LABORATORY REPORT

TECHNOLOGY OF COSMETIC
MANUFACTURING

Semester: HK2024/1 (241)

Instructor: Assoc.Prof. Lê Thị Hồng Nhan
Group: C1
No Student name Student code Class
1 Hồ Hữu Chánh 2153226 CC01
2 Đoàn Nguyễn Ngọc Hân 2252197 CC01
3 Đoàn Nguyên Khôi 2152686 CC01
4 Hồ Quang Lợi 2153549 CC01
EXPERIMENT 01: CREAM & LOTION
1. Experimental result

Information of Commercial products Experimental products

product
Cream Lotion Cream Lotion

Brand: Embryolisse Brand: Vaseline Type: Dense Type: Semi-

 Type: Brightening
lotion oil-in-water
Type: Moisturizing
(O/W) emulsion
solid emulsion
cream Key Ingredients:
with a semi-
with a
Ascorbic acid,
Key ingredients: Shea solid
lightweight
Hyaluronic acid,
Butter, Beeswax, Aloe consistency.
texture.
Citrus extracts,
Vera and Hydrolised
stearic acid, Key features:
Key features:
Soy Proteins, Vitamin
glycerin. using wax and
Absorb quickly,
E.
cetyl alcohol
hydrate the skin
Skin Type:
Skin type: All, Benefit:
Normal to oily, Benefit: Skin
especially dry skin Improve skin
brown skin smooth, non-
elasticity and
Benefits: Hydration,
greasy
Benefits: moisture
anti-aging, radiant skin
Brightens, reduces content
dark spots,
hydrates

Preparation
date 05/10/2024

Evaluation date

Photo

Figure 1.3:
Figure 1.1: Figure 1.2: Figure 1.4:
Cream Lotion
 Embryolisse cream Brighting lotion

Light yellowish
Appearance Pearly white semi-solid Pearly white Pearly white
hue

Homogeneity Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform

Smoothness Smooth Absorb quickly Smooth Smooth

pH 5.5 ± 0.1 6.0 ± 0.1 6.0 ± 0.1 6.0 ± 0.1

Easy to scoop and Lightweight, Spread easily,

Consistency Thick, stable
spread evenly dispense easily non-greasy

Provide deep Brighten the skin, Provide

Hydrate the
Performance hydration, and improve reduce black spots, hydration,
skin
skin texture improve skin tone soften the skin

2. Comments & Evaluations

The sale cream has a semi-solid, pearly white appearance, indicating a well-formulated
emulsion, whereas the experimental cream, though similarly uniform in texture, is
thicker. Both creams possess a smooth texture and a pH of approximately 5.5. The
commercial cream is user-friendly and offers hydration along with anti-aging benefits
due to its high-quality ingredients, while the experimental cream provides basic hydration
without additional functional properties.

As for the lotions, the commercial product has a light-yellow hue derived from
citrus extracts, absorbs quickly, and delivers a lightweight feel, with a pH close to 6.0. In
contrast, the experimental lotion is pearly white, slightly heavier, and has a pH around
5.5. The commercial lotion enhances skin tone with active components such as Vitamin
C, whereas the experimental version focuses on hydration and smoothness but lacks the
advanced features of its commercial counterpart.
 ● For the sensory evaluation:

Criteria Score for cream Score for lotion

Transparency 5 5
Product’s
Homogeneity 5 5
appearance
Pick-up sample ability 4 3

Ability to spread 3 3

Feeling when applied

Performanc Sensory 5 5
on skin
e when using
Permeability 5 4

Skin coolness 3 3

Skin smoothness 3 5

Sensory after Humidity 3 4

using Sticky 3 1

Skin irritation 5 5

3. Conclusions

Commercial products like Embryolisse cream and Vaseline lotion stand out for
their luxurious textures and targeted benefits, using high-quality ingredients such as Shea
Butter, Vitamin E, and Ascorbic Acid. These products offer hydration, anti-aging effects,
brightening, and improved skin tone, providing a satisfying user experience.

