Conventional vs.

Natural Preservatives
Green aspirations must be tempered with practical realities—an environmentally prefer-
able product is not a success if the formulation falls apart or is overrun with potentially
pathogenic microorganisms due to the lack of an effective preservative

Beth Ann Browne Phil Geis Tony Rook • CSPA Preservative Defense Task Force
Dow Microbial Control AdvancedTesting Laboratories The Sherwin-Williams Company

T
he microbiological quality of commercial products is compatibility, regulatory compliance, safety, cost, and sup-
among the most important elements of product quality. ply security. A summary of the points of difference between
Nevertheless, it is an element that has not demanded a conventional preservatives, organic acids and essential oils is
hyper-vigilant focus due to the compositions of consumer and shown in Table 1 (p. 78).
industrial products that have prevailed during the past several Consumer and industrial product manufacturers face enor-
decades. The use of a conventional chemical preservative along mous pressure to offer effective and innovative products at
with some innate capacity of the formulation to resist spoilage an economical price. Concurrently, consumers and environ-
(due to the high level of solvents and low water content), was mental groups are demanding that products be more “envi-
previously sufficient to protect the product during manufactur- ronmentally-preferable” in addition to maintaining the same
ing and throughout its lifetime of use by the consumer. However, standard of effectiveness at the lowest possible price. With rel-
modern product formulations with eco-compliant ingredients are evant changes such as reduced volatile organic content (VOC),
under increased pressure by ecolabeling organizations1,2 to aban- elimination of heavy metals and replacement of solvents with
don the use of conventional preservatives in favor of alternative water, products may be perceived as more “green,” but the very
substances that are seen by various groups to be more “natural.” real consequence of increased microbial susceptibility must be
Examples of these substances include organic acids, such acknowledged. The removal of ingredients, which once cre-
as citric, lactic, sorbic and benzoic, as well as essential oils and ated an inhospitable environment for bacteria and fungi, has
plant extracts, including a significant impact on
thyme and rosemary oils.  product quality. The ma-
The pursuit of environ- jority of consumer and in-
mental responsibility is to dustrial products ranging
be praised, but there re- from architectural paint to
mains a difference between household cleaners to fab-
a reactive sustainability ric softeners to dishwash-
strategy that merely re- ing liquids are now highly
acts to these market trends susceptible to microbial
and a workable practice spoilage. Ineffective pres-
for the effective preserva- ervation of these products
tion of consumer and in- and the raw materials used
dustrial products. Organic to produce them can have
acids and essential oils detrimental results includ-
are not currently suitable ing significant changes in
direct replacements for viscosity, pH drift, color
conventional preserva- change and foul odor, all
tives for a variety of rea- of which can occur while
sons including microbial destroying the perfor-
efficacy profiles, product Household cleaning products demand effective preservation systems. mance of the product.4    

May 2012 happi.com happi • 69

 CONVENTIONAL VS. NATURAL PRESERVATIVES

Microbial Efficacy
It is important to specify the positive attributes of convention-
al preservatives to understand the practical challenges facing
natural preservative alternatives. Preservatives are often re-
ferred to as biocides, and biocides are by definition toxic and
usually lethal to bacteria and fungi. A non-toxic alternative,
that is still effective in controlling a broad spectrum of micro- Rosemary oil
organisms, may at best be deemed an unrealistic expectation. is not a direct
A successful preservative must be broadly effective against replacement
a variety of bacterial and fungal (including molds and yeasts) for traditional
species, or alternatively a combination of an effective bacte- preservatives.
ricide and an effective fungicide may be used. Consumer and
industrial product formulations with a pH range of 2 to12
can be susceptible to both bacteria and fungi. To the extent Factors to Consider
that organic acids are effective, their effectiveness is limited Manufacturing conditions and product compatibility factors
within a pH range of 2 to 6 and primarily against fungi and must be considered when comparing conventional preservatives
a subset of bacteria. If organic acids were the only preserva- to natural alternatives. Some manufacturers require the use of
tives permitted for use in consumer and industrial products, a rapid-acting biocide for the decontamination of products, raw
a large gap would exist for products with neutral and alkaline materials, and equipment in order to ensure product quality. If a
pH, such as laundry detergents and household cleaners, and point is reached when only natural alternatives may be used in
those subject to the more common spoilage bacteria such as consumer and industrial products, the ability to use a rapid-acting
the Pseudomonads. biocide will be eliminated. Interestingly, the use of rapid-acting
biocides is viewed as environmentally and
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF PRESERVATIVES FOR HOUSEHOLD fiscally responsible by preventing disposal
AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT APPLICATIONS of large volumes of finished products and
raw materials that are contaminated with
Preservative Type
microorganisms. The reduction of biobur-
Criteria den resulting from the use of rapid-acting
Conventional Organic acids Plant Extracts/Oils biocides also reduces the stress on a long-
term preservative. It also potentially low-
Effective use levels
Less than 0.1% 1-10% 10-20% ers the amount of long-term preservative
against microorganisms
required to effectively protect the product
Antimicrobial range Bacteria and fungi Fungi, some bacteria Fungi, some bacteria
from spoilage. 
Beyond preserving consumer and indus-
trial products, biocides must be compatible
Range of efficacy - pH Broad (pH 2 to 12) Acidic (pH 2 to 6) Acidic (pH 2 to 6)
with other ingredients in the formulations.
Fortunately, conventional biocides are usu-
FIFRA status Compliant Some are compliant Non-compliant ally added at less than 0.1% active ingredi-
ent, and compatibility issues are infrequent.
Toxicological data Expansive Moderate None In contrast, non-traditional (natural alter-
native) preservatives are typically used at
Safety
Established
GRAS3 Unknown
concentrations greater than 1% to achieve
per US EPA antimicrobial efficacy and they may signifi-
cantly alter other properties of formulations
Commercial source Established Established None
such as viscosity, odor, color, pH and prod-
uct performance. For example, in a com-
Commercial
Supply Commercial quantities Not established parison study,5 a household cleaner at pH
quantities
10 required 1.0% of an organic acid for ef-
Range of formulations
Broad Limited Unknown fective antibacterial efficacy which reduced
that can be preserved
the cleaner’s pH to 7.5. This pH shift would
Compatibility with Infrequent pH shift, viscosity pH shift, viscosity alter the product performance to the point of
product formulations compatibility issues changes changes, odor being an ineffective cleaner. A conventional

