COSMETIC PRODUCT IMPREGNATED WITH COSMETIC COMPOSITION HAVING ULTRAVIOLET BLOCKING FUNCTION

Abstract

Provided is a sunscreen cosmetic product including a foamed rubber sponge and a cosmetic composition impregnated in the foamed rubber sponge. The cosmetic composition comprises only an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent as an ultraviolet blocking agent. When the cosmetic composition comprises only an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent as an ultraviolet blocking agent, it is possible to realize the sunscreen effect of the content wholly even after impregnation, since the inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent is not adsorbed to the foamed rubber sponge but is dispensed with no loss caused by adsorption. It is possible to increase the usage efficiency by controlling the pore size of the foamed rubber sponge during foaming to improve the ratio of the amount that can be used by the consumers based on the amount of the content impregnated in the sponge.

Claims

1. A sunscreen cosmetic product including a foamed rubber sponge and a cosmetic composition impregnated in the foamed rubber sponge, wherein the cosmetic composition comprises only an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent as an ultraviolet blocking agent, and comprises no organic ultraviolet blocking agent.

2. The sunscreen cosmetic product according to claim 1, wherein the foamed rubber sponge has a pore size of 0.1-1.0 mm, density of 150-250 g/L and a hardness of 225 based on Asker hardness F.

3. The sunscreen cosmetic product according to claim 1, wherein the foamed rubber sponge is styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), butadiene rubber (BR), acrylonitrile rubber (NR) or acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR).

4. The sunscreen cosmetic product according to claim 1, wherein the cosmetic composition impregnated in the foamed rubber sponge has a viscosity of 4,000-15,000 cps.

5. The sunscreen cosmetic product according to claim 1, wherein the cosmetic composition is make-up base, blemish balm (BB) cream, foundation, primer or sunscreen.

Description

BEST MODE

[0023] Exemplary embodiments now will be described more fully hereinafter. The following exemplary embodiments are for illustrative purposes only and the scope of the present invention should not be construed as limited to the exemplary embodiments set forth therein.

[0024] The foundations of Example 1 and Comparative Examples 1-3 were prepared by using W/O (water-in-oil) emulsion type make-up cosmetic compositions according to the ingredients and amounts as shown in the following Table 1.

Example 1: Preparation of Cosmetic Composition Including Only Inorganic Sunscreen

[0025] Example 1 includes rubber sponge having a pore size of 0.1-1.0 mm and a density of 150-250 g/L and impregnated with a water-in-oil type cosmetic composition containing an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent only. The water-in-oil type foundation was prepared as described hereinafter according to the composition and amounts as shown in Table 1.

[0026] The oil-phase ingredients and thickening agent were introduced to an oil-phase container and homogenized by heating to 70 C., and then the pigment was introduced thereto and dispersed therein. The aqueous phase ingredients were introduced to an aqueous phase container and dissolved completely by heating to 70 C. under agitation. Then, the aqueous phase ingredients were introduced gradually to the oil-phase container in which the pigment was dispersed, and the resultant mixture was emulsified by using a homo-mixer to obtain a water-in-oil type low-viscosity sunscreen emulsion.

Comparative Example 1: Preparation of Cosmetic Composition Including Inorganic Sunscreen and Organic Sunscreen

[0027] Comparative Example 1 includes rubber sponge having a pore size of 0.1-1.0 mm and a density of 150-250 g/L and impregnated with a water-in-oil type cosmetic composition containing an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent and an organic ultraviolet blocking agent. The water-in-oil type foundation was prepared in the same manner as Example 1 according to the composition and amounts as shown in Table 1.

Comparative Example 2: Preparation of Cosmetic Composition Including Inorganic Sunscreen and Organic Sunscreen

[0028] Comparative Example 2 includes rubber sponge having an average pore size of 0.15 mm and a density of 330 g/L and impregnated with a water-in-oil type cosmetic composition containing an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent and an organic ultraviolet blocking agent. The water-in-oil type foundation was prepared in the same manner as Example 1 according to the composition and amounts as shown in Table 1.

