Self-preserving claims of Pine Extvolat/Pineaqua product

Physicist_Formulator

Hello,

First, this is my first post on this forum, do not hesitate to tell me if I didn't respect the guidelines.

During my quest for innovative ingredients with high market value, I encountered Pine Extvolat, an ingredient supposed to replace water in cosmetic formulations. This ingredient seems to be similar to any hydrosol, but despite being a plant-based extract, its manufacturers claims that it is a self preserving ingredient.

Furthermore, they also claim that this product is able to replace the preservative system, with no other requirements (so no use of hurdles or other means to inhibit microbial activity). They clearly state that a challenge test is needed to launch any product including this ingredient on the market to determine the % of Extvolat to allow self-preservation, so I guess it is not just a scam.

Being a water-based product, I find it a bit perplexing.

Has any of you had the opportunity to work with it/to gather informations on this ingredient ?

Can we really believe the promises of such an ingredient, or is it more a marketing trick ?

Thank you in advance,

Physicist_Formulator

MarkBroussard

Hello @Physicist_Formulator:

This is an interesting looking product.  I am a skeptical of any claims of replacement of preservation systems as what that generally means is that the ingredients have anti-microbial properties, but are not registered as preservative ingredients, so the claim is generally specious.

Regardless, it is intriguing and worth taking a look at and playing around with.  I suspect it may be more of a preservation booster than a preservative replacement.

Perry

@Physicist_Formulator - Thanks for the question & welcome to the forum.

For anyone curious, you can read the press release about Pine extvolat here.

If you're new to formulating, the industry and have a science background the first thing you have to understand is that the marketing of raw materials is not science. It is simply the veneer of science because the subject is chemicals. But the information you hear (especially from suppliers) should not be considered wholly reliable. Any information they share with you is in support of their goal to convince you to incorporate their ingredient into a formula. It's marketing...not science.

Another thing - Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof.

It would be amazing indeed if you could create a water based formula without the need of a preservative. Every company in the industry would want this. 

In fact, if it actually worked, little companies wouldn't be able to get their hands on the material because big companies would buy up all the inventory. The supplier would sign exclusive ingredient deals with the highest bidder. They really wouldn't even need to spend much money on marketing.

The fact that this ingredient has been around for more than a couple years and it hasn't taken over the cosmetic industry is all you really need to know about whether it is effective or not. It's not.

But as @MarkBroussard suggests, feel free to experiment with it yourself. I predict you will be disappointed but you may learn something. Hopefully the lesson is, don't trust everything that marketers tell you.

PhilGeis

They prefer anhydrous but suggest at least 60%, offer no data - then formulas with 35% (shampoo) no data and and weasel words.  It’s an undescribed hydrosol that prob has the usual components pinenes terpineols  etc. at whatever levels.
look like niche marketing without much substance 

Physicist_Formulator

Thank you very much, it's what I thought. I will try to formulate with this product (they sent me a sample and I like the smell and the ecological marketing story) but be sure to preserve it correctly.

Glad to hear advices related to the Ockham's razor, I think innovation should be more relying on science and less on pure marketing.

Extvolat

Physicist_Formulator said:

Hello,

First, this is my first post on this forum, do not hesitate to tell me if I didn't respect the guidelines.

During my quest for innovative ingredients with high market value, I encountered Pine Extvolat, an ingredient supposed to replace water in cosmetic formulations. This ingredient seems to be similar to any hydrosol, but despite being a plant-based extract, its manufacturers claims that it is a self preserving ingredient.

Furthermore, they also claim that this product is able to replace the preservative system, with no other requirements (so no use of hurdles or other means to inhibit microbial activity). They clearly state that a challenge test is needed to launch any product including this ingredient on the market to determine the % of Extvolat to allow self-preservation, so I guess it is not just a scam.

Being a water-based product, I find it a bit perplexing.

Has any of you had the opportunity to work with it/to gather informations on this ingredient ?

Can we really believe the promises of such an ingredient, or is it more a marketing trick ?

Thank you in advance,

Physicist_Formulator

Dear Physicist_Formulator, if you have any questions about our raw materials (Pine Extvolat), then you should also ask us to get more complete information. How do you think))? We will be happy to answer all your questions so that you have a more complete picture of Pine Extvolat.

PhilGeis

Extvolat said:

Physicist_Formulator

Dear Physicist_Formulator, if you have any questions about our raw materials (Pine Extvolat), then you should also ask us to get more complete information. How do you think))? We will be happy to answer all your questions so that you have a more complete picture of Pine Extvolat.

