Preparation of self-preserving personal care cosmetic products using multifunctional ingredients and other cosmetic ingredients | Scientific Reports

Oct 17, 2024

Scientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 19401 (2024) Cite this article

709 Accesses

Metrics details

The development of self-preserving personal care cosmetics represents a significant advancement in the cosmetics industry, offering safer and more natural alternatives to consumers. This study focused on the preparation of such formulations using multifunctional ingredients along with other cosmetic components. Five unique multifunctional ingredients (MFIs) were identified based on their antimicrobial properties: sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, ricinoleic acid, palmitoleic acid, raspberry ketone, and sorbitan caprylate. Through meticulous experimentation, 150 combinations of MFIs were prepared and tested to understand their synergistic actions. From these trials, three synergistic antimicrobial compositions were determined: sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate: ricinoleic acid: raspberry ketone in the ratios 1:6.3:6.3 and 1:6.3:15.7. Sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate: palmitoleic acid: sorbitan caprylate at a ratio of 1:12.5:37.5. These synergistic compositions exhibited enhanced antimicrobial efficacy compared with their individual components, as evidenced by their lower Minimum Inhibitory Concentration values. Incorporating these formulations into three distinct personal care cosmetic products, including a color protection shampoo, body wash shower gel, and skin-lightening cream, the study further validated their effectiveness. A Preservation Challenge Test study revealed that all three antimicrobial compositions successfully preserved the cosmetic formulations for up to 28 days. This method of product preservation not only ensures consumer safety and stability but also reduces the need for potentially conventional preservatives. In conclusion, the appropriate use of multifunctional ingredients in combination with meticulous formulation techniques has led to the successful development of self-preserving personal care cosmetics. These formulations offer a promising avenue for the cosmetic industry, catering to the rising demand for natural, effective, and consumer-friendly cosmetic products.

Preservatives are used in cosmetic formulations to prevent microbiological contamination during many stages of production, processing, packaging, and storage. Their primary purpose is to prolong the shelf life of the product and safeguard consumers from potential health risks1,2. Preservatives are a prevalent trigger for human allergies, despite evidence that they are frequently employed at low levels3. In recent times, cosmetic companies have shifted their attention towards producing preservative-free products, which involve the creation of cosmetic items without the use of any substances that prevent the growth of microorganisms. Preservative-free products available in the market often include antimicrobial compounds that have not been recognized as preservatives by the European Scientific Committee. These compounds are not listed in Annex VI of the Commission Directive 76/768/EEC or in the improving directives codes 2003/15/EC, 2007/17 EC, and 2007/22/EC. These directives allow the use of authorized and traditional preservatives in cosmetic preparations4,5,6. Hence, the phrase ‘self-preserving cosmetics’ is more suitable for these types of products. Conventional preservatives are substituted by various cosmetic chemicals in self-preserving formulations. These alternative substances not only serve their main purpose, but also possess antibacterial properties. These chemicals are sometimes referred to as 'Multifunctional' ingredients (MFI)7,8,9,10.

We explored the synergistic actions of MFI in the preparation of combinations for use as self-preserving ingredients. The present study explored the use of identified synergistic combinations of MFI to develop self-preserving cosmetic personal care products and to assess the microbial safety of the formulation. Furthermore, this study presents a comparative analysis, pitting self-preserved formulations against control formulations preserved using conventional preservatives. The efficacy and stability of the self-preserving formulations were evaluated through rigorous testing, including Preservation Challenge Tests (PCT). This comparison aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the suitability of self-preserving formulations for commercial applications, highlighting their potential advantages over traditional preservatives in the cosmetics industry.

