A quantitative descriptive analysis comparing sensory profiles of nipple creams
88
Presented by: Morgan McCabe
A quantitative descriptive analysis comparing sensory profiles of nipple creams
Background: Topical lanolin is commonly used on the nipples of breastfeeding women to increase moisturisation and maintain the skin barrier. There are various grades of lanolin which differ in colour, taste and smell, depending on the level of refinement1. The sensory profile of nipple creams is important to ensure they do not interfere with breastfeeding. This study aims to evaluate key sensory attributes of nipple creams.
Methods: Five lanolin nipple care products (HPAa, MAMb, BOOc, ARDd and MEDe)2, along with two lanolin raw materials3 underwent quantitative descriptive analysis by a trained independent testing panel (n=8). Samples were assessed on various parameters including appearance, aroma, texture, oral characteristics, rub-in characteristics, skin-feel, and after-feel characteristics. A two factor ANOVA (mixed model) and Tukey Kramer HSD multiple comparison test were used to identify significant differences between samples (5%, p=0.05).
Findings: None of the samples had a perceivable aroma. HPA scored the lightest colour (rated 2) on the Gardner Colour Scale (scale 0-66). The other lanolin products scored between 7-16, indicating they were darker in colour and more closely matched the lanolin raw materials (score: 7-19). No significant difference was noted in perceived moisturisation level after product use (Scale 0-100: HPA=62.56, MAM=54.19, BOO=61.31, ARD=63.19 and MED=52.94). Differences were noted in perceived skin residue (Scale 0-100: HPA=56.81, MAM=74.50, BOO=67.19, ARD=66.38 and MED=65.50, p<0.05), stickiness after application (Scale 0-100: HPA=17.00, MAM=36.31, BOO=41.62, ARD=45.00 and MED=29.56, p=<0.05) and slipperiness after application (Scale 0-100: HPA=39.69, MAM=39.50, BOO=48.31, ARD=43.44 and MED=43.38, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Nipple creams should be a pleasant texture for mothers to use, and as neutral as possible in smell and taste to prevent interference with nursing or infant rejection. The sensory data presented here indicates that all the lanolin products included in this study met these criteria, however HPA Lanolin was lightest in colour, perceived as less sticky and left less residue compared to the other topical lanolin nipple care products evaluated.
1. Clark, E. W. (1999). The History and Evolution of Lanolin. In The Lanolin Book (pp. 17–49).
2. a. HPA® Lanolin (Lansinoh Laboratories), b. Multi-Mam (BioClin), c. Maternity Lanolin Nipple Cream (Boots), d. Ardo Care Lanolin (Ardo), e. Purelan™ (Medela).
3. Pharmalan™ PH EU-SO-(RB) (Croda) and Corona 8-SO-(RB) (Croda).
Background: Topical lanolin is commonly used on the nipples of breastfeeding women to increase moisturisation and maintain the skin barrier. There are various grades of lanolin which differ in colour, taste and smell, depending on the level of refinement1. The sensory profile of nipple creams is important to ensure they do not interfere with breastfeeding. This study aims to evaluate key sensory attributes of nipple creams.
Methods: Five lanolin nipple care products (HPAa, MAMb, BOOc, ARDd and MEDe)2, along with two lanolin raw materials3 underwent quantitative descriptive analysis by a trained independent testing panel (n=8). Samples were assessed on various parameters including appearance, aroma, texture, oral characteristics, rub-in characteristics, skin-feel, and after-feel characteristics. A two factor ANOVA (mixed model) and Tukey Kramer HSD multiple comparison test were used to identify significant differences between samples (5%, p=0.05).
Findings: None of the samples had a perceivable aroma. HPA scored the lightest colour (rated 2) on the Gardner Colour Scale (scale 0-66). The other lanolin products scored between 7-16, indicating they were darker in colour and more closely matched the lanolin raw materials (score: 7-19). No significant difference was noted in perceived moisturisation level after product use (Scale 0-100: HPA=62.56, MAM=54.19, BOO=61.31, ARD=63.19 and MED=52.94). Differences were noted in perceived skin residue (Scale 0-100: HPA=56.81, MAM=74.50, BOO=67.19, ARD=66.38 and MED=65.50, p<0.05), stickiness after application (Scale 0-100: HPA=17.00, MAM=36.31, BOO=41.62, ARD=45.00 and MED=29.56, p=<0.05) and slipperiness after application (Scale 0-100: HPA=39.69, MAM=39.50, BOO=48.31, ARD=43.44 and MED=43.38, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Nipple creams should be a pleasant texture for mothers to use, and as neutral as possible in smell and taste to prevent interference with nursing or infant rejection. The sensory data presented here indicates that all the lanolin products included in this study met these criteria, however HPA Lanolin was lightest in colour, perceived as less sticky and left less residue compared to the other topical lanolin nipple care products evaluated.
1. Clark, E. W. (1999). The History and Evolution of Lanolin. In The Lanolin Book (pp. 17–49).
2. a. HPA® Lanolin (Lansinoh Laboratories), b. Multi-Mam (BioClin), c. Maternity Lanolin Nipple Cream (Boots), d. Ardo Care Lanolin (Ardo), e. Purelan™ (Medela).
3. Pharmalan™ PH EU-SO-(RB) (Croda) and Corona 8-SO-(RB) (Croda).