[PhilGeis]

Other bacteria including Burkholderia - and any Gram negative bacteria.

[PhilGeis]

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.

[PhilGeis]

ALL ingredients must be listed with very few exceptions - e.g perfume ingredients.

[PhilGeis]

Are the extracts preserved?

[PhilGeis]

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.

[PhilGeis]

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“

[PhilGeis]

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.

[PhilGeis]

@fareloz

pity the natural/organic /”clean” options do not replace the efficacy of the conventional safe combinations on priority chemical lists.

[PhilGeis]

@MarkBroussard

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.

[PhilGeis]

any idea re cationic, anionic, nonionic?

[PhilGeis]

This discussion does address the questions of education for cosmetic science and technology. Foods have departments at universities devoted to their science and technology and pharma has close regulatory, pharmacopoeial and professional organizational oversight and direction.

Cosmetic science and technology is arcane, often counter-intuitive with few resources to train or support. Experts are few and typically isolated. My expertise is based on 40 years in the industry and I’m one of the very few who has published in my narrow area. I’ve run into some other impressive experts here that I would not know at all but for this forum. Graillotion is one.

Graillotion - how did you gain your expertise?.

[PhilGeis]

the formula you need is: concentration1 X volume1 = concentration2 X volume2

Concentration1 - is the % in the raw material DMDM hydantoin 55%

Concentration2 - the target concentration in your product - 1500 ppm - 0.15% (think 2000 ppm would be better)

Volume1 - is the amount of raw material 55% DMDM hydantoin to be added to your product

Volume2 - is the total volume of your product

For 100 ml of product - you’d add ~0.27 ml.

Please tell us the biosurfactant. That “preservative” capacity is highly doubtful - more likely (marketing) BS.

[PhilGeis]

Don;t know your claims but it appears you’re selling a soap - not a cosmetic. Ingredient labeling is not necessary.

https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/frequently-asked-questions-soap

[PhilGeis]

“liquid germall” - as in Germall Plus?

see this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPjoOQDyQMo

[PhilGeis]

thanks - was referring to the micro quality. does little good to sanitize if water reinculates bacteria

[PhilGeis]

30 minutes and rinsed. What is quality of your rinse water.

[PhilGeis]

1% honey in water? That’s not an extract. Why do you think sugar water would not have bugs?

[PhilGeis]

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.

[PhilGeis]

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 .

[PhilGeis]

Right, and we can trace the increased recalls with that transition.

[PhilGeis]

Thanks! I spent Match in Hawaii - we could have talked.

In addition of course to Perry, I think pharma and chemical matt are also excellent resources.

[PhilGeis]

“Hands on”? I thought the course was online.

[PhilGeis]

The ecocert BS has no limits

[PhilGeis]

Right - but still think “Jaws” theme would have been more catchy

[PhilGeis]

for example - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-2494.1988.tb00582.x

and

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf60232a072

Nothing is perfect - suggest use what works well in as many preservative applications as possible