Antimicrobial organic preservatives

Abstract

The invention is a chemically and physically stable solution of levulinic acid, benzoic acid, and sorbic acids or their salts which is antimicrobially effective against bacteria and fungi. The solution provides improved antibacterial protection for personal care and cosmetic products at lower than expected levulinic acid levels and at desirable use levels. The composition may also include a solvent selected from the group of aromatic alcohols consisting of phenoxyethanol, phenylpropanol, phenylethanol, benzyl alcohol, and mixtures of these alcohols. These solvents extend the range of acidity over which the invention is capable of inhibiting bacterial and fungal growth.

Claims

1. An antibacterial and antifungal preservative composition, comprising: (a) levulinic acid or a salt thereof; (b) benzoic acid or a salt thereof; and (c) sorbic acid or a salt thereof, wherein (a), (b), and (c) are present in a weight ratio (a):(b):(c) of 80:15:5.

2. The composition of claim 1, further comprising an aromatic alcohol.

3. The composition of claim 2, in which the aromatic alcohol is selected from the group consisting of phenoxyethanol, phenylpropanol, phenylethanol, benzyl alcohol, and mixtures thereof.

4. The composition of claim 3, in which the aromatic alcohol is selected from the group consisting of phenoxyethanol, phenylpropanol, and mixtures thereof.

5. The composition of claim 1, which includes an aqueous solvent.

6. An antibacterial and antifungal preservative composition, comprising: (a) levulinic acid or a salt thereof; (b) benzoic acid or a salt thereof; (c) sorbic acid or a salt thereof; and (d) an aromatic alcohol, wherein (a), (b), (c), and (d) are present in a weight ratio (a):(b):(c):(d) of 40:15:5:40.

7. The composition of claim 6, in which the aromatic alcohol is selected from the group consisting of phenoxyethanol, phenylpropanol, phenylethanol, benzyl alcohol and mixtures thereof.

8. The composition of claim 7, which includes phenoxyethanol, phenylpropanol, and mixtures thereof.

9. A personal care or cosmetic product, having a pH in the range of 4.5 pH to 7.0 pH and comprising a liquid vehicle and 0.2% to 2.0% by weight of the composition of claim 1.

10. The personal care or cosmetic product of claim 9, comprising 0.1% to 1.0% by weight of the composition of claim 1.

11. The personal care or cosmetic composition of claim 9, having a pH in the range of 4.5 pH to 6.5 pH.

12. The personal care or cosmetic composition of claim 9, having a pH in the range of 5.5 pH to 6.5 pH.

13. A method of protecting a personal care or cosmetic formulation from microbial attack, comprising adding to a personal care or cosmetic formulation comprising a liquid vehicle and having a pH in the range of 4.5 pH to 7.0 pH an antimicrobially effective amount of an antibacterial and antifungal preservative composition, said preservative composition comprising: (a) levulinic acid or a salt thereof; (b) benzoic acid or a salt thereof; and (c) sorbic acid or a salt thereof, wherein (a), (b), and (c) are present in a weight ratio (a):(b):(c) of 80:15:5.

14. The method of claim 13, wherein the preservative composition is added to the personal care or cosmetic formulation in an amount of 0.2% to 4.0% by weight of the personal care or cosmetic formulation.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein the preservative composition is added to the personal care or cosmetic formulation in an amount of 0.4% to 1.0% by weight of the personal care or cosmetic formulation.

16. A method of protecting a personal care or cosmetic formulation from microbial attack, comprising adding to a personal care or cosmetic formulation comprising a liquid vehicle and having a pH in the range of 4.5 pH to 7.0 pH an antimicrobially effective amount of an antibacterial and antifungal preservative composition, said preservative composition comprising: (a) levulinic acid or a salt thereof; (b) benzoic acid or a salt thereof; (c) sorbic acid or a salt thereof; and (d) an aromatic alcohol, wherein (a), (b), (c), and (d) are present in a weight ratio (a):(b):(c):(d) of 40:15:5:40.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein the preservative composition is added to the personal care or cosmetic formulation in an amount of 0.2% to 4.0% by weight of the personal care or cosmetic formulation.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein the preservative composition is added to the personal care or cosmetic formulation in an amount of 0.4% to 1.0% by weight of the personal care or cosmetic formulation.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1 is a graph depicting absorbance as a function of wave number for Horizontal Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infra Red Spectroscopy results of two samples containing levulinic acid and phenoxyethanol; and

