Ophthalmic, pharmaceutical and other healthcare preparations with naturally occurring plant compounds, extracts and derivatives

Abstract

A number of discrete, isolated and well-characterized natural plant compounds show antimicrobial activity when used for topical applications in the ophthalmic, skin care, oral care, pharmaceutical, medical device, heath care products or similar preparations for topical application. Of particular interest are Allantoin, Berberine, Bilberry extract, Caffeic Acid Phenethyl Ether, Chlorogenic Acid, Cranberry Extract, Elderberry Extract, Ferulic Acid, Green Tea Extract, Grape Seed Extract, Hydroxytyrosol, Oleuropein, Olive Leaf Extract, Pine Bark Extract, Pomegranate Extract, Pycnogenol, Quercetin, Resveratrol, and Tart Cherry Extract. Oleuropein, and Pomegranate Extract, either alone or in combination, is extremely effective. Allantoin, can be used to enhance the efficacy of synthetic chemical disinfecting/preservative agents as well as to mitigate the cytotoxicity of some synthetic chemical disinfecting/preservative agents.

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0002] The present invention relates to the use of natural plant compounds, extracts and derivatives alone or in combination or with other chemical antimicrobial agents to preserve ophthalmic, skin care, oral care, pharmaceutical and other healthcare preparations and methods to disinfect soft and rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lenses.

BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF RELATED ART

[0003] Ophthalmic, oral care, skin care solutions, emulsions, ointments, gels, creams and many other pharmaceutical and healthcare preparations for topical application (e.g., artificial tears, skin creams, mouthwashes, therapeutics, contact lens care products, anti-allergenic, anti-puretics, etc.) must be preserved to prevent biological contamination and degradation. By “preparation for topical application” we mean any cream or solution or other physical form that is applied to the skin, eyes or externally accessible mucous membranes such as preparation inserted into various body orifices. It is now acceptable practice to add chemical preservatives to such preparations to ensure preservation of said preparations. These chemical preservatives (e.g., Benzalkonium Chloride, polyhexamethyl biguanide [PHMB], Chlorhexadine, Thimerosol, sorbic acid, etc.) are often harsh, synthetic cytotoxic agents, which can irritate and possibly damage sensitive tissues. The same issue applies to any other pharmaceutical and healthcare preparations, which require preservative to prevent biological contamination and degradation.

[0004] Currently there is ever increasing interest in “natural” foods and medicines. This may be due to a growing perception on the part of the public that unwanted environmental consequences and unexpected side effects of synthetic chemicals make the use of “natural” alternatives (derived from plant and other natural sources) increasingly attractive. For instance, there is a perception as well as experimental evidence that naturally derived agents have fewer or no adverse side effects. A prior art alternative to the use of chemical disinfecting agents is the use of an extract based on grapefruit in ophthalmic solutions was disclosed by one of the present inventors (De Bruijn International Application PCT/NL97/00092 and Dutch patent NL-1002484). Presumably, the effective agent includes phenolic compounds (e.g., bioflavonoids). The parent of the present application demonstrated that natural plant derived substances; such as bioflavonoids, can be employed in contact lens care products as natural disinfecting or preserving agents—either alone or in conjunction with synthetic disinfecting agents. The use of bioflavonoids is desirable because they are natural plant products with antioxidant and even anti-inflammatory properties; however, the majority of bioflavonoids known to date are in the form of complex combinations that are difficult to obtain, manufacture and assay.

[0005] In this invention we have discovered that many natural plant compounds, extracts and derivatives have useful antimicrobial properties due to the role that has evolved for such substances in the plant's own natural defense system. These natural plant compounds also have a very different toxicity profile as compared to existing commonly used synthetic chemical antimicrobial compounds. Application of these chemical antimicrobial compounds for preservation or disinfection is a balancing act between maximizing the cidal action against contaminating microbes while minimizing the toxicity to the tissue (cells) that the preservation and disinfection are in fact trying to protect from microbial attack. This balancing act is most often accomplished by varying the concentration of the chemical antimicrobial compounds. Optimization of the use of these chemical agents involves determining a minimum concentration sufficient to pass accepted standards of performance (preservation or disinfection) while maintaining acceptable toxicity (which may manifest itself as irritation or other sequellae). Cytotoxicity is a term used to describe the toxicological effects at the cellular level. An antimicrobial compound that would be cytotoxic to the pathogenic organisms, yet not cytotoxic to the tissue and cells of the treatment target would provide a new and beneficial method of preservation and/or disinfection. Benefits of such a preservative and/or disinfection system would be reduced irritation, greater comfort in application, greater compliance (due to the comfort and ease of use) and fewer overall symptoms of discomfort in the use of the product.

[0006] This invention has application in the several fields (i.e., ophthalmology, pharmaceuticals, skin care, oral care, hard surface disinfection, OTC (over the counter) Products, etc.). However it would be especially useful in ophthalmic contact lens care products and particularly in contact lens disinfection. Currently available contact lenses are made of hydrogels and other polymers causing them to be soft and hydrophilic so that they can be comfortably worn. Previously, contact lenses were hard plastic (PMMA) and required the contact lens wearing patient to adjust to the uncomfortable sensation of a foreign body in the eye. The advent of soft contact lenses has resulted in an increased adoption of contact lenses by the general population.

[0007] Contact lenses are commonly worn on a daily basis and kept in a storage case/solution during the night hours or whenever they are not being worn. During the wear and normal handling of contact lenses, microorganisms as well as biomolecules such as lipids, proteins, etc. can become adhered to the contact lenses and thus transferred to the storage case/solution.

[0008] Some of the microorganisms that may be transferred from the eye or fingers to the storage case/solution may multiply therein and may later be pathogenic to the human cornea or other ocular structures upon subsequent lens wear. Although human tears contain natural antimicrobial agents, a pathogen-bearing lens in contact with the cornea of the eye can serve as a reservoir of infection that might overcome the eye's natural defenses. This is especially the case for soft contact lens, as the microorganisms tend to adhere to the lens material. The result of microbial growth—bacterial, protozoan or even fungal—can cause damage to the eye resulting in impaired vision and even blindness. Wearing contact lenses creates an increased exposure to eye infections due to the stress contact lenses place on the cornea and conjunctiva suppressing oxygen conduction and tear flow and/or creating inflammatory/irritating conditions. Therefore, contact lenses should be daily disinfected to eliminate pathogenic organisms.

[0009] Disinfection agents typically used for other applications such as hard surface disinfection, instrument disinfection, topical skin disinfection, etc. are not necessarily applicable to contact lens care and ophthalmic, pharmaceutical and other healthcare product preservation. These chemical disinfection or antimicrobial agents have usually been designed to destroy all types of cells through an indiscriminate mechanism, whether the cells are target pathogenic microorganisms or corneal epithelial cells in contact with a soft contact lens. The method of action of these chemical agents is unable to discriminate between the target pathenogenic organisms and the tissue that they are intended to protect.

[0010] The high concentration used to ensure effectiveness and the chemically aggressive nature of many of these chemical disinfectant agents render them unsuitable for use with contact lenses due to interaction or damage to the lens or irritation to ocular tissue due to residual disinfection agents that become bound to or included within the contact lenses. Commonly used preservative and disinfection agents are compounds such as thimerasol, chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide, and benzalkonium chloride. For example, three percent (3%) hydrogen peroxide instilled directly in the eye or a lens soaked in hydrogen peroxide and applied to the eye will result in pain and severe irritation. Only a few compounds at very low concentration levels have been shown to be compatible with soft contact lenses or the tissues of the eye.

