PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Please do not join these ignorant clowns. “Just add water” is an irresponsible invitation to contamination, and Geogard ECT at any pH is a crap stand alone preservative system as are benzoate and benzoic/sorbate. 6 month use-by is a cynical cop out - the consumer has no idea when the product was made and we know they do not read or comply with ex/PAO dates.
Tap water usually include pseudomonads - esp. P. aeruginosa, one of the most common causes of cosmetic contamination recalls. ECT is benzyl alcohol and salicylate - might be ok vs fungi and Gram positive but fairly useless vs. Gram negatives - pseudomonads. Might be - because ad lib addition is whatever the consumer adds to whatever concentration.
Here’s a classic example of “just add water” in a medical context that proved fatal.
-
By sales or volume - zippo.
-
Functional, both could work but prefer Germall + in rinse-off products.
-
Food standards are not acceptable for cosmetics.
Functionally, excessive microbial count in a raw material can put finished product over the quantitative limit for cosmetics - establishing an adulterated product. Even if processing (e.g. heat in making the cosmetic) eliminates the count, most would consider the raw material adulterated and therefore the product adulterated whatever the finished microbial content.
-
Think very few are familiar with the stuff.
There is another very important point with the odd preservative - safety. As safety is your responsibility - how do you know it is safe in use ?
-
It is not an effective preservative.
-
BCK? BKC? Benzalkonium Cl?
-
The “same ” basis is efficacy and experience. SCE has none of the former and the shampoo formula offered shows its formulator has none of the latter..
-
FD&C is pretty clear - the immediate responsibility (micro, safety, whatever) for the cosmetic is the “guy” on the label, not the ingredient supplier whatever they claim. Unless the “guy” used data faked by supplier, I don’t see the supplier liable. Similarly, micro risk accords to the product not the ingredient and the “guy” should have known by testing. I’ve been expert witness for a number of contamination lawsuits. Initially the folks who insured the “guy” are suing somebody. The “guy” prob will as well - maybe the bulk producer or the packer. No one think of the preservative supplier as the “guy” had challenge data. And the preservatives were typically BS - pushed by priority lists.
If there were bad guys re preservation - they would be the @#@$#@$$ retailers and their “priority chemical” lists that effectively force politically correct, crappy preservation.
-
Look at back issues of Happi https://www.happi.com/
Also consider Zeolite and do add a preservative.
-
It’s worth nothing that phosphates have generally been banned in laundry detergents.
-
As ketchito noted - the target of a builder is chelation not the functions offered in the chart you posted.
A Bacillus sp. has been the source of enzymes used in liquid detergents.
-
To your original question re phototoxicity - please check Google Scholar and see:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0887233310001864
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319610318300164
-
It’s a tome but reco https://www.routledge.com/Essential-Oils-Contact-Allergy-and-Chemical-Composition/Groot-Schmidt/p/book/9781482246407
No fairy dust comes without risk.
There is potential toxicity in dermal application. “Potential” esp. as composition varies profoundly between batches - as would any benefit or function their application would be intended to establish. Most reputable scientific journals reject articles touting EO benefits unless accompanied with complete chemical composition and justification that the report is offering novelty - not just the same EO ingredient efficacy from another plant source.
Folks using EO’s should similarly ask for chemical analysis - if for no other reason to exclude materials contaminated with pesticides. Lastly - some years ago UN complained that subsistence farmers in 3rd world have been lured into EO-relevant agriculture with prospect of higher value only to find a fickle market. Absent the replaced food production risks family starvation. You might know your ultimate source.
routledge.com
Essential Oils: Contact Allergy and Chemical Composition
Essential Oils: Contact Allergy and Chemical Composition provides a full review of contact allergy to essential oils along with detailed analyses of the chemical composition of essential oils known to cause contact allergy. In addition to literature data, this book … Continue reading
-
Right - a shampoo concentrate the hosp. salon diluted with tap water.
Shampoos are so difficult prob worst case for preservation due to water exposure in use. Isothiazolinone is not that stable dry - maybe formaldehyde releasers with EDTA but dynamics of addition and mixing so whatever is used gets in the right place.
If there’s a good answer it’s prob in packaging. Can you market as a single use to which tap water is added to a volume in a sachet?
btw - I sure respect your concern for consumers and their safety.
-
Thanks ! I’m old and slow but get it.
Good grief! Big successful folks like AMT offer special magic stuff only for home crafters with their big volumes. They really believe that crap?? Maybe AMT can offer promotional tin foil hats. ????
-
OK - AMT, but am confused. Homecrafters think big guys are conspiring to force AMT’s and other goofy stuff on them? Who conquered whom?
-
Don’t know how to address other than sales - units or $. Units are harder but Statistica estimates for example shampoo units ~380 million annually
The industry is ~$300 billion globally. I doubt home crafters even register. In 30 years with P&G and representing P&G at CTFA/PCPC, can remember not even one comment of home crafter “competition.”
What is AMT?
-
No - and please heed the comment of Microformulation.
-
In this (and most) context - virtue signaling and marketing hype somewhere between (ignorant and cynical). The best excuse for poor preservation for the suckers who buy it.
-
The issue is in-use - not passing whatever unvalidated test one uses.
And please drop the silly enviro virtue. The planet was here and will be here long after you and I and humans are gone. Shampoos formulas are profoundly irrelevant. Please focus ion your responsibility -protecting protecting consumers.
-
Gluconate is a poor chelator, and the preservative system is silly. If this shampoo is for personal use - your risk. If you plan to market - it is irresponsible . Please be aware - this safety responsibility is yours - not some ignorant self appointed clowns who nothing of the subject.
SCE is benzoic acid , an obscure “booster” ester (sorbitan caprylate) and a useless bit of diol. Shampoos are esp. prone to Gram negative bacterial contamination - esp. Pseudomonas aeruginosa that “eats” benzoic acid and happily degrade esters with its esterases.
-
aka thymol
-
Curious - can you say where you heard it was a preservative and that surfactants at that level did not require preservation?
-
No - and there is no “broad spectrum” preservative. 18% is not “high” - high (70%) surfactant raw at high pH aq. surfactants may not need preservation. This product requires preservation.