Otherwise, experimental products focus on basic hydration, stability, and skin

compatibility. Though simpler in composition, they excel at moisturizing and softening
the skin, making them valuable for studying emulsification and ingredient interactions.
 Commercial products cater to those seeking advanced skincare, while
experimental ones offer a foundation for research and new formulations. Both play key
roles in advancing cosmetic science.
 EXPERIMENT 02: SKINCARE AND ANTISEPTIC GELS
1. Experimental result

Commercial products Experimental products

Antiseptic Skin care Skin care gel Antiseptic Skin care Skin care
gel gel cream gel gel gel cream

Information Brand: Brand: Brand: Product was Product was Product was
of products Dettol Eucerin Uriage made in made in made in
Cosmetic Cosmetic Cosmetic
Type: Type: Gel Type:
Engineering Engineering Engineering
Hand moisturizer Moisturizing
Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory
sanitizer cream
Key
Key Ingredients Key
ingredient : Ingredients:
s: Sodium Propanediol Cetearyl
C10-16 ,Glycerin,C isononanoate,
Pareth-2 etyl
dimethicone,
Sulfate, Ethylhexano
butyrospermu
Glycerin, ate,Niacina
m parkii
Sodium mide, 1,2-
(shea) butter,
Chloride, Hexanediol,
squalane,
Cocamide Panthenol,
butylene
MEA, Vinyl
glycol,
Glycol Dimethicon
diglycerin,
Distearate, e,Butylene
propanediol,
Salicylic Glycol,Cete
xylity
Acid, aryl
glucoside, 1,2
Parfum, Olivate,Cete
aryl
 Alcohol,Sor
Chloroxyle
bitan
nol, Citric
Olivate,Car
Acid,
bomer,Glyc
Tetrasodiu
eryl
m EDTA
Glucoside

Preparation
date
05/10/2024
Evaluation
date

Photo
Figure 2.1: Figure 2.3:
Figure 2.2:
Hand Figure 2.3: Figure 2.3: Figure 2.3:
Brighting Skincare gel
sanitizer Water cream Antiseptic gel Skincare gel
lotion cream

Pearly
Transparen Pearly white Pearly white
Appearance Transparent Transparent white semi-
t gel semi-solid
solid

Homogeneit
Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform
y

Absorb Absorb Absorb

Smoothness Smooth Smooth Smooth
quickly quickly quickly

pH 5.5 ± 0.1 6.0 ± 0.1 5.5 ± 0.1 5.5 ± 0.1 4.0 ± 0.1 6.5 ± 0.1

Consistency Smooth Easy to Lightweight, Smooth, Smooth, Spread

texture and scoop and dispense easily, non-
 spread spread
easily stable stable greasy
evenly evenly

Effectively Effectively
eliminate eliminate
Performanc the growth Hydrate the Hydrate the the growth Hydrate the Hydrate the
e of skin skin of skin skin

microorgan microorgani
isms sms

2. Comments & Evaluations

The commercial antiseptic gel has a smooth, transparent appearance, indicating a well-
formulated emulsion, whereas the experimental product, though similarly uniform in
texture, is thicker. Both antiseptic gel possess a smooth texture and a pH of
approximately 5.5.

As for the skin care gel, the commercial product has a pearly white appearance, absorbs
quickly, and delivers a lightweight feel, with a pH close to 6.0. In contrast, the
experimental lotion is transparent, smooth, and has a pH around 4.0. The commercial
skin care gel with active components such as Niacinamide & Licorice, helps slow down
the process of metabolizing dark melanin to the stratum corneum of the skin, whereas the
experimental version focuses on hydration and smoothness but lacks the advanced
features of its commercial counterpart.

As for the skin care gel cream, the commercial product has a pearly white appearance,
absorbs quickly, and delivers a lightweight feel, with a pH close to 5.5. In contrast, the
experimental lotion is pearly white, much heavier, and has a pH around 6.5. The
commercial skin care gel helps increase strength and restore moisture, protect the skin to
prevent dehydration, for the skin revived, bright, soft skin, whereas the experimental
 version focuses on hydration and smoothness but lacks the advanced features of its
commercial counterpart.

● For the sensory evaluation:

Score for
Score for Score for
Criteria skin care gel
antiseptic gel skin care gel
cream

Transparency 4 3 3

Product’s Homogeneity 4 3 5
appearance
Pick-up sample
4 3 4
ability

Ability to
5 5 4
spread
Performance
Sensory Feeling when
5 5 5
when using applied on skin

Permeability 5 5 5

Skin coolness 4 5 5

Skin
5 5 5
smoothness
Sensory
Humidity 5 5 5
after using
Sticky 5 5 4

Skin irritation 5 4 5

3. Conclusions
 Commercial products like Dattol hand sanitizer, Eucerin gel moisturizer and
Uriage water cream stand out for their luxurious textures and targeted benefits, using
high-quality ingredients such as Shea Butter, Niacinamide & Licorice. These products
offer hydration, anti-aging effects, brightening, and improved skin tone, providing a
satisfying user experience.

