This material may be protected by Copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code)
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 1
`
`

`

`76
`
`JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
`
`the MIC’s increase in the order: butyl < propyl < ethyl < methyl and the ratios, as
`would be predicted, are roughly the ratios of the solubilities.
`
`In cosmetic ingredients such as vegetable oils, the solubility order is the reverse of that
`in water; methyl paraben is least soluble and therefore should be the most eflicient
`preservative for oil-rich emulsions. Evans (3) showed that for simple oil/water mixtures
`the best preservative may be propyl paraben at low oil/water ratios or methyl paraben
`at high oil/water ratios but that methyl/propyl mixtures are less efi'icient
`in both
`Cases.
`
`There seems to be a contradiction here between theory and practice. Parabens are
`almost always used in combinations in preserving cosmetics. A search of the literature,
`however, yielded no data unequivocally showing synergism in either aqueOus broths or
`complex products.
`
`In our own experimental work we first attempted to demonstrate the applicability of
`the Ferguson principle to the parabens in simple, well-defined aqueous solutions as a
`step toward resolving the question of the utility of mixtures and also to support our
`theoretical proposal
`that single parabens be selected according to solubility. The
`earliest of these experiments (7) showed that the parabens do not follow the Ferguson
`principle to a useful extent; at saturation their antimicrobial potencies are not equal. In
`fact, they drop sharply in the order: methyl > ethyl > propyl > butyl (and benzyl
`paraben, not a member of the homologous series, is less potent yet).
`
`The ranking of the parabens is evident from the way the survival Curves of E. 6011'
`change as the inoculation level and saturation fraction are varied. At levels of ’103 per
`ml or less the curves are roughly log-linear with about the same slope for methyl, ethyl
`and propyl parabens at saturation; the bacterial population is extinguished in a day or
`two and no survivors are detected thereafter for as long as three weeks.
`
`The Ferguson principle is clearly applicable under these conditions. With methyl
`paraben at saturation the survival Curve remains log-linear to extinction with the same
`slope, as the inoculation level is increased to over 107 per ml; as its saturation fraction is
`decreased the rate of kill decreases but kill is persistent and appears to be complete in
`all cases until the saturation fraction is reduced to less than one-half, where the initial
`
`slope of the survival curve approaches zero. With pr0pyl paraben the initial kill rate at
`saturation remains the same as the inoculation level is increased but at levels of about
`
`105 per ml the survival curve becomes concave up within hours of inoculation and in
`some cases it passes through a deep minimum £0110wed shortly by regrowth at about
`the same rate as in the unpreserved control. At still higher inoculation levels the
`minimum is shallow and occurs so early that the initial killing phase (if it occurs at all)
`is not detected and only a lag relative to the unpreserved control is noticed. The
`performance of ethyl paraben is intermediate but qualitatively more similar to that of
`propyl paraben:
`the transition from persistent kill
`to the kill—minimum-regrOWth
`pattern occurs but it takes place at higher inoculation levels and lower saturation
`fractions than with propyl paraben.
`
`We found the same paraben ranking in experiments with PJeudomomz: aeruginom
`ATCC #9721 but with this organism the superiority of methyl paraben is much more
`striking; at saturation it extinguishes inoculations as high as 107 per ml in less than one
`day while the ethyl and propyl esters cause only transient reductions in survivor c0unts
`at inoculations as low as 104 per ml.
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 2
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 2
`
`

