PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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.
-
Bulk refilling pumps is a problem. Don’t!!
There’s a bunch of reports of contamination - e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26329181
-
add - it’s not a pathogen. Think it was isolated from a blueberry.
Here’s the ref for name change - https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijs.0.65021-0
and good catch!
-
Nothing wrong here - but another weak preservative system. The USP Aspergillus niger isolate (ATCC 16404) used for so many decades was renamed A. brasiliensis early in this century. It is the same fungus.
-
Just as reactive but replaced in equilibrium from the releaser’s chemical reservoir.
-
This refers to free not total formaldehyde (FA). In my experience, FA releasers at 2000-3000 ppm offer ongoing free FA at 100-200 ppm. Some like DMDM Hydantoin offer more at initially.
-
Membrane to some extent but EDTA does not kill. More important the impact on bacterial slime and biofilm. Gram negative bacteria - esp. pseudomonads and enterics - produce an alginic acid slime/biofilm that protects the cells vs preservatives. Alginic acid is stabilized by calcium ions and EDTA by sequestering Calcium ion disaggregates the slime facilitating preservative access.
-
Here’s what FDA says regarding testing - “Formerly, there were no validated tests for cosmetic preservative efficacy (9), although the test for pharmaceutical preservative efficacy in the U.S. Pharmacopeia (2) or the cosmetic test in the technical guidelines of the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) (1) were used. Recently, the CTFA test has been AOAC validated (2b) for use with liquid cosmetics.”
https://www.fda.gov/food/laboratory-methods-food/bam-chapter-23-methods-cosmetics
-
If in US - believe the Bureau Veritas lab in Buffalo NY does this testing.
https://www.cps.bureauveritas.com/bureau-veritas-buffalo-consumer-product-test-lab
-
Broad spectrum but ECT is ok? No one with depth of experience would see that.
Sounds like boiler plate. Any elaboration of the cautions - synergism etc.?
BP is marginally better than USP but allows the BS exemption of B criteria and neither includes any bugs representing contamination risk like CTFA. Is there any comment to cepacia?
-
What are other preservatives and pH ?
-
Where are you?
Here’s FDA position. with recent legislative changes, perhaps they’ll ask for data from ma
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-cosmetics
-
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).
-
If phenoxy 0.3-0.5 and 0.25 Benzoate - with EDTA 0.1 as the acid
-
Sorry Marko - I missed your reply.
I’m speaking 1) of micro quality - including that of water and 2) of safety of ingredients inhaled.
-
Shampoos are generally resistant to fungal contamination. But Abdullah is spot on - add benzoic acid as a booster vs bacteria - with surfactants its effective pKa is increased you’ll have an effect at that pH.
-
YUp
-
On paper but FA is very reactive. That’s why FA-releasers were developed - to provide a constant level. Simply adding FA to 100 ppm will not sustain 100 ppm.
-
Failure to mention cepacia indicates a shallow approach. It and aeruginosa have been responsible for most of the recalls.
-
Don’t get excited - every preservative claiming broad spectrum has its data that practical experience does not replicate.
-
That’s what I understand. But I imagine there will be formula impact as well.