Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
2~83~.
Attorney ' s Docket No . 13 a 6 -U-l 0-13 CIP
COMPO8ITION~ AND ME:T~IOD8 FOX TREATING lIAIR
Related Applisations:
This is a continuation-in-part application of my
pending applications identified as follows:
Serial No. 07/383,499 filed July 24, 1989;
Serial No. 07/383,500 filed July 24, 1989;
Serial No. 07/593,580 filed October 9, 19~0, which in
turn is a continuation of application S.N.
07/383,509, now abandoned;
Serial No. 07/600,153 filed Octobex 19, 1990, which in
turn is a continuation of application S.N.
07/383,501, now abandoned.
Field of the Invention:
The present invention relates to compositions and
methods for treating hair and more particularly to
compositions containing a blend of a hydroxy-terminated
polysiloxane polymer and a reactive methyl hydrogen
polysiloxane and methods for treating hair with said
compositions whereby crosslinking of said polymers takes
place on the hair resulting in long ~asting hair
conditioning.
Backqround of the Invention:
Hair in its natural state is rather impervious ~o
damage. However, due to environmental conditions as well as
the abuse to which it is usually subjected, hair can wear
2~3~
out at abnormal rates, causing its natural shield - the
cuticle - to fall out and the cortex to shatter ending in
breakage. Hair treating compositions and conditioners in
particular, are designed to attempt to prevent or restore
this damage. State-of-the-art products achieve these goals
with various degrees of success, but all fail at providing
the benefit for prolonged periods of time, paxticularly,
after shampooing previously treated hair~
A typical high quality hair conditioner is expected to
provide benefits to the hair such as detangling and low comb
drag, among others, without imparting an unnatural or greasy
feel to the hair. The conditioning effect also should not
interfere with setting of the hair, i~e., it should not
diminish the hair's ability to retain curl or hair style.
Further, a conditioner should not make the hair stringy or
dull a few hours after application. The dulling effect of
some conditioners can occur by wicking the natural oils from
the scalp up the hair shaft or by attracting dirt.
Hair conditioners ~ormulated with ingredients
containing functional groups substantive to the hair such as
quaternized proteins, quaternized amines, amine oxides or
silicone polymers with amino functional groups tend to be
substantiva to the hair to varying degrees. In general,
hair substantivity for conditioning ingredients increases
with more hydrophobic character, higher molscular weight,
higher charge densities (with positively charged molecules).
2~
Most of these ingredients provide acceptable
conditioning benefits to varying degrees, but fail to
provide a longer-lasting clean feeling while providing long
lasting conditioning benefits. As a rule of thumb, it can
be stated that the greater the substantivity of the
conditioning ingredient, the greater the likelihood it will
impart a greasy coated feel to the hair or more generally,
an unnatural feel and appearance. With some ingredients,
over-conditioning and build-up is the result. The build-up
effect is manifested as the inability of the hair to hold a
set and/or by having a matted stringy look. Heretofore the
difficulty in developing products with residual action and
good performance without debilitating negative effects, as
described, has limited the ability of hair product
formulators and marketers to provide a product the consumer
does not have to use every time he or she uses shampoo.
It is therefore an object of this invention to provide
methods for treating hair employing a composition containing
a blend of two polysiloxane polymers whereby cross-linking
of the polymers takes place on the hair.
It is a further object of this invention to provide
hair-treating compositions which contain a low viscosity
emulsion of a reactive hydroxy terminated dimethyl
polysiloxane and a reactive methyl hydrogen polysiloxane,
said polysiloxanes being unreacted in the composition.
It is a still further object of this invention to
provide hair treating compositions and methods which provide
2~3~ ~
good conditioning benefits for prolonged periods of time,
particularly after repeated shampooing.
It is another object of this invention to provide a
hair treating composition which i5 highly substantive to
hair, and provides long lasting hair conditioning properties
without build-up or over conditioning.
Summary o~ the ~nventio~
The foregoing objectives and others are accomplished by
treating the hair, preferably following shampooing, with a
composition including a low viscosity oil-in-water emulsion
of a mixture of two polysiloxane polymers, that is, a
hydroxy terminated dimethyl polysiloxane and a methyl
hydrogen polysiloxane, the composition being at an acid pH.
It is a feature of this invention that the polysiloxane
polymers in the hair-treating composition are in an
unreacted or non-crosslinked state. However, after the
composition is applied to the hair, the crosslinking of the
two polysiloxane polymers takes place on the hair resulting
in a semi-permanent conditioning effect. Although some
crosslinking of the polymers will occur while drying the
treated hair at room temperatures, increased crosslinking
oCcurC when the hair is blow dried using heated air.