(2) FIG. 2 is a graph depicting absorbance as a function of wave number for Horizontal Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infra Red Spectroscopy results of two samples containing levulinic acid and benzyl alcohol.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

(3) In a preferred embodiment, the invention is a chemically and physically stable solution of levulinic acid, benzoic acid, and sorbic acid or the respective salts of these organic acids, which is effective as an antimicrobial against bacteria and fungi. Examples of the salts of these organic acids include sodium levulinate, calcium levulinate, magnesium levulinate, sodium benzoate, calcium benzoate, magnesium benzoate, calcium sorbate, sodium sorbate, and potassium sorbate. Levulinic acid (also known as 4-oxopentanoic acid) is somewhat unusual among organic acids in that it is has greater efficacy against bacteria than against fungi. In contrast, most organic acids are primarily effective against fungi.

(4) To create a new and improved composition that is effective against a broad spectrum of microbes, the present invention utilizes levulinic acid combined with benzoic acid and sorbic acid. Surprisingly, the addition of small amounts of sorbic acid to levulinic acid and benzoic acid results in greatly improved antibacterial efficacy, even at significantly lower levels of levulinic acid. Improvement in antibacterial efficacy is demonstrated below in Tables 4 and 6 of the Examples. Table 10 below reports an improvement in Minimum Inhibitory Concentration against bacteria and fungi that is associated with a greater proportion of sorbic acid in certain mixtures of levulinic acid, benzoic acid and sorbic acid.

(5) For the present purposes, “personal care and cosmetic products” means products adapted for use in hair care, skin care, oral care, toiletries, deodorants, grooming, sun care, baby care, color cosmetics, and wet wipes.

(6) In order to be accepted by the personal care and cosmetic industries, a broad spectrum preservative blend must be chemically and physically stable, as well as biologically active. Earlier researchers reported that levulinic acid decomposes in the presence of water and certain alcohols. Shu, C.-K.; Lawrence, B. M., Formation of 4-alkoxy-γ-valerolactones from levulinic acid and alcohols during storage at room temperature, J. Agric. Food Chem., 1995, 43, 3, 782-784.

(7) The inventors were pleasantly surprised to discover that some aromatic alcohols, such as phenyl propanol, benzyl alcohol and phenoxyethanol, are stable in the presence of levulinic acid. This is an important discovery, because stable solvent systems broaden the range over which levulinic acid—benzoic acid—sorbic acid solutions may be formulated into a stable liquid solution. With this flexibility, the antimicrobial composition of the invention is useful as a preservative for a wider range of personal care product such as shampoos, wet wipes, body lotions and other applications. The data in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 indicates that mixtures of levulinic acid with phenoxyethanol and phenylpropanol, respectively, are sufficiently stable.

(8) Examples of specific cosmetic and personal care end-use formulations which can be protected by the invention include shampoos, conditioners, styling gels, body creams and lotions, anti-aging & anti-wrinkle creams, anti-cellulite creams, intimate care products, personal lubricants, self-tanning products, whitening products, facial mask (peel off), body wash, shower scrubs, liquid hand soap, bar soap, lip gloss, lip stick, toothpaste, mouth wash, perfumes, deodorants, antiperspirants, shaving creams and gels, talcum powder, sun screens, nail polish, press powders, eye and facial makeup, baby wipes, makeup removal wipes, facial mask (pre-moistened nonwoven), personal cleansing wipes, pre-moistened toilet wipes, and massage products, among others.

(9) Compositions of the invention may be adapted for inclusion in specific end-use formulations by, for example, mixing or dispersing the active ingredients in selected proportions with a liquid vehicle, provided that the vehicle does not materially affect the antimicrobial efficacy of the compositions.

(10) The vehicle may contain for example, a diluent, an emulsifier, an anti-foam agent, or a wetting-agent; provided that the diluent, the emulsifier, the anti-foam agent, and the wetting-agent do not materially affect the three-component antimicrobial efficacy of the compositions. The compositions of the invention may be provided in liquid mixtures such as dispersions, emulsions, microemulsions, or any other suitable form, provided that additional material which is present in a composition does not materially affect the antimicrobial efficacy of the inventive composition.