`

`THE PARABENS
`
`77
`
`Because of its strong dependence on both the inoculum size and the solubility of the
`paraben we first thought that regrowth might be due to depletion of the preservative
`because of its partitioning into the cytoplasm of both the declining number of
`survivors and the growing volume of dead bacteria. We had quantitatively predicted
`such an effect
`from the reported bulk/cytoplasm partition coefficient
`(see the
`Discussion) on the assumption that the rates of growth and reproduction of the
`survivors is unaffected by the presence of the antimicrobial. We found, however, that
`the concentration of preservative (methyl and propyl parabens) in the bulk phase does
`not change detectably by analysis of the supernatant (UV spectrophotometry and high
`preSSure liquid chromatography) after rem0ving the bacteria by centrifugation from
`samples taken frequently over
`the entire c0urse of the kill-minimum-regrOWth
`sequence. Adaptation was confirmed as
`the causative mechanism by using the
`survivors of the regrowth process in 90% saturated propyl paraben as inoculum into a
`fresh propyl paraben solution;
`they grew out promptly while a naive inoculum
`reenacted the kill-minimum-regrowth sequence.
`
`In later experiments we found that the survivors of a single exposure to propyl paraben
`retained their immunity completely after forty one days of repeated culturing in the
`absence of‘the preservative; to this extent the adaptation is permanent and, as such, it
`may help explain why extraordinarily refractory strains are occasionally encountered in
`cosmetic manufacture.
`
`Butyl paraben at high saturation fraction in water initially kills E. coli (but not
`Preudomorza: aeruginom) much more rapidly than the lower esters. An inoculum of 103
`to 105 appears to have been extinguished completely after only an h0ur or so of
`exposure to a 90% saturated solution and for several tens of h0urs no survivors are
`recovered but as with propyl paraben this may be followed by explosive regrowth. In
`this case, however, survivors transferred to fresh butyl paraben solution did not fare
`much better than the naive culture. Because its performance was poor for practical
`purposes against E. coli and even poorer against other bacteria as reported in this paper,
`we did not pursue further the interesting matter of its distinctive, non-Ferguson
`behavior.
`
`Finally, we found benzyl paraben at near saturation in water so feebly antimicrobial
`even against S. aurem, that we omitted it from consideration as a useful preservative
`after only a few further trials.
`
`In this paper we report on some additional experiments in water and on more recent
`work in prototype products designed to simulate a wide range of real cosmetics.
`
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`
`Both ATCC strains and wild isolates from products or processing equipment were
`used. The bacteria were grown at room temperature (ca. 23°C) for 48 hours in a
`nutrient-buffer salts-glucose solution, pH 6.7, adapted from that of Rye and Wiseman
`(8) shown in Table I. For convenience, it was prepared as a stock solution at twenty
`times the concentrations shown.
`
`The fungi were grown on SabOuraud Dextrose Agar (BBL) for seven days. The spores
`were harvested and suspended in saline.
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 3
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 3
`
`

`

`78
`
`JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
`
`Table I
`
`Nutrient-Buffer Solution, pH 6.7
`
`NH4C1
`MgCl2
`NaZSO4
`NazHPO4
`KHZPO4
`Glucose
`
`0.05M
`0.0005M
`0.0005M
`0.05M
`0.05M
`1 g/l
`
`The compositions of the prototype products, a mineral oil emulsion, a vegetable oil
`emulsion and a shampoo, are given in Tables II, III and IV. They were prepared from
`ordinary cosmetic raw ingredients without special eHorts to avoid contamination.
`Usually, a one-kilogram batch was prepared without preservative, withholding a few
`per cent of the water. The desired amount of preservative was weighed into a 100-g
`
`Table II
`Mineral Oil Emulsion
`
`Ingredient
`
`
`Per kg
`
`Light mineral oil
`Oleyl alcohol, 10 mole ethoxylate
`Nutrient-Bufler Stock Solution1
`Preservative
`Water
`120 times concentrations in Table I.
`
`200 g
`30 g
`5.0 ml
`(1.5.
`to 1 kg
`
`Table III
`Peanut Oil Emulsion
`
`Ingredient
`
`
`Per kg
`
`Peanut Oil (Planters', 100%)
`Stearyl alcohol, 2 mole ethoxylate
`Stearic acid, 40 mole ethoxylate
`Nutrient-Buffer Stock Solution‘
`Preservative
`Water
`120 times concentrations in Table I.
`
`Shampoo
`
`Ingredient
`
`Table IV
`
`Sodium lauryl sulfate, 100%
`Sodium lauryl ether (2 mole) sulfate, 30%
`Lauroyl diethanolamide
`Linoleoyl diethanolamide
`Sodium chloride
`Orthophosphoric acid, 85%
`Nutrient-Buffer Stock Solution‘
`Preservative
`Water
`120 times concentrations in Table I.
`
`200 g
`15 g
`20 g
`5.0 ml
`q.s.
`to 1 kg
`
`Per kg
`
`75 g
`100 g
`35 g
`10 g
`2.0 g
`3.0 g
`5.0 m1
`q.s.
`to 1 kg
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 4
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 4
`
`