Detai~ed Descr~pti~ of the ~ ntion
The hair treating compositions of this invention
include a low viscosity oil-in-water emulsion of a mixture
2~3~
of a hydroxy terminated dimethyl polysiloxane having the
general formula:
~A)
IH3 CH3 IH3
HO - Si - O - ~Si O - Si - OH
CH3 CH3 n CH3
where n is not less than 500, and more specifically ranging
from about 530 to about 675 and having a molecular weight of
from about 40,000 to about 50,000 and a methyl hydrogen
polysiloxane having the general formula:
(B) _ _
IH3 R ~H3
CH3 - Si - O - Si - - Si - CH3
CH3 _H3 _ n CH3
where n is from about 185-235 and having a molecular weight
ranging from about 12,800 to about 17,000 and
where R=H or CH3 and further where the ratio of R=H to ~=CH3
is about 1: 3.
The aforementioned polymers, although reactive, are
maintained in the composition in an unreacted state and the
crosslinking of the two polymers does not occur until the
composition is applied to the hair and drying has taken
place. Th~ ratio of the poly~ers in the composition ranges
from about 1 part of polymer A to about 1 part of polymer B
(1:}) to about 100 parts of A to 1 part of B ~100:1) with a
preferred ratio of about 10 parts of A to 1 part of B
(10:1). The total concentration of polymers in the
composition is from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight. Very
2 0 ~
effective compositions are provided having a total
concentration ranging from about 1% to about 5% by weight
with a most preferred composition at about 4.4% and wherein
the ratio of polymer A to polymer B is about 10:1. It is
important that the composition have an acid pH, that is a pH
ranging from about 2 to 6, preferably about 4. The pH may
be adjusted in the usual manner with organic or inorganic
acids which are customarily employed in toiletries, such as
oitric acid.
As previously noted, the compositions are in the form
of an oil-in-water emulsion and thus the compositions
include water and an appropriate emulsifier. Ethoxylated
fatty alcohols having a chain length of C12 to C20 work well
and are present in an amount ranging from about .10 to about
1% by weight. The composition may also include ingredients
to enhance the substantively of the polymers to the hair,
thickeners, colorants, perfumes, preservatives and the like.
In incorporating perfume into the composition it is possible
that perfume separation may result due to incomplete
emulsification of the perfume oil. This can be remedied by
ensuring that a sufficient level of emulsifier is included
in the composition.
The hydroxy terminated dimethyl polysiloxane and methyl
hydrogen polysiloxane are available as commercial products
from Sandoz Chemicals Cnrporation under the trademarks
"Sandoperm FE'I and "Sandoperm FV" r~spectively. Sandoperm
FE has a total solids level of 49% +/-3% with the level of
2~3~
hydroxymethyl polysiloxane at about 45%. Sandoperm FE also
contains about 5~ of cl2 - C20 branched chain ethoxylated
fatty alcohol as well as from about 1% to about 2% of
Amodimethicone (CTFA name) for added substantively.
Sandoperm FV has a total solicls level of about ~0% +/-3%,
about 35% of methyl hydrog~n polysiloxane and about 5% of an
ethoxylated polyethylene glycol monyl phenyl alcohol as an
emulsifier.
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
compositions and methods, the hair conditioning effects of
the composition of Example I below, were quantified by
frictional force measurements on hair tresses, using a model
Instron universal testing instrument manufactured by the
Instron Corporation. Hair tresses made with natural human
hair (30cm long weighing 2.5 +/-.2 gms) were treated by
soaking them for one minute, in the composition of Example
I, followed by squeezing out the excess material prior to
drying~ The hair treating composition was not rinsed out,
although it may be rinsed out without adversely affecting
the conditioning effect or its permanency. A ~imilar set of
tresses was treated with a leading commercial hair
conditioner available under the trademark "Flex" (Regular
Conditioner), with the product being rinsed out of the hair
tresses prior to drying, as is customary with that type
product.
The Instron instrument was fitted with a 0.5kg load
cell for the test and the test was conducted at a crosshead
2Q~83~1
speed of 200mm/minute, using a comb 15mm wide with average
interteeth separations. All measurements were conducted on
wet hair.