(11) End-use formulations for specific applications, may include the inventive composition and, additionally, conventional adjuvants such as surfactants, cleansing agents, and emulsifiers; humectants such as polyols like glycerin and natural moisturizing factors like xylitol and amino acids; emollients such as vegetable oils, natural butters, and waxes; occlusive agents such as silicones, and petrolatum; rheology modifiers such as carbomers, polyacrylates, gums, clays and hydroxyethylcellulose; additional preservatives such as isothiazolinones and parabens; chelating agents such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and pentasodium triphosphate; active ingredients such as chamomile, glycolic acid, and Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA); and the like, provided that the adjuvants do not materially affect the antimicrobial efficacy of the inventive composition.

(12) Treating personal care or cosmetic formulations with a composition of the invention can protect them from microbial attack. The protective treatment may involve mixing the composition with other components of the formulation at any step during production, but the composition is most often mixed into the formulation once it is completed or nearly completed. The method includes treating the personal care or cosmetic formulation with an antimicrobially effective amount of a composition that includes levulinic acid, benzoic acid, and sorbic acids or their respective salts.

(13) The following examples are presented to explain the invention, and are not intended to limit the scope of invention in any way. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to parts and percentages are based on weight.

EXAMPLES

Example 1

Challenge Test Method for Quantifying Antibacterial Effectiveness

(14) In order to quantify the relative antibacterial effectiveness of antimicrobial compositions, samples are prepared by adding known amounts of the compositions to identical volumes of a sterile, preservative-free test material. The test material may be, for example, a shampoo or a body cream. Each of the samples is subjected to the challenge test method and a Bacterial Performance Rating (“BPR”) is assigned to each sample based on observations of its bacterial growth under carefully controlled conditions.

(15) Each of the samples is inoculated with a mixed bacterial inoculum as the contamination event. The bacteria in the mixed inoculum are Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC #10145), Escherichia coli (ATCC #11229), Enterobacter aerogenes (ATCC #13048), Alcaligenes faecalis (ATCC #25094), and Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538).

(16) The antibacterial challenge includes a 168 hour growth cycle, measured from a first contamination in which mixed inoculum is stirred into each of the test samples. The test samples are maintained at room temperature for 48 hours, portions of the test samples are streaked on agar plates, and the samples are again contaminated. The test samples are streaked again at 96 hours, and streaked again at 168 hours.

(17) Antibacterial protection is rated by the level of bacterial growth observed on the agar plate streaked at 168 hours. Even if a sample exhibits more or less bacterial growth earlier in the growth cycle, it is the final reading at the end of seven test days that determines BPR for the sample.

(18) Performance ratings of 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 for each test sample are determined by visual inspection of the final agar plate according to the definitions set forth below in Table 1.

(19) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Bacterial Performance Rating (BPR) Definition 0 No bacterial growth 1 1-10 Colonies 2 10-100 Colonies 3 100-1000 Colonies 4 >1,000 Colonies

Example 2

Challenge Method for Quantifying Antifungal Effectiveness

(20) In order to quantify the relative antifungal effectiveness of antimicrobial compositions, samples are prepared by adding known amounts of the compositions to identical volumes of a sterile, preservative-free test material. The test material may be, for example, a shampoo or a body cream. Each of the samples is subjected to the challenge test method and a Fungal Performance Rating (“FPR”) is assigned to each sample based on observations of its fungal growth under carefully controlled conditions.

(21) Each of the samples is inoculated with a mixed fungal inoculum as the contamination event. The fungi in the mixed inoculum are Aspergillus niger (ATCC #6275) and Penicillium sp. (ATCC #12667). The antifungal challenge includes a 168 hour growth cycle, measured from a first contamination in which mixed inoculum is stirred into each of the test samples. The test samples are maintained at room temperature for 48 hours, portions of the test samples are streaked on agar plates, and the samples are again contaminated. The test samples are streaked again at 96 hours, and streaked again at 168 hours.

(22) Antifungal protection is rated by the level of fungal growth observed on the agar plate streaked at 168 hours. Even if a sample exhibits more or less fungal growth earlier in the growth cycle, it is the final reading at the end of seven test days that determines FPR for the sample.

(23) Performance ratings of 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 for each test sample are determined by visual inspection of the final agar plate according to the definitions set forth below in Table 2.