70 • happi happi.com May 2012

 CONVENTIONAL VS. NATURAL PRESERVATIVES
The majority of consumer and
industrial products are now highly
susceptible to microbial spoilage.
preservative at 0.05% (one
twentieth the amount of
the organic acid) provided
the same level of antibacte-
rial efficacy without alter-
ing the pH of the cleaner.5
To achieve potentially the
same level of efficacy, organic acids and essential oils are gener-
ally required at concentrations of 20 to 50 times and 20 to 200
times greater than the conventional biocides, respectively.5
Sustainable Supply
The global commercial supply for conventional biocides is well
established. However, preservatives containing organic acids or
essential oils are typically used in small niche product applica-
tions due to limited efficacy and therefore are only sold in small
volumes (when compared to conventional biocides). A drastic
shift to preservatives from agricultural sourcing will not satisfy
even a portion of the consumer and industrial markets whose
products are made continuously in tens to hundreds of tons per
batch. This will require significantly increased percentage levels
of natural alternatives for effective preservation.
Even if expanded agricultural production of natural preser-
vatives could be accomplished to satisfy a limited portion of the
consumer and industrial product demand, there would be sub-
stantial environmental, social and sustainability impacts.6 The
authors are currently unaware of existing relevant assessments
of these impacts. Additionally, the natural preservative supply
would likely be variable,7,8 from crop to crop, and rigorous anal-
ysis would be required to determine a consistent active ingredi-
ent level from one supply to the next to prevent overdosing or
underdosing of a preservative.               ficacy but also to ensure adequate protection of human health,
Regulatory Compliance
Perhaps the most significant points for this discussion are the
regulatory compliance and data reporting requirements for US
EPA registration of preservatives for consumer and industrial
products. Each preservative used within these products requires
EPA registration as an antimicrobial pesticide under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) first enacted in
1947 and amended in 1996 (7 U.S.C § 136 et seq.). The EPA
states, “All pesticides distributed and sold in the United States
must be registered by the EPA based on scientific data showing
that they will not cause unreasonable risks to human health,
worker, or the environment when used as directed on product
labeling.”9 To obtain a registration for a preservative, the preser-
vative supplier must generate an extensive data package includ-
ing toxicology, environmental fate, exposure, product chemistry
72 • happi happi.com May 2012
and efficacy studies. The EPA evaluates the data and conducts
risk assessments. Costs associated with the registration process
and data generation can reach $10 million for a new preser-
vative product containing a new active ingredient. A US EPA-
approved preservative product label is a company’s license to
sell the product, and the label includes specific application areas
as well as usage levels.                                                 
EPA-registered products are subject to periodic reviews by
the Agency, which may result in additional data requirements
for the registrant. Suppliers of non-traditional/natural preser-
vative alternatives claiming to control bacteria and/or fungi
in a consumer or industrial product that have not obtained
a FIFRA registration are in violation of Federal law, unless
these natural alternatives qualify as Minimum Risk Pesticides
per the criteria for FIFRA 25(b) Exemption.10  Product manu-
facturers that use non-FIFRA-registered ingredients as pre-
servatives within their products, would also be considered
non-compliant with Federal law. Currently, only a fraction of
FIFRA-registered products contain organic acids or essential
oils as the active ingredients.11 All natural products cannot
be considered de facto “safe” because some of these materials
have been shown to elicit allergic reactions in humans which
may be amplified at the high use levels of 1 to 10% required for
sufficient antimicrobial performance.12
The Big Picture
The evolution of consumer and industrial product formulations
with an increased focus on human and environmental health
is a noble effort that is supported by the authors. However,
green aspirations must be tempered with practical realities—an
environmentally preferable product is not a success if the for-
mulation falls apart or is overrun with potentially pathogenic
microorganisms due to the lack of an effective preservative.
Current registered preservatives have been thoroughly tested
with rigorous regulatory demands not only as to product ef-
proper use and handling, and appropriate consideration of
environmental fate. It is not evident that products generally
presumed to be more environmentally-preferable would be re-
garded as such if put to the same scrutiny as a US EPA regis-
tered pesticide. The reality today is there are very few effective
preservative materials available for formulators to use.      
According to some product manufacturers, an eco-label symbol
on a product package is required to be competitive in some consum-
er markets. Conventional biocides are added to final formulations at
less than 0.1% (often 0.0015% to 0.05%) active ingredient, yet eco-
label groups judge preservatives by the same criteria as components
that are added at significantly higher concentrations, some as high
as 60%. These organizations or ecolabels would be restricting certi-
fication to product formulations that are compatible with preserva-
tion with organic acids or essential oils, or to neutral or alkaline pH
products that are inherently resistant to microbial spoilage. 
 CONVENTIONAL VS. NATURAL PRESERVATIVES

