PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Dump it. Please use GMP
-
With benzoate
-
Yes - colonies in monsavon soap - think Kurtia
-
That is upper limit — start with 2000-2500 ppm active
-
They prefer anhydrous but suggest at least 60%, offer no data - then formulas with 35% (shampoo) no data and and weasel words. It’s an undescribed hydrosol that prob has the usual components pinenes terpineols etc. at whatever levels.
look like niche marketing without much substance -
Pseudomonas typically in consumer tap water and consumers lack of care will risk contamination. Decide where your ethics take you.
-
Milk in bar soap will increase micro contamination risk
-
4 months? If selling - how will you ensure consumers will not use any products older than 4 months?
Where did you get that info re cardamom ? -
Some toothpaste products do not include preservatives. Combination of pH, water activity, pyrophosphates, flavor (esp. peppermint) may be effective. Risk is largely manufacturing as tube packaging substantially reduces risk of consumer contamination.
Sodium lactate is not a preservative.
Preservation is your responsibility. -
How well controlled/specified are your relevant ingredients?
-
Agree Mark - and pH should be a specification to serve efficacy that can be achieved more more cheaply.
@Cafe33 - assume your not claiming that combination as “natural.”
-
Formaldehyde releasers 2000-3000 ppm have given 100-300 ppm free formaldehyde. Folks don’t use formaldehyde now, the releasers are much better in maintaining an effective level..
-
Geogard Ultra + Sodium Citrate + Phenoxyethanol + EDTA, pH 4.8-5.2
What is the product and what are in-product levels of preservative components??
Suggest you drop Geogard and use Na benzoate. Geogard ultra is an overpriced combination that you don’t need - With EDTA gluconolactone is a waste.
Na citrate also serves no purpose.
In any case, please use ISO 11930 (criteria) rather than USP 51.
-
None of them are that good, and that some org takes it upon itself to redefine “natural” does not change the fact that these are synthetic. “Approved” merely gives license to mislead.
-
I’ll send text if you can’t get in
-
You can register - think the journal free
-
Some are allegedly natural - some are clearly not incl. GSE, Silverion, Geogards 221 and ultra. Further GSE is a fraud and Leucidal has similarly been reported to include synthetic disinfectant actives.
The future of their use - many will to continue happily to buy into and repeat the credentialed “natural” lie for synthetic systems. Those pursuing systems arguable natural (without the disingenuous quotes) will continue to risk consumers safety with weak systems of inconsistent chemical composition.The future of cosmetic preservatives? See https://www.teknoscienze.com/tks_article/panel-discussion-on-preservatives-in-cosmetics/
The larger question is the microbiological safety of cosmetics -
My bet - if FDA asked for safety data, they’d have nothing much to share.
-
They’re required by regulation to display some information at “point of sale” - this includes ingredient labeling. It’s routinely ignored
-
Good point - guess they’re trying to fly under the radar with “conditioning” claim. They do mention hair growth with ingredient
Trifluoromethyl Dechloro Ethylprostenolamide
Trifluoromethyl dechloro ethylprostenolamide is a prostaglandin, or lipid compound, that is associated with increased hair growth.
-
Chlorhexidine digluconate salt MW is 898 of which Chlorhexidine molecule @MW 505 is ~56% of the salt. 56% of 7.1 = 4.
The salt enhances solubility. -
agree abierose
So much of cosmetic appeal is subjective - perceived functionality driving repurchase is also affected by secondary elements including cachet of price (expensive stuff must work better than cheap stuff), contrasting appeal to personal bias (works better than expensive stuff(, package design, perfume, continuing ad message including enviro/safety propaganda.
Maybe not quite on target - but consider antimicrobial soap. Continue assurance that it works in ads survived the category for over half a century despite failure of industry to show a real benefit. FDA asked the same question of efficacy for decades - show us it works - before finally getting around to calling the question. Triclosan was not the problem, the stuff was never convincingly shown to work. -
Sorry Abdullah, I don’t know.
If you haven’t - suggest you subscribe to Happi (Household and personal product industry) trade journal athttps://www.happi.com/issues/2021-09-01/ .
They publish formulas and you can find ’em in Happi archives. -
FD&C Act defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease” and “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals” (emphasis added) .
Not claiming eyelash growth does not change the fact of intent. FDA will not let you play stupid but will assume intent unless you convince otherwise. You’d have to justify why this expensive ingredient is in your product, and they’d likely insist you demonstrate it is not having a drug effect.
-
Phosphate regs. To control eutrophication of lakes etc., misguided regulations banned phosphates in household products last century.
e.g. https://www.card.iastate.edu/ag_policy_review/article/?a=39