Evaluation of the antiwear‐ability/scratch‐resistance efficacy of makeup products by in vitro test method application

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study is to propose a method for assessing the antiwear‐ability (AW) or surface scratch‐resistance (SR) efficacy of makeup products through in vitro experiments.

Materials and method

The method primarily involves measuring the change in weight as a means of evaluating the overall effectiveness. AW/SR effects are evaluated by applying a fixed amount of makeup product on artificial fake skin and comparing the weight difference after simulated friction/scratch.

Results

The in vitro results indicate that this method is easy to operate and yields repeatable data. It consistently reflects differences between samples when compared to clinical studies.

Conclusions

This method effectively compares the AW/SR effects of makeup products and demonstrates utility in evaluating product efficacy and difference. It holds great scientific and practical value.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the context of the upgrading and changes in the mass‐consumption view and esthetic view, Chinese consumers are more focused on improving their self‐characteristics. Although the COVID‐19 pandemic in 2020 had a negative impact on the overall market size of the cosmetics industry, with China entering the ‘post‐pandemic’ era, the cosmetics industry in China is also seeing a recovery. ¹

Due to the social environment of the pandemic, wearing masks when going outside has become normalized or habitual. However, we have found that when consumers wear masks after applying makeup, the mask can easily rub against the user's cheeks and lips, affecting the integrity of their makeup. As the key to overall adherence of makeup, the prevention of smudging and scratching has become an important reference for consumers when choosing Foundation products.

Currently, there is limited research on the evaluation methods of preventing smudging and scratching for Foundation products. Clinical research methods mainly refer to the evaluation of makeup holding efficacy, mostly using a combination of clinical scoring and subjective evaluation by consumers. Such evaluation methods require the establishment of a unified evaluation standard system and judgment criteria, and the duration and cost of conducting such tests are relatively high. Therefore, there are shortcomings such as the inability to compare results horizontally between different products and the inability to establish an effective evaluation database as a reference quickly. ² Corresponding to prevention of smudging and scratching caused by physical contact, there are currently no mature methods or relevant data for reference in vitro evaluation methods.

To address the above issues, this paper proposes a model for evaluating the prevention smudging and scratching efficacy of Foundation products based on the in vitro detection method. The model evaluates prevention of smudging and scratching efficacy of Foundation products by measuring weight changes. Using artificial silicone skin as the carrier, a fixed weight of the test product is applied to the silicone skin, and then a simulation of smudging is carried out using the MTT175 friction testing component. ³ The prevention of antiwear‐ability (AW) or surface scratch‐resistance (SR) efficacy of the test product is evaluated by measuring the weight change of the artificial skin before and after the simulation of smudging. Using Foundation fluid and makeup setting spray as representative products, this paper studies and validates the operability, repeatability and reproducibility of the in vitro testing method for evaluating the AW or SR efficacy of Foundation products, as well as the comparability of the results between different products.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Materials and facility

Two commercially available setting sprays (A&B), two commercially available Foundations (C&D), two commercially available lipsticks (E&F), artificial silicone skin (flesh‐colored), commercial Foundation fluid samples, commercial setting spray A/B, MTT175 hair multifunctional testing system (Dia‐Stron, friction component), precision electronic analytical balance (Shanghai Jingke, FA2004N), piston pipette (GILSON, 20–100ul), hair dryer (PHILIPS, 1800 W), temperature and humidity chamber (Sysmedical HW‐138).

2.2. Implementation of in vitro test method

An artificial silicone skin is used as a carrier, and a 40 × 30 mm test area is marked with a skin pen. A 25‐μl Foundation fluid is applied evenly to the rectangular test area on the silicone skin. A simulation of smudging is carried out using the MTT175 friction testing component, and a precision electronic balance with an actual division value of 0.1 mg is used to measure the weight of the silicone skin before and after applying the test sample, as well as after simulating the smudging. The objective is to compare the AW or SR abilities of different samples.