`

`THE PARABENS
`
`79
`
`sub-batch in an eight-Ounce screw-cap jar. The preservative was dissolved by heating
`for several hours at 60°C with occasional mixing. After cooling to room temperature,
`the pH was adjusted with 4N HCl or NaOH and water was added to 100.0 g.
`
`Emulsions prepared in this fashion are of poor stability but when higher levels of
`emulsifiers were used to improve the quality of the base formulas, the addition of each
`paraben had a specific degrading effect, in some cases causing phase inversion. Since it
`would have been pointless to compare,
`say, methyl and ethyl parabens in an
`oil-in—water System with prOpyl and butyl parabens in water-in-oil, we accepted
`uniformly poor stability as the lesser evil.
`
`The concentration (basis water content) of nutrient salts and glucose in the prototype
`products is about one-eighth of that in the aqueOus ‘broths. The intent here is to
`swamp out the possibly distorting effects of chance nutrification and the nutrient
`differences inherent in the three product formulas.
`
`It was not possible to measure inoculum growth in unpreserved control systems
`because these were invariably found grossly contaminated with stray microbes but the
`rapid growth to about 107/g of recognizable inoculum bacteria and the persistence of
`mold spores in poorly preserved systems left no dOubt that these prototype products,
`like their real cosmetic product counterparts will support damaging growth of the
`challenge organisms.
`
`Systems challenged with bacteria at 105/g or mold spores at 103/g were incubated at
`room temperature. Aliquots were diluted in one tenth strength Nutrient Broth (BBL),
`dispersed in Nutrient Agar (BBL) and incubated for three days at room temperature
`before counting. All challenged systems were sampled abOut one hour after inocula-
`tion, on day 1, 2, 5 or 4 and on days, 7, 14 and 21. Sampling was terminated on or after
`day 7 only if two successive counts clearly showed persistence or gr0wth of bacteria.
`
`RESULTS
`
`Water nutrified with mineral salts and glucose, buffered at pH 6.7 and saturated with
`methyl paraben successfully resisted challenge by two fungi and by thirteen gram-
`negative bacterial strains including the most resistant wild isolates in our collection. In
`the same medium saturated with ethyl paraben, five of the thirteen bacteria grew out;
`propyl paraben failed against ten of them and butyl paraben failed against all but one
`bacterium and one mold. Table V shows these results in the form of the kill time
`
`which we define throughout this report as the earliest time in the sampling schedule at
`which the count of survivors was less than 10/g (no survivors detected) and remained
`so until 21 days after inoculation. These data clearly rank the parabens: methyl >
`ethyl > propyl > butyl. (They. also imply a ranking of the challenge organisms in terms
`of their ability to resist attack by the parabens, and they are listed in Table V in this
`fashion.) Several of the entries in Table V are "G(A)” indicating gr0wth after
`adaptation. In these cases 95% or more of the inoculum died in the first few days but
`the survivors grew to the limit of the nutrient system.
`
`In Table VI we show the kill time of P. aeruginom ATCC #9721 in saturated aqueous
`paraben solutions at vari0us pH’s. In this experiment
`there is less discrimination
`among the parabens, but
`the indication remains that
`the efficacy ranking is not
`strongly pH dependent; from low to high pH, methyl or ethyl paraben is the most
`potent, butyl paraben is least.
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 5
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 5
`
`

