PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Why do you need Hexamidine? You’ve got two others
-
What is the microbiological quality of your manufacture?
-
Neither is esp good. Suppose your policy prevents isothiazolinone. I’d prob use #2 and add EDTA and NaBenzoate. Better check stability in PET. Suggest ISO AET with added cepacia.
What is your making risk?
-
Don;t see much benefit with DHA when you’ve Benzoate, esp. in a surfactant context.
-
Answer to specific question is neither - they’re both just phenoxy with a little extra boost and each could be argued a little better than the other. To get a functional answer re. a complete system, you’d need to include product formula, package and making quality dynamics.
As Microformulation said, challenge test is metric. That’s all you have, but it’s not validated to making or consumer use. FDA enforcement reports - no doubt every cosmetic recalled passed a (at least USP) challenge test. It’s a price of entry but good and poor systems pass - and the very great number of recalls in recent years is primarily associated with this prob pass and certain primary reliance on politically-correct, marginal preservatives. I’d classify as such cap glycol, glyc caprylate and other esters, PEA, EHG, cap hydroxamate, gluconolac tone, etc. Maybe not only due to the preservative systems - alone they’re poor but the typically small to moderate sized companies recalling products likely have a poor understanding of micro risk control in formula, package and making context.
-
Caprylhydroxamic acid is not that good as a chelator in preservative context.
-
It’s the single best preservative booster.
-
Amen, Microformulation
Abdullah, Piroctone Olamine and HCl? Your antidandruff active and pH adjustment, respectively?
-
As Pharma said - and neither is esp good vs fungi. nor shlould be considered a complete preservative system.
-
Yes - at the right pH and with EDTA or a good chelator
-
That is a poor preservative system and your supplier is profoundly ignorant. Suggest you look for alternatives to both.
Food colors have nothing to do with the acid salt equilibrium that is prmarily controlled by pH in cosmetic systems.
-
It does - pH 4 is not prohibitive.
-
Sorbate would not suffer a different fate than benzoate. Prefr benzoate due to stability and general use in many shampoos largely due to synergized efficacy with surfactants - and my experience. I like it with Kathon but i know that bothers some folks
DHA is merely another organic acid.
I’m not so familair with Phenylpropyl - it’s not in ester worry but also not broad spectrum.
Fungi are very rare contaminants of shampoos. Phenoxy works well with ethylhexylglycerine - good idea. Maybe those with benzoate and EDTA.Whatever you do, let us know how it fares in challenge.
Good luck!! I’d say Semper Fi - but I was just RA.
-
What’s pH?
I’d drop the DHA and sorbate in favor of Benzoate and Gluconolactone as you have EDTA (target 0.1%). The esters are vulnerable to pseudomonad esterases. as pseudomonads are primary risks for shampoos, this is a pretty weak system. What about some benzyl alcohol. -
What is your pH? Suggest you contact supplier for stability concerns. 24 hours is plenty of time for background contamination to grow.
I’d not trust the humblebeeandme combinations. Some are pretty poor.
Suggest you look at preseservative systems used by major marketers.
-
All competent labs test for content before performing challenge testing.
Dip sticks are are poor - might tell you if the product is heavily contaminated - that your raw materials are foul, if you making hygiene is foul. They say nothing of preservative efficacy.
-
mmatia is confusing content with challenge.
-
The test kit tells you NOTHING regarding the preservative - or much else. It might tell you if you screwed up making the product - nothing more.
-
Please stop this. Preservation is addressed by challenge testing - organisms are added to determine kill. tbhe test kit merely tries (and not adequately) to determine if your product is contaminated
Tnhe at home test is useless for preservation assessment and pretty poor for anything but perhaps water. -
formulation - and that is typically considred in a highly aqueous product context.
-
Dip slides are poor - no neutralization of preservative, product obscuring potential growth and product has to be pretty bad for it to show growth. If you see contamination, it is a signal your prob should not be making cosmetics with your system. No growth is meaningless - you’ll still need to test at a qualified lab.
-
None. You need to send it to a competent lab.
-
Thanks Perry. Now I see!!
I emailed Tyger with the question. Will let you know what they say. -
Pharma - “natural” phenoxyethanol. Please elaborate.