48 WAXES & BUTTERS
at a time, starting with sensory likeness, scored on a 1-5 scale (Table 2). If we look across the polyethylene and the synthetic wax 70 rows, we see all formulas consistently score high, meaning their sensory likeness to the formulas with sunflower wax is close. Ozokerite scores high as well, except in one instance (Formula 2), and synthetic wax 80 presents some of the lowest scores, indicating perceivable sensory differences when compared to the formulas with sunflower wax. Next, we looked at the melt point data (Table
3) and built a scatter chart, plotting melt points on the y-axis for each formula. Each formula is presented on the x-axis in order of increasing % structurant. The number shown above each grouping is the standard deviation within that grouping (Fig 4). For each formula, the melt points of each
variant are mostly within a 5 - 10 °C range, which may be acceptable depending on the specification range of the finished product. In any case, there does not seem to be a correlation between the % structurant being replaced and the proximity of the melt points, for example formula 2 with 6% structurant has a much wider melt point range than formula 5 with 10% structurant. The highest variation happened in formula 6 (retractable lip gloss), followed by formula 8 (retractable sunscreen stick), the cause is not clear at this time. In general, from Figure 4, formulas made
with polyethylene 80 or synthetic wax 70 have melt points very close to those made with sunflower wax, indicating these products could be interchangeable in many formulations. On the other hand, using synthetic wax 80 resulted in the highest melt points in most groupings, meaning it is less likely to be interchangeable with sunflower wax. On the opposite end, using ozokerite 75 led to some of the lowest melt points in each group. Finally, we looked at the penetration data
(Table 4) and built another scatter chart, plotting penetrations on the y-axis vs. each formula on the x-axis in order of increasing % structurant. Again, the number shown above each grouping is the standard deviation within that grouping (Fig 5).
When it comes to penetration (formula
hardness) data, the standard deviations can be a lot higher, with the penetration spreads averaging 20-30 dmm but in some cases being much higher. Again, acceptance will depend on the product specifications. As with the melt point data (Fig 4), there does
not appear to be a correlation between the width of the penetration range or standard deviation and the amount of structurant being replaced. For example, formula 2 with 6% structurant has the highest penetration range, whereas formula 7 with 15% structurant has a much lower spread. This is important information for chemists who are hesitant to replace high levels of petrochemicals. Figure 5 also shows us there does not
seem to be a specific product causing atypical hardness or softness, and (with a few exceptions) from a penetration standpoint, sunflower wax could very well replace all the petrochemical waxes presented.
PERSONAL CARE March 2021 Sunflower Wax ■ Polyethylene 80 ■ Ozokerite 75 ■ Synthetic Wax 80 ■ Synthetic Wax 70 ■
80.0 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0
4.5 2.5 3.6 1.7 3.0 1.5 3.4 4.0
F#1
F#2 Figure 4: Correlation - melt points.
Sunflower Wax ■ Polyethylene 80 ■ Ozokerite 75 ■ Synthetic Wax 80 ■ Synthetic Wax 70 ■ 250.0
30.2 200.0 8.7 7.7 150.0 14.0 14.7 100.0 50.0 0.0 F#1 F#2 Figure 5: Correlation – penetrations.
Conclusions Many anhydrous cosmetic formulas use waxes as structuring agents and sunflower wax is an all-around excellent choice: it is natural and vegan, highly compatible with most oil mediums, and it forms very strong gels. In most mediums tested, sunflower wax outperformed ozokerite, polyethylene, candelilla, beeswax, and carnauba wax. Although drop-ins in finished formulations are
unlikely, the data shows that sunflower wax can replace polyethylene and certain synthetic waxes very readily. Other systems like higher melt point synthetics, or some ozokerites can also be replaced, but might require some formula adjustments to meet specifications. In any case, sunflower should be the structurant of choice when making these replacements.
References 1 Ahnert P. (2015). Beeswax Alchemy. Beverly, MA: Quarry Books.
2 Dobos K. (Dec 20, 2019). Formulating on Trend: Waterless Cosmetics, Cosmetics &
Toiletries.https://
tinyurl.com/y4mxjffp (retrieved December 2020).
3 (2016). Safety Assessment of Helianthus annuus (Sunflower)-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics, Cosmetic Ingredient Review. 2016.
https://online.personalcarecouncil.org/ctfa-static/ online/lists/cir-pdfs/FR708.pdf (retrieved October 2020).
4 Franchini MC, Hernández L, Lindström L. Cuticle and cuticular wax development in the sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) pericarp grown at the field under a moderate water deficit, Phyton 2010; 79: 153-161.
5 Koster Keunen. (Last updated October 2020). Sunflower Wax Technical Data Sheet.
PC
6 Kirilov P, Le Cong A, Rabehi H, et al. Organogels for cosmetic and dermo-cosmetic applications – classification, preparation and characterization of organogel formulations - PART 2, Household and Personal Care Today2015;10(4): 16.
www.personalcaremagazine.com F#3 F#4 F#5 F#6 F#7 F#8 7.7 9.7 24.7
F#3
F#4
F#5
F#6
F#7
F#8
Needle Penetration (dmm)
Melt Point (°C)
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
