Introduction

Cosmetics sensory evaluation is an important judgment method of the product popularity after its launch. It is a key issue to determine the correlation between certain sensory properties that can be measured and sensory responses of general consumers in cosmetics quality evaluation. [1]According to IFT (Institute of Food Technologists)and ASTM (American society for Testing Materials),sensory evaluation technology is a science for the arousal,measurement, analysis and interpretation of sensory quality of cosmetics through visual, olfactory, tactile, taste and hearing organs. [2] At present, there are many methods of sensory analysis, such as difference test method, scale and category test method, descriptive analysis method,consumer acceptance and preference test method. [3] As far as descriptive analysis method is concerned, there are many kinds of classification and evaluation methods for the description of sensory characteristics, but in practical application, the utilization of quantitative descriptive analysis is relatively high. As a kind of descriptive sensory evaluation method, QDA (Quantitative Descriptive Analysis) was introduced by Tragon Company in the 1970s. The method can objectively reflect the sensory characteristics by scale marking. It can not only qualitatively analyze the samples, but also analyze the data measured by multivariate statistical method, combining qualitative and quantitative methods. [4]

In cosmetics sensory analysis, contrast marking is generally used to evaluate various sensory performances before use (such as spreadability and thickness), in use(such as moisture content, oil content, and absorption rate) and after use (softness, moisture and gloss). [5] At present, a complete set of standard system has not been established in the definition and judgment method of cosmetics sensory description words. [6] This paper studies the application of quantitative description analysis method in the sensory evaluation of cosmetics, and analyzes whether it is applicable to single feature sensory words and complex sensory words.

12月18日，作为兵团国有企业的新疆澳利亚乳业有限公司组织党员、管理人员和业务员工通过投影收看庆祝改革开放40周年大会实况。

用户可以在登录成功后修改个人相关信息，修改后的个人信息以json数据上传服务器进行保存。个人密码的修改可以通过输入旧密码，再输入新密码的方式来更改，也可以通过给注册手机号发送验证码，输入验证码，再输入新密码的方式来更改。

Material and method

Test sample

Comparative sample: Uzero Firming & Hydrating Elastic Cream; Sample A: Uzero Deep Hydrating Cream With Lotus;Sample B: Proya Deep Ocean Perfect Whitening Cream;Sample C: Proya Multi-Restorative Night Cream.

Test Material and instrument

Mild fragrance-free amino acid cleanser, self-made;fragrance-free tissue, Vinda Paper (China) Co. Ltd; fragrancefree wet tissue, Kangbei (Shanghai) Co. Ltd; timer PS-390,Shenzhen Zhuiri Electronic Technology Co., Ltd; evaluation questionnaire, internally set; cream jar (10 g); sticky label paper; plastic dispenser (1 mL).

Test method

1) Condition of the sensory evaluation lab

子宫内膜癌术后患者焦虑、抑郁发生率较高，尤其是伴有下肢淋巴水肿者，一方面妇科恶性肿瘤本身带来的恐惧、特殊位置手术带来的身体创伤，使女性除遭受身体上的打击外，还要承受相当大的心理创伤；另一方面辅助放、化疗在取得一定效果的同时也容易产生恶心、呕吐等不良反应，在接受治疗过程中常常造成潜在的器官伤害，使得患者出现负面情绪。

b) The evaluators sit quietly for 30 minutes in the room with(50 ± 10)% humidity and (22 ± 1) ºC temperature. During this period, evaluators are acquainted with sensory evaluation criteria (Table 1) and evaluation questionnaire.Sensory Evaluation Procedure:

The sensory evaluators are all female, and ages 20-40.They are divided into 2 groups. One is professional group(12 people) consists of long-trained sensory evaluators and the other is composed of volunteers from consumers (12 people).The preparation of sensory evaluators:

12 consumer evaluators and 12 professional evaluators respectively evaluate the sensory performances of 3 samples and come to rigorous result data. Use contrast marking to evaluate the feature description words (10 scores). The score will be higher than reference value if the performance is better than contrast sample; conversely, it will be lower than the reference value. [11] The evaluation results of 3 creams from consumer group and professional group see Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.

