Testing Moisturizing Claims for Skin

Jun 1, 2013 | Contact Author | By: Chris McLeod, HPCI Media
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: Testing Moisturizing Claims for Skin
Moisturizationx humectantx skin carex emollientx TEWLx
  • Article
  • Media
  • Keywords/Abstract
  • 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!

Consumer product testing, along with procedures for implementing claims substantiation protocols, is increasingly becoming one of the most talked about topics in the product development process. Whether a company produces cosmetic products for small, independent boutique brands or for large multinational corporations, the race to enhance (or at the very least, match) a product’s on-package claims to its competitors’ is of paramount importance to gain a crucial foothold in the relevant market and target demographic. One of the main claim substantiation areas in modern cosmetics—although one of the least verbosely exhilarating for marketing departments—is moisturization in skin. As with the majority of cosmetic products and claims in the 21st century, marketing, research, development and formulation departments within companies aim to differentiate their product from competitors in one way or another, to create a successful brand and generate profit.

Although this author cannot deny that moisturization capabilities can provide relief for those who suffer from flaky, itching or irritated and dry skin, it would be careless not to acknowledge the marketing-based beguilement within this moisturization sector. Even if a product is legitimately substantiated for providing 96-hr moisturization, it always begs the questions: Why would such a “mindful-of-their-skin” consumer need unremitting moisturization without re-application or cleansing for four continuous days? And does everyone actually need to artificially moisturize their skin?

While this author has written many a journal on the Sensationalization of Sensation, this column will not be one of them. Henceforth, this article and series will hopefully provide necessary information to assist readers in understanding the testing processes that occur to legitimize on-pack claims of Product X’s capabilities. In an ideal world, every product development team member should understand this process in order to launch the most efficient and cost-effective product. Lest it be forgotten, the claim substantiation procedure, whether for safety or efficacy, is essential to market on-pack claims within the cosmetics industry.

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!

 

Close

Figure 1. Efficacy testing; mean corneometer values vs. time

Figure 1. Efficacy testing; mean corneometer values vs. time

Figure 1 shows example results from a 12-hour study.

Figure 2. Efficacy testing; mean tewameter values vs. time

Figure 2. Efficacy testing; mean tewameter values vs. time

Figure 2 shows readings from a TEWL meter emolliency study.

Biography: Chris McLeod

Chris McLeod

Chris McLeod is a consultant in claim substantiation within the cosmetics, personal care and toiletries industry, having learned his trade at global consumer product testing house Aspen Clinical Research. Serving as the company’s business development manager, he started in product development and cosmetic research before applying his trade directly to journalism. He is now the cosmetic business product manager at HPCI Media, overseeing global cosmetics information.

Next image >