34 MULTIFUNCTIONAL INGREDIENTS High Oil Control ■ High Oil Base + 1.5% Stearic Acid ■ High Oil Base +3% SF-b ■ 100000 19378 12673 10000 2485 1126 1000 180 100 10 1 1 s-1 100 s-1 1000 s-1
Figure 4: High-oil emulsion viscosity at representative shear rates: apparent viscosities of emulsions containing the control formulation, 1.5 wt% stearic acid, or 3 wt% SF-b were measured at shear rates of 1, 100, and 1000 s-1. SF-b increases viscosity across the full shear-rate range, with the greatest enhancement observed under high-shear conditions relevant to product dispensing and application
together rather than a viscosity number alone. Salt viscosity and corresponding foam density
data are consistent with the evaluated blend enhancing the internal structure of the surfactant system, accompanied by increased formulation body, as well as improved foam stability, resulting in a richer sensory profile (Figure 3). Of particular note is that the evaluated blend has an outsized impact on formulation viscosity compared to pure stearic acid at commercially relevant levels (<10,000 mPa·s). Assuming a linear viscosity increase observed between the control system and the 1.5% stearic acid formulation, the viscosity observed when comparing the 1.5% stearic acid formulation and 3% SF-b is greater than that expected from increasing stearic acid alone, indicating the stearoyl furan contributes independently to formulation structure. When considering the foam height data,
it is clear that adding the evaluated blend to the system reduced overall foam height but contributes in terms of foam robustness. While the initial foam height was lower in the evaluated blend system, the foam remained essentially unchanged through the five-minute measurement period, whereas both control formulations showed measurable collapse. Those observations should still be treated as chassis specific. The best finished comparison remains the base surfactant system, the incumbent pearlizer or alkanolamide benchmark, and the evaluated blend after the same hot incorporation and 24-hour equilibration. This material is not appropriate for clear cold-process gels; it should be screened in opaque structured systems where pearl, foam cushion and rinse feel are desired. For the reader, the important point is that
the cleanser observation links three practical variables at once (Table 2). A pearlized
PERSONAL CARE MAGAZINE September 2026 50000
High Oil Control ■ High Oil SF-b ■ High Oil Control Aged 2.5 mo ■ High Oil SF-b Aged 2.5 mo ■
1493 803 444 16045
5000
500
50 0.1 1 10 Shear Rate (s-1 )
Figure 5: Long-term rheological stability of high-oil emulsions structured with SF-b. Flow curves were measured immediately after preparation and after 2.5 months of ambient storage for the control emulsion and the formulation containing SF-b. The SF-b formulation retained substantially higher viscosity throughout the shear-rate range following ageing, supporting improved long-term emulsion stability
appearance gives the formula a familiar premium cue, increased viscosity improves product body and dispensing control, and a 0% reduction in foam height after five minutes supports a stable foam network. The result should be positioned as a promising
opaque-cleanser lead rather than a universal claim, but it gives formulators a concrete reason to test the blend in cream washes, opaque body washes and structured rinse-off concepts.
Application 2: high-oil oil-in-water emulsion The strongest current application story is the high-oil O/W emulsion. High oil loading is attractive because it creates richness, cushion
and consumer-perceived luxury, but it also stresses the internal structure. A large, dispersed oil phase increases the
risk of coalescence, oil rings, uneven break, clumping, greasy rub-out and storage drift. The structural demands of a high-oil emulsion make for an effective stress test to determine whether a structure-guiding ingredient is doing useful work (Table 3). Rheological measurements provide a practical
means of evaluating how effectively the internal structure supports the dispersed oil phase under the range of shear conditions encountered during product use. Low shear (1 s-1
product behaves at rest and during pickup from a jar. Higher low-shear viscosity supports a richer
www.personalcaremagazine.com 100 1000
) is closest to how the
Viscosity (mPa·s)
Viscosity (mPa·s)
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
