PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
You should check Philippine regs.
60-95% is the typical range - but please be aware the aloe and guava may screw up your efficacy.
-
Is this for personal use or to be marketed - and in what country?
-
I’ve heard of it but have no experience with this one. Recall it another fake “natural” but is GRAS. Perhaps it’s like polylysine - a cationic.
-
ask the MicroCare folks - might be sorbate autooxidation
-
Very likely, microbial contamination.
-
Microformulation is 100% correct.
I saw no mention of challenge testing even as made, and Gram staining is not a valid means of addressing micro quality any more than eye-balling products in stability. Leucidal is a pretty poor to lousy preservative even if you’re working with irradiated clay (are you?) and will have a lot of challenge in use since most pomades are marketed in open pots
Legally, you must affirm micro safety through the expected product life and use - usually with challenge testing data. Above would appear to have you in noncompliance even with old cosmetic regs. You’ll prob not get a lot of help from experts like Microformulation when you appear to blow off micro safety.
-
Pretty sure MIC protocols all use media at +/- neutral pH. MIC is pretty meaningless - inhibition in an overnight culture is a pretty low modest target when the standard is stable kill through 4 weeks.
-
Yes - the bugs are the same anywhere and USP is way way to easy to pass. Use ISO 11930 A crtieria.
-
got it - do use ISO challenge method and criteria.
-
Prob doesn’t hurt to add sorbate - the stuff isn’t that stable through time consistent with consumer use.
Citrate is not that good a chelator in this context (but prob as poor a prevative as phytoBS). Maybe GLDA?
“seem to be present” - is this in challenge testing or just de facto content testing?
-
Good grief - drop the silly PhytoBS. No one knows what’s in the stuff - other than the claim of “salicylates”. Assume you are chasing “clean” BS, control your pH to <5, drop the sorbate, do add benzyl and perhaps a long chain glycol. You need a chelator like EDTA. Find your own green one but not gluconolactone.
Your problem is Gram negative bacteria.
-
Could not open photo.
Might be microbial contamination - a fairly common bacterial contaminant Serratia marcescens produces a red pigment and your preservative is absolute BS.
-
She may have heard it from a source she trusted. Appears a lot of ophthamologists are ignorant re. preservatives too - https://www.contactlensjournal.com/article/S1367-0484(13)00025-8/fulltext
-
Holy crap - what an idiot! Of course you don’t want ingredients that fire up the eye - the consumer will very likely/hopefully toss it before they can contaminate the stuff. They may never know it’s full of bugs - until they get an infection.
The eye is uniquely prone to infection from cosmetics with blindness as a result. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002939477903348 - for this one, point of entry was thought to be inadvertant contact of mascara brush to cornea with to minor scratches.
Right - you know that clown has no idea the safety and mildness around the eye of her weak naturals.
FDA is esp. concerned with contamination of eye area products. In fact, cosmetics were included in the original FD&C act of 1936 because of eye infection. Ironic toi this discussion - irritation may have been involved. The agency has eye area products as a big worry.
-
Please determine if distilled or deionized water shows the same problem.
-
Dowicil wasn’t bad - P&G used it in their product as well.
-
Perhaps like quats - destabilizes membranes and transport. Quats disinfectant work great in testing, pseudomonads can contaminate in practice.
-
and that may be contamination as well
-
MIC - it’s pretty meaningless.
For challemge - USP/EP/BP/ISO/ASTM all have the same bugs (these were 1st isolated 60 + years ago - the staph almost a century old) and are more of less identical but for acceptance criteria. ISO is ok but it offers the wriggle room of A amd B, and non of these demands the bugs actually be eliminated at any time point. In real life with real contaminants - bugs that hang around learn to grow.
.Major companies that use this general challenge protocol demand even more - usually no detects at 7 days. They typically also add bugs that can or have contaminate esp, Burkholderia cepacia and a few others.
-
It’s just inhibition (not kill) vs the wimpy lab strains and only for 12-24 hours..
Efficacy in a formula - and experience wiith other formulas.
-
Can you offer any more detail? This sounds like a lot of BS for an officious assessor.
-
Good point - as MoCRA will make folks more accountable for safety up front.
I know nothing of “assignment bro” - appears to claim service as academic writing resoruce rather than safety assessment.
-
Think the big guys all conduct data-based human and env safety assessments.
-
Good points. I’m developing an online course - cosmetic manufacturing hygiene focused on microbiology - for the Spring semester at a university. Of the many lectures, I’ve prepared only a few. All the many others are by some of the most experienced industry folks I believe in the world. Re. these experts, I know content is right and delivery is my primary worry. Great expertise is not always accompanied by great communication skills and these folks are not educators. In fact, I’ve something of a bias against “professors” . Most publications by academics addressing cosmetic microbiology are poor to total crap. For my lecturerers, this is not their day job so one can only ask limited revisions by these busy, proud folks.
I’ll see how the course is received, test and poll students. If it continues, i hope student comments re. indovudal lectires can improve the effort.