Comparative Example 3: Preparation of Cosmetic Composition Including Inorganic Sunscreen and Organic Sunscreen

[0029] Comparative Example 3 includes rubber sponge having an average pore size of 1.2 mm and a density of 90 g/L and impregnated with a water-in-oil type cosmetic composition containing an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent and an organic ultraviolet blocking agent. The water-in-oil type foundation was prepared in the same manner as Example 1 according to the composition and amounts as shown in Table 1.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Content (weight %) Name of ingredients Example 1 Comp. Ex. 1 Comp. Ex. 2 Comp. Ex. 3 Oil-phase Cyclopentasiloxane 25.0 14.5 14.5 14.5 ingredients Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 7.5 7.5 7.5 Ethylhexylsalicylate 4.0 4.0 4.0 Caprylic/Capric Triglycerides 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 PEG-10 dimethicone 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Diphenylsiloxyphenyltrimethicone 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Dimethicone 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Sorbitan isostearate 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Thickening Disteadimonium hectorite Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable agent Amount Amount Amount Amount Pigment Titanium dioxide 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Titanium dioxide 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 Aluminum hydroxide Stearic acid Yellow iron oxide 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Red iron oxide 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Black iron oxide 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Mica 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Aqueous Purified water to 100 to 100 to 100 to 100 phase Glycerin 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ingredients Salt 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Applied sponge NBR NBR NBR NBR Pore size Pore size Pore size Pore size 0.5 mm 0.5 mm 0.15 mm 1.2 mm Density 200 g/L Density 200 g/L Density 330 g/L Density 90 g/L

Test Example 1: Determination of Dispensation/Impregnation of Cosmetic Composition

[0030] In Test Example 1, each of the cosmetic products according to Example 1 and Comparative Examples 1-3 was impregnated in sponge in an amount of 14.5 g and stored in a constant-temperature container at 25 C. for at least one day.

[0031] The usage of each cosmetic composition in each stage was measured as described hereinafter. The results are shown in the following Tables 2-4.

[0032] <Method for Measurement>

[0033] (Stage 1) The amount of cosmetic composition applied to white paper by using Ruby-Cell puff, until the white paper is little stained with the content.

[0034] (Stage 2) The amount of cosmetic composition applied to white paper by using Ruby-Cell puff after the sponge for impregnation is overturned, until the white paper is little stained with the content.

[0035] (Stage 3) The amount of cosmetic composition applied directly to white paper by using the sponge for impregnation removed from the product, until the white paper is little stained with the content.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Dispensed Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Total amount/ Loaded dispensed dispensed dispensed dispensed Loaded Example1 Applicator amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (%) Sample No. 1 Puff 14.5 9.18 3.22 0.84 13.24 91.31 Sample No. 2 Puff 14.5 9.4 2.41 1.2 13.01 89.72 Sample No. 3 Puff 14.5 9.52 3.01 0.91 13.44 92.69 Average 91.24

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Dispensed Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Total amount/ Loaded dispensed dispensed dispensed dispensed Loaded Comp. Ex. 1 Applicator amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (%) Sample No. 1 Puff 14.5 8.95 1.79 1.31 12.05 83.10 Sample No. 2 Puff 14.5 8.69 1.95 1.95 12.59 86.83 Sample No. 3 Puff 14.5 9.26 2.06 0.65 11.97 82.55 Average 84.16

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Dispensed Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Total amount/ Loaded dispensed dispensed dispensed dispensed Loaded Comp. Ex. 2 Applicator amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (%) Sample No. 1 Puff 14.5 5.2 2.04 2.85 10.09 69.59 Sample No. 2 Puff 14.5 3.39 2.1 4.25 9.74 67.17 Sample No. 3 Puff 14.5 5.8 2.55 2.8 11.15 76.90 Average 71.22

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 51 Dispensed Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Total amount/ Loaded dispensed dispensed dispensed dispensed Loaded Comp. Ex. 3 Applicator amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (g) amount (%) Sample No. 1 Puff 14.5 9.01 2.72 0.94 12.67 87.38 Sample No. 2 Puff 14.5 9.19 2.54 0.7 12.43 85.72 Sample No. 3 Puff 14.5 9.21 2.51 0.85 12.57 86.69 Average 86.60

[0036] As can be seen from the results of Tables 2-5, Comparative Example 2 including rubber sponge having a pore size of 0.15 mm and density of 330 g/L and impregnation with emulsion containing both an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent and an organic ultraviolet blocking agent shows the lowest usage efficiency of about 71%. On the contrary, Example 1 including rubber sponge having a pore size of 0.5 mm and density of 200 g/L and impregnated with emulsion containing an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent only shows the highest efficiency of about 91%. It can be seen that the difference in usage efficiency is about 20%.

