Content uploaded by Marc De Mul
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marc De Mul on Jun 14, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
J. Cosmet. Sci., 65, 359–364 (November/December 2014)
359
Foundation products have a measureable impact
on moisturization
TRICIA DALEY-BOWLES, JILLIAN LIGUORI,
FARRAH RAZURI, AMBER HUBSCHMITT, JILL LITCHAUER,
BETTY AUCAR, and MARC DE MUL, BASF Corporation, Stony
Brook, NY 11790 (T.D.-B., J.L., F.R., A.H.), and BASF Corporation,
Tarrytown, NY 10591 (J.L., B.A., M.D.M.).
Accepted for publication August 11, 2014.
Synopsis
Multifunctional products are becoming more prevalent in the color cosmetics market. We evaluated four
foundation products for in vivo moisturizing benefi ts using the mini-regression test method. We found that
statistically signifi cant long-lasting moisturization was provided by the foundations tested, but only if hy-
groscopic moisturizing ingredients were present.
INTRODUCTION
Today’s consumers are increasingly looking for products that offer multifunctional-
ity, and cosmetics are no exception. Women prefer product formulations that offer
benefi ts beyond basic makeup. One such benefi t that is appealing to a broad base of con-
sumers is moisturization (1). Dermatologists and makeup artists alike recommend keep-
ing the facial skin moisturized to ensure optimal skin health and appearance. This advice
extends across all facial skin types.
Although much work has been done to assess the effi cacy of moisturizers, less is known
about the ability of a color cosmetic product to have lasting, measurable effects on skin.
In particular, this study examined the ability of a foundation to have a measureable im-
pact on skin hydration when applied under real wear conditions—once per day, remain-
ing on the skin for approximately 8 h before being washed off. To assess a cosmetic’s
impact on skin hydration, we made skin impedance measurements. The measurement of
skin impedance (the total electrical resistance of the skin to an applied alternating cur-
rent) provides a simple and well-established technique to assess the hydration of the skin
surface (2). Skin surface hydration changes are a contributor to skin dryness and can be
used to evaluate moisturization of the skin (3).
Address all correspondence to Marc de Mul at marc.demul@basf.com.
JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE
360
The accepted way of comparing the moisturizing performance of skin care products is to
determine how long the moisturizing effect on the skin is sustained after treatment is
stopped, which is known as the regression method. This method was fi rst developed by
Kligman (4), who assessed skin dryness at various time points after discontinuation of
daily treatment with a moisturizer for a number of weeks. In the original method, dryness
measurements continued until the skin regressed to its original condition before treat-
ment. A faster method is the mini-regression test suggested by Grove (3), which indicates
4 weekdays of treatment, followed by skin dryness evaluations the following week for up
to a week of regression.
To understand the effect that product formulation has on moisturization, a foundation
formulation and two variations were compared. The fi rst variation built upon the base
formulation with the inclusion of an emollient commonly used as an aesthetic modifi er.
The second variation continued to build upon the base formulation by including the same
emollient from the fi rst variation as well as a moisturizing active material. Finally, a
marketed moisturizing foundation was included as a benchmark formula with similar-
colored pigments, but a different emulsion composition. This benchmark foundation was
claimed to provide moisturizing benefi ts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
The product formulations applied are listed in Tables I–III. The base foundation formula-
tion was a silicone in water formula with moderate viscosity and a pH of about 6. Two
variations of the base formulation were tested, one with propylheptyl caprylate as an
aesthetic modifi er, and a second with three moisturizing active materials added:
•Moisture blend #1 is a blend of hygroscopic molecules and hydrating agents.
•Moisture blend #2 consists of dehydrated hyaluronic acid microspheres.
•Moringa oleifera seed oil is an organic oil with moisturizing properties.
CLINICAL STUDY DESIGN
The double-blinded study was conducted with a total of 24 healthy Caucasian female
subjects between the ages of 18 and 65. The study started on February 20, 2013 and
concluded on March 1, 2013. All subjects executed an Informed Consent Form prior to
the start of study procedures.
The principles of Good Clinical Practice, as defi ned by the International Conference on
Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human
Use, were followed except for the requirement that investigational products should be
manufactured, handled, and stored in accordance with applicable Good Manufacturing
Practice, which is not a requirement for cosmetic products. The study protocol was
reviewed and approved by our Internal Review Board on February 19, 2013. There
were no adverse events encountered, and no protocol amendments or deviations took
place.
