search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
PRESERVATIVES 63


synthetic substances etc. Based on the European Cosmetic regulation, the definition is different: All antimicrobial substances which have only one function (to preserve) are listed as preservatives. Substances with additional positive functions are not listed as preservatives. This is interesting because nearly all of these so called multifunctionals have a much better toxicological rating, fewer negative side effects, additional useful positive effects, better marketing opportunities and are not limited regarding the allowed dosage. Whereas the US market works a little bit different: In order to select recommended


antimicrobials, many companies follow the whitelists of Skin Deep, Sephora, Wholefoods or GRAS. Unlike the EU, the US market often uses “free-from” statements to underline the mildness of their products. A deeper view reveals that the EU and US market are more similar than one might assume. All multifunctionals in our portfolio are not listed as preservatives in the European Cosmetic Regulation and have the best rating in the mentioned US databases like Skin Deep. Therefore, multifunctionals are the first


choice for increasing the mildness of a formulation by providing a higher skin friendliness. Thus, you can avoid unpleasant side effects and benefit from the additional positive effects. The worldwide production volume of standard preservatives that are used for mass market products is much higher and therefore prices are lower. This might change in the future but currently this needs to be considered. This means the price of alternative preservation might be higher at first glance, but taking into consideration all the positive effects natural alternatives bring for the product; the consumer and the environment; it should not be seen as a disadvantage but more as an opportunity to change for the better.


Where is the trend of replacing traditional preservatives coming from? It seems that in the last ten years progress has speed up more than ever. Why? Scientific research, safety reports and toxicological as well as irritation tests are just some pieces of the puzzle. Test magazines, cosmetic websites and rating apps for smartphones are further powerful tools with a strong influence on consumer’s opinions and needs. Whereas in the past a certain level of chemical knowledge was necessary to understand the INCI of cosmetic products, in modern days smartphone apps make it very easy to gain a fast and straightforward overview of substances and their individual rating only by scanning the product. Nevertheless, these platforms can be


unfair and misleading when they do not handle the individual rating of raw materials


October 2020 multifunctionals.


l If you do not need COSMOS-certification, you can also choose the synthetic substances. Often chemically identical synthetic substances are available which can be excellent to reduce costs.


Substances with an antimicrobial effect are defined as preservatives. This includes oil, honey, sugar, organic acids, alcohols, oils, synthetic substances.


transparently. The environmental conditions are changing worldwide and pandemics like COVID-19 are also influencing consumer opinions. As a result of these tools and growing awareness concerning chemical components, the pressure on the cosmetic producers is increasing just as much as the number of new developed healthy ingredients. Even big multinationals have started to replace controversial substances with natural alternatives.


When replacing listed preservatives by alternative antimicrobials, does it influence the shelf life of the product? Many formulators understand that non-listed preservatives are a good option to increase the mildness of a formulation but they are concerned that these multifunctionals are less efficient and not able to provide the same shelf life of the final product. These doubts are unfounded. As mentioned before, from a microbiology perspective, multifunctionals also show a strong antimicrobial efficiency. Nevertheless, the challenge is always to find the most efficient combination for each unique formulation. In general, it is recommended to use a combination of two or three antimicrobials which show synergetic effects. By using multifunctionals, you can decrease the concentration, use more sustainable ingredients, reduce economic and environmental costs and increase the mildness of the product.


What should be considered for a personal choice and how can pitfalls be avoided? Each company has individual requirements and different strategies. In bigger companies, strategies might differ from product line to product line. So, first of all you need to know what you are looking for and what is your strategy to produce skin friendly products. l If you are producing natural products and following the COSMOS-certification, you are limited to COSMOS-approved


l If listed and mild preservatives are an option for you, you can also use blends like the Cosphagard series which are combinations of mild preservatives and multifunctionals. l One more option would be to lower the concentration of your preservatives by boosting the antimicrobial efficiency with the


help of multifunctionals. The application area of the product, the


kind of formulation and even the local market should be considered as well. Face creams need a milder preservation system than body lotions. The kind of formulation is also of high interest. A typical face mask which is applied to the sensitive face and has an exposure time to the skin of 20-30 min. will need very mild ingredients. Furthermore, the average skin sensitivity is also a challenge. Typical Caucasian or African-American skins are less sensitive compared to the average Asian skin. Nowadays, exporting products to the Chinese market is very popular because of the high number of consumers. In addition, the requirements for Asian markets are more challenging. A white skin is still very popular in Asia and many whitening agents are aggressive to the skin. Consumers are irritating their skin because they want to follow the local ideal of beauty. After this treatment they apply facial masks to alleviate the irritation. This is a very good example of how challenging it can be. Other frequent pitfalls for example are the


right pH value and negative interactions of some ingredients. The selected pH value in face creams and eye serums which come into contact with the mucous membrane of the eyes can cause irritations. The pH value of our skin is 5.5. This means for typical skin care products, a final pH value of 5.5 is highly recommended. On one hand, a pH value of 5.5 is mild to our skin on the other hand, the range of suitable preservatives or multifunctionals is high because nearly all of them are effective at this pH value. However, the pH value of our tear fluid is 7.35 and an eye serum with a pH value of 5.5 might be great for the skin around the eyes but still slightly irritating for our eyes. Interactions of ingredients can be a big benefit but also tricky. Penetration enhancers are wonderful to increase the efficiency of actives and due to the combination of actives and enhancers the actives are able to penetrate deeper into skin areas. Diols that are frequently used belong to the group of penetration enhancer. They increase the emulsion stability by reducing the particle size and support the antimicrobial


PERSONAL CARE NORTH AMERICA


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76