Test Example 2: Determination of Analyzed Content of Sunscreen Based on Formulated Content of Sunscreen

[0037] The foundation according to each of Example 1 and Comparative Examples 1-3 was impregnated in sponge and stored in a constant-temperature container at 25 C. for at least one day.

[0038] First, the sponge impregnated with each of the four types of foundation samples was squeezed by the hands to collect foundation.

[0039] According to Korean Functional Cosmetics Codex (KFCC) 2013-28 notified by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of Korea, each of the foundation before being impregnated in the sponge and the foundation collected from the sponge was dissolved in a solvent and analyzed by liquid chromatography equipped with a UV absorption spectrometer to obtain peak area AT of ethylhexylmethoxy cinnamate (EHMC) and ethylhexyl salicylate (EHS) and peak area AS of the standard product, and to analyze a change between before and after impregnation.

[0040] In addition, titanium dioxide (TiO.sub.2) was analyzed by introducing each of the foundation before being impregnated in the sponge and the foundation collected from the sponge to acid to carry out pretreatment, and then carrying out a test by using an inductive coupled plasma spectrometer. Then, a change between before and after impregnation was calculated and analyzed according to the following Formula 1 to Formula 3. The results are shown in the following Table 6.

Amount of ethylhexylmethoxy cinnamate (mg)=AT/ASamount of ethylhexylmethoxy cinnamate standard (mg) 1/10[Formula 1]

Amount of ethylhexy salicylate (mg)=AT/ASamount of ethylhexyl salicylate standard (mg) 1/10[Formula 2]

Amount of titanium dioxide (%)=(Concentration measurement of Ti (ppm)sample liquid volume (mL)1.668494)/(collected sample amount (g)10000)[Formula 3]

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Analyzed Content (% based on Formulated Content) EHMC EHS Titanium dioxide Example 1 11.63 (101.3%) Comp. Ex. 1 4.36 (58.1%) 2.77 (69.3%) 11.71 (102%) Comp. Ex. 2 4.25 (56.6%) 2.65 (66.2%) 11.83 (103%) Comp. Ex. 3 4.79 (63.8%) 2.95 (73.7%) 11.75 (102%)

[0041] After analyzing the amount of organic ultraviolet blocking agent dispensed from the sponge based on the amount of formulated organic ultraviolet blocking agent, the amount of ethylhexymethoxy cinnamate is 59.5% on average and that of ethylhexyl salicylate is 69.7% on average. Thus, it can be seen that the organic ultraviolet blocking agents are adsorbed to the rubber sponge, and thus only a significantly decreased amount of organic ultraviolet blocking agents is dispensed. On the contrary, in the case of titanium dioxide as an inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent, 100% of the formulated amount is analyzed. As a result, it can be seen that the inorganic ultraviolet blocking agent is not adsorbed to the rubber sponge but is dispensed wholly during use as compared to the formulated amount.

Test Example 3: Formulation Stability Test

[0042] Each of the four types of foundation as shown in Table 1 was tested for formulation stability under the conditions as shown in the following Table 7. The results are shown in Table 7.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Cycle (10 C. .fwdarw. 15 C. .fwdarw. 45 C. 15-day 40 C. each 8 hours) 5-day observation observation Example 1 stable stable Comp. Ex. 1 stable stable Comp. Ex. 2 stable stable Comp. Ex. 3 separation of separation of content content

[0043] It can be seen from Table 7 that when the W/O emulsion make-up cosmetic composition according to the present invention is impregnated in rubber sponge having a different pore size and density, and the cosmetic products are compared to one another in terms of stability, Comparative Example 3 using rubber sponge having a pore size of 1.2 mm on average is instable, since it shows separation of the formulation in each constant-temperature container.