The multifunctional cosmetic ingredients listed in Table 1 and other cosmetic ingredients, including preservatives used in this study were obtained from various reputed dealers and suppliers which includes Brenntag Ingredients Pvt. Ltd., India; Ashland Pvt. Ltd., India; Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd., India; Gangwal Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., India; Clariant Ltd., India; Confiance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., India; Schulke & Mayr GmbH Germany; Sigma Aldrich, USA; Inolex CC, USA; Symrise Pvt Ltd, India; Dow Chemicals, India; Maya Chemtech Pvt. Ltd., India; Lonza India; Galaxy Surfactants Ltd, India; Wacker Chemie India Pvt. Ltd., India; Vivimed Labs Ltd,, India; Hayashibara Co. Ltd., Japan; Kumar Organic Products Ltd., India; Croda Chemicals, India; Simson Pharma, India; NK Industries Ltd., India and BASF India.

The specific microbial culture strains recommended for the screening studies were the same as the standard microbial culture strains to be studied for preservative challenge testing, which can be obtained from official cell culture collections, such as the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), as recommended by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) of the United States, and were obtained from Microbiologics Inc., USA. The most common test strains used in this study were potentially pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538), Gram-negative bacteria (Escherichia coli ATCC 8379 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027), mold (Aspergillus brasiliensis ATCC 16404), and yeast (Candida albicans ATCC 10231).

The inoculum was used to introduce microorganisms into the test samples following adjustment of the initial cell count. The Bacterial cultures were introduced into tryptone soy agar slants and incubated for 18–24 h at a temperature of 36 ± 1 °C. The fungal strains were introduced onto Sabouraud dextrose agar and kept in a controlled environment at a temperature of 23 ± 1 °C for a period of five to seven days. The cultures were collected in sterile saline and diluted to a concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/ml.

Different cosmetically approved ingredients from biomimetic phospholipids, esters, emollients, sugars, polysaccharides, fatty acids, surfactants, chelating agents, anti-oxidants, microbial preservative boosters, glycols, moisturizers, and multifunctional actives were assessed for their MIC—minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against the microbial strains. In total, approximately five ingredients and 150 ternary combinations were studied. Conventional preservatives approved for use in cosmetics were also studied as controls. The tests were performed in quadruplicate and the average scores were determined.

The MIC refers to the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial agent that completely inhibits growth in a specified tube. Antimicrobial properties were assessed using the MIC macrodilution method for both antibacterial and antifungal properties, according to CLSI guidelines11. The test materials were dissolved in the appropriate broth at varying concentrations, both individually and in combination, and the concentrations of antimicrobial agents providing significant endpoints were recorded. The tests were performed in quadruplicate and the average values were determined.

To establish synergy/additive/antagonistic activity of anti-microbial agents, the FIC index endpoints of the anti-microbial agents were calculated both individually and in mixtures. Freshly grown 24 h bacterial cultures and 120 h fungal cultures were used as inoculums. The turbidity of the inoculum was adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard with sterile saline or Soybean Casein Digest Medium for bacteria, and Sabouraud dextrose agar for fungal cultures was used to obtain an inoculum size of 1–2 × 108 CFU/ml for bacterial cultures and 1–2 × 106 CFU/ml. Stock solutions of antimicrobial agents must be prepared at concentrations of at least 1000 mg/ml or ten times the highest concentration to be tested, whichever is greater.

Suitable anti-microbial concentrations were diluted twofold (1000, 500, 250, 125, and 62.5 mg) using the macro dilution method, and inoculums were added to separate tubes for each bacterial culture and fungal culture. For each tested organism, a control tube containing a broth without antimicrobial agents was used. All the inoculated tubes were incubated for 24 h at 35 ± 2 °C. All experiments were performed in triplicate or quadruplicate. The culture strains are shown in Fig. 1.

Different culture strains.

This is calculated by multiplying the synergy index ratio by the number of reported methods12.

where QA is the concentration of compound A in the PPM that produces an endpoint when acting alone, and Qa denotes the concentration of compound A in the PPM in the mixture, resulting in an endpoint. QB is the concentration of compound B in PPM that produces an endpoint when acting alone, and Qb is the concentration of compound B in PPM in the mixture, which results in an endpoint result. Results were interpreted using the following criteria: (1) synergy < 1.0, (2) additive effect = 1.0, and (3) antagonism > 1.0.

