Final Paper

Chemistry

What Does ‘Natural' Beauty Mean and Who Gets to Define it?

The endless debate between chemists and natural beauty gurus

Few words have been contested as much as “natural” in the ever-evolving cosmetics industry. Trends wax and wane season after season, but the intrigue surrounding naturally derived makeup and skincare continues to occupy the beauty world’s imagination. Last year, Forbes tapped former L’Oréal employee and current beauty brand consultant Jennifer Hessel to give her take on the industry. Hessel boldly stated “Skincare From the Earth” – aka “natural, clean, and even food-standard products” – may be the biggest trend in beauty. Little, if anything at all, has changed since she shared her comments with Forbes. In fact, industry insiders are doubling down. Kisaco Research, the annual hosts of the Beauty & Money Summit in Los Angeles, California, held an international search for what the most successful, new beauty brands are focusing on and it’s not surprise that their number one finding was “clean” beauty.

But even with all the industry, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to develop an official, government-mandated standard for what “natural,” “organic,” and “clean” mean. Without a set guideline, cosmetic brands can slap an all-natural label on just about any product regardless of its ingredients. Natural beauty gurus, cosmetic chemists, and clean beauty consumers all have their own requisites for what makes a product natural or “clean” and more often than not those guidelines do not overlap. Who has the final say, then?

Some believe scientists hold the power to defining what is or is not natural, but others question a system that privileges expensive degrees and financially incentivized chemists who benefit from a loos definition of natural beauty. On that same note, there are those who feel clean beauty enthusiasts wield the power to shape the defining characteristics of natural cosmetics while their counterparts see gurus and laymen consumers as uninformed hobbyists.

Chemistry professionals don’t doubt the necessity of better, more natural products. They do, however, question to what end consumers must be concerned with potentially dangerous ingredients. In their eyes, journals publish so much research each day and new chemical properties are discovered constantly that we could eventually approach a time where all ingredients could be classified as toxic. Additionally, synthetic organic chemistry, which refers to the field of chemistry concerned with synthesizing carbon-based molecules (this often serves as a point of confusion between scientists and laypeople. Oftentimes beauty product formulations come about from natural product synthetic organic chemistry research and despite the terms natural, synthetic, and organic appearing within the research category’s name, there is no immediate connection between the natural product synthetic organic chemistry field and natural versus synthetic cosmetics), typically works to imitate the molecules naturally occurring in the environment. In fact, many research labs work to synthesize safer versions of toxic chemicals naturally occurring in the earth. With that in mind, synthetic no longer automatically means toxic and natural may not mean safe by default.

But some natural cosmetic experts are familiar with the complexity chemists point out when contesting organic cosmetics. Dr. Cary Gannon, a board certified podiatric surgeon and founder of natural beauty brand AILA Cosmetics, falls into this category and believes natural cannot be defined by a specific set of rules. Instead she says “[natural means] plant-based and free from as many harmful chemicals as possible.” Dr. Gannon developed her AILA to service her patients who needed a healthy alternative to regular, store-bought nail polish. Despite her mission to provide natural nail polish to her customers, she continues to face the seemingly insurmountable challenge many clean beauty brands face – the arbitrary qualifications for natural cosmetics shifts so rapidly that adjusting to trends while maintaining a brand’s integrity feels almost impossible. In fact, AILA’s website features an entire section titled “How Free Are We?” referencing the nail care industry’s nomenclature for natural products.

Years ago 3-free nail polish, lacquer free of the three most harmful ingredients in nail polish (formaldehyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalate), was developed and sold as the first clean nail products. Soon after 5-free nail polish hit shelves also eliminating formaldehyde resin and camphor. Just as when the first 3-free and 5-free products became available, there are still no scholarly articles published on the negative effects of any nail polish ingredients. However, in that same period, researchers have conducted countless studies showing all five ingredients’ carcinogenic properties. The need for natural beauty, according to clean beauty enthusiasts, doesn’t come from a mountain of peer reviewed researching proving the toxicity of synthetic beauty products. Rather, gurus and self-proclaimed natural beauty experts meticulously read the literature and develop informed conclusions based on the data they’ve gathered.

