PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Stanley said:Okay found it… wow, thank you very much! Just to make sure I understand the exponentials….1×102 is 100 and the 1×103 is 1000 cfu… I am assuming the 2 and 3 are exponentials.Yup
-
Without obvious mold - could be the usual suspects - cepacia or aeruginosa.
-
the heart above reads “<3” in text.
the section goes on to say
The presence of pathogens would also be important in evaluating the microbial contents of a cosmetic. Pathogens or opportunistic pathogens whose incidence would be of particular concern include Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Candida albicans. Additionally, microbes normally regarded as nonpathogenic when introduced in certain ways (e.g., topically) may become opportunistic pathogenic and virulent when introduced in other ways (e.g., in wounds, or via cosmetics introduced into or through the skin). -
Sure - it was in an older version of https://www.fda.gov/food/laboratory-methods-food/bam-chapter-23-methods-cosmetics.
Current wording (revised this month) and thanks for asking - this changed just this last week!
Current, widely accepted standards for microbiological limits in cosmetics specify that the total number of microorganisms per gram or milliliter generally should not exceed:
- 1×102 colony forming units (CFU)/g or mL for cosmetics intended topically (i.e., applied to the surface of the body) for the eye area, mucous membranes, and children < 3 years old; and
- 1×103 CFU/g or mL for all other topical cosmetics.
-
microbial contamination seems reasonable -
-
Subsequently elaborated - they’re targeting small producers who can’t control the quality of their water. Think most of us understand the position of the EU and FDA - “preservatives” should not be used to correct for failed GMP’s. Those with experience know they are not effective in that context.
-
Supplier offers it as a natural “substitute for water” that can preserve natural products.
As water is assumed to be natural, think it would be hard to explain why one would replace it with an much more expensive material other than to preserve. -
Phenethyl (Rose ether) has a rose odor that may clash with perfume. Not on directives and not that effective - certainly < phenoxy.
None are that great - esp. in a shampoo/conditioner context - and very few on directives (odd for a German publication). You’ll find little safety data for many.Ferment Leucidal is vey weak abnd reportedly adulterated ala GSE https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf5063588.
Ethanol demands 20%. Lesser levels are not ‘sehr gut” any more than the rest of those with this silliness.
One combination I know is effective benzyl alcohol/benzoate is labeled limited (small)
Magnolia extract like “Parfum” is another uncharacterized/ uncontrolled magic potion.
Glyeryl caprylate is pseudomonas ester food.
Combined organic acids are just that - organic acids - none is sehr gut.
-
zetein said:Is it true ammonium system is harder to preserve than sodium due to extra nitrogen source?
No
-
Yes - canlt answer in that context - no data.
-
FA releasers have been used in shampoos with this ingredient for decades.
-
suswang8 said:Hi, all.
I think I had actually been thinking of this one:
https://www.olionatura.de/rohstofftabellen/konservierertabelle.phpbut there are a few ones “missing,” such as phenethyl alcohol. Either way, still a great, concise resource for those who are natural-focused.
Most are “natural”: only by the Ecocert/COSMOS “credentialing”. Be cautious of all incl penethyl alcohol. It can partition into packaging material.
-
Prob not - if you need one, it has to be food grade.
-
I sure would. Add EDTA and maybe benzoic acid. If no stability issues - I think you’d do well.
Are you making it yourself? -
I’ve never used hydroxyacetophenone and not aware of any significant data that supports it as preservative.
Glyceryl caprylate. Too susceptible to microbial esterases - and pseudomonads have plenty.
So don’t think either will help much for preservation.I know you asked about formnaldehyde releasers - can you use those?
-
Thanks again for following through.
I examined the documents and sent comments. My take is that documents sent would not satisfy technical (safety, micro, analytical, regulatory, esthetics, occupational) due diligence of any large company - cost and quantity aside. -
Right - not legally either.
-
I haven’t notes from the 2006 book. Agree with Abdullah, does look odd.
Mayday - this does speak to the necessity of testing in product context and the limited significance of supplier data. That’s why it’s not in 3rd ed that just includes target levels.
-
I’ve not found the email.. Can you send again?
-
Right - does seem confusing.couternintuitive. These were different tests and one has to take published data as they are.
Didn’t inlcude that and other specific testing data in 3rd ed. for that reasoin. -
MIC - the cells are alive but are not growing. If you removed those cells from exposure to formaldehyde and put them in medium without the formaldehyde, they would grow.
Minimal Germicidal concentration. Those cells are dead. If you put them in medium without formaldehyde, they would not grow. -
Minimal /lowest concentration, in context of the test ,that rendered all cells nonviable. No growth after agent was removed - neutralized.
-
Apparently not - and that is pretty bad too. As you prob know, attorneys are usually meticulous oin these things.