59 MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROCESS OF HAND SANITIZER CONCLUSION Developing multi-functional formulations presents several challenges. In this case, it was difficult to stabilize the emollients’ squalane/hemisqualane in a low-viscosity solution using plant-based and eco-friendly ingredients. After several attempts (not all of which have been presented) a formulation was developed that was practical to use, because it had a short drying time for the hands and improved skin health, increased skin hydration, and reduced water loss. The final formulation also proved to be efficient and secure to use, having bactericidal, virucidal, and yeasticidal activity without introducing any kind of irritation and/or toxicity to the user’s skin. Finally, this formulation was well-accepted by consumers, because it was superior to the benchmark. ABHS F#8 is safe, effective, and sensorially pleasant, and it is ready for future commercialization. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the project HC-COVID19: Amyris Handcare COVID-19 with the reference POCI-01-02B7-FEDER-062592 funded by the Portuguese Government (AICEP). The funding agency was not involved in the study design, the data collection, the analysis and interpretation, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the article for publication. REFERENCES (1) P. L. J. M. Zeeuwen, M. Kleerebezem, H. M. Timmerman, and J. Schalkwijk, Microbiome and skin diseases, Curr. Opin. Allergy. Clin. Immunol., 13(5), 514–520 (2013). (2) J. L. J. Jing, T. Pei Yi, R. J. C. Bose, J. R. McCarthy, N. Tharmalingam, and T. Madheswaran, Hand sanitizers: a review on formulation aspects, adverse effects, and regulations, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health., 17(9), 3326 (2020). (3) G. A. Johnston and J. S. C. English, The alcohol hand rub: a good soap substitute? Br. J. Dermatol., 157(1), 1–3 (2007). (4) J. Marumure, Z. Makuvara, R. Alufasi, L. Chapungu, and C. Gufe, Effectiveness of hand sanitizers in the prevention of COVID-19 and related public health concerns: a review, Cogent Public Health, 9(1), 2060904 (2022). (5) E. L. Larson and H. E. Morton, “Alcohols,” in Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation, 4th Ed. S. S. Block. Ed. (Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1991), pp. 191–203. (6) J. Brooks, F. Cowdell, S. J. Ersser, and E. D. Gardiner, Skin cleansing and emolliating for older people: a quasi-experimental pilot study, Int. J. Older People Nurs., 12(3), e12145 (2017). (7) K. Nolan and E. Marmur, Moisturizers: reality and the skin benefits, Dermatol. Ther., 25(3), 229–233 (2012). (8) C. Faria-Silva, A. Ascenso, A. M. Costa, J. Marto, M. Carvalheiro, H. M. Ribeiro, and S. Simões, Feeding the skin: a new trend in food and cosmetics convergence, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 95, 21–32 (2020). (9) A. Barbulova, G. Colucci, and F. Apone, New trends in cosmetics: by-products of plant origin and their potential use as cosmetic active ingredients, Cosmetics, 2(2), 82–92 (2015). (10) World Health Organization, WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care (Geneva, Switzerland: WHO 2009), accessed June 6, 2023, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241597906. (11) European Committee for Standardization, European Standard EN 13727: 2012 +A2: 2015—Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics—Quantitative Suspension Test for the Evaluation of Bactericidal Activity in