[0011] Multipurpose solutions (MPS) with chemical disinfection agents, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,407,791, 4,525,346, 4,758,595, 4,820,352, 4,836,956, 5,422,073, 5,560,186, 5,593,637, and 5,756,045, are widely used for contact lens disinfection. With the MPS the wearer need only purchase and use a single solution leading to advantages in cost and convenience. The challenge of disinfection without harm to the eye or the lens is particularly acute with these MPS products, however, since all of the various activities, e.g., wetting, contaminant dispersion, and disinfection, are required to co-exist in a single solution without antagonistic effects of one component on the activity of another. Furthermore, because the MPS can be instilled directly into the eye, the active antimicrobial component of these solutions must provide the required degree of pathogen reduction while being free of irritating or damaging sequelae to the surface and the anterior segment of the eye or to the contact lens itself. There is no opportunity with an MPS to neutralize or rinse away the disinfecting agent prior to applying the contact lens to the eye.

[0012] Generally therefore the art has found it difficult to formulate these MPS solutions to satisfy the following performance criteria. The successful solution must:

[0013] 1. Show antimicrobial activity to reduce the numbers of common pathogens found on contact lenses to prescribed levels;

[0014] 2. Formulated at a sufficiently low concentration so as to be nonirritating to the eye without the help of rinsing and/or neutralizing solutions;

[0015] 3. Be free of toxic metals or compounds and sensitizing agents so that no long term allergic or toxic response is provoked;

[0016] 4. Not adversely accumulate within or on the lens or adversely alter the wettability or the parameters (i.e., size, shape, and optical properties) of the lens or be released in amounts toxic to the eye during lens wear;

[0017] 5. Show adequate shelf-life (e.g., chemical stability);

[0018] 6. Be compatible with enzymes and other agents used in artificial tears or similar accessories to contact lens wear.

[0019] Many of these same criteria apply to successful agents for the disinfection and/or preservation of pharmaceuticals or other healthcare and personal care products—especially those intended for topical application (topical preparations). These agents must show ability to reduce common pathogens found on skin, in the mouth or in other application sites. They must be non-irritating to the tissues at the site of application (particularly critical with applications to the eye or mucus membranes). They must be non-allergenic and free of toxic metals, etc. They must show sufficient stability to prevent growth of contaminating organisms during an adequate shelf life, and they must not be reactive or damaging to active pharmaceutical agents in the topical preparations. Many pharmaceutical and diagnostic preparations that are ingested or injected also require antimicrobial preservation. The naturally occurring preservatives disclosed within are nontoxic and most can be safely ingested.

[0020] Disinfectant and preservative tests are most often performed by challenging the preparation with a concentrated inoculum (e.g., 105-106 colony forming units (cfu)/ml) of each test organism. Over time samples are taken and plated on a growth medium to estimate the number of live organisms remaining at each time point.

[0021] The method for evaluating the effectiveness of a disinfectant for contact lenses generally requires measuring the ability of the agent to reduce the numbers of viable infective organisms during a period of time consistent with the normal period of storage of contact lenses between wearing times. This reduction of numbers of organisms is typically reported in terms of the change in the common logarithm (base 10 logarithm) of the microbial population as a result of exposure to the antimicrobial or disinfecting agent. For example, if the agent has effected a reduction in the concentration of a particular organisms in a challenge solution from 106 colony forming units (cfu) per milliliter (ml) to 102 cfu/ml within six hours of exposure then the change, or “log reduction”, of the organism as a result of exposure to the agent would be 4.0 (logs). In other words, the number of viable organisms have been reduced to one ten-thousandth of the original level.

[0022] In procedures for verifying the effectiveness of ophthalmic antimicrobial agents generally recognized guidelines call for the use of Candida albicans (a yeast), Fusarium solani or Aspergillus niger (both molds), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (a Gram-negative bacterium), Staphylococcus aureus (a Gram-positive bacterium), Serratia marcescens (a Gram-negative bacterium) and Escherichia coli (a bacterium common in the human gastrointestinal tract).

[0023] In the case ophthalmic solutions and preparations various agents are added to enhance compatibility with the eye. To avoid stinging or irritation it is important that the solution possess a tonicity and pH within the physiological range, e.g., 200-350 mOsmole for tonicity and 6.5-8.5 for pH. To this end, various buffering and osmotic agents are often added. The simplest osmotic agent is sodium chloride since this is a major solute in human tears. In addition propylene glycol, lactulose, trehalose, sorbitol, mannitol or other osmotic agents may also be added to replace some or all of the sodium chloride. Also, various buffer systems such as citrate, phosphate (appropriate mixtures of Na2HPO4, NaH2PO4, and KH2PO4 and K2HPO4), borate (boric acid, sodium borate, potassium tetraborate, potassium metaborate and mixtures thereof), bicarbonate, and tromethamine (TRIS) and other appropriate nitrogen-containing buffers (such as ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, Tricine) can be used to ensure a physiologic pH between about pH 6.0 and 9.0.

[0024] Various viscosity building agents such as polyethylene glycol, surfactants, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol, carboxymethyl cellulose, hyaluronic acid, polysaccarides and similar materials may be added to adjust the lubricity, i.e., the “body” and “feel” of the solution. Surface-active agents may be added to ensure proper wetting and/or cleaning. Sequestering agents such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), phosphonates, citrate, gluconate and tartarate are also common additives for preservative, disinfecting or cleaning solutions.

[0025] As is well known to one of skill in the art similar factors are involved in formulating preparations for application to sites apart from the eye. Most of the ophthalmic formulation factors mentioned above are applicable to preparations designed for application to mucus membranes. For application within the mouth/throat taste and possible toxicity upon ingestion must also be considered. Some oral preparations are intended to resist rapid dilution and washing away by saliva. In such cases, thickening polymers may be especially important. Preparations for dermal application may be formulated as creams, which are often oil in water emulsions, as gels, which are generally thickened with water soluble or miscible polymers, or as ointments, which are mostly hydrophobic ingredients like waxes and mineral oils.

[0026] To date, the significant challenge in the development of ophthalmic and contact lens solutions, particularly the MPS solutions, has been to find disinfection agents with sufficient antimicrobial activity that are not at the same time damaging to the contact lens or irritating to the eye. Due to the complex requirements to keep soft, hydrogel contact lenses clean, free of pathogen microbes, and comfortable to wear without damaging or changing the lens polymer or dimensional parameters and without any harm or side effects to the human eye, only very few compounds or systems have been qualified as suitable ophthalmic or contact lens solutions. In the parent application to the present application it was disclosed that a particular quaternary ammonium salt (BenzylDimethyl-[2-[2-[(p-1,1,3,3 Tetramethyl butyl) phenoxy)ethoxy]ethyl] ammonium chloride) was unexpectedly effective and non-irritating when used in preservative and cleaning solutions. It was also shown that this material could be combined with certain natural disinfectant agents of plant origin. The present application discloses that certain of those natural disinfectant agents are particularly effective and non-toxic even when used without quaternary ammonium salts.

[0027] Preservation of ophthalmic solutions and pharmaceutical and healthcare topical preparations is similar to disinfection in that a preservative is added to a product to deal with any microbial contamination that might occur during storage or use of the product. Use of any product that is contaminated with microorganisms increases the risk that infection may occur. For instance with artificial tears—products often prescribed to patients suffering from “dry eye” or other tear deficiencies—the product may be used by the patient multiple times over the course of a single day. Although a chemical preservative insures that the artificial tear solution is free of microbial contamination, the patient doses his/her eye with the chemical preservative as well as the artificial tear solution. In a compromised eye (e.g., low tear production) the preservative may be responsible for acute and chronic irritation. A preservative chronically used in healthy tissue can cause an acute or latent irritation.

