PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
In this case, to ensure the product has enough preservative capacity to protect during use.
-
One cant presume one way or the other. We rarely have simple solutions.
-
Lochhead is a well-recognized hair expert
-
PET and an estimate for stability qualification.
Conditioners are applied in and around showers and tubs - water gets in during use. Tap water usually has pseudomonads - esp. aeruginosa.
https://journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/aem.56.5.1476-1479.1990 -
Different folks publish different numbers - and remember, you have a product not a simple solution.
-
Eurofins has many global labs. Maybe one somewhere near you might offer PET. https://www.eurofins.com/contact-us/worldwide-interactive-map/
That % might effective. Question is its stability through consumer use,
Historic - development of synthetic surfactant shampoo - classic parabens/benzoic were not effective and marketed products used formaldehyde, then to formaldehyde releasers and in 80’s to isothiazo9linones.. -
0.98 might be optimal but >.90 and less than .98 is not prohibitive.
Not aware of Aw data for combinations. -
Reliable Aw inhibition of pseudomonads typical of cosmetic contaminants - ~60% glycerol and ~20% NaCl. Neither reliably kills.
Most common is Burkholderia cepacia - Pseudomonas aeruginosa is second but prob somewhat greater health risk. -
“Formalin” is sold at diff concentrations. What is final est. formaldehyde concentration?
Do you have challenge data? -
You need to qualify your systems. Water is the one ingredient whose quality is known only after the product is made.
-
Sensationalized garbage from a garbage medium. And they can always find some publicity happy “expert” to wring their hands in horror.
-
You’ll need a preservative.
-
Potential solubility challenges - OIT, EDTA as acid. Like you - don’t understand APG ppt. Maybe Perry knows.
-
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.