2.2.1. Setting effect of setting spray

Each test requires 30 samples, all samples were used for three model treatments: mode 1 Foundations C with setting spray A, mode 2 Foundations C with setting spray B and mode 3 the control group (using Foundations C alone).

Procedure

2.2.2. Heat and moisture resistance of Foundation

Each test requires 30 samples, all samples were used for four model treatments: mode 1 Foundations C standing in Room temperature, mode 2 Foundations C standing in High temperature and humidity, mode 3 Foundations D standing in Room temperature, mode 4 Foundations D standing in High temperature and humidity (temperature: 35–37°C, Related Humidity: 70%–80%). The simulated high temperature and high humidity environment in this case mainly corresponds to and simulates the temperature and humidity released when wearing a mask close to the human body.

Foundation C/D means the test product evaluation under room temperature and humidity test environment.

Foundation C/D^H means the test product evaluation under simulated high temperature and humidity test environment.

Procedure

2.2.3. Antiwear‐ability effect of lipstick

Each test requires 30 samples, all samples were used for four model treatments: mode 1 applicated lipstick E and mode 2 applicated lipstick F.

Procedure

*Makeup base application: the application method as shown in diagram 1 and the application coverage quality as referred to the diagram 2.

DIAGRAM 1.

Schematic diagram of the method of makeup base product applying

DIAGRAM 2.

Schematic diagram of the completed application of the test area

**Conduct simulated makeup scraping, schematic diagram of friction simulation as shown in diagram 3 and diagram 4.

DIAGRAM 3.

MTT175 friction component simulates makeup scraping on artificial skin

DIAGRAM 4.

Comparison chart before and after simulating scraping

2.3. Implementation of In vivo test method

2.3.1. Antiwear‐ability effect of lipstick

The two products were tested in two groups, the subjects of group 1 used lipstick A and the subjects of group 2 used lipstick B. Thirty subjects should be completed in each group. All subjects should wear the mask for 10 h after lipstick application.

Lip qualities will be evaluated by validation expert at the T0 (immediately after lipstick application) and T10h (10 h lipstick application). The expert will not be allowed to reference previous scores at post‐baseline assessments.

2.4. Descriptive statistics

2.4.1. For in vitro test method

The descriptive statistics of the scraping rate include the number of valid samples (N), the mean value (Mean), the standard deviation (SD), the standard error (SE), the improvement rate (vs. baseline) %, the improvement rate (vs. control) %.

$$\mathrm{Scraping}\mathrm{Off}\mathrm{Rate}\%=\frac{a_{\mathrm{Scape}\mathrm{Weight}\left(g\right)}}{b_{\mathrm{Applied}\mathrm{Weight}\left(g\right)}}\times 100\%$$

1. $ScapeWeight(g)=Weightbeforescrapingsimulation(g)-Weightbeforemakeupapplication(g)$
2. $AppliedWeight(g)=Weightbeforescrapingsimulation(g)-Weightafterscrapingsimulation(g)$

2.4.2. For in vivo test method

The descriptive statistics of the scoring include the number of valid samples (N) and the median value.

2.5. Differential statistics

All data difference tests are conducted using two‐tailed tests, and the significance level is set at α = 0.05.

2.5.1. For in vitro test method

The difference statistics include comparisons of time‐point differences and between‐treatment differences. For time‐point and treatments difference comparisons, analysis of variance (Paired T test) is used.

Setting effect of setting spray

• ‐Comparison between time‐points: before versus after scraping simulating;

• ‐Comparison between treatments: spray A versus untreated (Foundation C), spray B versus unterstand (Foundation C), spray A versus spray B.

Heat and moisture resistance of Foundation

• ‐Comparison between time‐points: before versus after scraping simulating;

• ‐Comparison between treatments: Foundation C versus Foundation CH, Foundation D versus Foundation DH, the change of scraping rate between in room temperature and in high temperature and humidity of Foundation C versus that of Foundation D.

