PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
US then - prob never get caught, but law requires preservative to be registered with EPA. Dolt think DHA is and 2-5 ppm is pretty useless.
30% glycerol is pretty simple - can you make it fresh for every use? Think the Aw should be around 0.9, so some protection. -
Machine vapor/fog. In what application?
-
Suppose you could try acetates - ethyl and butyl. Think there are natural sources.
Not sure what you mean by least toxic. suggest you refer to CIR (https://www.cir-safety.org/) for safety in use and avoid EWG et al. -
@Newtoformulating
Euxyl K940 is phenoxyethanol - with benzyl alcohol and EHG. -
You certainly need more than Na benzoate for preservation.
-
Sorry - “ops” as in operations.
-
MgCl hydrate crystals can produce HCl when directly exposed to high heat. Don’t think you’ll find this in formula.
Are you using Benzoic acid or Na Benzoate? You will have some Mg Benzoate produced.
As Mark said - your preservation is pretty poor with or with or without the “supportive” stuff. With Pheonoxy/EHG add something to address fungi -
I’d not have a concern for benzoate and vitamin c - even in low pH soft drinks - https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-contaminants-food/questions-and-answers-occurrence-benzene-soft-drinks-and-other-beverages#q6
Not familiar with vitamin E-benzoate concerns - can you elaborate?
Be aware, sorbate carries issues of stability.
-
What is complete formula? Any protein?
-
Large manufacturers can also use continuous production.
Also consider the efficiency of op’s - that big concerns have few manufacturing plants and run these 24/7/365 -
Not aware Glycerol laurate adds anything preservation. Perhaps if hydrolyzed by bacterial esterase, the laurate would have an effect. You need a preservative that addresses fungi and works better vs Gram + bacteria. As a surfactant based product - use Na benzoate ~3000 ppm, it covers those gaps and actually boosts vs. Gram neg.
The test (USP, BP, EP, or11930) is not validated to any endpoint - not manufacturing or consumer contamination. These are modifications of a test developed last century for drug preservation - using largely clinical (not industrial)isolates also from last century - one is almost 100 years from isolation and the most recent ~ 60 years and from a blueberry.
Every recall you see on FDA’s enforcement reports passed this kind of test. One should design a system that should be broadly effective and confirm general efficacy with one of these tests.Please consider the product - not just the formula - in estimating risk. Surfactant based cosmetics (shampoos, body washes, liq. hand soaps) typically suffer water intrusion in use and are prob the most commonly contaminated in use. to that - what is the quality of your process water?
What is Aw? Be aware that this not limiting - even liquid laundry detergents have significant contamination problems. -
Any? No.
Most folks consider and qualify formulas as families based on risk assessment -
Think the most humorous/cynical is Mother Dirt - https://motherdirt.com/
Claims to restore a microbe, formerly THE bug on skin of earthy humans and lost eons past, to the great benefit of current skin. Also tosses in a bunch of alleged “Post-” and “Pre-” biotics.
-
Rather than answering directly - I refer you to the purified water standard in USP. Imagine either would satisfy and you should also determine the micro quality.
-
UV does penetrate PET but wonder at an intensity adequate to kill bugs with or without “greenhouse.”.
3rd world cosmetics are typically contaminated. Let’s not imagine some contrivance to establish a quality fantasy. -
Those are not probiotics.
If prebiotics - and I wonder at that - you’d not expect an effect and data generally indicate (preserved) cosmetics do not impact microbiome. That said, relevant reports use different methods with little validation. -
Prob should read P&G’s relevant patents - both for technology and your reapplication
-
Should give your formula but prob. ok.
How good is your water? Can you add a chelator, EDTA? -
1% is excessive 9010 or Germall +. Suggest not much > 5000 ppm. And do add a chealtor - esp. EDTA.
Germall + is conceptually a better choice as it targets Gram +/- bacteria and fungi while 9010 targets primarily Gram neg bacteria. However, Gram neg bacteria are the most common contaminants for conditioner products. -
EDTA not enough.
The enzymes are microbial - not what’s in our bodies. The issue is inhalation in manufacturing and it is serious. -
This is mislabeled. As both a drug and cosmetic, inactive ingredients must be offered in descending order by content - not in alphabetical order.
-
Not normal
-
You need a preservative.
Suggest you not play with enzymes. The risk for immune response and anaphylaxis is real. Major companies test their plant workers frequently and will reassign those showing allergic response. -
It’s water soluble.
-
As you said - chelator. Would add EDTA to those options.
pH might drive greater levels of benzoate in nonsurfactant products but think the max are too much.