The sensory evaluation stage in this test is finished in the sensory evaluation lab of Proya R&D center. The room is undisturbed, and it maintains proper temperature,humidity and ventilation. The humidity is (50 ± 10)% and the temperature is (22 ± 1) ºC.[7]

2) The screening of sensory evaluator

1930年，国立青岛大学成立，并于9月正式开学。闻一多被聘为该校文学院院长兼中文系主任。臧克家正是在此受业于闻一多。在青岛大学，闻一多发表了专攻中国文学的第一篇考证论文，并制订了长远的唐诗研究计划。其研究大致可以分为两个阶段。

a) Evaluators wash arm (1 min, 3 cm off the tap) and face with mild fragrance-free amino acid cleanser;dry face and arm with fragrance-free tissue.

b) Enter the sensory evaluation lab; mark the inside area of evaluators’ arm where is 5 cm off the wrist by a 5 cm × 5 cm caliper plate. One area is the reference area and the other is the sample area.

c) Use skincare product after 2 min; apply 0.2 mL sample to the inner marked area with a syringe (without needle).

e) After 11 circles, tap to promote absorption; evaluate performance by comparing to comparative sample at 2 min, 3 min and 5 min after absorption.

d) Massage in circular motion with a speed of 1 ～ 2 r/min;evaluate the sample after 3 circles.

为了平衡不同主体间的利益，需要建立有效的利益协同和补偿机制，平衡了利益主体之间的利益诉求，在制度上给予激励以解决合作动力不足的问题[10]。为了鼓励企业积极参加到治理过程中，政府可以对部分企业提供补贴，提高工作人员的积极性，同时企业也能在此过程中树立公益形象，获得大众更多的消费倾向和政府的政策倾向，不断整合资源和增强主体意识。再者，如今“新零售”的出现通过线上与线下同款同价，消费场景碎片化，营造全链条的生态，实现跨渠道的融通，政府鼓励企业开展线下活动，消费者可以通过线上购物线下退换货等方式支持电商新的营销方式。

f) After the first group of evaluation, cleanse test area with fragrance-free amino acid cleanser; dry it and repeat procedure (b), (c), (d), (e), taking the next round of testing.

近代以来,中国文化在充分吸收科学文化的基础上不断进行着自我调节与自我更新,这是中国近现代文化的转型发展、走向自信的机制根源。中国特色社会主义先进文化“中国特色”与“世界共性”相辅相成,“中国特色”是蕴涵“世界共性”的“中国特色”,它们之间的融通之道就是科学文化。中国特色社会主义先进文化不是传统文化的当代表达,更不是西方主义的中国翻版;而是传承(不是回归)中国传统文化的基础,大力吸收科学文化,在中国特色社会主义建设中而形成的“中国模式”的文化表达。中国特色社会主义先进文化在不断刷新中国文化历史高度的同时,也将刷新世界文化历史高度。

g) The face test is finished in 3 days. Test a group of products per day according to the order of comparative sample A, comparative sample B and comparative sample C.

Table 1. Sensory evaluation criteria (cream)

Note: 1.The comparative sample is the best proya cream selected by professional sensory evaluation group after 3 repetitive blind tests; 2. Reference value is the mean value of the comparative sample performances by 3 evaluations. The standard deviation is 0.5 ± 0.2(10 scores). [10]

Procedure Description words Feature description Reference value Massage for 3 circles Single Thickness Use a thumb and a forefinger to press and rub lightly to feel the thickness 4.5 Massage for 11 circles Feature Moisture content Feel the hydration degree 5.5 Spreadability Feel the spreadability after massaging for 11 circles 5.0 Oil content The degree of liquid grease [8] 5.5 Absorption rate Pat to promote absorption, remember number of times before absorption 6.0 Residual degree Feel the residual cream with hands 5.5 Hand sticky degree Use a clean index finger and a middle finger to gently press, and feel the stickiness 5.0 3 min after absorption Complex 2 min after absorption Skin smoothness Skin smoothness 4.5 Skin gloss Skin gloss [9] 5.5 Feature 5 min after absorption Skin humidity Skin stays wet for a certain time 5.0 Skin softness Skin elasticity, soft as velvet 5.5 Skin moisture A film on the skin, making skin bright, soft,smooth and elastic 5.0

Table 2. The evaluation results of consumer group

?

