One of the fundamental principles of cosmetics and personal care products is the action of surfactants in a solution.

Here is a video that demonstrates what happens to the surfactant molecules when they are put into a solution of water. Essentially they form structures called micelles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdKlyofu0Xw

There is a lot more activity going on in the cosmetic science forum and we are delighted! The questions have been excellent and the responses too. I am especially happy to be learning from the different experiences of my fellow cosmetic chemists.

Here is a run down of the hottest topics.

1. What is the proper way to label an ingredient via INCI?

2. The best way to work with Carbomer.

3. How do you stop product rancidity?

4. Tips for scaling up batches from lab to production

Feel free to add to the conversation or post your own questions or comments. It’s free to join and participate in the Cosmetic Science Forum.

Here is one of my favorite chemical demonstrations of all time. It is the old iodine clock reaction. What happens is that there is a chemical equillibrium that happens and the different species change colors. Eventually, the system runs out of energy and stops changing color.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcHKWChwP58

When I first started in the cosmetic industry, I always thought this would be a cool effect. Imagine having your product “blink” on the store shelves.

Unfortunately, it’s just not practical for a cosmetic product.

Here’s a good explanation of the chemical reactions that are happening.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=vb9FefEFPDY]

Skin care is one of the most common areas in which cosmetic chemists get to formulate. And acne is one of the most common problems they are trying to either prevent or cure. Here is a nice short video that explains exactly how acne is formed and how anti-acne ingredients work. It’s quite good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy6KX5bZOg0

As an information hungry scientist and cosmetic science blogger, I see lots of stories about health and beauty.  There is a lot of nonsense out there and it’s difficult for a cosmetic chemist to find out what is really true.  Take this story for example.  Can eating too much sugar really cause wrinkles?

I had never heard of that and the fact that there was no reference to any study or anything made me a bit skeptical.  People are always looking for some reason to say ‘sugar is bad for you.’  Some want to demonize everything that brings happiness to people.

But I’m all about science and if the evidence indicates people should avoid excess sugar to prevent wrinkles, I’d happily change my ways.  Well, probably not because I personally don’t care much about wrinkles as I see them as inevitable, but I would start to advise people not to eat too much sugar.  Anyway…

Is this sugar / wrinkle connection real?

There are plenty of popular media types saying it is.  Dr. Oz says it’s true and so does Dr. Brandt.   Of course, just because these guys say it doesn’t make me any more inclined to believe it.

I need a better source than just Google and popular TV and book doctors.  How about some science?

The best place to search for science is PubMed but it is so technical that I’d have a tough time learning anything.  Next best option is to look at the press releases from Universities.  Do a Google search of the website Sciencedaily.com.

There’s a 1998 article that suggests Fructose may accelerate skin aging.  But the evidence is pretty weak and it was a rat study.  Nothing about humans.

I did a little more searching and found the FutureDerm blog and her analysis of whether sugar causes wrinkles.  I don’t look to her for the definitive word as she is just reporting on science that other people are doing but she raising some interesting ideas.  According to the research, glucose reacts with collagen to make it more stiff which can ultimately lead to more wrinkles.

While this is supported by lab data (it’s just a chemical reaction) there is also some data which suggests that cutting sugar out of your diet completely can cause even more damage to collagen.

Sweet wrinkles

So, I don’t really know what to think.  Certainly, I haven’t done enough research to come to a definitive conclusion.  But it seems like having no sugar in your diet is probably bad (from a wrinkle standpoint).  Although it would be nice to see a study of the skin of people on a long term Atkins diet.  Excessive sugar can cause changes in collagen structure which can lead to more wrinkles.  But there isn’t a study that compares the skin of people with high sugar diets to people with lower sugar diets.

I guess the answer is that it is complicated and I’m not going to feel too bad about occasionally eating a candy bar.  Nothing is better than a Hershey’s Symphony chocolate bar after a 20 mile run.

Cosmetic science

One of the main reasons for posting this entry is that I wanted to show how complicated subjects can be and how just looking something up on the Internet almost never gives you a definitive answer.  And just because Dr. Oz says something or an article is published on big website like MSNBC doesn’t mean that it is true.