Otherwise, experimental products focus on basic hydration, stability, and skin

compatibility. Though simpler in composition, they excel at moisturizing and softening
the skin, making them valuable for studying emulsification and ingredient interactions.

Commercial products cater to those seeking advanced skincare, while

experimental ones offer a foundation for research and new formulations. Both play key
roles in advancing cosmetic science.
 EXPERIMENT 3: TRANSPARENT SHOWER GEL
1. Experimental results
Commercial Experimental
Properties
product (M1) product (M2)
Product made in
Lashe Superfood Cosmetic
Product information
body wash Engineering
Laboratory
Preparation date 30/11/2024
Evaluation date 30/11/2024 30/11/2024

Photo

Transparency 2 1
Uniformity 5 5
Appearance
Color Light orange Blue
Smell Floral Goat milk
Physical pH 6 6.5
chemical Viscosity (cSt)
- 3588
properties
Smoothness 5 5
Irritation 5 5
Skin moisture
5 4
Sensory (during application)
evaluation Skin moisture
4 4
(after rinsing)
Skin moisture
3 4
(on dry skin)
Foam generation 4 5
Initial foam volume
12 12.5
(mL)
Foam volume after
10 11.5
Performance 5 minutes (mL)
Stain removal
5 4
(lipstick)
Stain removal
5 5
(foundation)
The kinematic viscosity of experimental product is measured using Zahn cup 5,
calculated by the following equation:

ν=23 t

In which:

ν is kinematic viscosity (cSt); t is time the product pass through the orifice entirely (s).

In this case, the recorded drain time was 156 s, therefore: ν=23 t=23 ×156=3588(cSt ).

2. Evaluation
2.1. Appearance

Regarding the transparency, while the commercial product (M1) had a slight translucency
with tint of orange, the experimental product (M2) was blue, yet close to transparency
than the former. For that reason, M1 received a 2, slightly higher than a 1 of M2.

M1 M2
Figure 3.1: Appearance of commercial and experimental products of shower gel

The difference may be rooted from the ingredients in the formulation and the use of
colorant when formulating the two products.

The M1 emitted a floral scent of rose and lily of the valley, while M2 had goat milk
scent, which is typical in shower gel products. Both scents were pleasant and suitable
when used in body wash.
 2.2. Physical, chemical properties
M1 had a pH of 6, while M2 was measured to have the pH of 6.5, showing that both were
safe when applied to human skin.
The viscosity of M2 is higher than that of M1 because M1 had a thinner texture and run
down the finger when being picked up. M2 was thicker due to the formulation consisted
of multiple thickeners.

2.3. Sensory evaluation

Smoothness and softness: Both products scored 5 for smoothness, but M1 is better at
making the skin softer after using.
Irritation: Both products showed no signs of irritation when using, which explain the
score of 5
Skin moisture: In general, both M1 and M2 showed similar pattern when it comes to the
ability to retain moisture on the skin. Both made skin moist, however, M1 performed
better than M2 during and after rinsing.
Skin began to become dryer after water evaporated. Notably, M1 made skin dryer
compared to M2, scoring a 3 while M2 had a 4. This may be explained by a higher
concentration of soap content in the formulation of M1.

2.4. Performance
Foam formation and stability: M2 created more foam and lasted longer than the M1 due
to the addition ò CAPB used as foam booster.
Stain removal: Both products showed relatively good ability of removing stains (in this
case were lipstick and foundation). M1 removed stains more effectively, including
stubborn makeup, while the M2 struggled with tougher stains like lipstick, hence, scored
lower than M1 in this test.
 Figure 3.2: Stains of lipstick (upper) and foundation (lower)

Before After
Figure 3.3: Lipstick removal using M2

2.5. Stability
After one week, M2 showed no signs of mold or bacterial development. The consistency
was well-maintained with a slight increase in thickness. This signified the product is good
to short long-term.
 3. Conclusion
The commercially available product (M1) performed better overall, especially at
removing stains and keeping skin moisturized and soft for a longer time. The appearance
features of M1 were also regarded more appealing to consumers with exception for its
viscosity. While the experimental product (M2) created a lot of foam, it fell short in key
areas like moisturizing and stain removal, but not far behind M1. To improve, M2 needs
to better moisturize skin and remove stains more effectively to match the overall
performance of the commercial product.
 EXPERIMENT 04: LIPSTICK
1. Experimental result

