PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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
-
For cosmetics, chose a system/combination at concentrations that technically should be effective as broad spectrum and then confirm it has efficacy with a challenge test. The test (USP, EP, ISO, whatever) is not validated. “Pass” merely show some efficacy but not enough to protect consumers - passing criteria are too tolerant and isolates too feeble. What does IPCS instruct in this regard?
I’m aware of a few remarkably “synergistic” combinations - not aware any are marketed as combinations.
ECT is technically not be expected to work by itself.
-
You’re right - what efficacy ECT has is at the lower pH, but it is a poor combination even in acidic context as it has a gap vs Gram negative bacteria, the primary contaminants of cosmetics. The pH range and “broad spectrum” are marketing hype. The response you received is silly - preservatives are in Annex and have favorable risk assessments from CIR. The supplier is not going to run more safety studies on the combination. I’m aware of no data and supplier offers none showing the combination is magic.
If IPSC endorsed this combination - I do wonder at their preservative training. As for FB, think it’s a waste of time in any context.
-
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.
-
Formaldehyde releasers and isothiazolinones are not that great vs fungi. In any case, we can’t use isothiazolinones in leave on products like creams due to sensitization,
-
Good idea - and David’s Germall Plus includes IPBC. I’m not sure he confirmed contamination and if so what it was. But Germall Plus should generally be ok unless manufacturing issues or formula incompatibility.