Next Article in Journal
Liquid Crystal Gel Reduces Age Spots by Promoting Skin Turnover
Next Article in Special Issue
Handheld Raman Spectroscopy for the Distinction of Essential Oils Used in the Cosmetics Industry
Previous Article in Journal
In Vitro Cytotoxicity and Phototoxicity Assessment of Acylglutamate Surfactants Using a Human Keratinocyte Cell Line
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry Measurement of Caffeine in Caffeine-Laced Pants and in Urine and Skin of a Pants User
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cosmetics
Volume 1
Issue 3
10.3390/cosmetics1030171
cosmetics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

In-Vial Micro-Matrix-Solid Phase Dispersion for the Analysis of Fragrance Allergens, Preservatives, Plasticizers, and Musks in Cosmetics

by
Maria Celeiro
†,
Juan Pablo Lamas
†,
Maria Llompart
† and
Carmen Garcia-Jares
*
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Nutrition and Food Science, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Campus Vida, E-15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cosmetics 2014, 1(3), 171-201; https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics1030171
Submission received: 28 May 2014 / Revised: 7 July 2014 / Accepted: 9 July 2014 / Published: 22 July 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Analytical Methods for Quality Control of Cosmetics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fragrance allergens, preservatives, plasticizers, and synthetic musks are usually present in cosmetic and personal care products formulations and many of them are subjected to use restrictions or labeling requirements. Matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD) is a very suitable analytical technique for the extraction of these compounds providing a simple, low cost sample preparation, and the possibility of performing both extraction and clean-up in one step, reducing possible contamination and analyte losses. This extraction technique has been successfully applied to many cosmetics ingredients allowing obtaining quantitative recoveries. A new very simple micro-MSPD procedure performing the disruption step in a vial is proposed for the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of 66 chemicals usually present in cosmetics and personal care products. The method was validated showing general recoveries between 80% and 110%, relative standard deviation (RSD) values lower than 15%, and limits of detection (LODs) below 30 ng·g−1. The validated method was applied to a broad range of cosmetics and personal care products, including several products intended for baby care.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Fragrances and preservatives are common ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. Fragrances provide nice and attractive scents and preservatives are used to prevent microbial growth because the aqueous nature of many personal care products is an optimal medium for microbial growth. European legislation [1] requires the monitoring of 26 volatile compounds, the so-called potentially allergen substances (PAS) or fragrance allergens. Their presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients when their concentrations exceed 0.01% for rinse-off products, and 0.001% for leave-on products. Of these 26 substances, 24 are chemically defined volatile compounds whereas the other two are natural moss extracts. One of these 24 fragrance allergens, lyral®, was recently proposed to be transferred to the Annex III (list of substances which cosmetic products must not contain except subject to restrictions) to Annex II (list of substances prohibited in cosmetic products). Also, pinene and methyleugenol were included in the referred study; pinene is proposed to be labelled when its concentration exceeds 0.01% for rinse-off products, and 0.001% for leave-on products, whereas methyleugenol has been banned in cosmetics and personal care products for some years, and now it is included in Annex III.
Parabens are the most frequently used preservatives (their maximum concentration in cosmetics and personal care products is 0.4% for a single ester and 0.8% for mixture of esters). Its extended use is due to their broad antimicrobial spectrum and low cost [2,3]. Although these compounds are not mutagenic agents, recent studies have reported that certain parabens have been associated with genotoxicity, allergies and may also act as antiandrogens [4,5,6]. In recent years, another preservative, phenoxyethanol, is increasing its use as substitute of parabens. According to the European regulation [1], the maximum concentration permitted for this compound is 1% regardless of its use. However, a recent study reported by the France National Agency for Security of Medicaments (ANSM) proposed not using phenoxyethanol in products intended for children under 3 years and to reduce the maximum permitted concentration (0.4%) in other personal care products [7]. Triclosan (2,4,4′-trichloro-2′-hydroxydiphenyl ether) and the bromine-containing preservative bronidox, are also preservatives present in personal care products. Their maximum permitted concentrations according European legislation is 0.3% and 0.1%, respectively. IPBC (iodopropynyl butylcarbamate) is not permitted in products for children under 3 years of age, except in bath products, shower gels and shampoo. The antioxidants butylated hidroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) can be used without restrictions.
Synthetic musks are other chemical compounds usually present in personal care products under the term “fragrance” or “parfum”. Synthetic musks are used as an alternative for natural musks. The European regulation has forbidden the use of three nitromusks: musk ambrette, musk moskene and musk tibetene due to their bioaccumulative properties [8]. Another two nitromusks (musk ketone and musk xylene) are allowed with restrictions [1].
Plasticizers (phthalates and adipates) are used in cosmetic and personal care formulations as solvents, fixer of fragrances, and to promote skin penetration. Diethyl phthalate (DEP) can be present in personal care products as solvent of the synthetic musk galaxolide. However, the European Commission on Endocrine Disruption has listed DEP as a Category 1 priority substance [9]. Other six phthalates (dibutyl phthalate (DBP), dimethoxyethyl phthalate (DMEP), diisopentyl phthalate (DIPP), dipentyl phthalate (DPP), benzylbutyl phthalate (BBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)) were forbidden as ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products due to their possible carcinogenic and mutagenic effects in human health. Adipates (1,6-dimethylhexanedioate (DMA), 1,6-diethylhexanedioate (DEA) and di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA)) are permitted without restrictions.
In order to guarantee product safety, the development of analytical methods is mandatory in cosmetic quality control. In this way, several analytical methods to determine fragrance allergens, preservatives, plasticizers, and/or musks in cosmetics and personal care products have been reported. A summary of the more recent extraction and analysis techniques for the analysis of these compounds in different cosmetic matrices can be found in recent reviews [10,11,12,13].
Matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD) is a very suitable analytical technique for the extraction of contaminants in environmental and other matrices [14] as well as to determine fragrances, preservatives, plasticizers and musks in cosmetic samples. This technique is primarily used because of its flexibility and selectivity providing efficient and low cost extractions; the possibility of performing extraction and clean-up in one step is one of their main advantages [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Also, its miniaturizing allows reducing the amount of sample, reagents and solvents required. MSPD combines different aspects of several analytical techniques, performing sample disruption while dispersing the components of the sample on and into a solid support, thereby generating a chromatographic material that possesses a particular character for the extraction of compounds from the dispersed sample [15]. This extraction technique allowed obtaining quantitative recoveries for many cosmetic ingredients [16,19,20,22]. For very volatile compounds such as pinene and limonene, that are easily lost during extraction processes [23], MSPD can constitute a good alternative to lower analyte losses [20].
The aim of the present study is to compare the performance of two micro-MSPD procedures, performing the sample disruption in mortar and also in vial, for the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of 66 compounds including fragrance allergens, preservatives, plasticizers, and musks, usually present in cosmetics and personal care products. All these families of compounds are subjected to restrictions according international regulation.

