FORMULATING FOR MILDNESS 67


Natural and synthetic: bridging the gap


 Naama Eylon – Sharon Laboratories, Israel


This article will outline the development process of new preservative solutions by Sharon Laboratories: Sharon™ Amplify, and SharoSense™ Plus. The industry analysis that led the decision to develop two new concepts ‘less is more’ and ‘synthetic-naturals’ as well as review the product efficacy and compatibility for the personal care industry. The development project of the


preservatives Amplify Line, started from the challenges the personal care industry is facing due to the global trends in preservation. The task formulators must address is choosing a preservative solution that will guarantee product safety. The risk of contamination can be influenced by many factors:  Product type, where is it stored: exposed to moisture, heat or humidity?


 INCI: water content, presence of natural extracts, mud, clay, some components create a tougher-to-preserve formula


 Packaging: as in general an open jar may increase the contamination risk if compared to a pump or tube The products characteristics will define the type of threat to fight: Gram-negative and positive bacteria, yeast or mold. So while the need for product safety


remains high, the formulators must also take into consideration other aspects: regulatory updates, impact on odour, colour, compatibility with other ingredients or even the country’s climate. Officially there are many different preservatives to choose from, but


5000 3750 1,000,000 <10 2500 1250 200 0 S. aureus 100 Figure 1: Amplify MIC comparison. April 2018 200 E. coli P. aeruginosa 100 A. niger 100 C. albicans


100 10 0


0 Days 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days 28 Days Figure 2: Amplify challenge test. PERSONAL CARE EUROPE


A. niger C. albicans


E. aureus


E. coli P. aeruginosa


 SharomixTM


professionals in R&D feel there are fewer options. Often, it is the consumer who is perceived as the cause, for wanting ‘free from everything’ product and this generates a call for ‘mild’ systems, to replace classic preservative solutions. The problem is that mild systems are in fact… mild – too mild. Many of the new preservative solutions are not strong enough to handle the antimicrobial challenge, and there is a risk for microbial contamination. When the preservative solution is not


strong enough, there are a few actions the manufacturers of finished goods would do. First – to raise the level of use, and that would probably be over 1%. Another option is add additional material: booster, preservative, extract with some antimicrobial activity. One more path is adding a chelating agent, and of course, a combination of all the above. However, those steps have implications. Higher levels of use of a preservative can raise regulatory issues as many materials are allowed for use in a specific limit (like phenoxyethanol or benzyl alcohol at 1% maximal limit). In addition, a higher level of use can cause formulation hurdles such as impact on viscosity, stability, odour and more. Further implications come from the end user angle, such as skin sensitivity, and of course, higher cost.


Taking a new approach to preservation Many personal care companies today are


Amplify (Phenoxyethanol,


Ethylhexylglycerin, cationic surfactant)  Phenoxyethanol, Ethylhexylglycerin blend


dealing with tough-to-preserve products, where they wish to avoid the use of classic reliable preservatives such as parabens, formaldehyde donors and isothiazolinones. Avoiding those drives them to use combinations of a solvent such as phenoxyethanol with a booster such as ethylhexylglycerin or caprylyl glycol, just to find out this solution is not enough for broad spectrum protection against bacteria, yeast and molds and poses a risk of possible contamination. Our goal was to offer a new preservative solution that would have strong efficacy, and allow a significantly lower level of use in finished products. In order to achieve this goal, we researched the potential role of cationic catalysis in preservation. It is found that a combination of several


ingredients known to have a mild antimicrobial profile can be reinforced by the presence of cationic surfactants in a specific low ratio.


Several molecules with cationic properties


were evaluated. Among them didecyldimmonium chloride, polyquaternium- 2, polyquaternium-80, and others. An optimisation project was performed


in order to evaluate the level of the cationic surfactant needed to enhance different preservative solutions. It was proven that the addition of a cationic catalyst in various ratios improved the efficacy of the preservative blend significantly, allowing the level of use in a finished product to be reduced by 50%.


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  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184