How the ‘Stuff’ in Formulations Impacts the Delivery of Actives

Feb 1, 2013 | Contact Author | By: Steven Abbott, PhD, Steven Abbott TCNF Ltd. and the University of Leeds
Your message has been sent.
(click to close)
Contact the Author
Save
This item has been saved to your library.
View My Library
(click to close)
Save to My Library
Title: How the ‘Stuff’ in Formulations Impacts the Delivery of Actives
formulating for efficacy (FFE)x activesx deliveryx solubilityx siliconesx emulsifiersx preservativesx
  • Article
  • Keywords/Abstract
  • Related Material

Keywords: formulating for efficacy (FFE) | actives | delivery | solubility | silicones | emulsifiers | preservatives

Abstract: Formulations contain many ingredients that are vital for some important function, such as providing stability. However, what does this “stuff” do in terms of helping or (usually) hindering the delivery of the all-important active? And how much of the active is actually available to deliver? A few simple questions and measurements, described here, can provide a wealth of insight.

View citation for this article

S Abbott, How the ‘stuff’ in formulations impacts the delivery of actives, Cosm & Toil 128(2) 116-123 (Feb 2013)

Market Data

  • Peptides are spreading beyond their core facial care market; melanin-activating peptides (MAPs) are gaining momentum in self-tanning.
  • Self-tanning accounts for only 5% of the global sun care market.
  • Self-tanning is restricted to developed markets, with North America and Western Europe making up almost 80% of total sales.
view full article

Related Material

Excerpt Only This is a shortened version or summary of the article you requested. To view the complete article, please log in or create an account. Registration is Free!

Congratulations, the newly developed formulation is near perfect, looks good and smells great. The sensorial panel has given it rave reviews. The “chemical-free” cosmetics scaremongers on the Internet will find it contains only wholesome ingredients. Manufacturing loves it because it almost makes itself, and the accountants cannot believe its low cost. Even better, it contains the company’s latest XY95 ingredient, proven in lab tests to do wonders to the user’s skin. The “9 out of 10 women” test has also been passed, where the old trick of a 10-day scientific “washout” period has been enacted, so that even the simplest formula would have had the panelists saying their skin feels much softer than before.

There is only one piece of information lacking before the company makes millions and a promotion is assured: the result. Unfortunately, an expensive clinical trial with a genuine comparison of the same formulation with and without the active shows no difference. All the improvements came from a placebo effect and those other two well-proven ingredients: oil and water. However the statisticians look at the data, it seems as though the wonder ingredient XY95 is having no effect whatsoever. What could have possibly gone wrong? All the tests were double-checked, so there can only be one conclusion: Hardly a molecule of XY95 made it into the right part of the skin. This scenario is played out countless times throughout the cosmetics industry—a fact known to industry insiders but for obvious reasons, is not loudly proclaimed—and is largely unnecessary. Much wasted effort could be avoided by thinking through the delivery issues beforehand.

Excerpt Only This is a shortened version or summary of the article you requested. To view the complete article, please log in or create an account. Registration is Free!

This content is adapted from an article in GCI Magazine. The original version can be found here.

 
 

Close

It's Free...

Register or Log in to get full access to this content

Registration includes:

  • Access to all premium content
  • One click ingredient sample requests
  • Save articles in the My Library tool

Create an Account or Log In