2. Experimental Section

2.1. Chemicals, Materials and Samples

The analyzed compounds, their chemical names, Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) numbers, suppliers, purity of the standards and European legislation restrictions are also shown in Table 1. Deuterated methyl-4-hydroxybenzoate-2,3,5,6-d4 (MeP_d4; 98atom% D), benzyl_d7 alcohol (98atom% D) and di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate-3,4,5,6-d4 (DEHP_d4; 98atom% D) used as surrogate standard, were obtained from C/D/N Isotopes (Quebec, Canada), Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA), and Fluka Chemie GmbH (Steinheim, Germany), respectively. 2,4,6-trichlorobiphenyl (PCB-30) used as internal standard was provided by Dr. Ehrenstorfer (Augsburg, Germany).
Table
Table 1. Target compounds: chemical names, suppliers, purity, CAS and European restrictions.
Table 1. Target compounds: chemical names, suppliers, purity, CAS and European restrictions.
Fragrance AllergensChemical NamesPurity (%)CASMaximum Concentration Permitted [1]
PineneBicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene, 2,6,6-trimethyl≥99 b80-56-8n.r
Limonene a(4R)-1-Methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl)cyclohexene97 b5989-27-5n.r
Benzyl alcohol aBenzene methanol≥99 b100-51-61% (as preservative)
Linalool a3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-ol97 b78-70-6n.r
Methyl-2-octynoate aMethyl heptin carbonate≥99 b111-12-6n.r
Citronellol a(±)-3,7-Dimethyoct-6-en-1-ol95 b106-22-9n.r
Citral a3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadienal95 b5392-40-5n.r
Geraniol a3,7-Dimethyl-(2E)-2,6-octadien-1-ol≥96 b106-24-1n.r
Cinnamal a3-Phenyl-2-propenal≥93 b104-55-2n.r
Hydroxycitronellal a7-Hydroxy-3,7-dimethyloctanal≥95 b107-75-51%
Anise alcohol a4-Methoxybenzyl alcohol98 b105-13-5n.r
Cinnamyl alcohol a3-Phenyl-2-propen-1-ol98 b104-54-1n.r
Eugenol a2-Methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)-phenol99 b97-53-0n.r
Methyleugenol a1,2-Dimethoxy-4-(2-propenyl)-benzene99 b93-15-20.01% (fine fragrance); 0.004% (eau de toilette);
0.002% (fragrance cream); 0.0002% (other leave-on products);
0.001% (rinse-off products)
Isoeugenol a2-Methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)phenol98 b97-54-10.02%
Coumarin a2H-1-benzopyran-2-one≥99 b91-64-5n.r
α-isomethyl ionone a3-Methyl-4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1yl)-3-buten-2-one≥85 b127-51-5n.r
Lilial® a2-(4-tert-Butylbenzyl)propionaldehyde≥90 b80-54-6n.r
Amyl cinnamala2-Benzylideneheptanal97 b122-40-7n.r
Lyral® a,gHydroxyhexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde≥97 b31906-04-4n.r
Amylcinnamyl
alcohol a		2-Pentyl-3-phenylprop-2-en-1-ol≥85 b101-85-9n.r
Farnesol a3,7,11-trimethyldodeca-2,6,10-trien-1-ol95 b4602-84-0n.r
Hexylcinnamal a2-Benzylideneoctanal≥95 b101-86-0n.r
Chemical NamesPurity (%)CASMaximum Concentration Permitted [1]
Benzyl benzoate aPhenylmethyl benzoate≥99 b120-51-4n.r
Benzyl salicylate aBenzyl-2-hydroxybenzoate≥99 b118-58-1n.r
Benzyl cinnamate a3-Phenyl-2-propenoic acid phenylmethyl ester99 b103-41-3n.r
Preservatives
Bronidox5-Bromo-5-nitro-1,3-dioxane≥99 c30007-47-70.1% (rinse-off products)
Phenoxyethanol (phEtOH)2-Phenoxyethanol99 c122-99-61%
Methyl paraben (MeP)Methyl 4-hydroxibenzoate99 b99-76-30.4% as acid (for single ester)
0.8% as acid (for mixtures of esters)
BHAButylated hidroxyanisole98.5 c25013-16-5n.r
BHTButylated hydroxytoluene99 c128-37-0n.r
Ethyl
paraben (EtP)		Ethyl 4-hydroxybenzoate99 b120-47-80.4% as acid (for single ester)
0.8% as acid (for mixtures of esters)
Isopropyl
paraben (iPrP) *		Isopropyl 4-hydroxybenzoate≥99 b4191-73-50.4% as acid (for single ester)
0.8% as acid (for mixtures of esters)
Propyl
paraben (PrP)		Propyl 4-hydroxybenzoate99 b94-13-30.4% as acid (for single ester)
0.8% as acid (for mixtures of esters)
IPBCCarbamic acid, butyl-3-iodo-2-propynyl ester97 c55406-53-6Prohibited in products for children
under 3 years, except in bath products. Prohibited in oral and lip products.
0.02% (rinse-off products);
0.01% (leave-on products); 0.0075% (deodorants).
Isobutyl
paraben (iBuP) *		Isobutyl 4-hydroxybenzoate≥97 b4247-02-30.4% as acid (for single ester)
0.8% as acid (for mixtures of esters)
Butyl paraben (BuP)Butyl 4-hydroxybenzoate99 b94-26-80.4% as acid (for single ester)
0.8% as acid (for mixtures of esters)
Chemical NamesPurity (%)CASMaximum Concentration Permitted [1]
Triclosan2,4,4′-Trichloro-2′-hydroxydiphenyl ether≥97 c3380-34-50.3% (toothpastes, hand soaps,
shower gels, deodorants, face powders
and blemish concealers, nail products);
0.2% (mouthwashes)
Benzyl
paraben (BzP) *		Benzyl hydroxybenzoate99 b94-18-80.4% as acid (for single ester)
0.8% as acid (for mixtures of esters)
Plasticizers
DMA1,6-Dimethylhexanedioate99 c627-93-0n.r
DEA1,6-Diethylhexanedioate99 c141-28-6n.r
DMPDimethyl phthalate98 c131-11-3n.r
DEPDiethyl phthalate98 b84-66-2n.r
DIBPDiisobutyl phthalate99 f84-69-5n.r
DBPDibutyl phthalate99 b84-74-2Prohibited
DMEPDimethoxyethyl phthalate94 f117-82-8Prohibited
DPPDipentyl phthalate99.2 b131-18-0Prohibited
BBPBenzylbutyl phthalate98 b85-68-7Prohibited
DEHADi(2-ethylhexyl) adipate98.5 c103-23-1n.r
DIHPDiisoheptylphthalate99 b41451-28-9n.r
DEHPDi(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate99.5 c117-81-7Prohibited
DCHPDiclohexyl phthalate99 b84-61-7n.r
DPhPDiphenyl phthalate98 b84-62-8n.r
DNOPDi-noctyl phthalate≥ 98 d117-84-0n.r
Musks
Cashmeran1,1,2,3,3-Pentamethyl-2,5,6,7-tetrahydroinden-4-one≥ 95 f33704-61-9n.r
Celestolide4-Acetyl-6-tert-butyl-1,1-dimethylindane≥ 98 f13171-00-1n.r
Phantolide6-Acetyl-1,1,2,3,3,5-hexamethylindan≥ 98 f15323-35-02% (leave-on products)
Chemical NamesPurity (%)CASMaximum Concentration Permitted [1]
Musk Ambrette6-tert-Butyl-3-methyl-2,4-dinitroanisole99 f83-66-9Prohibited
Traseolide5-Acetyl-3-isopropyl-1,1,2,6-tetramethylindane99 f68140-48-7n.r
Galaxolide1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta(g)-2-benzopyran55.5 b1222-05-5n.r
Musk Xylene1-tert-Butyl-3,5-dimethyl-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene100 ng·mL−1 c81-15-2Prohibited in oral products. 1.0%
(fine fragrance); 0.4% (eau de toilette);
0.03% (other products)
Tonalide6-Acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetralin98 f1506-02-1Prohibited in oral products. 0.2%
(rinse-off products) 0.1% (leave-on products, except: 1% hydroalcoholic products; 2.5% fine fragrance; 0.5% fragrance cream)
Musk Moskene1,1,3,3,5-Pentamethyl-4,6-dinitro-2H-indene≥99 f116-66-5Prohibited
Musk Tibetene1-tert-Butyl-3,4,5-trimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzen≥99 f145-39-1Prohibited
Ambrettolide17-Oxacycloheptadec-6-en-1-one≥ 97 b7779-50-2n.r
Musk Ketone4-tert-Butyl-3,5-dinitro-2,6-dimethyl acetophenone≥98 b81-14-1Prohibited in oral products. 1.4%
(fine fragrance) 0.56% (eau de toilette) 0.042% (other products)
a The presence of the substance must be indicated in the list of ingredients when its concentration exceeds 0.001% (leave-on products) and 0.01% (rinse-off products); b Sigma Aldrich Chemie GmbH (Steimheim, Germany); c Fluka Chemie GmbH (Steimheim, Germany); d Supelco Analytical (Bellefonte, PA, USA); e LGC Standards GmbH (Wesel, Germany); f Dr. Ehrenstorfer (Ausburg, Germany); g Is proposed to be excluded completely from cosmetics and personal care products; n.r: no restricted by EC No 1223/2009. * Banned from 30 July 2015.
Ethyl acetate was provided by Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH (Steinheim, Germany). Florisil (60–100 mesh) was purchased from Supelco Analytical (Bellefonte, PA, USA) and anhydrous sodium sulphate (99%) from Panreac (Barcelona, Spain).
Individual stock solutions were prepared in acetone, isooctane or methanol. Further dilutions and mixtures were prepared in acetone or ethyl acetate. Solutions were stored in amber glass vials at −20 °C. All solvents and reagents were of analytical grade.
Metallic, glass, and ceramic materials; sorbents (Florisil and sodium sulphate anhydrous) and the glass wool for laboratory use (Sigma-Aldrich) were baked at 230 °C for 12 h before use to eliminate possible phthalate contamination. All materials were allowed to cool down wrapped with aluminum foil and Florisil and sodium sulphate anhydrous in desiccator.
Samples of cosmetics and personal care products from national and international brands were obtained from local sources. They included leave-on and rinse-off products such as shampoo, shower gel, body milk, sunblock, among others, including products intended for babies. Until their analysis, samples were kept in their original containers at room temperature.

2.2. Micro-Matrix Solid-Phase Dispersion (MSPD)

Cosmetic samples (0.1 g) were exactly weighted into a 10-mL glass vial and spiked with 25 µL of each surrogate solution (10 µg·mL−1) containing benzyl alcohol-d7, MeP-d4, PrP-d4 and DEHP-d4. Then, the sample was gently blended with 0.2 g of a drying agent (anhydrous Na2SO4), and 0.4 g of the dispersing sorbent (Florisil), into the vial or in a porcelain mortar, using a glass rod or a porcelain pestle, respectively, until a homogeneous mixture was obtained (ca. 5 min). The mixture was transferred into a glass Pasteur pipette (approximately 150 mm), with a small amount of glass wool at the bottom, containing 0.1 g of Florisil (to obtain a further degree of fractionation and sample clean-up). Finally, a small amount of glass wool was placed on top of the sample before compression with a spatula. Elution with ethyl acetate was made by gravity flow, collecting the extract into a 1 mL volumetric flask. Then, 12.5 µL of PCB-30 internal standard solution (1 µg·mL−1) was added. The micro-MSPD extracts diluted when necessary were directly analyzed by GC-MS. Fortified samples were spiked with 20 µL of the corresponding acetone solution of the target compounds to get the desired final concentration and submitted to the same process described above. The optimization of the experimental conditions (amount of sample, solvent, dispersant and volume elution) has been described elsewhere [19,20]. Figure 1 illustrates the described micro-MSPD process.
Cosmetics 01 00171 g001 1024
Figure 1. Micro-matrix-solid-phase-dispersion (MSPD) procedure.
Figure 1. Micro-matrix-solid-phase-dispersion (MSPD) procedure.
Cosmetics 01 00171 g001

