HYGIENE 75

Improving the efficacy and

skin feel of hand sanitisers
Coralie Alonso, Xin Qu, Asha Rani Ram, Priyanka Vichare, Sachin Patil, Tuttu Nuutinen, Kunal Kapsime - Ashland

The COVID-19 pandemic have heightened Class Micoorganism Diseases Test standards/time
consumer awareness of hand hygiene, Represents a group of viruses
which has resulted in increased use of hand Eveloped (including coronavirus) that can
sanitisers. To address a larger market, more Vaccinia DIN EN 14476:2019 30s - 120s
viruses cause common colds and flu,
brands have launched products, resulting in a as well as more severe illness
saturated market with a multitude of offerings
often undistinguished from one another. Bacteria Poliomyelitis DIN EN 14476:2019 30s - 120s
Non-enveloped
So, the question then becomes – how Cold and flu illness,
viruses Human adenovirus DIN EN 14476:2019 30s - 120s
to differentiate your product in a crowded Respiratory illness
Bacteria
marketplace? The answer lies in improved Murine norovirus Winter vomiting bug DIN EN 14476:201930s - 120s
performance, consumer experience and
Escherichia coli
sustainability. Urinary tract infections
Staphylococcus
aureus Skin infections
Performance, consumer experience Bacteria
Pseudomonas Lung infections
DIN EN 1276:2019 60s
and sustainability aeruginosa Urinary tract infections
Common hand sanitisers may be effective Enterococcus hirae
against enveloped viruses such as coronavirus Aspergillus
(SARS-CoV-2), but they may not be as effective Fungi Aspergillosis DIN EN 1275:2019 60s
brasiliensis
against non-enveloped viruses such as
poliovirus, adenovirus and norovirus. However, Yeast Candida albicans Thrush DIN EN 1275:2019 60s
some hand sanitisers available commercially Table 1: Description of targeted microorganisms with reference to associated diseases and the
offer efficacy against enveloped and non- standard test and contact time accepted by the industry to evaluate efficacy of formulations
enveloped viruses with alcohol levels as high against those microorganisms
as 85%.
Alcohol-based hand sanitisers often cause sensory properties, without compromising on For gel type formulations, the choice of
dryness and an unpleasant hand feel, resulting performance of the formula. other components such as thickener need to
in lower consumer acceptance. The problem The modern eco-conscious consumers incorporate sustainability criteria aligned with
is exacerbated with a higher alcohol content. prefer solutions that are sustainable. To the brand’s sustainability positioning.
Therefore, it is important to incorporate address this trend, several brands have We have demonstrated that hand sanitiser
ingredients in the formula that offer added launched products that are based on plant- formulas containing organic acid can be
benefits of moisturisation and improved skin based alcohol and are naturally fragranced. effective against both enveloped and non-

