PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Arghhh - “natural” for any of these is such BS, and please know whenever you see “strong, broad spectrum activity…”, it’s the marketing guys at work.
What is the product? pH? Pretty confident neither “preference” does anything but leavie big hole for some bug’s contamination - even phenoxy alone is not enough.
-
Prob will be effective - and shampoos in the 1940’s-60 often used formaldehyde. But it’ll scare today’s folks, and the odort maybe tough to cover.
There are regulatory demands/consttraints on its use - labeling, limit etc. - and may bring some bad press.Practical - wouldn’t go over 1000 ppm formaldehyde, prob less - see what works.
-
Probably none. Glyceryl caprylate is a weak one and prob useless vs Gram neg’s, the bugs you’d target with formaldehyde. If you want that component, sure think a formaldehyde releaser would be preferable.
-
You could ask the supplier for compositional data - but doubt they’ll come through. This is another of the “natural”, trust-me preservative.
Think the info you’ve found is not useful. -
Saw one suit for flea and tick shampoo - pyrethroids named as culprit.
Also some stuff about isoxazoline - another heterocyclic but nowhere near an isothiazolinone. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-health-literacy/fact-sheet-pet-owners-and-veterinarians-about-potential-adverse-events-associated-isoxazoline-fleaany cocnern for a formaldehyde releaser?
-
Microformulation said:You may want to reconsider Kathon CG (methylchloroisothiazolinone, methylisothiazolinone) in a Pet Shampoo. There are some pending class action suits. It also is beginning to get pushback from the pet market. I would research these issues.
Can you elaborate on the lawsuits? This is the most common preseravtive of surfactant based human consumer products (shampoos, hand washes, body washes) in the world.
-
Thanks Matt - I’d do the same
-
Soaps do not require preservation unless substantially ammended with compromising materials such as milk- and in my experience, that wsa bacterial contamination.
-
Suggest you write them - noting “Micronized Zinc” is not in the monograph. Unless they’ve an NDA, this is an unapproved new drug that you’ve reported at https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/medwatch-forms-fda-safety-reporting
-
Right - 0.05.-0.06 - thanks!
Suggest 0.25 -0.3% Na Benzoate -
With Kathon CG in a shampoo - Sodium benzoate is a much better option than benzyl alcohol or parabens. Kathon CG at 0.1 is top recommend use level. Unless there’s a rationale, think I’d drop that to 0.5-0.6.
-
Still wonder if you need a preservative. You’ll never preserve water that might pool around the bar in a dish - but are you sure bugs will actuially grow on the bar?
-
Are you sure you need preservation?
-
China had required animal testing for imported products (not for their domestic stuff) established a fairly recent exemption for import of “ordinary cosmetics”.
https://www.cosmeticsdesign-asia.com/Article/2021/03/08/China-animal-testing-Exemptions-for-testing-on-ordinary-cosmetics-start-in-May-officials -
Pantene shampoos are mildly acidic in pH.
-
I understand. Your system is prob ok if you ensure your raw materials of not contaminated. There’s a fungal/mold gap but shampoos are intrinsically hostile to mold contamination.
-
I’m familiar with extensive large company investigating naturals - not only traditionals but discovery - with very little success. AND with over-eager managers driving acquistion of herbal companies bypassing due diligence only to discover the products totally failed their claims under technical scrutiny.
-
Where are you?
-
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.