84 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS Table III Baseline (No Treatment) Reproducibility by Judge SFL Scores (Half-Face), Day 0 of Each Series 0 hr 3 hr 6 hr 10 hr Series I (Judge 1) 19.2 19.0 18.8 19.1 (Judge 2) 19.1 18.9 19.1 19.1 Series II (Judge 1) 18.0 17.8 17.6 17.8 (Judge 2) 17.9 17.7 17.8 17.9 Series III (Judge 1) 18.8 18.3 18.1 18.5 (Judge 2) 18.2 17.7 17.7 18.1 Series IV (Judge 1) 18.7 18.4 18.4 18.6 (Judge 2) 18.2 17.8 17.9 19.1 Series V (Judge 1) 18.9 18.7 18.4 18.4 (Judge 2) 18.1 17.7 17.8 18.1 Table IV Reproducibility--Effect of the Same Agent Through 4 Series Summed SFL Scores (Both Judges), Average of Days 1, 2, 3 0 hr 3 hr 6 hr 10 hr Series II 36.5 28.7 29.1 34.7 Series III 37.8 29.3 29.9 36.0 Series IV 37.6 29.6 30.0 35.7 Series V 38.1 29.9 30.4 36.4 II. SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD: EFFECT OF MOISTURIZERS, WATER, AND NO TREATMENT Results by facial area. Table V presents the per cent reductions in SFL's achieved by the various treatments, as well as the considerable variation in response by particular areas. For the two moisturizers that proved more effective, SFL's around the eyes showed the greatest reductions, followed by those in the cheek and mouth area. Lines on the forehead and chin responded noticeably less. The results for the two less effective Table V % Reduction in SFL's by Facial Area Average of 3 Days Moisturizers Time after Facial No Application Area O ML MF L Water Treatment 3 hr Forehead 8 4 3 3 1 0 3 hr Around the Eyes 32 20 8 5 7 2 3 hr Cheek and Mouth 26 15 7 5 7 2 3 hr Chin 9 6 10 7 4 4 6 hr Forehead 8 3 3 2 1 0 6 hr Around the Eyes 30 16 7 4 5 2 6 hr Cheek and Mouth 23 11 5 5 6 2 6 hr Chin 7 6 7 6 3 3 10 hr Forehead 3 1 1 1 0 0 10 hr Around the Eyes 6 3 2 0 0 1 10 hr Cheek and Mouth 6 2 1 0 1 10 hr Chin 1 3 4 1 0 3

TOPICAL MOISTURIZERS 85 moisturizers, water, and no treatment were too limited to reveal any pronounced pat- tern of effect by facial area. Water had scattered significance against no treatment for the two most responsive areas on individual study days (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test). Comparison of the moisturizers against water was made possible with the Friedman two-way analysis of variance by ranks. Moisturizers MF and L had no significant effects against water moisturizer ML produced occasional significance (P 0.05) at 3- or 6-hr intervals moisturizer O was always significant (P 0.01) at the eye and cheek/mouth areas at 3 and 6 hr on Days 1, 2, and 3, with frequent significance (P 0.05 or better) against water at 10 hr. Figure 2 depicts the progression through time for the most responsive facial area. As with the other areas, the peak effects recorded were at 3 hr. They continued with rela- tively little decrease by 6 hr, and gradually declined thereafter. Results by full half-face. The average reductions for the full half-face represent not only the summation of the trained judges' observations, but they also represent overall ef- fect across all four facial areas. Table VI shows these results. Water had scattered significance against .no treatment on individual treatment days moisturizers MF and L had none against water. Moisturizer ML was occasionally significant (P 0.05) against water (at 3 hr on Days 1, 2, and 3, at 6 hr on Day 3). Moisturizer O was always significant (P 0.01) against water at 3 and 6 hr on all treat- ment days, and usually at 10 hr (P 0.01 on Day 1 and P 0.05 on Day 2). OUJ •,Z o lo 20- 30- 4o o NO TREATMENT LOTION ATER...-- -,-"• MOISTURE FILM MF •L M tlZER o I I i 3 6 10 HOURS AFTER APPLICATION Figure 2. Per cent reduction in superficial facial lines for the eye area. Average values for three days of ap- plication, 20 subjects