[논문]비수분산 특수 제형 화장품에 대한 방부력 시험 비교 연구

김용현; 박성하; 박병준; 신계호; 강학희

doi:10.15230/scsk.2021.47.1.9

비수분산 특수 제형 화장품에 대한 방부력 시험 비교 연구
Comparison of Preservative Efficacy Tests for Water Non-dispersible Cosmetic Formulations 원문보기

大韓化粧品學會誌 = Journal of the society of cosmetic scientists of Korea, v.47 no.1, 2021년, pp.9 - 21

김용현 (한국콜마 기술연구원) , 박성하 (한국콜마 기술연구원) , 박병준 (한국콜마 기술연구원) , 신계호 (수원과학대학교 뷰티코디네이션과) , 강학희 (한국콜마 기술연구원)

초록
AI-Helper

본 연구에서는 수분산 제형에 사용되는 방부력 시험법과 PCPC (personal care products council) 가이드라인 대체시험법, direct contact membrane method 및 surface mold test 사이의 차이점을 연구하여 비수분산 특수 제형 방부력 시험 진행 시 고려되어야 하는 사항에 대해 알아보고자 한다. 우리는 스틱 및 프레스트 파우더에에 대한 시험법 비교 시 대체 시험법을 사용했을 때 개선된 수준으로 방부력 시험 결과를 확인할 수 있었다. 하지만 W/S 에멀젼과 루즈 파우더의 경우, 기존 시험법이나 대체 시험법간 결과 개선 차이가 크지 않았음을 확인하였다. 각각의 제품에 대해 방부시스템 존재 시와 부재 시 결과들을 확인했을 때, 시험법별로 차이가 발생함을 알 수 있었다. 결과적으로, 비수분산 특수 제형에 대한 방부력을 측정할 때 기존 및 대체 시험법을 병행 사용하여 개선된 수준의 결과를 얻을 수 있었다. 또한 본 연구를 통해 스틱 및 프레스 파우더의 경우, 소비자 사용방식을 적용하는 방식의 방부력 시험법을 적용하였을 때, 보다 더 유효성 있는 결과를 도출해 낼 수 있었다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

In this study, the difference between the preservative efficacy test (PET) used for water dispersion formulations and PCPC (personal care products council) guidelines alternative test method, direct contact membrane method, and surface mold test should be studied to determine what should be considered during preservative efficacy test of water non-dispersible formulations. We conducted improved PETs when using the alternative test method compared with the test methods used for stick and pressed powder. There was no significant improvement between water-in-silicon emulsions and loose powder using alternative test methods. When we checked the results of the presence and absence of the preservative system for each product, we could see that there were differences in testing methods. As a result, improved levels of results could be obtained using both existing and alternative test methods when measuring preservatives for water non-dispersible formulations. In addition, in the case of stick and pressed powder, the results were more effective when the preservative test method applied to the consumer's method of use was applied.

주제어

표/그림 (13)

표 Table 1. Tested Sample Information
그림 Figure 1. Change in the count of microorganisms according to the reaction time of glycerol. (A) Glycerol presence or absence in bacteria, A; glycerol presence for S. aureus, B; glycerol absence for S. aureus, C; glycerol presence for P. aeruginosa, D; glycerol absence for P. aeruginosa, E; glycerol presence for E. coli, F; glycerol absence for E.coli (B) Glycerol presence or absence in fungi. A; glycerol presence for C. albicans, B; glycerol absence for C. albicans, C; glycerol presence for A. brasiliensis, D; glycerol absence for A. brasiliensis. (C) Inoculum by treated glycerol in P. aeruginosa.
그림 Figure 2. Change in the count and turbidity of microorganisms according to the reaction time of sorbitan oleate (Ole). (A) Sorbitan oleate presence or absence in bacteria. A; sorbitan oleate presence for S. aureus, B; sorbitan oleate absence for S. aureus, C; sorbitan oleate presence for P. aeruginosa, D; sorbitan oleate absence for P. aeruginosa, E; sorbitan oleate presence for E. coli, F; sorbitan oleate absence for E.coli. (B) Sorbitan oleate presence or absence in fungi. A; sorbitan oleate presence for C. albicans, B; sorbitan oleate absence for C. albicans, C; sorbitan oleate presence for A. brasiliensis, D; sorbitan oleate absence for A. brasiliensis. (C) Change of turbidity by treated sorbitan oleate in P. aeruginosa. *A difference of 0.5 log₁₀ or more from the strain.
그림 Figure 3. Comparison of the results of the PET for the stick product when using different methods. (A) The death rate of bacteria and yeast when lipstick had a preservative system, A; 1% ino for bacteria, B; DCM for bacteria, C; 1% ino for yeast, D; DCM for yeast. (B) The death rate of mold when lipstick had a preservative system, A; 1% ino for mold, B; DCM for mold. (C) The death rate of bacteria and yeast when sunstick had a preservative system, Same condition as (A) from A to D. (D) The death rate of mold when sun stick had a preservative system, Same condition as (B) from A to B. (E) Application of surface mold test in each product. DCM: Direct contact membrane method. 1% ino: 1% inoculum method. *A difference of 0.5 log₁₀ or more from the test method.
그림 Figure 4. Comparison of t he r esults o f the PE T regarding lipstick f ollowing t he p resence or a bsence o f the preservative s ystem. ( A) T he death rate of bacteria, mold and yeast when the DCM was used. A; in the absence of system for bacteria, B; in the presence system for bacteria, C; i n the absence system f or m old, D ; in t he p resence system f or m old, E ; in t he a bsence system f or y east, F; i n the presence system for yeast. (B) The death rate of bacteria and mold when the 1% ino was used. A; in the absence system for bacteria, B; in the presence system for bacteria, C; in the absence system for mold, D; in the presence system for mold. (C) The death rate of yeast when the 1% ino was used. A; in the absence system for yeast, B; in the presence system for yeast. DCM: Direct contact membrane method. 1% ino: 1% inoculum method. *A difference of 0.5 log₁₀ or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system.
그림 Figure 5. Comparison of the results of the PET regarding the sun stick following presence or absence of the preservative system. (A) The death rate of bacteria when the DCM was used. A; in the absence of system for bacteria, B; in the presence system for bacteria. (B) The death rate o f mold and y east when the DCM was used. A; in the absence system f or mold, B; i n the presence system for mold, C; in the absence system for yeast, D; in the presence system for yeast. (C) The death rate of bacteria, mold and yeast when the 1% ino was used. A; in the absence of system for bacteria, B; in the presence of system for bacteria, C; in the absence of system for mold, D; in the presence of system for mold, E; in the absence of system for yeast, F; in the presence of system for yeast. DCM: Direct contact membrane method. *A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system.
그림 Figure 6. Comparison of the results of the PET for the pressed powder when using different methods. (A) The death rate of bacteria and yeast when pressed powder had a preservative system, A; 1% ino for bacteria, B; DCM for bacteria, C; 1% ino for yeast, D; DCM for yeast. (B) The death rate of mold when pressed powder had a preservative system, A; 1% ino for mold, B; DCM for mold. (C) Application of surface mold test in pressed powder. DCM: Direct contact membrane method. 1% ino: 1% inoculum method. *A difference of 0.5 log10 or more from the test method.
그림 Figure 7. Comparison of the results of the PET regarding pressed powder following the presence or absence of the preservative system. (A) The death rate of bacteria when the DCM and 1% ino were used. A; in the absence of system for bacteria during DCM, B; in the presence system for bacteria during DCM, C; in the absence of system for bacteria during 1% ino, D; in the presence system for bacteria during 1% ino. (B) The death rate of yeast when the DCM and 1% ino were used. Same condition as (A) from A to D. (C) The death rate of mold when the DCM and 1% ino were used. Same condition as (A) from A to D. DCM: Direct contact membrane method. 1% ino: 1% inoculum method. *A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system in DCM. ^#A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system in 1% ino.
그림 Figure 8. Comparison of the results of the PET for the W/S emulsion when using different methods. (A) The death rate of bacteria when the W/S foundation had a preservative system. A; emu ino, B; 0.1% ino, C; 1% ino. (B) The death rate of bacteria when the sun cream did not have a preservative system. A; emulsion ino, B; 0.1% ino, C; 1% ino. emu ino: emulsion inoculation. 1% ino: 1% inoculum method. 0.1% ino: 0.1% inoculum method. *A difference of 0.5 log10 or more from the test method.
그림 Figure 9. Comparison of the results of the PET regarding the W/S foundation following the presence or absence of the preservative system. (A) The death rate of bacteria when the emu ino, 1% ino and 0.1% ino were used. A; in the absence of system for bacteria during emu ino, B; in the presence system for bacteria during emu ino, C; in the absence of system for bacteria during 0.1% ino, D; in the presence system for bacteria during 0.1% ino. E; in the absence of system for bacteria during 1% ino, F; in the presence system for bacteria during 1% ino. (B) The death rate of yeast when the emu, 1% ino and 0.1% ino were used. Same condition as (A) from A to F. (C) The death rate of mold when the emu ino, 1% ino and 0.1% ino were used. Same condition as (A) from A to F. emu ino: emulsion inoculation. 1% ino: 1% inoculum method. 0.1% ino: 0.1% inoculum method. *A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system in emu. ^#A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system in 0.1% ino. ⁺A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system in 1% ino.
그림 Figure 10. Comparison of the results of the PET regarding W/S sun cream following the presence or absence of the preservative system. (A) The death rate of bacteria, yeast and mold when the emu ino was used. A; in the absence of system for bacteria, B; in the presence system f or b acteria, C; in t he absence o f system f or mold, D ; in t he presence system for mold. E ; in t he a bsence of system f or yeast, F; in the presence system for yeast. (B) The death rate of bacteria, yeast and mold when the 1% ino was used. Same condition as (A) from A to F. (C) The death rate of bacteria when the 0.1% ino was used. Same condition as (A) from A to B. (D) The death rate of mold and yeast when the 0.1% ino was used. A; in the absence of system for mold, B; in the presence system for mold, C; in the absence of system for yeast, D; in the presence system for yeast. emu ino: emulsion inoculation. 1% ino: 1% inoculum method. 0.1% ino: 0.1% inoculum method. *A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system for bacteria. ^#A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system for mold. ⁺A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system for yeast.
그림 Figure 11. Comparison of the results of the PET for loose powder when using different methods. The death rate of bacteria (A), yeast (B) and mold (C) when loose powder had a preservative system. A; powder ino, B; 0.1% ino, C; 1% ino. powder ino: powder inoculation. 1% ino: 1% inoculum method. 0.1% ino: 0.1% inoculum method. *A difference of 0.5 log10 or more from the test method.
그림 Figure 12. Comparison of the results of the PET regarding loose powder following the presence or absence of the preservative system. (A) The death rate of bacteria, yeast and mold when the 0.1% ino was used. A; in the absence of system for bacteria, B; in the presence system for bacteria, C; in the absence of system for mold, D; in the presence system for mold. E; in the absence of system for yeast, F; in the presence system for yeast. (B) The death rate of bacteria, yeast and mold when the 1% ino was used. Same condition as (A) from A to F. (C) The death rate of bacteria, yeast and mold when the powder ino was used. Same condition as (A) from A to F. powder ino: powder inoculation. 1% ino: 1% inoculum method. 0.1% ino: 0.1% inoculum method. *A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system for bacteria. ⁺A difference of 0.5 log10 or more compared to the results of the presence or absence of the preservative system for yeast.