[0028] Reference to the biological literature will reveal a plethora of recent studies on irritation caused by a common quaternary ammonium disinfectant BAK. The interested reader should examine these and related articles: Debbasch C, Brignole F, Pisella P J, Wamet J M, Rat P, Baudouin C: Quaternary ammoniums and other preservatives? Contribution in oxidative stress and apoptosis on Chang conjunctival cells. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci; 42: 642-652(2001); Burgalassi S, Chetoni P, Monti D, Saettone M F: Cytotoxicity of potential ocular permeation enhancers evaluated on rabbit and human corneal epithelial cell lines. Toxicol Lett 122: 101-108 (2001); Baudouin C, Pisella P J, Fillacier K, Goldschild M, Becquet F, De Saint Jean M, Bechetoille A: Ocular surface inflammatory changes induced by topical antiglaucoma drugs: human and animal studies. Ophthalmology; 106: 556-563 (1999); De Saint Jean M, Brignole F, Bringuier A F, Bauchet A, Felmann G, Baudouin C: Effects of benzalkonium chloride on growth and survival of Chang conjunctival cells. Invest Ophthalmol; 40:619-630 (1999); Becquet F, Goldschild M, Moldovan M S, Ettaiche M, Gastaud P, Baudouin C: Histopathological effects of topical ophthalmic preservatives on rat corneoconjunctival surface. Curr Eye Res; 17:419-425 (1998); Saarinen-Savolainen P, Jarvinen T, Araki-Sasaki K, Watanabe H, Urtti A: Evaluation of cytotoxicity of various ophthalmic drugs, eye drop excipients and cyclodextrins in an immortalised human corneal epithalial cell line. Pharm Res; 15: 1275-1280 (1998); Fabreguette A, Zhi Hua S, Lasne F, Damour A: Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of antiseptics used in current practise on cultured of fibroblasts and keratinocytes. Pathol Biol (Paris); 42: 888-892 (1994) Vaughan J S, Porter D A: A new in vitro method for assessing the potential toxicity of soft contact lens care solutions. CLAO J; 19:54-57 (1993); Tripathi B J, Tripathi R C, Kolli S P: Cytotoxicity of ophthalmic preservatives on human corneal epithelium. Lens Eye Toxic Res; 9: 361-375 (1992); and Withrow T J, Brown N T, Hitchins V M, Strickland A G: Cytotoxicity and mutagenicity of ophthalmic solution preservatives and UVA radiation in L5178Y cells. Photochem Photobiol; 50: 385-389 (1989).

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0029] It has been discovered that a variety of discrete, isolated and well-characterized natural plant compounds and extracts (natural disinfecting products) show antimicrobial activity when used in contact lens care products, oral care products, skin care products or for preserving an ophthalmic and other pharmaceutical and healthcare preparations. Not only are these natural compounds effective disinfecting and preservative agents, they have little or no potential to act as irritants when brought into contact with human ocular tissue. This is quite different from existing chemical antimicrobial agents used for these applications in that with the chemical antimicrobial agents there is a direct correlation between chemical agent concentration and irritation/discomfort of the treated tissue.

[0030] Of particular interest are the following natural antimicrobial agents, their derivatives and/or major constituent compounds: Allantoin, Berberine, Bilberry extract, Caffeic Acid Phenethyl Ether, Chlorogenic Acid, Cranberry Extract, Elderberry Extract, Ferulic Acid, Green Tea Extract, Grape Seed Extract, Hydroxytyrosol, Oleuropein, Olive Leaf Extract, Pine Bark Extract, Pomegranate Extract, Pycnogenol, Quercetin, Resveratrol, and Tart Cherry Extract. Our tests demonstrate that many of these natural products show significant abilities to act as disinfectants or preservatives. Of particular promise are Oleuropein, Green Tea Extract, Resveratrol, Pomegranate Extract, Hydroxytyrosol and Cranberry Extract. Oleuropein, Green Tea Extract, Hydroxytyrosol, and Pomegranate Extract, either alone or in combination, show special promise.

[0031] Several of the natural products can be combined to produce an extremely effective disinfecting/preservative solution with properties superior to a solution based on a single natural product. Further, Allantoin, can be used to enhance the effectiveness of artificial disinfecting/preservative agents as well as to reduce the cytotoxicity of some synthetic chemical disinfecting/preservative agents The natural disinfecting and preservative agents show distinct advantages over the widely used synthetic chemical antimicrobial agents. In contrast to many of the synthetic agents that require EDTA to be effective, natural agents are effective without such additives. EDTA has been shown to have the potential to cause irritation to tissue. It would appear that the natural agents operate through different pathways than the synthetic chemical agents. The synthetic chemical agents tend to show cytotoxic effects and may damage the normal cells causing necrotic (uncontrolled) cell death as well as killing the microbes. On the other hand, natural agents often show antioxidant activity and are or can be protective of normal tissue cells while simultaneously showing antipathogen activity.

[0032] In the case of ophthalmic contact lens care products and disinfectants interactions of the disinfecting and preservative agents with the contact lens can cause unexpected magnifications of toxicity. Because with contact lenses there is absorption and adsorption of the disinfecting and preservative agents by the matrix of the contact lens polymer, which then can act as a reservoir to dose the eye with a continual stream of irritating chemical agents. The natural agents can have much less of a propensity to absorb and adsorb to the contact lens due to their chemical structure.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0033] The following description is provided to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention and sets forth the best modes contemplated by the inventors of carrying out their invention. Various modifications, however, will remain readily apparent to those skilled in the art, since the general principles of the present invention have been defined herein, specifically to provide an improved contact lens care solution and other pharmaceutical preparations based on naturally occurring plant compounds and extracts.

[0034] The following examples demonstrate the antimicrobial effectiveness of these naturally occurring plant compounds in typical ophthalmic and other topical formulations. In progressing through these examples one can understand the “building blocks” of the preferred embodiment of contact lens, ophthalmic solutions and pharmaceutical preparations incorporating these naturally occurring disinfecting materials.

[0035] In making the present invention a relatively long list of potential natural plant compounds was considered. This inclusive list is given below in Table 1

TABLE 1
Material/Compound	Class	Natural Source
Allantoin	Purine derivative	Comfrey
Berberine	Alkaloid	Barberry, Golden Seal,
		Phylodendron
Bilberry extract	Anthocyanidin	Bilberry
Caffeic Acid	Phenolic acid	Many Fruits
Caffeic Acid Phenyl	Caffeic Acid Derivative	Honey Bee Propolis
Ester (CAPE)
Chlorogenic Acid	Caffeic Acid Derivative	Fruits, Green Coffee
		Beans
Cranberry Extract	Proanthocyanidin	Cranberries
Elderberry Extract	Anthocyanidin	Elderberry
Ferulic Acid	Phenolic acid	Pineapple
Green Tea Extract	Catechin	Green Tea Leaves
Grape Seed Extract	Oligomeric	Grape Seed
	Anthocyanidin
Oleuropein	Phenolic Iridoid	Olive Leaf, Fruit & Oil
Olive Leaf Extract	Phenolic Iridoid	Olive Leaf
Pine Bark Extract	Oligomeric	Pine Bark
	Anthocyanidin
Pomegranate Extract	Extract/Polyphenol	Pomegranate
Pycnogenol	Oligomeric	Pine Bark
	Anthocyanidin
Quercetin Dihydrate	Bioflavonoid	Oak
Resveratrol	Phenolic Stillbene	Red Grape Skins (red
		wine)
Tart Cherry Extract	Anthocyanidin	Sour Cherry

[0036] In the case of materials derived from natural plant sources, particularly “extracts” a large number of active agents is probably present. The term “extract” is intended to indicate the presence of this mixture. The listed class is the group of compounds to which the major active agents of the extract are believed to belong. Nevertheless, it is likely that the extract contains a synergistic mixture of compounds in which activity may be contributed by compounds not of the class mentioned in the table.

