PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
PhilGeis
MemberJuly 19, 2023 at 1:17 pm in reply to: potassium sorbate at a slightly higher pH (~5.2)Be esp. attentive to stability with sorbate
-
CM as an FDA reg facility in GMP control and product within monograph??
-
Will the R&D lab be making product for human use/application?
-
PhilGeis
MemberJuly 14, 2023 at 5:23 am in reply to: Cosmetic preservative: Sharomix AM24 … Thoughts?Don;t know this one. On paper, it doesn’t look like much - a couple of diols f. Quats are pretty lame as cosmetic preservatives. Looks like the hooks are “free-from” labeling and cost with the broad spectrum/pH range assurances. Oddly, documents does not address efficacy - not even the usual boiler plate stuff.
My bias - diols fixed up for snake oil patent
-
PhilGeis
MemberJuly 13, 2023 at 6:40 am in reply to: Anyone have experience using liquid soap for a scrub?Micro contamination is a cryptic risk - esp. with addition of salt and sugar.
Note recent US recall - Castile Soap Towelette - Product is contaminated with Nesterenkonia lacusekhoensis..
-
Bottled water may have been treated with ozone - residue that would oxidize your copper. Industrial ozonated systens use UV to eliminate the stuff. Activated carboon works - you might try bisulfite addition to test the concept.
-
actually bisulfite would just address oxidation. You know that’s happening but a little might let you proceed
There are kits for ozone but I don;t know if they just look for general oxidation potential. https://www.hannainst.com/hi38054-ozone-test-kit.html?msclkid=7d6f1025ce521934fd02748b5ee1471a
hannainst.com
The HI38054 is a chemical test kit for the determination of ozone.
-
-
Lots of labs offer the testing but not cheaply and are prob not eager to address single samples. If you were in mainland, I’d suggest ATL in Cincy Think there’s a Eurofins in Hawaii
-
PhilGeis
MemberJuly 9, 2023 at 6:34 am in reply to: Has anyone written an expose' on the cosmetic 'terror' organizations haunting…Quick look sees the same for the leaping bunny BS - not the cost of review but a piece of the action - A “one-time licensing fee, based on the company’s gross annual sales”
-
PhilGeis
MemberJuly 9, 2023 at 5:21 am in reply to: Has anyone written an expose' on the cosmetic 'terror' organizations haunting…EWG took (still takes?) a piece of the action.
Imagine most of the cutsie badges on cosmetics are similar ripoff variety.
-
Suggest you know little of P&G or pine extracts.
-
Your expectations are not consistent with reality or apparently experience.
It should be intuitive that a preservative is necessary and the products do not include anything known. The 3 year effective and surprising pine extract preservation based on <i style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(-bb-body-text-color);”> natural antimicrobial and antibacterial properties from something in their backyard they extracted themselves is pretty tough to buy - esp. from an obscure bunch with a past record of contamination. It should have anyone with relevant experience scratching their head. Suggest you review pine extract compositions in the literature - there’s nothing magic.
Please don’t blow off “once in a few years” FDA report for contamination. This is serious and brands and minor brands skate by on this frequently - 1) they have to discover the contamination and 2) turn themselves in. Contamination as made is also function of failed manufacturing hygiene and not directly relevant to in-use risk. That you failed to observe spoilage in one experience is not a valid assessment of preservation. Shampoos are generally resistant to fungal contamination and bacterial contamination is often cryptic - unapparent . In-use studies are designed with n>>1.
Please don’t be superficial regarding microbiological risks. Folks have been blinded and even died (including babies) from infections acquired from contaminated products. Safety is a positive assessment that must be confirmed, not presumed until shown otherwise. I’d not offer benefit of a doubt excuse for extraordinary claims with no data.
-
70% is pretty tough, esp. at higher pH - if manage appropriately - sanitized production as RM and transport and delivery (one way totes and drum liners, sanitized tankers, unloading and storage, etc. ).
