Design Space Approach for Preservative System Optimization of an Anti-Aging Eye Fluid Emulsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of preservatives must be optimized in order to ensure the efficacy of an antimicrobial system as well as the product safety. Despite the wide variety of preservatives, the synergistic or antagonistic effects of their combinations are not well established and it is still an issue in the development of pharmaceutical and cosmetic products. The purpose of this paper was to establish a space design using a simplex-centroid approach to achieve the lowest effective concentration of 3 preservatives (methylparaben, propylparaben, and imidazolidinyl urea) and EDTA for an emulsion cosmetic product. Twenty-two formulae of emulsion differing only by imidazolidinyl urea (A: 0.00 to 0.30% w/w), methylparaben (B: 0.00 to 0.20% w/w), propylparaben (C: 0.00 to 0.10% w/w) and EDTA (D: 0.00 to 0.10% w/w) concentrations were prepared. They were tested alone and in binary, ternary and quaternary combinations. Aliquots of these formulae were inoculated with several microorganisms. An electrochemical method was used to determine microbial burden immediately after inoculation and after 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 168 h. An optimization strategy was used to obtain the concentrations of preservatives and EDTA resulting in a most effective preservative system of all microorganisms simultaneously. The use of preservatives and EDTA in combination has the advantage of exhibiting a potential synergistic effect against a wider spectrum of microorganisms. Based on graphic and optimization strategies, we proposed a new formula containing a quaternary combination (A: 55%; B: 30%; C: 5% and D: 10% w/w), which complies with the specification of a conventional challenge test. A design space approach was successfully employed in the optimization of concentrations of preservatives and EDTA in an emulsion cosmetic product.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".