[0037] Various compounds/extracts were tested in the presence of either a phosphate or a borate-buffered solution. The test organisms included (S. aureus.=Staphylococcus aureus; Ps. aeruginosa=Pseudomonas aeruginosa; E. coli=Escherichia coli; C. albicans.=Candida albicans; and A. niger=Aspergillus niger) and inspected at various time intervals to determine the “log kill” of the various formulations. Table 2 shows the results for nine of the test compounds.

TABLE 21
In Borate Buffered Saline
	Formulae (ppm)
Ingredient	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I
Berberine	200	100	50	20	0	0	0	0	0
sulfate
Allantoin	0	0	0	0	1000	500	250	100	0
Olive Leaf	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1000
Extract2
Log Kill (1 Day)
S. aureus	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.3
Ps. aeruginosa	1.5	1.4	1.1	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.7	0.7	4.1
E. coli	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2
C. albicans	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.7
A. niger	1.6	1.5	1.6	1.8	1.5	1.6	1.4	0.7	1.4
Log Kill (7 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	0.2	0.2	0.6	0.9	≧5.2
Ps. aeruginosa	0.7	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.1	4.1
E. coli	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.4	0.4	1.1
C. albicans	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	4.7	≧5.2	4.3	≧5.2	5.2	3.2
A. niger	3.2	3.8	3.3	3.3	3.4	3.4	4.0	4.2	3.1
Log Kill (14 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	1.3	1.4	1.7	2.2	≧5.2
Ps. aeruginosa	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.2	≧5.1
E. coli	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3	1.1
C. albicans	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	4.7	≧5.2	4.3	≧5.2	5.2	3.2
A. niger	3.2	3.8	3.3	3.3	3.4	3.4	4.0	4.2	3.1
Log Kill (28 Days)
S. aureus	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	≧5.2
Ps. aeruginosa	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	≧5.1
E. coli	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	1.1
C. albicans	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	3.2
A. niger	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	N.T.	3.1
1N.T. = “not tested”
2Olive leaf extract not totally soluble; dissolved in hot solution and filtered.

[0038] It can be seen that Berberine is remarkably effective against Staphylococcus, Candida and Aspergillus even at quite low concentrations. Allantoin is quite effective against Candida and Aspergillus, and in other tests was shown (see below) to protect against eye irritation caused by chemical disinfectant agents. Olive Leaf Extract shows a range of effectiveness and is most effective against Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas although it also shows considerable efficacy against Candida and Aspergillus. The fungi are often resistant to chemical disinfecting agents but show significant susceptibility to natural agents of plant origin. The continued effectiveness of olive leaf extract over a 28-day period shows that this material is an effective preservative.

[0039] Tests of an additional set of candidate natural product preservatives/disinfectants in borate buffered saline are shown in Table 3. The same test protocols were followed as for the previous Table.

TABLE 3
In Borate Buffered Saline
	Formulae (ppm)
Ingredient	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q
Bilberry	1000	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Extract A 95%
Bilberry	0	1000	0	0	0	0	0	0
Extract B 25%
Tart Cherry	0	0	1000	0	0	0	0	0
Extract
Elderberry	0	0	0	1000	0	0	0	0
Extract 15.2%
Pomegranate	0	0	0	0	1000	0	0	0
Extract
Quercetin	0	0	0	0	0	1000	0	0
Dihydrate
CAPE	0	0	0	0	0	0	1000	0
Resveratrol	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1000
(25%)
Log Kill
(1 Day)
S. aureus	3.5	0.2	0.1	0.3	1.2	0.3	0.7	3.9
Ps. aeruginosa	5.0	1.2	1.1	3.1	4.3	5.0	3.2	≧5.0
E. coli	1.1	0.2	0.1	1.3	2.2	1.0	0.3	2.3
C. albicans	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	1.0	0.2	0.4	2.0
A. niger	0.1	1.1	0.4	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0
Log Kill
(7 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.0	1.8	1.6	3.8	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
Ps. aeruginosa	≧5.0	4.3	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
E. coli	≧5.2	0.8	0.6	0.5	≧5.2	≧5.2	5.2	≧5.2
C. albicans	2.1	1.7	2.3	0.5	≧5.1	3.7	≧5.1	≧5.1
A. niger	2.8	2.3	3.0	1.8	2.5	2.5	2.1	1.2
Log Kill
(14 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.0	4.3	3.5	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
Ps. aeruginosa	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
E. coli	≧5.2	0.7	0.5	1.6	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2
C. albicans	3.0	2.7	3.1	2.7	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1
A. niger	3.3	3.1	3.3	3.1	2.5	3.1	2.2	1.1
Log Kill
(28 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
Ps. aeruginosa	≧5.0	≧5.0	3.4	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
E. coli	≧5.2	0.3	0.2	1.7	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2
C. albicans	≧5.1	5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1
A. niger	3.2	2.8	2.9	2.9	2.4	2.7	2.0	3.2

[0040] Bilberry Extract A shows broad effectiveness against all the test organisms with it being the most effective against the bacteria. Bilberry Extract B (a more dilute extract) shows lesser effectiveness particularly against S. aureus and E. coli. Over the 28 days of the test Bilberry Extract B gradually “catches up” on some organisms but not on E. coli. Tart Cherry Extract also shows broad effectiveness but like Bilberry Extract B appears less effective against E. coli. This same pattern is also seen with the Elderberry Extract. On the other hand, Pomegranate Extract is extremely effective against all the test organisms. Quercetin dihydrate also shows extremely broad effectiveness. Since quercetin is a component of many fruits, it is tempting to hypothesize that it may be a major active component of several fruit extracts. CAPE, a component of honey also shows good activity, particularly at time greater than one day. Finally, resveratrol, another polyphenolic compound found in grapes, also shows a wide range of effectiveness. Any of these agents are excellent long-term preservatives.

[0041] Table 4 shows results of additional natural ingredients tested in borate buffered saline including green tea extracts and grape seed extracts from multiple sources to investigate source-to-source variability.

TABLE 4
In Borate Buffered Saline
	Formulae (ppm)
Ingredient	R	S	T	U	V	W	X
Green Tea Extract A	1000	0	0	0	0	0	0
50% EGCG
Green Tea Extract B	0	1000	0	0	0	0	0
95% EGCG
Grape Seed	0	0	1000	0	0	0	0
Extract A 95%
Grape Seed Extract B	0	0	0	1000	0	0	0
Grape Seed Extract C	0	0	0	0	1000	0	0
Ferulic Acid	0	0	0	0	0	1000	0
Chlorogenic Acid	0	0	0	0	0	0	1000
Log Kill (1 Day)
S. aureus	1.3	2.8	0.7	0.9	0.9	3.4	1.7
Ps. aeruginosa	≧5.1	≧5.1	4.3	4.3	2.2	≧4.9	3.9
E. coli	1.3	4.3	1.1	0.7	0.8	3.5	0.1
C. albicans	0.7	2.4	0.3	0.8	0.4	2.0	0.2
A. niger	1.1	1.1	0.9	1.0	0.9	1.1	1.7
Log Kill (7 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.0	≧5.0	4.3	≧5.0	4.2	≧5.1	≧5.1
Ps. aeruginosa	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	2.5	≧4.9	≧4.9
E. coli	≧5.4	≧5.4	2.7	≧5.4	1.4	≧5.1	≧4.4
C. albicans	2.1	5.0	0.9	3,7	0.8	≧5.1	2.5
A. niger	2.7	2.7	2.0	2.6	2.0	1.6	2.2
Log Kill (14 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.1	≧5.1
Ps. aeruginosa	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧4.9	≧4.9
E. coli	≧5.4	≧5.4	1.0	≧5.4	1.5	≧5.1	≧5.1
C. albicans	3.4	≧5.0	2.0	≧5.0	3.9	≧5.1	≧5.1
A. niger	3.1	2.9	2.9	2.3	2.5	1.6	1.3
Log Kill (28 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.1	≧5.1
Ps. aeruginosa	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.0	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧4.9	≧4.9
E. coli	≧5.4	≧5.4	≧1.6	≧5.4	≧1.5	≧5.1	≧5.1
C. albicans	≧5.0	≧5.0	4.3	≧5.0	3.9	≧5.1	≧5.1
A. niger	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.0	2.5	1.0	1.3