Data processing:

现代水文考察发现汉江有三源：中源漾水，北源沮水，南源玉带河，均在秦岭南麓陕西省宁强县境内。流经沔县（今勉县）称沔水，东流至汉中始称汉水；自安康至丹江口段，古称沧浪水。

Collect the evaluation results of 3 samples respectively on arm and face; organize the data by statistical software SPSS 19.0.

Results and Discussion

a) The evaluators don’t use any skincare products on arm and face skin within 5 hours before test.

Then analyze the above data by SPSS. The confidence level (Cronbach’s α) is expressed by the following formula (1).

k is the total number of items in the table; Var(i) is the variance of i; v is variance is total items (see the corresponding meaning in Table 4). Table 5 shows the confidence level data from consumer sensory evaluation group.

In order to compare the variation of Cronbach’s α with and without single/compound feature description words, the author calculates the data of Table 5 and the result is shown in Table 6.

Table 3. The evaluation results of professional sensory group

?

Table 4. The meaning of Cronbach’s α

Note: The confidence level (Cronbach’s α) shows consistency and stability of test result, and it’s an indicator of true extent. [12]

Cronbach’s α Meaning＞ 0.8 Excellent confidence level＞ 0.7 Acceptable confidence level＞ 0.65 Need a big rework but acceptable＜ 0.65 Given up

According to Table 5 and Table 6, taking sample B on arm as an example, in the 7 single feature description words, only when “residual feeling” is removed will the overall Cronbach’s α increase. Whereas the overall Cronbach’s α will increase once any one of the 5 compound feature description words is removed. It shows that when the consumer group use quantitative descriptive analysis to evaluate a single feature description word, the result is credible, while the evaluation of compound feature description word would reduce the credibility of the overall result. The same conclusion can be drawn when analyzing other products of the arm and face with the same method.

目前国内许多城市，如北京、上海、广州、杭州开始主动设计游学项目，结合本地、本校实际情况开展特色活动。2015“上海暑期学校”吸引了来自世界上百个国家和地区的650多名外国学生，7年时间人数猛增了26倍。部分大学也相继开设知识及体验课程，编写教材，制作视频课件，效果很好。如上海外国语大学、中国传媒大学、浙江大学城市学院等，均有成功案例。

Table 7 lists the confidence level of the evaluation results of the professional sensory evaluation group. The result of table 7 is shown in Table 8.

According to Table 7 and Table 8, taking sample B on arm as an example, when any of the 7 single feature description words is removed, the overall Cronbach’s α will decrease; when removing “skin softness”, “skin smoothness”, “skin humidity” and “skin moisture” of the 5 compound feature description words, the overall Cronbach’s α will all increase. It shows that when the professional group use quantitative descriptive analysis to evaluate a single feature description word, the result is credible, while the evaluation of compound feature description word would reduce the credibility of the overall result. The same conclusion can be drawn when analyzing other products of the arm and face with the same method.

From above analysis, both confidence levels of the consumer group and the professional group are low when evaluating the above sensory compound words quantitatively. Therefore, it is inaccurate and unscientific to evaluate compound words using quantitative descriptive analysis method.

Table 5. The confidence level analysis of evaluation result of consumer sensory group

Note: The overall Cronbach’s α after removing corresponding compound feature description word. The higher the overall Cronbach's α is, the lower the confidence level of removed item is; the lower the overall Cronbach's α is, the higher the confidence level of removed item is.

?

Table 6. The confidence level analysis of single and compound feature description words score from consumer sensory group

The overall cronbach’s α Arm Face Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample A Sample B Sample C Removing single feature description wordThe number of increasing Cronbach’s α 0 1 0 2 1 1 The number of decreasing Cronbach’s α 7 6 7 5 6 6 Removing compound feature description word The number of increasing Cronbach’s α 3 5 4 3 4 4The number of decreasing Cronbach’s α 2 0 1 2 1 1

Table 7. The confidence level analysis of evaluation result of professional sensory group

Note: The overall Cronbach’s α after removing corresponding compound feature description word. The higher the overall Cronbach's α is, the lower the confidence level of removed item is; the lower the overall Cronbach's α is, the higher the confidence level of removed item is.

