JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 126 As seen in Table II methodological differences in formulation approaches of hair products and mascara are signifi cant. A better understanding of polymer selection for mascara by functional properties requires the development of specifi c methods for polymer evalua- tion for mascara application. Among other factors, the fi lm hardness is an important characteristic of fi lm forming polymers. This paper is an attempt to adopt a test for fi lm hardness of paint and related coatings to the selection of polymers for mascara application during the pre-formulation stage. The practical advantages of these experiments might be helpful for screening fi lm formers for mascara, cutting time during the empirical stage of product development. MATERIALS This study was conducted on randomly selected fi lm formers, as listed in Table III. Film- forming characteristics were evaluated under the infl uence of the following factors: pH, Table I Comparison of Essential Components of Hair Sprays/Styles and Mascara Essential components of hair sprays Essential components of hair styles Essential components of conventional mascara Film-forming polymers Film forming polymers Film-forming polymers Plasticizers for polymers Plasticizers for polymers Plasticizers for polymers Glossing agents Solvents Disentangling, softening, and glossing agents Waxes Pigments Propellant Solvents Surfactants Perfume Perfume Colorants Table II Comparison of Formulation Approaches of Hair Sprays/Styles and Mascara Formulation approaches for hair sprays Formulation approaches for hair styles Formulation approaches for conventional mascara Good spraying results in very fi ne droplets Improvement of hair style hold Easy application on wet hair Flexible coating of lashes All-day lash hold Formation of transparent or clear, translucent fi lm Easy combing Does not feel sticky No-fl ake wear Easy gliding Flexible, elastic fi lm without breaking with hair movement Quick drying time Does not become powdery Quick drying time Increased lash fullness Adequate substantivity of fi lm to hair keratin when brushed or combed Ensures hair body and bounce No-clump application Supple lashes Enhanced gloss Increased hair volume Non-hydroscopic fi lm Rapid drying Hairs do not clump Non-sticky or tacky fi lm Absence of a sticky, tacky feel Non-hydroscopic fi lm Easy to remove with makeup Non-hydroscopic Greater hair gloss remover or soap and water Easy to brush out Does not cause excess stiffness Easy to remove with shampoo

2008 TRI/PRINCETON CONFERENCE 127 temperature, surfactants, and pigment dispersion. These factors are typical for mascara compounding. METHODS EVALUTION OF FILM HARDNESS An Erichsen Model 299/300 Pendulum Damping Tester was used to determine the fi lm hardness (Figure 1). Samples were drawn down on 7×4×1/8 inch untreated glass plates. A Byk-Gardner 6-mil wet fi lm drawdown bar was used to draw down all samples. The bar was pulled down at a steady rate and was pulled off the glass plate to leave a 3-mil coating. This was set aside to dry at room temperature for 24 h. Hardness measurements were then taken three times and averaged. Table III Study Materials Sample Chemistry of fi lm former Heat tolerance pH Range % Solids A Styrene acrylates copolymer (microemulsion) Up to 50°C 7–8 25 B Acrylates copolymer (Solution) Up to 50°C 7–8 25 C Polyurethane (microemulsion) Up to 50°C 7–8 33 D Styrene acrylates copolymer (dispersion) Up to 50°C 7–8 40 E Acrylates copolymer (dispersion) Up to 50°C 7–8 40 F Polyurethane* (dispersion) Up to 50°C 8–9 40 G VP/VA in water and propylene glycol* (solution) Up to 50°C 5–6 48 *The pH factor was evaluated when the pH was adjusted to neutral (pH 7–8). Figure 1. Pendulum damping tester Model 299/300.