[0042] Green Tea Extract B is remarkably effective even at the day one time point. As might be expected, it is somewhat more effective than the less concentrated Green Tea Extract A. The three different Grape Seed Extracts are relatively similar. However, Grape Seed Extract B is significantly more effective against E. coli and C. albicans than the other two. Similarly Extract C is less effective against Pseudomonas than are the other two extracts. This suggests that the extracts all contain a spectrum of active ingredient—some ingredients being active against one test organism, some against another—and that the exact level of each active ingredient can vary from extract to extract. Chlorogenic acid and Ferulic acid are also quite effective with Ferulic acid showing better one day activity and better activity against C. albicans.

[0043] Additional experiments were performed to formulate some of the natural ingredients with a wetting agent (Pluronic F-68) as might be found in an ophthalmic preparation. The results for Quercetin and CAPE in borate buffered saline are shown in the following Table 5.

TABLE 5
In Borate Buffered Saline
	Formulae (ppm)
Ingredient	AA	BB	CC	DD	EE	FF	GG	HH	II
Quercetin Dihydrate	1000	500	200	50	0	0			0
CAPE	0	0	0	0	700	400	200	50	500
Pluronic F-68	0	0	0	0	1000	0			1000
Log Kill (1 Day)
S. aureus	1.3	1.9	1.3	0.3	4.3	3.4	2.7	1.3	1.2
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	4.4	2.5	≧5.0	5.0	3.2	2.7	4.7
E. coli	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.0	1.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.3
C. albicans	0.4	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.8	0.6	0.3	0.2	0.5
A. niger	1.5	0.9	1.7	2.4	1.5	1.5	1.3	1.6	1.4
Log Kill (7 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	5.1	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	5.0	≧5.0
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
E. coli	≧5.1	≧5.1	3.7	0.9	≧5.1	3.7	0.5	0.6	1.1
C. albicans	3.2	3.4	2.5	0.9	4.4	2.7	1.8	1.2	1.7
A. niger	1.7	1.7	1.6	1.9	2.4	2.7	2.5	2.6	2.5
Log Kill (14 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
E. coli	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	3.1	1.2	1.8
C. albicans	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	3.0	≧5.0	4.5	3.3	2.4	2.8
A. niger	1.7	1.8	2.9	1.9	2.9	4.0	2.7	2.6	2.7
Log Kill (28 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.1	≧5.1	<5.1	≧5.1	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
E. coli	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.0	3.5	3.8
C. albicans	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
A. niger	1.4	1.2	1.2	1.3	4.5	4.0	3.0	1.6	2.2

[0044] Both Quercetin and CAPE in the presence of the Pluronic F-68 show very good to excellent control of the test microbes at times greater than one day.

[0045] Similarly, additional experiments were undertaken to test the two different Bilberry and two different green tea extracts in borate buffered saline at various concentrations with the above-described borate buffers. The results are shown in the following Table 6.

TABLE 6
In Borate Buffered Saline
	Formulae (ppm)
Ingredient	JJ	KK	LL	MM	NN	OO	PP	QQ	RR	SS
Bilberry Extract A (95%)	1000	500	200	50	0	0				0
Bilberry Extract B (25%)	0	0	0	0	200	0	0	0		0
Green Tea Extract B	0	0	0	0		1000	500	200	50	0
Green Tea Extract C										1000
Log Kill (1 Day)
S. aureus	1.0	0.2	0.5	0	0.2	5.0	3.9	2.9	1.6	2.2
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	3.8	2.4	3.3	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9
E. coli	0.6	0.2	0	0.1	0.2	3.9	2.4	1.4	0.2	4.2
C. albicans	0.5	0.9	0.6	0.1	0.6	1.1	1.1	1.5	0.5	1.4
A. niger	1.6	1.6	1.9	2.0	1.7	1.7	1.6	1.9	1.9	1.8
Log Kill (7 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	5.1	3.4	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧5.1	≧4.9
E. coli	≧5.1	≧5.1	2.1	0.2	1.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1
C. albicans	1.8	2.2	1.7	1.9	2.0	4.8	≧5.1	≧5.1	3.3	≧5.1
A. niger	2.5	1.8	1.7	2.0	2.4	1.7	1.7	2.3	2.0	1.4
Log Kill (14 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9
E. coli	≧5.1	≧5.1	5.1	0.4	0.6	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1
C. albicans	2.8	3.1	2.5	2.7	3.5	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	4.8	≧5.1
A. niger	2.9	2.8	1.8	1.9	2.8	1.5	1.7	2.7	1.8	1.5
Log Kill (28 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9
E. coli	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	0	0.9	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1
C. albicans	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.1
A. niger	2.4	2.2	1.5	1.6	2.8	1.2	1.3	1.3	1.4	0.5

[0046] Again, both Bilberry and green tea show excellent disinfectant and preservative properties at all test times with green tea being strikingly effective at one day.

[0047] Similarly, additional experiments were undertaken to retest pomegranate at various concentrations as well as oleuropein and grape seed extract with the above-described borate buffer. In addition, two different pine bark extracts (U.S. pine bark extract and pycnogenol) were tested using the same buffer. The results are shown in the following Table 7.

TABLE 7
In Borate Buffered Saline
	Formulae (ppm)
Ingredient	TT	UU	VV	WW	XX	YY	ZZ	A3
Pine Bark Extract (USA)	1000	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pycnogenol (Europe)	0	1000	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pomegranate Extract	0	0	1000	500	200	50	0	0
Oleuropein	0	0	0	0	0	0	1000	0
Grape Seed Polyphenolics	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1000
Log Kill (1 Day)
S. aureus	0.5	3.5	1.9	1.4	0.7	0	4.2	2.0
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	4.9	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	2.7	≧5.0	≧4.7
E. coli	0.9	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.2	0	1.9	0.9
C. albicans	0.6	1.6	1.1	0.8	0.5	0.2	1.1	1.1
A. niger	1.9	0.9	2.9	3.0	2.9	3.0	2.3	1.9
Log Kill (7 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	2.9	≧5.0	≧4.9
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧5.0	≧4.7
E. coli	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.0	≧5.0	3.8	0.9	≧5.1	≧5.0
C. albicans	1.9	3.1	≧5.0	4.4	3.2	2.1	3.1	5.0
A. niger	1.7	1.6	2.1	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7	1.8
Log Kill (14 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧5.0	≧4.9
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧5.0	≧4.7
E. coli	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	2.2	≧5.1	≧5.0
C. albicans	2.9	3.9	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
A. niger	1.8	1.7	1.8	1.9	2.8	1.5	1.7	2.7
Log Kill (28 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧5.0	≧4.9
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧5.0	≧4.7
B. coli	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.1	5.0
C. albicans	≧5.1	≧5.1	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
A. niger	0.8	1.6	1.4	1.4	1.4	1.4	1.6	1.4

[0048] Table 8 shows additional experiments with Resveratrol (from Polygonum cuspidatum), oleuropein and grape seed extract in the above-described borate buffer.

TABLE 8
In Borate Buffered Saline
	Formulae (ppm)
Ingredient	B3	C3	D3	E3	F3	G3	H3	I3	J3
Grape seed Extract	1000	500	200	50	0	0	0
Resveratrol	0	0	0	0	500	0	0
(Polygonum cuspidatum)
Oleuropein	0	0	0	0		1000	500	200	50
pH of solution	7.2-	7.2-	7.2-	7.2-	7.2-	7.2-	7.2-	7.2-	7.2-
	7.6	7.7	7.8	7.9	7.6	7.6	7.6	7.6	7.6
Log Kill (1 Day)
S. aureus	4.0	3.7	1.1	0.7	2.9	1.6	1.0	0.3	0.1
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.7	3.1	3.9	≧4.8	≧4.8	≧4.8	3.4
E. coli	2.0	0.5	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.6	0.4	0.2	0.1
C. albicans	2.5	1.4	1.0	0.3	0.5	0.8	0.9	0.8	0.3
A.niger	1.7	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.8	1.4	1.8	1.8	1.8
Log Kill (7 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.8	≧4.8	≧4.8	≧4.8
E. coli	≧5.2	≧5.2	3.5	0.4	≧5.2	≧5.3	≧5.3	4.6	1.7
C. albicans	≧5.0	≧5.0	4.5	3.2	5.0	3.4	3.5	2.8	3.0
A. niger	1.9	1.8	1.7	1.7	1.7	2.0	2.5	2.5	2.5
Log Kill (14 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.8	≧4.8	≧4.8	≧4.8
E. coli	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	1.2	≧5.2	≧5.3	≧5.3	≧5.3	1.7
C. albicans	≧5.0	≧5.0	5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.1	5.1	5.1	5.1
A. niger	1.5	1.5	1.6	1.5	1.7	1.8	1.8	1.7	1.5
Log Kill (28 Days)
S. aureus	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	NT	NT	NT	NT
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	NT	NT	NT	NT
E. coli	≧5.2	≧5.2	≧5.2	1.8	≧5.2	NT	NT	NT	NT
C. albicans	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	NT	NT	NT	NT
A. niger	1.3	1.3	0.9	1.2	1.4	NT	NT	NT	NT
NT = Not Tested.

[0049] The various compounds all showed excellent activity at times greater than one day. Additional experiments were undertaken to test additional Resveratrol at a variety of concentrations, as well as Bilberry extract and Cranberry extract (at a low concentration) in borate buffered saline. Partial results on performance of hydroxytyrosol (3,4-dihydroxy-phenylethanol), a potent anti-oxidant found in olive oil, are also included. These results are shown in the following Table 9.

TABLE 9
In Borate Buffered Saline
Formulae (ppm)
Ingredient	K3	L3	M3	N3	O3	P3	Q3
Resveratrol	1000	500	200	50	0	0
Bilberry Extract	0	0	0	0	1000	0
(European)
Cranberry Extract	0	0	0	0	0	120
Hydroxytyrosol	0	0	0	0	0	0	200
Log Kill (1 Day)
S. aureus	4.4	4.3	3.0	0.3	1.3	1.7	0.1↑
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.7	≧4.7	3.5	2.3	4.4	4.5	1.4
E. coli	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.1
C. albicans	1.8	1.5	0.9	0.3	1.4	0.5	0.2↑
A. niger	1.8	1.8	1.8	1.9	0.8	1.9	0.9
Log Kill (7 Days)
S. aureus	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	3.9	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.2
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.9	5.0	≧5.3
E. coli	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧0.6	≧1.9	3.8	≧5.3
C. albicans	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	3.3	3.6	3.0	1.0
A. niger	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.6	1.6
Log Kill (14 Days)
S. aureus	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧5.0	≧5.0	NT
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.9	≧5.0	NT
E. coli	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	0	1.3	≧5.1	NT
C. albicans	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	4.7	4.0	NT
A. niger	1.8	1.7	1.8	1.9	2.8	1.5	NT
Log Kill (28 Days)
S. aureus	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧5.0	≧5.0	NT
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.7	≧4.9	≧5.0	NT
E. coli	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	0	2.1	≧5.1	NT
C. albicans	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	NT
A. niger	3.9	3.5	2.8	2.0	1.4	0.7	NT
NT = Not Tested

[0050] The above results demonstrate that a variety of natural products meet the USP preservative criteria for ophthalmic solutions and other pharmaceutical preparations. A recognized standard for evaluating the effectiveness of a preservation agent in contain in the USP. For the reader's convenience the formulae, which meet the USP Category 1A Preservative Effectiveness Test requirements, are summarized in Table 10.

TABLE 10
	Effective Concentration
Ingredient	(ppm)	Formula Designators
Bilberry Extract	1000	J, O3
Bilberry Extract	500	KK
Bilberry Extract	200	LL, NN
CAPE (Caffeic Acid	1000	P, II
Phenethyl Ether)
CAPE	700	EE
CAPE	400	FF
Chlorogenic Acid	1000	X
Cranberry Extract	120	P3
Ferulic Acid	1000	W
Grape Seed Extract	1000	U, A3
Grape Seed Extract	500	C3
Grape Seed Extract	200	D3
Green Tea Extract	1000	R, S, SS
Green Tea Extract	500	PP
Green Tea Extract	200	QQ
Green Tea Extract	50	RR
Hydroxytyrosol	200	Q3
Oleuropein	1000	G3
Oleuropein	500	H3
Oleuropein	200	I3
Oleuropein	50	J3
Pine Bark Extract	1000	TT
Pomegranate Extract	1000	N
Pomegranate	500	WW
Pomegranate	200	XX
Pycnogenol	1000	UU
Quercetin Dihydrate	1000	AA
Quercetin Dihydrate	500	BB
Quercetin Dihydrate	200	CC
Resveratrol	1000	K3
Resveratrol	500	L3, F3
Resveratrol	200	M3

[0051] Of these perhaps the most promising are Oleuropein (50-200 ppm), Green Tea (200 ppm), Resveratrol (200 ppm), Hydroxytyrosol (200 ppm), Cranberry (120 ppm) and Pomegranate (200 ppm).

[0052] Combinations of various natural disinfectants were explored. These results are shown in Table 11.

	TABLE 11
	Formulae (ppm)
Ingredients	W3	X3	Y3	Z3	A4	B4	C4
Monosodium phosphate	620	620	620	620	620	620	620
Disodium phosphate	72	72	72	72	72	72	72
EDTA	250	250	250	250	250	250	250
Sodium Chloride	8600	8600	8600	8600	8600	8600	8600
Pluronic F127	1000	1000	1000	1000	1000	1000	1000
Oleuropein	1000	0	0	1000	1000	0	1000
Green Tea	0	500	0	500	0	500	500
Pomegranate	0	0	1000	0	1000	1000	1000
pH	7.6-7.8	7.6-7.8	7.6-7.8	7.6-7.8	7.6-7.8	7.6-7.8	7.6-7.8
Log Kill (6 hours)
Ps. aeruginosa	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9	≧4.9
S. aureus	0.5	1.1	2.1	1.7	1.9	1.7	1.5
Serratia marc.	1.8	2.3	2.4	2.4	3.4	3.2	2.2
C. albicans	0.2	1.0	1.6	1.6	1.9	2.0	2.1

[0053] These results show that several combinations of the natural antimicrobial agents are synergistic and are extremely effective at a six hour time point. Most of the natural disinfectant antimicrobial agents tested, such as oleuropein, green tea and pomegranate, are extremely effective on Pseudomonas aeruginosa. However, the combinations proved to be especially effective against Serratia marcescens and Candida albicans. The combination of oleuropein and pomegranate or green tea and pomegranate seem particularly effective.

[0054] Previous experiments had shown both disinfectant and anti-cytotoxic effects from solutions containing Allantoin. Table 12 shows that there is a positive disinfecting synergy between Allantoin and PHMB.

	TABLE 12
	Formulae (ppm)
	Ingredients	D4	E4
	Monosodium phosphate	62	62
	Disodium phosphate	7	7
	Sodium Chloride	860	860
	EDTA	25	25
	PHMB	0.5	0.5
	Allantoin	0	500
	Log Kill (6 hours)
	Ps. aeruginosa	≧5.1	≧5.1
	S. aureus	≧5.1	4.3
	Serratia marcescens	1.4	3.1
	C. albicans	1.1	0.5

[0055] Allantoin is effective to augment the killing of Serratia marcescens in the presence of PHMB and EDTA. The present inventors reported earlier on the anti-cytotoxic properties of certain natural products. Experiments were under taken to confirm the anti-cytotoxic effects of Allantoin in particular. For this purpose PHMB was also used both because this compound is known to be irritating at effective concentrations and because it was just demonstrated that Allantoin shows synergistic disinfecting properties with PHMB. Besides the usual microbial tests, the material was also used in a cytotoxicity assay, which consisted of cycling high water-content soft contact lenses for five days in each test solution. Then the solution saturated lenses were tested in a L929 cell cytotoxicity model. Cytotoxicity was rated from 0 to 5 with 2 or greater indicating cytotoxicity. Table 13 shows the results of this PHMB/Allantoin experiment

	TABLE 13
	Formulae (ppm)
Ingredients	G4	H4	I4	J4	K4	M4	N4	O4
Monosodium phosphate	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Disodium phosphate	400	400	400	400	400	400	400	400
Sodium Chloride	700	700	700	700	700	700	700	700
EDTA	0	0	50	0	0	0	0	0
PHMB	2	1	1	2	1	3	2	3
Allantoin	50	50	50	100	100	50	0	0
Log Kill (6 hours)
S. aureus	≧4.8	4.5	≧4.8	≧4.8	4.5	≧4.8	≧4.8	≧4.8
Ps. aeruginosa	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0	≧5.0
C. albicans	1.7	1.4	0.6	1.3	1.0	3.3	2.2	3.6
Cytotoxic Response	0	0	0	0	0	0	2+	2+

[0056] The PHMB is extremely effective against the tested bacteria, but except at the highest concentrations it is only moderately effective against Candida albicans. Unfortunately, the higher concentrations of PHMB show a significant level of cytotoxicity. Comparison should be made between formulations M4 and O4. Whereas O4 shows significant cytotoxicity, M4 shows no cytotoxicity despite the fact that the two formulae are essentially identical in disinfecting ability. The difference between the formulae is the presence of 500 ppm Allantoin in M4. This indicates that relatively low concentrations of Allantoin can mitigate the cytotoxic characteristics of PHMB without impairing the disinfecting power of PHMB. Thus at lower PHMB concentrations addition of Allantoin can augment antimicrobial activity (Table 12), and at higher PHMB concentration the addition of Allantoin suppresses the cytotoxic effects of the PHMB (Table 13).

[0057] Cytotoxicity studies were also performed to determine the potential of these natural compounds, extracts and derivatives for irritation and discomfort when used as disinfecting or preservative agents.

[0058] The cytotoxicity test analysis was performed in accordance with USP 24 <87> Biological Reactivity Tests, In Vitro, and USP Elution. Two ml of each sample were diluted with 10 ml of 1× MEM. The biological reactivity were described and rated as 0 (no reactivity), 1 (slight reactivity), 2 (mild reactivity), 3 (moderate reactivity), 4 (severe reactivity). The test results are presented in Table 14 for Oleuropein, Resveratrol, Pomegranate, Green Tea, Cranberry and Hydroxytyrosol.

TABLE 14
Compound/Extract	Concentration	Grade	Reactivity
Oleuropein	50 ppm	0	None
Oleuropein	200 ppm	0	None
Oleuropein	1000 ppm	0	None
Green Tea	50 ppm	0	None
Green Tea	200	0	None
Green Tea	1000 ppm	0	None
Resveratrol	50 ppm	0	None
Resveratrol	200 ppm	0	None
Pomegranate	50 ppm	0	None
Pomegranate	200 ppm	0	None
Cranberry	50 ppm	0	None
Cranberry	200 ppm	0	None
Hydroxytyrosol	200 ppm	0	None
BAK	100 ppm	4	Severe
Test Vehicle	Borate Buffered	0	None
	Saline
(−) Control	As per the USP	0	None
(+) Control	As per the USP	4	Severe

[0059] The remarkable result of this series of experiments is that the natural compounds, extracts and derivatives all showed essentially no biological reactivity in this very sensitive cytotoxicity test regimen. Compared to a typically used concentration of a chemical agent, BAK in a similar vehicle, the natural ingredients far outperformed the chemical agent in the degree of cytotoxicity demonstrated. Combined with the antimicrobial results previously presented, the natural compounds, extracts and derivatives present an unexpected degree of antimicrobial efficacy (preservation and disinfection) and lack of cytotoxicity.

[0060] The following claims are thus to be understood to include what is specifically illustrated and described above, what is conceptually equivalent, what can be obviously substituted and also what incorporates the essential idea of the invention. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that various adaptations and modifications of the just-described preferred embodiment can be configured without departing from the scope of the invention. The illustrated embodiment has been set forth only for the purposes of example and that should not be taken as limiting the invention. Therefore, it is to be understood that, within the scope of the appended claims, the invention may be practiced other than as specifically described herein.

Claims

1. A preparation for topical application containing between 10 and 10,000 parts per million of a naturally-occurring antimicrobial agent selected from the group consisting of caffeic acid phenyl ester, cranberry extract, elderberry extract, grape seed extract, green tea extract, hyroxytyrosol, oleuropein, olive leaf extract, pine bark extract, pomegranate extract, pycnogenol, resveratrol and tart cherry extract.

2. The preparation according to claim 1 formulated for ophthalmic application.

3. The preparation according to claim 2 further comprising a physiologically compatible buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

4. The preparation according to claim 1 formulated for epidermal application.

5. The preparation according to claim 1 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

6. The preparation according to claim 1, wherein the naturally-occurring antimicrobial agent is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

7. The preparation according to claim 1, wherein the naturally-occurring antimicrobial agent is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

8. A pharmaceutical preparation preserved with between 10 and 10,000 parts per million of a naturally occurring antimicrobial agent selected from the group consisting of caffeic acid, caffeic acid phenyl ester, chlorogenic acid, cranberry extract, elderberry extract, ferulic acid, grape seed extract, green tea extract, hyroxytyrosol, oleuropein, olive leaf extract, pine bark extract, pomegranate extract, pycnogenol, resveratrol and tart cherry extract.

9. A preparation for topical application containing between 100 and 5,000 parts per million of a naturally-occurring antimicrobial agent selected from the group consisting of allantoin, berberine, bilberry extract, chlorogenic acid, ferulic acid, oleuropein, and quercetin.

10. The preparation according to claim 9 formulated for ophthalmic application.

11. The preparation according to claim 10 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

12. The preparation according to claim 9 formulated for epidermal application.

13. The preparation according to claim 9 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

14. The preparation according to claim 9, wherein the naturally occurring antimicrobial agent is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

15. The preparation according to claim 9, wherein the naturally occurring antimicrobial agent is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

16. A pharmaceutical preparation preserved by between 100 and 5,000 parts per million of a naturally-occurring antimicrobial agent selected from the group consisting of allantoin, berberine, bilberry extract, chlorogenic acid, ferulic acid, oleuropein, and quercetin.

17. A preparation for topical application containing between 1100 and 5,000 parts per million of caffeic acid phenyl ester as an antimicrobial agent.

