Difference-from-Control Test

a sensory evaluation for Client TBA to determine the difference

of Loose Powder with replaced material

A Sensory Evaluation presented to the Graduate School of

Centro Escolar University
Mendiola, Manila

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Cos Sci 212: Sensory Evaluation and Quality Assurance

Submitted by
Ms. Maria Trina Jelica B. Aquino, RPh

Submitted to
Ms. Esperanza Moya

September 10, 2018

1
Table of Contents Page

I. Problem/Situation 3
II. Presentation of Results 4
III. Analysis and Interpretation 8
IV. Conclusion and Recommendations 10
Annexes

2
I. PROBLEM/SITUATION

Client TBA has an existing formulation of loose powder with zinc oxide. Due to current
regulatory concern on zinc oxide in products that may lead to lung exposure by
inhalation, the client decided to remove zinc oxide in the formulation and replace it at
the same percentage with another material of the same function allowable for loose
powder.

Project Objective: To decide whether sample NPW is close to the current product, IBZ.

Test Objective: To determine the perceptible differences between the sample from the
control and to estimate the size of such differences.

Test design: Difference-from-control test was conducted to 20 healthy subjects of

different ages and work field. Both the control and sample was prepared in the
laboratory in a controlled environment at 25ºC (+/- 2ºC). Control and sample was
pre-weighed at 1grams each, separately, with the use of calibrated weighing scale
(Ohaus Digital Weighing Scale) and was placed in a clean sample jar. One control and
one sample was given to each subject with individual cut-out sponge as applicator.
Evaluation was carried out in different settings (school, office, home).

Conduct test: Both the control and the sample was coded with a three letter code not
relating to the client’s name. The control was coded with “IBZ” and reformulated sample
with “NPW”. All subjects were instructed to follow directions on the UTQ (usage test
questionnaire). See Annex for reference.

Analysis and interpretation of the result: Questions were divided into three categories
(Physical characteristics, During Use and After Use). With post-questions that could aid
in the research. Results of the evaluation were tabulated and interpreted simply, based
on the highest number of votes on numerical category scale (Figure 1: Category Scale).

no difference acceptable difference significant difference

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 1.0 Category Scale

3
II. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

1. Physical Characteristics
a. Color

Graph 1: Color

b. Odor

Graph 2: Odor

4
 c. Texture/Feel

Graph 3: Texture/Feel

2. During Use
a. Ease of Application

Graph 4: Ease of Application

5
 b. Coverage (ability of the product to cover blemishes/imperfection)

Graph 5: Coverage

3. After Use
a. Adhesiveness/Lasting effect (capability of the product to adhere to the skin)

Graph 6: Adhesiveness/Lasting Effect

6
 b. Oil control (ability of the product to control grease or oil produced by skin)

Graph 7: Oil Control

Post Questionnaire:
1. User of Loose Powder
a. Yes – 7 subjects (15%)
b. No – 13 subjects (65%)

2. Which do you think is better

a. IBZ – 14 subjects (70%)
b. NPW – 6 subjects (30%)

3. Negative Reaction felt

7
 Graph 8: Negative Reaction

III. Analysis and Interpretation

Based on the presented results from the 20 subjects, 35% felt there were almost no
difference (value: 2) between the control (IBZ) and sample (NPW) based on color.
However, 30% felt that there was significant difference in color. With compiled received
comments of:
- NPW is lighter in color
- NPW is perceived to give a darker color
- IBZ is reddish while NPW is more yellowish
- NPW is glossy for my skin and is much darker than IBZ
- IBZ is matter for my skin and is lighter than NPW.
- IBZ is brighter.
- IBZ is lighter than NPW.
- IBZ has a lighter color compared to NPW.
- IBZ is very slightly darker than NPW, but the difference is barely noticeable.
- Slight difference in color.
- Control has more vibrant color than sample.
- NPW is much lighter in color and has a white cast.

With regards to odor, 30% felt there was no different between the control and sample.
However, 25% felt there was significant difference. With compiled received comments
of:
- NPW is with characteristic odor
- NPW is odorless while IBZ has acceptable color
- IBZ do not have smell while NPW has fragrance
- NPW with odor while IBZ without odor.
- NPW has a stronger odor in the container but when applied is comparable.
- NPW smells good (mabango) compared to IBZ.
8
 - IBZ is odorless while NPW has powdery scent.
- IBZ smells like lipstick while NPW smells like lotion.
- During application, no significant difference was noted, however, upon careful
evaluation NPW has more fragrance than IBZ.

45% felt that there was no difference in texture/feel between the control (IBZ) and sample
(NPW). With compiled comments of:
- IBZ is smoother than NPW based on skin feel.
- No difference upon application to the skin using sponge.
- NPW is smoother than IBZ. NPW seems to be smoother in texture while applying
but the difference is almost not noticeable.
- NPW is smoother than IBZ.
- During application, no significant difference was noted, however, after several
minutes of application, heavy feel was observed with the control.
- IBZ is smoother. IBZ is smoother.

During use, 60% of the subjects felt that there was no difference between control and
sample. With very few comments of: IBZ forms a mass upon application than NPW sample.
IBZ is easier to apply.

Meanwhile, under difference in coverage, a tringle was formed on the column graph. Having
35% of the subjects with acceptable difference, 23% both the value 2 and 4 and 10% both
at no difference and with significant difference. Comments includes:
- NPW has slightly better coverage upon application
- IBZ has lesser coverage
- IBZ has better coverage
- NPW is better in covering imperfections.
- NPW has more coverage but IBZ looks more natural.
- NPW is thicker than IBZ.
- IBZ has a better coverage than NPW, NPW has to be re-applied to achieve
coverage.
- IBZ has great coverage compared to NPW because it is easily absorbed by the
skin.
- IBZ covers more blemishes and imperfection.
- NPW has better coverage but IBZ's coverage looks more natural, NPW is too
opaque.

After use, 40% and 35% felt that there was no difference and acceptable difference,
respectively, on adherence/lasting effect between the control (IBZ) and the sample (NPW).
With comments of:
- NPW has more coverage than IBZ. IBZ is more sheer
- IBZ looks more natural; NPW lasts longer than IBZ.
- IBZ seems to have lasting effect than NPW also since IBZ has better coverage.
- IBZ has lasting effect.

9
While 55% felt that there was no difference between the two products based on oil control.
With comments of: Powder have the natural property to control oiliness of the skin. On my
face there is no oil production in using IBZ than NPW sample and IBZ can control the oily or
grease produced by skin.

A couple of post questions were asked to aid interpret the difference between the control
and the sample and to understand the subject’s perspective further. 65% of the subjects are
not users of loose powder. And 70% preferred the control over the reformulated sample of
various reasons. And about 65% on average, did not felt any negative reaction to both
sample and control.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the difference-from-control test conducted on 20 subjects, loose powder

sample NPW has no difference compared to the control IBZ on almost all parameters,
except for coverage with an “acceptable difference”.

The removal of zinc oxide from the formula with replacement of titanium dioxide used
at the same percentage, has no significant perceivable difference and therefore can
replace the current formula.

However, it is still recommended to conduct the difference-from-control test to a wider

pool of subjects to have a more concrete result and have it statistically analyzed.

As a formulator, it is also recommended to adjust the color slightly with pigments to

make it closer to the control. And maybe use less of the titanium dioxide in the formula
to address the concern in coverage since titanium dioxide is considered to be more
opaque than zinc oxide.

10