Vapour pressure of a fragrance ingredient during evaporation in a simple emulsion

Friberg, Stig E.; Szymula, M.; FEI, L.; Barber, Jennifer L.; Bawab, Abeer Al; Aikens, Patricia A.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-2494.1997.tb00190.x

Cited by 19 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evaporation process of the fragrance from the model system is directly related to its equilibrium vapour pressure at the specific physical state [18]. Friberg et al [17] compared the vapour pressure during free evaporation with that of an equilibrated fragrance emulsion, and found that they are almost identical to each other. Recently the vapour pressure of a variety of fragrance compounds in different amphiphilic association structures has been determined by our group [19±23], among which the systems of the fragrance combined with the nonionic surfactant [19,23] are of particular interest, as nonionic surfactants are neither toxic nor irritant, and thus widely used in cosmetic products [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change of amphiphilic association structures during evaporation from emulsions in surfactant–fragrance–water systems

Zhang

Friberg

Aikens

2000

Intern J of Cosmetic Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phase diagrams of a nonionic surfactant (Laureth 4), water, and three different fragrance compounds, limonene, phenethyl alcohol and benzaldehyde, were compared. The location of the fragrance molecules in the lamellar liquid crystals (LLC) was investigated using the small-angle X-ray diffraction. The evaporation processes of the fragrance emulsions, consisting of 80 wt.% water, 15 wt.% fragrance and 5 wt.% surfactant, were followed both experimentally through an optical microscope, and theoretically through calculation based on the knowledge of the vapour pressure of the fragrance along the demixing line of the water-in-oil microemulsion (L(2)) phase boundary. Evaporation of the phenethyl alcohol emulsion led the system directly into the L(2) phase region, with very little phenethyl alcohol evaporated in 20 min. For the limonene system, during evaporation the system experienced several multi-phase regions, then reached the water-surfactant axis, and finally went into the L(2) phase region. By contrast to phenethyl alcohol, limonene evaporated completely within 10 min. Benzaldehyde emulsion went through structural changes similar to those of limonene, while the fragrance evaporated continuously until completion in 20 min.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change of amphiphilic association structures during evaporation from emulsions in surfactant–fragrance–water systems

Zhang

Friberg

Aikens

2000

Intern J of Cosmetic Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is probable that the present formulations in the form of colloidally solubilized systems may remedy this problem. Our earlier contributions (12)(13)(14)(15) have demonstrated that a simple emulsion system may keep the vapor pressure of a single fragrance compound, phenethyl alcohol (PEA), approximately constant during the period of water evaporation (-30 min) from a skin lotion and revealed the usefulness of phase diagrams to elucidate changes during evaporation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Phase behavior of a fragrance compound system: Water/phenethyl alcohol/laureth 4/glycerol

Friberg

Bawab

Sandburg

et al. 1999

J Surfact & Detergents

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phase diagram of the system water/phenethyl alcohol (PEA)/Laureth 4 (L4)/glycerol was determined using visual observation, optical microscopy, small-angle X-ray diffractometry, and the vapor pressure of phenethyl alcohol measured by gas chromatographic analysis of headspace vapor at equilibrium. The phase diagram was shown to be dominated by three narrow isotropic liquid solubility regions along the water/glycerol, glycerol/PEA, and PEA/L4 axes. Vapor pressure measurements and tie-line determinations showed the final state of formulations after evaporation of water to be emulsions of glycerol/PEA-in-L4/PEA or L4/PEA-in-glycerol/PEA. PEA was predominantly dissolved in the L4/PEA phase because the chemical potential of PEA in glycerol was high, even at modest concentrations.Paper no. S1070 in JSD 2, 159-165 (April 1999).Colloid and surface chemistry of fragrance emulsions has become a focus of attention because of a recent change from ethanol-based fragrance solution formulations to solubilized systems (1,2). This change has posed a series of interesting problems in skin care formulations, not only because of the solubilization of fragrances per se (3-6) but also because of specific interactions with the skin surface by different colloid and macromolecular dispersions structures during evaporation (7-10). An essential feature during evaporation of fragrance formulations is the variation in vapor pressure with time; for traditional formulations an exponential decay has been reported (11). Such variation in vapor pressure means that a sizable part of the added fragrance is of no use, because the vapor pressure has been reduced below the perception limit. It is probable that the present formulations in the form of colloidally solubilized systems may remedy this problem. Our earlier contributions (12-15) have demonstrated that a simple emulsion system may keep the vapor pressure of a single fragrance compound, phenethyl alcohol (PEA), approximately constant during the period of water evaporation (-30 min) from a skin lotion and revealed the usefulness of phase diagrams to elucidate changes during evaporation.However, commercial systems are far more complex than those model systems studied, and we recognized the need to evaluate the influence of added components. Of these, glycerol was the primary choice because of its excellent water solubility and its perceived positive influence on the skin. Its solubility in water reduces the vapor pressure of the latter, and its presence may reduce the evaporation rate of water. Hence, in this article a more complex system involving four components-water, glycerol, surfactant (Laureth 4), and fragrance (PEA)-is investigated to show the effect of glycerol in a system that was earlier analyzed (13). The comparison includes both vapor pressure variation during evaporation and structural changes caused by glycerol. MATERIALS AND METHODS Materials.Laureth 4 (C 12 EO 4 ) (Brij ® 30) was supplied by ICI Surfactants (Wilmington, DE); PEA, 99%, and glycerol, 99.5%, were supplied by Aldr...

show abstract

“…3. These calculated pressures have been compared [18] to those actually measured from the emulsion. The agreement is very good (Fig.…”

Section: Evaporation Trajectoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vapour pressure of some fragrance ingredients in emulsion and microemulsion formulations

FRIBERG¹

1997

Int J Cosmet Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Vapour pressure of a fragrance ingredient during evaporation in a simple emulsion

Cited by 19 publications

References 13 publications

Change of amphiphilic association structures during evaporation from emulsions in surfactant–fragrance–water systems

Change of amphiphilic association structures during evaporation from emulsions in surfactant–fragrance–water systems

Phase behavior of a fragrance compound system: Water/phenethyl alcohol/laureth 4/glycerol

Vapour pressure of some fragrance ingredients in emulsion and microemulsion formulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About