-
Based on these graphs….would this product have passed PET?
This is marketing material from the manufacturer of a more natural preservative that seems to be gaining steam.
I am not sure what bugs are used in PET…but when I look at these graphs…I am disappointed…but maybe I don’t have the right perspective?
Would this have passed PET (especially the top picture, without the GMCY)…or can that be determined from these graphs?
I do not intend on using this product!!! Just curious about the buzz behind it.
-
18 Replies
-
Almost certainly this would not pass a PET, but when they say “used alone” it’s hard to put that in context. Does “used alone” mean the emulsion contained only the Dermosoft without chelating agents and other preservative boosters (ie: without a hurdle technology approach) or do they mean it is the only presevative used in the emulsion, but it also includes chelating agents and preservative boosters. The panel of microorganisms tested against in the graphs are the orgaisms used in the USP 51 PCT.
A. Brasiliensis is one of the most difficult organisms to preserve against and you can see that the GMCY had some positive effect, but not substantial enough. Plus, GMCY really blows the viscosity of your emulsion.
FYI: This preservative is quite expensive relative to its analogs Sodium Benzoate and Potassium Sorbate and has to be used a high percentage and getting it shipped in from Germany just adds to the problem with using it.
-
MarkBroussard said:@GraillotionAlmost certainly this would not pass a PET, but when they say “used alone” it’s hard to put that in context. Does “used alone” mean the emulsion contained only the Dermosoft without chelating agents and other preservative boosters (ie: without a hurdle technology approach) or do they mean it is the only presevative used in the emulsion, but it also includes chelating agents and preservative boosters. The panel of microorganisms tested against in the graphs are the orgaisms used in the USP 51 PCT.
A. Brasiliensis is one of the most difficult organisms to preserve against and you can see that the GMCY had some positive effect, but not substantial enough. Plus, GMCY really blows the viscosity of your emulsion.
FYI: This preservative is quite expensive relative to its analogs Sodium Benzoate and Potassium Sorbate and has to be used a high percentage and getting it shipped in from Germany just adds to the problem with using it.
Thank you Mark….and yes…I noted the high inclusion rate!
BTW…just for fun….what would be a simple add-in…that is an effective catch for A. Brasiliensis…. Or is there one. (As devil’s advocate…staying with a semi-natural theme.)
Aloha.
-
MarkBroussard said:@Graillotion
FYI: This preservative is quite expensive relative to its analogs Sodium Benzoate and Potassium Sorbate and has to be used a high percentage and getting it shipped in from Germany just adds to the problem with using it.
Am I understanding you to say…. had Evonik used Sodium Benzoate and Potassium Sorbate in the same test…about the same result would be expected??? Or a better result would be hoped for?
-
Every preservative has this kind of claim and tese are nopt very compelling results.
They’re using the Euro Pharma test 5.1.3. http://uspbpep.com/ep60/5.1.%203.%20efficacy%20of%20antimicrobial%20preservation%2050103e.pdf
A bit more challenging than USP 51 but like it as n eother is validated. Offers 2 crtieria - A - normal pass and B acceptable if you can make up a good story to justify.
Top does not pass - A requires 2 log kill at day 14 for fungi and B one log - Candida fails both. Aspergillus brasiliensis meets B.
Bottom graph nominally meets criteria for all. -
The top graph appears to report efficacy of 1388 - Sodium Levulinate; Sodium Anisate - and the bottom adds GCMB glyceryl caprylate. Think performance of this very weak system shows the limited significance of preservative tests - whether USP 51, EP, ISO, ASTM. None of these is validated to anything - but regulatory compliance.
-
I’ll chime in with another (larger perhaps?) aspect of this data. The continuing inability of so many “softer” preservatives to suppress fungi & molds. So many tools to address bacteria and their phages, but fungi go on and on and on. One longs for parabens…or at least IPBC!
-
Amen Matt - and something likely effective vs wild-type cepacia and aeruginosa - bugs that would happily eat these “preservatives”.
-
No, what I am saying is that Sodium Levulinate and Sodium Anisate are natural analogs to Sodium Benzoate and Potassium Sorbate (synthetic) in that they have similar chemical structures. However, most natural standards allow Benzoate and Sorbate as preservatives.