What do you think?  Is sugar consumption causing people to have wrinkles?  Leave a comment below.

There are some pretty good discussions going on at the Cosmetic Science forum. If you haven’t been participating, you should really take a look. Here are some of the highlights.

Top cosmetic science discussions

1. What tests should be done before launching a product? Chemists weigh in on what they think you have to do before going to market with your new formula.

2. What is the must-have equipment for a cosmetic laboratory? Chemists say what they think you need to have for running a successful cosmetic lab.

3. How do you determine period after opening? Excellent info about exactly how you do this.

4. Alternatives for parabens and formaldehyde donor preservatives. Don’t want to use these maligned preseravtives? Well, see this discussion for the best alternatives.

5. Why more cosmetic chemists aren’t doing research? See why cosmetic chemists think that more research isn’t being done in our industry.

We have a great group of contributors to the cosmetic science forum so be sure to click over there and participate.

One of the problems facing sunscreen formulators is that many of the chemical UV filters can cause contact allergies in a large group of consumers. So, you can formulate an excellent product that can not be used by a high percentage of your potential population. This is unfortunate, especially since sunscreen is one of the most useful cosmetics/drugs that you can create. It’s also becoming more and more common to include UV protectors in all types of cosmetics so this could potential limit the market of other product forms.

Well, this story from researchers at the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of technology may provide some promising news. They found a substance in bacteria that might lead to sunscreens which do not produce the allergic reaction.

The bacterial produced UV blocker they discovered is called scytonemin. Theoretically, it will not cause the sensitization that other UV blockers can cause. Of course, this is really early research and it is not known how well it would actually work in a cosmetic.

Interesting stuff and evidence that there is still research going on in the cosmetic field. Although, I should note that I doubt this is kind of research that would be done at a company. Getting useable results is just too far off in the future. Hopefully, they have some government or corporate sponsor because finding a new, less allergenic UV filter would be a good thing.

There is this trend in the cosmetic industry called “beauty-within”. (There’s even a conference about it.)The idea is that people can consume some product and it will have a beneficial effect on skin and hair. In general, I’m skeptical of the food supplement industry but I’m always willing to change my mind about things if there is good evidence.

So, is there anything to this “beauty-within” trend or is it just marketing BS?

Define the scope

At the start, I want to say that of course what you eat or drink can have an impact on your skin and hair. If you starve yourself you’ll lose your hair and you skin will get dry. If you are short of some critical nutrient your skin can change color or start looking awful. I’m not talking about these extreme effects.

What I’m wondering about is whether a normal, healthy person can take some food supplement or eat some special diet to improve their skin.

Skin wrinkles and food

In a study done out of Monash University in Australia, researchers concluded that “skin wrinkling in a sun-exposed site…may be influenced by the type of foods consumed.”

But after reviewing the study, I’m unimpressed with their conclusions. There are numerous flaws in the study including…

1. Self-reported food intake. They asked people who were 70 years or older about their food intake over the last year. Who would actually be able to give a good estimation of this? Unless you are writing it down, forget about it. The conclusions of the study hinges on this diet data and the data the collect is nearly worthless.

2. They didn’t control for sunblock use. I saw nowhere in the study a discussion of whether people used sunscreens or not. That would certainly effect the end results.

So, maybe eating more vegetables will be good for your skin as they point out, or maybe not. This certainly isn’t enough support to give any credence to the “beauty within” marketing trend.

Dietary intake and wrinkles

In this next study conducted by researchers at Unilever (uh oh), they attempt to look at women aged 40-74 to see the impact of diet on skin appearance.

The conclusion is that higher intake of Vitamin C and linoleic acid and lower intakes of fats and carbohydrates were associated with better looking skin.

Interesting enough but this study also relies on self reported food levels. And they say they control for sun exposure but there is no mention of sunscreen use. Not sure how they can control for it. Somehow, this feels like weak science to me.

Proof needed

I know these are only two studies but there isn’t a lot published on this subject. If you know of any other studies, let me know as I’d love to review them.

Here is a study I would like to see.

1. Recruit people of varying ages for the study. Rate their skin at the start of the study.

2. Give them food diaries to keep track of what they eat.

3. Check back on their skin condition over the course of a year. 5 years would be even better.

Of course, this study would be pretty difficult to do. Perhaps it would work better at a retirement home where the food is more controlled.

I don’t know. I still am curious whether you can change your skin and hair condition based on the food you eat. I suspect you can but the data collected thus far is sketchy at best.

At the moment, there is no good evidence to say the products for the “beauty from within” trend are worth using.

And eating fruits and vegetables still remains the best advice. It may not have any positive effect on your skin, but it certainly won’t hurt.

The Journal of Cosmetic Science published by the Society of Cosmetic Chemists is the premiere scientific journal and a great resource for finding out the latest developments in the field of cosmetic science. You can find new methods, new raw materials, and research in biology, chemistry, and physics. Some of the articles are incredibly useful and enlightening.

Unfortunately, some of them are not.

Recent JSCC Issue

The May/June 2011 issue of the Journal has the following articles. If you are a member of the SCC you can access the articles online, otherwise you’ll have to wait for 5 years or go to the library.

1. Enhanced female attractiveness with use of cosmetics and male tipping behavior in restaurants.

2. Tryptophan fluorescence in hair – Examination of contributing factors

3. Evaluation of anti-cellulite efficacy: A topical cosmetic treatment for cellulite blemishes

4. Luster measurements of lips treated with lipstick formulations

Article Evaluation

There are a number of good things to say in general about the journal. First, it is consistent in look and content. They cover a wide range of topics that would be relevant to cosmetic chemists. Next, the articles are readable, have relevant graphics and most importantly, are peer reviewed.

But the JSCC faces a significant problem. Most of the research being done in the cosmetic industry is paid for by companies that want to promote some product. This means that there is an inherent bias in almost all the articles. Sometimes this problem is less significant but other times, it’s just ridiculous.

Let’s look at some of the articles.

1. Enhanced female attractiveness and tipping behavior

This study purports to determine whether a waitress wearing makeup will garner more tips than one not wearing makeup. While it is an interesting question, it seems nearly impossible to control all the factors that would enable you to adequately figure out the answer. And indeed the researchers make an attempt but there are so many holes in this research it’s hardly worth publishing. Small sample size, no blinded controls, not controling for the psychological effect of wearing make-up versus not, no comparison of the waitresses normal tip generating ability, etc. This kind of stuff might be passed off as science in areas like Consumer Research or Psychology but come on, this is hardly science.

2. Tryptophan fluorescence in hair

Ah, finally some science complete with controls and a specific analyasis. This article looks at the fluorescence emissions in a variety of different types of hair. They control the chromophore emissions from different wave lengths, compare hair types, and look at the effect of various treatments. Now this, could be useful to cosmetic chemists. For example, if you get good at this method of hair analysis you can determine what effect your new formulation will have on hair. You could then set targets for which to exceed and use it to help steer your formulation efforts. A nice study. Of course, Janusz Jachowicz is one of the rock star researchers in cosmetic science, so it’s not unexpected.

3. Evaluation of anti-cellulite efficacy

Ugh. I still am trying to recover from having gone through this article. Now, on the one hand I appreciate the introduction which explains the latest thoughts on what is responsible for the development of cellulite. But after that, it goes down hill. This article attempts to demonstrate that a special concoction of herbal extracts can significantly reduce cellulite via topical application. Certainly a worthwhile study and one that would be of interest to any skin care cosmetic formulator.

Unfortunately, their study doesn’t support the conclusion that the treatment had any significant effect versus the placebo. Their argument essentially goes like this…

The formula with the acitve ingredient performs better than baseline.

The placebo formula does not perform better than baseline.

Therefore, the active ingredient works.

This isn’t how science works! You are supposed to compare the results versus the placebo and their own data shows that there is no significant difference. The conclusion of this study should be “our active ingredient works no better than placebo.”