(24) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Fungal Performance Rating (BPR) Definition 0 No fungal growth 1 1-10 Colonies 2 10-100 Colonies 3 100-1,000 Colonies 4 >1,000 Colonies

Example 3

Antimicrobial Performance in Shampoo

(25) The Antibacterial Challenge Method described above in Example 1 and the Antifungal Challenge Method described above in Example 2 are performed on shampoo samples which include no preservative and on otherwise identical shampoo samples which include known amounts of levulinic acid, benzoic acid, and/or sorbic acid. In all cases, the shampoo formulations are adjusted to 5.5 pH by addition of sodium hydroxide. The shampoo samples which include no preservative have the composition presented below in Table 3.

(26) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Composition of Shampoo without Preservative Component INCI Name weight percent Water Water 82.50 Stepanol WA-Extra Sodium lauryl sulfate 7.50 HP Steol CS270 (70%) Sodium Laureth Sulphate 7.50 Ninol COMF-N Cocamide Monoethanol Amine 2.50

(27) Challenge results for shampoo formulations controlled at pH 5.5 are reported in below in Table 4.

(28) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Bacterial and Fungal Performance Ratings for Shampoo Formulations Preservative Bactericidal Performance Rating Fungicidal Performance Rating LA:BA:SA Use Level (BPR) (FBR) Trial No. weight ratio (percent) 48 hours 96 hours 168 hours 48 hours 96 hours 168 hours 1 0:0:0 Control 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 85:15:0 0.40 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 85:15:0 0.60 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 85:15:0 0.80 1 1 0 2 2 2 5 85:15:0 1.00 1 0 0 2 1 1 6 80:15:5 0.40 2 1 0 4 3 3 7 80:15:5 0.60 0 0 0 2 2 2 8 80:15:5 0.80 0 0 0 2 1 1 9 80:15:5 1.00 0 0 0 1 1 1 Legend: LA means Levulinic Acid. BA means Benzoic Acid. SA means Sorbic Acid. BPR means Bacterial Performance Rating (described in Table 1 above). FPR means Fungal Performance Rating (described in Table 2 above).

(29) The data in Table 4 demonstrates that sorbic acid surprisingly reduces the amount of levulinic acid required for bacterial control in shampoo formulations controlled at pH 5.5.

(30) Additionally, the data in Table 4 indicates that a mixture containing 80 percent levulinic acid, 15 percent benzoic acid, and 5 percent sorbic acid protects shampoo formulations controlled at pH 5.5 against bacterial growth after seven days of exposure to contamination at use levels as low as 0.4 percent. These use levels compare favorably to the use level of 0.8 percent which was required when sorbic acid was not included.

Example 4

Antimicrobial Performance of in Body Cream

(31) The Antibacterial Challenge Method described above in Example 1 and the Antifungal Challenge Method described above in Example 2 are performed on body cream samples which include no preservative and on otherwise identical body cream samples which include known amounts of levulinic acid, benzoic acid, and/or sorbic acid. In all cases, the body cream formulations are adjusted to 5.5 pH by addition of sodium hydroxide. The body cream samples which include no preservative have the composition presented below in Table 5.

(32) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Composition of Body Cream With No Preservative weight Component INCI Name percent Water Water 74.88 Carbopol Ultrez 20 Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate 0.30 Polymer Crosspolymer Glycerine Glycerine 3.00 Schecemol 1818 Isostearyl Isostearate 7.00 Sheasoft Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea Butter) 2.00 Grapeseed Oil Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Seed Oil 5.00 Glucamate SSE-20 Peg-20 Methyl Glucose Sesquistearate 2.50 Glucate SS Methyl Glucose Sesquistearate 0.80 Hallstar TA-1618 Cetearyl Alcohol 1.50

(33) Challenge results for body cream formulations controlled at pH 5.5 are reported in below in Table 6.

(34) TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Comparison of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Body Cream Formulations Preservative Bactericidal Performance Rating Fungicidal Performance Rating LA:BA:SA Use Level (BPR) (FPR) Trial No. weight ratio (percent) 48 hours 96 hours 168 hours 48 hours 96 hours 168 hours 1 0:0:0 Control 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 85:15:0 0.40 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 85:15:0 0.60 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 85:15:0 0.80 3 2 1 4 3 3 5 85:15:0 1.00 2 2 0 4 3 2 6 80:15:5 0.40 2 2 2 4 4 2 7 80:15:5 0.60 2 1 0 4 3 2 8 80:15:5 0.80 1 1 0 3 2 2 9 80:15:5 1.00 1 0 0 3 2 1 Legend: LA means Levulinic Acid. BA means Benzoic Acid. SA means Sorbic Acid. BPR means Bacterial Performance Rating (described in Table 1). FPR means Fungal Performance Rating (described in Table 2).