참고문헌 (15)

E. Abellan and D. Perez, Analysis of cosmetic products, quality control of cosmetic products: specific legislation on ingredients, 2nd edition, ed K. Morrissey, 39, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2018).
D. Spooner, Hazards associated with the microbiological contamination of cosmetics, toiletries and non-sterile pharmaceuticals, in microbial quality assurance in cosmetics, toiletries and non-sterile pharmaceuticals, 2nd edition, eds. R. Baird and S . Bloomfield, 9, Taylor & Francis, Bristol (1996).
E. Neza and M. Centini, Microbiologically contaminated and over-preserved cosmetic products according rapex 2008-2014, Cosmetics, 3(1), 3 (2016).

상세보기
J. Kabara and D. Orth, Preservative-free and self- preserving cosmetics and drugs: principles and practices (principles for product preservation), ed. J. Kabara, 1, CRC Press, New York, NY, USA (1997).
N. Halla, I. P. Fernandes, S . A. Heleno, P. Costa, Z. Boucherit-Otmani, K. Boucherit, A. E. Rodrigues, I. C. F. R. Ferreira, and M. F. Barreiro, Cosmetics preservation: a review on present strategies, Molecules, 23(7), 1571 (2018).

상세보기
A. D. Russell, Challenge testing: principles and practice, Int. J. Cosmet. Sci., 25(3), 147 (2003).

상세보기
W. Siegert, Comparison of microbial challenge testing methods for cosmetics, H&PC Today, 8(2), 32 (2013).
D. S. Orth, C. M. Lutes, S. R. Milstein, and J. A. Allinger, Determination of shampoo preservative stability and apparent activation energies by the linear regression method of preservative efficacy testing, J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem, 38, 307 (1987).
W. Siegert, ISO 11930_a comparison to other methods to evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial preservation, SOFW-Journal, 138(7), 43 (2012).
A. T. Tran, A. D. Hitchins, and S. W. Collier, Direct contact membrane method for evaluating preservative efficacy in solid cosmetics, Int. J. Cosmet. Sci., 12(4), 175 (1990).

상세보기
M. Souza and M. T. Ohara, The preservative efficacy testing method for powdered eye shadows, J. Cosmet. Sci., 54(4), 411 (2003).

상세보기
J. K. Farrington, E. L. Martz, S. J. Wells, C. C. Ennis, J. Holder, J. W. Levchcuk, K. E. Avis, P. S. Hoffman, A. D. Hitchins, and J. M. Madden, Ability of laboratory methods to predict in-use efficacy of antimicrobial preservatives in an experimental personal care, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 60(12), 4553 (1994).

상세보기
R. Holley, Prevention of surface mold growth on italian dry sausage by natamycin and potassium sorbate, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 41(2), 422 (1981).

상세보기
D. English, Cosmetic and drug microbiology, factors in selecting and testing preservatives in product formulations, eds. D. Orth, J. Kabara, S. Denyer, and S. Tan, 52, Informa healthcare, NY, USA (2006).
I. Manou, L. Bouillard, M. J. Devleeschouwer, and A. O. Barel, Evaluation of the preservative properties of Thymus vulgaris essential oil in topically applied formulations under a challenge test, J. Appl. Microbiol. 84(3), 368 (1998).

상세보기

저자의 다른 논문 :

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증