PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
SDS addresses the raw material, not in application. Beyond the product, the combination is irrelevant. Down the drain fate is a function of the individual chemical and sanitary sewers/sewage treatment. Sorry, I no longer have relevant environmental safety data. Can only say it met the envir. safety standards.
-
You’ve no preservative for Gram positive bacteria or fungi
-
About what I’d expect from the government- a study that only asks for more studies.
It certainly lived up to its title - “Studies on…”. They report studies that answer nothing. Noting similarities and differences between mouse and human hair growth, they offer no final comment as to validity. “Overall Conclusion” is pretty useless - focused on cytology, the central question of in vivo cosmetic hair loss is kicked down the road to future studies.
-
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?
-
Depends on what’s “best.” Brand success in sales doesn’t look to a balance but to a push on the “fluff” as far as regulators will allow and consumer swallow - and hopeful consumers will swallow a lot. Witness clean beauty, antiaging, paraben-free, recyclable or compostable packaging.
-
“…less harmful ingredients” admits they are harmful but less so than other ingredients that might be used. Don’t think that is a helpful claim in comparison to the propaganda of clean beauty and natural perceptions.
-
It’s not just the coacervate technology. Efficacy via active deposition based on physical aspects is also studied/controlled.
-
Thanks Anca. I wish I could offer something that informed consumers regarding the risks they assume with the BS clean and natural preservation - or the total BS of the cynical preservative free. But I do not.
-
What’s pH?
For safety I’d look at CIR
-
Agree - and with any consumer.
-
Why 12 months.
Recall please cosmetic preservatives are primarily intended to control contamination in use. “We never had a problem”. Testing quality into a product is questionable GMP’s.
But yo the justification - why no preservative? As there is a risk, why do you think it appropriate to offer that risk to consumers - here children?
-
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.