-
PRESERVATIVE
Hi everyone. D you mind to share your favorite preservative commonly formulated for products with high water content like serum and toner, also natural ingredients, such as hyaluronic acid and aloe vera? the products mainly for sensitive skin. Thank you
-
20 Replies
-
I think most of us view preservation as a system, and not a drop in component. A system of hurdles, with the preservative being the star of the show, but not carrying the whole show.
As you know it starts with the chelate, followed by the pH, followed by the glycols, followed by the preservative, followed by the packaging, followed by the testing. As, well as not adding bug food like aloe, plant extracts etc.
Good luck. Oh…and for good measure… PE 9010 is one of the most widely used globally but is a tic weak on gram + and more than a tic weak on YMF….so you need to bolster those up, some of which can be accomplished via the hurdles.
Aloha.
-
Thanks @graillotion for your insight. I do use PE 9010 as for my preservative system, but some said its hard to preserve serum alone. so just need some ideas good preservative to try on my formula 😀
-
The reason people start with PE 9010…. it is one of the few….socially acceptable preservatives that does a good job on the dreaded gram- bacteria. The other loose ends….are easy to address with a little bolstering. I can’t think of a better….more socially acceptable start point to get Gram -.
-
-
-
As the Co-founder of Indochine Natural (2006 - 2023) I avoided the use of synthetic preservatives. I used ‘Hurdle Technology.’ This is because a growing number of consumers are questioning preservative safety.
Hurdle Technology intelligently combines different preservation factors. These will restrict microbial growth. But a qualified cosmetic scientist must apply it. And the production facility should have testing facilities. I qualified in both cases and built a dedicated physical chemistry and microbiology lab integrated with my factory in Malaysia and Ho Chi Minh City. I also employed a QC Manager.
Most important is the strict application of good manufacturing practice (GMP). Also, appropriate packaging and low water activity. Plus low or high pH values. These elements, when combined, can restrict microbial growth in cosmetic formulations. Also important is the need to formulate with non-chemical multifunctional antimicrobial ingredients. These include plant-derived essential oils and extracts.
Of course all of the products we produced were subject to laboratory cosmetic preservative efficacy testing. This checks that there is zero microbe growth.
Dr Mike Thair
Co-Founder Indochine Natural
-
Can i ask how can we preserve a very simple serum that is only 0.3% xanthan gum in water without adding a synthetic preservative and chelator?
-
What are “non-chemical multifunctional antimicrobial ingredients”? Everything is a chemical, from water to air. This is borderline pandering to the “chemical-phobia” crowd while masquerading as scientific authority.
Hurdle technology is not “intelligent”, it’s duct tape for microbiological failures at best. Qualified cosmetic chemists use real preservatives to prevent consumers from rubbing E. coli, fungal infections, and bacteria soup all over their faces, because they are rigorously tested, proven to be safe and effective at their usage rates backed by decades of research and peer-reviewed studies.
Essential oils are unstandardized allergens with weak antimicrobial efficacy, degrade in formulas, have stability issues, and are wildly inconsistent batch to batch; they are not preservatives. If they were, companies like P&G would’ve replaced the preservatives in their products with essential oils and started marketing them as “preservative-free” a very long time ago.
GMP is the absolute bare minimum and most professionals rely on certified third-party testing facilities to ensure unbiased, rigorous testing that meets industry standards.
-
<div>For more on the “non-chemical multifunctional antimicrobial ingredients” I refer you to the follwinng article in the published literature:</div>
Chen, T., Chang, H. Deciphering trends in replacing preservatives in cosmetics intended for infants and sensitive population.
Sci Rep 14, 19053 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69624-9
doi.org
The present study aims to investigate the current trends in replacing conventional preservatives with multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties for preservation of cosmetics for infants or sensitive population, to decrease their potential for contact dermatitis. We first reviewed the labels … Continue reading
-
The study identifies two main groups: traditional preservatives (e.g., phenoxyethanol, methylparaben) and alternative multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties (e.g., ethylhexylglycerin, caprylyl glycol). Nowhere in the study are these alternatives referred to as “non-chemicals.” In fact, the paper consistently describes them using terms like “alternative ingredients with antimicrobial activities” or “multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties.” This distinction is important because all of these substances, whether traditional or alternative, are chemicals.