4. Luster measurements of lips

This is another paper by the folks at ISP and they do a decent job with a difficult topic. In it they evaluate the luster (shine) of mannequin lips after the application of various lip sticks. They use computers and digital photography to rate the various treatments. Pretty good work although it would have been nice to see how the instrumental measurements compare to human evaluations. It would also have been nice to see this study repeated on actual human lips. I’m not sure how a mannequin lip compares to a human one. Perhaps that will be forthcoming in future research. Overall, this is a well-done study that could be useful to anyone formulating lipsticks.

Cosmetic science research

So 2 out of 4 research papers are worthwhile. I guess that’s not awful, but I sure would like to see a little better vetting of what gets published.

In college, most chemistry classes were focused on creating chemical reactions. We were constantly challenged to figure out what reaction would happen when you mix chemicals together.

Cosmetic science is not usually reactive

So, you might find it surprising that cosmetic scientists usually do the opposite. We mix chemicals together and hope that nothing happens. In a cosmetic formula, chemical reactions are bad. They are a sign of instability and we do everything we can to prevent them.

This drive to make nonreactive systems might lead you to wonder whether all those chemical reactions you memorized in Organic Chemistry were a waste of time. And if you work as a cosmetic formulator, you might wonder, “Are there any chemical reactions in cosmetic science?”

Yes, there is!

Reactive cosmetic products

While most of the chemical reactions in our industry occur at the raw material suppliers labs, there are some cosmetic products specifically designed to chemically react.  Here’s a list of the most common.

Permanent Waves

These products are designed to permanently change the shape of hair. People with straight hair often use permanent waves to get a little curl in their hair. A permanent wave formula has a reducing agent like thioglycolic acid that reacts with the di-sulfur bonds in the cystine amino acids breaking down the hair structure. Hair is first shaped into curlers, then the product is put on hair. It begins reducing hair and is rinsed with water to stop the reaction. A neutralizing chemical like hydrogen peroxide, is added which reforms the di-sulfur bonds into the new configuration.

Hair Relaxers

These products do the opposite of permanent waves. They make curly hair permanently straight. The method is similar you chemically break down hair, reshape it, then reform the protein bonds in the new configuration. Sometimes ammonium thioglycolate is used but most often it is sodium hydroxide or lithium hydroxide. The compounds break down the di-sulfur bonds in hair and the neutralizing step stops the reaction.

This is the most damaging chemical treatment for hair.

Hair Bleach

Hair bleaching is a process used to turn brunettes into blonds. You didn’t really think that there were that many blonds in the world did you? Hair bleach is a chemical reaction between melanin (the material in hair that gives it color) and hydrogen peroxide.

Hair Colors

Hair coloring is a slightly more complicated version of hair bleach. It uses hydrogen peroxide to break down hair’s natural color, then the peroxide also oxidizes a polymeric reaction with dye monomers. When the dye polymerizes inside the hair, it creates a color molecule that is too big to easily come back out.

Skin Darkening

These products are designed to give fair-skinned people a tanned look. They work by using an ingredient called dihydroxyacetone or DHA. It reacts with the proteins in the stratum corneum via the Maillard reaction to produce the brown (although sometimes orange) color. All the steps haven’t been worked out, but basically when DHA is exposed to skin protein, it is converted to pyruvaldehyde, which then reacts with arginine, lysine, and histidine amino acids in skin to form brown/yellow pigments called melanoidins.

Be sure to see Kelly’s article about DHA in Cosmetics & Toiletries magazine.

Depilatories

These are products designed to help people to remove unwanted hair. The primary active in these types of cosmetics is some version of thioglycolic acid. The acid reacts with the cystine amino acids in hair and breaks down the S-S linkages. The hair is reduced to a jelly like mass that can then be wiped away. Note this is the same reaction as in permanent waves.

2SH-CH2-COOH(thioglycolic acid) +R-S-S-R(cystine)—–> 2R-SH + COOH CH2 SS CH2 COOH (dithiodiglycolic acid)

Chemical reactions are not the primary focus of most cosmetics, but there are a few reactions so don’t fret. Memorizing those reactions in Organic Chemistry wasn’t a complete waste of time.