Natural cosmetics are not just a trend that will be here today and gone tomorrow. Clean beauty consumers’ robust library of knowledge on chemical formulations, active ingredient properties, and product efficacy shows the depth of natural beauty proving the subcategory’s longevity. As researchers publish new and noteworthy data on common chemical ingredients, organic cosmetic brands will evaluate risk factors and integrate the information they’ve gathered into natural product development process. By design, clean beauty is an agile industry constantly evolving to fit the ever-changing science landscape. What’s considered safe today may be deemed toxic tomorrow. According to natural beauty consumers, that’s exactly what makes clean beauty great.

Chemistry

Women’s Quest to Take Over the [Beauty] World

How the rise of natural beauty gave room for women to infiltrate STEM

For centuries, STEM-related industries excluded women from gaining access to quality education and viable careers. Some feminist culture theorists believe even historically feminized activities like baking and applying skincare are common hobbies for women because they allow those who were pushed away from pursuing science careers to experience science in a small but impactful way. Without the proper steps to attaining a degree in chemistry or a job as a formulation chemist, women have resorted to alternative methods of indulging their analytical minds.

Sexism in science starts early and presents itself inconspicuously. Studies show that before the age of seven, young girls are already exposed to a variety of subtle cues telling them they shouldn’t pursue careers in science. This often takes the form of stifling analytical creativity in favor of creative storytelling for toys marketed towards girls (think: several Barbie dolls with intricate back stories but few sprawling Lego cityscapes) as well as representations of female scientists in children’s media being few and far between. Such ingrained misogyny calls for revolutionary action. And luckily, that’s exactly what happened. Girls and women stopped sitting idly by as the industry that’s profit off of them for centuries continued to rake in the cash. Now female beauty consumers demand their inclusion, no ifs ands or buts about it.

The natural beauty trend, catalyzed by everyday female beauty consumers, quickly turned into a large-scale example of women reclaiming their space in STEM. By shifting an entire chemistry-based industry through peer-to-peer information sharing and in-depth personal research, women have seemingly overthrown the male-dominated field of cosmetic chemistry. Even if beauty consumers weren’t enacting systemic change to fight a society that implicitly discourages little girls from being scientists, they do their part by staking claim to their own piece of the beauty world. Understanding the ingredient lists, product formulations, and long-term effects of the items in their medicine cabinets show undeniable chemical literacy. Additionally, scrutinizing tried-and-true, bestselling products based on criteria extracted from notable research findings highlights women’s science-related critical thinking skills can and will thrive even under the pressure of centuries-deep misogyny. Women saw the backdoor to cosmetics – natural beauty – and shamelessly snuck in to challenge the way things had always been done. They refused to purchase products made with carcinogenic chemicals, toxic ingredients, and untested components. And as any brand in the current consumer climate of Boycott Culture knows, purchasing power makes or breaks a business. Beauty enthusiasts redirected their disposable income to an untapped market – clean beauty.

More exciting still, not only are female consumers choosing to spend their beauty dollars on natural products, they are also starting their own natural beauty brands. Most major producers of synthetic cosmetics (Estee Lauder, L’Oréal, and Revlon) are helmed by men and run by a cohort of male c-suite executives and senior vice presidents. In contrast, organic cosmetic companies enter the marketplace every day with more and more of them boasting female founders and CEOs. On the heels of Third Wave feminism, the fourth wave (often referred to as Post-Feminism) appeared out of thin air. Suddenly everywhere you looked there were #Girlbossesä and #PantsuitNation devotees preaching the empowered women gospel. Major sociopolitical movements of the twenty-first century changed the game for American women across many industries and beauty was no exception. In 2010 came Tata Harper, the luxury skincare brand now selling “100% natural, nontoxic” beauty essentials in over 400 Sephora stores nationwide. Next came Herbivore Botanicals in 2011 with “synthetic free, plant-based” products meant for troubled skin. Then there was Vintner’s Daughter in 2012, the cult-favorite cosmetics company with only one item in its entire product lineup: a natural face oil “infused with 22 of the world’s most nutrient-rich botanicals.” In the following six years came countless other companies created by everyday women who noticed a gap in the beauty market they were being offered.  

