Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15230/SCSK.2021.47.1.9

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

Kim, Yong Hyun (Skin & Natural Products Lab, Kolmar Korea)
Park, Sung Ha (Skin & Natural Products Lab, Kolmar Korea)
Park, Byoung Jun (Skin & Natural Products Lab, Kolmar Korea)
Shin, Kye Ho (Department of Beauty Coordination, Suwon Science College)
Kang, Hak Hee (Skin & Natural Products Lab, Kolmar Korea)
Publication Information
Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Scientists of Korea / v.47, no.1, 2021 , pp. 9-21 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
preservatives; preservative efficacy test; alternative testing method; atypical formulations; direct contact membrane method;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 E. Neza and M. Centini, Microbiologically contaminated and over-preserved cosmetic products according rapex 2008-2014, Cosmetics, 3(1), 3 (2016).   DOI
2 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).
3 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).
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).   DOI
6 A. D. Russell, Challenge testing: principles and practice, Int. J. Cosmet. Sci., 25(3), 147 (2003).   DOI
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).   DOI
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).   DOI
13 R. Holley, Prevention of surface mold growth on italian dry sausage by natamycin and potassium sorbate, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 41(2), 422 (1981).   DOI
14 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).   DOI
15 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).