`

`8O
`
`jOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
`
`Table V
`
`Kill Time of Parabens at Saturation in Nutrient-Buffer Solution pH 67
`Kill time, days"
`
`Microbe
`Serratia martejcem
`
`Preudamonar aemginom
`Preadomonar aeruginom
`Enterabacter bafnia
`Serratia liqaifatiem
`Pleudomonm repacia
`Pseudomzmar aeruginm‘a
`Prettdomonar aemginam
`Serratia rubidaea
`
`Premiamonar palida
`Enterobatter tloame
`Eitherirbia m/i
`Enterobatter bafm};
`Alpergillm niger
`Penicillin»: rperier
`
`Methyl
`Ethyl
`Propyl
`
`Origin
`Code
`Paraben
`Paraben
`Paraben
`Wild
`ED-Z
`7
`G
`G
`
`Butyl
`Paraben
`G
`
`Wild
`Wild
`Wild
`Wild
`Wild
`Wild
`ATCC
`Wild
`
`Wild
`Wild
`ATCC
`Wild
`ATCC
`Wild
`
`MEM
`BB-1A
`LSC
`T-1
`RS
`SM-S
`#9721
`CW-1
`
`SM-6
`PLS-2
`#25922
`SG
`#16404
`
`1
`1
`1
`1
`7
`4
`4
`4
`
`1
`1
`1
`4
`4
`7
`
`G
`G(A)
`G(A)
`G(A)
`7
`14
`14
`4
`
`1
`1
`1
`14
`4
`1
`
`G
`G
`G
`G
`G
`G
`G
`G
`
`G
`1
`1
`14
`4
`7
`
`G
`G
`G
`G(A)
`G
`G
`G
`G
`
`G
`G(A)
`G(A)
`14
`> 21
`1
`
`*G indicates heavy growth; G(A) indicates growth preceded by 95% or greater kill.
`
`Table VI
`Kill Time of Parabens at Saturation in Nutrient-Bufl'er Solution at
`
`Various pH's Challenged with Preudamonai aeruginom ATCC #9721
`
`Kill time, days
`
`Methyl
`Ethyl
`Propyl
`Butyl
`
`pH
`Buffer1
`Paraben
`Paraben
`Paraben
`Paraben
`
`5.4
`6.7
`7.7
`8.6
`
`Malic acid
`Phosphate
`Tris-Phosphate
`Tris-Glycine2
`
`1
`1
`1
`1
`
`1
`G(A)
`1
`
`1
`G(A)
`G(A)
`1
`
`G(A)
`G(A)
`G(A)
`1
`
`1Apart from the buffer changes and substitutiOn of glycine for NH}, the nutrients are as given in Table 1.
`2In this solution, glycine is also the source of nitrogen.
`
`Table VII shows the kill time of ED-2, a very resistant isolate identified as Serratia
`marcescem, in neutral mineral oil and peanut oil emulsions and in the shampoo, with
`and without nutrients with 0.8% nominal paraben level in all cases. In the mineral oil
`emulsion the methyl, ethyl and propyl parabens readily dissolve to this extent at 60°C
`but crystallize out in part on standing at room temperature; these systems are at
`saturation at ab0ut 0.6%. Re-precipitation does not occur with butyl paraben in the
`mineral oil emulsion nor with any of the parabens in the peanut oil emulsion or the
`shampoo; these systems are at or below saturation.
`
`In the nutrified systems, only methyl paraben kills this organism in the emulsions; in
`the shampoo even methyl paraben fails to check its growth. In the absence of nutrient
`the preservatives do better in general; methyl and ethyl parabens are effective in the
`emulsions but propyl and butyl parabens still fail, and in the shampoo all four parabens
`fail.
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 6
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 6
`
`

`

`THE PARABENS
`
`81
`
`Table VII
`
`Kill Time of 0.8% Paraben in Prototype Products at pH 6.5 Challenged with ED-21
`
`Kill time, days
`Medium
`Paraben
`N0 Nutrient2
`Nutrified
`
`
`1
`Methyl3
`1
`Ethyl3
`.
`.
`.
`Mineral Oil Emulsron
`Propyl}
`G(A)
`
`Butyl
`G(A)
`
`2
`G(A)
`G
`G
`
`2
`1
`Methyl
`G
`7
`Ethyl
`.
`.
`Peanut Oll Emulsron
`Propyl
`G
`G
`
`Butyl
`G
`G
`
`Methyl
`Ethyl
`Propyl
`Butyl
`
`G
`G
`G
`G
`
`G
`G
`G
`G
`
`Shampoo
`
`ISer'mtia marfexcem, wild isolate.
`lOrth0phosphate buffer.
`3Saturated.
`
`In the mineral Oil emulsion at saturation the performance of the parabens is not very
`difierent from that in water. In Tables VIII and IX we show kill time data on the first
`
`three parabens at saturation in the peanut oil emulsion and in the shampoo.
`Performance is marginally better in the peanut Oil emulsion than in water, but the
`
`Kill Time of Parabens at Saturation in Nutrified Peanut Oil Emulsion, pH = 6.5
`
`Table VIII
`
`Microbe]
`
`
`A. niger, ATCC 16404
`P. aeruginom, ATCC 9721
`[513-1
`ED-2
`
`Methyl
`Paraben
`10—12%
`
`2
`1
`1
`1
`
`Kill time, clays2
`
`Ethyl
`Paraben
`08—10%
`
`2
`1
`2
`G
`
`Propyl
`Paraben
`12—16%
`
`7
`1
`l
`G
`
`1EB-l and ED-2 are Wild strains of Serratia marcexcem.‘
`
`2Percentages are approximate concentrations.
`
`Table IX
`
`Kill Time of Parabens at Saturation in Nutrified Shampoo, pH 6.5 (ca. 2.5% in all cases)
`Kill time2
`
`
`Microbe1
`
`Methyl
`Paraben
`
`Ethyl
`Paraben
`
`Propyl
`Paraben
`
`1d
`1d
`1d
`A. niger, ATCC 16404
`1h
`1h
`lb
`P. aeragiflom, ATCC 9721
`G(A)
`1h
`1h
`EB-l
`G(A)
`1h
`1h
`ED-2
`———_(,_—_——_—_
`1EB-l and ED-2 are wild strains of Serratia marcercenr
`lDays or hours as indicated.
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 7
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 7
`
`

