FAQ

FAQ complied and maintained by Sharon Gatmaitan. Please contact Sharon at Mountain Parameters if more information is required.

Are there sulphides in your product?

We sterilize all our equipment with sodium metabisulphide and our rubber gloves before we handle anything, and then rinse. Therefore, although we do not directly add sulphides as a preservative, a GC analysis of this product may show trace amounts of sulphides due to our sterilization procedures. (As a preservative we use Germall Plus ® at a very low concentration of about 0.03%. This is the very low end of the scale and suitable as a precaution for products that are at low risk for culturing bacterial growth. The EO's in the formulas supply a lot of inerent anti-bacterial properties and the end user is not sticking their fingers in it as they would a balm or salve, therefore there is limited opportunity for contamination. Germall Plus has an excellent toxicology profile (we have gotten it on bare skin at full strength with no irritation at all) and that is why we use it.) Germall Plus does not contain parabens. We also purge the containers with a food grade inert gas to displace the O2 before capping to reduce the effects oxidization would have on degrading the efficacy of the EO's.

How hazardous is it to get in eyes?

Mint oils contain carvone which are irritating to eyes. Carvone can denude the protective oil of your mucosa. That's why you should flush eyes or affected mucosal cells with water for 15 minutes if sprayed into these areas. The worst case we know of this product being sprayed into eyes and mouth happened to us. John was "batching" 23 litres in a glass carboy in the shop by himself. He did not notice that he infused too much sodium bicarbonate all at once and applied power to the agitator. The repellant concentrate exploded out through the small neck of the carboy in much the same way champagne would spew out of a 23 litre bottle straight into his face, eyes, and mouth. Blinded by the stinging concentrate, he groped his way back to the office across the lot tripping over various items and "felt" his way to the back door. Summoning help, 2 staffers came to his aid, and upon seeing him drooling (he didn't want to swallow) promptly assumed he was having a stroke. Crying out "take me to the shower" they bemusedly guided the hunched, muttering and drooling figure to the shower and watched with dismay as he started to disrobe, promptly flinging his fleece jacket through the air into the toilet. Ever helpful, I (Sharon, who had given John a real fancy pair of safety glasses just the day before), started to try and get his pants off while the teenagers discussed why someone with advanced first aid training and apparently having a stroke would be so intent on having a shower before he went to the hospital. Face into the shower, previously receeding but reclaimed pants still on, and a few minutes later all was well again, 5 minutes in the shower seemed to suffice. 30 minutes later there was no discomfort at all except for a lot of embarrasment and a jacket that well, lets just say, had been known to smell better when covered with minty concentrate. Luckily no-one had gotten around to calling 911 yet. The moral of the story, it really smarts to get it into your eyes and mouth, especially in its concentrated form, and we've been there, (at least one of us has anyway). And while there was no apparant damage to his eyes and skin, there is an ongoing debate as to whether any further brain damage would be possible in John's case.

So make sure that your kids don't have it on their hands, because we all know where they put their hands next, especially very young children, and of course, don't spray it around their face.

Why Pomegranate Fruit Extract?

Topically, pomegranate extract is especially effective in protecting cells from free radical damage by inhibiting the formation harmful enzymes that cause cells to grow out of control. The ellagic acid, found within pomegranate extract is also thought to strengthen the cell membrane, making it less susceptible to free radical damage and preventing water loss. Such properties have important implications in terms of cancer prevention, as out-of-control cell division is a hallmark of cancer. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin, evaluated pomegranate's anti-skin tumor effects by comparing topical application of pomegranate extract on neonatal mice against TPA-induced markers (12-0-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate), a strong promoter of chemically induced skin cancer. Applying pomegranate extract onto the skin of neonatal mice 30 minutes prior to TPA application significantly inhibited TPA-mediated increases in skin edema and hyperplasia, they said. They also tested the pomegranate extract on TPA-induced skin tumor promotion. The animals pretreated with pomegranate extract showed substantially reduced tumor incidence and lower tumor body burden. In the TPA treated group, all mice developed tumors at 16 weeks, whereas only 30 per cent of the mice treated with pomegranate extract exhibited tumors at that point. The protective and healing properties of the pomegranate are extremely important today, as the rate of skin cancer is increasing faster than any other cancer among Western countries. Applying sunscreen alone isn't enough. The challenge is to teach our clients to apply enough and re-apply to cover all areas of the skin from head to toe. Note: To take full advantage of the benefits of PFE's SPF boosting capabilities, it should also be taken orally (Food-Grade PFE that is, not Summer Survivor!).

Q: Why does you label state not to use it if I have allergies? Are their any ingredients in Summer Survivor to be cautious of?

