PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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.
-
Apparently Lush thinks it does.
-
The organic acids you’re using are pretty poor by themselves..
-
Think Biocriol WS1 is a bad idea for an aerosolized product. The isothiazolinones can be sensitizers - that’s why they’re not used in leave-on cosmetics.
Sensitization in an aerosolized context could lead to anaphylaxis. -
what goes into solution
-
General considerations https://cosmeticseurope.eu/files/5914/6407/8121/Guidelines_on_Stability_Testing_of_Cosmetics_CE-CTFA_-_2004.pdf
The primary elements are safety (esp. preservative efficacy) and performance stability (emulsion, esthetics, pH etc.) for regulatory - e.g. weight.
-
With the contamination you mentioned, probably the latter with EDTA. Your primary fix must be in bringing GMP’s, manufacturing hygiene and possible biofilm into control..
-
Piroctone olamine was used for dandruff. Hair thinning was not its intent - this is tangentdial - a potential, limited benefit. P&G never made the relevant claim.
-
MurtazaHakim said:Sodium benzoate’s activity is very low at pH above 5 and liquid hand soaps usually have pH ranging from 5.5-7.5.
Re. Na benzoate, In presence of some surfactants, the pKa is effectively increased. I’ve found effect at 7 . Please look at labels - CMIT/Na Benzoate is in Head & Shoulders, Pantene, Herbal essences, Aussie - all pH well above pKa.
Lonzaserve ID is a combination of DMDM Hydantoin and CMIT - very effective but prob overkill as they share the same primary spectrum of efficacy tho discouraging adaptation. might be advisable if you’ve a resistant bug in your manufacturing system.
-
Na benzoate broadens the spectrum and EDTA complexes divalent cations, esp. Ca++ to destabilize biofilm/capsule.. CMIT is primarily effective vs Gram negative - Na benzoate in surfactant context increases efficacy and broadens spectrum. Two preservatives should make it ore difficult for the microbes to adapt.
-
to consumers? that’s marketing and advertising and only indirectly technical
-
it’s CMIT - keep it less than 5 ppm active and combine with Nabenzoate and EDTA
-
Suggest CMIT/ Na benzoate /EDTA unless you formulate to be politically-correct. Good luck with that.
-
Abdullah said:@PhilGeis good point but how you claim and support it is very important especially in a product that doesn’t do what people think it does for example reducing hair fall by shampooing it.
Not sure I understand - if you haven’t support, haven’t applied some metric in development that demonstrates, the claim is fantasy - pretty common in cosmetic biz.
If you’re asking how to communicate a product benefit valid or fantasy - that’s marketing/advertising. -
MurtazaHakim said:Is proxel 106 a suitable preservative to be used for hand soaps ???
No. It’s formaldehyde with CMIT/MIT. The formaldehyde is not needed - as it shares efficacy with CMIT. It’s intended for paints coatings etc. where manufacturing contamination is typically pretty bad and the two strong preservatives help against resistance development.. Think some folks consider formaldehyde presence in head space in can discourages mold.
-
Consider testing your product to any claim - rather than looking for support.