2.3. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) Analysis

The analysis was performed using an Agilent 7890A (GC)-Agilent 5975C inert MSD with triple axis detector and an Agilent 7693 autosampler from Agilent Technologies (Palo Alto, CA, USA). The temperatures of the transfer line, the quadrupole and the ion source were set at 290, 150 and 230 °C, respectively. Electronic impact (EI) was used as ionization technique. The system was operated by Agilent MSD ChemStation E.02.00.493 software.
Separation was performed on a ZB-5 capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d. (internal diameter), 0.25 μm film thickness) obtained from Phenomenex (Torrance, CA, USA). Helium (purity 99.999%) was employed as carrier gas at a constant column flow of 1.0 mL·min−1. The GC oven temperature was programmed from 60 °C (held 1 min) to 100 °C at 8 °C min−1, to 150 °C at 20 °C·min−1, to 200 °C at 25 °C·min−1 to 220 °C at 8 °C·min−1 and 30 °C·min−1 to 290 (held 10 min). After 1 min, the split valve was opened (75 mL·min−1), and the injector temperature was kept at 260 °C. The injection volume was 1 μL. The electron multiplier was set at a nominal value of 1553 V.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. GC-MS Performance

The chromatographic conditions were optimized to achieve an efficient separation of 66 target compounds frequently used in cosmetics and personal care products: 26 fragrance allergens, 13 preservatives, 15 plasticizers (phthalates and adipates) and 12 musks. For GC-MS analysis, the mass spectra detector (MSD) was operated in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode, monitoring three ions per compound. Table 2 shows the quantification and identification ions, and the retention time of the compounds. Chromatograms of a standard solution containing 200 ng·mL−1 of target compounds (DIHP, 400 ng·mL−1) are shown in Figure 2.
Table
Table 2. Retention time, quantification and identification ions.
Table 2. Retention time, quantification and identification ions.
KeyTarget CompoundsRetention
Time (min)		Quantification and
Identification Ions		KeyTarget CompoundsRetention Time (min)Quantification and Identification Ions
1Pinene5.2377 (27), 93 (100), 121 (13)34Lyral®12.4579 (74), 93 (78), 136 (100)
2Limonene6.8568 (100), 93 (76),121 (25)35iBuP12.4993 (12), 121 (100), 138 (58)
3Benzyl alcohol6.9077 (73), 79 (115), 108 (100)36Farnesol12.63/12.9369 (100), 93 (27), 107 (15)
4Linalool7.7771 (100) ,93 (84) ,121 (24)37Amylcinnamyl alcohol12.6491(88), 115 (60), 133 (100)
5Methyl-2-octynoate8.8779 (66), 95 (100) ,123 (73)38BuP12.93121 (100), 138 (84), 194 (6)
6Bronidox9.0385 (27), 107 (49), 135 (100)39Celestolide13.03173 (22), 229 (100), 244 (44)
7PhEtOH9,0977 (28), 94 (100), 138 (31)40Hexylcinnamal13.31129 (100), 145 (51), 216 (40)
8Citronellol9.1269 (100) ,95 (49) ,109 (18)41Phantolide13.53187 (11), 229 (100), 244 (24)
9DMA9.23101 (72), 111 (77), 114 (100)42Benzyl benzoate13.5877 (28), 91 (47), 105 (100)
10Citral 9.27/9.5169 (100), 94 (17), 109 (10)43Ambrette14.53253 (100), 254 (13), 268 (35)
11Geraniol9.3669 (100), 93 (18) ,111 (6)44Traseolide14.7443 (41), 215 (100), 258 (14)
12Cinnamal9.5677 (35), 103 (50), 131 (100)45DIBP14.8457 (12), 149 (100), 223 (6.8)
13Hydroxycitronellal9.6259 (100), 71 (13) , 81 (43)46Galaxolide14.84213 (23), 243 (100), 258 (20)
14Anise alcohol9.64109 (77), 121 (55), 138 (100)47Xylene14.9643 (62), 57 (16), 282 (100)
15Cinnamyl alcohol9.8292 (100), 105 (53), 115 (54)48Tonalide14.9943 (48), 243 (100), 258 (26)
16Eugenol10.21103 (28),131 (27), 164 (100)49Benzyl salicylate15.0865 (11), 91 (100), 228 (12)
17DEA10.30111 (100), 128 (63), 157 (81)50Moskene15.40263 (100), 264 (20), 278 (8.9)
18Methyleugenol10.47147 (31), 163 (29), 178 (100)51Ambrettolide16.2367 (100), 81 (98), 96 (89)
19Isoeugenol10.54/10.82103(22), 131 (20), 164 (100)52Tibetene16.3343 (33), 251 (100), 266 (28)
20MeP10.7893.0 (21), 121 (100), 153 (35)53DBP16.46149 (100), 150 (9), 223 (4.9)
21Coumarin10.8290 (42), 118 (110), 146 (100)54Ketone16.99191 (24), 294 (26), 279 (100)
22DMP10.8377 (13), 194 (66), 163 (100)55DMEP17.1059 (100), 104 (18), 149 (29)
23BHA11.03137 (63), 165 (100), 180 (51)56Benzyl cinnamate18.5991 (100), 131 (90), 192 (63)
24α-isomethyl ionone11.05107 (58), 135 (100), 150 (61) 57Triclosan18.78218 (93), 288 (100), 290 (93)
25BHT11.24177 (8), 205 (100), 220 (25)58BzP18.9891 (46), 121 (100), 228 (21)
26EtP11.24121 (100), 138 (21), 166 (18)59DPP19.1271 (16), 149 (100), 237 (5.6)
27Cashmeran11.26135 (43), 191 (100), 206 (57)60BBP20.4991 (53), 149 (100), 206 (24)
28Lilial®11.36131 (39), 147 (40), 189 (100)61DEHA20.69112 (26), 129 (100), 147 (21)
29iPrP11.45121 (100), 138 (39), 180 (14)62DIHP21.07149 (100), 223 (7), 265 (52)
30DEP11.82149 (100), 150 (12), 177 (24)63DCHP21.5355 (19), 149 (100), 167 (31)
31PrP11.99121 (100), 138 (58), 180 (7)64DEHP21.54167 (30), 149 (100), 279 (10)
32Amyl cinnamal12.31115 (89), 129 (100), 145 (57)65DPhP21.6577 (19), 153 (4), 225 (100)
33IPBC12.34100 (15), 165 (100), 182 (50)66DNOP22.71149 (100), 223 (22), 279 (6.2)
The GC-MS method performance parameters for the 66 target compounds are summarized in Table 3. Regarding the instrumental linearity, the method exhibited a direct proportional relationship between the amount of each analyte and the chromatographic response. Calibration standards in ethyl acetate were prepared covering a concentration range from 10 to 1000 ng·mL−1 (anise alcohol, cinnamyl alcohol, amylcinnamyl alcohol, triclosan, and musk ketone, 20–1000 ng·mL−1; IPBC, 50–1000 ng·mL−1; di-iso-heptyl-phthalate (DIHP), 100–4000 ng·mL−1; and farnesol, 250–1000 ng·mL−1). Correlation coefficients R ≥ 0.9915 were generally obtained. Method precision was studied within-a-day (n = 3) and among-days (n = 6) at 250 ng·mL−1 (other concentration levels, 50, 500 and 1000 ng·mL−1 were calculated, data not shown). Relative standard deviation (RSD) values ranged from 1.7% to 9.5% for intra-day analysis, and between 1.8 and 10% for inter-day analysis. Instrumental detection limits (IDLs) were in all cases calculated as the concentration giving a signal-to-noise of three (S/N = 3) since none of the target compounds were detected in the solvent chromatographic blanks and they were at the low ng·mL−1 with values in general below 6 ng·mL−1 (farnesol, IPBC, and DIHP, 70 ng·mL−1, 10 ng·mL−1, and 24 ng·mL−1, respectively). The phthalate DIHP is complex mixtures of isomers, and the chromatographic signal is composed of several chromatographic peaks.
Cosmetics 01 00171 g002 1024
Figure 2. Selected ion monitoring (SIM) chromatogram of a standard mixture of the target compounds (200 ng·mL−1; di-iso-heptyl-phthalate (DIHP), 400 ng·mL−1).
Figure 2. Selected ion monitoring (SIM) chromatogram of a standard mixture of the target compounds (200 ng·mL−1; di-iso-heptyl-phthalate (DIHP), 400 ng·mL−1).
Cosmetics 01 00171 g002
Table
Table 3. Quality parameters of the method.
Table 3. Quality parameters of the method.
Fragrance AllergensCorrelation
coefficient (R)		IDL
(ng·mL−1)		LOD
(%, w/w × 104)		LOQ
(%, w/w × 104)		Intra-Day Precision
(RSD, %) a		Inter-Day Precision (RSD, %) b
Pinene0.99971.020.01690.05631.81.8
Limonene0.99930.990.02130.07092.52.1
Benzyl alcohol0.99802.030.02320.07733.05.5
Linalool0.99842.100.02600.08664.03.8
Methyl-2-octynoate0.99692.750.02750.09164.65.0
Citronellol0.99652.780.03130.10425.64.6
Citral0.99732.800.04000.13325.24.3
Geraniol0.99693.050.04000.13325.15.2
Cinnamal0.99842.970.03000.09903.43.2
Hydroxycitronellal0.99721.930.01970.06564.74.2
Anise alcohol0.99724.040.04040.13454.03.9
Cinnamyl alcohol0.99655.280.05280.17583.33.8
Eugenol0.99641.910.02100.06935.04.7
Methyleugenol0.99821.970.01970.06562.82.4
Isoeugenol0.99762.950.03090.10293.73.5
Coumarin0.99972.000.02200.07331.72.1
α-isomethyl ionone0.99850.960.01180.03933.43.0
Lilial®0.99841.050.01960.06533.52.8
Amyl cinnamal0.99632.200.03200.10664.44.1
Lyral®0.99372.400.02400.07994.65.5
Amylcinnamyl alcohol0.99306.040.06040.20114.34.1
Farnesol0.997870.00.70002.3314.32.3
Hexylcinnamal0.99543.010.03010.10025.04.2
Benzyl benzoate0.99862.100.03430.11423.12.7
Benzyl salicylate0.99262.930.02930.09765.24.9
Benzyl cinnamate0.99452.930.02930.09764.13.3
PreservativesCorrelation
coefficient (R)		IDL
(ng·mL−1)		LOD
(%, w/w × 104)		LOQ
(%, w/w × 104)		Intra-Day Precision
(RSD, %) a		Inter-Day Precision (RSD, %) b
Bronidox0.99772.610.02610.08691.83.2
PhEtOH0.99672.340.02340.07794.64.4
MeP0.99722.020.03000.09994.25.3
BHA0.99841.70.01700.05664.54.8
BHT0.99900.530.00530.01763.12.6
EtP0.99742.870.03750.12493.33.7
iPrP0.99722.800.03800.12654.74.4
PrP0.99562.920.02920.09725.25.3
IPBC0.995610.00.1500.49951.74.4
iBuP0.99412.940.03100.10325.15.2
BuP0.99423.020.03020.10064.45.4
Triclosan0.99155.950.05950.19814.85.7
BzP0.99425.900.05900.19475.07.9
Plasticizers
DMA0.99940.900.00900.02991.82.1
DEA0.99921.200.02600.08663.63.0
DMP0.99960.470.00960.03192.52.1
DEP0.99960.700.00700.02333.03.0
DIBP0.99921.300.02030.06764.23.6
DBP0.99900.750.00750.02504.43.9
DMEP0.99912.000.03750.12384.34.3
DPP0.99820.170.00640.02134.64.8
BBP0.99762.000.03420.11392.53.6
DEHA0.99740.930.02610.08693.06.7
DIHP0.9989240.40001.3329.510
PlasticizersCorrelation
coefficient (R)		IDL
(ng·mL−1)		LOD
(%, w/w × 104)		LOQ
(%, w/w × 104)		Intra-Day Precision
(RSD, %) a		Inter-Day Precision (RSD, %) b
DEHP0.99760.950.03000.09993.96.3
DCHP0.99900.700.02000.06666.35.4
DPhP0.99900.450.03070.10223.65.2
DNOP0.99660.400.00920.03061.73.0
Musks
Cashmeran0.99960.600.03000.09993.73.0
Celestolide0.99830.250.00260.08665.04.2
Phantolide0.99830.520.00870.02894.54.3
Ambrette0.99652.000.03000.09993.64.4
Traseolide0.99700.800.01260.04195.04.8
Galaxolide0.99950.830.02160.07193.62.8
Xylene0.99462.050.02930.09764.14.3
Tonalide0.99920.830.01620.05394.73.9
Moskene0.99331.720.04800.15982.64.3
Tibetene0.99641.900.01960.06524.24.0
Ambrettolide0.99902.130.12000.39963.83.5
Ketone0.99543.200.07060.23515.44.5
a n = 3. Calculated for 250 ng·mL−1; b n = 6. Calculated for 250 ng·mL−1