60 JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE the Medical Area—Test Method and Requirements (Phase 2, Step 1) (2015), accessed June 6, 2023, https:// standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/c01bf770-2611-4d94-9671-bfd6d801d282/en-13727-2012a2-2015 (12) European Committee for Standardization, European Standard EN 13624—Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics—Quantitative Suspension Test for the Evaluation of Fungicidal or Yeasticidal Activity in the Medical Area—Test Method and Requirements (Phase 2, Step 1) (2022), accessed June 6, 2023, https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/4dcf225f-2896-42f4-8613-731153cae484/en-13624-2021. (13) European Committee for Standardization, European Standard EN 14476: 2013 +A2: 2019—Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics—Quantitative Suspension Test for the Evaluation of Virucidal Activity in the Medical Area—Test Method and Requirements (Phase 2, Step 1) (2019), accessed June 6, 2023, https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/10065fd9-2d40-4f02-bccd-48206b72f108/en-14476- 2013a2-2019. (14) European Committee for Standardization, European Standard EN 1500—Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics—Hygienic Handrub—Test Method and Requirements (Phase 2, Step 2) (2013), accessed June 6, 2023, https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/56eceb9b-1eb4-4497-ac65-4472bee8c162/ en-1500-2013. (15) MatTek Corporation, Standard Operating Procedures of the Test System Provider (MatTek): In Vitro EpiDermTM Skin Irritation Test (EPI-200-SIT) for Use with MatTek Corporation’s Reconstructed Human Epidermal Model EpiDermTM (2020), accessed July 11, 2022, https://www.mattek.com/ wp-content/uploads/EPI-200-SIT-Skin-Irritation-MK-24-007-0023.pdf (16) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Test Guideline No. 439: In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method, Adopted on the 18th of June 2019. Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects (2019), accessed June 6, 2023, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/ test-no-439-in-vitro-skin-irritation-reconstructed-human-epidermis-test-method_9789264242845-en. (17) K. J. Ortiz and J. A. Yiannias, Contact dermatitis to cosmetics, fragrances, and botanicals, Dermatol. Ther., 17, 264–271 (2004). (18) D. J. McClements and C. E. Gumus, Natural emulsifiers—biosurfactants, phospholipids, biopolymers, and colloidal particles: molecular and physicochemical basis of functional performance, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 234, 3–26 (2016). (19) H. J. Jang, C. Y. Shin, and K. B. Kim, Safety evaluation of polyethylene glycol (PEG) compounds for cosmetic use, Toxicol. Res., 31(2), 105–136 (2015). (20) F. A. Andersen, Final report on the safety assessment of PEG-7, -30, -40, -78, and -80 glyceryl cocoate, Int. J. Toxicol., 18(1_suppl), 33–42 (1999). (21) F. Keshavarzi, N. Ø. Knudsen, N. M. Komjani, M. F. Ebbesen, J. R. Brewer, S. Jafarzadeh, and E. Thormann, Enhancing the sweat resistance of sunscreens, Skin Res. Technol., 28(2), 225–235 (2022). (22) SEPPIC, Safety Data Sheet—Sepimax Zen, Version 2.01 (2022), accessed June 6, 2023, https://avenalab. com/images/001SDS/SDS-SEPIMAX.PDF. (23) M. Qassem and P. Kyriacou, Review of modern techniques for the assessment of skin hydration, Cosmetics, 6(1), 19 (2019). (24) E. Berardesca, M. Loden, J. Serup, P. Masson, and L. M. Rodrigues, The revised EEMCO guidance for the in vivo measurement of water in the skin, Skin Res. Technol., 24(3), 351–358 (2018). (25) S. Verdier-Sévrain and F. Bonté, Skin hydration: a review on its molecular mechanisms, J. Cosmet. Dermatol., 6(2), 75–82 (2007). (26) Courage+Khazaka Electronic GmbH, Information and Instruction Manual for the Skin-pH-Meter PH 905 Probe, 1–31 (2020), accessed June 6, 2023, https://courage-khazaka.de/en/scientific-products/ efficacy-tests/skin?view=article&id=165:ph-meter-e&catid=16:alle-produkte. (27) S. M. Ali and G. Yosipovitch, Skin pH: from basic science to basic skin care, Acta Derm. Venereol., 93(3), 261–267 (2013). (28) C. Y. Saint-Denis, “The foundations of consumer evaluation,” in Consumer and Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 1st Ed. C. Y. Saint-Denis. Ed. (John Wiley &Sons Ltd, New Jersey, 2018), pp. 63–122.