Ultraviolet Blocking Cosmetic Composition In Chromatic Emulsion State

Abstract

The present invention relates to an ultraviolet blocking cosmetic composition in a chromatic emulsion state, containing a high quantity of an organic ultraviolet-blocking agent, and a silicone-based surfactant in which polyethylene glycol-added dimethicone and polypropylene glycol are cross-linked, and the cosmetic composition according to the present invention can exhibit a stable chromatic emulsion state even if containing a high quantity of the organic ultraviolet-blocking agent.

Claims

1. An ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition, comprising: an oil phase comprising 10 to 40 parts by weight of an organic ultraviolet-blocking agent, less than 10 parts by weight of a silicone-based surfactant in which polyethylene glycol-added dimethicone and polypropylene glycol are cross-linked, based on 100 parts by weight of the ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition, and a non-ionic surfactant; and an aqueous phase, wherein the ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition has a difference in refractive index between the oil phase and the aqueous phase of 0.009 or less.

2. The ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition according to claim 1, wherein the organic ultraviolet-blocking agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, isoamyl P-methoxycinnamate, ethylhexylsalicylate, octocrylene, polysilicon-15, homosalate, phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid, bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyltriazine, butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane, diethylaminohydroxybenzoylhexylbenzoate, ethylhexyltriazone, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, benzophenone-3, diethylhexylbutamidotriazone and disodiumphenyldibenzimidazoltetrasulfonate.

3. The ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition according to claim 1, wherein the silicone-based surfactant is a silicone-based surfactant in which 1 to 30 moles of polyethylene glycol-added dimethicone and 1 to 30 moles of polypropylene glycol are cross-linked.

4. (canceled)

5. The ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition according to claim 1, wherein the non-ionic surfactant is one or more selected from the group consisting of polyether-modified silicone, polyglycerin-modified silicone, glyceryl fatty acid esters, polyglyceryl fatty acid esters, polyether fatty acid esters, sorbitan fatty acid esters, and sugar fatty acid esters.

6. The ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition according to claim 1, wherein the non-ionic surfactant is comprised in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition.

7. The ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition according to claim 1, wherein the aqueous phase further comprises a polyol.

8. The ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition according to claim 1, wherein the ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition is a water-in-oil (W/O) formulation.

9. The ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition according to claim 1, wherein the ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition expresses a structural color.

10. A method for preparing an ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition, comprising: preparing an oil phase by mixing 10 to 40 parts by weight of an organic ultraviolet-blocking agent; less than 10 parts by weight of a silicone-based surfactant in which polyethylene glycol-added dimethicone and polypropylene glycol are cross-linked, based on 100 parts by weight of the ultraviolet-blocking composition; and a non-ionic surfactant.

11. The method according to claim 10, which further comprises adding an aqueous phase to the oil phase for emulsification.

12. The method according to claim 10, wherein the silicone-based surfactant is a silicone-based surfactant in which 1 to 30 moles of polyethylene glycol-added dimethicone and 1 to 30 moles of polypropylene glycol are cross-linked.

13. (canceled)

14. The method according to claim 10, wherein the non-ionic surfactant is one or more selected from the group consisting of polyether-modified silicone, polyglycerin-modified silicone, glyceryl fatty acid esters, polyglyceryl fatty acid esters, polyether fatty acid esters, sorbitan fatty acid esters, and sugar fatty acid esters.

15. The method according to claim 10, wherein the non-ionic surfactant is comprised in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition.

16. The method according to claim 10, wherein the aqueous phase further comprises a polyol.

17. The method according to claim 10, wherein the ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition is a water-in-oil (W/O) formulation.

18. The method according to claim 10, wherein the ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic composition expresses a structural color.

Description

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0058] FIG. 1 shows ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic compositions of Examples 1 to 3 according to the present invention.

[0059] FIG. 2 shows ultraviolet-blocking cosmetic compositions of Comparative Examples 1 and 2 according to the present invention.