Antiwear‐ability effect of lipstick

• ‐Comparison between time‐points: before versus after scraping simulating;

• ‐Comparison between treatments: lipstick E versus lipstick F.

2.5.2. For in vitro test method

The difference statistics include comparisons of time‐point differences and between‐treatment differences. For time‐point and treatments difference comparisons, nonparametric test (Mann–Whitney U test) is used.

• ‐Comparison between time‐points: T0 versus T10h

• ‐Comparison between treatments: lipstick E versus lipstick F.

3. RESULT

3.1. Results of in vitro test method

3.1.1. Setting effect of setting spray

By analyzing the weight data of the artificial silicone skin before and after application. The weight of artificial silicone skin with setting spray A decreased from 0.0191 ± 0.0017 g the before to 0.0174 ± 0.0016 g the after, setting spray B decreased from 0.0201 ± 0.0025 g the before to 0.0184 ± 0.0023 g the after and control decreased from 0.0199 ± 0.0023 g the before to 0.0165 ± 0.002 g the after. Compared to the weight of the artificial silicone skin before scraping, both the artificial silicone skin with setting sprays and the one without setting spray showed a significant decrease in weight after scraping. However, the weight reduction and scraping off rate of the artificial silicone skin with setting spray (A = −0.0017 ± 0.0005 g, 9.13%, B = −0.0016 ± 0.0005 g, 8.02%) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than that of the artificial silicone skin without setting spray (C = −0.0034 ± 0.0007, 17.03%). (Tables 1, 2, 3 and Figure 1).

TABLE 1.

Clinical scoring according to the grading scale ‘0–9 scores’.

Parameter	None (best possible condition) ( = 0)	Mild (1–3)	Moderate (4–6)	Severe (worst possible condition) (7–9)
Prolongs (extends) the wear of lipstick	Complete wear of lipstick			Lipstick removal very serious

TABLE 2.

Weight changing of setting spray between time‐points.

	Time‐points and treatments comparison of weight
Treatment	N	Before scraping simulating (g) (mean ± SD)	After scraping simulating (g) (mean ± SD)	Variation% (vs. before)	p value + (vs. before)
Setting spray (A)	30	0.0191 ± 0.0017	0.0174 ± 0.0016	−9.12%	<0.01 **
Setting spray (B)	30	0.0201 ± 0.0025	0.0184 ± 0.0023	−8.06%	<0.01 **
Control (C)	30	0.0199 ± 0.0023	0.0165 ± 0.002	−17.07%	<0.01 **

Note: N, valid sample size; mean, average value.

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

⁺ Paired T test was used for the time‐points comparison (^* p < 0.05; ^** p < 0.01).

TABLE 3.

Weight changing of makeup product between treatments.

	Time‐points comparison of weight
Treatment	N	After minus before scraping simulating (g) (mean ± SD)	Scraping off rate %	p‐Value + (vs. control)
Setting spray (A)	30	−0.0017 ± 0.0005	9.13%	<0.01 **
Setting spray (B)	30	−0.0016 ± 0.0005	8.02%	<0.01 **
Control (C)	30	−0.0034 ± 0.0007	17.03%	–

Note: N, valid sample size; mean, average value.

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

⁺ Paired T test was used for the time‐points comparison (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01).

FIGURE 1.

Time‐points and treatments comparison of weighing.

3.1.2. Heat and moisture resistance of Foundation

By analyzing the weight data of the artificial silicone skin before and after application. The weight of artificial silicone skin with Foundation C decreased from 0.0199 ± 0.0023 g the before to 0.0199 ± 0.0023 g the after, Foundation C^H decreased from 0.0224 ± 0.0030 g the before to 0.0149 ± 0.0026 g the after and the weight of artificial silicone skin with Foundation D decreased from 0.0227 ± 0.0030 g the before to 0.0205 ± 0.0027 g the after, Foundation D^H decreased from 0.0241 ± 0.0032 g the before to 0.0205 ± 0.0027 g the after.