www.personalcaremagazine.com October 2022 PERSONAL CARE

76 HYGIENE

enveloped viruses, resulting in ‘full virucidal Viscosity cP

activity’. Such formulations can be thickened
with plant-based polymers that can improve
the sustainability profile of the product while
improving the moisturisation and skin feel.
Ingredients
Klucel™ hydroxypropylcellulose (hereafter
referred to as HPC) is a non-ionic, water-
soluble cellulose ether with a remarkable
combination of properties. It combines organic
solvent solubility, wide pH range stability and
surface activity with the aqueous thickening
and stabilising properties characteristic of
other water-soluble cellulosic polymers. HPC
is an efficient film former that spreads well on
skin and leaves a distinct tactile signature.
Benecel™ hydroxypropylmethylcellulose
(hereafter referred to as HPMC) is another
remarkable non-ionic water-soluble cellulose
ether. It combines organic solvent solubility,
wide pH range stability, surface activity and
good spreading on skin, with a distinct tactile
signature. Various grades are available for
both cellulosic polymers to cater to all hand
sanitiser viscosity requirements.
Results
Virucidal testing was conducted following
standard protocols (Table 1). Efficacy against
both enveloped and non-enveloped viruses
was tested to claim full virucidal activity. The
detail of viruses, the family they represent and
the diseases they may cause are also listed in
Table 1 for information.
In this article, ‘full virucidal activity’ refers
to a pass on testing against both enveloped
and non-enveloped viruses. In Table 1, one can
also find reference to bacteria and yeast, which
are the micro-organisms commonly killed by
hand sanitisers. The improved performance
proposed in this article goes beyond by also
tackling viruses, which is the testing presented
further.
Table 2 summarises the results of the
virucidal testing for two formulations
containing 70% ethanol, 2% lactic acid and a
cellulosic thickener. The pH of the formulations
is 3.5 and the viscosity falls within the range
recognised as a gel hand sanitiser from
consumers.
The formulation thickened with HPC shows
activity against three non-enveloped viruses
including human poliovirus, as poliovirus in
Formulation Type Virus tested Result Contact time pH
#RV04 20 rpm
Human poliovirus Pass
Non-enveloped
Ethanol 70% Human adenovirus Pass 120
viruses
Lactic acid 2% + Murine norovirus Pass 1940
Klucel H CS 1%
Enveloped
viruses Vaccinia Pass 60
3.5
Ethanol 70% Human adenovirus Pass 60
Lactic acid 2% + Non-enveloped 1690
Benecel viruses
E10M 1.5% Human adenovirus Pass 60
Table 2: Summary of test results for two low pH hand sanitiser formulations. Both contain 70%
ethanol and 2% lactic acid, one is thickened with 1% HPC (Klucel H CS), the other with 1.5% HPMC
(Benecel E10M). The pH of both formulations is 3.5 and the viscosity typical of a gel sanitiser. The
type/name of viruses tested against, results and contact time are listed
general is notoriously difficult to kill, usually one formulation can be extrapolated to the
requiring a high level of alcohol (>80%). other, showing either of these thickeners to be
The low pH increases the activity of the suitable in ethanol/acid combinations.
formulation allowing a pass with as little as Another advantage of using cellulosic
70% alcohol. derivatives to thicken alcohol-based
This is an effect which has been measured formulations is the nice feel they leave on skin
and recently reported in the scientific after use. These molecules are efficient film
literature.1,2 For example, Kampf in the Journal formers, substantive enough to skin to provide
of Hospital Infections in 2018 reports a a large coverage that acts as a protective
substantial improvement of ethanol virucidal barrier and gives a desirable tactile signature.
activity against poliovirus.3 Sensory studies, as well as technical
A contact time of 120 seconds was chosen measurements on skin hydration and water
for testing as this is considered acceptable retention, have been conducted on two
and challenging enough for human poliovirus. formulations: one thickened with a market
This formulation also passes testing against leader acrylate technology (Table 3) and one
human adenovirus and murine norovirus with thickened with HPC (Table 4).
a contact time of 120 seconds. Skin hydration was measured on human
The same formulation was tested against skin, following a clinical protocol, developed
vaccinia virus representing enveloped viruses, internally:
hence a proxy for coronavirus. A contact time ■ Six panel members
of 60 seconds was chosen and is considered ■ Application on the inner forearm on skin
more realistic for this test, as it represents patch with a size of 5 x 5cm
a more reasonable kill time, as well as time ■ 2mg/cm2 product applied
the consumer keeps sanitiser on hands. ■ Testing time points T0, T30, T60 and T90,
This formulation containing HPC shows full numbers refer to the minutes after application
virucidal activity, i.e. against both enveloped The results of this test are shown in Figure
and non-enveloped viruses. 1. At all time points, the improvement on skin
To challenge the formulations further, a hydration is similar for the carbomer containing
contact time of 60 seconds was applied for formula and the untreated skin - both are
testing against human adenovirus and murine low, below 8%. In contrast, the improvement
norovirus. The formulation contains a HPMC reaches a minimum of 40% for the HPC
thickener that showed passes against both containing formula, statistically significantly
viruses. Thickener has no activity against above the control and the carbomer containing
microorganisms, therefore the results from one.

TABLE 3: HAND SANITISER FORMULATION THICKENED WITH A SYNTHETIC TABLE 4: HAND SANITISER FORMULATION THICKENED WITH HPC
POLYMER (KLUCEL H)

M200-1294D M200-1330
Phase Ingredients INCI Phase Ingredients INCI
w/w (%) w/w (%)

A Carbomer 980 Carbomer 0.5 A Ethanol (99.9%) Ethanol 70.00

Water Water (Aqua) 27.37
Klucel H CS HPC Hydroxypropyl cellulose 1.00
Ethanol (99.9%) Ethyl Alcohol 70.00
B Deionized water Water (Aqua) 24.88
AMP (95%) 2-amino 2-methyl-1-propanol 0.13
Glycerin Glycerin 2.00 C Propylene glycol Propylene Glycol 1.00

Table 3: The appearance is of a clear viscous gel, the viscosity is within Table 4: The appearance is of a flowable liquid gel with a viscosity within
the range 15000 - 20000 cP, measured with Brookfield RV spindle 4, the range 1500 - 2500 cP as measured by Brookfield LVT spindle 63, speed
speed 10 rpm at 25 °C. pH of formula is within the range 6.80 - 7.50 12 rpm at 25 °C. The pH of the formulation is within the range 3.30 – 3.70