Women are actively and relentlessly infiltrating the beauty supply chain. At every stage of the beauty business, the proportion of women continues to increase. More and more women are choosing to be product developers and cosmetic chemists; female business strategists no longer are a rarity; makeup and skincare retailers now look to women to guide their day-to-day sales. Heck, even the ultra-exclusive, notoriously boys club-esque finance industry is seeing an uptick in female venture capitalists funding this new wave of beauty startups. Gone are the days when men conceptualized, developed, sold, and profited from women’s cosmetics while overtly and implicitly excluded women from participating in the process beyond end-product consumption. Regardless of the natural beauty’s controversial perception in society, there’s no argument that the rise of organic makeup and skincare lent itself to becoming the perfect platform for a feminist revolution in STEM.

Science Essay

Chemistry

The Skintellectual

A new era marked by knowledge and passion in the world of cosmetics

Within weeks of the new year, economists, dermatologists, and marketers had already dubbed 2018 the year of “skintellectualism” – a trend in the rapidly growing beauty industry wherein consumers without a scientific background are concerned with the scientific properties of their products. By January 2019, industry insiders realized skintellectualism had become more than a trend and instead was a new era of cosmetic consumerism.

Skintellectuals do more than just read the ingredients written on the back of their favorite face wash. In just a few words, they can glean a skincare item’s efficacy, potency, and chemical reactivity with a level of accuracy once assumed to be exclusive to chemists.

Unbeknownst to the average cosmetic consumer, the order of ingredients listed on a skincare label correlates to the relative amount of each component in the formulation. However, information as fundamental as the hierarchy system of ingredient lists disseminates throughout the skintellectual community by way of articles, podcasts, and well-trained beauty counter sales associates.

But don’t be mistaken; the ingredients themselves matter, too.

Cosmetic companies spend billions of dollars on research and development when creating a new product. Thanks to skintellectuals, the specifics of what goes into the R&D process means more than it ever has before.  Chemicals like formaldehyde no longer appear on labels while newly discovered materials like alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs) are becoming the go-to skincare ingredient. Ask a formulation chemist or chemical engineer to explain what “alpha hydroxy acid” is an they will all happily oblige. Direct an identical question to a skintellectual and they’ll likely clue you in on the history of AHA’s laboratory discovery as well as the defining factors of molecules within the AHA subcategory. What skintellectuals lack in chemistry academia they make up for in passionate research into their beauty cabinet mainstays. They may not know what elements make up the core of the earth, but skintellectuals hold all the information on the microscopic ingredients they slather onto their glowing skin each morning and night.

Alpha hydroxy acids appear within the ingredient lists of most brightening and age-defying skincare, but glycolic acid stands as the most versatile AHA. Skintellectuals know the glycolic acid listed in the ingredient lineup of their favorite toner is the smallest hydroxy acid stable enough for human skin. The hydroxyl groups – made up of a single oxygen atom covalently bonded to a single hydrogen atom – on either end of glycolic acid’s carbon backbone react readily with H₂O molecules. When combined in an over-the-counter (OTC) formula, glycolic acid and water produce a homogenous, lightweight substance easily applied to sun-damaged, dry skin in the form of cleansers, moisturizers, toners, and serums.