Cosmetic personal care formulations and Process8,13,14,15,16: Twelve personal care cosmetic formulations were prepared.

Color-protection shampoo (CPS 1, 2, 3, 4) using four different preservation strategies.

Body wash shower gels (BWSG 1, 2, 3, and 4) with four different preservation strategies.

Skin lightening cream (SLL 1, 2, 3, 4) with four different preservation strategies, were prepared as listed in the Table 2 with conventional preservative* (positive control) code: CPS1, BWSG1 & SLL1, placebo base without preservative (negative control) code:CPS2, BWSG2 & SLL2, synergistic combination of multifunctional ingredients Sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, ricinoleic acid and raspberry ketone, synergistic antimicrobial composition 1: 6.3: 6.3 at 0.5% and 1% in colour protection shampoo CPS3 & CPS4, Sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, ricinoleic acid and raspberry ketone, synergistic antimicrobial composition 1: 6.3: 15.7 at 0.5% and 2% in body wash shower gel BWSG3 & BWSG4 and Sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, palmitoleic acid and Sorbitan caprylate synergistic antimicrobial composition 1: 12.5: 37.5 at 1% and 2% in skin lightening lotion SLL3 &SLL4 along with special cosmetic actives **

The preservative challenge test (PCT) has been used to evaluate the capacity of a product to maintain its preservation. For comparison, base formulations containing preservatives were used as the controls. Regrettably, there is currently no universally recognized method for conducting challenge testing and interpreting outcomes. Various pharmacopoeias recommend different methods; however, for cosmetic products, the CTFA (cosmetic, toiletries, and fragrance association), now the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC)/ISO 11930 criteria, are used. According to CTFA guidelines, PCT involves solitary exposure to pathogenic bacteria, yeast, and mold cultures. The plate count method was employed to assess microbial counts by quantifying the initial concentration of colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL) in the test product by enumerating viable bacteria in the inoculum suspension. The inoculated vessels were analyzed at specific time intervals (one, two, seven, fourteen, twenty-one, and twenty-eight-days after inoculation). The number of microorganisms present in each vessel (measured in colony-forming units per milliliter, CFU/mL) was determined at each time point. The percentage of bacteria was calculated relative to the initial concentration12.

The preservative challenge test was performed with additional details, in which 10 g of the sample was weighed in sterile containers and spiked with a known amount of microorganisms included in the study. An initial mixed culture of all three bacterial strains,

S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa and fungal strains C. albicans, A. brasiliensis were prepared. An inoculum size of 11 × 106 CFU/ml was created for bacterial and 15 × 105 CFU/ml for fungal cultures. 10 µl of each bacterial culture was added to the container with the sample marked for bacteria and 100 µl of the fungal inoculum was inoculated into the fungal-marked container separately and left at room temperature under sterile environmental conditions. At each predefined time interval (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 14th, and 28th days), 1 g of sample was weighed and mixed with 9 ml of neutralizer (modified letheen broth), and further dilutions were made for analysis. One milliliter of each dilution was plated on 15–20 ml of molten agar using the pour plate technique and appropriate growth medium for bacteria and fungi.

The MIC of the selected five multifunctional ingredients, sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, raspberry ketone, ricinoleic acid, palmitoleic acid, and sorbitan caprylate, and two conventional preservatives, methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone and phenoxyethanol and methyl paraben and ethyl paraben and butyl paraben and propyl paraben and isobutyl paraben, against five organisms Escherichia coli (E. coli), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus),Candida albicans (C. albicans), Aspergillus brasiliensis (A. brasiliensis) were tested based on the macro bath double dilution method and are tabulated in Table 1. The five selected multifunctional ingredients showed good anti-microbial activity compared to the conventional preservatives normally used in cosmetic personal care products. Sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, which has a cationic charge, exhibited a low MIC value. However, this ingredient is costly compared with other ingredients; hence, we decided to maintain its concentration at a minimum level and use it as the first ingredient of the three component compositions prepared. Two ingredients, ricinoleic acid and palmitoleic acid, were selected as the second components, and two other ingredients, raspberry ketone and sorbitan caprylate, were selected as the third components of each composition. Thus, compositions were prepared and tested to determine their ability to aid synergistic interactions. Two of the three components were prepared based on MIC data.

