PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
There are online courses - e.g. Univ Cincininati https://online.uc.edu/masters-programs/ms-in-cosmetic-science/
-
What us water source/quality?
Is it EDTA as acid or as a Na salt?
OIT has very poor water solubility. Shouldn’t shoot for much more than 75 ppm unless attempting residual antifungal efficacy on surfaces? If for preservation, MIT (~100 ppm) with EDTA should be enough.
Fragrance components can come out but they usually float. -
Reverse osmosis uses pressure to push water through a membrane - leaving ions, impurities and fine particulates on the “waste water” side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis
Well water is ok but requires appropriate treatment as does tap water, and treated water form both requires some degree of microbiological control.
-
“3 more filters” - don’t know their construction or exclusion but figure they’d remove bacteria - water would still not be sterile. How are they maintained? If left wet - bacteria will populate.
-
Waste water from RO will have concentrated ions and and particulates that passed filters from the entire volume of water treated.
-
Arch was acquired by Lonza (now Arxada) back in 2011. More recently, they acquired Troy. With Lanxess (recently picked up Emerald Kamala and the former Dow Microbial Control), Arxada has the technical and marketing potential to develop new preservatives. Not much faith in Lanxess. Pal at Arxada promises they’ll try.
Failing their effort - were stuck with the (not really) natural, (not really) broad spectrum combinations and the occasional natural eye of newt as the scare mongers erode our shrinking list of good ones. .Hope folks see to manufacturing hygiene - consumer contamination be damned.
-
Sure don’t know that Matt. But you’re right - looks like the only preservatives they sell are AMT’s
I was surprised at the article - and that they didn’t refute it as the Leucidal guy seemed reasonable.
Graillotion -I understand Leucidal is sold with and without sal acid. Think the with gives better efficacy vs fungi.
-
It is necessary - someone can claim a micro or chemical injury and you’ll have no data to refute and will hear their lawyer state you had not followed industry standards. FDA says -
“There are no U.S. laws or regulations that require cosmetics to have specific shelf lives or have expiration dates on their labels. However, manufacturers are responsible for making sure their products are safe. FDA considers determining a product’s shelf life to be part of the manufacturer’s responsibility.”
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling/shelf-life-and-expiration-dating-cosmetics -
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf5063588
Article reports the stuff is fake - as GSE. It’s a reputable journal but I’m not aware of others reporting this subsequently.I spoke to the Leucidal guy about it - he claimed it was BS from a competitor but refused my challenge to publish a technically-based defense. I know the journal would have done it.
-
Go Macbeth on ’em -
“Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog, Adder’s fork, and blind-worm’s sting, Lizard’s leg, and howlet’s wing,- For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.” -
Right - testing for viable microbes in the product to spec. No problem that i know with added phenoxy but added cost.
-
20% is usually cited as an effective preservative level but alcohol per se does not justify skipping content testing unless you’ve appropriately qualified ingredients (including alcohol itself) and process.
-
They have the facilities and controls and will issue a report you can show your client.
Trying to establish it yourself will be tough and not cost effective.
See: https://ifscc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2-Fundamentals-of-Stability-Testing.pdf -
If you sell, you should approach stability in a professional manner. You’ll find testing lab offering stability testing on the net.
-
Thanks Matt.
Happy birthday Perry! -
It’s companies of all sizes. P&G’s Pantene conditioner claims of “Parabens free”. The product never included parabens and you’d be very hard pressed to find ANY conditioner preserved with parabens.
Advertising is an amoral process. -
Please stop reading EWG - it’s garbage - as bad as the scare-mongering “endocrine disruptor” STOP!
CIR is the best ref for human safety. https://www.cir-safety.org/
For environmental safety - you should consider dose and fate. Stuff goes down the drain diluted subject to immediate biodegradation - then to sewage treatment and biodegradation in the context, diluted again and the water discharged/diluted.
“Eco-friendly” is a meaningless, marketing term.
-
I wonder at the stability of hydrogen peroxide such a product. Even if it were - doubt the effect would be significant.
-
Good point Bill. Think academics writing about practical stuff are often over their heads - and when reviewing such stuff often get intimidated.
-
Please remember EU regulatory guidance re. “free from” claims - https://biorius.com/regulatory/cosmetic-claims-in-the-eu/
-
It has to do with solubility. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/deepweb/assets/sigmaaldrich/product/documents/517/766/ed4sspis.pdf
-
I represented P&G in this matter at fed and state (esp. Calif and NY) for over a decade. For Cal - see https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/cp_all_regs_5-2019.pdf
You’ll see there is no definition of “VOC” in the article and they add medium volatility VOC in their consideration of personal care products.
Below is definition of VOC in all state and fed reg’s (emphasis added)Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)” means any compound containing at least
one atom of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic
acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, and
excluding the following:“the following” includes a list of halogenated VOC that do not react to form smog - and acetone.
For personal care products - VOC as all carbon containing compounds largely goes down the drain.
California by law make industry lower to the “maximum extent feasible” highly volatile organic compounds (>0.1mm VP) through the last decades. They even reversed the aerosol antiperspirant/deodorant reg. after (P&G) discovered they low high VOC formula formed a carcinogen.
-
1 Molar (1M) solution is one gram molecular weight per liter
92 for glycerol, 180 for glucose, 342 for sucrose
-
tecnico3vinia said:
Thank you, Phil! In our lab we use a reverse osmosis and deionization system, but I’ll definitely check the ozonation and high heat methods.
Those are for water preservation in circulating systems post treatment - hot loop at 80C and cold loop with ozone and UV at drops