Compared to the weight of the artificial silicone skin before scraping, both the artificial silicone skin with Foundation in room temperature and in high temperature and humidity showed a significant decrease (p < 0.05) in weight after scraping.

The weight reduction and scraping off rate of the artificial silicone skin in high temperature and humidity (C = −0.0075 ± 0.0006 g, 33.89%, D = −0.0035 ± 0.0007 g, 14.64%) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that of the artificial silicone skin in room temperature (C = −0.0034 ± 0.0007 g, 17.03%, D = −0.0022 ± 0.0004 g, 9.71%).

However, the change of scraping rate of Foundation D between in room temperature and in high temperature and humidity environment (C = 16.89% ± 4.29%) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that of Foundation D (D = 4.94% ± 1.76%). (Tables 4, 5, and 6 and Figure 2).

TABLE 4.

Weight changing of Foundation between time‐points.

	Time‐points comparison of weight
Treatment	N	Before scraping simulating (g) (mean ± SD)	After scraping simulating (g) (mean ± SD)	Scraping off rate % (vs. before)	p‐Value + (vs. before)
Foundation C	30	0.0199 ± 0.0023	0.0199 ± 0.0023	17.03%	<0.001 **
Foundation C H	30	0.0224 ± 0.0030	0.0149 ± 0.0026	33.89%	<0.001 **
Foundation D	30	0.0227 ± 0.0030	0.0205 ± 0.0027	9.71%	<0.001 **
Foundation D H	30	0.0241 ± 0.0032	0.0205 ± 0.0027	14.64%	<0.001 **

Note: N, valid sample size; mean, average value.

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

⁺ Paired T test was used for the time‐points comparison (^* p < 0.05; ^** p < 0.01).

^H Under the higher temperature and humidity test environment.

TABLE 5.

Weight changing of Foundation between treatments.

	Treatments comparison of weight
Treatment	N	After minus before scraping simulating (g) (mean ± SD)	Variation %	p‐Value + (vs. Control)
Foundation C	30	−0.0034 ± 0.0007	99.05%	<0.01 **
Foundation C H	30	−0.0075 ± 0.0006
Foundation D	30	−0.0022 ± 0.0004	50.85%	<0.01 **
Foundation D H	30	−0.0035 ± 0.0007

Note: N, valid sample size; mean, average value.

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

⁺ Paired T test was used for the time‐points comparison (^* p < 0.05; ^** p < 0.01).

^H Under the higher temperature and humidity test environment.

TABLE 6.

Scraping off rate changing of Foundation between treatments.

	Time‐points and treatments comparison of weight
Treatment	N	High temperature and humidity minus room temperature scraping off rate (%) (mean ± SD)	p‐Value + (vs. control)
Foundation (C)	30	16.89% ± 4.29%	<0.01 **
Foundation (D)	30	4.94% ± 1.76%

Note: N, valid sample size; mean, average value.

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

⁺ Paired T test was used for the time‐points comparison (^* p < 0.05; ^** p < 0.01).

FIGURE 2.

Time‐points and treatments comparison of weighing^abc.

3.1.3. Antiwear‐ability effect of lipstick

By analyzing the weight data of the artificial silicone skin before and after application. The weight of artificial silicone skin used lipstick (E) decreased from 0.0178 ± 0.0026 g the before to 0.0166 ± 0.0025 g the after, and the weight of artificial silicone skin used lipstick (F) decreased from 0.0223 ± 0.0032 g the before to 0.0202 ± 0.0029 g the after.

The weight reduction and scraping off rate of the artificial silicone skin used lipstick (E) (A = −0.0012 ± 0.0002 g, 6.82%) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that of the artificial silicone skin used lipstick (F) (C = −0.0020 ± 0.0004, 9.15%) (Tables 7 and 8 and Figure 3).

TABLE 7.

Weight changing of lipstick between time‐points.