3.2. Analytical Method Performance

Complete method quality parameters were evaluated using real cosmetic samples and the results are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. In this way, recovery studies were carried out by applying the optimized method to two samples spiked at three levels of concentration: 2, 10 and 20 µg·g−1. These samples are a regenerating cream (leave-on) and a shampoo (rinse-off); they were selected for recoveries studies since the leave-on sample was labeled as perfume-free and preservative-free, and the rinse-off sample was almost free of the target compounds (only contained MeP, BHT, and PrP). In any case, previous analyses of the samples showed the presence of some of the target compounds, and these initial concentrations were taken into account to calculate the recoveries. Recoveries were higher than 90% for the most of the studied compounds (see Table 4 and Table 5 for leave-on and rinse-off samples, respectively) regardless of using vial or mortar for the MSPD disruption step. In the case of the most volatile compounds, pinene recovery was 70% and 35%, for leave-on and rinse-of samples, respectively; and for limonene, recovery presented an average value of 75% employing a vial, whereas lower recoveries were obtained employing a mortar. Recovery study was extended to three other cosmetic matrices (shampoo, sunblock product, body milk) that were fortified at 10 µg·g−1. Results are presented in Table 6, and demonstrate the quantitative recovery of the compounds. Precision was evaluated attaining RSD values generally lower than 10% (see also Table 4 and Table 5).
Figure 3 shows a comparison of the results obtained using vial or mortar for the micro-MSPD for a real leave-on sample containing 23 target analytes (hands cream). Obtained responses are equivalent employing mortar or vial for the disruption step, excluding pinene and limonene for which responses were higher using vial. Limits of detection (LODs) were calculated as the compound concentration giving a signal-to-noise ratio of three (S/N = 3). As shown in Table 3, LOD values for the fragrance allergens ranged from 0.0118 to 0.0604 µg·g−1 (excluding farnesol, 0.700 µg·g−1), for preservatives, these values were between 0.0053 and 0.0595 µg·g−1 (excluding IPBC) and for plasticizers and musks LODs values ranged from 0.0026 to 0.1200 (excluding DIHP).
Therefore, the proposed micro-MSPD method using a vial instead of a mortar for the disruption and dispersion step can be considered suitable for the determination of fragrance allergens, preservatives, musks, and plasticizers in cosmetic and personal care products. It is highly recommended to decrease losses of most volatile fragrances such as pinene and limonene during sample preparation. For these compounds, the increase of temperature in the mortar disruption step is unfavorable for their quantitative extraction, whereas for in-vial disruption the generated heat is lower, and the most volatile compounds can be extracted lossless; also, in-vial disruption reduces extraction steps, providing a quicker extraction procedure.
Table
Table 4. Recoveries of fragrance allergens, preservatives, plasticizers and musks in a leave-on sample (regenerating cream) fortified at three concentration levels, analyzed by the proposed method µMSPD-GC-MS.
Table 4. Recoveries of fragrance allergens, preservatives, plasticizers and musks in a leave-on sample (regenerating cream) fortified at three concentration levels, analyzed by the proposed method µMSPD-GC-MS.
Fragrance AllergensRecoveries (%, RSD)
2 µg·g−110 µg·g−120 µg·g−1
MortarVialMortarVialMortarVial
Pinene23.2 (6.4)63.1 (3.9)23.5 (0.24)71.8 (13)34.0 (0.87)72.6 (4.3)
Limonene51.7 (2.0)73.8 (1.1)56.7 (7.1)79.5 (11)57.8 (0.016)78.6 (10)
Benzyl alcohol97.3 (0.76)97.3 (1.3)98.6 (0.80)90.4 (7.9)113 (0.15)110 (1.9)
Linalool105 (0.67)82.5 (0.11)96.7 (10)89.3 (14)107 (0.17)100 (13)
Methyl-2-octynoate87.8 (1.7)85.2 (2.9)97.5 (10)86.7 (14)112 (0.90)95.4 (11)
Citronellol101 (4.0)89.3 (11)97.6 (8.1)93.1 (13)110 (0.53)94.8 (10)
Citral 99.0 (3.7)104 (1.8)97.5 (14)112 (14)112 (1.1)101 (10)
Geraniol114 (1.6)82.5 (7.7)82.0 (5.6)81.7 (7.6)102 (0.14)92.7 (10)
Cinnamal90.5 (4.5)87.8 (0.74)91.5 (12)84.5 (13)104 (0.88)96.2 (6.6)
Hydroxycitronellal81.9 (1.7)80.1 (0.60)101 (11)97.8 (2.9)114 (0.052)101 (11)
Anise alcohol93.8 (4.5)92.2 (2.6)96.2 (13)87.4 (13)111 (0.67)101 (6.3)
Cinnamyl alcohol96.3 (5.6)87.3 (13)94.0 (9.6)87.2 (15)110 (0.83)98.8 (13)
Eugenol87.2 (5.2)83.0 (4.0)93.8 (8.7)89.2 (15)105 (0.96)98.7 (12)
Methyleugenol85.8 (0.15)83.6 (3.1)95.5 (11)86.7 (14)109 (1.3)98.7 (8.4)
Isoeugenol80.9 (15)100 (12)114 (9.6)109 (14)87.2 (1.0)89.4 (9.1)
Coumarin91.1 (0.61)85.2 (2.7)95.5 (14)87.3 (11)109 (0.23)100 (2.7)
α-isomethyl ionone83.6 (6.2)86.3 (0.78)95.7 (11)89.6 (12)108 (0.82)101 (7.4)
Lilial®84.5 (3.3)83.2 (1.4)97.0 (11)88.8 (15)110 (1.7)98.2 (10)
Amyl cinnamal89.3 (4.4)89.5 (7.8)94.3 (5.2)85.8 (4.3)111 (3.5)95.9 (15)
Lyral®99.3 (11)83.0 (12)104 (6.9)94.3 (5.4)114 (2.8)95.4 (14)
Amylcinnamyl alcohol108 (10)95.2 (12)104 (7.4)95.9 (3.9)112 (3.1)102 (15)
Farnesol<LOQ<LOQ104 (2.7)97.1 (7.6)109 (7.5)86.8 (7.5)
Hexylcinnamal87.7 (1.8)107 (0.12)107 (4.5)103 (5.1)115 (3.8)97.3 (11)
Benzyl benzoate88.7 (7.6)90.8 (6.9)98.3 (14)90.8 (12)111 (0.16)104 (4.9)
Benzyl salicylate105 (3.1)109 (13)97.9 (14)90.7 (13)112 (1.9)106 (2.8)
Benzyl cinnamate94.5 (1.8)102 (0.27)102 (15)94.2 (12)112 (10)108 (1.6)
PreservativesRecoveries (%, RSD)
2 µg·g−110 µg·g−120 µg·g−1
MortarVialMortarVialMortarVial
Bronidox92.1 (1.3)88.0 (4.4)95.6 (12)87.3 (13)108 (0.89)100 (10)
PhEtOH96.0 (3.8)91.6 (0.87)102 (12)92.1 (13)109 (0.91)97.1 (11)
MeP95.5 (4.2)90.2 (6.4)97.3 (11)93.6 (15)107 (1.7)96.6 (11)
BHA72.8 (6.6)80.2 (1.2)104 (9.4)104 (13)99.3 (0.53)97.7 (7.3)
BHT82.3 (0.16)81.4 (0.33)116 (0.83)115 (12)108 (0.67)105 (6.9)
EtP96.7 (10)83.9 (15)103 (13)95.2 (14)112 (0.36)102 (10)
iPrP100 (4.7)91.0 (6.5)100 (10)93.2 (14)109 (1.1)98.2 (11)