(35) The data in Table 6 demonstrates that sorbic acid surprisingly reduces the amount of levulinic acid required for bacterial control in body cream formulations controlled at pH 5.5.

(36) Additionally, the data in Table 6 indicates that a mixture containing 80 percent levulinic acid, 15 percent benzoic acid, and 5 percent sorbic acid protects body cream against bacterial growth after seven days of exposure to contamination at use levels as low as 0.6 percent. These use levels compare favorably to the use levels when required when sorbic acid was not included.

Example 5

Efficacy of Levulinic Acid, Benzoic Acid, and Sorbic Mixtures Acid above 4.5 pH when Combined with Phenylpropanol

(37) As noted above, most organic acids exhibit their greatest antimicrobial efficacy at pH of 4.5 or less and suffer a significant loss of efficacy as pH increases to 5.0 and above. While conventional organic acid mixtures are acceptable for many personal care and cosmetic products, there are a number of applications which require a relatively high preservative efficacy at 5.0 pH and above. The inventors were surprised to discover that addition of phenylpropanol to a mixture of levulinic, acid, sorbic acid, and benzoic acid resulted in a significant increase in antimicrobial efficacy at pH greater than 4.5.

(38) The data below in Table 7 demonstrates a pH-related antimicrobial efficacy improvement against both bacteria and fungi. The challenge bacteria were a combination of Alcaligenes faecalis (ATCC #25094), Enterobacter aerogenes (ATCC #13048), Escherichia coli (ATCC #11229), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC #10145). The challenge fungi were Aspergillus niger (ATCC #6275) and Penicillium sp. (ATCC #12667).

(39) Samples No. 4 through 15 contained Preservative A, which is a mixture of levulinic acid, benzoic acid, and sorbic acid. The efficacies exhibited by Preservative A at pH levels 4.5, 5.5, and 6.5 and at use levels of 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 percent are presented in Table 7.

(40) The efficacies exhibited at these same conditions by Samples No. 16 through 27 contained Preservative B; which is a mixture of phenylpropanol, levulinic acid, benzoic acid, and sorbic acid; are also presented below in Table 7.

(41) TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Augmented Efficacy in Wet Wipes above 4.5 pH (Phenylpropanol) Bacteria Fungi 2 4 7 14 2 4 7 14 Sample No. pH Preservative Use Level days days days days days days days days 1 4.5 None None 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 5.5 None None 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 6.5 None None 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.5 A# 0.40% 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 5 4.5 A 0.60% 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 6 4.5 A 0.80% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 4.5 A 1.00% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 5A A 0.40% 3 2 1 0 4 4 3 3 9 5.5 A 0.60% 3 3 1 0 4 4 3 3 10 5.5 A 0.80% 3 2 0 0 3 3 3 2 11 5.5 A 1.00% 3 3 1 0 4 4 3 2 12 6.5 A 0.40% 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 13 6.5 A 0.60% 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 14 6.5 A 0.80% 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 15 6.5 A 1.00% 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 16 4.5 B{circumflex over ( )} 0.40% 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 17 4.5 B 0.60% 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 18 4.5 B 0.80% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 19 4.5 B 1.00% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 5.5 B 0.40% 1 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 21 5.5 B 0.60% 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 22 5.5 B 0.80% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 23 5.5 B 1.00% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 24 6.5 B 0.40% 4 1 0 0 3 2 1 1 25 6.5 B 0.60% 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 26 6.5 B 0.80% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 27 6.5 B 1.00% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Legend: #Preservative A includes 40% levulinic acid, 5% sorbic acid, and 15% benzoic acid. {circumflex over ( )}Preservative B includes 40% levulinic acid, 5% sorbic acid, 15% benzoic acid and 40% phenylpropanol

(42) The data in Table 7 indicate that Preservative A and Preservative B performed similarly at pH 4.5, a level of acidity at which conventional organic acids are highly effective. As the pH increased to 5.5 and 6.5, the antimicrobial performance of the two systems diverged significantly, with Preservative B (containing phenylpropanol) continuing to show excellent microefficacy against both bacteria and fungi at the higher pH. This is a surprising result considering that phenylpropanol is usually employed to inhibit bacteria, rather than fungi. Also, the lowest use levels reported for Preservative B in Table 7 (specifically, 0.4%) correspond to a relatively low concentration of phenylpropanol that would not be expected to contribute significantly to antibacterial efficacy or antifungal efficacy.

