PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Your not in US?
Think your preservative system might need a little help for fungi and Gram positive bugs.
-
Most frequent and most severe consequences - Gram negative bacteria - esp. Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
And, with cepacia, least likely to be controlled by nonconventional preservation
-
still works for me - details from FDA Enforcement report
Nature Lake Foaming Hand Soap Tablets, Sea Mineral. 850 Fifth Street South, Hopkins, MN 5534
Class II - Hand soap has the potential to be contaminated with bacteria.
-
Probably
-
Aware of nothing for the natural “just stick this in” .
Can construct effective systems that meet “natural” contrivance based on formula and with chelator, glycol (at decent %’s), organic acid, if benzyl alcohol - with benzoic acid, phenoxy (not phenyl), pH control, process and package design. Rarely see evidence of this in most of the clean beauty offerings.
Sal acid has even been used as part but with very narrow, buffered pH range.
-
This is just marketing BS - slightly acid to 8 is cynical marketing at best showing profound ignorance of the objective.
Definitely weak vs Gram negative bacteria, again at any pH.
Do not use this stuff - build a system that should work in context of your product.
-
But drain the tank af rinsing. Do not want a volume of any water sitting beyond 6-8 hours - growing bugs
-
Heat may not be cheap but works best.
You could use your process water - that offers no more risk than niormal making.
-
Other bacteria including Burkholderia - and any Gram negative bacteria.
-
Think my comment was for a scrub - that, if a preservative was added, it should be available to probable water exposure.
I’ve used parabens for powders to address Aw changes from humid bathrooms.
Wish I could help with the how. I’m just a micro guy with limited formulation knowledge. I was blessed with excellent formulators.
-
ALL ingredients must be listed with very few exceptions - e.g perfume ingredients.
-
Are the extracts preserved?
-
I’ll add that FDA regulation of cosmetics is about to change dramatically. Not just MoCRA but a whole new organization within the Agency will take on the category. It’ll take a couple of years before we know their attitude.
-
Think folks haven’t responded as this is something that many (and the FDA) would prob find problematic - waiting for the “so what” other shoe to drop. We/they know that lots of cosmetic ingredients penetrate skin, so “deeply” e.g. that they/their breakdown products are excreted in urine.
Is penetration here a stand alone claim - nothing further, even inference?
the definition addresses intent - what is intent of penetration - in label and ads AND in your internal correspondence.
“articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body…for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance“
-
Growth or not - preservatives are specialty chemicals none of the big chemical companies saw as much more than a distraction and would shed when they went through various downturns. In the last 2 years, Lanxess and Arxada consolidated the lines across categories.
With MoCRA, we’ll see if the eye of newt/toes of frog stuff can afford to generate their own data to “substantiate safety” - or will we see them disappear like grapefruit seed extract.
-
pity the natural/organic /”clean” options do not replace the efficacy of the conventional safe combinations on priority chemical lists.
-
The Drabre study is irrelevant “science” - even if repeated with even a little rigor.. There are recognized toxicologic methodologies and those are what SCCS and FDA consider.
Why suppliers do not repeat Darbre? Parabens are commodity specialty chemicals of little significance to their suppliers bottom lines. Primary here is Clariant - a ~10 billion chemical company whose motto is “Greater chemistry for people and the environment” - has done nothing.
And “science” is not the answer. Safety-in-use of formaldehyde releasers is not in technical question. As J&J microbioligists and toxicologists correctly argued internally before giving up for their baby shampoo formulation - there’s more formaldehyde in a pear than in use of the product.
-
any idea re cationic, anionic, nonionic?
-
Yup - a bad one. Reminds of <b style=”background-color: var(-bb-content-background-color); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(-bb-body-text-color);”>Pseudomonas-induced corneal ulcers associated with contaminated eye mascaras. LA Wilson, DG Ahearn - American journal of ophthalmology, 1977.
also aeruginosa -
-
thanks - was referring to the micro quality. does little good to sanitize if water reinculates bacteria
-
30 minutes and rinsed. What is quality of your rinse water.
-
1% honey in water? That’s not an extract. Why do you think sugar water would not have bugs?
-
What is extract quality?
To your question - you’re apparently producing a water in oil emulsion. You need to control the micro quality of the water (extract) in emulsion. The % is not that relevant.
-
I respect your knowledge of the technology and market - but think we have a different perspective on the risk of clean beauty and non conventional systems in general.
Some history. We (the micro/tox/analytical guys at major companies) were real concerned for the Darbre BS science and its implications. Our managements, sensing opportunity, were lukewarm and they and the primary industry organization funded research that was conducted in a scientific manner with no marketing of results. Our companies are driven by marketing, and marketing wanted removal of parabens/formaldehyde releasers/isothiazolinones et al. Some major companies even announced internally - some publically - ill advised commitments to do so. Faced with the lack of effective alternatives in context of in-use data base for consumer risk and realities of high speed/high volume product , none were met.
Looking back, I doubt that repeating Darbe’s nonsensical work would have made a difference. The story rapidly exploded with EWG et al. and the internet - there was an eager audience for the sky is falling story , not for the nevermind it’s not. That said, the tox/analytical folks were reticent to repeat the childish Dabre work.
If you were to ask the managers for micro/safety, analytical involved, they’d say #$$#$4 marketing and the useless industry org (you know the 4 letter abbreviation) screwed the issue.
As you prob know, this was just the 1st of many Darbre disaster is parabens publications, youtubes and Uk talk show appearances .
-
Right, and we can trace the increased recalls with that transition.