MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION OF PRODUCTS 441 (4) R. Smart and D. F. Spooner, Microbial spoilage in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., 23, 721-737 (1972). (5) D. G. Ahearn, J. Sanghvi, and G. J. Haller, Mascara contamination: In use and laboratory studies. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., 29, 127-737 (1972) (6) S. Hills, The isolation of C. tetani from infected talcs N.Z. Med. J. 45, 419-421 (1946). (7) L. A. Wilson and D. G. Ahearn, Pseudomonas-induced corneal ulcers associated with contaminated eye mascaras Am. J. Ophthalmol., 54, 112-119 (1977). (8) C. W. Bruch, Objectionable microorganisms in non-sterile drugs and cosmetics. Drug. Cosmet. Ind., 111, 51 and 150 (1972). (9) A. A. Abdelazia and M. S. E. Ashour, Microbial contamination of a hexetidine mouthwash. Egyptian DentalJ., in press. (10) The Egyptian General Organization for Pharmaceuticals, Chemicals and Medical Appliances. Index of Specialities, Fifth Edition, pp. 221, 227 (1977). (11) C. H. Collins and P.M. Lyne, MicrobiologicalMethods (Butterworth and Co. Ltd., England, 1984). (12) G. O. Adegoke, Characteristics of Staphylococci isolated from man, poultry and some other animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol, 60, 97-102 (1986). (13) Enterotube II Roche for the rapid differential identification of Enterobacteriaceae. F. Hoffman La Roche & Co., Basel, Switzerland. Pamphlet. (September 1981). (14) United States Pharmacopeia XXI, Microbiological attributes of non sterile pharmaceutical products (Mack Printing Company Easton, PA, 1985), p. 1329. (15) British Pharmacopoeia, Tests for microbial contamination (Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, 1980), Volume II, Appendix XVIB A 191. (16) B. Jarvis, A. J. Reynolds, A. C. Rhodes, and M. Armstrong, A survey of microbiological contamina- tion in cosmetics and toiletries in the U.K. (1971),J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., 25, 563-575 (1974).

J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., 38, 443-449 (November/December 1987) The descriptive analysis of skin care products by a trained panel of judges L. B. AUST, L. P. ODDO, J. E. WILD, O. H. MILLS, and J. S. DEUPREE, Hilltop Research, Inc., 7506 East Monterey Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85251. Received February 5, 1987. Synopsis This paper describes a sensory or skinfeel approach to evaluate creams and lotions. Perceived skinfeel attributes of products have been evaluated using a trained descriptive panel of nine judges. The panel is capable of identifying and defining attributes of test products through reference materials, and is able to reproducibly measure the relative intensities of product attributes on a numerical scale. Five currently marketed lotion products were evaluated for product appearance, rub-in, absorption, appearance of skin (shine), immediate and delayed afterfeel, and other notable attributes. Differences in perceived skinfeel attributes distinguish products from each other which may be equivalent in terms of dry skin efficacy. INTRODUCTION It is not uncommon for a skin care product to be clinically effective and yet be unaccep- table to consumers because of one or more of the product's skinfeel attributes. It is also not unusual for consumer information to be difficult for the product developer to un- derstand (1). Terms such as "rich" and "creamy" do not provide adequate insight as to why some products are not perceived to be as acceptable as others in the marketplace. The descriptive analysis method of evaluation has been widely used in the food and beverage industries (2) and has recently been adapted to skin care products. In our work we have screened and trained a group of individuals to evaluate the per- ceived attributes of dry skin care products. Their training consisted of three 3-hour sessions per week for six months. During this time they evaluated many currently marketed lotions and creams. They identified and defined attributes and low and high reference standards. The attributes were determined by evaluating a representative number of currently marketed cream and lotion products, and selecting those attributes in common. By using reference standards the panel was able to measure the relative intensities of each attribute on a numerical scale. The results of this work indicate there are significant differences in skinfeel perception among lotion products whose package labels indicate equivalent dry skin efficacy. 443