Stanley
Forum Replies Created
-
@PhilGeis thanks again!
-
Okay found it… wow, thank you very much! Just to make sure I understand the exponentials….1×102 is 100 and the 1×103 is 1000 cfu… I am assuming the 2 and 3 are exponentials.
-
@PhilGeis
FDA offers “Since there are no widely acceptable standards for numbers, temporary guidelines are used instead. For eye-area products, counts should not be greater than 500 colony forming units (CFU)/g; for non-eye-area products, counts should not be greater than 1000 CFU/g. “
May I trouble you to ask exactly where is that written? In my own searches I have seen this but nothing leading back to the source. -
Whoa! Why should we do our own testing on YOUR product to prove YOUR own claims? Is this product supposed to be used in the cosmetic industry?
@Microformulation…Why should anybody feel comfortable with a product where the representatives do want to share any information on a forum of skilled formulators and scientists?
-
@Perry and @ microformulation
I have had to disqualify suppliers to because of the same thing. I understand.
Seems like there should be a IL workshop writing….hint hintAnother question… IL materials under 1%…
With an prelim IL that has ranges (not specific %’s) can you put items under the 1% any order or in order of abundance.
-
@Microformulation
this is a herbal blend and I am trying to confirm the verbiage that will go on the bottle. -
@Perry
If the INCI name is coming from the supplier’s paperwork (i.e SDS, compositional statements, CoA, etc) is wrong. is a manufacturer liable for this mistake being put on a bottle? -
@PhilGeis
thank you for this information! -
When doing a quantitative report for a client would you include all these details too? Coworker is suggesting that we put actual percentages in place of range.
For the INCI do you just put the RM/Solvent or do you include any preservative like with extracts?
-
I know there is a prop 65 compliant way of making CAPB. I am just wondering is there a grace period for when things will need to switch over from the “regular” of making CAPB which does produce a prop 65 chemical.
-
@MarkBroussard
thank you! -
Just another question about PET….
I do initial micro testing at the beginning and end of stability. When I make the initial bulk sample for stability, I was going to make enough regular stability and for the PET (150 grams) to sit at room temp till it is time for testing (3 months). I wanted to avoid having to make it at the end of 3 months. My thoughts were if this sample is sitting for 3 months at room temp this would be a good time to do PET in addition to the regular micro. Is this a decent idea? -
awesome thank you!!!
-
@Perry
May I ask what is the purpose for doing it initially? I assume since I am doing just regular micro and have done a 50 degree stability (initially) that might have covered any thing on the front end.If a sample exhibits some growth or is not up to expected standard then reformulation with a new preservative system will be in order?
-
isn’t this explosive?
-
@SugarHouse
if my post is mean than the truth hurts. -
Thank you @Perry
Now after that how does that work for production? you have the initial stability done with lab batches. When the formulation goes to production with the same specs from the stability. .wouldn’t specs need to change to reflect the actual production batch(es). -
@Perry- thank you
@PhilGeis-not marketing to the EU just yet. Challenge testing is being with no container. Is there a difference in doing Challenge testing with the container and without the container? -
@PhilGeis @Microformulation
I can appreciate PAO being a useless term…Since all of my stability is passing I was going to suggest… 1 year PAO. -
@MarkBroussard
I have gotten your help plenty of times and have been most grateful. I am taking a different POV based on my experience. I am POC that has had to deal with alot of stubborn, tackless and nasty behaviors from scientists who didn’t want share or help a promising young person out of college trying to learn this craft. Resources like this were not plentiful and working with stereotypes especially with international people was challenging. With information so freely available to all the scavengers out here it doesn’t seem so fair they can ask my peers for info when I had to struggle to even be in the same space. I am still having to work with folks that think I was just given my position. Its not merely ignore the questions from these scavengers its about if they are so interested then put the time in the learning to develop a skillset. For me this is my life as it is yours. We are novelty folks. If want a get rich quick thing then pay for the service. -
@ Perry
That is what my question is exactly.My problem is not with the customer but with my co worker that wants to be extremely “transparent” with the customer. I don’t think tradenames should be involved unless premiums are requested/contracted. My co worker believes sharing everything is being transparent with the customer regardless if they have paid a premium this will be the regulatory norm. My point is IF the customer was paying a premium for R&D fee ….sure …. give them everything.
Where does the question of what is regulatory responsible come into play on how transparent to be?
-
My question is more formula based. If you make a formula for a customer should you give them trade names, inci, etc to the point where they can take the formula you created and go else where? How does R&D fees factor into your decision?
-
You can increase the percentage of Aqua sf. You might need a base (AMP / NaOH/TEA) to activate this.
CAPB would definitely thicken in the presence of salt.
-
I have NO IDEA!!! I just got a message from my client about this substance being banned and I am trying to find out what raw material did it come from….
-
@Pharma
give with one hand and take with the other. I was thinking the Montonav might be the culprit. Do you recommend an emulsifier?