Removed single feature description word Thickness 0.591 0.710 0.797 0.642 0.682 0.723 Spreadability 0.692 0.706 0.763 0.656 0.655 0.678 Moisture content 0.604 0.697 0.744 0.629 0.720 0.728 Oil content 0.719 0.697 0.752 0.709 0.675 0.700 Absorption rate 0.683 0.687 0.742 0.675 0.692 0.714 Residual degree 0.644 0.708 0.806 0.596 0.689 0.686 Hand sticky degree 0.588 0.656 0.775 0.644 0.629 0.712 Skin softness 0.742 0.716 0.826 0.711 0.696 0.779 Skin smoothness 0.673 0.801 0.813 0.697 0.721 0.806 Skin humidity 0.726 0.705 0.768 0.699 0.714 0.726 Skin moisture 0.730 0.746 0.827 0.689 0.758 0.786 Skin gloss 0.782 0.741 0.812 0.661 0.724 0.766 Removed compound feature description word

Table 8. The confidence level analysis of single and compound feature description words score from professional sensory group

The overall cronbach’s α Arm Face Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample A Sample B Sample C Removing single feature description word The number of increasing cronbach’s α 0 0 0 1 1 0 The number of decreasing Cronbach’s α 7 7 7 6 6 7 Removing compound feature description word The number of increasing cronbach’s α 4 4 4 4 3 4 The number of decreasing Cronbach’s α 1 1 1 1 2 1

Conclusion

In conclusion, when evaluating cosmetic single feature description words (such as spreadability, thickness,absorption rate) with Quantitative Descriptive Analysis(QDA), scale method will reflect product sensory features more objectively and enhance the accuracy of data. The confidence level result is rather higher by confidence level analysis. Therefore, the application of the Quantitative Descriptive Analysis method in the evaluation of the sensory assessment items is scientific and reasonable.However, when evaluating compound feature description words (such as skin softness, skin smoothness, skin moisture), the confidence level result is low. As a result,QDA is not suggested in the evaluation of compound feature description words. The evaluation method and application of cosmetic compound words are still under investigation.

References

[1] Zhou Suyu. Introduction of sensory analysis techniques.Standard &Quality of Light Industry 1994(3),22-23.

[2] Wu Xiqian; yuan Xiaojuan. Overview of food sensory analysis.Shandong Food Ferment 2010(3), 21-24.

[3] Jia Xiutian; Jiang Xiaomei; Xiao Hong. The comparison and application of sensory analysis methods. Modern Commodity Inspection Science and Technique 1993(3), 7-12.

[4] Zheng Cuiyin; Huang Zhiqing;Liu Zhibin. Quantitative description analysis method for sensory evaluation of yellow rice wine. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology 2015, 15(1), 222-209.

[5] Meilgaard M C, Carr B T, Civille G V. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. 4th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2006.

[6] State Administration for Market Regulation, Standardization Administration. GB/T 10221-2012 Sensory Analysis Vocabulary.Beijing: China Standards Press, 2012.

[7] State Administration for Market Regulation. GB/T 12310—1990 Sensory Analysis Method—Paired Comparison Test. Beijing:China Standards Press, 1990.

[8] Qu Shaomei. Food Sensory Evaluation and Internship.Taichung: Wagner Publishing Co., Ltd, 2003.

[9] Ma yongqiang;Han Chuanran; Liu Jingbo. Sensory Examination of Food. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press, 2005.

[10] Lawless H T;Heymann H. The Principle and Technology of Food Sensory Evaluation. Beijing: China Light Industry Press,2001.

[11] Boinbaser L;Parente M E;Castura J C;et al. Dynamic sensory characterization of cosmetic creams during application using Temporal Check - All - That - Apply (TCATA) questions. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 45: 33-40.

[12] Zhi Leilei;yu Qin;Lu Nan. Gender difference in sensory evaluation of moisturizing milk by consumers. Detergent &Cosmetics 2013, 36(1), 34-42.