Composition-1 (prepared in two different ratios) was composed of sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, ricinoleic acid, and raspberry ketone. Composition-2 was made up of sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, palmitoleic acid, and sorbitan caprylate. The two components of these compositions were prepared in various ratios. The ratio of the concentration of the second ingredient was doubled, whereas the concentration of the third component was at least twenty-eight times the initial concentration. This concentration range was chosen to achieve an economically viable composition for the selected ingredients. The concentration ratio of the composition of the first mentioned ingredient increased from 0.5 to 1. The concentration ratio of the secondary ingredients increased from 6.3 to 12.5. The concentration ratio of the third component increased from 1.3 to 37.5.

Seventy-five combinations of each composition were prepared and tested for MIC. The 150 combinations were screened for MIC values against five organisms, as described above. Table 3 shows the MIC data for the two synergistic compositions of multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial efficacy. The synergistic combination of ternary combinations showed better antimicrobial efficacy than the individual MICs of the multifunctional ingredients. The FIC indices of the combinations were calculated based on the FIC index data, and three combinations were identified as synergistic (Table 3).

Evaluation of the preservative efficacy of cosmetic formulations per CPC/ISO 11930 Guidelines17. Twelve personal care cosmetic formulation color-protection shampoos (CPS 1, 2, 3, 4), body wash shower gel (BWSG 1, 2, 3, 4), and skin lightening cream (SLL 1, 2, 3, 4) were prepared as listed in Table 2 with conventional preservative (positive control) codes CPS1, BWSG1, and SLL1, placebo base without preservative (negative control) codes CPS2, BWSG2, and SLL2 synergistic combination of multifunctional ingredients at different dosages along with special cosmetic activities (CPS3, BWSG3, SLL3, CPS4, BWSG4, and SLL4). All 12 formulations were evaluated for the preservative challenge test according to the CPC/ISO 11930 guidelines for 28 d. The results of the preservative challenge tests are presented below.

In our study, when the base formulation of shampoo CPS3 & 4, shower gel BWSG 3 & 4, and lotion SLL3 & 4 were incorporated with the synergistic multifunctional ingredients, the preservative efficacy profile was found to be similar to that of formulations incorporated with conventional preservatives (control) CPS1, BWSG1, and SLL1 formulations in the preservative challenge test. The results indicate that the synergistically acting composition when incorporated at 0.5% and 1% levels for CPS1, 0.5% and 2% levels for BWSG1, and 1% and 2% for SLL1 levels delivers (PASS) preservative efficacy as per PCPC/ISO 11930 standards18,19.

The combination of three antimicrobial multifunctional ingredient mixtures at the above given ratios when incorporated at 0.5% and 1% levels for CPS1, 0.5% and 2% levels for BWSG1, and 1% and 2% for SLL1 levels imparts preservative efficacy equivalent to conventional preservatives, most importantly, at all dosage quantities, meets the regulatory requirements. From Table 4, it is evident that the three synergistic combinations were able to impart antimicrobial preservative potency to different cosmetic personal care product compositions equivalent to conventional preservatives (methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone dosed at 0.1% in color protection shampoo (CPS1), phenoxyethanol, methyl paraben, ethyl paraben, butyl paraben, propyl paraben, and isobutyl paraben dosed 0.8% in body wash shower gel (BWSG1) and lightening lotion (SLL1). Therefore, it can be concluded that the formulators incorporating the unique synergistic mixtures were well preserved and equivalent to conventional preservatives. The unique synergistic combination of multifunctional ingredients can be an alternative solution to protect cosmetic products from microbial attack, which are skin-friendly and preferred by consumers. This smart approach to cosmetic product preservation helps avoid the use of conventional preservatives, which may cause skin allergies, irritation, or contact sensitivity.

