-
Side effects from different microorganisms in cosmetic Products
What are the specific side effects to humans from applying a Product contaminated with each one of these microorganisms and the side effects to Product itself (smell, color, stability, viscosity, etc)?
1. Staphylococcus aureus
2. Escherichia coli
3. Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
4. Candida albicans
5. Aspergillus niger
6. Any other organism that commonly grow in cosmetic Products -
15 Replies
-
Potentially all product effects for each bug - you can’t break out individual bugs for specific effect. Most health risk for staph and pseudomonas.
The most common bug is prob Burkholderia cepacia (complex) - can result in all the product effects and is a health risk for immunocompromised folks.
-
These are all pathogens and/or opportunistic pathogens. In other words, potential ‘side effects’ (or rather a result of an infection) can go from nothing to death and anything in between. It doesn’t even need to be just immunocompromised people though these are the most susceptible ones, depending on the serovar/strain, all those five germs can cause mild to severe infections in healthy humans (and frequently do so).Besides that, some microbes such as certain A. niger strains produce carcinogenic and hence potentially deadly toxins such as aflatoxins under nutrient poor conditions or spores which can cause allergies, asthma, and headaches. But that’s just an example; all these microbes can produce a broad array of more or less unpleasant to life threatening toxins. -
PET - as in USP 51 (and its mindless reproduction in EP and ISO) are all based on old protocol (~50 years) for drug products. Cosmetics were not considered in its development. Burkholderia cepacia was recognized as such a cosmetic risk in the CTFA test.
The PET is a poor test. It is consistent in response but not validated to any quality endpoint for cosmetics. Most major companies use their own test that includes cepacia and other bugs - others use the PET but with more stringent pass fail criteria (e.g. no recovery day 7).Pharma is partially correct. Bacterial and yeast isolates were from clinical sources but have been in the lab for many decades - staph 6538 for almost 100 years. There is no Aspergillus niger - 16404 is A. brasiliensis isolated from the blueberries and has no record of carcinogenesis or aflatoxin production. That some other fungi produce alfatoxin is irrelevant to cosmetic quality. Tho 6538 still can infect skin if inoculated heavily - these are fairly innocuous bugs.
PET is better than nothing but it is not validated to consumer or manufacturing risks. Some manufacturers have developed and validated their own test (e.g. https://aem.asm.org/content/53/8/1827.short).
-
To your original question - all those effects can result from contamination with any bug.
As Pharma said - immunocompromised folks are at risk to microbes like these. The risk is serious as some folks have died from infections they got from contaminated cosmetics. Healthy folks can get limited infection but some infections from contaminated mascara resulted in blindness.
-
@PhilGeis for leav on Product i use expensive, strong but gentle preservative syetem to be sure that it will be gentle but safe.
Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate HCl %0.2
Phenoxyethanol %0.8
Caprylhydroxamic acid %0.1
Piroctone Olamine %0.1
Salicylic acid %0.3
Ph 5-5.5But for Shampoo, i dont want to spend to much on preservatives because my competitors usually use Formalin Which is 25x less expensive than what we use (phenoxyethanol%0.8+ Piroctone Olamine %0.04+ EDTA %0.2 pH 5-5.5).
If my preservative failed and the shampoo got contaminated, what are the most dangerous side effects that may possibly happen from using contaminated shampoo?
DeadBlindnessSkin infectionsIrritationOr else -
PhilGeis said:…There is no Aspergillus niger - 16404 is A. brasiliensis isolated from the blueberries and has no record of carcinogenesis or aflatoxin production. That some other fungi produce alfatoxin is irrelevant to cosmetic quality. Tho 6538 still can infect skin if inoculated heavily - these are fairly innocuous bugs…According to NCBI’s taxonomy browser it still does like I’ve learned two decades ago though I’m open to changes (as they occur quite frequently in taxonomy). Aflatoxins in cosmetics might actually be a problem (however, one would have to eat said cosmetics) though not post production but in raw materials such as virgin/organic oils and butters such as wild harvests by local communities in the Amazon region.
-
Aspergillus niger exists - and is not the fungus used in the PET challenge test. That is A. brasiliensis.
We are exposed constantly to mycotoxins in grain and nuts and products made from them. Risk assessment of topical exposure via a cosmetic is not going to be an issue. -
@PhilGeis to make my self understand clearly. Isn’t Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus brasiliensis the same?
Quick Google search said they are the same. -
No those are separate species of fungus.
-
@PhilGeis thanks for the information.
-
PhilGeis said:Aspergillus niger exists - and is not the fungus used in the PET challenge test. That is A. brasiliensis…
Ah, okay, I see. Thanks!
-
Pharma - that fungus WAS thought to be A. niger until 2007.
-
2007? Dang… Completely missed it. Maybe it didn’t cause too big waves when it was found out?
-
For those few like me who were close to it - we were aghast!!!! For normal people, it was taken in stride, barely noticed.
Log in to reply.
