Inventive Formulating Abounds Yet Questions Remain at SCC’s Scientific Seminar

By: Katie Schaefer, C&T magazine

Posted: June 23, 2010

page 4 of 5

The topic of color cosmetics continued in a talk by Juergen Walker, PhD, senior scientist at BASF, who discussed the challenges associated with formulating with effect pigments. Walker’s staff examined the challenges of formulating titania coated mica and titania coated borosilicate in shampoo, cream, lipstick and pressed powder. While effect pigments had little effect on the viscosity of shampoo, they lowered the viscosity of a cream by nearly 45%. With lipstick, the team concluded that the breaking point influence on lipstick results from formulation and processing variations of the base and not the effect pigment. The largest challenge when formulating with effect pigments is seen in pressed powder, where the pigments are at their highest use levels. There, to achieve an effective product with effect pigments, adjustments must be made with regard to wet and dry binder content, press pressure and pigment loading.

Jane Hollenberg of JCH Consulting then transitioned the pigment discussion to surface treatments. Hollenberg worked with Gelest to use hydrophilic silanes to improve pigment wetting and dispersion in water-based formulations. According to Hollenberg, with a hydrophilic silane, one can use a higher pigment load due to a lower viscosity. In addition, energy input to achieve pigment dispersion can be greatly reduced.

Rounding out the morning’s presentations was Santash Yadav, PhD, of ISP, who discussed luster measurements of lips treated with six lipstick formulations containing different polymers. Yadav’s team used digital photography and image analysis to measure luster from lipsticks applied on a mannequin and the team found that the formulation containing VP/eicosene copolymer exhibited the highest amount of luster.

During the luncheon following the morning session, the SCC announced the student Poster Award winners. The awards were given by Don Katz of DD Chemco, the award sponsor. In fourth-place was Amber Evans from the University of Cincinnati, who won for her poster, “Water Hardness and Human Hair: An Investigation of the Structural Implications of This Interaction." In third-place was Jody Ebanks of the University of Cincinnati for her poster, “Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Melanosome Degradation and Processing by Epidermal Keratinocytes of Distinct Racial Sources.” Second-place went to Laura Anderson of the University of Southern Mississippi for her paper, “First Generation Formulation and Rheology Study of Multi-mechanistic Cosmetic Coating to Protect Skin from Thermal Energy.” Finally, first-place was awarded to Michelle McCluskey of the University of Southern Mississippi for her paper, “Formulation Optimization and Texture Analysis of Multi-mechanistic Cosmetic Coating to Protect Skin from Thermal Injury.”

Attendees then reconvened for the last of the sessions, which focused on the blending of dermatology and cosmetology with personal care products. The keynote speaker was dermatologist Zoe Diana Draelos, MD, who discussed the foggy line between drugs and cosmetics. According to Draelos, “Drugs and cosmetics are what you say they are, and what you say they do,” meaning that because this line often is blurred, the claims associated with the product dictate whether it is a drug or a cosmetic. Draelos noted the ongoing definition of cosmetics vs. drugs but added that water, petrolatum and glycerin, common personal care ingredients, are some of the most skin structure modifying substances known to dermatology. She has seen little formulation differences between cosmetic moisturizers and prescription moisturizers and concluded that the line between the two is becoming more blurry with actives in skin care and cosmetically elegant prescription skin care.