PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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.
-
Curious re definition of sensitive. SLS innovation and success last century was for the resolution of problems with true-soap based products and hard water.
-
Always use multiple preservatives.
1) no single preservative has true broad spectrum efficacy
2) it’s harder for a contaminant to adapt to multiple preservatives vs a single compound
Phenoxy is prob best 0.5%. ECT is over formulated
-
Thanks. Pretty casual “science” published in a second rate journal. I’d not put too much significance to normal product use/benefit. They tested a product with 30% EMU oil, not the ingredients or vitamins; control/placebo was not defined; 11 subjects split between test and placebo in unidentified numbers; product application via pad was uncontrolled; technical benefits reported vs visual expression,; questionable interpretation (Fig 3 - claimed benefit when errors bars clearly overlapped).
-
Sorry - 10% Emu oil.
-
-
With some surfactants, the effective pKa of benzoate is increased making it effective at higher pH.
-
the curse of Dabre - the partron saint of garbage science.
-
Benzyl alcohol, Kathon and EDTA is a good combination.
-
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.
-
correction …… with the right challenge test.
-
One can see the impact in challenge test results - with the right challenge test resukts.
-
What do you think is caffeine’s impact on those conditions?