Many cosmetic products have complicated compositions that comprise a diverse range of materials that provide beneficial properties to the substrate while also providing structural identity to the product. Consequently, the formulator's ingredient selection would be to use the minimum amount of materials necessary to provide the most beneficial effect. An essential criterion that formulators should consider during formulation development is the control of microbial deterioration. This is usually accomplished through the addition of appropriate preservatives. Preservative selection and dosing in cosmetic products are mandated by legislation and are limited by the number of chemistries available20.

In our study, when the base formulation of shampoo CPS 3 & 4, shower gel BWSG 3 & 4, and lotion SLL 3 and 4 were incorporated with the synergistic multifunctional ingredients, the preservative efficacy profile was found to be similar to that of formulations incorporated with conventional preservatives(control) CPS1, BWSG1, and SLL1 formulations in the preservative challenge test. The results indicate that the synergistically acting composition when incorporated at 0.5% and 1% levels for CPS1, 0.5% and 2% levels for BWSG1, and 1% and 2% for SLL1 levels delivers (PASS) preservative efficacy as per PCPC/ISO 11930 standards18,19.

The combination of three antimicrobial multifunctional ingredient mixtures at the above given ratios when incorporated at 0.5% and 1% levels for CPS1, 0.5% and 2% levels for BWSG1, and 1% and 2% for SLL1 levels imparts preservative efficacy equivalent to conventional preservatives, most importantly, at all dosage quantities, meets the regulatory requirements. From Table 4, it is evident that the three synergistic combinations were able to impart antimicrobial preservative potency to different cosmetic personal care product compositions equivalent to conventional preservatives (methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone dosed at 0.1% in color protection shampoo (CPS1), phenoxyethanol, methyl paraben, ethyl paraben, butyl paraben, propyl paraben, and isobutyl paraben dosed 0.8% in body wash shower gel (BWSG1) and lightening lotion (SLL1).Therefore, it can be concluded that the formulators incorporating the unique synergistic mixtures were well preserved and equivalent to conventional preservatives.

The unique synergistic combination of multifunctional ingredients can be an alternative solution to protect cosmetic products from microbial attack; these ingredients are skin-friendly and are preferred by consumers. This smart approach to cosmetic product preservation helps avoid the use of conventional preservatives, which may cause skin allergies, irritation, or contact sensitivity. Many cosmetic products have complicated compositions that comprise a diverse range of materials that provide beneficial properties to the substrate while also providing structural identity to the product. Consequently, the formulator's ingredient selection would be to use the minimum amount of materials necessary to provide the most beneficial effect. An essential criterion that formulators should consider during formulation development is the control of microbial deterioration. This is usually accomplished through the addition of appropriate preservatives. Preservative selection and dosing in cosmetic products are mandated by legislation and are limited by the number of chemistries available20.

To explore beyond present technologies, formulators are looking for chances to use new preservation principles to generate ‘Preservative—free’ or ‘Self—preserving’ formulas. The application of 'Hurdle Technology' is gaining the majority of attention in this effort. This method combines several preservation properties to limit the growth of microorganisms. These hurdles may have synergies rather than additive consequences21,22. We investigated the utilization of specific multifunctional ingredients, which are authorized cosmetic components but are not categorized as preservatives according to Annex VI of Commission Directive 76/768/EEC. These ingredients were combined with surfactant-based biomimetic phospholipids, fatty acids, and esters to create self-preserving personal-care cosmetic formulations. The selection of several cosmetic ingredients (sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, ricinoleic acid, palmitoleic acid, raspberry ketone, and sorbitan caprylate) was based on their antimicrobial efficacy and ability to provide various functional benefits, such as multifunctional surfactant behavior, emollient properties, antioxidant effects, moisturizing effects, and anti-inflammatory properties. When combined with fatty acids, esters, and antioxidants, these versatile chemicals exhibit synergistic antibacterial activity that effectively prevents microbial threats.

