PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Pharma said:PhilGeis said:Nasties? Please rememnber preservatives control “nasties.”You misunderstand me. What I mean is that there’s a difference between proper skin tolerable preservation and stuff which I don’t even like in technical materials such as isothiazolinones. Sadly, these are ‘okay’ in pet products because animals are considered ‘objects’ in most legal regards.
Isothiazolinones have been used (typically as primary preservatives) in surfactant and hair conditioner products globally since ~1990. Tho’ some folks screwed up when 1st introduced, not used in leave one but for limited use of one around turn of century that provoked sensitization and was withdrawn. Not aware animals are more at risk than human “objects” exposed in historic use. Are you referring to use in leave-on products? Can you elaborate?
“Nasties” are the bugs against which we preserve. Casual slandering preservatives is the practice of uninformed activists that diminishes our ability to protect consumers and their pets. If a preservative does not satisfy safety in that use, let’s please address it in objective unemotional terms that do not jeopardize applications where it may have both efficacy and safety in use.
-
Unpreserved?
Ask which drunk gets the 1st beer when “drinks are on the house” announced - whatever bugs gets to it 1st. -
YasmineR said:Thank you for replying!If your surfactant is anionic and you have enough, you prob don’t need an antifungal preservative.
Could you please clarify this part? What does an anionic surfactant have to do with antifungal activity?
Literature, FDA/EU recall and extensive experience find shampoos and other anionic surfactant products (esp. with EDTA) intrinsically resistant to fungal (esp. mold) contamination.
Euxyl 9010 is prob good for shampoo but is not a “great all-around preservative”. Alone, it leaves a gap in antifungal efficacy for relevantly susceptible products.
-
Of course it gets wet - that doesn’t mean you need to preserve a film of water. You can’t preserve water pools around the bar,. Think your wasting your money on preservation.
Does the get get mushy? -
Is this a bar?
-
Nasties? Please rememnber preservatives control “nasties.”
-
I’m just a micro guy so hope others Perry, Microformulation) can address product formulation realities. Unless it brings a substantial bioburden or hygroscopicity elevates Aw too high, I’m ok.
-
and watch your claims. FDA does not regulate pet “grooming aids” but does regulate pet drug products.
The animal counterpart of a cosmetic is commonly referred to as a “grooming aid.” The Act defines a cosmetic as pertaining only to human use (21 U.S.C. 321(i)). Therefore, products intended for cleansing or promoting attractiveness of animals are not subject to FDA control. However, if such products are intended for any therapeutic purpose or if they are intended to affect the structure or function of the animal, they are subject to regulation as new animal drugs under the Act.
https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/resources-you/animal-products-fda-regulates#Grooming -
By FD&C definition, cosmetic ingredients are effectively cosmetics and a cosmetic produced with an adulterated ingredient is adulterated. Excessive/OOS micro counts establish adulteration - that they might die off over time (or the infamous - the preservative will kill it off) is irrelevant - adulterated is forever . a
-
Their info prob came from Dave Steinberg’s book - Preservatives for Cosmetics. This is a very good book. https://www.amazon.com/Preservatives-Cosmetics-David-C-Steinberg/dp/193263312X/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=steinberg+preservatives&qid=1620126997&sr=8-4
-
There is potential. Think you’re referring to info in Steinberg’s book. Dave’s info is excellent and does report there is potential. compromise.
-
Check with specific suppliers - be aware, some raw materials are not physically stable at low temperature.
-
Think you’re wise to study labels of products similar to those you’re developing. Major companies have access to preservative testing adequate to try different combinations in formulas. Presuming this is a limiting factor for you, try to follow their lead. But you’ll still need to confirm efficacy.
Suggest you have limited confidence in claims of broad spectrum activity - e.g. 9010 alone is not an adequate preservative vs fungi (yeast and mold). Do not consider reports of inactivation absolute, and there are plenty of substrates (food) in formulas for bugs to eat when preservation fails.
1% is more than you need for phenoxyethanol - suggest +/- 0.5%. 9010 is ~90% phenoxyethanol. If your surfactant is anionic and you have enough, you prob don’t need an antifungal preservative.
-
I’d run an AET to see.
-
Benzoic acid solubility can be an issue. it’s much less soluble in water than the sodium benzoate. Other than that, there is no difference.
-
Effectively.
But to make it complicated - formaldehyde is a gas and formalin is a saturated solution of that gas. The gas hydrated in solution as methylene glycol.One more that you need to consider. Formalin includes methanol -maybe 10%. Please take that into consideration
-
Other than the lesser concentration of the ion due to the sodium salt, there is effectively no difference - assuming you obtain solution of addition. It’s a pH driven equilibrium.
-
Right - DMDm Hydantoin at 2000-2500 ppm usually gave < 500 ppm free formaldehyde. “Free” is important.
-
Can’t address mildness but for efficacy suggest Germall or Glydant with sodium benzoate and EDTA.
-
RedCoast said:You may be better off going anhydrous. Water-free beauty products are becoming more popular, particularly with the “natural” market. This could save you from some headaches if your clients’ preferred retailer lists more “unacceptable” preservatives in the near future, or if your clients get more paranoid about ingredients in general.Just out of curiosity… do they accept dehydroacetic acid? It’s common in many “natural” products, but not everyone accepts it.
Good point. It’s important to understand what synthetic preservatives they accept as “natural”. Clients honest is other ways, so eagerly accept the marketing scam.
-
Aha!! Not on shampoo bar? Maybe a sign you don;t need preservation?
-
I’m with Pharma. No confidence in mystery preservatives.
-
Pink? Maybe Serratia marcescens - a potential contaminant but like not able to grow in concentrated surfactant. Could it be a yeast-like fungus - a Rhodotorula sp.?
-
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.