Commercial products Experimental products

MACximal Satin Lipstick brave red

Lipstick

Information Brand: Mac Brand: lab-made

of products
Type: Lipstick Type: lipstick

Key ingredients: Key ingredients: Coconut oil, Olive oil,

Bee wax, Candelilla wax, Carnauba wax,
Polybutene, Octyldodecanol,
Cetyl alcohol, PEG-75 Lanolin, Mango
Pentaerythrityl Tetraisostearate, Ricinus
butter, Cocoa butter, Vaseline, Span 80,
Communis (Castor) Seed Oil, Synthetic
IPM (Isopropyl myristate), DPG
Wax, Diisostearyl Malate,
(Dipropylene glycol), Demarol 20 (2-
Vp/Hexadecene Copolymer,
Octy 1-dodecanol), Colo, Fragance.
Hydrogenated Polyisobutene,
Hdi/Trimethylol Hexyllactone
Crosspolymer, Microcrystalline Wax\
Cera Microcristallina\Cire
Microcristalline, Simmondsia Chinensis
(Jojoba) Seed Oil, Synthetic Beeswax,
Argania Spinosa Kernel Oil, Rosa
Moschata Seed Oil, Camellia Oleifera
Seed Oil, Punica Granatum
(Pomegranate) Flower Extract,
Polyglyceryl-3 Diisostearate, Squalane,
Silica, Disteardimonium Hectorite,
Vanillin, Pentaerythrityl Tetra-Di-T-
 Butyl Hydroxyhydrocinnamate,
Tocopherol, [+/- Mica, Titanium
Dioxide (Ci 77891), Iron Oxides (Ci
77491), Iron Oxides (Ci 77492), Iron
Oxides (Ci 77499), Blue 1 (Ci 42090),
Bismuth Oxychloride (Ci 77163),
Bronze Powder (Ci 77400), Copper
Powder (Ci 77400), Color.

Preparation --- 08/12/2024

date
Evaluation 08/12/2024 08/12/2024
date

Photo

Figure 4.1: Commercial lipstick Figure 4.2: Lipstick

Appearance Brave red, shiny Dark red

Homogeneity Uniform Uniform

Smoothness Smooth Smooth

Consistency Smooth texture and spread evenly Smooth texture and spread unevenly

Spread evenly, stick well but still easy Spread unevenly, stick well but still
Performance
to remove with make-up remover hard to remove with make-up remover

2. Comments & Evaluations

The comparison between the commercial and experimental lipsticks reveals

key differences in appearance, consistency, and performance. The commercial
lipstick features a vibrant "brave red, shiny" finish, which is more visually
appealing than the "dark red" of the experimental product. To improve the
experimental lipstick, incorporating pigments like mica or pearlescent colorants
could enhance its brightness and shine. Furthermore, the commercial lipstick
spreads evenly, while the experimental one is noted to spread unevenly. This issue
may stem from an imbalance in emollients or waxes, suggesting that adjusting the
ratios of mango butter, cocoa butter, and oils could help achieve smoother
application.

In terms of performance, the commercial product is easier to remove with

makeup remover, whereas the experimental lipstick is harder to remove, which
could inconvenience users. Tweaking the oil-to-wax ratio or incorporating
ingredients with lower adhesive properties might address this issue. However, the
experimental product has a strong advantage with its natural ingredient profile,
featuring coconut oil, olive oil, and beeswax, appealing to eco-conscious
consumers. Still, it lacks the variety of colorants, such as titanium dioxide and iron
oxides, found in the commercial product, which may limit its aesthetic appeal.
Focusing on enhancing spreadability, ease of removal, and visual characteristics
 while promoting its natural ingredients could make the experimental lipstick more
competitive.For the sensory evaluation:

Score for Score for

Criteria commercial lab-made
product product

Homogeneity 5 4
Product’s
appearance
Pick-up sample
5 3
ability

Mold Easily to
--- 2
removed remove

Performance Ability to
5 4
spread
Sensory
when using Feeling when
5 4
applied on skin

Sensory Sticky 5 4

after using
Skin irritation 5 5

Removing capacity 5 4

3. Conclusions
 The commercial product, MACximal Satin Lipstick in Brave Red, excels across
most criteria, demonstrating superior homogeneity, sample pick-up ability, ease of
spreading, and overall sensory experience. It also performs exceptionally well in
removing capacity, non-stickiness, and minimizing skin irritation, making it a highly
refined product suitable for consumer use. The lab-made product, while competitive in
areas such as homogeneity, spreading ability, and skin compatibility, falls short in sample
pick-up ability and ease of mold removal, highlighting areas for improvement. Although
the lab-made lipstick shows promise, particularly with its natural ingredient base, further
formulation refinements are needed to match the performance and appeal of the
commercial product.