The successful resistance of these formulations to microbiological challenges, as demonstrated by their effective preservation, instills strong confidence in the products' microbial stability and ensures that the stated shelf life for consumers is guaranteed. In this study, we successfully demonstrated the feasibility of developing personal care cosmetics with self-preserving properties comparable to those of preservative-containing formulations.

Based on MIC values, five unique multifunctional ingredients (MFIs) were identified: sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate, ricinoleic acid, palmitoleic acid, raspberry ketone, and sorbitan caprylate. A total of 150 combinations of MFIs were meticulously prepared and tested to explore their synergistic actions. Through extensive experimentation and calculation of the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration (FIC) index, three synergistic antimicrobial compositions were determined. The following synergistic combinations were found to exhibit enhanced antimicrobial efficacy compared to their individual constituents: sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate: Ricinoleic acid: Raspberry ketone in the ratios 1:6.3:6.3 and 1:6.3:15.7. Sodium coco PG-dimonium chloride phosphate: palmitoleic acid: sorbitan caprylate at a ratio of 1:12.5:37.5. All these combinations demonstrated lower MIC values than their individual MFIs, indicating their potent antimicrobial effects when working synergistically. Encouraged by these findings, these synergistically active components were incorporated into three distinct personal care formulations. In a rigorous Preservation Challenge Test (PCT), the effectiveness of these antimicrobial compositions in preserving cosmetic formulations was evaluated. These results were promising, as all three formulations successfully maintained product stability and prevented microbial contamination for up to 28 days. This approach to product preservation not only ensures the safety and longevity of cosmetic formulations but also presents a significant step towards reducing the reliance on potentially harmful preservatives. By demonstrating the efficacy of these multifunctional activities, we have shown the potential for developing self-preserving personal care formulations that can protect themselves from microbial contamination without compromising consumer safety or skin health. In summary, this study highlights the promising potential of synergistic combinations of multifunctional activities in the development of self-preserving personal care products. This study provides valuable insights into creating safer, more effective, and consumer-friendly cosmetic formulations, aligned with the growing demand for natural and preservative-free options in the cosmetics industry.

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Epstein, H. Cosmetics preservation: Sense and nonsense. Clin. Dermatol. 24, 551–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2006.07.017 (2006).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Papageorgiou, S., Varvaresou, A., Tsirivas, E. & Demetzos, C. A. New alternatives to cosmetics preservation. J. Cosmet. Sci. 61, 107–123 (2010).

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Andersen, K. E. Contact allergy and irritation from preservatives. J. Appl. Cosmetol. 11, 65–68 (1996).

Google Scholar

Legendre, J. Y. et al. Formulation, characterization, and efficacy of an adenosine-containing dissolvable film for a localized anti-wrinkle effect. J. Cosmet. Sci. 58, 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2007.00401_3.x (2007).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Varvaresou, A. et al. Self-preserving cosmetics. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 31, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2009.00492.x (2009).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Leistner, L. Basic aspects of food preservation by hurdle technology. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 55, 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(00)00161-6 (2000).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Petersen, W. Antimicrobial ingredients for self-preserving cosmetics. Euro Cosmet. 2, 28–36 (2002).

Google Scholar

Kabara, J. J., Swieczkowski, D. M., Conley, A. J. & Truant, J. P. Fatty acids and derivatives as antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2, 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.2.1.23 (1972).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kabara, J. J. & Orth, D. S. Preservative-Free and Self-Preserving Cosmetics and Drugs: Principles and Practice (Marcel Dekker, 1997).

Book Google Scholar

Meenakshi, N., Sekar, P., Pasupathi, M. & Mukhopadhyay, T. Self-preserving skin care cosmetic products. Int. J. Adv. Biotechnol. Res. 7, 22–37 (2016).