A: Yes (the following information excerpted from New Zealand Dermatological Society Incorporated website), if you have a fragrance allergy the EO's in the formulations can trigger your allergy. Fragrance allergies can cause dermatitis.

Q: What should I do to avoid fragrance allergy?

A: If you have a fragrance allergy the best way to avoid any problems is by avoiding all products that contain fragrances of any sort. Unfortunately, fragrance allergy is usually life-long and gets worse with continued exposure.

There are more than 5000 different fragrances that are in use today. In any one product the number of fragrances used can be many. Fortunately only a small number of fragrances are actually common sensitisers and cause allergy in sensitive individuals.

Often products are only labeled as containing fragrance and do not identify the individual chemicals used to make up the fragrance. You should avoid all products that contain essential oils, including Summer Survivor.

Q: Am I allergic to fragrances?

A: Sensitivity to a perfume, cream or lotion is usually the first indicator of an allergy to fragrance. Patch testing using fragrance mix and Balsam of Peru detects approximately 75% of fragrance allergy cases. A positive patch to fragrance mix indicates that you are allergic to one or more fragrance chemicals. An estimated 1-2% of the general population is allergic to fragrance.

Self-testing a product for fragrance allergy is possible but should be done only after first talking with your doctor. This should be done only with products that are designed to stay on the skin such as cosmetics and lotions. Apply a small amount (50 cent sized area) of the product to a small tender area of skin such as the bend of your arm or neck for several days in a row. Examine the area each day and if no reaction occurs, it is unlikely you are allergic to it. However, it may still not be suitable for you as it can still cause an irritant reaction. Products such as shampoos, conditioners, soaps and cleansers should not be tested in this way as they frequently cause an irritant dermatitis, which is not allergic, if they are covered or overused on tender areas.

Q: What are the reactions to fragrance mix allergy?

A: Typical allergic contact dermatitis reactions may occur in individuals allergic to fragrance mix or any other chemically related substances. The rash is characteristically located on the face, hands and arms. There may be intense swelling and redness of the affected area within a few hours or the rash may appear after a day or two of the product being used. Sometimes symptoms may only be redness, dryness and itching.

Flare-ups of dermatitis in fragrance-sensitive individuals may occur if they use or consume products containing fragrance allergens.

Q: Are both formulas suscepible to this?

A: Yes, they both have fragrance EO's in them, and it is reported that 1-2% of the population could have sensitivity to different fragrances.

Q: What if I don't have fragrance allergies but have had anaphylactic reactions due to other causes in the past?

A: Then the avoidance of Summer Survivor is also required due to yet unknown effects that essential oils used in the formulations could have in contributing to the exacerbation of anaphlaxis even if the individual does not react directly to the EO's used in the formula because these effects could be tangental in nature.

Q: Why should I not use the pet spray on myself, it seems to work well?

A: There are a number of reasons. It contains a higher percentage of EO's that would affect persons who suffer from Fragrance allergies (see above) and lead to allergic contact dermatitus and therefore it could lead to quicker sensitization for vulnerable individuals. While only 1-2% of the population fits this profile, there are better reasons that affect everyone: It does not contain the same humectants as the human formulas so its use would lead to the skin drying more. It does not contain many of the agents that are very beneficial for human skin such as Emu, Pomegranate, Noni, Rhodiola, Castor Oil, Fractionated Coconut, etc. One place however humans could use it if they are not worried about fabric stains or bleaching would be on their clothing, where it would be very cost effective, however it could ruin certain fabrics* so it should not be used on your best tuxedo or gown that you plan to wear to the gala opening of the three tenors. (*We have noticed that Summer Survivor XS will bleach out dyed cotton ball caps very quickly when they are subsequently exposed to UV).

Q: I've read on some other sites that you have to shake their product because emulsifying it would cause the Essential Oils not to work as well. Why is that?

A: Those claims are usually made by smaller entities who do not have the resources to achieve emulsion so it is used as an excuse. In fact the opposite may be true. The worst enemy of the main ingredients, the EO's, is oxidization. When the EO is mixed evenly with the carrier oils and bound with the water it is probable that it does not evaporate or oxidize as quickly, and therefore lasts longer and is more effective. Think in terms of if a product separates quickly in the bottle, it will once again, separate very quickly as soon as it is on your skin. The heat from the skin is akin to dropping a low flashpoint cooking oil onto a hot frying pan. Catnip is especialy vulnerable to this and catnip oil should always be dispersed in an emulsion.