Skintellectuals don’t just know this; they know a cleanser with 5% glycolic acid contains just the right amount of active ingredients to help the stratum germinativum, the bottom layer of the epidermis, begin replenishing their dying skin cells at an accelerated rate. The average person’s skin takes twenty-seven days to regenerate a new dermal layer. With the help of glycolic infused skincare, skintellectuals see a glowing, new stratum corneum, the top most layer of the epidermis, every week.

They also know that a toner with 5% glycolic acid will not have the potency to rejuvenate the skin dullness they are likely trying to combat. The ingredients matter, but so do the products the ingredients appear within. Formulation chemists engineer facial toners as one of the most efficacious products in a skintellectuals beauty routine. Greater amounts of active ingredients with higher percent compositions are expected and skintellectuals demand that expectation is met. As they look on a toner’s label, a search for an 8% or even 10% glycolic acid denotation ensues. The molecule is still the same. Glycolic acid is still an AHA. But despite acknowledging that consistently true information, skintellectuals know more and dig deeper. The order of ingredients matters, but so do the ingredients themselves. And even when the ingredient hierarchy and the ingredient list pass the rigorous test for a skintellectual’s approval, the product category must be brought into consideration.

Those who said beauty is pain should have said “beauty is complicated” because skintellectualism isn’t for the faint of heart.

Science News Story

Blackberries and Spinach may be the Secret to Solar Energy Efficiency

Blackberry juice seems to be the ingredient needed to enhance the electrical output of spinach-derived biohybrid solar cells. Experiments show that combining dye from blackberries and molecules extracted from spinach increases the energy solar cells can capture and store.

Professor Kane Jennings and Professor David Cliffel at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., conducted a series of biomolecular experiments to incorporate natural materials in biohybrid solar cells with the hopes of increasing the cells’ voltage. Biohybrid solar cells may hold the key to better energy in the near future. Scientists have long known that the sun supplies a better, more sustainable source of energy than many of the prevalent resources used today such as coal, wood, and corn. However, the big challenge facing many researchers is how they can effectively obtain and store solar energy for human use.

Capturing energy from the sun then converting it into a power source is a fiscally demanding process. Economic viability concerns many scientists these days. Even if an experiment produces positive results or showcases the best possible way to achieve a scientific feat, if it cannot be done in a financially responsible way researchers will likely not pursue it. “A goal of researchers in the solar area is to design solar cells that can produce high power but also those that can be affordably scaled up to larger areas,” says Jennings whose research focuses on optimizing molecular design. The biohybrid solar cells he and Professor Cliffel studied provide an effective method for generating significant power at a low cost.

Cost is not the only factor solar energy researchers must consider. Biohybrid solar cells transfer energy in units of photovoltage and photovoltage is color dependent. Thanks to unsuccessful experiments conducted by previous scientists utilizing various other dyes, Jennings and Cliffel hypothesized blackberry juice-derived dye, anthocyanin, would be the one that worked. Anthocyanins are used for fabric dying and food coloring in dark reds, purples, blues and black. When combined with photosynthetic molecules extracted from spinach, they absorb complimentary wavelengths of light from the sun and convert the light energy to chemical energy.

In order to facilitate the solar energy capture and storage process, the blackberry and spinach duo is layered onto a titanium oxide coated, microscopic gold electrode. Researchers then place the electrode in the presence of simulated sunlight and measure the voltage output over time. Jennings and Cliffel’s experiments yielding photovoltage twice that of anthocyanins on their own, and twenty times what spinach extracts were able to produce alone.

According the Jennings, this shows how important a biohybrid, multidisciplinary approach to solar energy solutions truly is. “The work we do requires a fusion of different fields, including surface chemistry, electrochemistry, biochemical engineering, materials science, and electrical engineering.  Therefore, the collaboration between my group in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and that of Professor David Cliffel in Chemistry has been very beneficial to make progress and advance the field,” says Jennings.

Professor Jennings cannot say which dyes they are looking to test next, but don’t be surprised if it comes from yet another food you can find in the produce aisle.