MODES OF THE INVENTION

[0060] Hereinafter, the present invention will be described in detail by way of Examples. The following Examples merely illustrate the present invention and should not limit the scope of the present invention.

Examples 1 to 3: Preparation of Cosmetic Composition

[0061] The cosmetic compositions of Examples 1 to 3 were prepared according to the compositions shown in Table 1 below. First, each raw material of Part A was completely dissolved by heating it to 70 to 90° C. while stirring. After the dissolved solution was cooled to 45° C., Part A was added to Part B and mixed while stirring. Separately stirred Part C was slowly added to the previously prepared mixture of Part A and Part B while stirring, and mixed evenly to emulsify. After completion of the emulsification, cooling to 30° C. and defoaming were performed to prepare a cosmetic composition.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Raw material name (parts by weight) Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Part Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 7 7 7 A Isoamyl P-Methoxycinnamate 9.5 9.5 2 Ethylhexylsalicylate 4.5 4.5 4.5 Diethylaminohydroxy 2 2 2 benzoylhexylbenzoate Ethylhexyltriazone 2 2 — Octocrylene — 3 — Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol — — — methoxyphenyltriazine Dicaprylyl Carbonate 1 — 8 Part PEG-12 Dimethicone/PPG-20 5.76 6.3 4.5 B crosspolymer PEG-15/lauryldimethicone — — — crosspolymer Lauryl PEG-9 2 2 2 polydimethylsiloxyethyl Dimethicone caprylyl methicone 34.24 33.7 20.5 isododecane — — — fragrance 0.5 0.5 0.5 Part water 1.8 1.6 5.1 C Glycerin 29.3 26.5 43.5 Magnesium sulfate 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total 100 100 100

Comparative Examples 1 and 2: Preparation of Cosmetic Composition

[0062] Cosmetic composition were prepared in the same manner as in Examples 1 to 3 according to the compositions shown in Table 2 below.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Raw material name (parts Comparative Comparative by weight) Example 1: Example 1: Part Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 7 7 A Isoamyl P-Methoxycinnamate 9.5 9.5 Ethylhexylsalicylate 4.5 4.5 Diethylaminohydroxy 2 2 benzoylhexylbenzoate Ethylhexyltriazone 2 2 Octocrylene — — Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol — — methoxyphenyltriazine Dicaprylyl Carbonate 1 1 Part PEG-12 dimethicone/PPG-20 5.76 — B crosspolymer PEG-15/lauryldimethicone — 5.76 crosspolymer Lauryl PEG-9 2 2 Polydimethylsiloxyethyl Dimethicone caprylyl methicone 34.24 16.96 Isododecane — 17.28 fragrance 0.5 0.5 Part water 4.1 1.8 C Glycerin 27 29.3 Magnesium sulfate 0.4 0.4 Total 100 100

Experimental Example 1: Measurement of Refractive Index of Aqueous Phase and Oil Phase

[0063] The refractive indices of the aqueous phase and the oil phase of the cosmetic compositions prepared in Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 were measured using Abbe refractometer (KRUSS Optronic, Germany) equipment by loading the aqueous phase and oil phase at 25° C. (Table 3). At this time, for the cosmetic composition of Example 1, the refractive indices of the aqueous phase and the oil phase was measured 10 times to confirm the difference in refractive index (Table 4).

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Comparative Comparative Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 1 Example 2 Refractive index 1.4600 1.4620 1.4535 1.4495 1.4635 of aqueous phase Refractive index 1.4590 1.4635 1.4537 1.4590 1.4662 of oil phase Difference in 0.001 0.0015 0.0002 0.0095 0.0027 refractive index

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 1.sup.st 2.sup.nd 3.sup.rd 4.sup.th 5.sup.th 6.sup.th 7.sup.th 8.sup.th 9.sup.th 10.sup.th time time time time time time time time time time Refractive 1.4600 1.4610 1.4605 1.4600 1.4600 1.4590 1.4610 1.4600 1.4605 1.4595 index of aqueous phase Refractive 1.4590 1.4600 1.4590 1.4585 1.4595 1.4590 1.4585 1.4600 1.4580 1.4590 index of oil phase Difference 0.001 0.001 0.0015 0.0015 0.0005 0 0.0025 0 0.0025 0.0005 in refractive index