An emulsion consists of droplets of one liquid dispersed in an immiscible liquid, with a large interfacial area. Sustainable surfactants have been traditionally used to form emulsions. For example, various forms of natural products are used in foods, where the immiscible liquid phases are generally water and a triglyceride oil (lipid). These natural surfactants include monoglycerides, fatty acids, phospholipids and proteins, as well as fatty acid esters of sorbitol and polyethylene oxide derivatives. However, there are synthetic surfactants that perform better and are thus preferred for some applications. Getting a good emulsion ranges between science and a black art it is said. A proper emulsion is not simply achieved by mixing in some polysorbate. The formula must be Ph balanced by first measuring it with expensive equipment and in our case, then balancing it by infusing carbonated purified water in under steady temperature. Then the mixing must be accomplished under proper procedures and using equipment suitable for the type of emulsion. A good emulsifier will sit at the interface, producing a low interfacial tension. There needs to be an optimum balance of lipophilic and hydrophilic groups in the molecule. This will depend on the type of emulsion and system. We use a polymer because these can make highly stable emulsions that can produce high internal phase volume emulsions.

It is not necessary to have a perfect emulsion, for example, if a product separates after a few hours, then at least it stays together long enough to be sprayed out of the bottle evenly and stay that way on the skin through its rated effective time window. Products with no emulsion whatsoever separate so quickly that they do so while you are spraying them, meaning that when the bottle is half full you probably have sprayed mostly water on your skin and you will soon be spraying a much denser oil mixture as the water gets drawn off. And, a very high percentage of users simply forget to shake a bottle prior to use.

To achieve the properties described above using a sustainable material is difficult, especially since it is desirable that chemical modification is kept to a minimum. Summer Survivor is emulsified but can separate over time because it uses a very minimal amount of polymer, so that's why the instructions say to shake. However once shaken, the emulsion should last for a considerable period.

Why is citronella being phased out in Canada?

The following is from the CropWatch Website:
Canada: PMRA phases out citronella oil in insect repellents. Citronella oils are obtained from the steam distillation of fresh or partly dried grasses of Cymbopogon spp.: C. nardus (L.) Rendle (Sri Lankan type from Sri Lanka) and C. winterianus Jowitt (Java type from S.E. Asia, India, China, Central America & Indonesia). Total annual production of all citronella oils is in the order of 2000 tons/annum (Sanganeria 2005). Citronella oil has been, and still is, used extensively for perfuming soap, especially for Sunlight soap types for SE Asian and other markets, and formerly for green Palmolive types. It is still used in cheap perfumes for household products and especially finds employment in perfumes for washing up liquids, which many people will come in daily contact with. Its other main use is as a biocide for humans & pets, and in citronella candles etc. The more heavily traded Java type citronella oil is considered to have a more valuable odour profile than the Sri Lankan type. Citronella oil is used as a source for the isolation of natural citronellal and geraniol.

Both Sri Lankan and Java type citronella oils have geraniol, (4R)-(+)-b-citronellol and (mainly) (3R)-(+)-b-citronellal as major components, but the aldehydes (principally (3R)-(+)-b-citronellal) and the sesquiterpenes e.g. b-bourbonene, cubebene) are higher in the Java type, whereas the monterpenes are   higher in the Sri Lanka type. For decades the more heavily traded Java-type oil has been sold commercially strictly to a 35-85 standard (see below), such as is mentioned in the older EOA standard No. 14 for Citronella oil Java type. A more modern universal standard for Java type citronella oil is ISO 3848 (1976), which also includes the determination of the ester number (after acetylisation) which must be 250 min. (corresponding to 85% acetylisable compounds calculated as geraniol) and the carbonyl content 127 min. (corresponding to 35% aldehydes calculated as citronellal).

Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) in 1990 announced it would phase out citronella oil - based pesticides unless manufacturers provided more information about their products, and in 1995 announced a new initiative was introduced to re-evaluate all pesticides. The re-evaluation report of the PMRA PACR2004-36, available at http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/pacr/pacr2004-36-e.pdf was published in Sept 2004.

Looking in detail at the PMRA Re-evaluation report PACR2004-36, it highlights the methyl eugenol content of citronella oil as being of particular toxicological worry, since methyl eugenol (ME) has been identified as a rodent carcinogen and possible human carcinogen (NTP 2002). This is not a reasonable view since many Java type citronella oils analysed by the author of this article over the last 20 years have contained no methyl eugenol content whatsoever (Burfield, unpublished data). Any toxicological threat from ME in citronella oil has been completely dismissed by Dionne (undated) at www.citronella.org/documents/safety_report.pdf who points out that the lowest dose at which methyl eugenol (ME) has posed a mutagenic threat to human health is at a relatively large (oral) dose of 30mg/Kg. Since citronella oils only contain a maximum concentration of 0.09% ME, and methyl eugenol has not been proven to be bio-available from topical application of citronella oil, Dionne argues topical use of citronella oil is safe in normal use. Further, the author points out that ME needs to be activated through the P450 cytochrome system in the liver to 1’-hydroxymethyleugenol to present any toxicological risk. Finally, citral (an intermediary metabolite of citronellal) is a potent phase II detoxification enzyme inducer and would quickly quell any carcinogenic risk from ME. Other components of citronella oil, citral and citronellol, have been tested for mutagenicity and were found not to be active (Gomes-Carneiro et al. 1998). Some citronella components such as citronellyl acetate have been checked for dermal penetration and found not to exhibit this phenomena (Ping undated).

