DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Preservative Efficacy Tests for Water Non-dispersible Cosmetic Formulations

비수분산 특수 제형 화장품에 대한 방부력 시험 비교 연구

  • Received : 2020.11.04
  • Accepted : 2021.01.25
  • Published : 2021.03.30

Abstract

In this study, the difference between the preservative efficacy test (PET) used for water dispersion formulations and PCPC (personal care products council) guidelines alternative test method, direct contact membrane method, and surface mold test should be studied to determine what should be considered during preservative efficacy test of water non-dispersible formulations. We conducted improved PETs when using the alternative test method compared with the test methods used for stick and pressed powder. There was no significant improvement between water-in-silicon emulsions and loose powder using alternative test methods. When we checked the results of the presence and absence of the preservative system for each product, we could see that there were differences in testing methods. As a result, improved levels of results could be obtained using both existing and alternative test methods when measuring preservatives for water non-dispersible formulations. In addition, in the case of stick and pressed powder, the results were more effective when the preservative test method applied to the consumer's method of use was applied.

본 연구에서는 수분산 제형에 사용되는 방부력 시험법과 PCPC (personal care products council) 가이드라인 대체시험법, direct contact membrane method 및 surface mold test 사이의 차이점을 연구하여 비수분산 특수 제형 방부력 시험 진행 시 고려되어야 하는 사항에 대해 알아보고자 한다. 우리는 스틱 및 프레스트 파우더에에 대한 시험법 비교 시 대체 시험법을 사용했을 때 개선된 수준으로 방부력 시험 결과를 확인할 수 있었다. 하지만 W/S 에멀젼과 루즈 파우더의 경우, 기존 시험법이나 대체 시험법간 결과 개선 차이가 크지 않았음을 확인하였다. 각각의 제품에 대해 방부시스템 존재 시와 부재 시 결과들을 확인했을 때, 시험법별로 차이가 발생함을 알 수 있었다. 결과적으로, 비수분산 특수 제형에 대한 방부력을 측정할 때 기존 및 대체 시험법을 병행 사용하여 개선된 수준의 결과를 얻을 수 있었다. 또한 본 연구를 통해 스틱 및 프레스 파우더의 경우, 소비자 사용방식을 적용하는 방식의 방부력 시험법을 적용하였을 때, 보다 더 유효성 있는 결과를 도출해 낼 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. E. Abellan and D. Perez, Analysis of cosmetic products, quality control of cosmetic products: specific legislation on ingredients, 2nd edition, ed K. Morrissey, 39, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2018).
  2. D. Spooner, Hazards associated with the microbiological contamination of cosmetics, toiletries and non-sterile pharmaceuticals, in microbial quality assurance in cosmetics, toiletries and non-sterile pharmaceuticals, 2nd edition, eds. R. Baird and S . Bloomfield, 9, Taylor & Francis, Bristol (1996).
  3. E. Neza and M. Centini, Microbiologically contaminated and over-preserved cosmetic products according rapex 2008-2014, Cosmetics, 3(1), 3 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics3010003
  4. J. Kabara and D. Orth, Preservative-free and self- preserving cosmetics and drugs: principles and practices (principles for product preservation), ed. J. Kabara, 1, CRC Press, New York, NY, USA (1997).
  5. N. Halla, I. P. Fernandes, S . A. Heleno, P. Costa, Z. Boucherit-Otmani, K. Boucherit, A. E. Rodrigues, I. C. F. R. Ferreira, and M. F. Barreiro, Cosmetics preservation: a review on present strategies, Molecules, 23(7), 1571 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23071571
  6. A. D. Russell, Challenge testing: principles and practice, Int. J. Cosmet. Sci., 25(3), 147 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2494.2003.00179.x
  7. W. Siegert, Comparison of microbial challenge testing methods for cosmetics, H&PC Today, 8(2), 32 (2013).
  8. D. S. Orth, C. M. Lutes, S. R. Milstein, and J. A. Allinger, Determination of shampoo preservative stability and apparent activation energies by the linear regression method of preservative efficacy testing, J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem, 38, 307 (1987).
  9. W. Siegert, ISO 11930_a comparison to other methods to evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial preservation, SOFW-Journal, 138(7), 43 (2012).
  10. A. T. Tran, A. D. Hitchins, and S. W. Collier, Direct contact membrane method for evaluating preservative efficacy in solid cosmetics, Int. J. Cosmet. Sci., 12(4), 175 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.1990.tb00533.x
  11. M. Souza and M. T. Ohara, The preservative efficacy testing method for powdered eye shadows, J. Cosmet. Sci., 54(4), 411 (2003).
  12. J. K. Farrington, E. L. Martz, S. J. Wells, C. C. Ennis, J. Holder, J. W. Levchcuk, K. E. Avis, P. S. Hoffman, A. D. Hitchins, and J. M. Madden, Ability of laboratory methods to predict in-use efficacy of antimicrobial preservatives in an experimental personal care, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 60(12), 4553 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.60.12.4553-4558.1994
  13. R. Holley, Prevention of surface mold growth on italian dry sausage by natamycin and potassium sorbate, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 41(2), 422 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.41.2.422-429.1981
  14. D. English, Cosmetic and drug microbiology, factors in selecting and testing preservatives in product formulations, eds. D. Orth, J. Kabara, S. Denyer, and S. Tan, 52, Informa healthcare, NY, USA (2006).
  15. I. Manou, L. Bouillard, M. J. Devleeschouwer, and A. O. Barel, Evaluation of the preservative properties of Thymus vulgaris essential oil in topically applied formulations under a challenge test, J. Appl. Microbiol. 84(3), 368 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.1998.00353.x