PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
“Safe”?
pH - not at issue. Skin has no pH per se but techniques that propose to measure find it effectively buffered.
Fatty acids in soap - short chain are more biologically active - C12 may be more irritating on skin than longer chain.
-
To your questions - cleaning what material and neutralization/eliminating what odor?
-
That is a poor preservative system and a higher risk population is exposed. What is pH and packaging?
-
That is a pretty weak preservative system - not much Gram neg protection.
-
Was this changed supported by challenge by data?
-
What size tank? Spray balls? What type of product residue?
-
It’s associated with the addition of which preservative?
-
Come on!. Put some skin in the game - try it where the sun don’t shine! How else will you know its effect - good or bad..
-
Biphasic - as in ribbons? Preservative migration is no more and prob much less a concern than with emulsion. But use preservatives with great water solubility.
-
You’ll need preservation. Suggest Neolone or Dantogard with a chelator such as EDTA.
-
Hold mother of pearl!! Finally, the miracle. Think secret was the magnetism. Looks like I’m out of a job.
-
FD&C Act definition of “cosmetic” has 2 sections. The one with which we are familiar and the second:
.. (2) articles intended for use as a component of any such articles; except that such term shall not include soap.”
Ingredients of cosmetics are themselves cosmetics. FDA BAM established 1000 cfu/g as limit for all other….
Not aware folks have been busted on this alone - but prob would come out as 483 item in an audit.
-
btw - this does show the supplier as full of crap - calling it “Cosmetic Grade”
-
-
Might consider Univ Cinc. https://online.uc.edu/masters-programs/ms-in-cosmetic-science/faculty/
Faculty is big company credentialed (GSK, P&G, Unilever). Can’t address courses directly - but for the Manuf. Hygiene for which I’m faculty and confident there is no competitive course.
-
This is a tough one. Anything approaching 1% would risk OOS and FDA would take a dim view that the preservative system was used to clean up almost 10,000/gram.
I do think calling it “cosmetic grade” is BS.
-
Based on current ads, they’re claiming lowered pH as basis.
-
you do not need the plus.
-
Agree - MIT/CMIT prob not appropriate. Can you describe packaging, process and anticipated consumer use?
-
What is your country - regulatory climate? Methylisothiazolinone effectively banned in EU.
-
Chelator is useful in preservation. Not sure its surface safety in your application.
-
As in the microbial encountered in manufacturing - e.g. do you clean and sanitize equipment, control micro content of raw materials?
Rarely is one preservative enough. In this case, I anticipate the above will not be in control and application will bring water addition. If using only one - use the formaldehyde releaser.
-
Should be ok. ~ 0.5% (5000 ppm) phenoxy and 0.3% Na benzoate.
-
It’s not that great a system anyway. Why not try something more pedestrian like benzoate/phenoxy.
-
Some of those are +/- garbage in any use and, if you’re in US, don’t think any are legal in your application. A formaldehyde releaser such as Sodium Hydroxymethyl glycinate with phenoxyethanol might work if your making is reasonably clean, BUT to be legal you need to find versions compliant to relevant biocidal/pesticide regs. - in US, registered as EPA pesticidal preservatives..
-
Methyl isothiazolinone (MIT) and Dimethyl dimethylol hydantoin (DMDM hydantoin)