PrP111 (5.2)87.5 (14)99.3 (9.6)97.5 (7.8)109 (2.0)94.3 (13)
IPBC106 (15)83.0 (12)88.4 (1.6)101 (4.5)113 (4.0)89.0 (16)
iBuP113 (9.4)92.6 (14)103 (12)95.2 (2.2)111 (1.4)98.5 (11)
BuP96.8 (7.9)82.0 (6.7)99 (9.2)88.9 (2.7)110 (2.5)95.2 (15)
Triclosan109 (14)112 (3.4)100 (13)107 (9.1)111 (11)108 (12)
BzP105 (14)92.6 (1.5)111 (13)111 (6.8)117 ( 11)111 (8.4)
Plasticizers
DMA93.9 (7.0)105 (12)116 (9.8)108 (8.5)103 (0.60)97.5 (3.1)
DEA87.5 (0.038)81.4 (2.8)95.4 (15)87.5 (12)111 (0.22)100 (5.2)
DMP81.5 (3.6)83.3 (0.53)98.2 (15)90.5 (9.4)109 (0.77)102 (0.33)
DEP79.3 (5.2)83.1 (0.81)96.1 (13)87.2 (12)110 (0.36)101 (2.8)
DIBP83.1 (1.2)95.0 (2.1)98.4 (14)88.7 (14)111 (0.88)101 (3.2)
DBP91.0 (6.5)94.8 (3.3)100 (14)92.1 (8.8)114 (2.5)110 (3.6)
DMEP90.3 (6.8)103 (7.2)107 (12)99.2 (12)114 (3.7)108 (0.82)
DPP96.8 (11)98.3 (0.40)101 (14)96.3 (10)110 (6.6)107 (2.6)
BBP89.7 (3.5)83.7 (0.35)92.0 (16)86.7 (8.9)103 (0.34)96.9 (4.2)
DEHA83.9 (7.8)84.5 (2.7)87.8 (14)85.2 (8.5)86.4 (0.87)95.0 (0.76)
PlasticizersRecoveries (%, RSD)
2 µg·g−110 µg·g−120 µg·g−1
MortarVialMortarVialMortarVial
DIHP104 (5.3)102 (1.1)106 (6.3)88.4 (6.0)96.9 (6.2)93.7 (5.1)
DEHP98.1 (3.6)81.1 (0.73)93.3 (13)92.4 (4.8)101 (8.8)96.4 (3.1)
DCHP88.5 (2.4)92.0 (5.1)93.0 (12)87.5 (6.4)105 (2.4)102 (3.4)
DPhP84.9 (4.6)84.4 (1.3)90.5 (0.61)84.3 (8.6)102 (0.29)96.9 (4.2)
DNOP87.1 (1.2)88.4 (2.8)89.0 (15)84.1 (9.2)103 (3.6)98.5 (2.2)
Musks
Cashmeran87.4 (2.0)82.5 (9.5)98.0 (13)89.1 (13)110 (1.5)103 (7.2)
Celestolide81.8 (5.7)82.9 (0.80)94.6 (9.9)87.4 (3.1)109 (1.9)96.9 (9.0)
Phantolide86.3 (4.9)90.4 (0.67)102 (10)94.3 (3.4)115 (3.3)102 (11)
Ambrette86.8 (9.3)83.7 (14)93.8 (0.23)104 (7.1)115 (6.1)91.5 (6.2)
Traseolide88.1 (7.6)90.7 (3.3)99.4 (9.4)91.0 (4.5)114 (2.6)97.9 (10)
Galaxolide88.9 (0.27)94.7 (0.52)103 (15)95.3 (13)114 (1.4)105 (3.3)
Xylene81.1 (12)82.1 (5.6)68.3 (2.1)79.1 (2.6)93.3 (3.1)80.0 (6.2)
Tonalide83.1 (1.4)88.4 (0.72)87.5 (14)83.1 (8.2)101 (0.92)96.4 (1.4)
Moskene89.8 (13)86.1 (15)93.5 (7.3)83.2 (4.4)114 (3.7)94.6 (15)
Tibetene103 (8.1)109 (3.8)100 (14)93.0 (13)115 (3.6)111 (2.6)
Ambrettolide96.0 (5.6)111 (7.9)106 (1.1)107 (12)113 (3.0)108 (8.8)
Ketone101 (14)109 (6.1)104 (10)97.9 (15)114 (5.9)109 (6.9)
Table
Table 5. Recoveries of fragrance allergens, preservatives, plasticizers and musks in a rinse-off sample (shampoo) fortified at three concentration levels, analyzed by the proposed method µMSPD-GC-MS.
Table 5. Recoveries of fragrance allergens, preservatives, plasticizers and musks in a rinse-off sample (shampoo) fortified at three concentration levels, analyzed by the proposed method µMSPD-GC-MS.
Fragrance AllergensRecoveries (%, RSD)
2 µg·g−110 µg·g−120 µg·g−1
MortarVialMortarVialMortarVial
Pinene4.08 (12)20.8 (0.59)5.13 (0.38)36.5 (1.2)9.5 (6.9)36.8 (9.4)
Limonene28.2 (11)64.7 (2.1)28.1 (7.5)75.8 (15)38.9 (5.7)65.9 (14)
Benzyl alcohol113 (9.3)90.8 (13)85.7 (1.7)92.2 (1.5)105 (8.7)102 (8.9)
Linalool81.3 (9.3)114 (6.9)85.4 (3.6)109 (2.5)95.5 (14)88.7 (0.53)
Methyl-2-octynoate92.4 (2.8)83.2 (5.2)94.0 (6.7)101 (5.6)106 (11)88.5 (15)
Citronellol108 (1.4)114 (5.0)90.9 (5.0)99.1 (3.8)100 (14)102 (6.8)
Citral 100 (3.0)107 (10)83.3 (6.4)103 (7.0)103 (12)97.7 (4.3)
Geraniol109 (4.0)94.9 (13)90.4 (11)102 (3.4)93.9 (13)92.6 (0.44)
Cinnamal105 (3.6)89.1 (11)88.5 (5.3)94.2 (0.88)103 (7.2)96.0 (15)
Hydroxycitronellal100 (14)82.1 (5.0)80.1 (2.7)83.7 (4.7)89.9 (12)87.6 (3.7)
Anise alcohol112 (8.5)90.1 (15)86.6 (2.4)97.1 (0.76)101 (10)91.7 (9.3)
Cinnamyl alcohol113 (7.9)83.4 (15)87.6 (4.3)97.7 (0.40)97.9 (13)95.5 (13)
Eugenol106 (3.5)88.6 (13)87.5 (1.9)99.1 (1.2)98.6 (10)92.1 (15)
Methyleugenol110 (10)94.3 (1.5)96.4 (1.2)102 (0.33)104 (4.4)95.9 (10)
Isoeugenol87.9 (10)83.8 (6.9)107 (2.6)119 (0.42)96.2 (5.0)92.7 (10)
Coumarin111 (12)90.1 (3.8)89.7 (1.7)97.1 (3.5)104 (1.7)97.8 (7.9)
α-isomethyl ionone110 (10)97.4 (0.76)94.4 (0.84)98.4 (1.2)103 (4.3)93.4 (6.5)
Lilial®106 (12)91.7 (2.3)88.2 (0.10)93.3 (4.1)98.9 (5.3)88.3 (12)
Amyl cinnamal112 (5.8)106 (9.2)102 (3.6)109 (4.1)108 (11)102 (16)
Lyral®105 (1.7)112 (9.0)89.2 (1.2)99.4 (2.3)98.8 (11)82.6 (4.9)
Amylcinnamyl alcohol113 (8.3)118 (5.5)98.8 (1.8)114 (1.0)112 (7.7)113 (12)
Farnesol<LOQ<LOQ97 (3.2)111 (6.8)95.0 (15)108 (8.4)
Hexylcinnamal108 (1.2)105 (5.5)105 (3.1)111 (4.7)108 (9.5)104 (11)
Benzyl benzoate111 (11)98.4 (1.5)92.3 (1.6)103 (0.42)104 (3.1)97.6 (5.6)
Benzyl salicylate116 (1.2)113 (3.7)80.8 (0.51)102 (4.5)111 (8.4)104 (10)
Benzyl cinnamate102 (12)102 (2.1)102 (5.4)113 (3.9)119 (4.4)116 (3.3)
Preservatives
Bronidox104 (2.8)90.4 (11)94.4 (3.2)97 (5.3)101 (7.7)95.9 (16)
PhEtOH112 (10)90.5 (2.1)91.7 (3.1)94 (5.5)98.4 (12)92.6 (11)
MeP an.cn.cn.cn.cn.cn.c
BHA106 (12)98.4 (1.3)105 (5.7)110 (1.1)100 (3.1)100 (8.3)
BHT an.cn.cn.cn.cn.cn.c
EtP112 (1.0)103 (1.7)102 (2.5)102 (0.32)110 (3.9)108 (10)
iPrP118 (3.2)114 (15)102 (1.1)110 (3.4)111 (6.8)113 (7.4)
PrP an.cn.cn.cn.cn.cn.c
IPBC113 (8.7)97.7 (14)103 (8.0)117 (0.50)111 (16)95.4 (7.9)
iBuP94.1 (15)103 (2.4)104 (2.9)109 (2.3)111 (0.13)113 (8.4)
BuP115 (1.0)110 (1.6)108 (2.7)114 (2.4)116 (1.6)113 (10)
Triclosan87.0 (6.9)84.4 (6.1)81.7 (6.7)91 (7.8)118 (6.4)113 (11)
BzP87.3 (11)104 (9.5)81.4 (2.0)112 (1.7)104 (12)103 (11)
Plasticizers
DMA98.6 (5.5)95.1 (2.7)104 (0.65)72.4 (0.65)104 (1.3)96.6 (9.4)
DEA101 (5.5)81.3 (6.9)94.8 (1.6)92.8 (1.1)103 (4.0)91.8 (11)
DMP109 (12)87.9 (1.5)95.4 (2.7)94.2 (0.72)103 (1.4)95.0 (7.6)
DEP105 (7.0)92.2 (0.34)102 (2.5)100 (0.20)101 (3.2)100 (8.6)
DIBP115 (4.9)93.3 (2.7)94.1 (2.4)102 (0.64)98.9 (4.6)102 (10)
DBP117 (12)109 (0.69)91.5 (2.0)108 (1.7)105 (5.9)110 (9.3)
DMEP112 (10)100 (1.6)112 (7.9)119 (4.9)113 (2.3)112 (8.7)
DPP113 (11)88.4 (4.1)94.7 (4.2)107 (0.56)114 (3.9)115 (5.9)
PlasticizersRecoveries (%, RSD)
2 µg·g−110 µg·g−120 µg·g−1
MortarVialMortarVialMortarVial
BBP114 (5.6)115 (2.2)101 (5.4)108 (2.4)117 (3.0)119 (0.20)
DEHA96.9 (9.1)105 (7.0)101 (6.6)108 (8.5)112 (1.0)107 (2.8)
DIHP98.5 (1.4)102 (7.9)98.1 (1.7)102 (3.4)99.2 (6.8)113 (7.3)
