Preliminary Study of the Potential Photoprotective Effect of Organogel-Based Lipstick Formulations: Texture Analysis, Rheological, Thermal and Sensory Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increase in occupation-specific risks of lip cancer associated with solar radiation, there is a need for developing photoprotective lipsticks to protect skin against harmful effects of UV radiation. Considering the unique chemical and physical properties of low-molecular-weight organogelators (LMOGs), the present study intended to assess the UV protective properties of LMOGs-based lipstick formulations. In this study, dibenzylidene-D-sorbitol (DBS) and 12-hydroxystearic acid (12-HSA) were used to formulate lipsticks : L1 (1% DBS), L2 (10% 12-HSA), L3 (1.5% DBS) and L4 (control, no LMOGs). The lipstick formulations were tested for in vitro sun protection factors (SPF), UVA protection factor (UVA-PF), thermal, mechanical and texture analyses. Lipsticks with LMOGs exhibited higher UVA-PF and SPF, and more particularly 12-HSA-based lipstick. Results showed also the viscoelastic and heat-resistant properties of LMOGs and their effect of increasing pay-off values. In general, texture analysis indicating that 12-HSA-based lipstick was significantly harder to bend compared to control, while other formulations became softer and easier to bend throughout the stability study. Finally, sensorial and instrumental analyses permitted to classify lipsticks into two groups. This work suggests the potential use of LMOGs as a structuring agent for lipsticks paving the way towards more photoprotective and sustainable-derived alternatives.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".