(43) The data in Table 7 demonstrates that phenylpropanol extended the effective pH range of an organic acid preservative mixture for preserving wet wipes.

Example 6

Efficacy of Levulinic Acid, Benzoic Acid, and Sorbic Mixtures Acid above 4.5 pH when Combined with Phenoxyethanol

(44) The inventors have discovered that the presence of phenoxyethanol, when present in a mixture of levulinic acid, sorbic acid, and benzoic alcohol, produces a significant increase in antimicrobial efficacy at pH greater than 4.5.

(45) Data presented below in Table 8 below demonstrates a pH-related efficacy improvement observed in wet wipes when organic acids were augmented by phenoxyethanol. Samples No. 4 through 15, containing Preservative A, were described above with regard to Table 7 as being a mixture of levulinic acid, benzoic acid, and sorbic acid. The efficacies of Preservative A at pH levels of 4.5, 5.5, and 6.5 and at use levels of 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 percent against bacteria and fungi are again presented in Table 8 for ease of comparison. Samples No. 1 through 3 were control samples that contained no preservatives.

(46) The benefits of augmentation with phenoxyethanol are apparent in Samples No. 28 through 39 (“Preservative C”), which is a mixture of phenoxyethanol, levulinic acid, benzoic acid, and sorbic acid. The efficacies exhibited by Preservative C at pH levels of 4.5, 5.5, and 6.5 and at use levels of 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 percent against bacteria and fungi are also presented below in Table 8.

(47) TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Augmented Efficacy in Wet Wipes above 4.5 pH (Phenoxyethanol) Bacteria Fungi 2 4 7 14 2 4 7 14 Sample No. pH Preservative Use Level days days days days days days days days 1 4.5 None None 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 5.5 None None 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 6.5 None None 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.5 A# 0.40% 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 5 4.5 A 0.60% 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 6 4.5 A 0.80% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 4.5 A 1.00% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 5A A 0.40% 3 2 1 0 4 4 3 3 9 5.5 A 0.60% 3 3 1 0 4 4 3 3 10 5.5 A 0.80% 3 2 0 0 3 3 3 2 11 5.5 A 1.00% 3 3 1 0 4 4 3 2 12 6.5 A 0.40% 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 13 6.5 A 0.60% 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 14 6.5 A 0.80% 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 15 6.5 A 1.00% 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 28 4.5 C= 0.40% 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 29 4.5 C 0.60% 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 30 4.5 C 0.80% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 31 4.5 C 1.00% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 32 5.5 C 0.40% 1 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 33 5.5 C 0.60% 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 34 5.5 C 0.80% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 35 5.5 C 1.00% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 36 6.5 C 0.40% 4 1 0 0 3 2 1 1 37 6.5 C 0.60% 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 38 6.5 C 0.80% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 39 6.5 C 1.00% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Legend: #Preservative A includes 40% levulinic acid, 5% sorbic acid, and 15% benzoic acid. =Preservative C includes 40% levulinic acid, 5% sorbic acid, 15% benzoic acid, and 40% Phenoxyethanol.

(48) The data in Table 8 indicate that Preservative A and Preservative C perform similarly at pH 4.5. As the pH was increased to 5.5 and 6.5, the antimicrobial performance of the two systems diverged significantly, with Preservative C (containing phenoxyethanol) exhibiting excellent efficacy against both bacteria and fungi at the higher pH. This is a surprising result considering that phenoxyethanol is usually employed against bacteria, rather than fungi. Also, the lowest use levels reported for Preservative C in Table 8 (specifically, 0.4%) correspond to a relatively low concentration of phenoxyethanol that would not be expected to contribute significantly to antibacterial efficacy or antifungal efficacy.

(49) The data in Table 8 demonstrates that phenoxyethanol extended the effective pH range of an organic acid preservative mixture for preserving wet wipes.