DEHP116 (2.3)93.4 (3.5)103 (4.5)101 (4.6)109 (4.4)103 (5.2)
DCHP116 (8.7)107 (0.94)107 (6.9)107 (1.5)112 (10)114 (0.43)
DPhP116 (11)105 (1.5)95.9 (6.9)104 (3.2)113 (1.1)108 (2.2)
DNOP118 (4.4)87.8 (8.3)96.1 (6.5)106 (0.48)111 (2.3)120 (4.4)
Musks
Cashmeran112 (8.9)101 (1.8)113 (0.77)99 (1.2)103 (4.0)96.8 (11)
Celestolide113 (12)115 (1.1)114 (0.99)107 (0.47)104 (4.0)101 (6.8)
Phantolide109 (10)107 (3.4)113 (1.4)111 (4.2)102 (10)103 (14)
Ambrette118 (6.4)104 (10)118 (6.7)118 (11)100 (10)106 (10)
Traseolide113 (10)104 (7.3)95.2 (1.4)102 (3.8)103 (9.2)100 (12)
Galaxolide113 (13)100 (2.6)106 (2.0)98.9 (0.011)101 (4.0)97.2 (8.0)
Xylene118 (2.9)111 (8.2)101 (5.6)88.9 (14)104 (7.1)114 (4.3)
Tonalide117 (16)113 (2.6)90.7 (0.77)89.8 (1.3)101 (5.4)98.0 (7.6)
Moskene111 (15)96.7 (3.6)109 (4.0)105 (10)103 (16)96.0 (7.3)
Tibetene112 (12)108 (5.7)111 (1.7)99.0 (6.2)104 (10)100 (16)
Ambrettolide115 (3.8)111 (3.5)99.3 (1.3)101 82.7)104 (6.1)108 (14)
Ketone79.6 (4.5)114 (13)93.5 (0.75)109 (4.0)117 (8.0)113 (11)
a n.c: not calculated since initial sample concentration is higher than the spiked level. MeP, BHT, and PrP: 22, 21, and 10 µg·g-1, respectively.
Table
Table 6. Recovery study in different cosmetic matrices. Spike level: 10 µg·g−1.
Table 6. Recovery study in different cosmetic matrices. Spike level: 10 µg·g−1.
Fragrance AllergensRecoveries (%, RSD)
S3 aS6 aS8 a
MortarVialMortarVialMortarVial
Pinene4.2 (7.3)72.1 (1.5)11.2 (3.1)74.0 (0.013)21.2 (11)74.3 (4.1)
Limonene35.4 (5.6)90.3 (1.7)81.3 (3.1)77.0 (2.1)57.1 (2.5)93.0 (0.87)
Benzyl alcohol115 (6.9)109 (0.19)114 (4.2)91.2 (10)113 (0.51)116 (0.38)
Linalool102 (4.5)117 (0.021)n.cn.cn.cn.c
Methyl-2-octynoate106 (10.4)93.0 (3.4)94.9 (8.6)81.3 (9.7)103 (3.7)113 (6.1)
Citronellol89.8 (13)101 (2.8)110 (3.8)100 (2.2)90.0 (2.1)100 (2.8)
Citral 113 (7.1)105 (6.7)115 (5.0)94.2 (4.0)107 (2.9)108 (8.1)
Geraniol80.4 (13)93.4 (1.9)107 (7.8)92.4 (4.1)91.2 (8.1)98.2 (9.7)
Cinnamal98.8 (9.4)103 (2.8)106 (7.4)98.2 (4.6)101 (2.4)108 (2.5)
Hydroxycitronellal108 (12)102 (6.8)93.6 (6.3)81.0 (7.4)112 (6.1)111 (6.8)
Anise alcohol98.3 (13)101 (4.2)95.4 (5.2)96.1 (6.2)83.3 (6.6)104 (0.041)
Cinnamyl alcohol81.7 (15)96.9 (6.7)112 (11)91.4 (8.8)106 (8.7)109 (3.5)
Eugenol100 (11)95.4 (4.2)115 (10)92.1 (3.6)101 (6.1)109 (5.9)
Methyleugenol100 (8.3)110 (0.45)96.4 (6.5)96.1 (4.9)100 (3.5)106 (3.7)
Isoeugenol102 (9.9)93.0 (2.9)114 (15)82.5 (5.3)86.2 (3.3)95.2 (0.45)
Coumarin107 (11)118 (0.62)95.8 (2.1)81.0 (1.5)91.3 (1.3)97.1 (0.52)
α-isomethyl ionone98.4 (7.5)104 (1.9)96.8 (3.7)94.6 (0.24)98.8 (3.1)103 (2.5)
Lilial®99.2 (8.6)98.1 (1.2)97.2 (4.5)85.0 (0.055)96.3 (3.7)102 (4.2)
Amyl cinnamal106 (10)107 (0.82)105 (8.1)96.4 (3.6)98.7 (4.5)106 (4.2)
Lyral®115 (7.3)98.0 (1.5)85.8 (12)82.0 (11)112 (6.7)114 (7.5)
Amylcinnamyl alcohol104 (10)98.3 (6.7)109 (9.7)96.5 (9.4)111 (4.3)111 (9.1)
Farnesol92.3 (13)95.0 (0.29)97.2 (1.8)95.9 (13)109 (8.5)106 (12)
Hexylcinnamal107 (14)119 (0.29)n.cn.c105 (5.9)112 (5.9)
Benzyl benzoate102 (9.0)105 (0.43)101 (2.4)95.4 (1.2)107 (3.8)113 (5.1)
Benzyl salicylate112 (10)115 (6.9)n.cn.c113 (3.5)114 (4.3)
Benzyl cinnamate115 (6.7)116 (0.14)113 (9.0)112 (0.40)113 (6.1)115 (4.8)
PreservativesRecoveries (%, RSD)
S3 aS6 aS8 a
MortarVialMortarVialMortarVial
Bronidox93.9 (7.5)101 (2.7)106 (5.2)108 (0.94)105 (0.72)95.0 (5.2)
PhEtOHn.cn.cn.cn.cn.cn.c
MeP112 (11)100 (7.7)n.cn.cn.cn.c
BHA99.1 (9.6)94.2 (0.89)109 (6.2)83.2 (0.91)93.1 (3.1)102 (2.7)
BHT98.4 (3.1)92.0 (0.040)n.cn.c91.2 (3.4)100 (3.2)
EtP108 (7.7)92.0 (9.8)n.cn.cn.cn.c
iPrP105 (11)114 (8.5)114 (6.3)115 (1.2)94.9 (3.9)103 (3.8)
PrP115 (8.7)115 (1.14)n.cn.cn.cn.c
IPBC106 (14)84.2 (10)101 (7.4)113 (15)110 (18)114 (10)
iBuP105 (13)111 (5.3)n.cn.c112 (9.6)106 (1.4)
BuP103 (14)107 (0.79)n.cn.c107 (13)103 (6.8)
Triclosan119 (5.8)96.0 (3.0)114 (3.3)106 (13)104 (8.8)110 (3.5)
BzP96.0 (14)108 (7.9)95.1 (2.8)116 (9.0)110 (10)102 (3.5)
Plasticizers
DMA105 (8.1)105 (1.1)97.0 (3.7)84.0 (2.8)95.1 (0.59)98.2 (3.1)
DEA108 (6.5)100 (2.9)104 (5.2)96.1 (2.4)105 (4.6)113 (5.4)
DMP96.4 (7.6)104 (1.8)95.0 (5.8)88.3 (2.0)95.2 (0.75)101 (1.5)
DEP97.8 (7.4)107 (0.41)n.cn.cn.cn.c
DIBP97.6 (10)104 (0.24)100 (2.5)88.2 (1.5)96.4 (2.5)102 (3.1)
DBP109 (8.4)115 (1.1)108 (4.4)98.7 (2.1)106 (3.2)112 (4.1)
DMEP113 (8.7)119 (5.8)98.2 (7.0)103 (3.0)107 (7.9)114 (4.9)
DPP108 (7.3)108 (0.93)112 (3.7)101 (0.82)114 (2.7)115 (2.2)
BBP97.3 (8.1)97 (1.9)109 (3.6)86.0 (0.94)103 (4.8)110 (0.74)
DEHA112 (6.9)83 (3.3)83.1 (4.1)80.2 (1.7)96.4 (4.9)103 (0.70)
DIHP113 (6.6)115 (4.6)108 (7.3)107 (15)101 (10)89.0 (1.5)
PlasticizersRecoveries (%, RSD)
S3 aS6 aS8 a
MortarVialMortarVialMortarVial
DEHP114 (13)93 (1.3)99.2 (4.4)90.3 (2.2)105 (2.1)112 (2.1)
DCHP113 (14)96 (0.80)94.0 (8.6)88.5 (1.5)97.2 (8.5)97.2 (7.5)
DPhP112 (7.6)102 (0.13)115 (3.0)92.0 (5.9)102 (3.1)108 (3.1)
DNOP102 (8.1)114 (0.88)113 (2.8)100 (0.31)114 (1.5)113 (2.4)
Musks
Cashmeran98.4 (8.6)96.0 (0.32)93.0 (7.0)88.3 (1.6)97.2 (2.4)103 (2.5)
Celestolide102 (8.5)103 (1.0)93.5 (6.9)93.5 (1.6)98.0 (4.8)105 (5.0)
Phantolide100 (8.1)102 (1.1)96.4 (4.4)93.9 (1.0)101 (4.8)107 (4.4)
Ambrette92.0 (13)84.2 (13)113 (6.3)112 (15)112 (10)113 (11)
Traseolide98.8 (10)100 (2.3)105 (7.7)101 (0.10)105 (5.3)113 (4.9)
Galaxolide98.0 (10)102 (0.72)n.cn.cn.cn.c
Xylene88.2 (9.2)--111 (8.9)--86.0 (5.5)97.4 (7.4)
Tonalide98.4 (10)98.0 (0.83)81.0 (2.6)84.0 (2.2)n.cn.c
Moskene93.0 (12)89.1 (11)109 (11)103 (15)98.2 (8.1)103 (8.6)
Tibetene107 (10)105 (4.4)111 (11)106 (7.8)104 (7.1)109 (7.9)
Ambrettolide114 (13)101 (0.98)94.4 (10)86.2 (4.8)80.1 (10)93.2 (3.5)
Ketone109 (11)99.0 (7.4)109 (13)114 (3.7)108 (9.5)115 (10)
a See initial concentration in Table 7. n.c: not calculated since initial sample concentration is higher than the spiked level.
Cosmetics 01 00171 g003 1024
Figure 3. Comparative results between in vial or mortar µ-MSPD for a leave-on sample (hands cream).
Figure 3. Comparative results between in vial or mortar µ-MSPD for a leave-on sample (hands cream).
Cosmetics 01 00171 g003

