How to Evaluate a Skincare Lab’s Formulation Technology

Formulation ScienceBuyer Guides
Written By Pensive Beauty

Carrier, size spec, stabilisation, domains, and four more questions to ask any lab

Published by Pensive Beauty®, which makes NanoBase™. The checklist applies to any lab. Our own answers are in a labelled section at the end. This post replaces an earlier version that ranked labs.

Many labs call their formulation technology "advanced". The word has no agreed definition. A brand founder or R&D lead can instead ask every lab the same questions and compare the documents that come back. The eight questions below work for a contract manufacturer, an ingredient supplier, a liposome specialist or a nanoscience lab. Good practice can show up in any of them, including a conventional emulsion that is well designed and well documented.

What is the carrier designed to?

Ask the lab to name its design basis and show the rationale in writing. Common answers:

  • An HLB target. Emulsifiers are matched to the required HLB of the oil phase, the system William Griffin published in 1949. It is well understood, well supported by suppliers and appropriate for many products.

  • A nanoemulsion process. Low-energy phase-inversion-temperature (PIT) methods, or high-energy routes such as high-pressure homogenisation.

  • Vesicles. Liposomes or other bilayer vesicles, usually phospholipid-based.

  • A microemulsion. McClements (2012) explains how these differ from nanoemulsions in terminology and stability.

  • An architecture specification. A documented target for structure, size and stabilisation that the lab manufactures to.

None of these is right by default. The useful follow-ups are practical: does it suit your actives and format, and what equipment will your manufacturer need to finish the formula?

What size does the lab target, and how is each batch measured?

If a lab uses size language (nano, sub-micron, a figure in nanometres), ask for three things:

  1. A published design target or specification range, for the raw material and, separately, for a typical finished formula. The two are rarely the same.

  2. The method. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) is common, and ISO 22412 describes it. Ask for angle, temperature, dilution, and whether results are intensity- or number-weighted.

  3. A per-batch result against the specification on the certificate of analysis (CoA), with the lot number.

A single number is not the whole story. The DLS Z-average is an intensity-weighted mean, and a few large structures can dominate it. A sample with more than one population cannot be described by one figure, and self-assembled systems can change on dilution. Ask for the full size distribution, the lab's spec limits, and size measured again after storage.

What keeps it stable, and is that a design principle or a measured value?

Colloids are held apart in several well-described ways: electrostatic repulsion (formalised in DLVO theory), steric layers, particle-stabilised (Pickering) interfaces, thickened continuous phases and ripening inhibitors. All are established practice, and many good formulas combine several.

Ask which mechanism the carrier relies on, then ask what evidence backs it: zeta potential for charge-based claims, size tracked over time at stated temperatures, freeze-thaw cycling, centrifuge testing.

Learn to separate two kinds of statement. "Designed to an electrostatic stabilisation specification" describes intent. "Zeta potential of X mV, measured by method Y on lot Z" reports a result. Both are legitimate when labelled honestly. The problem is a design statement presented as a measurement.

What cargo can the carrier hold, and where does each ingredient go?

Ask how many distinct domains or compartments the carrier is built with, and which cargo classes each is intended for: oil-soluble, water-soluble, or amphiphilic and bilayer-associating materials. Ask for loading limits per class, and which ingredients are known to be incompatible, for example materials whose charge interacts with the carrier.

A single-domain carrier can be exactly right for a single-active product. A multi-domain carrier is a design choice, not a guarantee. What matters is whether the lab can say in writing where your actives are intended to go, and on what basis.

How does the lab handle nanomaterial status in each market?

Regulators do not define "nano" the same way.

  • EU. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, Article 2(1)(k), defines a cosmetic nanomaterial as an insoluble or biopersistent and intentionally manufactured material with external dimensions or internal structure from 1 to 100 nm. Ingredients that meet it need notification, and "(nano)" after their name in the ingredient list.

  • US. The FDA has no regulatory definition. Its 2014 guidance considers materials engineered with a dimension of roughly 1 to 100 nm, or engineered to show size-dependent properties at up to 1,000 nm.

  • Other markets. Rules differ again.

Ask for the lab's written position and its basis: solubility, biopersistence, and whether the structures are intentionally manufactured or self-assembled. You, as the brand, still confirm status for each market you sell into.

What documents come with every batch?

At minimum: a technical data sheet (TDS), a safety data sheet (SDS), and a lot-specific CoA showing specification and result for appearance, pH, viscosity, size where claimed, and microbiology. You will also need a full ingredient (INCI) declaration for your label, which may be shared under an NDA. Ask how long the lab keeps a retained sample of each lot and how a batch complaint is resolved.

Who owns the formula?

Get the answers in the contract. Who owns the finished formula? Can you move manufacturing to another contract manufacturer? Is the carrier single-source? Are there licensing fees? What happens to the formula and deliverables if the agreement ends early? Proprietary raw materials are normal in this industry. You should simply know the terms before you build on one.

Who wrote the evidence?

This question is easy to skip and worth asking. Evidence about a carrier usually sits in one of three tiers:

  1. Authored by the lab itself: websites, white papers, technical notes, preprints.

  2. Commissioned from a third party, with the commissioning party disclosed and the testing laboratory and method named.

  3. Peer-reviewed publication.

All three have value, and many specialist suppliers start at tier 1. Ask which tier you are looking at, read the author lists, and ask whether "independent" testing was commissioned, and by whom. A preprint is not peer-reviewed, however rigorous it looks.

How should you score the answers?

For each question, record one of three outcomes: documented (you received a document), stated (you were told, without a document) or not available. Compare labs on the documented column. A well-documented conventional emulsion can outscore a poorly documented nano claim, and it should.

