PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
No it is not. MCIT of Kathon CG is stabilized in Mg salt solution - it is unstable in water dilution.
Please don’t get carried away with supplier claims of remarkable “synergy”. Like the dubious “broad spectrum” - they’re marketing driven.
-
Both are on some suave labels.
-
Together or individually - poor preservation. Naticide alone the least reliable.
-
I know some claim their hydrosols need no preservatives as raw material- since filled hot in sanitized containers. Even if always effective (doubt that) - time would not be a factor - only exposure to potential contamination (PAO would actually have some validity).
Method (physical) control in manuf doesn’t reasonably do anything for an ex. date.
“Special production method” challenge them to prove it. -
MCIT/MIT and DMDM Hydantoin have the same target segment. Don’t see to much reason to use both - but still limited vs fungi. But think Unilever has some shampoos with both.
Lonzaserve PC would certainly be a novel combination.
-
Infectio depends the microbe potentially/numbers and susceptibility of host (consumers). In theory each of the microbes ‘could’ be.
P. aeruginosa (and other Gram negatiuve bacteria) in shampoo - prob water borne. In cream - like the rest - prob from user skin or air.
-
Heat in process lowers manufacturing risk.
Closure can contribute to/mitigate risk in use. https://journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/aem.56.5.1476-1479.1990
-
Trade scret is possible but very, very rarely granted (reportedly once in last 20 years)
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling/trade-secret-ingredients -
sure
-
~100 ppm. Benzoate prob better for shampoos.
-
As Mike observed, rapid aging data are almost always confirmed with products in real time BUT decide now (not when the data has you in a panic) what you’ll do if NOT confirmed.
-
Appreciate your effort to take responsibility.
Think about all the critcisms companies face - carcinogenicity, sensitization, the BS of endocrine disruption, etc. I do NOT recommend EWG, but look at the safety considerations it uses in its (BS) safety assessments. -
Pictures/plant decriptions implying drug effect are the same as the textual claim. Boiler plate denial does not neutralize.
As cosmetic - recall regulatory demands including ingredient labeling - what will be the appropriate name for this “extract”?
Please also be aware of your affirmative safety responsibility - toxicology and microbiology.I’m sure this would go under FDA’s radar. But be aware, in this discussion you established product as drug - the FD&C Act addresses “intent.”
-
Consider 1 and 3 months at 45C as relevant to 1 and 2 year exp. dates. Wouldn’t presume anything in rapid aging predicts 3 years.
Get 1,2 and 3 year real time data. 1 and 2 confirm rapid aging and 3 is instructive to preservative systems even if product no longer on market.Also see how US FDA sees stability testing of OTC drugs.
-
It’s largely irrelevant. The product is diluted and rinsed off in use.
-
Good luck - > 20 “Designated lists” and > 3000 ingredients.
Lists linked at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/OHB/CSCP/Pages/SB312.aspx#
Prob concern would be fragrance allergens of EU directive.Legislation
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB312 -
It is a really poor preservastive at any concentration and pH.
-
Bacteria can grow in distilled water and filtration is unlikely to help.
As with any ingredient, quality is the responsibility of the maker and should be data based. -
What’s Germall III?
-
Crazy George Deckner - great formulator
-
Think it’s only a recommendation at this time. I understand, if implemented, it would require for formaldenyde releasers labeling - contains formaldehyde.
Think thye’ve recommended formaldehyde as an ingredient be placed on prohibited list.
That’s just my iunderstanding/
-
From EU directive
Formaldehyde paraformaldehyde ►M51 (*) ◄ 0,2 % (except for products for
oral hygiene)
0,1 % (products for oral hygiene)
expressed as free formaldehydeI’m not sure the status of formaldehyde ongoing but above is current language.
Can’t address safety of a combination.
-
Not aware it’s advanced beyond SCCS reco. Unfortunate that they considered only one side of the risk assessment.
-
That is certianly one. Also offers competition for other trace elements - Fe, Mg, CU.