Referring to Fig. 1, average data is plotted, with the
force in grams on the y-axis and the distance travelled by
the comb down the hair shaft, on the x-axis. Fig. 2 shows
the degree of damage to the hair which is plotted versus the
number of washings. It was found that combing force
measurements made under equal conditions, after the tresses
were shampooed once with a commercial shampoo for normal
hair, show force differences between the test product (i.e.,
Example I) and the untreated hair and hair treated with the
commercial product of greater than ten fold in some regions
of the hair shaft, particularly at the ends. The single
dashed line shown in Fig. 1 reveals that for hair treated
with a composition of this invention, the force required to
comb the tresses barely exceeds O.Olkg for the greater
portion of the length of the hair. The noise in the signal
(or lack thereof), is associated with the roughness of the
hair surface. The curve for hair treated with the
composition of this invention was marked by that with no
significant undilations. This indicated the polysiloxane
composition left the hair smooth. In contrast, plots for
the untreated control and the tresses treated with the
commercial product after one shampoo are average envelope
curves representing extremely jagged curves hard to
reproduce in a diagram. These curves show that, after one
2 ~
shampooing, the hair treated with a leading commercial
competitive product is just about as difficult to comb as
combing hair that has not been treated. The conditioning
treatment is washed out, while the treatment using a
composition of this invention remains. The conditioning
effect of the instant composition was measured after each of
six consecutive shampooings, although Fig. 1 shows only the
data for the first, second and sixth treatments.
In further tests, a statistically designed half head
salon test was conducted with 20 subjects, mimicking the
protocol used in the force measurement study previously
described and shown in Fig. 1. The commercial product and a
product of this invention were applied randomly to the left
and right sides of the subject's head and compared for three
wet hair performance attributes before blow drying and
twelve dry hair performance attributes after blow drying.
In addition, seven of the twelve dry hair attributes were
re-evaluated twenty-four hours after the treatment.
Furthermore, the subjects were given questionnaires
focussing on six dry hair evaluations and one overall
preference rating.
The results of this study are best understood by
reviewing the data shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The ratings
correspond ~o a three point scale as follows: 0 = no
difference, 1 = small difference, 2 = obvious difference and
3 = great difference. Significant differences at the 80%,
90% and 95~ confidence level are marked with appropriate
~836~
superscripts. As used herein "test product" shall mean the
product of Ex. I.
The data in Table 1 show that when the products were
first applied the test product rated significantly (95%)
better than the commercial control for three key dry hair
conditioning attributes: "fewer snarls", "less comb drag"
and "smoother feel". All other dry attributes were
essentially at parity except for "manageability" for which
the commercial control product was found better at the 80%
confidence level. Of the wet hair conditioning attributes,
the test product was rated better than the commercial
control for "less comb drag" at the 80% confidence level,
but just directionally better for "wet detangling".
After the first shampoo when neither one of the
products was reapplied (i.e., day 2) the test product was
found superior in several wet and dry conditioning
attributes at the 95% confidence level. (See the second
column marked Day 2 in Table 1). These data are in
agreement with the Instron force measurements discussed
earlier.
2~3~
TA8LE 1
OPERATOR'S RATINGS
STANDARD ~RE- ANp POST-TREATMENT FVA~UATION
(After Initial Application With No Reapplication of
Products)
Ratina Differences; Test Product Minus (-~ C~ommercial
Product
WET EVALUA~Q~S
Attribute Day 1 Day 2 Dav 3 Day 4 DaY 5
Detangling (Wet) .35 1.30* .85 .85* .55*
Less Comb Drag (Wet) .55~ 1.15* .85* .70* .30*
Cleaner Feel
(After Rinse) -.10 -.05 -.05 .05 .05
DRY EVALUA~ONS
Fewer Snarls (Dry) .85* 1.35* .75* .60* .25#
hess Comb Drag (Dry) .75* 1.35* .55* .60* .25#
Less Static -.25 .30@ -.05 .10 .00
Less Flaking .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
More Luster .20@ .15 .05 .20~ .05
More Bulk/Fullness -.05 .20Q .10 -.10 .00
More BouncejSpring -.05 .50* .40* .35* .05
More Body .00 .30* .25# .25* .00
More Manageability -.25Q .45* .05 .05 .00
Cleaner Feel (Dry) -.25 -.10 .00 .05 .00
Le~s Tackiness .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Smoother Feeling .70* .85~ .40* .25# .30#
2 ~
Q, # and * - difference significant with 80%, 90% or 95%
confidence, respectively. Values given are the differences
in the ~eauticians ratings of the test product minus the
commercial product.
TABLE 2
OP~RATOR'S RATINGS
24 HOUR EVALUATION
Ratina Differences, Test Product Minus f-~ Commercial
Product
Attribute Day 2 E~Y_~ Dav 4 Day S
Fewer Snarls .~o* .35# . .50~ .50*
Less Comb Drag . B5* . 45* .30* .30*
More Bulk/Fullness .20 .05 .00 -.10
More Bounce/Spring .30# .20 .10 .00
Less Greasy/Cleaner Feel -.15 -.10 .05 .00
More Curl Retention .25# .25~ .2Q@ .00
Better Appearance .15 .10 .20@ -.05
f~, # and * - difference significant with 80%, 90% or 95%
confidence, respectively.
