2006 TRI/PRINCETON CONFERENCE 415 Figure 1. Initial (right) versus end point (left). Ingredients of phase 1 were combined in a 250-ml disposable beaker and heated to 85-90°C under medium-speed prop mixing. Contents were mixed until uniform, at which point they were allowed to cool back to room temperature. Once phase 1 was cool, phase 2 was added, and solution was hand-mixed until uniform. The foam rate for the above solutions was determined by creating a film from lg of the test solution on a standard 8xl0 glass plate with a 10-micron draw-down bar. A film was drawn down on the plate and the time it took for the film to completely foam over was recorded using a standard stop watch with hours, minutes, and seconds (Figure 1). Three trials were run for each solution. To calculate the foam rate constant the following equation was used: Time it takes for test T= - - - - -------foamto(B-G)-solution Time it takes for standard (A) to foam To normalize the rate constant and obtain the rate constant for foam, Kr the reciprocal of T was taken according to the equation: Kr = 1/T The effect of Phoenomulse CE-1 ® on the foam of a natural based decyl glucoside surfactant (Planteran 2000 N UP®, Cognis), was evaluated using the above method. Two stock solutions were prepared according to Table II. Table II Preparation of Stock Solutions(% w/w) Phase Lot no. Ingredient ARL-8-7A ARL-8-7B U6B 13Z026 Plantaren 2000 N UP® 1 10 7040463 Steol® CS-130 20 506 Farmal HFS 2656® 5 5 5JK8665K Keltrol CG-T® 0.15 0.15 10803040 Gelcarin PC3 79® 0.3 0.3 1 Decyl glucoside (Plantaren 2000 N UP®), Cognis Corporation, '5051 Estecreek Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45232.

416 JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE Each stock solution was diluted with 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20% Phoenomulse CE-1 ® and adjusted to 100% with deionized water. RATE OF EVAPORATION The rate of evaporation for the following systems was determined by weight loss over a period of ten minutes using a standard analytical balance and conventional convection lab oven. 100g of each solution was placed in a 250-mL disposable beaker and weighed on the balance. The mass of the solution was recorded every minute for ten minutes. Data was recorded at standard conditions (25°C, 50-60% RH) and elevated conditions (40°C, 50-60% RH). SYSTEMS TESTED • 100% Deionized water • 100% Cosmetic fluid CF-61 ® (3M Company) • 100% Phoenomulse CE-1 ® (Phoenix Chemical, 60 Fourth Street Somerville NJ, 08876) • 20% Phoenomulse CE-1 ® and 80% Deionized water To calculate the rate of evaporation, Kevap' mass vs. time was graphed for each system, and the negative slope of the line was recorded. The slope of the line for water was set equal to 1. To calculate the Kevap of each subsequent system the following equation was used. slope of test system KCV'lP = l f · s ope o water RES UL TS AND DISCUSSION STABILIZATION AND RELEASE MECHANISM OF COSMETIC FLUID CF-61 ® Evaporation Rate ( Kevap ) of Cosmetic Fluid CF-61 ® was determined and found to be significantly higher than Kevap of Phoenomulse CE-1 ®. The Kcvap for Phoenomulse CE-1 was approximately 60% higher than that of water. Considering the external phase of Phoenomulse CE-1 ® is water, and contains 52.5% Cosmetic Fluid CF-61 ® in its internal phase, a higher Kevap is expected verses water. The difference in Kevap between Cosmetic Fluid CF-61 ® and Phoenomulse CE-1 ® is about 175%. This trend is also observed at an elevated temperature, with the exception of Phoenomulse CE-1 ® and deionized water, which only differs by 108%. The Kevap of the Phoenomulse CE-1 ®!deionized water system was lower than Kevap of deionized water at 25°C. However, at 40 ° C, the Kcvap of the Phoenomulse CE-1 ®/deionized water system was 196% greater compared to deionized water. No bubbling was observed in the solutions at room temperature or at elevated temperature during the test phase. All weight loss is assumed to be due to evaporation at the surface.