FOUNDATION PRODUCTS HAVE AN IMPACT ON MOISTURIZATION 361
Table I
Overview of Product Formulations Tested with Key Moisturizing Ingredients Highlighted
INCI Name
AB
C
D
Base foundation
Base foundation with
propylheptyl caprylate
Base foundation with moisture
blend #1, moisture blend #2,
Moringa oleifera seed oil, and
propylheptyl caprylate Marketed benchmark
Water 53% 50% 42% √
Moisture blend #1 -- 4%
Glycerin √
Water √
Urea
Sodium PCA √
Trehalose √
Polyquaternium-51 √
Triacetin
Sodium hyaluronate √
Moisture Blend #2 - -2%
Ethlyhexyl palmitate
Silica dimethyl silylate
Butylene glycol √
Sodium hyaluronate
Moringa oleifera seed oil -- 2%
Propylheptyl caprylate -3% 3%
JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE
362
Enrolled panelists were instructed to wash their inner forearms with PURPOSE® Gentle
Cleansing Wash (Valeant Consumer Products, Montreal, Canada) once daily for 3 days
prior to the study date. Panelists were told to shower 12 h prior to the fi rst and last visit.
Additionally, they refrained from using any non-assigned products on their inner fore-
arms for the duration of the study. They were required to go to the test facility for 5
consecutive days.
MEASUREMENT OF SKIN IMPEDANCE
Moisture content in the skin was assessed using a NOVA® DPM 9003 skin impedance
meter (NOVA Technology Corporation, Portsmouth, NH). This instrument provides a
non-invasive, objective, reproducible method of measurement to quantify biophysical
characteristics and relative hydration of the skin. It reports skin impedance in arbitrary
units (2).
Prior to all measurements, panelists acclimated to controlled environmental conditions
with a constant temperature of 19°–22°C and 40–50% relative humidity, for at least
15 min. Five 3 × 3 cm test sites were marked on the forearms using a surgical pen.
Within each site, baseline skin impedance measurements were taken on day 1 prior to the
fi rst application and again on day 5, 12 h after the last application was washed off. Mois-
turization measurements were taken in triplicate at each site. We did not monitor regres-
sion of the skin following product application beyond 12 h, as the skin impedance
measurement at that time showed suffi cient differentiation among the test products.
Also, consumers would generally reapply the product at 12 h after washoff.
Table II
Other Ingredients in Formulations A, B, and C That Are Not Listed in Table I, Listed
Alphabetically by INCI Name
Caprylic/Capric triglyceride, Caprylyl glycol, Caprylyl glycol (and) Phenoxyethanol (and) Hexylene
glycol, Dimethicone (and) Polysilicone-11 (and) Nylon-12 (and) Silica (and) PEG-10 Dimethicone (and)
Polysorbate 40 (and) Isohexadecane (and) Ammonium polyacryloyldimethyl taurate, DMDM Hydantion
(and) Iodoproynyl butylcarbamate, Hexyl laurate, Iron oxide (Black), Iron oxide (Red), Iron oxide (Yellow),
Isostearic acid, Magnesium aluminum silicate, Mica (and) Titanium dioxide (Orange), Mica (and) Titanium
dioxide (Violet), Oleyl erucate, Pentaerythrityl tetra-di-t-butyl hydroxyhydrocinnamate, Silica (and)
Hyaluronic acid, Sodium polyacrylate, Synthetic fl uorphlogopite (and) Lauroyl lysine, Titanium dioxide,
Vegetable oil (and) Glycerin (and) Lauryl glucoside (and) Polyglycerl-2-dipolyhydroxystearate
Table III
Other Ingredients in Formulation D That Are Not Listed in Table I, Listed Alphabetically by INCI Name
1,2-Hexanediol, Aloe barbadensis leaf extract, Argania spinosa kernel oil, Boron nitride, C12-15 Alkyl
benzoate, Caprylic/Capric triglyceride, Caprylyl glycol, Cellulose gum, Ceteth-25, Cetyl alcohol, Cetyl
ethylhexanoate, Disodium EDTA, Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, Glyceryl stearate, Helianthus annuus
(Sunfl ower) seed oil, Hexapeptide-3, Iron oxide (Black), Iron oxide (Red), Iron oxide (Yellow), Isopropyl
lanolate, Linoleic acid, Linolenic acid, Magnesium aluminum silicate, Oleth-25, PEG-26-PPG-30 Phosphate,
Persea gratissima (Avocodo) oil, Polyhydroxystearic acid, Proplyene glycol isostearate, Propylene glycol,
Propylene glycol stearate, Sodium dehydroacetate, Squalane, Titanium dioxide, Tocopherol, Triethanolamine,
Tripeptide-3
FOUNDATION PRODUCTS HAVE AN IMPACT ON MOISTURIZATION 363
After baseline measurements, 25 mg (equal to 2.8 mg/cm2) of each test product was ap-
plied daily to the panelists’ forearms. Each test product was applied to the designated test
site according to the pre-determined randomization and was massaged into the skin for
approximately 10 s using a fi nger cot. Subjects remained onsite in an acclimation room
until all the products were dry to the touch. To simulate real wear conditions, panelists
were told to leave the products on the skin all day until they showered at night. The
above product application process repeated on days 2, 3, and 4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We analyzed and compared three different foundation formulas against the base
foundation formula and the marketed benchmark formula. Skin impedance measure-
ments were taken before application at baseline and then 12 h after the product was
washed from the skin. This allowed us to measure the moisturization effect of the
foundation formulas on the skin 12 h after the product was removed for a mini-
regression test.
Each measurement was taken in triplicate at each site per subject. Product comparison
p-value was based on an analysis of variance model. The p values within the products,
change, and percent change from baseline were based on a paired t-test and found to be
statistically signifi cant.
Figure 1 shows the increase in skin impedance reading, indicating the increase in mois-
turization of the skin, from the baseline value. Both formulas B and C provided statis-
tically signifi cantly higher impedance levels than the base foundation A, indicating
higher moisturization. The impedance measured with formula C was signifi cantly
higher than formula B as well, indicating the contribution of the additional moistur-
izing ingredients.
We also compared the highest scoring formulation to a marketed benchmark moisturiz-
ing foundation, formula D (Figure 2). Formula C was signifi cantly higher in impedance
than formula D, providing more moisturization to the skin.
Figure 1. Increase in impedance from baseline, indicating increased moisturization. The values for both
Formula B and C were statistically signifi cant (* p< 0.05) versus Formula A. The value for Formula C was
statistically signifi cant (° p< 0.05) versus Formula B.
JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE
364
CONCLUSION
The base foundation with moisture blend #1, moisture blend #2, Moringa oleifera seed oil,
and propylheptyl caprylate (formula C) moisturized the skin signifi cantly better than the
base foundation (formula A) and the base foundation containing only propylheptyl cap-
rylate (formula B). Furthermore, when compared to a marketed competitor product, the
base foundation with moisture blend #1, moisture blend #2, Moringa oleifera seed oil, and
propylheptyl caprylate (formula C) also provided superior moisturizing ability. These
results indicate that adding moisture blend #1, moisture blend #2, Moringa oleifera seed
oil, and propylheptyl caprylate to foundation formulas can promote long-lasting moistur-
izing ability within foundation products.
The improved moisturization effi cacy we observed can be explained by the hygroscopic
nature of the ingredients in moisture blend #1 and moisture blend #2, especially the
hyaluronic acid microspheres in moisture blend #2.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the BASF Beauty Creations IRB for critically reviewing this
manuscript and BASF for supplying materials.
REFERENCES
(1) Mintel, Color Cosmetics – US – July 2012. Mintel Oxygen, 30 July 2012, accessed May 16, 2013, http://
oxygen.mintel.com/display/590605/?highlight=true
(2) P. Clarys, A. O. Barel, and B. Gabard, Non-invasive electrical measurements for the evaluation of the
hydration state of the skin: Comparison between three conventional instruments - the Corneometer®,
the Skicon® and the Nova DPM®, Skin Res. Technol., 5, 14–20 (1999).
(3) G. L. Grove, Skin surface hydration changes during a mini regression test as measured in vivo by electri-
cal conductivity, Curr. Ther. Res., 52, 556–561 (1992).
(4) A. M. Kligman, Regression method for assessing the effi cacy of moisturizers, Cosmet. Toiletries 93, 27–35
(1978).
Figure 2. Increase in impedance from baseline, indicating increased moisturization. Even though the values
for both products were statistically signifi cant (* p< 0.05) versus baseline, the value for Formula C was sta-
tistically signifi cant (° p< 0.05) versus Formula D.