PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Pattsi said:It is what it is - a separated emulsion.
Not really bi-phasic like makeup remover - it takes time to separate back to 2 layers.
The ingredient that was left out is Marketinga Moneyeta.Marketinga Moneyata!!!!!
-
no can’t help with that
btw - meant NO efficacy with soluble PT
-
Try 2500 of each.
EDTA and other chelators will sequester Zn from ZPT. ZPT is used as it it is substantive to the scalp where it inhibits Malassezia spp. fungi. Soluble PT (Na) will not deposit - so efficacy. -
Nope. Suggest benzoate and a formaldehyde releaser. Also might look at Head & Shoulders.
-
Eliminate EDTA - you’ll screw up your ZPT. As Abdullah said - preservatives are must too great in concentration and prob not the best choice as ZPT and isothiazolinones can be incompatible.
-
ifamuj said:
How about I use a mixture of DMDM (0.5%) and methylparaben (0.2%) and add 0.2% disodium EDTA?
That would be good but cut down on levels 2000 ppm DMDMH/1000 Methyl parabens/1000 Na2EDTA. What is the packaging and how do you plan to limit use to 3 months?
Premade solution? You will need to preserve premixes - if they exist for > 6 hours. -
Dreamer - where do you access relevant clinical trial data for peptides?
-
Nothing as good as Mark’s - just antimicrobial toilet paper
-
2:1 - often 2000/1000 ppm.
-
Appropriately-designed - published in peer-reviewed context that address efficacy, nature and limitations of your formulas can be informative. Pictures such as those above offered as “proof” for alleged efficacy are neither novel nor compelling.
-
SymOcide from Symrise.
https://www.imcdus.com/en-us/products/symocide-c. Think it’s not very soluble and question “excellent antifungal, antiseptic and preservative properties” -sounds like the usual “broad spectrum hype.
Symrise offers the stuff as “when properly used, can preserve many cosmetic products effectively. Particularly in combination with organic acids or other multifunctional ingredients,”https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/formulating/function/preservatives/Glide-Down-the-SymOcide-C-Slide-407782735.htmlA lot of literature re dentifrice application. Other than that, I don’t know why anyone would be using triclosan in any application that would warrant replacement.
Here’s CIR https://online.personalcarecouncil.org/ctfa-static/online/lists/cir-pdfs/PRS277.pdf -
preservative free
-
One USP 51 by itself is not enough - you should ensure the preservative system is stable.
“Safety” by whatever tests or rational must be established. It can not be presumed, one must have an affirmative justification.
Per 21 CFR
A cosmetic is considered misbranded if its safety has not adequately been substantiated, and it does not bear the following conspicuous statement on the PDP:Warning - The safety of this product has not been determined.
-
Methyl and propyl is a classic combination - with EDTA and a preservative targeting Gram negative bacteria,
-
Abdullah said:@PhilGeis may i ask why you are not offering that it will be effective?
Also what ratio of phenoxyethanol and methylparaben do you recommend?
Efficacy can not be presumed. One must demonstrate by challenge testing. I’m not recommending the stuff - my answer was in response. If one must use a paraben in a shampoo, use methyl.
-
Shampoo - then methyl parabens. But I’m not offering that it will be effective. This you must determine.
-
Right - Perry! Not!
sorry for the confusion. -
Don’t hold your breath for lactic acid as an antibacterial hand wash - a drug product in US. The linked product is lactic acid solution at pH 2. Their suggestion that it could replace isothiazolinones is very, very doubtful.
They mention EPA registration but offer the stuff as a hand sanitizer. Not aware FDA’s OTC monograph for consumer antiseptic handwash products include lactics acid as an approved active. They need a new drug approval to market it as such in the US and you will need one too.
-
abierose said:It’s pretty crazy that so many people were involved in this scheme over DECADES and no one ever blew the whistle! Even crazier is the fact that the companies paying this entity, none of them ever had another independent lab test their product(s)…?
True - suppose they were exploiting small to medium sized companies and those without their own auditing systems that likely couldn’t afford multiple clinicals and i bet AMA was a low cost supplier.
Major company clinical research study monitors would have caught the fraud. -
It’s just too useful at 10 ppm.
-
Think so - 10 ppm is pretty low, about the low end of what you find in fruit.
https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fa/files/formaldehyde.pdf -
Prob ok - what is perfume % in formula.
-
Right chemicalmatt - Germall 115 loss is a sad reality - by any name.
-
Think the raw material - not in finished product. Don’t remember if 2000 was unique but experience with Glydant at 2000-25000 ppm was 100-200 free. As efficacy of releasers is based on the released formaldehyde, 10 ppm is not an effective level for the stuff. Not aware that the parent molecule per se has efficacy.
So doesn’t seem reasonable - but would sure be good if true.