There are no relevant data on  your website.  On wnat basis do you claim "self-preserving"?  Please be aware, this is a safety claim - consumers have been blinded and even died from infections resulting from contaminated cosmetics.
What aree your data?

Extvolat

PhilGeis said:

Extvolat said:

Physicist_Formulator

Dear Physicist_Formulator, if you have any questions about our raw materials (Pine Extvolat), then you should also ask us to get more complete information. How do you think))? We will be happy to answer all your questions so that you have a more complete picture of Pine Extvolat.

There are no relevant data on  your website.  On wnat basis do you claim "self-preserving"?  Please be aware, this is a safety claim - consumers have been blinded and even died from infections resulting from contaminated cosmetics.
What aree your data?

Dear Physicist_Formulator, There are several groups of data:

1. Own cosmetic line, which was the first to show that it is possible. All necessary tests were done. conclusions on safety.

2. There are challenge tests for two products - milk and tonic.

3. Our clients have a successful track record of handling our raw materials.

PhilGeis

Please share the data. 

Extvolat

PhilGeis said:

Please share the data. 

Could you please make a request for this mailbox - info@extvolat.com

PhilGeis

Why not share the link here?

Microformulation

PhilGeis said:

Why not share the link here?

Agreed. I would like to see the data and discuss with colleagues. Otherwise I wouldn't feel comfortable using it in any of my projects.

Extvolat

PhilGeis said:

Why not share the link here?

I have received your request, my colleague will contact you shortly.

Extvolat

PhilGeis said:

Why not share the link here?

Also, a sample of our raw materials has been sent to your company in the name of Ruth. You can do your own tests.

PhilGeis

This is not my claim - it is yours.  Please do not send unsolicited samp,es.

Stanley

Whoa!  Why should we do our own testing on YOUR product to prove YOUR own claims?  Is this product supposed to be used in the cosmetic industry?

@Microformulation...Why should anybody feel comfortable with a product where the representatives do want to share any information on a forum of skilled formulators and scientists?

Microformulation

I think I will pass on trying the product without controlled testing.

We work with clients that want rapid R&D and want a product to get into manufacturing asap. As such a reformulation due to an ineffective product is a barrier. We use tried and true preservatives and use them conservatively. This clients won't endorse a product without documentation or testing results.

@Extvolat I think you will see that this group is Science-based and marketing is taken with a grain of salt. To communicate effectively, you may need to present products to a more Technical standard.

Extvolat

PhilGeis said:

This is not my claim - it is yours.  Please do not send unsolicited samp,es.

My apologies. You sent a request from the mail, which has the domain aol.com. I thought it was your company's domain. I was wrong. We received a request for a sample from an email with the same domain. Therefore, I thought that it was an employee of your company who requested a sample, and therefore I offered it to you to test. Once again, I apologize to you. No sample has been sent to your name.

Extvolat

Stanley said:

Whoa!  Why should we do our own testing on YOUR product to prove YOUR own claims?  Is this product supposed to be used in the cosmetic industry?

@Microformulation...Why should anybody feel comfortable with a product where the representatives do want to share any information on a forum of skilled formulators and scientists?

Dear Stanley, I have not argued anywhere that someone should test our sample. This is your statement. To answer your second question - yes, it is a raw material for natural cosmetic products.

PhilGeis

I've not found the email..  Can you send again?

Extvolat

Perry said:

@Physicist_Formulator - Thanks for the question & welcome to the forum.

For anyone curious, you can read the press release about Pine extvolat here.

If you're new to formulating, the industry and have a science background the first thing you have to understand is that the marketing of raw materials is not science. It is simply the veneer of science because the subject is chemicals. But the information you hear (especially from suppliers) should not be considered wholly reliable. Any information they share with you is in support of their goal to convince you to incorporate their ingredient into a formula. It's marketing...not science.

Another thing - Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof.

It would be amazing indeed if you could create a water based formula without the need of a preservative. Every company in the industry would want this. 

In fact, if it actually worked, little companies wouldn't be able to get their hands on the material because big companies would buy up all the inventory. The supplier would sign exclusive ingredient deals with the highest bidder. They really wouldn't even need to spend much money on marketing.

The fact that this ingredient has been around for more than a couple years and it hasn't taken over the cosmetic industry is all you really need to know about whether it is effective or not. It's not.

But as @MarkBroussard suggests, feel free to experiment with it yourself. I predict you will be disappointed but you may learn something. Hopefully the lesson is, don't trust everything that marketers tell you.