3.3. Application to Real Samples

Finally, the validated method was applied to the analysis of 18 real cosmetic and personal care products, including five rinse-off (shower gel, shampoos and baby liquid soap) and 13 leave-on (sunblock, after sun, body milk, hands cream, deodorants, among others) products, which represent a wide variety of personal care products. Results are shown in Table 7. Forty-eight of the 66 targets were found in the samples, with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 28 compounds in each sample, at global concentrations ranging from 0.043% to 1.6%. It is worthy to note that the sample containing more targets is a baby body care lotion (sample S16).

3.3.1. Fragrance Allergens

Twenty-two of the 26 fragrance allergens were found in the analyzed samples. Linalool was detected in 83% of the samples at concentration values up to 0.1%. Also limonene, coumarin, benzyl alcohol, and benzyl salicylate were found in many samples at concentrations below 800 µg·g−1. Other fragrance allergens were detected in 2–12 samples. It is remarkable the presence of farnesol at high concentrations (>0.2%) in two leave-on samples (S12 and S13). Regarding the number of compounds per sample, three leave-on samples (S7, S16 and S18) contained 15 target allergens. In the other samples, the number of compounds was 3–12.
Table
Table 7. Analysis of target compounds in rinse-off and leave-on cosmetic samples (% w/w ×104)a.
Table 7. Analysis of target compounds in rinse-off and leave-on cosmetic samples (% w/w ×104)a.
Fragrance AllergensRinse-off Samples bLeave-on Samples b
S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14S15S16S17S18
Pinene-0.777-1.18--2.24---1.51-0.9720.3961.400.8810.4260.0800
Limonene266148-283-0.446199-152-11.01.3116322253.214.32.736.38
Benzyl alcohol4.00---3.323.067.55-2.502.9331.23.7617.9--6.140.69827.5
Linalool66684.6-172-27.335817.23691011612521781024255228-26.4
Methyl-2-octynoate60.4------10524.7---72.0-----
Citronellol25.0-----79.6--1.4545.3234-63.1-58.07.7513.2
Citral ---13.6--8.84-10.56.28----6.50---
Geraniol90.219.1-44.5--167--2.8323.110.3--37.241.1-17.3
Cinnamal-------------4.73-1.14--
Hydroxycitronellal--2.08--0.21233.1---57.4--1.29-18.352.01.00
Anise alcohol-----0.155-23.6----------
Cinnamyl alcohol---------------12.49.236.42
Eugenol-----2.67-----1.6631.840.5--3.630.114
Coumarin30.83.446.899.55-0.46011.8-16.6--11321.05573.25-1.7920.3
α-isomethyl ionone3.32----0.29731.5-48.5-36.5--136-89.916731.8
Lilial®-7.831.36--0.84330.8-172-14.03314912.7923382.4--
Amyl cinnamal-116-------7.34--------
Lyral®------108---211----58.141.110.7
Farnesol-----------29242188-----
Hexylcinnamal-----12.929.6 27.4 1153938854.370.47560.2-74.5
Benzyl benzoate-0.316-5.880.3800.4525.66---7.631.53-0.7891.284.2114.18.28
Benzyl salicylate-2.48-5240.35512.44.29-217--1117700.6421.7048619.910.3
PreservativesS1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14S15S16S17S18
PhEtOH14.2-15.31.30200913952455360940171.4515530-0.383-17.3199318771849
MePc-4.653.22-2841244654789887-1484---2.74540-1350
BHA-----2.78------------
BHT0.5441.98-0.1050.043012.1186--2996-20.39.935.016250.23725.2
PreservativesRinse-off Samples bLeave-on Samples b
S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14S15S16S17S18
EtP c----89.7135202203- ----5.19119-15.46
iPrP c----144-------------
PrP c-1.610.374-60.14701.4536426211467660---1.7662.4-588
IPBC--0.50440.2-------5.94------
iBuP c--0.258-46.757.3---------64.5--
BuP c--1.17-91.0146--------0.280122--
Triclosan------------27941.21----
PlasticizersS1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14S15S16S17S18
DEP4321530.8880.1900.31610939.446.00.1180.37820.40.7371.8815390.25440.53030.300
DIBP-0.138------0.3370.42026.4-0.2920.546----
DBP0.4090.07220.0511--0.5090.1940.3400.2990.5491434-2.240.5751.37--1.24
DEHA-10.4--------------16387-
DEHP0.6400.7310.1680.5530.800-0.986---4.781.241.020.818-1.78--
DCHP------------0.196-----
DPhP---------8.48--------
DNOP------------0.4440.0932----
MusksS1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14S15S16S17S18
Celestolide1.23-----0.5980.110----------
Phantolide0.320-----------------
Galaxolide6250.379-0.0820-11493.2128-0.1193.901990.1200.844-86.8211-
Xylene---------------3.14--
Tonalide244------20.8--3.54--0.153-26.3--
Ambrettolide--16.034.7------10.8-------
Ketone------33.4--------1368--
a Equivalent to µg·g−1. b S1: Shower gel; S2, S3: Shampoos, S4, S5: Babies liquid soap; S6: Sunblock; S7: Aftersun; S8, S9: Body milk; S10: Lipstick; S11: Hands cream; S12, S13, S14: Deodorants; S15, S16: Baby moisturising lotions; S17: Makeup; S18: Moisturising milk. c Parabens concentration expressed as acid (% w/w × 104).

