PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
There is no challenge test that’s appropriate and applying aq. product standards is not appropriate.
Your worry is growth of fungi - if its wet enough for bacteria, you haven’t a chance. Get the lab to run AW (water activity) on product held at humidified conditions.
What is the pres system you’ve tried? -
The final product is an anhydrous powder? How are you testing it for preservation, and what is bioburden of the rice starch?
Think you need to generate some in-use data - not only direct water contamination but taking up water from humid shower environment.Please drop the “too much food’ context - bacteria can grow in distilled water and fungi on basement walls.
-
Micro testing: content to spec and, if you’ve not conducted it, stability testing.
-
Thanks Mark
-
Meant that a claim of “quality ingredients” is meaningless - no one should use poor quality ingredient.?
-
@Ghita37
It just more meaningless advertising. Every one (definitely better) use quality ingredients. -
@Ghita - that one is a weak chelator that can inhibit fungi.
Leave-on versus rinse off products typically have different preservative systems.
-
@blueberry
I’d not count on rinse-off products offering much benefit in that regard. -
@Graillotion
I think you’re ok without an attempt at head space protection. Open pots have been around for around a century. My experience - we didn’t worry about growth on inner package surface. -
considered - as regarded, thought of as
Less than consensus - there is no objective definition.
Safe - clearly clean products as a group are LESS safe - with their limited, sometimes ridiculous preservative systems. We are charged to market safe products - Clean ingredients, esp. relevant preservatives, typically have profoundly less safety data than the priority materials they replace - materials specifically addressed by the FDA as safe in use.
Eco-friendly is a technically garbage term.
I understand/know Clean as an advertising claim without technical significance. -
@Graillotion
Consumer touches? Can you explain?
Have you seen contamination on inner package surfaces? -
@MarkBroussard
LOL - you are a marketing devil! -
@RobboAU
“…considered safe, non-toxic, and environmentally friendly.
Bull - the functional term is “considered” as in marketed under these meaningless terms.I’m impressed they put so much BS behind it.
-
Life cycle analysis - ask Dupont.
Think you’ll get lost in the weeds in comparison. -
O-Cymen-5-ol vapor pressure is a bit < PEA’s. Don’t know if either would be effective for headspace from cosmetic matrix
Are you sure you need headspace preservation? -
Phenyl ethyl is not so good vs. Gram positives. For headspace - IF it volatilizes from your product at level - it might inhibit Gram neg’s and fungi.
https://microbeonline.com/phenylethyl-alcohol-agar-pea-principle-composition-and-preparation/
-
Wet sponge - micro compromise of both the product and implement.
-
As Graillotion said, the “new preservative” is not novel - a marketing combination and nothing special. You need something for fungi.
Your current preservative is overkill. Drop the phenoxy entirely, Germall+ should ~3000 ppm. A chlelar (EDTA is appropriate).
-
There was the famous problem in the 70’s that really fired up the FDA back then https://europepmc.org/article/med/409295
-
They accepted the fair accompli of 4000 pages. It’s on them - but doubt they’d have read it if it was on its own
-
Of course there were ALL those hearings from experts and congressmen read every page before voting.
-
think about exposure and use - what role spit, tap water have in consumer use and does product take up water on its own.
-
@Graillotion
They’re some of my friends, so I’d be a bit kinder.
Who pushed it through? I know the big guys wanted federal preemption of California and other state crazies and got it here. The rest of the bill is just what they’re doing now and it dumps on the rest of the industry. Win Win.As for the moronic politicians - I spoke to the cos of the original model bill a few years back and asked “why?”. response was - this is a unregulated category and we’re worried about things like Wen and hair loss.
-
@Rockstargirl
Look at marketed products from major brands. Wouldn’t put much confidence in Glyceryl caprylate. “caprate”
Will formula, package, implement and anticipated use bring water/Aw into consideration?
Consider parabens -
@Ghita37
Consider - https://panmore.com/procter-gamble-mission-statement-vision-statement-analysis
It can be actionable. I recall pointing out with effect that specific production with limited micro quality was not consistent with our mission “We will provide branded products and services of superior quality..”