`

`82
`
`JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
`
`In the shampoo, kill rates are
`is still evident.
`ranking methyl > ethyl > propyl
`enhanced relative to saturated water, but propyl paraben, even at a concentration of
`about 2.5%, ultimately fails against two of the three bacteria.
`
`Binary mixtures of the parabens were examined in the emulsions as shown in Tables X
`and XI, which show kill times for P. aemginora and ED-2. In the peanut Oil emulsion
`
`Kill Time of Methyl Paraben and Mixtures in Nutrified Peanut Oil Emulsion, pH ca. 6.7
`
`Table X
`
`Paraben System
`
`0.8% methyl
`0.4% methyl
`0.4% methyl, 0.4% ethyl
`0.4% methyl, 0.4% propyl
`0.4% methyl, 0.4% butyl
`
`1ATCC 9721
`
`Kill time, days
`
`P. aeruginom'
`
`1
`G
`1
`G(A)
`G
`
`Q.
`E
`
`2
`G
`G
`G
`G
`
`Table XI
`Kill Time of Methyl Paraben and Mixtures in Nutrified Mineral Oil Emulsion, pH ca. 6.5
`Kill .time, days
`
`
` Paraben System P. aemginomI ED—2
`
`
`
`0.8% methyl2
`0.4% methyl
`0.4% methyl, 0.4% ethyl
`0.4% methyl, 0.4% propyl
`1ATCC 9721
`2Saturated.
`
`1
`1
`1
`1
`
`2
`G
`1
`G
`
`methyl paraben suflices at 0.8% but fails against both organisms at 0.4%. Addition of
`0.4% of a Second paraben gives improvement in the order ethyl > propyl > butyl, but
`in no case is the more resistant bacterium killed as it is by 0.8% methyl paraben alone.
`
`The mineral oil system is similar except that the methyl/ethyl combination is a bit
`better than methyl alone. Note that this is not an equal weight comparison because of
`partial recrystallization of the methyl paraben at 0.8%. If we take the solubilities of both
`methyl and ethyl paraben as 0.6% in this system, then at 0.4% of each (two-thirds of
`saturation with each) then the cumulative saturation fraction is about 1.3. In aqueous
`broths we have found that such multiply saturated systems can be even more lethal
`than methyl paraben alone at saturation since the saturation scale extends beyond
`unity.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Lang and Rye (9) found that the growth of E. coli remains exponential or log-linear in
`the presence of methyl, ethyl and propyl parabens with decreasing slope up to about
`half their saturation concentrations. To a good approximation,
`their data can be
`summarized as a demonstration that the gr0wth rate constant, k, in N = Noel", depends
`on the paraben saturation fraction as
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 8
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 8
`
`

