PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
EHG prob helps a bit - esp. with penyoxyethanol, Generally, think I’d looking to challenge testing (esp CTFA) for the answers.
-
Pattsi - the research would come from a company considering pursuit of the category who wouldn’t worry at reporting if they found no substance.
-
Thanks abdullah - at a couple of unhundred ppm aq. solubility - that’s pretty good - and they send a CoA with analysis. Good supplier.
-
Pharma said:Some preservatives are neutralised by surfactants
. However, if you add enough surfactant, then they get self-preserving to a degree (that’s, as usual, just a rule of thumbs, not a general law). Not that this will be enough on itself but a shampoo likely contains too much surfactants for any surfactant-sensitive preservative anyway. In your case, it might be less dramatic as you don’t use PEG-based ones which are said to be the worst inactivators.And yes, reduce ‘powders’, starches, proteins and other bug food. But that only works if you have a working preservative system in the first place. The more food you add, the harder it gets to keep bugs at bay.Caution re. surfactant in typical shampoo as self preserving. You’d need about 70% - so might work for a concentrated raw material.
-
Suggest folks deal with competent suppliers who tell you how and how long to store raw materials. Excessive heat and excessive cold can both compromise a raw material. I recall cosmetic manufacturer who stored drums of preservative solution at less than specified temp. Active fell out of solution leaving ingredient addition nothing but solvent - and product unpreserved and contaminated.
-
Pattsi said:
If NIH would look into Indian and Chinese studies rather than relying on only American studies, there might be somethings other than just a belief. I humbly believe working together will take us further than working alone but I doubt I will see it in my life time.
Not aware of NIH - perhaps they have looked into relevant cultural cure claims. I know industry has and typically finds little to no efficacy tho there are rare and notable exceptions.
The Western concept of science has driven profound innovation - what other study concept do you see in China and India ? -
What claim would you make, Abdullash and based on what data?
Perhaps Pharma can help - with limited water solubility of what folks speak of as the “active” constituents wonder at effective content in that kg - and expectations of effect at 1% in product. -
Pharma saiGinger would be a good example (probably because I did my PhD on it): Observing the use for thousands of years and the indications for which it has been used lead (me :blush: ) to several working hypotheses (probable mode of action) of which all but one (which was messed up due to contaminations) =
I’m with Perry re. the science of such clinical study and am curious regarding satisfaction of a PhD without it. Certainly citing thousands of years would not be adequate. Can you explain, please?
-
Largely hype.
-
Think ignorance and arrogance of many smaller companies places their customers individally at greater risk, and they generally fly under the regulatory radar. But, if a big company screws up - market size exposes many more consumers.
-
I’m not sure I understand your questionn. Both the extract and the final product presumably require preservation. At ~1% ingredient level, extract preservative would be unlikely to contribute to final product preservation. Suppose one might consider a complexity if addition is maintained distinct/physically independent (e.g. ribbons) in final product but to practical risk assessment, you’d still end up looking primarily at the entire product.
-
ask for a piece of the action - little upfront and % of sales
-
Abdullah said:@PhilGeis interesting
this is a patented preservative blend by Inolex. Spectrastat™ G2 Natural MB
Caprylhydroxamic acid %0.1
Glyceryl Caprylate %0.75
Glycerin %0.15Why would they spend time and money patenting what is not effective enough?
I also use Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate HCl in with glyceryl caprylate in some lotions. What is your opinion about that?
What preservative blend do you suggest? (no formaldehye releasers, parabens and mi/cmi)
Why? To exploit the alternative/”natural” preservative market. Prob about as useful as most of the systems marketed in that category.
I’ve not used Ethyl lauroyl arginate - maybe pharma has some relevant experience. It’s a food preservative - seen some caution that it’s more active in vitro than in use - and used in some mouthwash products for plaque and for “antimicrobial” packaging” so prob substantive. Read functionally, it’s a cationic surfactant - maybe not so great with anionics in shampoos.
For shampoos and with your policy constraints - will you use benzyl alcohol or phenoxyethanol? Perhaps with benzoate and EDTA.
-
I’ll tell you why I think it’s weak
Capryl hydroxamate is an iron chelator - (like ZPT - another hydroxamate)- competes with hydroxamic acid siderophores such as those fungi use to solubilize/transport iron. You already have EDTA as chelator and Pseudomonas aeruginosa et al. are not bothered by such compounds.
Glyceryl caprylate is really a crap preservative. It’s an ester that Pseudomonad esterases eat for lunch. -
Not wild about your system. The hydroxamic acid is largely going to impact fungi, that and the glyc cap are pretty weak sisters vs the bad guys mentioned below. Do you have a “policy” that controls what you can use (e.g. no formaldehye releasers)?
Only Staph aureus and Candida albicans are pathogens, and none grows very well in cosmetics products. They’re just in the classic preservative test test.
As pharma said, you need to watch out for Pseudomonas aeruginosa as well as Burkholderia cepacia and other Gram negatives.
-
<10% water is not a valid micro testing exclusion. Considerations here are not the same as finished product - you’re worried about presence, not just growth. Accept CoA’s only if you trust the vendor and the conveyance from vendor to you is justifiably in control.
Big companies have the resources to qualify vendors and their production and change controls. Likely you’ll have to assume some risk in trusting vendors not to screw up. Suggest you default to test everything and exclude RM’s of obvious hostile composition/production - pH extremes, anhydrous waxes etc. from hot process, salts…. I’d consider dropping tetsing after a history of no recovery AND a technical rational as to why.
-
Abdullah said:@Pharma thanks
@PhilGeis which microbes grow in Shampoo most?The ingredients are surfactants, polyquaternium 10, essential oil, NACL, and Amodimethicone in near future.
Pseudomonads (esp. Burkholderia cepacia and P. aeruginosa), less so enterics. Fungi esp. mycelial fungi should not be expected.
-
btw - mold contamination oif shampoo is a very, very rare observatiuon.
-
Agree with your comment Matt re. in actual package. Do follow up rapid aging with real time data and decide now what you’ll do if they do not confirm.
I would stick generally to established protocol - both for liability and compliance if you’re making cosmetic/OTC drugs.
-
No - it can not.
-
Benzaldehyde is not an effective preservative. Can you complain to your supplier for selling you this stuff?
-
Suggest you save your money. “Broad spectrum” is a marketing claim for preservatives - you’ll be hard pressed to find any that don;t inlcude this boiler plate. For the other claim - ask for data, AND ask for data showing consistent chemical composition to spec for each batch.
-
You do need to remove hypochlorite sanitizer - and with water of appropriate quality.
If you find you really do need a bauufer - this might help this http://clymer.altervista.org/buffers/cit.html -
Yes they will. My former employer recieved inquiries from the US Navy re. condensation of silicones on interior submarine surfaces. Traced to submariners’ use of antiperpsirant including siloxanes.
-
Can you get Benzyl alcohol by itself?