12
TABLE 3
SUBJECT'S SELF-EVALUATIONS
AMONG SUBJECTS WITH A PREFERENCE (I.E. IGNORING "NO PREF"
RESPONSES), THB TABLE ENTRIES ARE THE PERCENT OF SUBJECTS
CHOOSING THE TEST PRODUCT OVER THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCT FOR
THE LISTED ATTRIBUTES
%_Choosin~ Test Product over Commercial Product
INo Diff = 50~)
After Running Co~b/Brush Through Hair:
Att~ibute Initial Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day_5
Stay in Place Better 55 50 63 71@ 56
Looks Fuller/Thicker 55 ~5~ 61 89* 56
After Running Fingers Through Hair:
Stay in Place Better 50 50 53 71# 59
Looks Fuller/Thicker 55 56 40 82* 53
Hair Feels Better 44 35Q 62 62 45
Healthier-Looking 56 53 64 62 64
Prefer Overall 55 61 55 72# 65@
~, ~ and * - difference from 50% significant with 80%, 90 or
95% confidence, respectively. The percentage of subjects
choosing Test Product over Commercial Product in the Table
is calculated ignoring ties, which nu~ber from 0 to 9 of the
20 subjects.
As further shown in Table 1, for days 3 and 4 these
differences persist (after 2 and 3 shampooings) but the
significance of the difference wanes by the fourth shampoo
(Day 5), except for wet detangling and wet comb drag which
13
2~36~
is still superior at the 95% confidence level and for the
dry attributes of fewer snarls and less comb drag. Again
these data are in agreement with the Instron data shown in
Fig. 1.
The evaluation after 24 hours shown in Table 2 clearly
demonstrates one of the attributes of the present invention,
that is, superior, long-lasting curl retention properties.
This attribute is originally seen, in Table 1, as
composite of two attributes "more bounce/spring" and "more
body". The ratings shown in Table 2 for more curl retention
correlate with the ratings for fewer snarls (as hair curls
fallout while sleeping and the hair gets snarled);
particularly taking into consideration that the panelists
were not allowed to touch-up their hairdos.
Another attribute of the present invention is the
delivery of conditioning benefits over a longer period of
time without making the hair feel coated, greasy or stiff.
In Tables 1 and 2, the ratings for cleanliness are
consistently at parity with the side which was not treated
any further after the first shampoo, i.e., the residue on
the hair is equal to freshly shampooed hair.
The subjects were requested to do a preference
evaluation by running the comb or brush through their hair
once (without setting it or rearranging the set) for a
visual and a tactile evaluation, for five conditioning
attributes. As shown in Table 3, the subj ects overall
pre~erence was for the test product over the five days of
14
2~$~g ~
the test. It is noteworthy that the number of patrons
preferring the test product grew to a maximum at day 4. The
difference over a split ~50/50), was significant at the 90%
confidence level, at this point 72% versus 28%.
This trend is borne out in every attribute tested,
e.g., the preference for "looks fuller/thicker" increased
from a 55%/45% split to 89%/11% at day 4. This difference
is significant at the 95% confidence level. A similar
result was obtained whether the evaluation was done by
combing through the hair or by running the fingers through
it.
The number of subjects preferring the test product for
"(hair) stays in place better, i.e. holding the set" also
increased from a 50/50 split to 71% preferring the test
product, a significant difference.
The fact that the number of subjects preferring the
side of their head treated with the test product increased
with the number of shampooings, perhaps can be explained as
a hair protecting mechanism against the harshness of
shampooing every day, i.e. as the untreated hair gets
stripped further and further by the washing action, the
differences between the treated versus the untreated hair
increases, until the fourth day on the third shampooing
after treatment. In reality, both sides of the head are
being "damaged" by shampooing, but at different rates.
This is best understood by again examining the diagram
of Fig. 2 wherein the degree of damage to the hair is
2~
plotted against th~ number of washings. At day 1 thP hair
treated with the test product is perceived to be equal in
condition or slightly better than the side treated with the
commercial product, i.e., Yl is small. After washings one
and two the difference between the treatments increases,(
Y2 & y3) ~ut the differences are not numerically
significant. After the third washing ( Y4) the dif ference
is maximum and also numerically significant; thereafter the
difference begins to narrow ( ~5), ( Y6) etc.
The following specific Examples disclose useful hair
treating compositions according to the`present invention.