The PMRA report also highlighted the fact that no reproductive & developmental toxicity studies for citronella oil were available which was an apparently an issue for them, apart from an inadequate study by Toaff (1979). The report goes on to deal with the toxicity of individual citronella oil components (often via studies of commercially available “identical” fragrance chemicals, which often contain impurities and non-nature identical isomers which give misleading results). However at very short notice Cropwatch found key documents not apparently covered by the PMRA report answering these points: a study by Hoberman (1989) on reproductive toxicology effects of citral, and a study on developmental toxicology effects for citral by Gaworski et al. (1992). More will be made of this in the detailed Cropwatch report on the PMRA assessment, which will also cover other aspects of citronella oil toxicology.

This re-evaluation report  has been followed by a re-evaluation note in Sept. 2005, REV2005-05 available at http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/rev/rev2005-05-e.pdf which broadly maintains the PMRA’s previous position, & states that it had given industry until 21st Jan 2005 to provide further information (which it hasn’t – small companies don’t have the money for expensive toxicology studies: Cropwatch) but reading between the lines, the PMRA appears to acknowledge the fact that wearers apply citronella oil topically more frequently and other a wider area than they had previously realised - see:

http://www.pmra-arla./gc.ca/english/pdf/rev/rev2005-05-e.pdf. Elsewhere the PMRA claim that the average dose of citronella oil from insect repellents to the user is 4.61 g/person/day – a figure which sounds somewhat exaggerated, especially if the average retailed product contains 5-15% citronella oil (equivalent to approx 90 mls per day at the lowest citronella oil content!). Apart from this scarcely believable item, the upshot  is that any new citronella-oil based products will not be approved for market use although existing products may continue to be retailed. The PMRA will also hold an independent review of the opinion expressed in the Re-evaluation report PACR2004-36, and Cropwatch has written to a spokesperson (Oct. 2005) for the PMRA to see if it can submit scientific evidence to the PMRA panel on this issue.

No risk-benefit analysis appears to have been carried out by the Canadian authorities regarding the consequences to the general well-being of communities by disallowing citronella-based products, yet we know that insect stings and bites can be life-threatening to some individuals (Elston 2005). Further, because of the life-style and beliefs of many people who are averse to the use of synthetic chemicals, regulatory decisions such as this banning potentially remove a measure of freedom from citizens who might want to use natural botanically-based products exclusively for this purpose. This is all the more urgent since we know that DEET easily passes through human skin and can pose a neuro-toxicity risk – Health Canada have therefore phased out by Dec 2004 those insect repellents containing more than 30% DEET for this very reason.

Further, Cropwatch cannot understand the endorsement of the neurotoxic synthetic insect repellent DEET, when, for example, nepetalactone, the relatively innocuous natural component in Catnip oil produced by the steam distillation of Nepeta cataria, has been shown to work as well, or better, at preventing mosquito landings on human skin per unit time (and catnip is actually grown on a commercial scale in Canada!). The championing of DEET by the corporate-friendly Canadian Health Authorities to an informed and sceptical public has produced a situation where many people are now more afraid of the effects of dangerous synthetic & neurotoxic pesticides, than they are of catching West Nile disease or malaria, a truly disastrous outcome for all concerned.

USA: In complete contrast to the Canadian PMRA position on Citronella oil, the EPA de-regulated pesticides containing citronella oil in 1996 when it was added to the FIFRA Section 25(b) list of minimum risk pesticides. A Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) had been released on registered citronella oil preparations since they contained inert substances not on List 4A.  The RED found oil of citronella oil to be generally of low acute toxicity. Toxicologically tests including oral, dermal and eye irritation tests were conducted on laboratory animals (causing unfortunate and un-necessary suffering to animals - this information is already available within the public domain: Cropwatch) with most results defined as Category III, or slightly toxic, and some results defined as Category IV, practically non-toxic. An employee of EPA’s Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division reportedly indicated that the EPA planned to consider Canada’s recent action. [N.B. this information is largely gleaned from Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News 32(49) p5].

Cropwatch has been in contact with a spokesperson for the EPA (Oct 2005) who has confirmed that the EPA view presented at http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/pacr/pacr2004-36-e.pdf is current in that pesticides with citronella oil as an active are deemed to present no threat to humans, animals or the environment from the citronella oil content – completely at variance with the present PMRA position.