Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Microbial contamination and preservative capacity of some brands of cosmetic creams

Peter G Hugbo, Anthony O Onyekweli, Ijoma . Igwe

Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria;

For correspondence:-  Ijoma Igwe   Email:

Published: 17 December 2003

Citation: Hugbo PG, Onyekweli AO, Igwe I.. Microbial contamination and preservative capacity of some brands of cosmetic creams. Trop J Pharm Res 2003; 2(2):229-234 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v2i2.6

© 2003 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose:  Cosmetic  and  topical  products  need  not  be  sterile  but  may  contain  low  levels  of microbial  load  during  use.  This  study was  conducted  to  determine  and  compare  the  level  and type  of  microbial  contaminants  in  commercial  cosmetic  products  sold  in  the  market  and  a laboratory prepared aqueous cream and their preservative capacities while in use.
Methods:  Ten  brands  of  commercially  available  cosmetic  creams  and  lotions  were  randomly purchased  from  the  open  markets  in  Benin  City.  Aqueous  Cream  was  also  prepared.  Their bacterial  and  fungal  loads  as  well  as  types  were  evaluated.  Preservative  capacity  was evaluated  by  challenging  the  creams  and  lotions  with  washed  and  characterized  isolates  of Staph.  aureus  and  viable  counting  was  performed  by  the  surface  viable  method.  The prepared aqueous cream was similarly challenged with the test organism.  
Results:  All  the  products  were  contaminated  to  varying  degrees.  Staphylococci  and  other gram-positive  cocci  were  the  most  preponderant;  gram-negative  isolates  were  hardly  found. Fungal  contaminants  consisted  largely  of  Asp.  fumigatus,  Penicillium  and  Microsporium species. Challenge test (re-infection) with Staph. aureus revealed the commercial products as having low capacity for suppressing bacterial proliferation such as may be encountered during in – use contamination. 
Conclusion:  Commercial  cosmetic  creams  and  lotions  evaluated  did  not  generally  meet  the standards  for  microbial  limits  as  specified  in  official  monographs.  Such  products  can adversely affect health status of consumers as well as the stability profiles of the products.

Keywords: Commercial products; cosmetic creams; cosmetic lotions; microbial contamination.

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.523 (2021)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 39 (2021)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates