PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
In concept, preservation by a combination of factors none of which has a primary antimicrobial effect - e.g. mildly acidic or basic pH, Aw <0.9, low % alcohol, etc. Maybe toss in a pump packaged.
Shampoos? Don’t bet on it. Don’t waste your time
-
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“
-
Here’s the book https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8A98zYzLCDRb2xadjU2MnlkQXM/view?resourcekey=0-VOuv7UH-bSJiN_jaQhb3Q\\
says “optimal activity” below 5, little above 8. That’s what I understand. My comment re benzoic acid with surfactants up to 7 is data based.
-
Can you describe your hurdle technology? Is this in context of the soap base you mentioned before.
“In-use” as in the articles below. The major manufacturers put product in hands of consumers to confirm the basic efficacy of their systems . This has been shown generally conventional systems and would be esp important with hurdle. “Compliance” is rudimentary - gov folks know crap all about cosmetic microbiology and as I think you noted before -your guys did not ask for data.
https://academic.oup.com/jambio/article-abstract/128/2/598/6714996
https://journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/aem.53.8.1827-1832.1987
-
Gram + and fungi generally ~5 or less. Dave Steinberg liked it up to 7 - for me 7 and broader efficacy (some v. Gram neg) with benzoic acid in surfactants.
What is ref 16?
-
Your soap solutions? Do you have in-use data?
-
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 .