But, you have to use 3% Dermosoft to get similar effectiveness of 0.3% Sodium Benzoate + 0.15% Potassium Sorbate. That could be because the concentration of Levulinate and Anisate are low in Dermosoft or it could be because they are less effective (I don’t know the compositional analysis of Dermosoft 1388).
I don’t know that there is “simple” add-in for A. Brasiliensis. I always use a hurdle technology approach, so it would be more a matter of simple add-ins (multiple ingredients)
-
Rather than pursuing a simple add, why not use an effective system in the 1st place? Not aware Levulinate and Anisate are no more natural than the “natural” Benzoate and Sorbate. Aren’t these synthesized?
Graph A failed EP due to Candida albicans curve, not A. brasiliensis. Data from 1st and 2nd would justify “pass” by USP 15 topical critieria. -
Thank you all for your input, @PhilGeis, @MarkBroussard, @chemicalmatt. I have no intent on using this product… As Mark described….I use a highly regimented hurdle approach, and proven preservatives.
I simply want to understand things…and be able to have an educated conversation with people that think these are acceptable alternatives. Trying to make the world a safer place…one skin care product at a time.
-
Yes, the Levulinate and Anisate are natural products, not synthesized. I have used Dermosoft 1388 in multiple formulations as part of a hurdle technology preservation system with good results. The major drawback is the expense, high usage rate and shipping from Germany … all-in-all, not worth the cost imho.
-
Tropolone may be a simple add in for A. Brasiliensis.
This data is from supplier but 0.005% tropolone with ~1% phenoxyethanol is a patented preservative. So it may really be effective that’s why they have patented it.
-
And works as a chelate to boot?
Tropolone is a new one to me…but I see that Symrise is using it.
@Pharma , you got some fall blooming crocus extract we can make to cover this?
(Or will the Swiss only use Edelweiss?) -
Abdullah said:Tropolone may be a simple add in for A. Brasiliensis.
This data is from supplier but 0.005% tropolone with ~1% phenoxyethanol is a patented preservative. So it may really be effective that’s why they have patented it.
Thank you, Abdullah….now you have me scouring the net for Tropolone. Ok group… As I go through the Symrise preservative collection, they have two products that gets their top marks in both categories of bacteria’s and yeast/mold. One, the Phenoxy/Tropolone (aka SymOcide® PT) mentioned….and then a little to my surprise, this combo: 1,2-Hexanediol,
Caprylyl Glycol,
Tropolone (aka SymDiol® 68T). I use the first two as part of every formula (that good old hurdle thing). Does this sound like a logical…top shelf combination, assuming one does all the other due diligences of formulating? @Phi@PhilGeis, @MarkBroussard, @chemicalmattAloha
-
I personally never used Symrise’s preservative blends for many reasons: 1) they are very very costly, 2) they don’t perform (in real life) as good as the more classical (and less less expensive) preservatives, 3) they have to be applied at very high doses compared to regular ones, 4) their unique bends make it impossible to have any control over shortage or price increase, 5) Symrise is not precisely a historical preservative manufacturer…although, they have a very good marketing team
-
I’m with ketchito . Neither comnbination or supplier is exciting.
Hexane or Octane diol is ok vs, bacteria in testing - at substantial and expensive levels. Not sure why you need both. Tropolone is anther chelator for whiuch you’d have a tough time gettin risk assessment in this context. The related compound Hinokitol has some reported preservative function
The combination is not “hurdle”- it’s just another marketing-driven combination you generally can’t use outside US. -
If i use expensive preservatives, i would use hydroxyacetophenone+ phenoxyethanol.
Hydroxyacetophenone is less expensive, more effective and has extra benefits than tropolone.
I have seen many datas not from manufacturers that show how hydroxyacetophenone improves the preservation when combined with other preservatives.
-
I’m not familiar with efficacy of hydroxyacetophenone as preservative or booster or its chelating capability. One (I think Japanese) report concluded it might limit phenoxy migration into oil phase. I recall little else but supplier words on this stuff in context.
Note CIR (Cosmetic Ingredient Review) 2021 summary failed to render an opinion pending data needed to address its (dermal) safety.
Think this is a bad idea. You’ll just have phenoxy leaving at least a gap in fungal protection. You’re responsvbiel for the safety of your product - so on what basis do you think it’s safe?
Log in to reply.
