PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
CHG is a poor preservative.
-
Not “purpose”. Those are not added.
Na Carbonate is a natural contaminant of NaOH - a product of CO2 from air and NaOH.
NaCl is a feedstock for NaOH production - prob left over from that process. -
2500/2000/1000 ppm respectively with EDTA
-
Yes.
-
Please understand - it is impossible to assure a complete absence of reaction to any consumer exposed. Big companies develop products designed and tested globally to sell millions of units for years to diverse consumers around the world. Potential reactions are followed through consumer comments, reports of dermatologists, etc.
Retailers? Many have gone woke and chemophobic and big companies are conflicted. Big company managements are as woke as retailers’, but their technical folks know BS when they’re asked to put it in products.
Example - preservatives, managements of the big guys got together and funded a greenie org. 3G to search for alternatives. 3G claimed great success (see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352554120305696). What is not reported - they found nothing of substance. But note the BS, typical of parasitic org.sI appreciate the dilemma folks here face. It’s one thing to parse “natural” but a much more significant to let that constrain preservation. Just passing USP 51 is very poor to no assurance and you should not sleep at night with e.g. natural eye of new to a few organic acids unless you have great control and monitoring over manuf. quality and barrier packaging. You’ll likely never hear of the “harmful” effects - but those are reality.
-
Be sure to check the clumps dissected.
-
What packaging has your product vulnerable?
-
Prob not - but check micro for mold.
-
I’ve a lot against the BS marketing. Puffery to snake oil to fear mongering - I know the crappy preservative systems put consumers at risk.
-
Amen, Perry
-
Trust me - THIS time I’m not adulterated.
I’d be cautious. An ingredient adulterated in any context is impeached until proven otherwise. Better be confident in origin, process and analytical data that. -
yes
-
and it is not “bad”
-
CMIT aq solubility is much greater than those - I’d not worry
-
Selling on hype.
-
Down side?
-
Suggest 5 ppm for the CMIT/MIT product. Might check stability - CMIT is unstable with ZPT, another hydoxamic acid-based active. Not aware of data for piroctone.
-
Glycerine is not a cosmetic preservative. You’d need ~50% to prevent growth of bacteria and >60% for fungi. It only prevents growth - does not kill as specified in preservative testing. Users common add water to liquid soaps and shampoos - an immediate compromise to glycerine “preservation”.
“Natural” preservation is basically BS.
-
What would fail the definition?
-
That helps a bit - but still try <1% - highest I use is 0.5% and down to 0.3% can be useful.
-
Decide your policy and be prepared to defend. Cosmos and ISO offer some shelter from challenge but nothing to your ethical decisions.
-
Cap glycl and phenylpropanol (nature based?) marketed more on hype than efficacy. Easy unsupported claims of broad range, preservative-free resistance-proof efficacy wide pH range economic and “natural”. - used car salesmanship.
Unless you have the capabilities to investigate in depth - suggest you stick with your current systems. -
What is packaging?
Aminat G offers something as a multifunctional but think you need something more or Gram negatives. Phenoxy at 0.5% might work -
Think you can answer the question experimentally.
-
20 minutes is not necessary with alcohol. Just spray and allow to evaporate. You can’t use it for large or closed vessels and piping or tubing.
You can’t control the vapor pressure and you want the alcohol to evaporate. Just want enough ventilation.