The study explicitly supports the safety of phenoxyethanol, a traditional preservative, stating that it “should be granted the highest priority” due to its well-documented safety profile. It mentions that The European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) affirms its safety even for sensitive populations like children under 3 when used within regulatory limits (≤1%).
While alternative multifunctional ingredients may reduce the reliance on traditional preservatives, they are not inherently “non-chemical,” and the article does not make such a claim. This distinction matters when discussing preservation systems, as clarity and scientific accuracy should take precedence over marketing terms like “non-chemical.”
-
Agreed, and thanks for this….much appreciated.
-
Be aware the study addressed the Chinese market. Few alternatives are legal preservatives in most of the world.
-
-
-
If you say that “Hurdle technology is not “intelligent”, it’s duct tape for microbiological failures at best.”, then from my side, it was good enough for our products to be accepted by cosmetic compliance authorities globally, including the EU and Japan, then I think that is good enough for any company.
When you say “Qualified cosmetic chemists,” are you suggesting I am not qualified? On what basis do you make this assumption? I think that with a PhD, MSc, and BSc and 20 years of experience as a co-founder of two skincare manufacturing facilities, I might be qualified, but it’s only my humble opinion. And I choose to use Hurdle Technology. And we had no cases of “consumers rubbing E. coli, fungal infections, and bacteria soup all over their faces.” And yes, we had rigorous testing in place.
And your definition of essential oils as “unstandardized allergens with weak antimicrobial efficacy” is not one I have heard before. Like to back it up with some scientific literature?
And where have I said that EOs are preservatives?
And yes, we were GMP Certified, and we relied on third-party validation of our own lab testing, it’s all part of GMP compliance.
I would be very interested to learn more about your background, as I’m always willing to learn.
-
This reply was modified 1 month ago by mikethair.
-
Please Mike - regulators know crap all about preservation. Not a one has preserved has relevanmt experience and judgement.
-
Yes, indeed, regulators may not have hands-on experience with preservation, but they are the regulators, and as a company, we jump through their hoops and place our products on their markets to generate company income. Basically, as a managing director, I would fail in my duties if I did not enter these markets once I had met all regulatory compliance requirements.
-
This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by mikethair.
-
I believe standards that are used by regulators to evaluate “proper” preservation of cosmetics are really below the standards of big companies like P&G, who understood those standards do not adress the in-use risk. That’s why some products that pass those standards have to be later recalled do to contamination.
-
True - you can be sure that every cosmetic recalled for micro issues passed a USP 51 type test.
-
This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by
-
-
This reply was modified 1 month ago by
-
-
-
Isothiazolinones for rinse off and FA releasers, now phenoxy, with additions for leave on. Unfortunately, go to preservatives are largely eliminated by those playing the natural/clean beauty game.
Please don’t chase “hurdle” and multifunctionals unless you have the depth of testing - esp. in- use to validate. They’re more often excuses for anti preservative marketing than commitment to quality. Hurdle is generally a bad idea - any one of the weak unvalidated (esp.in-use) elements compromised compromises the product -
-
Yes indeed, and for those of us going down the path of natural/clean skincare, the only option is Hurdle. And yes, I agree 100%, that you do need a rigorous testing regime, and this is why I built an onsite testing laboratory and employed a QC to manage it.
Fact is that all-natural skincare is a significant sector these days, so my investment was worth it, especially coupled with my company’s GMP status.
-
This reply was modified 1 month ago by mikethair.
-
Mike - it’s not lab testing that reveals hurdle as inadequate - it’s in-use consumer testing. USP 51 and the like are unvalidated and not useful in addressing moderate divergence in pH, Aw, etc. GMP and QC are irrelevant to preservation. They’re the price of entry - if we can’t make it clean we shouldn’t be in the business.
One can effectively preserve so-called natural products (esp. with a increasingly bastardized definition of natural)- it demands more labor and systems are pretty limited in that they don’t carry over well between products.
-
This reply was modified 1 month ago by
-
@PhilGeis A popular combination appears to be Phenoxyethanol and Chlorphenesin. I have seen this combination used in serums by Aveeno, L’Oreal, The Ordinary (Estée Lauder), and Neutrogena. Could you share your thoughts on using these two together? Thank you!
-
Maybe a bit weak v Gram + bacteria. In right packaging, should be ok, esp if from Estee. I’m more familair with chlorphenesin in makeup and color cosmetics than high water products.
-
-
Log in to reply.