Example 7

Stability of Levulinic Acid and Phenoxyethanol Mixture

(50) In order to demonstrate that a mixture of levulinic acid and phenoxyethanol is sufficiently stable for use in the Personal care industry, an equal parts mixture of levulinic acid and phenoxyethanol was prepared at room temperature and a portion of the mixture was immediately analyzed by Horizontal Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infra Red Spectroscopy (also known as HATR-FTIR). The immediate results are depicted by a solid-line trace in FIG. 1 which presents absorbance (dimensionless) as a function of wave number (1/cm).

(51) Another portion of the mixture was stored at 50 degrees C. for seven days and then analyzed by HATR-FTIR. The seven day results are depicted as a dashed-line trace in FIG. 1 which presents absorbance as a function of wave number.

(52) Inspection of FIG. 1 reveals no significant difference between the immediate, room temperature sample and the seven day, 50 degree C. sample. Based on these results, the mixture of levulinic acid and phenoxyethanol is sufficiently stable for commercial.

Example 8

Stability of Levulinic Acid and Benzyl Alcohol Mixture

(53) In order to demonstrate that a mixture of levulinic acid and benzyl alcohol is sufficiently stable for use in the Personal Care industry, an equal parts mixture of levulinic acid and benzyl alcohol was prepared at room temperature and a portion of the mixture was immediately analyzed by Horizontal Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infra Red Spectroscopy (also known as HATR-FTIR). The immediate results are depicted by a solid-line trace in FIG. 1, which presents absorbance (dimensionless) as a function of wave number (1/cm).

(54) Another portion of the mixture was stored at 50 degrees C. for seven days and then analyzed by HATR-FTIR. The seven day results are depicted as a dashed-line trace in FIG. 2, which depicts absorbance as a function of wave number.

(55) Inspection of FIG. 2 reveals no significant or measurable difference between the immediate, room temperature sample and the seven day, 50 degree C. sample. Based on these results, the mixture of levulinic acid and benzyl alcohol is sufficiently stable for use in the Personal Care industry.

Example 9

MIC of Levulinic Acid, Benzoic Acid, and Sorbic Acid Mixtures against Bacteria

(56) Microdilution plates having wells of 200 microliter capacity, and the materials in Table 9 are used to determine Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (“MIC”) of two preservative compositions of the invention and of one comparison composition against the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus.

(57) TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Materials 2X Nutrient Broth adjusted to pH 5.0 Sterile water at pH 5.5 50% solution of Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)  4% dilution stock solution 96-well microdilution plates Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 9027) Escherichia coli (ATCC 8739) Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538)

(58) Each of the three compositions is diluted with sterile water to 4.0% and adjusted to 5.0 pH with 50% aqueous sodium hydroxide to produce three 4% working stock solutions. Each of three bacterial inoculums is diluted with sterile water to produce three working cultures of 5.0×104 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL). Thirty-two of the wells are charged with 100 microliters of sterile water and 100 microliters of the 4% working stock used in serial two fold dilution to obtain 2.0%, 1.0% and 0.5% and 0.25% concentration test wells in eight replicates.

(59) Other wells are utilized as controls. Negative controls consist of water mixed with 4% solution. Quality controls consist of sterile buffered water with 4% working stock solution. Positive controls consist of nutrient broth with one of the bacteria. After inoculation and before incubation, the working culture is used to perform a colony count check of growth in Trypticase Soy Agar.

(60) TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 9 MIC against bacteria for Levulinic Acid, Benzoic Acid, and Sorbic Acid mixtures Minimum Inhibitory Concentration* (percent) Trial LA:BA:SbA Pseudomonas Escherichia Staphylococcus No. weight ratio aeruginosa coli aureus 1 85:15:0   0.5 2.0 2.0 2 85:12:2.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 3 85:10:5.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 Legend: *Each reported Minimum Inhibitory Concentration is the mean average value of eight replications LA means levulinic acid. BA means boric acid. SA means sorbic acid.

(61) The data in Table 10 indicates that two mixtures of the invention, which contain 85% percent levulinic acid with the balance being benzoic acid and sorbic acid, exhibit a lesser MIC against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus than is exhibited by a binary solution not of the invention consisting of 85% levulinic acid and 15% benzoic acid. No decrease in MIC is observed against Pseudomonas aeruginosa over this range.

(62) The above Examples are provided to better communicate the invention and are not intended to limit the invention in any way. The invention is defined solely by the claims.