Example I
IngFedient % by Weiqht
Hydroxy Dimethyl Polysiloxane2.000
Methyl Hydrogen Polysiloxane 0.156
Emulsifying Surfactant; 2.244
Ethoxyla~ed fatty alcohol
(cetyl/lauryl)
Water, DI 95.600
1~0. ooo
pH adjus~ed with citric acid
(30%) to 4
Example II
(Product with improved static control)
Ingredient% by Weight
Sandoperm FE 4.00
Sandoperm FV 0.40
Antistatic Agent0.50
(Stearyldimethylbenzyl
ammonium chloride)
Fragrance 0.10
Water, DI 95 00
100. O
pH adjusted to 4 with 30%
citric acid
Example_III
Ingredient% by Weight
A B
Sandoperm FE .50 1.00
Sandoperm FV 0.50 0.10
*Polyurethane QW 4019 2.00 4.00
SD 40 190 77.00 64.90
Water, DI ~0.00 30.00
100 . 00 100 . 00
The a~ove compositions A and B are useful as hair holding
compositions. The pH of the mixture is adjusted with citric
acid (30%) to pH 4.0
*obtained from Grace Chemicals
2~36~
Example_~
Inaredient % by Weiaht
Sandoperm FE 4.00
Sandoperm FV o.40
Water, Deionized 95.60
Adjust pH to 4.0 with 30% citric acid/cold blend by
adding polysiloxanes to water.
This composition is useful as a conditioner, as such,
or in a pump spray package.
Example V
Innredient % by Wei~ht
Sandoperm FE 4.00
Sandoperm FV 0.40
Fragrance 0.30
Dye D&C Green #5 (0.1% in DI. Water) 0.30
Carbopol 1342* 0.50
Water, DI 94.50
Adjust pH to 4.0 with 10% TEA. Viscosity :193.lK cps
LVT sp.TC, @ 12rpm.
ThiC composition is useful as a semi-permanent hair
conditioner or creme rinse.
*Carbopol 1342 is a copolymer of acrylic acid and a long
chain alkyl methacrylate and available from B.F. Goodrich
Company. It functions as a thickener and can serve as an
emulsifier for oil-in-water emulsions.
18
2Q~3~
Example vI
Inaredient % by Weight
Sandoperm FE 4.00
Sandoperm FV o.40
Fragrance 0.30
Dye D~C Green #5 (0.1% in DI. Water) 0.30
Xanthan Gum Keltrol Food Grade 0.50
Water, DI 94.50
Adjust pH to 4.0 with 30% Citric Acid. Viscosity 820
cps. LVT sp. #2@ 30 rpm.
This composition is useful as a semi-permanent hair
conditioner or creme rinse.
Further tests were conducted as follows:
~nalysis Co~ined Over Hairtype -
A study was made to compare the test product to a
commercial hair conditioner in a 5-day, "half-head" study in
which the test product was applied only on the first day
while the commercial product was applied on each of the 5
days of the study. The purpose was to determine the number
of days until the conditioning benefits imparted by a single
application of the test product would decline to the level
of daily applications of the commercial conditioner. The
results of this study are shown in Tables 4-6. The ratings
correspond to the following scale:
0 - no difference
1 = small difference
2 = obvious difference
3 = great difference
19
2~'3~
It should be noted that the salon operators were
blinded to the treatments when evaluating but the subjects
were not blinded to the treatments on days 2 through 5 since
they experienced treatment application on only one side of
the head during those days. Thus, a placebo effect may
partly account for the fact that the subject's self
evaluations tended to favor the commercial product on days
2, 3 and especially 4. Their evaluations seem to indicate
that "reality" took over by day 5 and the test product was
again indicated as superior.
Table 4
OPERATOR'S RATINGS
STANDARD PRE- AND ~OS~TREATMENT EVALUATION
Treatment Diffe~ences: (Tçst Produc~_~i~u,s~ ommerc;al
P~oduct
WET EVALUATIONS
A~t~i~u~_ Initial ~ 2 ~Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Detangling (Wet) .62* 55*1.10* 1.02* .76*
Less Comb Drag (Wet) .54* .78* 1.10* 1.19* .76*
Cleaner Feel
(After Rinse) .00 .12~.04 .00 .00
.DRY EVALUATIONS
Fewer Snarls (Dry) .86* .74* .83* .64* .64*
Less Co~b Drag ~Dry) .83* .88* .83* .74* .70*
L ss Static .07 .11 .05 .00 .08
Better Overall
Appearance .30* .44* .43* .33# .49*
2~36~.
More Luster .00 .15 .20* .04 .23*
More Bulk/Fullness .03 .46* .11 .10 .42*
More Bounce/Spring .15 .53* .41* .14 .38*
More Body .15 .59* .33* .24~ .38*
More Manageability .10 .49* .23* .12 .24@
Cleaner Feel (Dry) -.01 .01 .00 .00 .00
More Curl Retention -.09 .37* .12# -.04 .16
Smoother Feel .17# .25# .35* .29* .21Q
@, # and * - difference significant with 80%, 90% or 95%
confidenc , respectively.
Table 5
OPFRATOR'S RATINGS
"MORNING AF~ER" EV~LUATION
Treatment ~ifferences: (Test Product Minus (-) Commercial
Product
Attribute Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Dav 5
Fewer Snarls .53* .55* .66* 1.10*
Less Comb Drag .67~ .55* .73* 1.10*
Less Static .00 .00 -.05 .00
More Bulk Fullness -.01 .22@ .29* .19
More Bounce/Springiness .48*~40* .23* .25
More Manageability .37* .31* .08@ .02
Less Greasy (Cleaner Feel) -.05 -.13~ .00 -.01
More Curl Retention .35* .15# .04 -.03
Better Appearance .25 .56* .34* .36#
@, # and * - difference significant with 80%, 90% or 9
confidence, respectively.
Table 6
SUBJECT'S SELF-EVALURTIONS
Among Subjects With a Preference (I.E. Ignoring "No Pref"
Responses) the Table Entries are the Percent of Subjects
Choosing the Test Product over Commercial Conditioner for
the Listed Attribute.
% Choosina Test Pxoduct over Commercial Product
lNo Diff = 50~L
Attribute Initial ~ay 2 ~a~ 3 Day 4 Day 5
After Running Comb/Brush Through Hair:
Stays in Place Better 52 56 48 36@ 52
Looks Fuller/Thicker 40 48 48 35~ 50
After Running Fingers Through Hair:
Stays in Place Better 52 67@ 40 35@ 52
Looks Fuller/Thicker 42 54 46 35Q 48
Hair Feels Better 50 54 46 43 64@
Healthier-Looking 36@ 57 32# 32# 50
Prefer Overall 48 64@ 40 40 54
@, # and * - difference from 50% significant with 80%, 90%
or 95% confidence, respectively. The percentage choosing
test product over commercial conditioner is calculated
ignoring ties, which number from 0 to 9 of the 20 subjects.
2 ~
Analysis bv Hair_type
Tables 7 and 8 summarize a statistical analysis
comparing the 2 hair types, "dry" vs. "normal", in terms of
the relative performance of the test product and the
commercial conditioner. Hair classified as dry is generally
colored and/or permed hair and is considered to have some
damage. Only the Hair Salon Operator Ratings were analyzed
in this way; self-evaluations were not analyzed by hair type
since to do so would have produced an overly scarce
contingency ta~le (see below).
Table 7
OP~RATOR'S RATINGS
STANDARD.PRE- AND POST-~EATMENT EVALUA~ON ~_H~ TYpE
Treatment Differences: fTest Product Minus ~-) Commercial
Produçt)
WET EVALUATIONS
Attribute HairType Initial Day 2 DaY 3 Day 4 Day S
Detangling
(Wet1 Dry .79 .641.291.14 .71
Nor~al .46 .45.91 .90 .80
Less Co~b
Drag Dry .86Q .941.291.07 .71
Normal .22 .65.91 1.30 .80
Cleaner
Feel Dry .00 .14.07 .00 .00
Normal .00 .09.00 .00 .00
3 ~ ~
DRY EVALUATIONS
Fewer Snarls
tDry) Dry 1. 21* ~ 93 ~ 93~ 57 ~ 29#
Normal .50 ~56 ~73~70 ~99
Less Comb
Drag (Dry) Dry1 ~ 14# ~ 93 ~ 93~ 79 ~ 43
Normal~ 52 ~ 83 ~ 73~ 70 ~ 96
Less
Static Dry ~14 ~21 ~00~00 ~00
Normal .00 .00 .09.00 ~ 17
Better Gverall
Appear. Dry . 64* ~ 71# ~ 57~ 36 ~ 64
Normal ~~05 ~18 ~27~30 ~34
More
Luster Dry ~ 07 ~ 29 ~ 21~ 07 ~ 29
Normal ~~07 ~02 ~18~00 ~18
More Bulk/
FullnessDry . 36* ~ 50 ~ 21~ 00 ~ 43
Normal ~~30 ~43 ~01~20 ~41
~ore Bounce/
Spring Dry .50* .79# ~ 64@ ~ 07 ~ 43
Normal-~20 o27 ~18~20 ~33
More Body Dry .50* . 92* ~ 57# ~ 29 ~ 43
Normal -.20 ~25 ~09~20 ~33
More Manage-
ability Dry ~ 42* 710 ~ 28~ 14 ~ 14
Normal -~22 ~26 ~18~10 ~33
Cleaner
Feel Dry ~14 ~~07 ~00~00 ~00
Normal -~17 ~08 ~00~00 ~00
More Curl
Retention Dry .14 ~ 57# ~ 14 ~ ~ 07 ~ 07
Normal -~31 ~16 ~09~00 ~26
Smoother
Feel Dry ~ 13 ~ 22 ~ 42~ 28 ~ 14
Normal .19 ~28 ~27~30 ~27
