-
Let’s talk about legal preservatives but are not used
Skipping HCHO releasers, parabens, isothiazolinones, phenoxyethanol, chlorphenesin, iodo, common organic acids and common cationic stuffs, and we still get:Silver citrate
Climbazole
Triclocarban
Piroctone olamine
Undecylenates
Bromchlorophen
Dichlorobenzyl alcohol
Hexamidine
Dibromohexamidine
Dimethyl oxazolidine
Hydroxyethoxyphenyl butanone
o-Cymen-5-ol
5-Bromo-5-nitro-1,3-dioxane
Bronopol
o-Phenylphenol
Triclosan
7-Ethylbicyclooxazolidine
Hexetidine
Sulfites
Benzonic acid esters
Propionates
Salicylates
Chloroxylenol
Chlorbutanol
Formic acid
Glutaral
Benzylhemiformal
Methenamine
Phenylmercurics
Silver chloride deposited on titanium dioxide…Some are commonly used for other purposes, but never for preservation. (anti-dandruff, anti-bacterial, exfoliating)Some are totally unheard of for cosmetics… yet they has been in this list for quite long time.And there seems to be no intention for caprylhydroamic acid, glycols, ethylhexylglycerin, hydroyacetophenone, tropolone, etc. entering the list.I wonder what’s the deal here. Why are they not seen in cosmetics? Why are more commonly stuffs not regulated in this list? -
9 Replies
-
Assume you’re referring to the EU Cosmetic Directive Annex VI type list originally assembled about 50 years ago.
The general reason why most of the listed preservatives are not used - they don’t work well as cosmetic preservatives.
There are few less popular formaldehyde releasers. Others might have some potential but have drawbacks - too narrow a spectrum, stink, unstable, not soluble, irritants, etc.To your question re. those not listed - it would take a ton of money for testing, esp. safety testing, and years in the gears of government/bureaucracy for approval and listing. Not aware anyone has tried this in the last 30 years. As preservatives are generally higher-priced ingredients used in very small volumes, their economies do not support such efforts. To the ones you specified - these are so poor and their volumes so small I doubt anyone would bother.
-
…what @PhilGeis said…and he should know. I will add here that I’ve been using chloroxylenol (PCMX) to preserve products for years. It does have limitations: odor & solubility; but works very well as broad spectrum at low levels and accepted in all states around the world. Here goes your Hack of the Day: it dissolves in phenoxyethanol, which also boosts PCMX effectiveness. Add enough fragrance and the odor issue resolves too. Phil may weigh in here, but to my knowledge it is somewhat weak with certain Gram Stain negative bacterium? This list is good for nostalgia though: remember when we all used Bronopol to preserve virtually everything? Those were the days, my friend!
-
@chemicalmatt
Bronopol! Amen brother! -
IN old days EDTa+Sod.acid Phosphate+M cresol was great combo.@PhilGeis what do you think bout this combo? -
Been in the industry since 1981 - don ;t recall seeing that. But i was just US back then. With phosphate don;t see much need for EDTA. Know credol was used in insulin
-
Hydroxyethoxyphenyl butanone seems to be a relatively new member though, which I haven’t seen in any cosmetic product… The list is still being updated, but in a strange way.And despite everything, bronopol is yet not banned, which makes me wonder how “bad” exactly is quaternium-15, a real ban.
-
@chemicalmatt i saw PCMX-containing anti-bacterial handwashes (most containing 0.2% PCMX) are still preservated by additional isothiazolinones here… Not sure why.
-
@zetein
Neither Bronopol nor Quat 15 is “bad”. They (rather consumers) are the victims of chemophobia. Quat 15 was never used broadly - color and cost - but found a home in J&J’s baby shampoo until scare mongering and Chinese extortion forced its removal.Think hydroxyethoxyphenyl butanone is a L’Oreal initiative. A perfume component of limited efficacy with I recall some sensitization potential.
-
Catchy name - Ethylzingerone
Log in to reply.