`

`THE PARABENS
`
`l? = 120(1 i an),
`
`83
`
`(I)
`
`where £0 is the growth rate constant when no antimicrobials are present and I, is the
`saturation fraction of the ith paraben.
`
`The Ferguson principle is implied by the absence of the subscript on the dimensionless
`constant a (which has a value of about 2.0); all three parabens have the same inhibitory
`effeCt when their levels are expressed as fraction of saturation.
`
`By independent radiochemical measurements, Lang and Rye also showed that the
`intracellular paraben concentration,
`6;,
`is apprOximately the same for all
`three
`homologs when their equilibrium levels in the extracellular or bulk phase are expressed
`as saturation fractions, 1,:
`
`(i=fici=f*Ci/0i=f*Jia
`
`(H)
`
`is the bulk concentration and a, is the solubility. The constant f * like the
`where c,
`constant a in Equation 1, has the same value for all three homologs (about 7.0 g/l).
`
`the applicability of the Ferguson principle is both
`In the Lang and Rye study,
`demonstrated and ”explained,” where "explanation” folIOWS from the plausible
`assumption that the parabens are equitoxic at equal intracellular concentrations. The
`assumption is plausible, in turn, on the further conjecture that the parabens are toxic to
`microbes because they partition reversibly into the lipid bilayer of the cell membrane
`and disorder its barrier function and the functions of embedded transport enzymes. A
`molecule of one homolog ought then to be abOut as disruptive as that of another.
`
`too surprising that such a structure of assumptions and
`is not
`it
`In retrospect,
`conjectures failed to support extrapolation. All that remains of the Ferguson principle
`in the range of paraben concentrations beyond half saturation (the limit of the Lang
`and Rye study) is an indication that at low levels of inoculation the initial kill rate is
`given by Equation 1. Thereafter, survival and growth are determined by the rate of
`adaptation which increases markedly with the molecular weight of the paraben.
`
`Solubility in the medium does not serve as the sole index of efficiency as it would if
`the Ferguson principle were applicable, but
`it remains a crucial property. Methyl
`paraben is a potent antimicrobial in water at saturation at 0.2%, but it fails at 0.4% in the
`emulsions and at 0.8% in the shampoo; it is a good preservative only for products in
`which it is not too soluble. Propyl paraben is inadequate in water at 0.03% and remains
`so at 0.8% in the emulsions and even at abOut 2.5% in the shampoo.
`
`For practical purposes, our earlier solubility-efficacy proposal (1,2) is supplanted by a
`strong endorsement of methyl paraben as the best member of the series, to be used at
`the highest practical concentration, with a secondary recommendation of ethyl
`paraben as a supporting preservative when the amount of methyl paraben that can be
`used is limited by regulation (0.4% maximum in Brazil, for example) or by solubility at
`low storage temperatures. Only rarely might it be useful to include prOpyl paraben as a
`third preservative.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`(1) _]._]. O‘Neill, P. L. Peelor, A. F. Peterson and C. H. Strube, Application of the Ferguson principle to the
`selection of sparingly soluble preservatives, Dew]. Indmt. Microbiol., 19, 535—345 (1978).
`(2) J._]. O'Neill, P. L. Peelor, A. F. Peterson and C. H. Strube, Selection of parabens as preservatives for
`cosmetics and toiletries,j. Sat. Cormet. Chem, 30, 25738 (1979).
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 9
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 9
`
`

`

`84
`
`JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
`
`(3) W. P. Evans, AppliCability of the Ferguson principle to systems of mixed preservatives, 1 P1141722.
`Pbarmacol, 17, 217—221 (1965).
`(4) J. Ferguson, The use of chemical potentials as indices of toxicity, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lanai, Sect B, 127,
`387*404 (1939).
`(5) N. A. Allawala and S. Riegelman, Phenol coefficients and the Ferguson principle, 1. Am. P/mrm.
`Anon, Sci. Ed, 43, 93—97 (1954).
`(6) R. T. Gottlesman and D. Chin, Salicyclic acid and related compounds in Kirk-Ot/rrmer Encyclopedia of
`Chemical Tee/analogy, 2nd Ed., (Interscience, New York, 1968) Vol. 17, p. 738.
`(7) A. F. Peterson, J.J. O'Neill and C. A. Mead, Preservation: from art to science, Devel. Indurt. Microbiol.,
`21, 161—165 (1980).
`~
`(8) R. M. Rye and D. Wiseman, Effect of Chlorhexidine upon 3213’ release and cell viability in EJcberic/aia
`coli, ]. P/mrm. P/mrmacol., 18 Suppl, 114571185 (1966).
`(9) M. Lang and R. M. Rye, The uptake by EJc/Jefic/Jia coli and growth inhibitory properties of methyl,
`ethyl and propyl p-hydroxybenzoates, j. P/mrm. Pharmac, 24, 160P—161P (1972).
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 10
`
`UCB Biopharma SPRL (IPR2019-00400)
`Exhibit 2015 Page 10
`
`