FRESHNESS EVALUATION OF REFRESHING CREAMS 529 fi rst-order interactions “type of peppermint oil × emulsion formulation,” “time × type of peppermint oil,” and “time × emulsion formulation” as fi xed sources of variation. Differ- ences were considered signifi cant at p 0.05. When differences were signifi cant, honestly signifi cant differences were calculated using Tukey’s test. An ANOVA was also carried out on consumers’ data, considering type of peppermint oil, emulsion formulation, city, and the interaction “type of peppermint oil × emulsion for- mulation” as fi xed sources of variation. Differences were considered signifi cant at p 0.05. When differences were signifi cant, honestly signifi cant differences were calculated using Tukey’s test. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION TRAINED ASSESSORS’ PANEL According to ANOVA, assessor and repetition did not have a signifi cant effect on fresh- ness scores (Table II), suggesting homogeneity and reproducibility of the trained asses- sors’ panel. Moreover, as shown in Table II, according to the trained assessors’ panel, type of pepper- mint oil, emulsion formulation, and time signifi cantly affected freshness sensation (p 0.05). Moreover, the interactions “time × emulsion formulation” and “time × type of pepper- mint oil” were signifi cant (p 0.05), indicating that the evolution of the freshness sensa- tion with time depended on the refreshing agent and the formulation of the emulsion that contained the refreshing agent. As shown in Table III, 5 min after application freshness sensation was signifi cantly higher when formulation B was considered. This could be explained by considering that penetra- tion of peppermint oil into the skin is necessary in order to reach the nerve terminals as- sociated with freshness sensation (8). Thus, the low proportion of apolar components in formulation B could have enhanced peppermint oil liberation and penetration into the skin, increasing freshness perception. On the other hand, the type of peppermint oil did not signifi cantly affect freshness per- ception after 5 min of application (Table III). Thus, menthol removal did not affect fresh- ness sensation at this evaluation instance, suggesting that other components different from Table II Results of the ANOVA Performed on Data from the Trained Assessors’ Panel Source of variation ANOVA results F p-value Assessor 1.40 0.2312 Repetition 0.02 0.8820 Emulsion formulation 272.92 0.001 Type of peppermint oil 8.00 0.0059 Time 20.35 0.001 Type of peppermint oil × emulsion formulation 67.01 0.001 Time × type of peppermint oil 30.32 0.001 Time × emulsion formulation 17.32 0.001

JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 530 menthol could have contributed to immediate and long-term freshness of peppermint oil (6,25). Freshness sensation of creams formulated with emulsion B did not signifi cantly change when evaluated 5 or 10 min after application (Table III). Meanwhile, freshness sensation of emulsion A containing common peppermint oil signifi cantly increased, whereas fresh- ness sensation of emulsion A containing dementholated peppermint oil decreased with time. This indicates that the evolution of freshness sensation with time depended on both the refreshing agent and the emulsion that contained it. The fact that freshness sensation changed with time only for creams formulated with emulsion A could be attributed to its slower liberation of apolar compounds due to its high proportion of apolar components. After 10 min, emulsions A and B formulated with common peppermint oil showed a similar freshness intensity. However, when these emulsions were formulated with demen- tholated peppermint oil, the high proportion of apolar components did not permit the penetration to the skin of menthol and other components responsible for freshness sensa- tion. Therefore, results from the present work suggested that freshness sensation and its evolution with time depended on both the refreshing agent and emulsion formulation. CONSUMER PANEL According to ANOVA, consumers’ freshness perception after smelling and after applica- tion was signifi cantly affected by emulsion formulation (Table IV). Samples with formu- lation B were perceived by consumers as fresher, which is in agreement with data from the trained assessor’s panel. However, type of peppermint oil did not signifi cantly affect con- sumers’ freshness perception both after smelling and applying the samples (Table IV). Despite the fact that consumers were not trained, they provided results similar to those of a trained assessors’ panel. This suggests that consumer profi ling techniques could be an interesting alternative for evaluating cosmetic products when there is not enough time or resources to train a sensory panel. Consumers in Buenos Aires and Montevideo scored freshness sensation of the creams in signifi cantly different ways, as shown in Table IV. This suggests that consumers from different countries could perceive the sensory characteristics of a cosmetic product in a signifi cantly different way. However, the main differences between both samples were in the scores, and not in their relative intensity, which could be explained by considering Table III Freshness Sensation Evaluated by a Trained Assessors’ Panel (n = 6), 5 and 10 Min after Application of the Four Refreshing Creams Considered Sample Freshness sensation 5 min 10 min APO 4.0a A 6.0b B ADPO 4.0a B 3.0a A BPO 6.0b A 6.0b A BDPO 7.0b A 7.0b A Rows with different lowercase superscripts are signifi cantly (p ≤ 0.05) different according to Tukey's test. Columns with different capital superscripts are signifi cantly (p ≤ 0.05) different according to Turkey's test.