PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Anecdotal reports may have confused irritation and sensitization. CIR reviews (RIPT and animal data) found neither to be a sensitizer.
https://cir-reports.cir-safety.org/view-attachment?id=3c317d65-8e74-ec11-8943-0022482f06a6
https://cir-reports.cir-safety.org/view-attachment?id=94742a1a-c561-614f-9f89-14ce58abfc0b
-
This is not a miracle - it’s stabilized dilute chlorine bleach.
-
60C for any period (4 weeks!) is a pointless stability condition that simulates nothing but gross product abuse.
Why do you think it important?
-
Glycols have been used but can irritate
-
Even with a relevant pH, think benzoate alone is a risky preservative system.
-
Very very poor preservation. Does your policy allow phenoxyethanol? Benzoate if pH works?
-
Doubt it’s stable. CMIT in any simple aqueous solution is unstable and alkaline pH is tough on it as well.
-
Benzoic acid? or Na benzoate? should be 5000 ppm should be enough.
Would you consider this a water or oil in water
-
If your anticipated development is rapid and includes multiple minor changes/versions, you can determine, if technically justified, which modification justify full stability qualification or stability before marketing.
To Mike’s point, it is important to comply to relevant regulations but do not consider government regulations technically useful or valid. Do what is necessary to comply AND look to industry standards to do what is technically valid.
-
Nope - don’t know. Is this the only condition you see this issue?
-
Good luck! Appreciate your concern for your customers safety.
-
If it goes into solution. Sorry for one more - did we talk about benzoate earlier too?
-
Gluconic acid isn’t that great. If you hold Phenoxy/EHG to 0.80% or less would you consider 0.1% EDTA? You’d still be 99% natural.
-
Thanks Olivia. Your understanding is not uncommon but is profoundly inadequate. I don’t see a preservative in the formula you describe just above. Please add a chelator AND a preservative
Please understand “cosmetic assessors” are junior bureaucrats with little knowledge of cosmetic microbiology. The concept is a product of even more ignorant regulators, the folks who brought us the total BS of PAO. Assume they’ve given thumbs up based on some version of challenge - ISO, USP, EP - tests that are not validated in any context. They do show baseline efficacy that, with clean RM’s and sanitary manufacturing, can get clean product out the door. However, The primary purpose of cosmetic preservation is protection in use.
A 6 month sell by date is absolutely meaningless. Even if compliance (how is that enforced?), the consumer will have the product for more months, even years through which preservative stability must be maintained. Major manufacturers who validated their preservatives to in use risk establish stability for 3 years.
Please add a chelator AND a preservative
-
Yes - a preservative is essential and a chelator is part of it. try phytic acid
-
Sure - but more than you need and some junk “preservatives”.
-
Suggest not. Gluconolactone is a something if a chelator that breaks down to gluconic acid,
pH works for Benzoate and true synergism has been reported for it with Benzyl alcohol and a chelator. Do you have challenge testing capabilities?
-
Packaging helps - assume cold process.
Sure - a chelator is always good. What’s pH?
-
The combination is also quite weak as is benzoate alone.
What is your packaging?
-
I don’t have much good information to share on that. I do understand formaldehyde is more reactive at alkaline pH. In another context I’ve used formaldehyde @pH as preservative 10 for an industrial product - uniquely effective combined with EDTA. Long term stability was not evaluated.
-
might be a bit weak v. Gram -‘s
-
500 is not enough. Suggest 2000-3000 ppm
Sorbic is not so stable and I’ve not seen the “synergy” many claim.
-
500 or 5000 ppm? 0.05% is 500 ppm.
Think Na benzoate would be preferable.
-
No pH 3-4 is not low enough.
What is the entire formula?.