PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
In addition to manipulation in production, extract will be repeatedly dispensed in production of multiple product batches until exhausted.
Suggest preservation as if finished product. Suggest sodium benzoate with pH adjusted appropriately and phenoxyethanol. Are you willing to use EDTA? -
doesn’t offer a lot of confidence on that supplier.
-
As Ilse pointed out - the CoA is confusing. Eugenol is both 75% and 7%. Ask the supplier for clarification.
Eugenol is among the Fragrance allergens that require cosmetic/detergent labeling.
-
Some water must be present but the % doesn’t necessarily control. Water condensing, taken up from the air (anhydrous powders in a humid bathroom) or isolated in droplets can support growth.
The limiting factor for water if present is water activity (Aw) as Syl noted - and for cosmetic preservation purposes that’s about 0.7 (70% relative humidity). Aw is a function of dissolved solids in water - don’t know ghee. For perspective - 67% sugar (sucrose) would offer an Aw ~.86.
-
“Natural“ (emphasis on the quotation marks) preservatives are often neither natural nor effective preservatives. It is surprising that so many ethical folks are happy to accept the Ecocert/COSMOS head fake and supplier BS for the natural claim. In my mind - the equivalent - “made in USA” for a China-sourced material that also happens to be made in US.
Some of these are frauds - grapefruit seed extract and allegedly Leucidal.
Extracts, essential oils, eye of newt, etc. are weak, vary profoundly batch to batch (typically without any idea as to the active component(s), can include pesticides, UN observed their production in 3rd world can disrup subsistence agriculture and worse https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p1022-aromatherapy-bacteria.html.
Most here likely use USP 51, a test that poorly represents the micro risk - it’s validated to nothing.
It’s certainly possible to effectively preserve a product with a natural (without quotation marks) preservative system. Most attempting that will not know what’s in the natural material and will never know if they were actually successful in protecting the user.
-
@ Pharma -thanks, think the “preservative -free” marketing hype shows Bayer in this case is unethical. As you point out, it’s just hexanediol - a synthetic compound that finds common use as a preservative.
-
Those can work in challenge but 2 organic acids have little technical support. As you noted, benzoate/benzoic pKA is facilitated with some surfactants.
The combination is not that great in use so packaging has to considered.
-
How will you address stability?
-
is that ethanol?
-
Phenethyl alcohol can migrate in to packaging and implements so be sure to get stability data with complete packaged product.
-
dyes/color additives - https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives
-
To test, no but any challenge in stability should use product aged in container and with any implement packaged in product (e.g. mascara brush)/.
-
Pharma - micro data certainly support this phenomenon. Note preservation of shampoos - Pantene, Heads & Shoulders, Aussie, Herbal Essences
-
yes
-
As Pharma noted - sorbate/benzoate concetrations are too high - drop each by 50% - and you don’t need both. Suggest addition of phenoxyethanol.
In production, the water phase will grow microbes if you let it sit around.
-
You’re marketing in EU? What are your chaolnege test stability data - assume in final market container?
-
Look at SDS for current marketed products - e.g. https://www.msdsdigital.com/olay-moisturizing-lotion-msds
-
Thanks. River Ganges! We acquired Indian Co. making a Ganga bar soap - not what you think - made with water from the river Ganges. QC estab specs for all raw materials and asked me what the micro spec should be - for the river water. No treatment allowed - this is a mystical product. Suggested “no visible floaters”
-
Emotelle said:
So what pairs well with Euxyl PE9010 to boosts its preservation effectiveness? Do you all have something to recommend?
What’s the product?
-
Be careful with “Hurdle” technology - it’s not for the inexperienced. It establishes inhibition rather than kill - so may not give a PET “pass”. Compromise of any factor - even temporarily in making - can bring the house down.
In any case, good luck CHarley!
-
I’ll add
PET (USP? Iso?) is validated to neither manufacturing nor consumer protection. It merely says you have a degree of efficacy. Design a system that should work and confirm it at least passes in the PET.
NO single preservative is effectively broad spectrum - that is nothing but supplier salesmanship. -
As Pharma is spot on.
Natacide is a proprietary mixture. You should NOT use anything as preservative whose composition is not known and specified in CoA. The preservative is the only ingredient used exclusively for a safety purpose in your product, and you should not delegate safety to Synerga.Do not use this stuff..
-
Don’t have the info for this product.
Re your 2nd question - there is info. Micro recalls are certainly up for cosmetics esp. in last decade, and virtually all with natural/naturally compliant preservatives systems. FDA talked about this https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lam.12995
-
Wonder at use of DMSO. Maybe pharma can comment - didn’t see that factor controlled.