PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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
-
Big cosmetic companies invest very significantly in their water systems - in no way would potable water standards satisfy their water quality specs. With tools such as RO, DI, to ozonation and high heat their water systems are better than many pharma operations.
-
GLDA is biodegrable not natural. Synthetic product of glutamic acid.
-
Assume hard surface cleaning. Recall such products are sold (esp. in southern US and ethnicity) on basis of three functions
1) cleaning and that can be judged by you in practical testing, and
2) fragrance - esp, in use
3) “bloom” - the burst of white opacity when added to water (in a bucket)..These usually have additional surfactants and many have just enough pine oil to for the smell - sacrificing #3.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/pine-oil
-
For cleaning? As a cleaner - test it.
-
Not aware of any Na thiosulphate use as cosmetic preservative. It’s a reducing agent.
Agree - it’s only effective vs. remnant hypochlorite in solution. Does not reverse existing reaction with hair protein.
-
Prob ok.
-
Can you describe packaging? Gram + (staph) is largely an in-use risk.
-
not much - but test the product. Gram negatives are you biggest worry.