PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Would never use spectrstat - combination of weak materials. Glyceryl caprylate is fairly useless.
In your context, use Nabenzoate - esp. in the body wash. The pH is ok and you’ll enjoy the surfactant-benzoic acid combined efficacy. You’ll still need something for Gram neg bacteria - maybe benzyl alcohol. Pent or Hex glycol may extend efficacy.And a chelator - esp. EDTA.
-
And NO preservative is “broad spectrum” that is cynical supplier hype.
-
The issue is that most here do not know if their preservative system works, even if they run challenge tests. Whether USP, EP, ASTM ISO, NONE is validated for either their primary purpose (in use protection) or manufacturing protection.
The only way to know for sure is in-use evaluation and challenge methods that attempt validation to in use risk.Such alternaitve systems are the clear problem children identified in recalls and by the US FDA as putting consumers at risk.
-
what is your “policy” - preservatives you will and will not use
-
Yes - and it is poor by design. What is your pH?
-
Then use HDPE.
-
Neither is very effective.
-
Follow supplier’s choice for raw material storage. What are the drums - are they lined?
-
Small mascara package with plastic brush inserted would be a much greater risk for preserative adsorption than a big shampoo bottle. But major manufacturers wouild addres both.
-
I’m not with my colleague Abdukkah. You can not be sure the packages are “safe” unless you confirm and control the risk. That said, risk for Germall is low but, phenoxyethanol may be at risk. Package size is a critical factor.
Major guys conduct analysis of preservative in stability, and you should as well. I understand this may be too expensive for many - so look for precdent - similar products from major cosmetic guys - formula, package composition, esp. size, etc. -
Please pursue preservation as an affirmative effort. A lesser level of ethanol may be useful as a supportive element but don’t design your system around it.
-
20% is the recognized target.
-
Some packaging materials can take up preservatives.
-
Ouch -
what are Eco Friendly APG verities.
-
what pH?
-
What country/regulatory requirements?
MI is effective but limited in application due to sensitization. What specxifically will be the product?
Lactic acid is probably a stretch - some systems with surfactant, low pH and organic acidss hjsave been useful. “Disinfectant ” is an important claim - you want something that certainbly works
-
Preservation is ineffective with benzoate with or without salt and wouldn’t put much faith in essential oil for “antibacterial.”
-
In US, there is no unique drug/cosmetic category. Such products must comply with regulations of both categories.
-
As in woke to the imaginary “dangers” and blind to the risks. Plenty of alternatives when the low bar of USP 51 is the gate to market.
Large companies, PCPC and other industry org’s have pursued preservative defense efforts for years to no benefit. No new primary preservatives are being developed - there’s not enough money in cosmetics (even global) to justify the safety and regulatory effort.
The lawsuit will be interesting. Technical absurdity /dislike of big companies/EWG et al. hand wringing. Interesting to watch folks argue for poor preservation with the myriad of weak combinations claiming “broad spectrum” across a wide pH range. -
MarkBroussard said:To quote BobZChemist: “The customer isn’t always right, but the customer is the customer”
There are other alternatives for preservation … it’s not as though DMDM is the only preservation option available to formulators.
There are “alternatives” to the traditional preservatives and they are associated of levels of FDA enforement not seen this the 1960’s - e.g. https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lam.12995
Before wokeness hit cosmetic preservation, small and medium-sized manufacturers copied traditional systems of major manusacturers qualified typically with more stressful protocols than the USP 51 and confirmed with in-use testing. The major guys have tried to stay within their safety assesments - while others “qualify” marketing-driven alternatives with 51, producing underpreserved products . These are associated with the increased recalls - and certainly > rates of in-use contamination.
-
Pattsi said:@MarkBroussard - No way!!!! Me too, thought I was alone.
@PhilGeis - Sadly DMDM is dead now. It’s a guess game what next. When mass brands replace controversial ingredient I have no choice but to follow suit which is hard on us small brand. Totally BS.
A lot of global folks dropped the formaldehyde releasers when Japan refused to soften the draconion warning. China and EWG effectively teamed up to bully J&J out of Quat 15 for its baby shampoo 10 or so years ago. FDA and SCCS/EU/CIR still find ’em safe but i understand you point.
The idiotic suit completely ignores the real risk - microbial contamination - in place of its imaginary formaldehyde risk. -
Appreciate your effort and concerns. NO preservative is effectively broad spectrum - that is marketing hype. Even with the traditional materials parabens Kathon etc - you’ll need a second and if you go the alternative/natural route you’ll need even more. Look at labels of similar products from major manufacturers e.g. P&G, J&J, Unilever, Estee, Avon.
-
Thanks Pattsi - J&J cstarted this some time back - took quat 15 out of their baby shampoo after many decades and appropriate safety assessment.
such total BS - https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/multimedia/multimedia_pub/multimedia_pub_fsf_06_01.html