PERSONAL CARE October 2022 www.personalcaremagazine.com

 HYGIENE 77

Skin moisturisation was inferred from ■ T30min ■ T60min ■ T90min

measuring transepidermal water loss using a ****
50 45%
Tewameter TM 300, following the same clinical **** ****
45 40% 40%
protocol as described previously. This is an

% Improvement in Skin Hydration

40
indispensable parameter for the evaluation of
35
the water barrier function of the skin.
Even the slightest damage in the skin water 30

barrier can be determined at an early stage. 25

The deterioration in hand skin condition is 20

often observed as hand sanitisers are used, 15
due to the drying effect of ethanol. 10 7%
5% 5% 4%
The results of this test are shown in Figure 5 1% 2%
2. The reduction in water loss is represented in 0
the diagram, therefore a higher result means a Untreated Carbomer formula
#M200-1294D
Low pH formula
#M200-1330
better skin moisturisation.
NS: Not significant, p<0.1 **: Very Significant, p<0.01
At all time points, both test formulas show Δ: Directional 0.05<p<0.1 ***: Highly Significant, p<0.005
*: Significant, p<0.05 ****: Extremely Significant, p<0.0001
a better result than the control, untreated
skin. However, the improvement on skin Figure 1: Improvement in skin hydration, quoted as a percentage for untreated skin or treated
moisturisation is statistically significantly with formulas from Table 2 and Table 3. The measurement was performed using a Corneometer
higher for the formula containing HPC than the CM825 that determines the hydration level of the skin surface (stratum corneum) by measuring
one containing carbomer. the change in the dielectric constant due to skin surface hydration changing the capacitance of a
Although technical measures give non- precision capacitor. Results were statistically analysed following a paired t-test methodology
subjective results, the consumer experience
is the determining factor for acceptance of ■ T30min ■ T60min ■ T90min
personal care products. A sensory evaluation 30
was conducted to compare key tactile
***
attributes. The results are shown in Figure 3 25 23% ***
22%
in the shape of a spider chart. The higher the ***
19%
Reduction in TEWL

score (from 0 to 5), the more preferred by the 20

panellists.
15
The low pH hand sanitiser formulation 12%
11%
10%
listed in Table 3 was compared to a carbomer 10
containing one. The scores on all attributes
were similar or significantly superior to the 5 4%
2% 1%
placebo. The absolute score was high for the
HPC containing formulation on spreadability, 0
Untreated Carbomer formula Low pH formula
glide/slip, ability to rest on skin and moisture #M200-1294D #M200-1330
feel. NS: Not significant, p<0.1 **: Very Significant, p<0.01
Δ: Directional 0.05<p<0.1 ***: Highly Significant, p<0.005
*: Significant, p<0.05 ****: Extremely Significant, p<0.0001
Conclusion
Alcohol-based hand sanitisers often cause Figure 2: Reduction in transepidermal water loss (TEWL), quoted as a percentage for untreated
dryness and an unpleasant hand feel, resulting skin or treated with formulas from Table 2 and Table 3. The Tewameter TM 300 measures the
in lower consumer acceptance. The problem is density gradient of the water evaporation from the skin which is then reported as TEWL. Results
exacerbated with a higher alcohol content. were statistically analysed following a paired t-test methodology
Therefore, it is important to incorporate
ingredients in the formula that offer added ■ Hand sanitiser with Klucel™ H CS HPC @ low pH
benefits of moisturisation and improved skin ■ Carbomer formula
sensory properties, without compromising on Spreadability ***
performance of the formula. 5.0
Hand sanitiser formulas containing up to
70% ethanol in addition to an organic acid 4.0
have proven to be effective against both
enveloped and non-enveloped viruses, 3.0 Ability to rest
Non-tacky Δ
resulting in full virucidal activity. on skin ****
2.0
Formulations are thickened with cellulose-
derived polymers as these molecules are 1.0
compatible with weak acid, have a wide pH
and electrolyte tolerance and can thicken 0.0
high levels of alcohol (up to 100% for Klucel).
Therefore, cellulose-derived rheology
modifiers can improve the sustainability
profile of the product while improving the
moisturisation and skin feel. PC Clean feel Δ Glide & Slip ****

References
1. Kramer et al. Journal of Hospital Infection.
2006, 62, 98–106 NS: Not significant, p<0.1 **: Very Significant, p<0.01
2. Sato et al. Nature Scientific Reports. 2020, Moisture feel ** Δ: Directional 0.05<p<0.1
*: Significant, p<0.05
***: Highly Significant, p<0.005
****: Extremely Significant, p<0.0001
10:15878
3. Kampf G. Journal of Hospital Infection. Figure 3: Sensory evaluation comparing a hand sanitiser formulation thickened with HPC and one
2018, 98 thickened with carbomer. The higher the score the more preferred by the panellists

www.personalcaremagazine.com October 2022 PERSONAL CARE