PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
If you’re in US, all ingredients must be on the TSCA inventory. Many cosmetic ingrediencs are not.
-
Process issues are best detected by sampling surfaces and intermediates during process - not finished product afterward.
-
Not aware it has a EPA pesticide registration but can be a viable preservative functionally. Consider your support for “solvent” if EPA challenges.
-
Eugene said:Hello! I buy ready to use preservative mix (sodium benzoate & potassium sorbate) on naturallythinking.com. I would like to make the mix by myself. Can you please suggest right percentage of water/benzoate/sorbate ?
Thank you!If that’s all (and two organic acids - neither of which is likely natural) is prob unnecessary duplication. In any case, it’s a very poor system. Suggest ~3000 ppm of either with pH adjusted appropriately and something to impact Gram neg bacteria.
-
ketchito said:Thank you @PhilGeis, I always appreciate your comments! (I’ve seen terrible thing when workers were manipulating enzymes indeed). Just in case, by safer alternatives I meant that formaldehyde releasers are safer alternatives than formaldehyde
Appreciate your comments and perspective - including this point.
-
Bill_Toge said:it releases formaldehyde when microbes attempt to ingest it, in the same way that parabens release alcohols when microbes attempt to ingest them
Can you provide the data for these 2 phenomena?
-
“free” as addressed in regulation (EU) would be all of it
-
sensitization.
-
Not aware it is highly regulated, esp for micro (tho’ regulatory language always excessive). Think just colifom/E. coli. - https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=165.110
-
prob just the formaldehyde
-
Think enzymes are the greatest manufacturing risk I’ve seen
-
ketchito said:In my experience visiting some plants here in Latin America, I found that both the person who weights the ingredients and the manufacturer were constantly exposed to some amounts of formaldehyde gas when manipulating large amounts of formalin (not that the ingredient itself is to blame for this), and since we have well performing and safer alternatives (formaldehyde-releasers), and especially in places where there’s low survailance over manufacturing sites and practices, wouldn’t the decission from Europe especifically about formaldehyde make some sense?
I am aware of the broader use of formaldehyde (formalin) in Latin America - not sure some could even make clean products without it. But ‘m not with you on this. Manufacturing risks are established by many ingredients and practices - caustics, HCl, heat, ozone, unprotected belts, pinch points, inappropriate tank entry, failed lock out, etc. Failure in worker safety should be addressed by PPE, safety procedures, etc.
Banning formaldehyde Europe fixes none of that. We sure do not have “safer alternatives” than releasers as preservatives. -
You can’t expect the preservative to resolve a contaminated raw material - esp. water. Water quality is probably the biggest risk for cosmetic manufacturing.
-
Folk should be confident their water meets at least finished product specification. The worst contaminants P. aeruginosa and B. cepacia can grow in distilled water to millions per ml - more than enough to overwhelm any preservative - esp. the alternative/naturals
-
Banning formaldehyde and lower free formaldehyde in preservation is typical EU bureaucratic excess. This misguided ban merely increases micro risk by eliminating some of the few generally effective preservatives.
FDA typically doesn’t chase useless efforts in this context. Covid is prob irrelevant - cosmetics are under CFSAN not CDER,
It does address the higher levels in some products -https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/hair-smoothing-products-release-formaldehyde-when-heated . AND
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/nail-care-products -
and perhaps that it’s expensive and not very effective
-
Formaldehyde reactivity may limited its stability. Formaldehyde releasers can maintain an effective level through consumer use.
To your question - 100-500 ppm should be effective for bacteria, fungi can be more challenging. -
unstable emulsion
-
Thanks Graillotion. +/- multifunctional system - couple of glycols (one prob the solvent) and an obscure alcohol. Suppose one of Streatmans Dermosofts. Doubtful there’s much safety data or efficacy experience and unapproved for most of the world. Synthetic - so why when there are options with substantial safety, efficacy and stability data/experience with reg blessing.
-
See:https://cosmeticseurope.eu/files/5914/6407/8121/Guidelines_on_Stability_Testing_of_Cosmetics_CE-CTFA_-_2004.pdf
You need to test the product as the consumer sees it - as well as the projecting its safety in rapid aging. Confirm with real time aged product the data you see with rapid aged product.PET (presume USP) is a pretty poor test - so all tested products must pass as bare minimum to justify consumer exposure. Suggest you show it passes as made and after 1 month both ambient and rapid aged before you put it on the shelf for consumers. And all ageing studies must be with product in final packaged.
-
KimberlyLars said:PhilGeis said:How will you address stability?
Typical stability with light, dark, 25°C, 40°C, 4°C, Freeze/Thaw
Curoxyl 42 as Benzoyl peroxide - I assume you’re including this as an anti-acne active. How do propose its determine its stability. Be aware - if you’re in US -this will be a drug product.
Also - don’t understand the apparent comparison tio Sepimax. -
Like phyate. Suggest 2500 Na Benzoate and 5000 phenoxy. and
would adjust pH to 4-5. -
Pharma!!! Got it!
-
What is the relevance of this method for measuring pH?