PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Agree re. secondary preservatives of capylyl whatever, but would not go with lesser amounts than recommended for any primary preservative (e.g. formaldehyde releasers). Please do not titirate down based on preservative testing - they are not validated to cosmetic endpoints. Please establish a system within the estabished efficacy and safety parameters for each preservative used and confrm with challenge testing. There is no advantage to lesser levels.
-
Yes - please use the appropriate recommended concentrations.
-
Think fFormaldehyde releasers - such as Germall, Suttocide, Glydant - would be preferable to formalin.
-
Appreciate you challenge. Assumje you’ve ruled out formaldehyde releasers (?).
pH 6 isn’t great for sorbic acid, and benzoate might be a better choice if you can ,lower the pH. Is 6 cast in stone?
Suggest you start testing and see what breaks through. -
Wonder at efficacy of sorbic acid in your app. pKa of benzoic acid with some surfactants is reportedly “effectively” increased. You’ll see it (as Na benzoate) in many shampoos at pH 6 and 7.
-
Preservation of products with “colloidal oatmeal” is an experiment that requires preservative testing your confident. and prob a round or 2 including aged product before your coonfident. Llook at the similar products on the shelvees now. You’ve phenoxyethyl alcohol - why add less effective phenethyl - unless its for rose odor? Additions should be the more water soluble. Check micro content of you oarmeal.
-
Mark - because you want preservative and efficacy in the water that invades the product. I’d not be confident your suggestions would effectively accomplish that.
In any case, please don’t consider just adding any preservative will simply “be done with it” . If you’re preserving vs water ingress - test it. -
You;d consider adding preservative esp if water contamination in use. Is that likely for your product?
-
Links for methods.
Many compendial methods folks use (e.g. ISO, PCPC, ASTM) require purchase. If the price is tough to meet - to understand how such testing can be performed, you might look at methods that have been published on line.For preservative testing, see US Pharmacopeia 51
http://www.pharmacopeia.cn/v29240/usp29nf24s0_c51.html
or Europen Pharmacopoeia 5.1.3
https://www.drugfuture.com/Pharmacopoeia/EP7/DATA/50103E.PDFFor testing product quality (for microbes), see USP 61 (count) and 62 (specific microbes)
https://www.uspnf.com/sites/default/files/usp_pdf/EN/USPNF/generalChapter61.pdf
https://www.uspnf.com/sites/default/files/usp_pdf/EN/USPNF/generalChapter62.pdf -
You mak verye reasonable points. My experiecne was with a big company that could demand quality materials. I used single components so that I could adjust/titrate concnentrations if needed.
-
Can you described your deodoant composition - esp. is it water based? Those are not esp. effective preservatves - and benzyl alcohol (Euxyl K900) is a skin isensitizer.
-
I’m with chemicalmatt!
-
Don’t bet on killing bacteria in contaminated product. How does the Germall+/EDTA perform in chaloenge?
-
Euxyl 9010 (phenoxyethanol) targets Gram negative bacteria - as does Germall. they overlap in efficacy. Are you seeing issues wiuth Gram negative’s?
-
Tocopherol is a good idea. Some use parabens to prevent mold. TKB Cap 2 (glycols and phenoxyethanol) would be good vs bacteria esp. Gram negative bacteria. A wax based lipstick is not much of a bacterial risk, and those are are poor vs fungi.
Perhaps consider just a paraben. -
Tyss - are you referring to Dove beauty bar soap? Be aware its isethionate sulfonate surfactants are syndets (synthetic detergents ) aso not natural.
-
Sale does not require preservative per se. Is it classic wax based product?
Re. TKB, think the exp would be for the material meeting its own spec - so within that period it should be as intended.
-
Ask TKB for an ex. date. If they can’t/won’t respond, do not use their products.
Are you sure you need a preservative in a lipstick? -
You have tested 100’s - so what has been the reaction of the “vocal 1%” who complained? Was this you literally or in controlled clinical study? As you know, it’s important that subjective observations with out easy metrics be conducted by uninterested experts.
And what is the product, please? -
Leo said:Chlorox bleach is neutralized to a much lower pH than 12.
Household Bleach is usually at pH 11-13 depending on use.Common soaps have a pH of between 9-11 and have routine warnings to keep out of eyes and what to do if soap gets in your eyes.