They aren;t bad but please don’t have too much faith in castile soap or pH 10 as preserved. These are good examples of potnetially susceptible stuff that happily passes USP/ISO preservative tests. I’d not go much below pH 12 in presuming no problem.
I’ve seen Serratia contaminaton of liquid (true) soap and note the following recent recall. Note recent recalls for micro contamination (aeruginosa) of Liquid laundry and - both pH >10.
Castile Soap Towelette
Product is contaminated with Nesterenkonia lacusekhoensis
-
Don’t be surprised or an apologist for BS. Lots of extracts have antimicrobial potential in some zone of inhibition test. There’s s nothing special re. preservation about ’em - including pine extracts. Efficacy has been studied in many product contexts and re. specifc components/putative actives. Even if effective at cosmetic use levels (they are NOT) - batch to batch concentrations are so widely variable there is no reproducibility in efficacy.
This is just another crunchy granola marketing bunch, ignorant of the risk their green BS brings to consumers - here infants.
-
PhilGeis
MemberJuly 10, 2023 at 4:28 am in reply to: Has anyone written an expose' on the cosmetic 'terror' organizations haunting…There are many folks with dirt on their hands in this regard. To the big guys, add the retailers - Sephora, Target, Walmart et al. - and their “priority” lists that drive moronic preservative systems. Our industry is based on advertising/marketing promises often of little substance. Meaningless virtue signaling and fear mongering peripherals can be just as effective.
Consider (in my experience) the assistant brand manager at a major marketer. Up or out in ~ 6 months from hire, little knowledge of the industry, stuck with technology development has to offer and constrained by legal, safety. It selects for folks with drive, imagination and a pragmatism (cynicism) of whatever works - legal and safety can stop me if there’s a problem if they find out.
-
PhilGeis
MemberJuly 10, 2023 at 3:54 am in reply to: Has anyone written an expose' on the cosmetic 'terror' organizations haunting…Thanks - and I’m ashamed to confirm the article’s report of P&G’s participation with these scummy jerks. Called my buddies in development with a “WTF!” - but with full knowledge that this was brand (advertising). More to the point of advertising is amoral.
-
Good point Ron. For single use sachets - saw no need for stability testing of preservative capacity - until consumer studies found these routinely used by families for extended time in China and 3rd world.
Think conditioners are much more difficult to rehydrate/resolubilize than shampoo. To your question - I’ve no experience but might approach it with a package that is physically unstable once opened and rehydrated in 1st use. Think the package supported “use as intended” approach.
-
and pH 7 does not define pure water. Dissolved CO2 as carbonate ion lowers pH. There many parameters that address “purity”. pH is not necessarily one of them
https://sciencing.com/ph-distilled-water-4623914.html
sciencing.com
What Is the pH of Distilled Water?
The pH of distilled water immediately after distillation is 7, but within two hours after distillation, it has absorbed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and become acidic with a pH of 5.8.
-
They expect consumers to clean up their adulterated product?
-
A cosmetic grade would be gamma treated - https://www.makingcosmetics.us/certificate-of-analysis/coa-tapioca-starch.pdf
-
Edit? Why would I want to correct my typos, angry retorts, pompous BS, ad hominem and irrelevant comments? I gotta be me!
-
Food standards are associated with expectations of (often) heat treatment of finished food product, brief shelf life and established consumer “QC” practices (toss old, smelly, ugly, moldy, etc.). Cosmetics are rarely so treated in production, have effective shelf life of years and contamination is often not obvious.
-
Good points!
But I have hope for Arxada. The preservation marketing fantasies were the product of Lonza. Arxada’s had it the biz for 2 or 3 years and has been knee deep in acquisition details for the global combination of businesses. The CTO is a pal and I know he’s hired some excellent industry folks to review the business and anticipate technology.
-
re screen shot - it’s pretty lame validation - no idea what they were testing (tap water diluted? to what %, etc.) and suppose it fails at 6 months? In-use testing would be the critical test - not their lab mock up.