PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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.
-
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?