3.3.2. Preservatives

Phenoxyethanol was the most frequent found preservative (83% of the samples) at concentration values higher than 0.1% (1000 µg·g−1) in nine samples. In sample S11, phenoxyethanol concentration (1.5%) surpassed the maximum concentration permitted by European regulation (see Table 1). In the case of parabens, six of the seven targets were found in the analyzed samples. The most common was PrP (67%) at 0.1% in two leave-on samples (S9 and S10). Other parabens, MeP, EtP, BuP, iBuP, and iPrP, were found in 11, seven, five, four and one samples, respectively. Triclosan was detected in two samples, at very high concentration in a deodorant (S13), reaching the limit established by the European legislation (0.3%). BHT, IPBC, and BHA were detected in 13, three and one sample, respectively. The highest number of preservatives was found in S5 and S6, with eight targets. It should be noted that S5 is a care cream intended for babies. A hand cream (S11) does not comply with European restrictions regarding PhEtOH (>1%) and total paraben concentration (> 0.8%).

3.3.3. Plasticizers

DEP was found in all analyzed samples at concentration levels below 432 µg·g−1, except in the deodorant S14 (1539 µg·g−1). Two banned phthalates (DBP and DEHP) were detected in 13 and 11 samples, respectively, at concentrations between 0.05 and 4.8 µg·g−1. It should be noted that sample S11 (a hand cream) contained a DBP concentration >0.1%. In the other personal care products, the number of plasticizers was 1–6, highlighting the presence of DEHA at very high concentration (1.6%) in make-up (leave-on sample, S17).

3.3.4. Musks

Galaxolide was found in 72% of the samples at concentrations below 625 µg·g−1. Celestolide and ambrettolide were found in 17% of the samples at concentration levels between 0.11 and 35 µg·g−1. The restricted musks tonalide, ketone, xylene and phantolide were detected in at least one sample (tonalide in five samples); at concentrations fulfilling the EU limits, with the exception of musk ketone, found at >0.042% in sample S16, a baby moisturizing lotion.

4. Conclusions

A micro-MSPD-GC-MS method has been proposed for the determination of four families of compounds extensively used in cosmetics and personal care product formulations: fragrance allergens, preservatives, plasticizers, and synthetic musks. This study included 66 chemicals subjected to restrictions according European legislation. We compared the performance of two micro-MSPD procedures for the extraction of the targets, performing the sample disruption in mortar and in vial. The proposed in-vial method allows analytes extraction in less than 5 min, providing a quick and low cost extraction procedure with lower losses of the more volatile compounds. The method was validated showing satisfactory linearity, sensitivity, accuracy, and precision, with recoveries higher than 90% and RSD values below 10%. Finally, the method was applied to real cosmetic samples including different matrices to demonstrate the method performance. Forty-eight of the 66 targets were detected in the analyzed samples. Several compounds were present at concentrations higher than 0.1%, and two of the samples did not comply with European requirements. The analyzed products intended for baby care contained similar or even higher numbers and concentrations of regulated compounds, highlighting the high number of preservatives, and the presence of musk ketone above the legal limit in one of these kinds of products.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds and projects CTQ 2013-46545-P (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain) and CN 2012/299 (Research Groups Consolidation Program, Xunta de Galicia).

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work. Research design and supervision was mainly done by Maria Llompart and Carmen Garcia-Jares, and experimental by Maria Celeiro and Juan Pablo Lamas.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on Cosmetic Products (recast). Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, L342, 59–209. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kirchhof, M.G.; de Gannes, G.C. The health controversies of parabens. Skin Ther. Lett. 2013, 18, 5–7. [Google Scholar]
  3. Polati, S.; Gosetti, S.; Gennaro, M.C. Preservatives in Cosmetics. Analytical Methods. In Analysis of Cosmetic Products; Salvador, A., Chisvert, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  4. Darbre, P.D.; Harvey, P.W. Paraben esters: Review of recent studies of endocrine toxicity, absorption, esterase and human exposure, and discussion of potential human health risks. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2008, 28, 561–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nohynek, G.J.; Borgert, C.J.; Dietrich, D.; Rozman, K.K. Endocrine disruption: Fact or urban legend? Toxicol. Lett. 2013, 223, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Boberg, J.; Taxvig, C.; Christiansen, S.; Hass, U. Possible endocrine disrupting effects of parabens and their metabolites. Reprod. Toxicol. 2010, 30, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. ANSM. L’ANSM Recommande de Restreindre la Concentration de Phénoxyéthanol dans les Produits Cosmétiques Destinés aux Enfants de Moins de 3 ans—Point D’information. Available online: http://ansm.sante.fr/S-informer/Points-d-information-Points-d-information/L-ANSM-recommande-de-restreindre-la-concentration-de-phenoxyethanol-dans-les-produits-cosmetiques-destines-aux-enfants-de-moins-de-3-ans-Point-d-information (accessed on 22 May 2014).
  8. Roosens, L.; Covaci, A.; Neels, H. Concentrations of synthetic musk compounds in personal care and sanitation products and human exposure profiles through dermal application. Chemosphere 2007, 69, 1540–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Petersen, G.; Rasmussen, D.; Gustavson, K. Study on Enhancing the Endocrine Disrupter Priority List with a Focus on Low Production Volume Chemiclas; DHI Water and Environment: Hørsholm, Denmark, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chisvert, A.; Salvador, A. Perfumes in Cosmetics. Analytical Methods. In Analysis of Cosmetic Products; Salvador, A., Chisvert, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cabaleiro, N.; de la Calle, I.; Bendicho, C.; Lavilla, I. Current trends in liquid-liquid and solid-liquid extraction for cosmetic analysis: A review. Anal. Methods 2013, 5, 323–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cabaleiro, N.; de la Calle, I.; Bendicho, C.; Lavilla, I. An overview of sample preparation for the determination of parabens in cosmetics. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2014, 57, 34–46. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wang, L.-H. Fragrances: from essential oils to the human body and atmospheric aerosols. Anal. Methods 2013, 5, 316–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Capriotti, A.L.; Cavaliere, C.; Lagana, A.; Piovesana, S.; Samperi, R. Recent trends in matrix solid-phase dispersion. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2013, 43, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kristenson, E.M.; Brinkman, U.A.T.; Ramos, L. Recent advances in matrix solid-phase dispersion. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2006, 25, 96–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alvarez-Rivera, G.; Dagnac, T.; Lores, M.; Garcia-Jares, C.; Sanchez-Prado, L.; Lamas, J.P.; Llompart, M. Determination of isothiazolinone preservatives in cosmetics and household products by matrix solid-phase dispersion followed by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1270, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sanchez-Prado, L.; Alvarez-Rivera, G.; Lamas, J.P.; Llompart, M.; Lores, M.; Garcia-Jares, C. Content of suspected allergens and preservatives in marketed baby and child care products. Anal. Methods 2013, 5, 416–427. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sanchez-Prado, L.; Alvarez-Rivera, G.; Lamas, J.P.; Lores, M.; Garcia-Jares, C.; Llompart, M. Analysis of multi-class preservatives in leave-on and rinse-off cosmetics by matrix solid-phase dispersion. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2011, 401, 3293–3304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Llompart, M.; Celeiro, M.; Lamas, P.J.; Sanchez-Prado, L.; Lores, M.; Garcia-Jares, C. Analysis of plasticizers and synthetic musks in cosmetic and personal care products by matrix solid-phase dispersion gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1293, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Celeiro, M.; Guerra, E.; Lamas, J.P.; Lores, M.; Garcia-Jares, C.; Llompart, M. Development of a multianalyte method based on micro-matrix-solid-phase dispersion for the analysis of fragrance allergens and preservatives in personal care products. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1344, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sanchez-Prado, L.; Lamas, J.P.; Alvarez-Rivera, G.; Lores, M.; Garcia-Jares, C.; Llompart, M. Determination of suspected fragrance allergens in cosmetics by matrix solid-phase dispersion gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218, 5055–5062. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lamas, J.P.; Sanchez-Prado, L.; Garcia-Jares, C.; Lores, M.; Llompart, M. Development of a solid phase dispersion-pressurized liquid extraction method for the analysis of suspected fragrance allergens in leave-on cosmetics. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 8087–8094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Becerril-Bravo, E.; Lamas, P.J.; Sanchez-Prado, L.; Lores, M.; Garcia-Jares, C.; Jimenez, B.; Llompart, M. Ultrasound-assisted emulsification-microextraction of fragrance allergens in water. Chemosphere 2010, 81, 1378–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Celeiro, M.; Lamas, J.P.; Llompart, M.; Garcia-Jares, C. In-Vial Micro-Matrix-Solid Phase Dispersion for the Analysis of Fragrance Allergens, Preservatives, Plasticizers, and Musks in Cosmetics. Cosmetics 2014, 1, 171-201. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics1030171

AMA Style

Celeiro M, Lamas JP, Llompart M, Garcia-Jares C. In-Vial Micro-Matrix-Solid Phase Dispersion for the Analysis of Fragrance Allergens, Preservatives, Plasticizers, and Musks in Cosmetics. Cosmetics. 2014; 1(3):171-201. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics1030171

Chicago/Turabian Style

Celeiro, Maria, Juan Pablo Lamas, Maria Llompart, and Carmen Garcia-Jares. 2014. "In-Vial Micro-Matrix-Solid Phase Dispersion for the Analysis of Fragrance Allergens, Preservatives, Plasticizers, and Musks in Cosmetics" Cosmetics 1, no. 3: 171-201. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics1030171

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop