All Member Forum

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng

My experience has been to never underestimate the effective of the volatile compounds and how they might react with packaging materials. I have experience from both the industrial chemical and residential cleaning chemical industries. I have found that requiring the full compatibility and stability test battery to be the best path forward. The resin composition and the amount of virgin/PCR material can introduce significantly different results in stability. 

Case in point: had a dry, powdered cleaning material where we changed vendors. We different resin configuration of the same materials in the SURP (PET/adh/LLDPE). The secondary material was prone to delamination upon exposure to heightened humidity and temperature ranges. Luckily this was captured before commercialization was complete and kept away from consumers. 

Since I will always take the more conservative route when it comes to compatibility with packaging materials. 

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng

Based on beauty and skincare packaging experience over the last 25 years:

• If a vendor is changed or if your current vendor changes their resin grade/source, I would recommend a full compatibility test be done. 
• Virgin resin to the same virgin resin with PCR inclusion, it would depend on where the PCR is included in the package. Blended, inner layer, outer layer, percentage of inclusion.
• PCR back to virgin is lower risk. This again would be dependent on if you were still using the same virgin resin when removing the PCR.

Feel free to reach out. 

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng

Based on beauty and skincare packaging experience over the last 25 years:

• If a vendor is changed or if your current vendor changes their resin grade/source, I would recommend a full compatibility test be done. 
• Virgin resin to the same virgin resin with PCR inclusion, it would depend on where the PCR is included in the package. Blended, inner layer, outer layer, percentage of inclusion.
• PCR back to virgin is lower risk. This again would be dependent on if you were still using the same virgin resin when removing the PCR.

Feel free to reach out. 

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng

Based on beauty and skincare packaging experience over the last 25 years:

• If a vendor is changed or if your current vendor changes their resin grade/source, I would recommend a full compatibility test be done. 
• Virgin resin to the same virgin resin with PCR inclusion, it would depend on where the PCR is included in the package. Blended, inner layer, outer layer, percentage of inclusion.
• PCR back to virgin is lower risk. This again would be dependent on if you were still using the same virgin resin when removing the PCR.

Feel free to reach out. 

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng

Hi Fenghua,

In my experience with polymer laminates, transitioning from virgin to PCR resin is high-risk for bridging results. PCR introduces molecular variability that can compromise package integrity. I suggest a risk-based study focusing on:

ISTA Pre-qualification: Vibration/drop tests (e.g., ISTA 3A) are vital, as PCR often has different stress-cracking resistance.

Shelf-Life & Barrier Shifts: PCR can alter the polymer matrix, changing OTR and WVTR profiles. This is critical for protecting active ingredients.

Regards, 

Rino Jacob

Packaging Engineer

HAZMAT & Advanced Materials Specialist

Hi IoPP community,

I'd love to get your thoughts and best practices on compatibility testing and test-result bridging in cosmetic packaging.

For primary packaging in the cosmetic industry, if the package remains essentially the same in format and dimensions, and the material family is the same (for example PE tube to PE tube), but the packaging is sourced from a different vendor using a different resin grade/source, would you typically:

• require a full compatibility / stability test
• perform a risk-based reduced study
• or bridge the previous test results with a scientific justification?

I'm particularly interested in how you assess cases where the only changes are:

1. same material type, different resin/vendor
2. virgin resin to PCR
3. PCR back to virgin

For those who allow bridging, what key elements do you include in your bridging statement / technical justification?

For example, do you typically evaluate:

• resin type and grade equivalency
• barrier properties (O₂ / moisture / light)
• extractables / leachables risk
• additive package differences
• product formula sensitivity (fragrance, acids, actives, alcohol, etc.)
• component-process differences (extrusion / injection / multilayer)

Would appreciate any examples of change control rationale, risk assessment frameworks, or wording for bridging statements that have worked well in cosmetics.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience.

Best Regard,

Feng