-
Cosmetic ingredient classification
I’ve always liked the system in biology of classifying organisms in different groups based on similar characteristics. Here’s my attempt at trying to organize cosmetic raw materials in the same way. What do you think? Are there any groups I missed?
-
4 Replies
-
Wow, tall order. There are likely an infinite number of ways to do this. I think you have some groups in “Aesthetic modifiers” that I personally would classify as “Functional” materials. Things like pH adjusters, solvents and anti-oxidants serve a function for the formula more than improve formula aesthetics in my opinion. I think I would add something like “Stabilizers” where you would put emulsifiers, thickeners, etc. Within your “Colors” branch I would expand and differentiate “dyes” vs. “pigments”. I would change “fantasy” to “marketing”. I think “fantasy” is a little too derogatory.
I could probably spend all day working on something like this, haha. -
I would break out Functional from Aesthetic, as laskedbetter describes, too. Within that subcategory would be “Rheology modifiers”, and even “Flow modifiers” (not the same as “thickeners” where tribology is concerned). Within Aesthetic, I would add the sub-category “Sensory modifiers” i.e. skin sensation modifiers, as many esters and starches will do for the product. I only perused this briefly. I’m sure if I study it more the more I’ll find, but that may be overthinking it too. Cool, Perry.
-
I’d use different words for some of them. “Detergent” means “cleanser” or “cleaner”, so I wouldn’t have it as a component of itself. Maybe you meant “surfactant”. “Exfoliant” could be broken down into “abrasive” & possibly other categories that encourage desquamation, but “abrasive” is a type of detergent too, and it’s not clear that exfoliation should be considered only a category of cleaning, unless what you mean by “cleanser” is anything that aids in the removal of anything, which is reasonable.
“Film-forming” is a term also used in patent descriptions & elsewhere to include the formation of transient aqueous films such as soap bubbles, so maybe you want to specify “film formers” further.
Also, some of your categoriz’n doesn’t really work taxonomically (hierarchically). Under “conditioners” you have some functional & some compositional ways of categorizing, so your categories aren’t all parallel.
I have about the same criticism of “functional” vs. “aesthetic modifiers” as the others. What I think you were driving at is a distinction between those whose function is direct in use and those whose function is to deliver those other functional ingredients.
-
Thanks for the input!
My thinking on Functional vs Aesthetic Modifiers is in terms of how it affects the consumer.So functional ingredients are ones that provide a benefit to the product user.Aesthetic modifiers are ones that affect the formula but don’t really provide a benefit to the product user.For example, pH adjusters do provide a function to the formula but they don’t provide any functional benefit for the consumer. Aesthetic modifiers are the ingredients added to modify the functional ingredients. (e.g. make it the right pH, make it less sticky, etc.)I do agree that the aesthetic modifier category could be better broken down into things that affect different sensory aspects of the formula.Thanks for the input. I’m going to rethink some of this and try again.
Log in to reply.