PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
“Polarity” of the oil phase - or emulsifier?
As authors said, lots of things impact efficacy and they didn’t address partitioning - only efficacy - and most of their data was useless. -
These happy, well-informed people may not be aware that their “natural” benzoate, oxidation product of toluene, is no more natural than methyl paraben, that plums have a greater % of formaldehyde than shampoo preserved with a formaldehyde releaser, that many of their “natural” ingredients do not exist in nature.
-
Research - love it!
Avoiding safe ingredients makes them happy. Part of the chemophobic, virtue signaling (ala sustainability) BS.
This is a racket and there are always suckers. -
“The consumers in the in the natural segment are probably the most knowledgeable and sophisticated consumers of personal care products .”
What bull - these are the suckers I mentioned. They actually believe the ingredients are natural.What benefit?
-
No - they’re not coming to an end. That claim continues with all its justifications and to no benefit to the consumer. As Barnum said, there’s a sucker born every minute.
-
Perry observed “natural as something that doesn’t actually occur in nature but uses synthetic chemistry to produce a new chemical from biomass,” That’s :your “natural” ? Does that “biomass” include petroleum?
As cynical as that marketing is, it isn’t naturally -derived.Again - what ISN’T naturally derived?
If you’re preserving with only synthesized organic acids - you’re very unlikely to be preserving effectively.
-
MIT/CMIT are certainly of greater sensitization potential than IPBCl.
-
IPBC biggest (questionable) theoretical concern was Iodine impact on thyroid function but it is in derm test patch kits - https://www.dermatologyadvisor.com/home/decision-support-in-medicine/dermatology/allergic-contact-dermatitis-preservatives/
Right.
Na benzoate might if in surfactant context for Newtoform’s other products -
@pharma
Me too! -
@Pharma
Greenwashing? How is any of this not? -
For other potential ingredients exempt from labeling
Definition:
Any processing aid added and removed or converted to a declared ingredient
or
Any ingredient of another ingredient or processing aid present at an insignificant level and having no technical or functional effecthttps://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling-regulations/cosmetics-labeling-guide#clgl9
-
In US, you can pursue trade secret protection. You’re very unlikely to find a product on the market with that exemption.
FDA comments
“Review time varies. You will receive at least an interim response within 180 days, but not necessarily a final decision at that time. For the one request granted in the last twenty years, our complete review process took about one year.”
(emphasis added)https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling/trade-secret-ingredients
-
@Newtoformulating
Sure - formaldehyde is a reactant and cyanide too (gasp). Both “natural” materials and orders of magnitude of both in our bodies than from EDTA in a product. Why is this a problem? Can’t imagine many of sufficient education to understand EDTA synthesis wouldn’t understand that neither would be in the commercial product or pose a risk.You can preserve with those and suggest you add Na benzoate, It’ll be more labor intensive and you’ll need to qualify each application as no combination will carry over well from product to product.
-
Good point. Irradiation is certainly an option and commonly used for starch and earth materials - clays, pumice, talc etc. Individual cosm manuf plants wouldn’t have - materials, containment, etc. You’d send the material to a purpose-built comm. sterilization facility like Steris. It’s pretty expensive.
Seen it used for fin used products but can’t for OTC’s without NDA approval.Why not “natural”? Gamma irradiation occurs naturally (radon etc.). Just needs certification. Bet if EWG could get a piece of the action, they’d endorse as well. Worth noting the USDA scare monger say irradiated food can’t be labeled “organic” . if any food needed it……
-
I’ve seen conditioners from major cosmetic companies with pH 3-4.
-
You can manage some greater specs but a high count will likely throw your finished product out any appropriate spec and may well include objectionable and contamination risk microorganisms. How will you bring the finished product into spec? FDA does not like folks who use preservatives to control manuf risk.
You’re putting at risk not only the product but also your manufacturing facility.
-
Propanediol (Zemea) is a good addition to a preservative system. you’ll see this in some Estee Lauder products - but not by itself.
-
As ketchito said - you wasting chelating capacity to no benefit.
-
System feels a bit naked. Add a chelator - use EDTA. Unless you make some biodegradable claim, there’s no driver for GLDA. Benzyl isn’t bad vs fungi.
Do some testing.
-
If you’re concerned with loss of efficacy - test with and without.
Why do you bother with EDTA if you’re compromising the objective of its addition?
Further - toxicity of your concern exists but is not highlighted in CIR’s summary of EDTA in-use safety for cosmetics*. Think it arose from use of the material directly to urinary tract for stones. What is your risk assessment - NOEL and how would exposure from your product exceed it?*”Based on the available data, the Cosmetic Ingredient
Review Expert Panel found that these ingredients* are safe as used
in cosmetic formulations.”these ingredients include sodium and calcium sodium salts of EDTA
-
Recommend propyl parabens at 0.1%. Is your level 0.04% or 0.4 (lower to “0.32”)?
Why would you want Ca NaEDTA? If intent is to sequester divalent cations - why waste capacity?
Test it. -
The mechanisms of preservative efficacy is generally just speculation based on superficial if not crap research. Membrane damage ? Hit a cell with a hammer, stuff leaks out and conclude membrane damage.
Preservatives likely have multiple impacts on cell viability. Development is more Edisonian than thoughtful. Use what works in useful combinations and don’t worry about “mechanism.”
Sometimes business majors have good insight. -
natiyo123 said:I think formulas containing only 100% derived ingredients ( for example starting from biomass as raw material) CAN and DO work. Ive done some formulas… theyre more difficult to create but I think it is possible
What isn’t derived from nature - from biomass (what does that mean?). Can you be specific?
Can you be specific in terms of preservstives.
-
Cosmetic_Chemist said:water - Qs
Hydroxyethylcellulose - 0.75%
Propanediol - 5%
Glycerin - 3%
Sodium Benzoate - 0.4%
Phenoxyethanol - 0.3%
EDTA - 0.1%
Aloe Vera Juice - 0.05%Would this be a better formula?
Looks ok - maybe phenoxy at 0.5% and Na benozate a bit less maybe 0.26%.
Will you challenge test through stability per ISO?
Do watch out for contaminated aloe juice. -
The concept of “bug food” is generally pretty irrelevant. The typical contaminants grow well enough in water, even distilled water
If lecithin is the issue - it’s likely as a preservative neutralizer. It’s used for that purpose in recovery media.