PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Good grief
-
I’d be reactive in this. If it did come up - I’d 1st try to find and eliminate the bug from raws/the system. Your idea is prob a good one.
-
That’s on a product ingredient label?
-
Agree - don’t play the “natural preservatives” game. They’;re typically not natural and less safe because they don’t work - - esp. the absurd one you mentioned.
Spray might be a better term than aerosol - it isn’t pressurized.
Look at similar products from big companies. I’ve used formaldehyde releaser-based systems but those have bad press. Try glycols/benzyl alcohol/maybe organic acid if pH works/edta. -
Relevant recall in 2016
Product Description:
Castile Soap Towelette (SKU T-3112-1S and SKU T-30120-1S
Reason for Recall:
Product is contaminated with Nesterenkonia lacusekhoensis.
Product Quantity:
7,538,000 packets
Recall Number:
F-0805-2016
Code Information:
SKU: T-3112-15: 60228, 60503, 60768, 61207, 60229, 60504, 60786, 61208, 60230, 60505, 60787, 61390, 60324, 60506, 60788, 61521, 60325, 60521, 60942, 61522, 60326, 60522, 60943, 61691, 60327, 60523, 61102, 60328, 60767, 61103 SKU: T-3012-15: 60221, 60524, 60865, 61436, 61593
-
the salt is soluble
-
use sodium salt
-
I know it’s going to be an extremely rare event - but you asked
Bhathena, Z., Barchha, N. and Sivaram, T.K., Prevalence of Moderately Halophytic Aerobic Gram Positive Cocci in Bath Soap Bars with Special Reference to Nesterenkonia Species.
-
“According to EWG..” is certain to preceed total BS. CNN - same thing.
It is absolutely absurd to claim companies add PFAS. I’m sure P&G et al. are testing their products and will respond as an industry with risk assessment.Thanks for the article, jemolian. ppb to low ppm levels.
Sen Collins - sponsor of the bill and the former Collins/Feinstein bill to update regulation of cosmetics went nowhere is apparently posturing. I spoke to her COS re. that bill - asking why. She offered the Wen non-controversy. Politicians need drama.
-
With pH and Aw, you’re priob ok if no compromising additions (e.g,. milk). pH 10 should not be seen as prohibitive. lou’ll need to be > 11 for that.
-
Test your “rancid” product. Unless you find contamination doubt if you need a preservative with that formula.
-
cap2 preser vative - think you’re wasting your money.
-
W-in Si oil emulsions do not test well in classic preservative tests - failure does NOT mean they are susceptible. Strongly recommend you get a copy of the article cited below.
Schnittger, S., Sabourin, J. and King, D., 2002. Preservation of water-in-silicone emulsions. JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE, 53(1), pp.78-80.
-
Not aware the term ‘revalidation” in this context. ALL cosmetics should be marketed with challenge testing data justifying their microbiological safety through consumer use - tho’ consumer can use stuff forever and do not respect ex dates - most major companies see three years in this regard and use “rapid ageing” of product to project preservative stability and efficacy.
-
The culture the product - find if a microorganism also contaminating.
-
Parabens will do nothing for oxidation. Unless you;ve seen or cultured microbial contamination, a preservative is piob not necessary. Look at labels of similar products.
-
How much water? Have you seen any mold or other microbial contamination?
-
Please be aware - even if one takes supplier as truthful - this stuff is not “natural” but a chemical derivative of the claimed extract.
-
Parabens can offer a burning sensation in taste.
Are you sure you need a preservative? Can you share your formula? -
What supplier? And who is their supplier?
Suggest you inquire as to their response to reports from Japan, US dpt ag. and Europe that the stuff has been amended with commercial disinfectants, triclosan and parabens.
“Suppliers”were responsible so asking suppliers for data as CoA may not bring the best information.As microfomulation implied - why not use an ingredient with a clean record?
-
This is not about performance but an adulterated product. Even without that considertion, it’s hardly reasonable to assume the supplier salted the mine only for ONLY for its antimicrobial efficacy.
-
Added as humectant?
-
It is a scam - do not use this junk in any application..
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/govi/pharmaz/2007/00000062/00000008/art00007
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0514064 -
Me too Perry. Here’s what they say about % -
The agency has reviewed the
recommended concentrations of
colloidal oatmeal reported in the
literature and reference texts (Refs. 4, 29
through 32, 34 through 45, 47, 48, and
49) and has considered the range ofoncentrations for colloidal oatmeal
used in bath additive products and in
other dosage forms. Products containing
colloidal oatmeal have been formulated
in the following dosage forms: Lotion (1
and 10 percent colloidal oatmeal),
cleansing cream (8 percent colloidal
oatmeal), shampoo (5 percent colloidal
oatmeal), and cleansing bars (30, 50, and
51 percent colloidal oatmeal) (Refs. 4,
46, and 47). The agency has calculated
the approximate minimum and
maximum concentrations of colloidal
oatmeal that have been used as follows:
For regular colloidal oatmeal, a range of
0.023 to 0.625 percent when used as a
tub bath soak (Refs. 29, 34 through 38,
and 44), a range of 0.24 to 1.2 percent
when used as a foot bath soak (Refs. 30,
31, and 34), a range of 0.24 to 15 percent
in aqueous solution when used in a wet
pack (Refs. 30, 31, 32, 34, and 45), and
a range of 3.75 to 15 percent in aqueous
solution when used as a topical lotion
(Refs. 30, 32, and 34); for oilated
colloidal oatmeal, a range of 0.003 to
0.03 percent when used as a tub bath
soak (Refs. 35 and 39 through 43).