	Time‐points comparison of weight
Treatment	N	Before scraping simulating (g) (mean ± SD)	After scraping simulating (g) (mean ± SD)	Scraping off rate % (vs. before)	p‐Value + (vs. before)
Lipstick (E)	30	0.0178 ± 0.0026	0.0166 ± 0.0025	6.82%	<0.001 **
Lipstick (F)	30	0.0223 ± 0.0032	0.0202 ± 0.0029	9.15%	<0.001 **

Note: N, valid sample size; mean, average value.

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

⁺ Paired T test was used for the time‐points comparison (^* p < 0.05; ^** p < 0.01).

TABLE 8.

Weight changing of lipstick between treatments.

	Treatments comparison of weight
Treatment	N	After minus before scraping simulating (g) (mean ± SD)	Variation %	p‐Value + (vs. control)
Lipstick (E)	30	−0.0012 ± 0.0002	34.19%	<0.01 **
Lipstick (F)	30	−0.0020 ± 0.0004

Note: N, valid sample size; mean, average value.

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

⁺ Paired T test was used for the time‐points comparison (^* p < 0.05; ^** p < 0.01).

FIGURE 3.

Time‐points and treatments comparison of weighing.

3.2. Results of in vivo test method

3.2.1. Antiwear‐ability effect of lipstick

Compare to baseline, clinical scoring for wearing was significantly increased (p < 0.05) at T10h after both lipstick (E) and lipstick (F) single application. And, the lipstick (F) showed significant better (p < 0.05) efficacy on wearing at T10h than lipstick (E) after single application. (Tables 9 and 10 and Figure 4).

TABLE 9.

Scoring of wearing changing of lipstick between time‐points.

	Time‐points comparison of score of wearing
Treatment	N	T0(median [IQR])	T10h(Median [ IQR])	p‐Value + (vs.T0)
Lipstick (E)	30	0.00 (0.00)	2.00 (1.00)	<0.001 **
Lipstick (F)	30	0.00 (0.00)	3.00 (1.25)	<0.001 **

Note: N, valid sample size.

Abbreviation: IQR: Interquartile range.

⁺ Mann–Whitney U test was used for the time‐points comparison (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01).

TABLE 10.

Score of wearing changing of lipstick between treatments.

Treatment	Treatments comparison of score of wearing
	N	T10h minus T0 (median [IQR])	p‐Value + (vs. control)
Lipstick (E)	30	2.00 (1.00)	<0.01 **
Lipstick (F)	30	3.00 (1.25)

Note: N, valid sample size.

Abbreviation: IQR: Interquartile range.

⁺ Mann–Whitney U test was used for the time‐points comparison (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01).

FIGURE 4.

Time‐points and treatments comparison of weighing.

4. DISCUSSION

The efficacy of three different categories of makeup products was verified using an in vitro test method. The AW or SR effect was evaluated by analyzing the weight changes after simulated friction. The results provide confidence in the applicability of the established testing model, which can effectively distinguish differences between products. In a parallel test of two lipsticks, both the in vitro test method and the in vivo test method consistently reflected the differences between samples, indicating the reliability of the in vitro test method. The results give us confidence that the established testing model is applicable, and it is a model that can distinguish differences between different products. From an application standpoint, this method is fast, controllable and effective features; it can help improve the speed and effectiveness of formula screening and adjustment for makeup products during development stage.

However, at the same time, we need to consider that this method has its limitations in real‐world usage scenarios. After all, the skin base status of the artificial skin is different from that of actual skin. In particular, the sebum secretion of actual skin will directly affect the performance of makeup products. An additional area of exploration for us is to establish a stronger correlation or consistency between real‐world usage on skin and the method proposed in this article. This would involve creating a more comprehensive model that provides multiple dimensions of input and analysis results for makeup products.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Jiang Y, Xu Z, Qiu Y, Chen G, Wang S. Evaluation of the antiwear‐ability/scratch‐resistance efficacy of makeup products by in vitro test method application. Skin Res Technol. 2023;29:ert13420. 10.1111/srt.13420

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.