PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Here’s protocol of the type major companies use — https://cosmeticseurope.eu/files/5914/6407/8121/Guidelines_on_Stability_Testing_of_Cosmetics_CE-CTFA_-_2004.pdf
-
@chemicalmatt
Much as I think these are gimmicks for cosmetic testing, also know you’re solid in your work. Can you describe your application? -
There are no controls per se - but you might compare a major product at increasing dilution (100%, 50%, 30%) to get a feel for the test and generate differential data.
Shampoo probably since it will go into solution. -
Here’s USP 51 as Matt mentioned. http://www.uspbpep.com/usp29/v29240/usp29nf24s0_c51.html
-
Water is prob ok - product not so sure.
Undiluted product would be the worst. Assume you’ve diluted product. Would have to satisfy suitability for each product. In that context might be ok for some - but even there, question the volume actually exposed. -
Have you been trained in aseptic technique?
-
Prob should have a consistent protocol and you should sanitize after washing/cleaning. Shouldn’t offer bugs an opportunity to grow anywhere - or corrosion if that’s what this stuff is.
The black dots were in 3 day old product residue left in hopper vessel? Can you check retains?
Hypochlorite pH should be ~6.5-7 but NOT less than 6.
Culture a few of those black dots. Even if a fungus, doubtful it’s Aspergillus brasiliensis. -
Not normal - visit the shelves and squeeze some of the major brands.
Think you’re biggest risk in use for shampoos is water ingress in shower and dropped in bath. Wonder if those caps affect that dynamic.
-
to Pharma’s point
Please demand chemical analysis as justification for the eye of newt, toe of frog “natural” preservative efficacy. Efficacy of most is based on internet rumor and supplier hype with comforting names of “Neodefend” and “Phytocide” for at best weak combinations. -
Air comes out when you squeeze with that design - it’s a poor closure.
-
Forgot to wash (clean) and assume forgot to sanitize and black dots (suggest black fungi).
the product would be reasonably considered adulterated - “If it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth.”suggest you scrap the product and focus on a production system not in control.
-
Don’t recall tottle caps I’ve used have carried those distinctions. Filled and inverted, it may not make much difference.
Pressure differentials can play a trick. Product made and packaged in midwest US, sold in high altitude markets can squirt a little product at 1st customer opening.
-
Don’t see anything in that formula that would preserve. Think the brand is blowing you off. If nothing else, they haven’t qualified stability.
Suggest you contact the FDA at: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-compliance-enforcement/how-report-cosmetic-related-complaint
-
Dipslides from anyone are a poor for anything but water.
-
Thanks - and they still suck.
-
No mystery - the medium includes Rose Bengal that inhibits bacterial growth. It’s intended to culture only fungi - yeast and mold. You’ll likely find no growth unless you have thrush.
Please do not use dip slides for cosmetics. They do not provide valid data either way - growth or not.
If they manufacturer recommended these for cosmetics - they are clearly ignorant and irresponsible. -
Think you might want a bit more preservation than just G. Ultra
-
Be aware - don’t see it listed in Annex V - Cosmetic Directive
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/pdf/COSING_Annex%20V_v2.pdf -
The CIR Expert Panel concluded that formaldehyde and
methylene glycol are safe for use in cosmetics when formulated
to ensure use at the minimal effective concentration, but in no
case should the formalin (note 1) concentration exceed 0.2%
(w/w), which would be 0.074% (w/w) calculated as formaldehyde or 0.118% (w/w) calculated as methylene glycol.
https://online.personalcarecouncil.org/ctfa-static/online/lists/cir-pdfs/PRNS547.pdf -
I don’t think you understand the industry. Detergents in household products or cosmetics do not build up over time. Those that did - esp. with branched chain alkyl groups - were banned back in the 70’s.
Phosphate bans were and are regulatory requirements to which industry complied. It was/is not a matter of ingredient statementsUnlike cosmetics, every ingredient used in household US products has to be specifically approved by EPA in years long PMN process that considers environmental fate and human and environmental safety, and high volume materials (HPV’s) are specifically followed in regard to environmental fate and accumulation. Major manufacturers, as with cosmetics guys, market effectively the same product everywhere.
Please understand - the science drives a risk assessment approach here as it does in cosmetics and drugs. I understand folks’ feelings, and your sentiment is closer to that of EWG than science.
-
Presume the bacteria found no water in which to grow - just the silicone continuous phase. Some might survive but not enough to recover.
-
@ketchito
phosphates in detergents, plastic bags and straws, cosmetic preservatives, propellants and ethanol in hair spray, trigger words, and other cartoon villains -
@zetein
What was the seaweed disaster?
Banning of phosphates in US household products was political posturing by ignorant politicians. The amount discharged is tiny compared to other sources such as phosphate in urine and feces. Lake Erie algae bloom is attributed in part to poor farm practices - esp. re. N and PO4 from manure.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653511001925