility to government bureaucrats.
NOEL no observed effect level - based on testing or modeling the level showing no toxic effect - in practice one works with ingredient levels establishing a safety factor (1/100-1000x) .
-
To your point - what NOEL’s were you assuming re chemical safety?
Inhalation of contamination was my concern - and all the GMP and government BS in the world will ensure quality of a preservative free product either as made under nonsterile conditions or in use.
Yes - unsafe is exactly my comment.
-
Wrong Mike. Whatever sells, inhalation exposure and children is a greater than normal risk scenario.
-
ok - describe product - pH.
-
been a while since I’ve done net weights. Start here https://www.nist.gov/document/08-appa-11-hb133-finalpdf
-
What is pH of product
-
Dave’s book is excellent - and you’re right - the best preservative is good GMP’s. As Rich Hennessy - an old pal and one of the great ancient cosmetics microbiologists - often said - there is no preservative system that the plant can’t screw up.
My fav. example - ZPT 26% saturated solution RM we used for Head & Shoulders needed a preservative.
-
Prefer Glydant+.
and do be prepared to formaldehyde concerns. Exposure is de minimis.
-
Thanks Mike
-
Appreciate your attention to a complicated safety issue.
The primary objective of preservation is to protect the consumer in use - versus microbes introduced during use. Hurdle depends on a series of weak components. Compromise of any one by consumer use, through stability, through any factor compromises preservation. These are common events and hard to control.
Aw is not a relevant metric for some emulsions and getting to 0.7 often leaves product cosmetically diminished.
There is no broad spectrum preservative and do NOT rely in supplier sales literature.. Construct a combination including multiple preservatives - one(s) esp. effective vs bacteria and one(s) esp. effective vs fungi and a chelator - EDTA.
AND use a package that discourages consumer screwing up the product - esp. important for the poor systems that your list/claim describes. If you must chase the clean beauty/natural mythology - please use phenoxyethyl over phenethyl, try some glycols, esp. over the esters.
-
Thanks Mike - what safety parameters do you guys address?
-
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.