100 JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE CATEGORY REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL FACIAL WIPES: SENSORY DIFFERENTIATION VIA SKINFEEL AND HANDFEEL ATTRIBUTES Lee Stapleton, Clare Dus, Lynn Carlone and Pat Mercadante Sensory Spectrum, Inc., Chatham, NJ 07928 Introduction - Disposable facial wipes, both dry and pre-moistened, are marketed as a convenient way to cleanse the face and are a growth area in domestic and international skin care. Consumer features include portability, pre-measured dosing, easy cleanup, and a host of general and specific benefit claims. Apart from the advertising copy used to sell these products, what perceived product attribute differences exist? Sensory Spectrum, Inc. conducted a descriptive analysis project to determine the skinfeel and handfeel attributes of a representative set of wet and dry disposable facial wipes. A Spectrum Descriptive Analysis Panel, with 9 highly trained panelists, documented the wipes in 3 ways: half-face evaluations of in-use properties of the clotlffcleanser system, effects on the skin after use. and tactile evaluation of the wipe materials. Materials and Methods- Sensory Spectrum obtained 12 disposable facial wipes that were available ill tile Northern New Jersey area. The products purchased for tile study were: Dry Facial Cloths Brand Distributor Cleml mid Clear Johnson and Johnson Dove Lever Brothers Equate Wahnart Neutrogena Neutrogena Corp. Noxzema Procter and Gmnble Oil of Olay - Normal/Dry Procter and Gamble Oil of Olay- Total Effects Procter m•d Gamble Pre-Moistened (Wet) Facial Wipes Brand Distributor Basis Beiersdorf Biore Andrew Jergens Clean and Clear Jotmson and Johnson CVS CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Ponds Age Detying Chesebrough-Ponds USA Nine panelists trained in tile Spectrum Personal Care Products Descriptive Analysis Method were provided detailed protocols for skinfeel and tactile haudfeel evaluation of wet and dry facial wipes. Skinfeel protocols were designed to simulate file consumer experience. Panelists had a minimum of 200 hourg training in descriptive analysis and received approximately eight hours of orientation prior to file stndy. Physical intensity references were presented for all attribntes, and evaluation terminology and techniques were reviewed. The Skinfeel evaluation attributes were: Dry Facial Cloths Only Both Product Types Wet Facial Cloths Only Amonnt of Lather Gloss Cooling (Afterfeel) Bubble Size Facial Lines/Creases Bubble Variation Stickiness Rinsability Slipperiness Stickiness Amount of Residue Slipperiness Type of Residue Amount of Residue Roughness Type of Residue Moistness Tautness The Handfeel evaluation attributes were: Amount of Product Gritty Grainy Lumpy Fuz• Slipperiness Thickness Force to Gather Fullness/Body Note: Dry Wipes were evaluated both dry and wet. Evaluation was divided by sample type (wet/dry). Within each type, the order of presentation was randomized with 2 reps. In-use and post use skinfeel attributes were evaluated using half-face testing. Handfeel attributes were evaluated by placing the wipe on a horizontal surface. Data was analyzed by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) usiug the following model: sample. judge, judge X sample, alpha level =

2002 ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING 101 0.05. Samples were evaluated by type and across types (common attribntes). Due to inherent differences between wet and dry cleansing wipes, attributes evaluated varied between types as shown above. Samples were also evaluated using Principal Component Analysis. Results - Pre-Moistened Samples - Skinfeel Samples performed similarly for afterfeel attributes. All samples were no]Mathering and did not require rinsing. Immediately post-use, the cheek area was low/low moderate in stickiness, was less slippery than untreated skin, had low amount of residue, and was slightly more taut and moist than untreated skin. By 60 seconds, the residual product had dried, leaving the skin at near baseline profiles with very low stickiness and residue amounts. Samples statistically differentiated by slipperiness. At 5 and 10 minutes, the skin changed little from the 60-second measurements and was essentially in pre-treatment condition. Dry Samples - Skinfeel Samples showed more statistical differences within type although practical outcomes were similar. Use of dry samples included lathering, rinsing, and drying. Samples created a low moderate amount of lather on the face with low moderate thickness. Amount of lather and bubble size variation were significantly different across samples. Lather rinsed off with 6-8 warm water splashes, leaving the cheek surface low in stickiness, more slippery than untreated skin, and with low residue. hmnediately after drying, statistical differences existed in the appearance of fine lines. but otherwise samples performed similarly with low stickiness, slipperiness slightly lower than untreated skin, very low residue, and slightly elevated moistness. By 5 minutes, stickiness and slipperiness approached baseline values and residue was extremely low. Statistical differences existed in gloss and slipperiness. Differences at 10 and 20 nfinutes as compared to 5 minutes were slight, with significant differences for facial lines/creases at 10 and 20 minutes and moistness at 10 minutes. Skin approached near baseline conditions by 5 minutes. 1.0 0.5 0.0 -t.0 -t.0 *wet dry* .•lPs dry. • •' STrX10 • d•* d•* TA•10 // • •we• [ TA• • [ } •.$ 0.0 0.$ 1.0 F1 (62.2%) PCA of Skinfeel Attributes Figure I indicates lhat dry and wet samples grouped together when evaluated using Principal Component Analysis on shared attributes. In afterfeel, dry stunpies left the skin moister and more slippery. Wet samples were more strongly correlated with higher tautness in immediate afterfeel, and from immediate to 10 minutes were higher in stickiness, residue, and appear- ance of fine lines. Caution must be made against using PCA data as a sole criterion for evaluating products, as the absolute differences between samples within an attribute were generally within 10 points on a 100-point scale. Fig. I PCA of Shared Skinfeel Afterfeel Attributes for Dry and Pre-Moistened (wet) Facial Wipes Pre-Moistened Samples - Handfeel Samples were similar, although significant differences existed. The samples had a low amount of product, were low in gritty, grainy, and lumpy, and were moderate in fi•zziness. Base sheets were low moderate in slipperiness, moderate in thickness and extremely low in stifflyess. Significant differences existed for grittiness, fuzziness, and thickness of the basesheet. Dry Samides - Handfeel Samples were significantly different for all attributes measured except for amount of product when wet. Ranges for grittiness, graininess, lumpiness, fuzziness, and stiffness indicated that very different base sheets are used as the delivery vehicle for the cleansers. Dry samples tended to hold more cleanser, were thicker and were stiffer than pre-moistened wipes.