|
Click the icons
to learn more
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Feb. 3 edition of the Eagle/I'imes, there was an article: on "Shampoo coming clean" by Paula Begoun which contains some misleading information that needs to be addressed.
Begoun is a self-styled expert on cosmetic products who has no background in cosmetic chemistry, experience in product formulation and even less in basic physiology of skin and hair. Her concept of a cheap shampoo being as good as an expensive shampoo is based either on ignorance or on an inability to distinguish one from the other. Most shampoos are not 90 percent water; only the really cheap ones are so highly diluted, rather they vary from 30 percent to 50 percent solids.
The ingredients she listed as the major ingredients in shampoos such as sodium lauryl sulfate and ammonium lauryl sulfate are found in many shampoos as the primary foaming and cleansing agents. They are quite harsh and need to be attenuated with additional ingredients.
The formulation of functional shampoos for various types of hair is very complex. Even the addition of .1 percent of an active ingredient can change the formula. Reading the ingredient label will tell you very little about how the product will perform. You need to know the concentration of the ingredients, how they function alone and how they interact in a complex formula. Even the experts with 40 years of experience in this field would not be able to judge a product on the label ingredients alone.
There are ingredients in modern shampoos that Begoun obviously does not understand. She dismisses these ingredients as if they don’t really matter, except to the marketing department. This is industry bigotry at its worst. If you don’t understand how it works, or why it is in the formula, at least try to get information about the ingredient from the scientific cosmetic literature which is readily available.
Her concept of hair conditioners and conditioning is quite naïve. They are not designed to replace oil, but rather to change the surface structure of the hair, allowing it to be more manageable for combing and styling. In addition, these structural changes in the surface texture provide hold, softness and sheen to the hair.
She states that conditioners do not penetrate the hair cuticle whereas well designed conditioners actually do penetrate and bind with the cuticle in a tight chemical bond. They provide corrective mechanical qualities that relate to the complex interaction of the viscoelastic properties and the complex electrostatic nature of the hair surface.
Her statement that sunscreen in shampoos don’t work, which is why they don’t have an SPF value, is total ignorance of both SPF and of how the this value is obtained. An SPF, or sun protection factor, is based on the ability of a sunscreen to allow greater sun exposure to an individual without producing a sunburn. The end point of this evaluation is skin redness and therefore the test is impossible to do on hair.
There are adequate ways of measuring sunscreens on hair and the term HPF – hair protection factor – has been proposed. Hair is quite susceptible to ultraviolet damage, particularly to permed and colored hair, and so it needs protection from the sun. The sunscreen would best be put into a conditioner, or a finishing spray, rather than a shampoo, considering formulation constraints and cost effectiveness.
Begoun, in her eagerness to sell books has misinformed the public, with superficial and often erroneous information.
We are dealing today with sophisticated and informed customers who want value for each dollar spent; at least we can them the best information on which to help them make a choice.
Peter T. Pugliese, MD is a biomedical consultant with Milmark Research Inc., Bernville. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visit the Dr. Pugliese Store
|
read the table of contents
|
contact us
|
Dr. Pugliese articles
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
©2006, 2007
Dr. Peter T. Pugliese
|
|
|
|