Q, # and * - Dry vs. Normal Hair types significantly
different with 80%~ 90% or 95~ confidence, respectively
24
Table 8
OPERATOR'S R~T~NGS
"MO~NING AFTER" EVAL~ATION
Treatment Differences: LTest Product Minus (-) Commercial
Conditioner)
AttributeHair Type Dav 2 Day 3 ~y_~ Day 5
Fewer SnarlsDry .50 .86 .42# 1.42*
Normal .55 .25 .88 .75
Less Comb Drag Dry .64 .86* .50* 1.42*
Normal ~ .70 .25 .97 .7S
Less Static Dry .00 .O0 .00 .00
Normal .00 .00 -.09 .00
More Bulk/
Fullness Dry .30 .36 .21~36
Normal -.31 .08 .37 .02#
More Bounce/
Spring Dry .71@ .64Q .28 .50#
Normal .25 .17 .18 .01
More Manage-
ability Dry .71* .50@ .07 .14
Normal .03 .11 .09 -.10
Less Greasy Dry -.07 .. 07* .00 .00
Normal -.03 -.33O00 -.01
More Curl
Retention Dry .57# .21 .07 .14#
Normal .13 .08 .00 -.17
Better
Appearance Dry .50 1.00* .14~ .64Q
No~mal .01 .12 .55 .08
@, # and * - Dry vs. Normal Hair types significantly
different with 80%, 90% and 95~ confidence, respectively.
- 2 ~
Statistical Methods
The data included the "Standard Pre- and Post-Treatment
Evaluations" by the salon operators, "Morning After"
Evaluations by the salon operators and "Sel~-Evaluations" by
the subjects. All operators' ratings were analyzed using an
analysis of variance which accounted for variation due to
differences among hair types, differences among subjects
within hair types, differences in side of head, differences
between the treatments and the interaction of treatments
with hair types. Subjects' Self-Evaluations were paired
choice responses where the subject chose which side had morP
of each attribute. These data were analyzed using a 2-by-2
table which tabulated subjects by Preferred-Side-of-Head
(left V6. right) and Treatment/Side-Assignment
(A=>Left/~=>Right V8. B->Left/A=>Right). Subjects' Self-
evaluations were not analyzed by hair type since to do so
would have produced an overly sparce contingency table:
cross classification of 20 subjects by 8 categories
(Preferred-Side-of-Head) (Left vs Right), Treatment/Side-
Assignment (A->Left/B=>Right vs B+>Left/A=>Right) and Hair
type (Dry vs Normal).
The following examples disclose additional useful
compositions for treating hair.
2~3~1
Example VII
Inaredient % bv Weiaht
Sandoperm FE 4.000000
Sandoperm FV o.400000
Fragrance 05-10 0.300000
Dye Green #5 0.1% in H20 0.300000
Hydantoin 55 0.500000
Methyl Paraben 0.150000
Propyl Paraben 0.050000
Xanthan Gu~1.0% in Water 50.000000
Water,- DI , i . 44.300000
Adjust pH to 4.0 with 30% Citric Acid
Hydantoin, Methyl Paraben and Propyl Para~en used as a
- preservative
Example VIII
Inaredient % by Weiaht
Sandoperm FE 4.000000
Sandoperm FV 0.400000
Fragrance 05-lO 0.300000
Dye Green #5 0.1% in Water0.300000
Hydantoin 55 0.500000
Water, Deionized 94.500000
Adjust pH to 4.Q with 30% Citric Acid a~ueous.
Low viscocity product.
2~8~
Exampl~e IX
Inaredient % by Weiqht
Sandoperm FE Liquid 4.000000
Sandope~m FV Liquid 0.400000
Fragrance 06-37 0.150000
FD&C Green #5 0.000300
DMDM Hydantoin (55%~ 0,500000
Water, Deionized 94.9497C0
Adjust pH to 4.0 +/- .5 with 30% citric acid
Inqredient % bY Weiaht
Sandoperm FE Liquid 4.000000
Sandoperm FV Liquid 0.400000
Fraqrance 06-37 0.075000
FD&C Green #5 0.000300
DMDM Hydantoin (55%) 0.500000
Water, Deionized 95.024700
Adjust pH to 4.0 +~- .5 with Citric Acid (30% Aq.)