18. The preparation according to claim 17 formulated for ophthalmic application.

19. The preparation according to claim 18, further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

20. The preparation according to claim 17 formulated for epidermal application.

21. The preparation according to claim 17 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

22. The preparation according to claim 17, wherein the caffeic acid phenyl ester is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

23. The preparation according to claim 17, wherein the caffeic acid phenyl ester is solely responsible for preservation of the preparation.

24. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by between 100 and 5,000 parts per million of caffeic acid phenyl ester.

25. A preparation for topical application containing between 10 and 10,000 parts per million of oleuropein as an antimicrobial agent.

26. The preparation according to claim 25 formulated for ophthalmic application.

27. The preparation according to claim 26 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

28. The preparation according to claim 25 formulated for epidermal application.

29. The preparation according to claim 25 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

30. The preparation according to claim 25, wherein the oleuropein is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

31. The preparation according to claim 25, wherein the oleuropein is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

32. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by between 10 and 10,000 parts per million of oleuropein.

33. A preparation for topical application containing between 10 and 1,000 parts per million of cranberry extract as an antimicrobial agent.

34. The preparation according to claim 33 formulated for ophthalmic application.

35. The preparation according to claim 34 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

36. The preparation according to claim 33 formulated for epidermal application.

37. The preparation according to claim 33 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

38. The preparation according to claim 33, wherein the cranberry extract is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

39. The preparation according to claim 33, wherein the cranberry extract is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

40. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by between 10 and 1,000 parts per million of cranberry extract.

41. A preparation for topical application containing between 100 and 5,000 parts per million of grape seed extract as an antimicrobial agent.

42. The preparation according to claim 41 formulated for ophthalmic application.

43. The preparation according to claim 42 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

44. The preparation according to claim 41 formulated for epidermal application.

45. The preparation according to claim 41 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

46. The preparation according to claim 41, wherein the grape seed extract is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

47. The preparation according to claim 41, wherein the grape seed extract is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

48. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by between 100 and 5,000 parts per million of grape seed extract.

49. A preparation for topical application containing between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of green tea extract as an antimicrobial agent.

50. The preparation according to claim 49 formulated for ophthalmic application.

51. The preparation according to claim 50 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

52. The preparation according to claim 49 formulated for epidermal application.

53. The preparation according to claim 49 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

54. The preparation according to claim 49, wherein the green tea extract is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

55. The preparation according to claim 49, wherein the green tea extract is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

56. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of green tea extract.

57. A preparation for topical application containing between 10 and 1,000 parts per million of hydroxytyrosol as an antimicrobial agent.

58. The preparation according to claim 57 formulated for ophthalmic application.

59. The preparation according to claim 58 further comprising a physiologically compatible buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

60. The preparation according to claim 57 formulated for epidermal application.

61. The preparation according to claim 57 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

62. The preparation according to claim 57, wherein the hydroxytyrosol is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

63. The preparation according to claim 57, wherein the hydroxytyrosol is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

64. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobialally preserved by between 10 and 1,000 parts per million of hydroxytyrosol.

65. A preparation for topical application containing between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of pine bark extract as an antimicrobial agent.

66. The preparation according to claim 65, wherein the pine bark extract is pycnogenol.

67. The preparation according to claim 65 formulated for ophthalmic application.

68. The preparation according to claim 67 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

69. The preparation according to claim 65 formulated for epidermal application.

70. The preparation according to claim 65 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

71. The preparation according to claim 65, wherein the pine bark extract is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

72. The preparation according to claim 65, wherein the pine bark extract is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

73. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of pine bark extract.

74. The pharmaceutical preparation according to claim 73, wherein the pine bark extract is pycnogenol.

75. A preparation for topical application containing between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of pomegranate extract as an antimicrobial agent.

76. The preparation according to claim 75 formulated for ophthalmic application.

77. The preparation according to claim 76 further comprising a physiologically compatible buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

78. The preparation according to claim 75 formulated for epidermal application.

79. The preparation according to claim 75 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

80. The preparation according to claim 75, wherein the pomegranate extract is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

81. The preparation according to claim 75, wherein the pomegranate extract is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

82. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of pomegranate extract.

83. A preparation for topical application containing between 100 and 5,000 parts per million of resveratrol as an antimicrobial agent.

84. The preparation according to claim 83 formulated for ophthalmic application.

85. The preparation according to claim 83, further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

86. The preparation according to claim 83 formulated for epidermal application.

87. The preparation according to claim 83 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

88. The preparation according to claim 83, wherein the resveratrol is necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

89. The preparation according to claim 83, wherein the resveratrol is solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

90. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by between 100 and 5,000 parts per million of resveratrol.

91. A preparation for topical application containing a combination of between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of oleuropein with between 10 and 5,000 parts per million green tea extract as antimicrobial agents.

92. The preparation according to claim 91 formulated for ophthalmic application.

93. The preparation according to claim 92 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

94. The preparation according to claim 91 formulated for epidermal application.

95. The preparation according to claim 91 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

96. The preparation according to claim 91, wherein the oleuropein and the green tea extract are necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

97. The preparation according to claim 91, wherein the oleuropein and the green tea extract are solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

98. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by a combination of between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of oleuropein with between 10 and 5,000 parts per million green tea extract.

99. A preparation for topical application containing a combination of between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of oleuropein with between 10 and 5,000 parts per million pomegranate extract as antimicrobial agents.

100. The preparation according to claim 99 formulated for ophthalmic application.

101. The preparation according to claim 100 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

102. The preparation according to claim 99 formulated for epidermal application.

103. The preparation according to claim 99 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

104. The preparation according to claim 99, wherein the oleuropein and the pomegranate extract are necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

105. The preparation according to claim 99, wherein the oleuropein and the pomegranate extract are solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

106. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by a combination of between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of oleuropein with between 10 and 5,000 parts per million pomegranate extract as antimicrobial agents.

107. A preparation for topical application containing a combination of between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of pomegranate extract with between 10 and 5,000 parts per million green tea extract as antimicrobial agents.

108. The preparation according to claim 107 formulated for ophthalmic application.

109. The preparation according to claim 108 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

110. The preparation according to claim 107 formulated for epidermal application.

111. The preparation according to claim 107 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

112. The preparation according to claim 107, wherein the green tea extract and the pomegranate extract are necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

113. The preparation according to claim 107, wherein the green tea extract and the pomegranate extract are solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

114. A pharmaceutical preparation antimicrobially preserved by a combination of between 10 and 5,000 parts per million of green tea extract with between 10 and 5,000 parts per million pomegranate extract as antimicrobial agents.

115. A preparation for topical application containing a combination of between 1 and 5 parts per million of polyhexamethyl biguanidine with between 10 and 1,000 parts per million allantoin as antimicrobial agents.

116. The preparation according to claim 115 formulated for ophthalmic application.

117. The preparation according to claim 116 further comprising a buffer selected from the group consisting of phosphate, bicarbonate, citrate, borate, ACES, BES, BICINE, BIS-Tris, BIS-Tris Propane, HEPES, HEPPS, imidazole, MES, MOPS, PIPES, TAPS, TES, and Tricine.

118. The preparation according to claim 115 formulated for epidermal application.

119. The preparation according to claim 115 formulated for application to mucus membranes.

120. The preparation according to claim 115, wherein the polyhexamethyl biguanidine and the allantoin are necessary for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

121. The preparation according to claim 115, wherein the polyhexamethyl biguanidine and the allantoin are solely responsible for antimicrobial preservation of the preparation.

122. A method of reducing cytotoxicity of topical preparations containing irritating chemical preservative agents comprising the step of adding between 10 and 1,000 parts per million allantoin.

123. The method according to claim 122, wherein the irritating chemical preservative is a biguanidine preservative.