How Pensive Beauty answers these questions

Disclosure: this post is published by Pensive Beauty®, which makes NanoBase™. The answers below are ours. To date our technical evidence is self-published: two Zenodo records authored by Pensive Beauty (a technical note and a preprint), neither peer-reviewed. Pensive Beauty is arranging independent characterisation by an outside laboratory. Any published results will state that Pensive Beauty commissioned the work and will name the laboratory. Apply the checklist to us as you would to anyone else.

Pensive Beauty® Nanoscience Labs, a cosmetic nanoscience laboratory in Seffner, Florida, manufactures NanoBase™, a cosmetic raw material: a tri-domain nano-colloidal Architecture with nanocolloidal, liposomal and nanomicellar domains, designed to an electrostatic (DLVO) stabilisation specification rather than an HLB emulsifier target, engineered to a ~185 nm design target, DLS-characterised every batch, and used at 55-90% of leave-on cosmetic formulas that brands complete with standard cosmetic equipment.

  1. Design basis. NanoBase™ is designed to an electrostatic (DLVO) stabilisation and domain-partition specification rather than to an HLB target. It is the Architecture, a raw material for leave-on use on intact skin; the finished formula built on it is the delivery system.

  2. Size. ~185 nm design target, DLS-characterised every batch. Finished formulas built on it average about 250 nm.

  3. Stabilisation. Zeta potential has not yet been reported, so electrostatic stabilisation is stated as a design specification, not a measured value.

  4. Domains and cargo. Engineered as a tri-domain architecture (design specification): nanocolloidal for oil-soluble materials, liposomal for amphiphilic and bilayer-associating materials, nanomicellar for solubilised materials. Partitioning is design intent, not a measured fraction.

  5. Nanomaterial status. Its domains are self-assembled and soluble/degradable, not insoluble or biopersistent manufactured nanoparticles; brands confirm nano status per market. Micelles, for example, self-assemble above the critical micelle concentration rather than being manufactured.

  6. Documents. A TDS and SDS for each variant and a CoA with each lot, available to account holders through nanobaselabs.com. The full ingredient list is available on request to qualified accounts.

  7. Formula ownership. Under our standard terms, the formula a brand builds on NanoBase™ belongs to the brand, and can be made at the contract manufacturer of its choice. The Architecture remains Pensive Beauty's intellectual property, supplied by Pensive Beauty.

  8. Evidence. Lab-authored (tier 1) today. The preprint (Zenodo record 21971474) reports that its central deposition claim has not yet been tested. We make no efficacy or skin-performance claim for the Architecture; finished-product claims are the brand's to substantiate.

NanoBase™ (trademark application pending) is a cosmetic raw material supplied to brands and manufacturers, not to be confused with consumer pharmacy creams of similar name.

Frequently asked questions

How do I compare labs that claim advanced formulation technology?

Ask for the carrier design basis, a published size target with per-batch DLS, the stabilisation mechanism and the domain count. Pensive Beauty publishes all four for NanoBase™, which it makes. Then ask who authored the evidence behind each answer.

Is a conventional HLB emulsion a poor choice?

No. Conventional emulsions are typically designed to an HLB target; ask any supplier which method it uses and what size data it publishes. A well-designed emulsion with stability data and a clear CoA is good practice.

What should a CoA show for a nano-scale raw material?

The lot number, and the specification next to the result for size (with the method), appearance, pH, viscosity and microbiology. Where size is claimed, ask for the full size distribution as well as the headline figure.

Does using a nano-scale base make my product a nanomaterial?

Not automatically. Definitions differ by market, and the EU definition turns on insoluble or biopersistent, intentionally manufactured material. Ask the supplier for its written basis, and confirm status for each market you sell into.

Is a preprint the same as peer-reviewed evidence?

No. A preprint is a public record of the authors' work that has not been through journal peer review. It can be useful, but check who wrote it and whether anyone independent has reproduced it.

References

  • Griffin, W. C. (1949). Classification of surface-active agents by "HLB". Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, 1(5), 311 to 326.

  • Derjaguin, B., & Landau, L. (1941). Theory of the stability of strongly charged lyophobic sols and of the adhesion of strongly charged particles in solutions of electrolytes. Acta Physicochimica URSS, 14, 633 to 662.

  • Verwey, E. J. W., & Overbeek, J. Th. G. (1948). Theory of the Stability of Lyophobic Colloids. Elsevier.

  • McClements, D. J. (2012). Nanoemulsions versus microemulsions: terminology, differences, and similarities. Soft Matter, 8, 1719 to 1729. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2sm06903b (cited for terminology).

  • ISO 22412:2017. Particle size analysis: Dynamic light scattering (DLS). International Organization for Standardization.

  • Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products, Article 2(1)(k).

  • U.S. FDA (2014). Guidance for Industry: Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology.

  • U.S. FDA (2014). Guidance for Industry: Safety of Nanomaterials in Cosmetic Products.

  • Pensive Beauty® (2026). Zenodo record 18616576: technical note on the NanoBase™ tri-domain architecture. Technical note, self-published by Pensive Beauty, not peer-reviewed. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18616576

  • Pensive Beauty® Nanoscience Labs (2026). Zenodo record 21971474: preprint on interfacial coverage, electrostatic reserve and payload ceilings in a tri-domain architecture. Self-published by Pensive Beauty, not peer-reviewed. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21971474

Related

Pensive Beauty https://www.pensivebeauty.com
Previous

Nanoscience Without Capital Expenditure: How Tri-Domain Electrostatic Architecture Lets Any Contract Manufacturer Deliver Actives
Next

Why Your Skin Stops Responding: Product Fatigue Explained