[0064] In order to reduce the difference in refractive index between the oil phase and the aqueous phase, the difference in refractive index may be reduced by first measuring the refractive index of the oil phase and then adjusting the parts by weight of glycerin and water. In addition, as a result of measuring the refractive index of the aqueous phase and the oil phase 10 times for Example 1 (Table 4), it can be confirmed that a measurement error of up to 0.0025 may occur even for the same content.

Experimental Example 2: Measurements of Hardness, UV Protection Factor (SPF) and UVA Protection Factor (UVAPF)

[0065] The hardness, UV protection factor (Sun Protection Factor (SPF)) and UVA protection factor (UVA Protection Factor (UVAPF)) of the cosmetic compositions prepared in Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 were measured. At this time, the hardness of the composition was measured to a depth of 2.5 cm of the sample using an adapter #9 with a Fudoh Rheometer RTC-3005D model from Rheotech Co. at an operating speed of 2 cm/min, and SPF and UVAPF were evaluated for their respective SPF and UVAPF values using a BASF Sunscreen Simulator and are shown in Table 5.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Comparative Comparative Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 1 Example 2 Hard- 13 17 44 14 6 ness SPF 39.4 46.5 22.9 39.4 39.4 UVAPF 6.8 7.3 6.2 6.8 6.8

[0066] As shown in Table 5, it can be seen that in Examples 1 to 3, various SPF and UVAPF values appeared depending on the type and content of the organic ultraviolet-blocking agent.

Experimental Example 3: Confirmation of Formulation Stability

[0067] Stability of the compositions were compared after storing the composition for 4 weeks at different temperature conditions (0° C., 25° C. and 50° C.), wherein the stability was confirmed by visually observing whether phase separation appeared or not.

[0068] <Evaluation Criteria>

[0069] Stable: Phase separation does not appear

[0070] Separation: Phase separation appears

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Storage Comparative Comparative temperature Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 1 Example 2  0° C. Stable Stable Stable Stable separation 25° C. Stable Stable Stable Stable separation 50° C. Stable Stable Stable Stable separation

[0071] Results show that the cosmetic compositions of Examples 1 to 3 were stable for 4 weeks at a temperature of 0° C. to 50° C., and that the composition of Comparative Example 2 exhibits phase separation in all temperature conditions of 0° C., 25° C., 50° C.

Experimental Example 4: Evaluation of Transparency and Color Expression

[0072] For the cosmetic compositions prepared in Examples 1 to 3 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2, the transparency and intensity of color expression were visually determined and shown in Table 7, FIGS. 1 and 2. At this time, the transparency of the cosmetic composition and the intensity of structural color expression were evaluated by visually judging the composition by a panel of 5 males and 5 females while storing the composition at 25° C. for 120 minutes.

[0073] [Evaluation Criteria for Transparency]

[0074] ⊚: very transparent

[0075] ∘: transparent

[0076] Δ: semi-transparent

[0077] x: opaque

[0078] [Evaluation Criteria for Intensity of Color Expression]

[0079] ⊚: very strong

[0080] ∘: strong

[0081] Δ: weak

[0082] x: none

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Comparative Comparative Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 1 Example 2 transparency ⊚ ◯ ⊚ Δ —* Intensity of color ⊚ ◯ ⊚ Δ —* expression (*Transparency cannot be measured due to phase separation of the composition)

[0083] As shown in Table 7, the cosmetic compositions of Examples 1 to 3 were transparent, and the cosmetic composition of Comparative Example 1 was semi-transparent. This was due to the refractive index difference between the oil phase and the aqueous phase of Comparative Example 1, 0.0095, which was larger than that of Examples 1 to 3.