A STUDY OF INFLUENCING FACTORS FOR SENSORY IRRITATION DUE TO PRESERVATIVES OF COSMETICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
화장품에서 홍반과 같은 피부 자극뿐만 아니라, 육안적으로 관찰되지는 않으나 소비자에게 불쾌감을 주는 따가움, 화끈거림, 가려움 등의 자극감을 평가하는 것도 중요하다. 스스로 민감성이라고 생각하는 사람들이 증가하는 추세에 자극감에 대한 연구는 더욱 중요해 지리라 여겨진다. 현재까지 자극감을 유발한다고 알려져 있는 알러지 있는 유발 화장품 원료는 lactic acid, glycolic acid, ethanol, 방부제류, 향료류, menthol 등이 있으며 pH가 증가할수록, 폐쇄 조건 등으로 흡수가 증가할수록 자극감이 증가한다고 알려져 있다. 본 연구에서는 화장품에서 많이 사용하고 있는 방부제 4종(methylparaben, propylparaben, phenoxye thanol, chlorophenecin)의 자극감에 영향을 주는 요인들을 찾아보고자 하였다. 연구 결과 팩 제형과 같은 흡수가 증가되는 제형에서와 그렇지 않은 제형에서의 방부제에 따른 자극감 결과에 차이를 보였다. 또한 서로 다른 방부제가 혼합된 경우에 상승 효과에 의하여 자극감이 높아지는 결과를 보인 경우도 있다. 무엇보다 phenoxyethanol과 chlorophenecin은 매우 미약한 자극감을 유발하였으나 혼합 사용한 경우에는 자극감이 상승되는 결과를 나타내었다. 이와 같은 결과로 보아 방부제에 의한 자극감은 제형에 의한 흡수 정도나 혼합되는 원료의 특성에 따라 자극감의 정도가 차이가 있는 것으로 보인다. 새로운 화장품의 원료의 선택시 이러한 영향을 함께 고려하여야 할 것으로 여겨진다. 【Sensory irritation is one of the important side effects of cosmetics and it is required to develop new products that are more tolerable to the consumers. There are lots of cosmetic ingredients known to induce sensory irritation such as lactic acid, glycolic acid, ethanol, preservatives, fragrances and menthol etc. It is also known that sensory irritation increases by change of pH as well as additional occlusive conditions. The aim of this study is to know various factors affecting sensory irritation due to preservatives (methylparaben, propylparaben, phenoxyethanol and chlorophenecin). We also wanted to investigate the effect of preservatives to sensory irritation according to change of formulations. Our results showed that sensory irritation increased with the conditions of increasing absorption such as packs. We have also found that sensory irritation increased synergistically when to apply two different preservatives together. For example, phenoxyethanol and chlorphenesin themselves have weak sensory irritation potentials, but we observed phenoxyethanol combined with chlorpenesin synergistically increase of sensory irritation potentials. In conclusion, formulation and combination of different preservatives should be considered to reduce the unwanted sensory irritation of preservatives.】
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".