Google Scholar

Wayne, P. A. Clinical and laboratory standards institute & methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. In CLSI Reference Method for Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts; Approved Standard. 3rd ed. CLSI Document m27-A3. 10th ed. CLSI Document m07-A10, Vol. 35, No. 2. 28 (Approved Standard, 2008 & 2015) (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA, 2008 & 2015)

Graf, A. S., Joyce, G. G. & McEwen, G. N. CTFA Microbiology Guidelines (ed. Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association) (Washington, DC, 1993)

Bergsson, G. et al. In vitro killing of Candida albicans by fatty acids and monoglycerides. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45, 3209–3212. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.45.11.3209-3212.2001 (2001).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Rigano, L. & Leporatti, R. Systemic constellations: With or without preservatives?. SÖWF J. 129, 1–9 (2003).

Google Scholar

Jänichen, J. The quest for the ideal preserving system-reducing traditional preservatives in combination with Dermosoft Octiol. Euro Cosmet. 7(8), 10–16 (2004).

Google Scholar

Halla, N. et al. Cosmetics preservation: A review on present strategies. Molecules 23, 1571–1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23071571 (2018).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

ISO 11930:2019. Cosmetics-Microbiology Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Protection of a Cosmetic Product 2, 22 (2019)

Anelich, L. E. & Korsten, L. Survey of microorganisms associated with spoilage of cosmetic creams manufactured in South Africa. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 18, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.1996.tb00133.x (1996).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Campana, R., Scesa, C., Patrone, V., Vittoria, E. & Baffone, W. Microbiological study of cosmetic products during their use by consumers: Health risk and efficacy of preservative systems. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 43, 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2006.01952.x (2006).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Whitby, D. & Bachmann Roth, C. Challenging times for preservation. Pers. Care 28–29 (2010).

Kabara, J. J. Hurdle technology: Are biocides always necessary for product protection?. J. Appl. Cosmetol. 17, 102–108 (1999).

Google Scholar

Stoffels, K. M. Modern and safe antimicrobial stabilization of cosmetic products. Househ. Pers. Care Today 7, 18–21 (2012).

Google Scholar

Download references

This project was supported by the Researchers Supporting Project Number (RSP2025R5) of the King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The authors are grateful to the authorities of the Vels Institute of Science, Technology, and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), Chennai and Saveetha Dental College & Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, for providing the necessary facilities and support.

Department of Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vels Institute of Science Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), Pallavaram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 117, India

K. Senthilkumar & A. Vijayalakshmi

Department of Biotechnology, School of Life Sciences, Vels Institute of Science Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), Pallavaram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 117, India

Manjunathan Jagadeesan

Department of Biochemistry, School of Arts and Science, Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology (PRIST), Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, 613403, India

Ambiga Somasundaram

Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600077, India

Sivaperumal Pitchiah & Pasiyappazham Ramasamy

Department of Botany, Pachaiyappas College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600030, India

S. Shyamala Gowri

Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O Box 2455, 11451, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Sulaiman Ali Alharbi

Department of Botany, Hindu College Moradabad (Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University Bareilly), Bareilly, 244001, India

Mohammad Javed Ansari

Centre for Marine and Aquatic Research (CMAR), Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 602117, India

Pasiyappazham Ramasamy

Centre for Marine Research and Conservation, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600077, India

Sivaperumal Pitchiah

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

K.S. and A.V. created the idea, collected the literature and wrote the half of the manuscript. M.J., A.S., P.R. revised the manuscript several times. S.P., S.G. formatted the manuscript according to the journal guidelines. S.A.A., M.J.A. responsible for the funding support. P.R. and A.V. are responsible for the correspondence. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Correspondence to A. Vijayalakshmi or Pasiyappazham Ramasamy.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Senthilkumar, K., Vijayalakshmi, A., Jagadeesan, M. et al. Preparation of self-preserving personal care cosmetic products using multifunctional ingredients and other cosmetic ingredients. Sci Rep 14, 19401 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57782-9

Download citation

Received: 11 January 2024

Accepted: 21 March 2024

Published: 21 August 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57782-9

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative