98 NATURALS Gloss Visual gloss** Texture**
5 4 3 2 1 0
Visual Transparency** Moisturization
5 4 3 2 1 0
Floramac 10+5 Dimethicone (10cs)
Stickiness** Absorbency Wetness** Silky/Smooth Spreadability Statistical (**) significance was apparent where indicated (p<0.05) Figure 3: Floramac 10+5 versus dimethicone (10 cs). Visual Gloss** Texture**
5 4 3 2 1 0
Gloss** Visual Transparency** Moisturization**
5 4 3 2 1 0
Floramac 10+6 Dimethicone (20cs)
Slipperiness
minutes post-application. The data in Figure 4 show initially dimethicone (20 cs) was visually more glossy, more transparent, and thinner (texture) than the gelled ethyl macadamiate; however, 30 minutes post-application, the gelled ethyl macadamiate left the skin perceivably more glossy, silky / smooth, and moisturised. The data in Figure 5 show initially dimethicone (100 cs) was visually more glossy, more transparent, wetter, and thinner (texture); however, 30 minutes post- application, the gelled ethyl macadamiate left the skin perceivably glossier.
Stickiness** Absorbency** Wetness Silky/Smooth** Spreadability Statistical (**) significance was apparent where indicated (p<0.05) Figure 4: Floramac 10+6 versus dimethicone (20 cs). Visual Gloss** Texture**
5 4 3 2 1 0
Gloss** Visual Transparency** Moisturization**
5 4 3 2 1 0
Floramac 10+7 Dimethicone (100cs)
Slipperiness
The sensory studies shown in this paper indicate that ethyl macadamiate can be used to mimic silicones with a viscosity of ≤100 cP. Although physical properties and initial observations of the neat ingredients vary between ethyl macadamiate and the respective silicones, skin-feel as perceived by the consumer was very similar. The most notable differences between the silicone alternatives and silicones were that ethyl macadamiate produced greater skin hydration, gloss, and silkiness / smoothness as perceived by consumers.
Stickiness** Absorbency** Spreadability Figure 5: Floramac 10+7 versus dimethicone (100 cs). Floramac 10
Moisturization** (1 application)
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
Silky Skin** (7 days)
Moisturization** (7 days)
Cyclopentasiloxane Wetness** Silky/Smooth** Slipperiness Statistical (**) significance was apparent where indicated (p<0.05)
Increased skin radiance and hydration
Least Appearance of Wrinkles** (7 days)
Statistical (**) and directional (*) significance was apparent where indicated (p<0.05 and p<0.1, respectively). Figure 6: Increased consumer preference with Floramac 10. PERSONAL CARE EUROPE
(both in triplicate) were taken at baseline, and 30 and 60 minutes post-test article application, respectively. The results for each pair appear below in Figure 7. The data in Figure 7 show the inclusion of ethyl macadamiate increased skin radiance and hydration (p<0.05) more than each respective silicone, which also supports the results seen in the sensory study (Figures 1, 4, and 5).
September 2018
Ethyl macadamiate, gelled ethyl macadamiate, and the respective silicones (see Table 1) were also evaluated at 5% in a very simple o/w emulsion (0.20% Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, 0.06% Aminomethyl Propanol, and q.s. Water) for skin radiance and hydration. One application of each test article was made to the dry outer legs of female subjects (n=17). Skin radiance measurements using the Glossymeter GL 200 and skin hydration measurements using the Corneometer CM 8258
Consumer preference Ethyl macadamiate was compared to cyclopentasiloxane in a clear under-eye stick product by female consumers (n=31) in a blinded fashion immediately after one use, and after seven days of twice daily use. The results appear below in Figure 6. The results presented in Figure 6 were similar to the sensory studies comparing neat ethyl macadamiate and cyclopentasiloxane (Fig 1). Eighty seven percent of the consumers preferred the skin hydration provided by ethyl macadamiate versus cyclopentasiloxane, and ethyl macadamiate left the skin feeling silkier than cyclopentasiloxane.
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