28
2 ~
Exam~le XI
Inaredient % by Weiaht
Sandoperm FE Liquid 2.000000
Sandoperm FV Liquid 0.200000
Fragrance 06-37 0.075000
FD&C Green #5 0.000300
DMDM Hydantoin (S5%) 0.500000
Water, Deionized 970224700
Adjust pH to 4.0 +/- .5 with Citric Acid (30% Aq.)
Exam~le XII
Inaredie~~ ~ by Weiqht
Sandoperm FE Liquid 1.000000
Sandoperm FV Liquid O.lOQ000
Fragrance 06-37 0.075000
FD~C Green #5 0.000300
DMDM Hydantoin (55%) 0.500000
Water, Deionized 98.324700
Adjust pH to 4.0 +/- .5 with Citric Acid (30% Aq.)
Exa~ple XILI
. Inqredient % by Weiaht
Sandoperm FE Liquid 1.000000
Sandoperm FV Liquid 0.100000
Fragrance 06-37 0.075000
DMDM Hydantoin (55%) 0.500000
Water, De~onized 98.325000
Adiust pH to 4.0 +/- 0.5 with Citric Acid (30% Aq.)
29
2~83~1
Fxample XIV
Inaredisnt % bv Weiaht
Sandoperm FE Liquid 2.000000
Sandoperm FV Liquid 0.200000
Fragrance 06-37 0.075000
DMDM Hydantoim (55~) 0.500000
Water, Deionized 97.225000
Adjust pH to 4.0 +/- 0.5 with Citric Acid (30% Aq.~.
Examp~ç ~
Ina~edient % by Weiaht
Sandoperm Fe Liquid -- 4.000000
Sandoperm FV Liquid o.400000
Fragrance 06-37 0.075000
DMDM Hydantoin (55%) 0.500000
Water, Deionized 95.025000
Adjust pH to 4.0 1/- 0.5 with Citric Acid (30% Aq.)
Example XVI
Inqredient % by Weiaht
Sandoperm FE Liquid 4.000000
Sandoperm FV Liquid 0.400000
Fragrance 06-37 0.075000
DMDM Hydantoin 0.500000
Water, Deionized 94.950000
~he level of active Kathon CG is 11.25 PPM adjust pH to
4.0 +/- with Citric Acid ~30% Aq.~.
2~3~
Example XVII
Inaredie~t % by Weiaht
Sandoperm FE Liquid 1.000000
Sandoperm FV Liquid 0.100000
Fragrance 06-37 0.075000
Dantoin DMDMH-55 0.500000
Kathon CG (as sold~ 0.075000
Water, Deionized 98.250000
The level of active Kathon CG i8 11 ~ 25 P~M. Adjust pH
to just under 4.0 with Citric Acid (30% Ag.).
Example XVIII
Inqrediçn~ ~ by Weight
Sandoperm FE Liquid 4.000000
Sandoperm FV Liquid 0.400000
Fragrance 06-37 0.075000
Dantoin DMDMH-55 0.500000
Kathon CG (as sold) 0.050000
Methylparaben USP/NF 0.200000
EDTA.NA2 0.100000
Water, Deionized 94.675000
The level o~ active Kathon CG is 7.5 PP~. Adjust p~ to
~ust under 4.0 with Citric ~cid (30% Aq.).
2 ~
Exam~le XIX
I~gredient ~ bY Weiqht
Sandoperm FE Liquid 1.000000
Sandoper~ FV Liquid o.lOOOOO
Fragrance 06-37 0.075000
Dantoin DMDMH-55 0.500000
Kathon CG (as sold3 G.050000
Methylparaben USP/NF 0.100000
Water, Deionized 97.975000
The level of active Kathon CG is 7.5 PPM. ~djust pH to
just under 4.0 with Citric Acid (30% Aq.~.
To use the conditioning compositions, the hair may be
shampooed and towel dried. Thereafter the composition is
applied to the hair followed by working in the hair with the
fingers. The treated hair may then be combed and dried in
the customary manner. Blow drying with heated air gives
longer lasting conditioning. For users who want to style
their hair, any one of the following procedures will give
acceptable results.
1~ After shampooing the hair is air dried.
~hereafter the conditioner is applied and then the
h~ir is curled while still damp.
2) Application of the conditioning composition after
shampooing, then placing the hair on rollers while
still wet followed by blow drying.
32
2~3~
3) Application of the conditioning composition to the
hair followed by drying. Thereafter the hair is
rewetted slightly, placed on rollers or a curling
iron may be used and thereafter tha hair is dried.
4) The hair is treated wi~h the conditioning
composition, then blow dried until slightly moist
to the touch and then placed on rollers or curled
in the customary way.
In the foregoing, a styling mousse or gel may also be
applied .to the hair after applying the conditioning
composition.