CSPA PRESERVATIVE DEFENSE TASK FORCE 10.  US EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Flower and Vegetable
Oils. EPA 738-R-93-031. Dec 1993.
•The CSPA Microbiology/Preservation Subcommittee is commit- 11.  US EPA Minimum Risk Pesticides – Criteria for FIFRA 25(b) Exemption. 
ted to establishing best practices and acceptable standards to http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/regtools/25b_list.htm
address the increasing concern for microbiological quality within con- 12.  Bleasel, N., Tate, B., and Rademaker, M. 2002.  Allergic contact dermatitis fol-
sumer and industrial products. To support these goals, a Preservative lowing exposure to essential oils. Australasian Journal of Dermatology 43(3): 211-213.
Defense Task Force was commissioned to address the need of com-
municating the necessity of effective preservation strategies within
consumer and industrial products.
More info: CSPA Microbiology/Preservation Subcommittee,
Tel: 202-872-8110; Website: www.cspa.org

It is clear that efficacy, cost, regulatory compliance and sup-

ply have and will constrain application of organic acid and es-
sential oil preservation to niche, if not boutique, products. If
market forces or regulatory changes demand the use of only
organic acids and essential oils as preservatives, then some cat-
egories of products will need to be withdrawn from the market.
This would be necessary because the products cannot be made
in a way to achieve effective preservation with such materials.
Therefore, it is essential that programs intended to establish
more environmentally preferable preservation consider prod-
ucts on a case-by-case basis.
In summary, the use of natural alternatives for preservation is
not as simple as an ingredient substitution; there are many prac-
tical issues to consider in maintaining safe, effective, and stable
consumer products that are free from microbial contamination. •

References:
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment
(DfE), www.epa.gov/dfe.
2. Natural Products Association.  Natural Home Care Standard 020910v01.doc
www.NPAinfo.org.
3.     Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) Substances (SCOGS) Database. http://
www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/GenerallyRecognizedasSafeGRAS/
GRASSubstancesSCOGSDatabase/default.htm
4.     American Chemistry Council Biocides Panel. 2010. Benefits of Antimicrobial
Pesticides in Public-Health and Industrial Uses.
5.     Browne, B.A. 2010.“The Influence of Global Regulatory Requirements and
Pressures on Preservative Choices for Consumer Products.”  May 6, 2010. Consumer
Specialty Products Association Mid-year Meeting.  Chicago, IL.
6.     United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).  2005.
Herbs, spices and essential oils. Post-harvest operations in developing countries.
http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/Herbs_spices_
and_essential_oils.pdf
7.     Barra A. 2009. Factors affecting chemical variability of essential oils: a re-
view of recent developments. Nat Prod Commun. 4:1147-54.
8.     Viljoen, A.M., Subramoney, S., van Vuuren, S.F., Baxter, K.H.C. and Demirci,
B. 2005. The composition, geographical variation and antimicrobial activity of Lippia
javanica (Verbenaceae) leaf essential oils.  J Ethnopharm  96:271-7.
9. US EPA Registration Review.  http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/

May 2012 happi.com happi • 73