HAIR CARE 59
60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0
Sodium Polyitaconate Polyurethane Copolymer
Acrylamide/Acrylate Copolymer
Figure 5: Comb resistance (10 heat treatment cycles).
that sodium polyitaconate helped protect the hair from heat damage, whereas the lower break force for the control and the styrene sulfonate copolymer solution treated tresses suggest that the fibres have been damage during the heat treatment cycles. Fibres from the tresses treated with solutions of acrylamide/acrylate copolymer and polyurethane copolymer also gave similar results to the untreated fibres but these fibres were found to have significant amounts of polymer residue attached and this could have influenced the results obtained. SEM images for the control fibres show evidence of cuticle lifting and increased porosity not observed on the SEM images of the tresses treated with sodium polyitaconate solution again suggesting that the material has protected the fibres against heat damage. Some axial cracks have appeared for some of the cuticle cells on the styrene sulfonate copolymer treated fibers but otherwise, the fibre are intact (Fig 3). It was difficult to assess the condition of the cuticle for fibres treated with both the acrylamide/acrylate copolymer and the polyurethane copolymer owing to the polymer residue. The results of the comb resistance test
are shown in Figure 4. The results shown are the area under the curve of a plot of comb load (g) against comb travel distance (cm). For each measurement the comb travel distance was 10 cm. The tresses were subjected the same heat treatment protocol described previously. Comb resistance measurements are only
an indirect indication of hair damage, but the hypothesis is that cuticle damage leads to an increase in fibre surface roughness and hence an increase in friction between fibres which results in the requirement for a greater force to be applied in order to comb the tress. Of course any increase in entanglement will do likewise, therefore steps were taken to minimise this occurrence during the experimental procedure. Residual polymer on the hair fibres will also increase the required comb
September 2018
Figure 6: SEM individual fibre images (20 heat treatment cycles).
force and this is discussed further below. The data obtained show not surprisingly that the untreated tress required the least force to comb. The tresses treated with sodium polyitaconate required a higher comb force but this force is considerably lower than the control tress requirement suggesting that the sodium polyitaconate solution has helped protect the fibers from damage. The benchmark tresses that were treated with styrene sulfonate copolymer performed similarly to the control and therefore did not provide any evidence for protection against damage in this context.
Rinse-off test Tresses made from wavy European brown hair (30 cm, 5 g) were heat styled as described above and allowed to equilibrate at ambient temperature and humidity. The wash protocol described above was followed whereby the tresses were washed twice with shampoo, rinsed and allowed to dry at ambient temperature and humidity. The ease of rinse as indicated by the
presence and level of residue on the hair fibres was determined using comb resistance measurements following the protocol described above and by SEM imaging. As alluded to earlier, some of the tresses
treated with the benchmark polymers were difficult to wash leaving some residual material behind. This is evident in the comb resistance data shown in Figure 5 and the SEM images shown in Figure 6. The tresses treated with both acrylamide/acrylate and polyurethane copolymers were more difficult to comb as indicated by the increased comb load measurements for these two materials. The residual material can be seen clearly on the SEM images of fibres taken from the tresses treated with these materials. In contrast, the tresses treated with sodium polyitaconate washed easily and rinsed clear. Ease of rinsing of sodium polyitaconate is particularly advantageous since this prevents residue building up on hair which could lead to increased entanglement or weighing down
of the hair as well as potential obstruction of other hair care applications.
Conclusion RevCare HP is a sustainable, naturally- derived material that is a useful ingredient for application in personal care products. The results presented in this article demonstrate that this material can perform at least as well as synthetic equivalents in maintaining styles obtained through thermal styling of hair and can be used to help prevent damage that may occur as a result of repeat application of the styling process over extended periods of time. Furthermore, RevCare HP rinses from hair easily in between styling applications and therefore does not build up on hair which could otherwise lead to increased entanglement, weighing down of the hair or obstruction of other hair care applications. Currently, polyitaconates such as
RevCare HP and RevCare NE 100S are the only naturally-derived polymers that are able to provide the benefits described in this article, giving formulators an effective alternative to silicones and petrochemical based ingredients.
PC
References 1
http://www.personalcarecouncil.org/about- us/committed-sustainable-future
2 Willke T, Vorlop KD. Biotechnological production of itaconic acid, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2001; 56: 289-295.
3 Werpy T, Petersen G. Top Value Added Chemicals from Biomass, Volume I: Results of Screening for Potential Candidates from Sugars and Synthesis Gas (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)), August 2004.
4 Mohiuddin O. Key Drivers and Prospects in Global Hair Care (Euromonitor International), February 2016.
5 Robbins CR. Chemical and Physical Behaviour of Human Hair, Chapter 3: Reducing Human Hair: Water-Setting Human Hair, 4th Edition New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002:133-134.
PERSONAL CARE EUROPE
Total Comb Load (
g.cm)
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112