The pH 11 gel will be used near the eye but it rapidly dries upon skin contact (within one minute). It may, in some, produce an intended mild irritation and mild redness of the skin that resolves after a few minutes. Once dried upon contact with skin, it cannot harm the eye.
Soap will do more harm to the eye since it is lathered and foamy and people tend to spread soap into their eyes during application. The key is to NOT get the gel in the eye during application with your fingers (which you have much more control than with soap).
Instructions: Apply to crows feet and under the eyes. Keep out of eyes. Do not apply to eyelids. Keep each eye closed until product is fully dried! Do not apply with other products.
Additional instructions will be provided if the gel gets in the eyes (rinse immediately with water and seek medical attention if eye irritation develops, etc.). Instructions will also be provided to address if irritation of skin is severe or persists.
One has to take risks if one wants to use a product that performs and provides effects on eye wrinkles!
If the product does not produce some form of harmful effect, it will not affect wrinkles….and will only be another marketing BS story….
The goal is to help 99% and expect that there will be a vocal 1% that will complain.
The media focus will always be on the vocal 1% and is the reason our society is becoming non-functional…like cosmetics in general.
Covid as a prime example! We are planning to vaccinate our entire population to preserve the 1% that are expected to die….Clorox bleach is 12 pH (“12.1” on MSDS/SDS - https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Clorox-Regular-Bleach2-Bilingual.pdf) in the package, and please recall the observation of Clorox pH was in ref. to your question re. packaging (bottle composition). It is not neutralized for packaging and would be unstable if it were. The only significant difference between Clorox and “common household bleach” is purity, not Na hypochlorite concentration or pH.
Common true soaps are rare and do not bear an eye warning - unless they make cosmetic claims, they’re they’re regulated only by EPA/CPSC not FDA. In any case, I don’t understand their risk to eyes relevant to your pH 11+ product. Covid comparison is profoundly irrelevant both in concept and in FDA/CPSC risk considerations and enforcement.
To the point - what are your in-use data that defend the safety of the pH 11 product usage? You should be concerned with any % that “complain” when that complaint addresses a safety issue. Please recall - FDA policy addresses safety in use, not for 99% - but safe in use. Safety is an affirmative data-based consideration - not the imagination of the seller. If you’re making cosmetic claims, suggest you consider labeling in compliance with
Cosmetics With Unsubstantiated SafetyWarning-The safety of this product has not been determined.
21 CFR 740.10
Not sure if you’re joking re. “One has to take risks if one wants to use a product that performs and provides effects on eye wrinkles!” If not - would you mind sharing your name and product?
-
Graillotion said:I use 9010 + Phenyl Ethyl Alcohol.
I don’t recall 9010 having an odor. Maybe you got a bad batch?
In any case… PE Alcohol has a lovely rose fragrance…so it might cover the odor you are having with the 9010.It blends well with about any floral scent, and especially well with rose absolute.
Why phenyl ethyl alcohol? It targets that same bugsas phenoxyethyl only less effetively and you still have a fungal gap.
-
I’m sure no packaging expert - but Clorox bleach (e.g. pH 12) - think it’s in HDPE. http://menda.descoindustries.com/PDF/ChemicalResistanceChart.pdf
Are you sure the anti-wrinkle is safe - esp. if used near eyes? -
KNO3 is in toothpaste as a desensitizing agent , not preservative.
-
Let me also add - as the pH becomes extreme, the classic PET becomes less useful - the product “passes” with or without preservaton even tho suscpetible to contamination. Be aware -the USP bugs are lab creatures that happily grow at ~ neutral pH where they’d lived since initial submission to ATCC up to 80+ years from isolation - on neutral pH media.
Also - the product contaminants as pH’s become extreme start to engage with extremophiles that won’t grow well (potentially won’t grow at all) on conventional media but will still deteriorate the product. Those bugs contaminating at extreme pH are less likely to be pathogenic but preservation at those pH’s is a real pain. -
Leo said:
@PhilGeis Sir-the packaging for the liquid soap (pH 10) is a plastic container with a foam pump.Is a micro challenge recommended and definitive?
Which preservative(s) would you use?
In your experience, regarding a different product, have you heard of microbes contaminating a gel at pH 11?
Not sure I’d preserve that soap. Is this a cosmetic? How effective do you see the package as protection? Perhaps do some in-use exppsure.
ph !1 gel. Can you tell me smething about the product? At that pH - is it a cleanng product?