@Perry, 

hello Perry, thank you for your observation mentioned below:

"In fact, if it actually worked, little companies wouldn't be able to get their hands on the material because big companies would buy up all the inventory. The supplier would sign exclusive ingredient deals with the highest bidder. They really wouldn't even need to spend much money on marketing."

Let me give you a bigger picture on this:

Unilever asked us to be a supplier of Pine Extvolat, but it didn't work because:

1. of the required amount of produced raw material.

PineAqua (the company, manufacturer of Pine Extvolat) is not able to produce 300 tons of raw material per month - it was the requirement of Unilever. Pine Aqua  is a small company that has 1 drying camera which produces 15-20 tons of raw material per month. So physical capacity is not enough to meet this requirement.   

2. of the cost.

The company considered Pine Extvolat primarily as an equal water replacement. And in that case as a water substitute it is not relevant. Because water costs almost nothing while 1 ton of Pine Extvolat is high. So for the big companies which are seeking to use the less cheap ingredients the better, the option to use Pine Extvolat as a main ingredient is not beneficial. 

3. of the different production processes.

A big company has a strict, tried and conservative formulation process, and the parts of the formula are strict as well: water phase, oil phase, emulsifier, active ingredients and preservative. In order to test and implement a different process which will include only the water phase (which can be replaced fully or partially with Pine Extvolat), oil phase, emulsifier and active will take months or even years to test and redo all the production process. 

That's why Pine Extvolat is not interesting to the big companies. 

And it was the decision of the CEO to focus on the little companies which require less volume of raw material, have high demand on sustainability and can be more flexible with testing new ingredients.

Extvolat

PhilGeis said:

I've not found the email..  Can you send again?

Dear Phil, just sent again. Could you please check you received an email.

Extvolat

And about marketing effort. we do not pay anything for marketing. this is our decision not to spend on it. Otherwise the price for the Pine Extvolat would be higher. We do not want that.  The link to the article shared by @Perry is the example of the article whose author had contacted us  in the first place to learn more about it and write.

We pay only for participation in the In-Cosmetics Global exhibitions.

Extvolat

This webinar might be helpful, with our formulator Marina - (Eng interpretation is available).

If you are really interested in finding out more, we can set us a zoom meeting with our formulator, she can answer your questions.

PhilGeis

Thanks again  for following through.
I examined the documents and sent comments. My take is that documents sent would not satisfy technical (safety, micro, analytical, regulatory, esthetics, occupational) due diligence of any large company  - cost and quantity aside.

Pharma

Question: The webinar mentions trace elements. Your homepage mentiones microelements instead and that term is somewhat ambiguous; it may also refer to micronutrients which includes not just essential trace elements but also vitamins, essential amino acids, certain fatty acids...

Most of these aren't volatile and in case of trace elements, these are minerals (mostly heavy metals) which can not be destroyed by any reaction condition except nuclear fusion and the like... The thing about most trace elements as well as micronutrients alike is that they usually don't evaporate at noteworthy levels unless you start heating to hundreds of degrees centigrade, hence the use of distillation to obtain pure water. How comes that your low temperature evaporation 'extracts' trace elements at near quantitative levels?

Do you work at reduced or ambient pressure? In the latter case, theory has it that a good part of the volatiles (such as many terpenes and those 'liquid biologically active substances' as you call them) will not be extracted/distilled. My conclusion is (I have to speculate here because the technology you describe & draw as rudimentary comic is kept very vague) that you use maceration/self-digestion possibly followed by juicing and/or filtration even though the mention of a 30-35°C air flow implies some sort of distillation. The resulting 'juice' would then contain a good portion of trace elements and probably a sufficient amount of polyphenolic constituents (mostly tannins) to render the soup self-preserving.

Do you have and data on precise composition and active constituents? Do you standardise your extvolate? If so, to what? Do you have MIC or MBC data you could share?

With all those scam products marketed as natural preservative alternatives out there which actually contain QAC and what not, I'm sceptical beyond my inherent scepticism as a scientist when stumbling across a product like yours.

PhilGeis

Supplier offers it as a natural "substitute for water" that can preserve natural products. 
As water is assumed to be natural, think it would be hard to explain why one would replace it with an much more expensive material other than to preserve.  

PhilGeis

Subsequently elaborated - they're targeting small producers who can't control the quality of their water.   Think most of us understand the position of the EU and FDA - "preservatives" should not be used to correct for failed GMP's.  Those with experience know they are not effective in that context.