2010 TRI/PRINCETON CONFERENCE 171 Several panel sensory testing comparisons of varied surfactant blend compositions are performed in a similar manner, and the results are summarized in Table IV for EX-906 formulations and in Table V for EX-1086 formulations. Each table describes the surfac- tant combination used (amounts of SLES-3, SLS and CAPB) in the shampoo formulation, the coacervate amount calculated for each surfactant blend, the amount of silicone depos- ited on the hair (i.e., the net silicon intensity in kcps) and the statistical analyses results from each panel comparison. The results show that for both EX-906 and EX-1086, sensory performance is highly cor- related to the amount of silicone deposited on hair (i.e., the net silicon intensity) and not to the amount of coacervate formed. Conditioning sensory performance is highly infl u- enced by the surfactant blend composition and is well predicted by the measurement of silicone deposited on the hair. SURFACTANT BLEND CHARACTERIZATION As previously discussed, the surfactant blends used in combination with the cationic cassia polymers in this study have a strong infl uence on the amount of coacervate formed upon Table IV Sensory Panel Results for EX-906 (3.0 mEq/g) SLES-3/SLS/CAPB (wt%) SLES-3/SLS/CAPB (wt%) Coacervate amount Net Si intensity (kcps) Coacervate amount Net Si intensity (kcps) 6/0/6 12/8/2 247 49 43 74 Better dry combing (99% CL)* Better dry feel (95% CL) 9/0/4 12/8/2 184 58 43 74 Better wet combing (99% CL) 12/8/6 12/8/2 88 4 43 74 Better wet combing (99% CL) Better wet feel (99% CL) Better dry combing (99% CL) Better dry feel (99% CL) Less static (95% CL) 6/8/6 9/4/4 55 2 59 29 Better wet combing (99% CL) Better wet feel (99% CL) Better dry combing (99% CL) Better dry feel (99% CL) *CL = Confi dence level.

JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 172 dilution, the amount of silicone and cationic cassia deposited on the hair, and consequently, on the sensory performance. The surfactant blends can be further characterized with some simple concepts such as aspect ratio and micelle charge. Both charge on the surfactant mi- celles and the amount of surfactant are important variables to consider in attempting to un- derstand performance. These two parameters can be estimated directly from the formulation. The relations are as follows (all wt% values indicated are based on an active content): Total surfactant charge (mol) Micellecharge : Total surfactant amount (mol) (1) wt% SLS wt% SLES3 Total surfactant charge 288 421 = + (2) wt% SLS wt% SLES3 wt% CAPB Totalsurfactant amount 288 421 343 = + + (3) Table V Sensory Panel Results for EX-1086 (1.7 mEq/g) SLES-3/SLS/CAPB (wt%) SLES-3/SLS/CAPB (wt%) Coacervate amount Net Si intensity (kcps) Coacervate amount Net Si intensity (kcps) 6/0/6 6/8/2 212 20 49 7 Better wet combing (99% CL*) Better wet feel (99% CL) Better dry combing (99% CL) Better dry feel (99% CL) 12/0/6 6/8/2 125 32 49 7 Better wet combing (99% CL) Better wet feel (99% CL) Better dry combing (99% CL) 12/0/2 9/4/4 116 49 93 18 Better wet combing (99% CL) Better wet feel (99% CL) Better dry combing (99% CL) Better dry feel (99% CL) 9/4/4 6/8/2 93 18 49 7 Better wet combing (99% CL) Better wet feel (99% CL) *CL = Confi dence level.