Personal cleanser technology and clinical performance

Dermatologic Therapy

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 35-42

  Abbas, Syed ^a   Goldberg, Jessica Weiss ^a   Massaro, Michael ^a  

^a UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Natural surfactants; Saponificatio; Synthetic surfactants

Indexed keywords

SOAP; 'IVORY'; ADERM; ALLOBARBITAL; AVECYCLE; AVEENO; AVENE; CAMAY GALA; CARESS; CETAPHIL; DETERGENT; DOVE LIQUID; DOVE WHITE; IRISH SPRING; JOHNSON'S BABY; JOHNSON'S BABY OAT; LUX WITH GLYCERIN; NATURAL OILATUM; NEUTROGENA EXTRA GENTLE; NEUTROGENA TRANSPARENT; NIVEA BATH CARE; OILATUM; OLAY; PALMOLIVE BOTANICAL; ROSA VENUS; SURFACTANT; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ZEST; ZEST AQUA; ZEST CITRUS SPORT;

CLEANING; CONSUMER; CREAM; DRUG FORMULATION; GEL; HEALTH STATUS; HYGIENE; LIQUID; REVIEW; SKIN CARE; SKIN PROTECTION; TECHNOLOGY; AEROSOL; ARTICLE; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; DRY SKIN; ERYTHEMA; HUMAN; HYDRATION; LOTION; PALMOLIVE; PH; SAPONIFICATION; SCRUB; SKIN FISSURE; SKIN INJURY; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN PRURITUS; SKIN SENSITIVITY; SKIN WATER LOSS;

EID: 1342346647     PISSN: 13960296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1396-0296.2004.04s1004.x     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Davidson J. Soap Manufacture, Vol. 1. New York: Interscience, 1953.
2. Tyebkhan G. Skin cleansing in neonates and infants-basics of cleansers. Indian J Pediatr 2002: 69: 767-769.
3. Gabard B, Chatelain E, Bieli E, Haas S. Surfactant irritation: in vitro corneosurfametry and in vivo bioengineering. Skin Res Technol 2001: 7: 49-55.
4. Barel AO, Lambrecht R, Clarys P, Morrison BM, Jr, Paye M. A comparative study of the effects on the skin of a classical bar soap and a syndet cleansing bar in normal use conditions and in the soap chamber test. Skin Res Technol 2001: 7: 98-104.
5. Kawasaki Y, Quan D, Sakamoto K, Maibach HI. Electron resonance studies on the influence of anionic surfactants on human skin. Dermatology 1997: 194: 238-242.
6. Morganti P. Natural soap and syndet bars. Cosmetics Toiletries 1995: 110: 89-97.
7. Woollatt E. The Manufacture of Soaps, Other Detergents and Glycerin. West Sussex: Ellis Horwood Limited, 1985.
8. Clarke TA, Edwards RB, Irving GN. Soap Bars Having Modified Phases. IN 157274A, February 1986.
9. Kemper HC, Sidebotham RP. Translucent and transparent soaps-theory, formulation and processing. Paper presented at Soaps Detergents and Oleochemicals, AOCS International Conference and Exhibit, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, October 7-10, 1997.
10. Tokosh R. Transparent Soap Formulations and Methods of Making Same. US Patent 5,529,714, June 25, 1996.
11. Webb ET. Transparent soap. Am Perfumer Cosmetics 1967: 82: 41-44.
12. Instone T, Bottarelli M. Transparent Soap Bars Which May Contain Short Chain Monohydric Alcohols, and a Method of Making the Same. US Patent 5,041,234, August 20, 1991.
13. Hill JW, Hill CS. Transparent soap. J Chem Educ 1980: 57: 372-385.
14. Friedman M. Chemistry, formulation, performance and processing of syndet and combo bars. Paper presented at Soaps Detergents and Oleochemicals, AOCS International Conference and Exhibit, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, October 7-10, 1997.
15. Tokosh R, Cahn A. Method for Improved ACYL Isethionate Detergent Bars. US Patent 4,180,470, December 25, 1979.
16. Jungermann E. The formulation and properties of syndet bars. Cosmetic Toiletries 1982: 97: 77-80.
17. Hollstein M, Spitz L. Manufacture and properties of synthetic toilet soaps. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1982: 59: 442-448.
18. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The soap chamber test: a new method for assessing irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol 1979: 1: 35-41.
19. Frosch PJ. Irritancy of soaps and detergent bars. In: Principles of Cosmetics for Dermatologists. Philadelphia, PA: C. V. Mosby Co., 1982: 5-12.
20. Mills OH, Jr, Swinyer LJ, Kligman AM. Assessment of irritancy of cleansers. Scientific exhibit presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Washington, DC, 1984.
21. Sharko PT, Murahata RI, Leyden JJ, Grove GL. Arm wash evaluation with instrumental evaluation: a sensitive technique for differentiating the irritation potential of personal wash products. J Derm Clin Eval Soc 1991: 2: 19-26.
22. Doughty D, Jaramillo J, Spengler E. Methods for assessing the mildness of facial cleansing products. In: Proceedings of the 16th IFSCC International Congress, October 8-11, New York, 1990: 468-477.
23. Sauermann G, Doerschner A, Hoppe U, Wittern P. Comparative study of skin care efficiency and in-use properties of soap and surfactant bars. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1986: 37: 309-327.
24. Dahlgren RM, Lukacovic MF, Michaels SE, Visscher MO. Effects of bar soap constituents on product mildness. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1987: 3: 127-134.
25. Lukacovic MF, Dunlop F, Michaels SE, Visscher MO, Watson D. Forearm wash test to evaluate the clinical mildness of cleansing products. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1988: 39: 355-366.
26. Strube DD, Koontz SW, Murahata RI, Theiler RF. The flex wash test: a method for evaluating the mildness of personal washing products. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1989: 40: 279-306.
27. Baranda L, González-Amaro R, Torres-Alvarez R, Alvarez C, Ramírez C. Correlation between pH and irritant effect of cleansers marketed for dry skin. Int J Dermatol 2002: 41: 494-499.
28. Taylor Nelson, Sofres European Cosmetics and Toiletries Database (ECTD). Frequency of use of body washing (including water only occassions). Europe-12 m/e June 2002.
29. Unilever-Personal Wash Segmentation Study, conducted with FRC Research Corporation, May-July, 1998.