Cosmetic sensory properties as a result of structure and raw material choices

The sensory properties of a cosmetic product are commonly associated with how it behaves during application, including how easily it spreads, whether it feels lightweight and the sensation it leaves on the skin. However, a product’s sensory profile is shaped by a series of decisions made during formulation development. It depends on the structure of the system, the properties of the raw materials and the way the formulation responds to forces during application.

Cosmetic sensory properties are about much more than a “nice feel”

The sensory properties of cosmetic products are most often described in terms of user perceptions, such as lightness, creaminess or a “rich” finish. However, these are only the final effects of complex physical processes occurring within the structure of the entire system. As scientific literature shows, application-related sensations are a direct consequence of material and structural decisions made as early as the emulsion design stage [1].

Modern approaches to sensory evaluation increasingly link these perceptions to measurable physical parameters, such as rheological properties and formulation microstructure. This makes it possible to predict a product’s sensory profile even before the final evaluation stage [1], [2].

From this perspective, sensory performance is no longer something refined only at the end of product development. Instead, it becomes a deliberately designed feature, shaped through the informed selection of ingredients and precise control of structural parameters.

Sensory performance as a measurable and systemic phenomenon

Scientific literature increasingly describes the sensory performance of cosmetic products as a systemic phenomenon. It results from the material properties of the ingredients and from the way the formulation behaves under the mechanical forces applied during use. Sensory evaluation studies show that attributes such as creaminess, spreadability and product body are reproducible across different assessment panels and can be correlated with specific physical parameters of the formulation [1].

At the same time, rheological studies of emulsions demonstrate that parameters such as low-shear viscosity, yield stress and shear-thinning behaviour provide a bridge between emulsion structure and sensory perception [2].

Rheology as a bridge between emulsion structure and user perception

The key link between formulation structure and sensory perception lies in its rheological properties. Parameters such as:

• viscosity at low shear rates,

• yield stress,

• shear-thinning behaviour

describe how an emulsion responds to the forces applied when the product is dispensed, spread and massaged into the skin. Studies of cosmetic emulsions show that these properties correlate most strongly with sensory descriptors such as creaminess, body, application control and perceived richness of texture [2–4].

Research also indicates that yield stress is closely related to the perceived pourability and spreadability of a product. Viscosity measured under low-shear conditions influences the perception of thickness, creaminess and the overall body of an emulsion. Shear-thinning behaviour, in turn, contributes to a sense of control during spreading: it allows the product to maintain a stable structure at rest while enabling it to flow more easily under the forces applied during use [2], [4].

In practice, this means that the sensory profile of a cosmetic product is determined long before it comes into contact with the skin — at the level of the emulsion microstructure.

Functional roles of ingredients in shaping emulsion sensory properties

When designing sensory properties, the key consideration is not so much which specific ingredients are present in the formulation, but rather the functions they perform within the emulsion microstructure.

Structure-building ingredients — such as fatty alcohols, long-chain esters and crystalline components — are responsible for creating and reinforcing the emulsion’s structural network. Their presence increases low-shear viscosity and yield stress, which translates sensorially into greater creaminess, body and texture stability [2], [3].

At the same time, they help maintain a coherent product structure at rest while allowing controlled breakdown under the forces applied during use.

Ingredients that modulate structural mobility — such as more mobile esters and emollients with lower kinematic viscosity — influence how the emulsion responds to increasing shear. They act as plasticisers within the structural network, reducing resistance during spreading and improving slip without requiring major changes to the overall formulation architecture [4], [5].

Film-forming components shape the product’s behaviour after application by influencing film continuity on the skin, perceived smoothness and after-feel [6]

Emulsifier selection as a sensory decision, not merely a stabilising one

One of the studies most frequently cited to demonstrate the relationship between emulsion structure and sensory perception is the work of Morávková and Filip, which examined the effect of emulsifier type on the rheological and sensory properties of cosmetic lotions [3].

The authors prepared a series of O/W emulsions that differed only in the emulsifying system used. This made it possible to directly link the observed differences in product behaviour and sensory properties to this single factor.

The results showed that changing the emulsifier alone led to significant differences in parameters such as low-shear viscosity and yield stress. Importantly, these parameters translated directly into sensory assessment: emulsions with a higher yield stress were perceived as creamier and “richer”, whereas those with lower initial resistance were considered lighter and easier to apply [3].

The study confirms that an emulsifier does more than simply stabilise the system — it actively contributes to the formulation’s structure and sensory profile. In practice, this means that different classes of emulsifiers, including systems based on polyglycerol-derived raw materials, can produce distinct sensory profiles even when they provide a comparable level of formulation stability [3], [4].

Emollients as carriers of sensory performance

An important complement to rheological research is provided by studies focusing on the sensory characterisation of emollients. Parente, Gámbaro and Ares demonstrated that different classes of emollients consistently generate distinct sensory profiles, including differences in spreadability, residual tackiness, gloss and perceived oiliness. These differences arise from the physicochemical properties of the emollients themselves rather than from their use in a particular formulation [5], [6].

This means that the sensory profile of a product can already be shaped at the emollient selection stage — whether the chosen material is a low-viscosity ester with high slip, a neutral medium-chain triglyceride or a heavier long-chain ester.

Research shows that emollients perform different sensory functions depending on the stage of application. During initial contact with the skin, low-kinematic-viscosity emollients are particularly important, as they reduce initial resistance and create the first impression of lightness. During spreading, structural emollients become increasingly relevant: through their influence on yield stress and shear-thinning behaviour, they help create a sense of control, creaminess and textural cohesion. After application, film-forming properties and the mobility of the remaining oil film influence after-feel, perceived smoothness and long-lasting comfort [5].

Panel studies are complemented by research examining the behaviour of emollients in complete formulations. Lukic and co-authors demonstrated that, in W/O creams, changing the emollient while maintaining the same formulation architecture led to significant differences in texture, sensory perception and measurable in vivo skin parameters [7]. This confirms the role of emollients as a key link between formulation structure and product behaviour on the skin

Spreadability as a function of application mechanics   

The mechanics of product spreading are a key element of sensory performance. Savary, Grisel and Picard demonstrated that spreadability can be assessed using both instrumental and sensory methods, with both approaches leading to consistent conclusions [8].

Their research shows that different emollients influence how a product spreads across the skin under shear forces, directly affecting perceived creaminess and application control. In practice, this means that selecting emollients with different kinematic viscosities and polarities makes it possible to control the product’s play time without modifying the architecture of the entire formulation.

Surface friction and the role of powder additives 

Increasing attention is also being paid to the role of surface friction in the perception of skin feel. Timm and co-authors demonstrated that powder additives can significantly alter the coefficient of friction between the skin and the applied product, directly influencing sensations such as smoothness, silkiness and a dry finish [9].

Similar conclusions emerge from sensory analyses of cosmetic powders, which show that even small amounts of mineral or organic additives can noticeably modify a product’s after-feel [10].

From a raw material perspective, powder components are an effective tool for fine-tuning sensory properties, particularly during the final stage of application.

Sensory performance beyond the INCI list – a common conclusion from the research

The sensory properties of a cosmetic product do not result directly from its INCI list, but from the material functions that individual ingredients perform within the formulation structure.

The role of a raw material distributor is not to design formulations or recommend ready-made recipes, but to provide access to ingredients with clearly defined sensory functions and to the knowledge required to interpret their performance correctly in light of the available data.

This approach enables R&D teams to treat sensory performance as a feature that can be deliberately designed and supported by data, rather than merely assessed retrospectively at the end of the product development process.