PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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
-
Nipaguard SCE is an absurd standalone shampoo preservative, and you need a chelator - suggest EDTA.
-
Here are a couple of articles addressing cosmetic refills. 1st two by academics so take with a grain of salt, last by regulators so expect stupid stuff.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667378922000360
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/07363769810219134/full/html
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9284/9/2/27
-
We provided input drafting of ASEAN reg’s many years ago and don’t’ recall such a provision from that time. There is no such a reg in US.
Please - many of us work in a global context. If ASEAN has installed relevant reg’s, we’d certainly like to know. Could you please ask your QC guy for specifics?
-
Mike, can you say more re “no no”? Is this a regulation - is it local or national?
-
DMDMH is a good idea - the more water soluble the better.
-
Abdullah’s reco is a good one. Concerns for phenoxy in this context are valid and are addressed with data not dogma.
-
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.
-
Thanks mike - agree, any bulk refill is high risk. What is the practice in public/group bathrooms?
-
I meant your data. We do it them in media to neutralize preservatives but you can find polysorbate in many products effectively preserved with phenoxy, parabens etc.
-
Can you share the reg?
-
Annex V - as in the Cosmetic Directive https://lexparency.org/eu/32009R1223/ANX_V/
Aka Isopropyl cresol #38. So it’s a legal preservative in EU and other directives. The testing mentioned as with my former employer.
There’s a course at the volcano? We stayed at the volcano hotel last Spring.
lexparency.org
ANNEX V Cosmetic Products Regulation - LIST OF PRESERVATIVES ALLOWED IN COSMETIC PRODUCTS
Preamble For the purposes of this list: Salts is taken to mean: salts of the cations sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, ammonium and ethanolamines; ...
-
Whatever the math says. but that’s just the way I tried to get consistency - prob doesn’t make too much diff.
-
Good question. Think it’s Annex 5 and know it’s been in some of the throughput batteries we’ve tested but don’t recall it popping out as an option. So i don’t know much about it.
One bias I need to share re true naturals. My application and experience has been in big volumes for which a preservative truly “natural” and some other materials are not produced in sufficient volume to be considered. For example - if Leucidal were a valid, legal effective choice, there’s no way enough could be produce to satisfy Head & Shoulders (Wash and Go) global volume. Similarly, there’s not enough selenium sulfide production in the world to replace ZPT in the same product even tho’ it’s arguable more effective vs dandruff (and it’s also a terrible pain in the ass as an ingredient).