Login

Join for Free!
118279 members


Growth of bacteria and fungi in a cosmetic product

About microscopic forms of life, including Bacteria, Archea, protozoans, algae and fungi. Topics relating to viruses, viroids and prions also belong here.

Moderator: BioTeam

Growth of bacteria and fungi in a cosmetic product

Postby pi87 » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:45 pm

Hi.

I'm wondering whether bacteria and fungi can be present or can grow in drysol: an antiperspirant consisting of absolute ethanol and aluminum chloride hexahydrate. We got some results from a rather unserious foreign lab:

Bacteria testing: sampling made 1:10 test liquid. In 80 Twain agar, 38°C,foster 48 hours.
Results: < 1000 (cfu/g)

Yeast & mold test: sampling made 1: 10 test liquid. In Tiger red AGAR, 28 °C foster 72 hours.
Results: < 100 (cfu/g)

Can these results be right? Can anything survive in these environments?

Thanks!
pi87
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:34 pm

Postby JackBean » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:50 pm

well, 0 < 1000 ;)
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby canalon » Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:26 pm

And to add to Jackbean's answer since they did not plate a full gram of sample, they have to limit their results to the lower limit they could detect reliably, hence the <1000 rather than 0
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada


Re: Growth of bacteria and fungi in a cosmetic product

Postby pi87 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:47 am

If "no pathogens" are present, must this number be 0?
Thanks
pi87
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:34 pm

Postby JackBean » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:11 am

it will hardly be <0 and if it is >0, then there is some growth ;)
However, it's always kind of probability numbers, especially for low counts. That's probably also reason, why they do not clearly state 0 cfu/g, but rather give some limit.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby canalon » Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:42 pm

No you can never be sure that it is absolutely 0, so you just say that it is below your detection limit. Which is good enough.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby michimichi » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:10 am

we dont report 0 as a result, The value <100 or <1000 means the sample was diluted.
it is synonymous to 0. or you can say "absent or negative" if you are only pertaining to quality.
michimichi
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:07 pm

Postby JorgeLobo » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:10 am

It's hard to know what pi87 is asking as the report offers no confdence anything was detected. Agree th 1:10 dilution cited doesn;t seem consistent with the <1000 report. My bet is the diluton factor is stated incorrectly as substantial dilution is necessary to neutralize product carryover. Although one can recover spore forming bacteria and even vegetative bacteria (in biofilm) from ethanol, antiperspirant aluminum Cl salt renders the product very acidic so it's pretty hostile and would require a fair amount of dilution to neutralize.
JorgeLobo
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:12 am

Re: Growth of bacteria and fungi in a cosmetic product

Postby michimichi » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:34 am

mostly no microorganism can survive in that environment specially those susceptible or"weak microorganisms".but yes, a spored microorganisms can may survive . cosmetics can be contaminated (mostly yeast and molds) after production, during filling, packaging, the way they handle the cosmetic.Obviously they grow only on the surface of the cosmetic as an indication of contamination.
That is why we use the antimicrobial efficacy test/challenge test to determine the efficacy of its preservative.
michimichi
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:07 pm

Postby JorgeLobo » Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:03 am

No - the most common contaminants of cosmetics are bacterial - esp. is Burkholderia cepacia and grow throughout the product. Contamination is most frequently associated with water - poor quality process water or cleaning water such as from failed draining of systems after washoutincubating in equipment inclding those mentioned.

Mold contamination is a relatively rare event in comparison. It is typically limited to the surface of semiolid cosmetics in open jars and is probably as much a consumer as manufacturing issue - so is pretty obvious when it does occur. Yeast contamaintion is also somewhat rare and is not surface limited.

The AET is useful but not insurances. Cosmetic micro quality is as much a function of process hygiene as preservation as bacteria can adapt/ develop tolerance and resistance to any preservative given the right opprtunity.
JorgeLobo
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:12 am


Return to Microbiology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests