journal article·2024

Evaluation of polymer–preservative interactions for preservation efficacy: molecular dynamics simulation and QSAR approaches

Qisong Xu, Pui Shan Chow, Erte Xi, Randy Marsh, Shikar Gupta, Krishna M. Gupta

Nanoscale· Volume 16· Issue 36
Publisher page

Abstract

Preservatives are critical ingredients in various pharmaceutical and consumer products. In particular, a high efficacy preservative system is essential in enhancing the shelf-life and safety of these products. However, the development of such a preservative system heavily relies on experimental approaches. In this study, molecular dynamics (MD) simulation was complemented with quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modelling to comprehensively evaluate polymer-preservative interactions between three different polymers (polyethylene terephthalate, PET; polypropylene, PP; and cellulose) and a series of preservatives from the classes of aliphatic, aromatic, and organic acids. First, adsorption of preservatives onto polymer surfaces was simulated in an aqueous environment. The preservatives did not adhere to hydrophilic cellulose, but most preservatives were adsorbed by PET and PP in distinct configurations. Interaction energies (IEs) between the preservatives and the polymers generally increase from cellulose to PP and PET. The diffusion coefficients of preservatives are dependent on polymer nature, preservative structure, and their resulting molecular interactions. Linear and low molecular weight preservatives exhibit higher diffusion coefficients in polymers. For a particular preservative, diffusion coefficients increased in the order of cellulose < PET < PP. Finally, using MD properties and molecular descriptors of preservatives, QSAR models were developed to identify key descriptors of preservatives and predict their IEs and diffusion coefficients in polymers. This study demonstrates a computational approach for identifying critical materials properties, and predicting polymer-preservative molecular interactions in water. Such an approach streamlines the rational selection and design of high efficacy preservative systems for various pharmaceutical, food and cosmetic products. Furthermore, the integrated computational strategy also reduces trial-and-error experimental efforts, thereby accelerating the development of high efficacy preservative systems.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Building materials and conservation · Cultural Heritage Materials Analysis · Corrosion Behavior and Inhibition

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Institute of Sustainability for Chemicals, Energy and Environment (ISCE2), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 1 Pesek Road, Jurong Island, Singapore 627833, Republic of Singapore

Proctor & Gamble, Winton Hill Business Center, 6280 Center Hill Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45224, USA

Procter & Gamble International Operations SA SG Branch, Singapore 138547, Singapore

Funding

Agency for Science, Technology and Research · Procter and Gamble · National Research Foundation Singapore

References (56)

Show source-provided references
1. . Global Cosmetics Market: Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2023–2028. URL: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/categories/cosmetics
2. J. J.Kabara and D. S.Orth , Principles for product preservation , in Preservative-Free and Self-Preserving Cosmetics and Drugs: Principles and Practices , Marcel Dekker , New York , 1997 , pp. 1–1410.1201/b15076 ↗
3. Neza · Cosmetics · 2016 · 3 · 310.3390/cosmetics3010003 ↗
4. Toler · Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. · 1985 · 7 · 15710.1111/j.1467-2494.1985.tb00409.x ↗
5. Halla · Molecules · 2018 · 23 · 157110.3390/molecules23071571 ↗
6. Rathee · Materials · 2023 · 16 · 479310.3390/ma16134793 ↗
7. Novais · J. Agric. Food Chem. · 2022 · 70 · 278910.1021/acs.jafc.1c07533 ↗
8. Dubrovski · Fibers Polym. · 2016 · 17 · 80110.1007/s12221-016-6347-5 ↗
9. Jain · Res. J. Text. Appar. · 2018 · 22 · 15810.1108/RJTA-07-2017-0038 ↗
10. Hemmatian · Polymers · 2021 · 13 · 22310.3390/polym13020223 ↗
11. Salama · Cosmetics · 2021 · 8 · 7310.3390/cosmetics8030073 ↗
12. Kerdudo · C. R. Chim. · 2016 · 19 · 107710.1016/j.crci.2016.06.004 ↗
13. Varvaresou · Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. · 2009 · 31 · 16310.1111/j.1468-2494.2009.00492.x ↗
14. Siegert · Int. J. Appl. Sci. · 2014 · 140 · 1
15. Buckley · ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. · 2017 · 5 · 432010.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00374 ↗
16. Cundell · PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. · 2010 · 64 · 137
17. Booth · J. GXP Compliance · 2014 · 18 · 1
18. Orth · J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. · 1979 · 30 · 321
19. Orth · J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. · 1993 · 44 · 329
20. S. V.Sutton and P. A.Geis , Antimicrobial preservative efficacy and microbial content testing , in Cosmetic microbiology , CRC Press , 2020 , pp. 67–9310.4324/9780429113697-6 ↗
21. Walden · Molecules · 2021 · 26 · 18210.3390/molecules26010182 ↗
22. Gupta · Pharmaceutics · 2023 · 15 · 116410.3390/pharmaceutics15041164 ↗
23. Gupta · Langmuir · 2023 · 39 · 30810.1021/acs.langmuir.2c02550 ↗
24. Wang · Packag. Technol. Sci. · 2010 · 23 · 45710.1002/pts.911 ↗
25. Li · Food Addit. Contam.: Part A · 2017 · 34 · 108610.1080/19440049.2017.1310398 ↗
26. Wang · Packag. Technol. Sci. · 2012 · 25 · 32910.1002/pts.983 ↗
27. Wang · Packag. Technol. Sci. · 2018 · 31 · 27710.1002/pts.2314 ↗
28. Wang · Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer · 2018 · 122 · 69410.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.02.004 ↗
29. Mazeau · Langmuir · 2002 · 18 · 191910.1021/la010792q ↗
30. Da Silva Perez · Langmuir · 2004 · 20 · 315110.1021/la0357817 ↗
31. Todde · Surf. Sci. · 2018 · 668 · 5410.1016/j.susc.2017.10.004 ↗
32. Shu-Wei · Acta Chim. Sin. · 2007 · 65 · 2707
33. Hisaki · J. Toxicol. Sci. · 2015 · 40 · 16310.2131/jts.40.163 ↗
34. Bhardwaj · Int. J. Quant. Struct. Relatsh. · 2020 · 5 · 44
35. Jo · J. Comput. Chem. · 2008 · 29 · 185910.1002/jcc.20945 ↗
36. Shi · J. Membr. Sci. · 2018 · 545 · 4910.1016/j.memsci.2017.09.057 ↗
37. Deshpande · Langmuir · 2021 · 37 · 1152610.1021/acs.langmuir.1c01800 ↗
38. Sachdeva · J. Mater. Res. · 2022 · 37 · 453310.1557/s43578-022-00725-9 ↗
39. Abraham · SoftwareX · 2015 · 1–2 · 1910.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001 ↗
40. Best · J. Chem. Theory Comput. · 2012 · 8 · 325710.1021/ct300400x ↗
41. Pedregosa · J. Mach. Learn. Res. · 2011 · 12 · 2825
42. Busico · Prog. Polym. Sci. · 2001 · 26 · 44310.1016/S0079-6700(00)00046-0 ↗
43. Raheem · J. Cleaner Prod. · 2019 · 225 · 105210.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.019 ↗
44. Medronho · Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. · 2015 · 222 · 50210.1016/j.cis.2014.05.004 ↗
45. Sangkhawasi · Polymers · 2022 · 14 · 116110.3390/polym14061161 ↗
46. Ju · Comput. Mater. Sci. · 2016 · 115 · 110.1016/j.commatsci.2015.12.032 ↗
47. Fukuda · J. Chem. Phys. · 1998 · 108 · 300110.1063/1.475686 ↗
48. H. F.Mark , Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology , John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , New York, NY, USA , 2nd edn, 1982 , pp. 35–68
49. Ren · RSC Adv. · 2021 · 11 · 1996710.1039/D1RA02625A ↗
50. Wheeler · J. Phys. Chem. A · 2014 · 118 · 613310.1021/jp504415p ↗
51. Martinez · Chem. Sci. · 2012 · 3 · 219110.1039/c2sc20045g ↗
52. Damirchi · J. Phys. Chem. C · 2020 · 124 · 2048810.1021/acs.jpcc.0c03509 ↗
53. Bamane · ACS Appl. Nano Mater. · 2023 · 6 · 351310.1021/acsanm.2c05285 ↗
54. Etale · Chem. Rev. · 2023 · 123 · 201610.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00477 ↗
55. Stanton · Anal. Chem. · 1990 · 62 · 232310.1021/ac00220a013 ↗
56. Rohrbaugh · Anal. Chim. Acta · 1987 · 199 · 9910.1016/S0003-2670(00)82801-9 ↗