The NanoBase™ Standard: A Clinical Audit of Next-Generation Bioavailability Architecture in Formulation
For decades, the global skincare industry has relied on Hydrophilic–Lipophilic Balance (HLB) systems to create emulsions. HLB solved an important manufacturing problem: keeping oil and water stable in a jar. What it was never designed to do was optimize functional delivery, tissue interaction, or biological consistency on skin.
At Pensive Beauty, we moved beyond traditional emulsification to build a modern delivery architecture engineered around functional bioavailability and repeatable outcomes. We call that platform NanoBase™.
To pressure-test this shift, we spoke with Jaime Turgeon, Licensed Clinical Instructor and Med Spa Director, about what she has observed in real clinical use when delivery architecture changes.
1. Clinical Outcomes: Architecture vs. Ingredient Lists
Pensive Beauty: Across your career, you have worked with hundreds of professional formulations. What differences do you observe when products are built on NanoBase™ compared to traditional HLB systems?
Jaime Turgeon: "What stands out immediately is consistency. With many traditional HLB formulations, results vary widely between patients. You can have excellent ingredients on paper, but clinically the skin often reacts defensively. Redness, dehydration, or stagnation are common because the formulation is primarily designed to sit on the surface. Then of course they work on some people and not others."
With products built on NanoBase™, the skin tends to look calmer and more receptive. Hydration stabilizes faster, surface stress appears lower, and actives seem to perform faster & more predictably. From a practitioner standpoint, that suggests improved functional availability rather than surface loading."
2. Encapsulation Is Not a Substitute for Architecture
Pensive Beauty: Many brands position encapsulated actives as the solution to delivery challenges. How does the base formula influence their performance?
Jaime Turgeon: "Encapsulation helps, but it does not override the limitations of the surrounding system. In traditional HLB emulsions, the surfactant environment can destabilize certain encapsulates or alter how they behave once applied to skin.
What I noticed with NanoBase™ is that both encapsulated and non-encapsulated ingredients perform more reliably because the surrounding architecture is gentler and more biologically aligned. Ingredients have their own domains to live in and are not fighting the architecture, they are supported by it."
3. Case Study: High Peptide Loads and Skin Tolerance
Pensive Beauty: One of the first formulas you used built on NanoBase™ featured a 16% peptide load, which is essentially impossible to stabilize in traditional chemistry. What was your experience?
Jaime Turgeon: "I was skeptical at first because such high concentrations are usually associated with tackiness, instability, or irritation. In this case, the formula remained elegant and wearable.
What struck me most was the speed, I could actually feel it working shortly after I applied it. I observed rapid changes in skin texture and fine lines within the first week. And come to think of it, because the bioavailability is so high, in my mind it felt like it was performing at a 40% peptide load compared to the performance gap of formulas still built on traditional HLB logic. The key difference was not the peptides themselves, but how evenly and gently they were delivered. At week five, my treatment completed!"
4. The Manufacturing Pivot: Removing the HLB Bottleneck
Pensive Beauty: Beyond performance, NanoBase™ changes formulation development. Instead of constantly tuning an HLB balance, teams can focus on payload selection and performance testing. How does that impact speed of innovation?
Jaime Turgeon: "It’s a major shift. Traditional development burns time balancing stability, texture, and compatibility, especially when you start layering complex actives. When the base architecture is already engineered in three distinct domains, you remove a lot of that iteration burden.
In the Pensive Beauty workflow specifically, I’ve seen serum builds on the bench go from concept to finished batch in under an hour. Speed matters because it increases iteration velocity. More iterations means faster convergence on a formula that actually performs. That kind of speed changes how quickly you can test, refine, and launch, because you are not rebuilding the foundation every time. When a mistake happens or need a modification, pouring the NanoBase into a new vessel and starting again put me back on track in no time at all!"
5. The Economics of Precision
Pensive Beauty: Even with these efficiencies, the average incremental cost per unit for NanoBase™ is about $3.50, depending on partnership tier and volume. How do you evaluate that premium in a professional environment?
Jaime Turgeon: "From a clinical perspective, low-cost formulas that underperform are often the most expensive long-term. They lead to stalled results and frustrated patients.
If a delivery architecture improves outcome consistency and reduces wasted actives, the economics shift. That incremental cost becomes an investment in reliability. I’m confident a brand could easily 10x that investment in their retail pricing because you aren't just selling a product or treatment, you're selling a high-end luxury performance outcome. In practice, when performance is more predictable, it is easier for brands and clinics to justify premium positioning."
6. Three Domains, One Recognizable Architecture
Pensive Beauty: Why does NanoBase™ perform differently at the barrier level?
Jaime Turgeon: "NanoBase™ uses a three-domain architecture at 1/5th of a micron in size which more closely mirrors how skin manages lipids and water. Instead of forcing penetration, it reduces surface resistance and allows the skin to interact with different domains as needed.
In practice, that translates to broader tolerance across skin conditions. I see fewer category labels like 'sensitive' or 'resistant' becoming limiting factors because the formulation is not aggressively challenging the barrier. Self adaptive formula would be a plausible marketing phase I would imagine. It creates a stable environment for the microbiome while ensuring ingredients remain bioavailable."
7. Breaking the Stagnation: Why the Industry is Hesitant to Pivot
Pensive Beauty: We still see many brands and contract manufacturers holding onto traditional HLB logic. Why do you think NanoBase™ isn't being adopted at a faster pace globally?
Jaime Turgeon : "Honestly, I think the industry is suffering from a collective fatigue. As a practitioner, I was at a point where I was desperate for something, anything, that actually delivered. I’ve tried countless 'brilliant' formulas that ultimately underperformed because they couldn't get past the barrier in any meaningful way.
Many brands & contract manufacturers are stuck in a comfort zone of safety and stability-over-performance. They are afraid to leave their comfort zone because they’ve been conditioned to think that 'mixing' is the ceiling of what’s possible. My entire perspective changed the moment I used that first serum formula built on NanoBase™. The delay we're seeing isn't a lack of need, it's a lack of imagination. Brands that wait are allowing their performance to be capped by outdated logic, putting a near dead stop to innovation."
A New Baseline
NanoBase™ is not a product. It is a delivery platform designed to replace legacy emulsification logic with architecture engineered for modern biology.
NanoBase™ is the architectural replacement for the outdated, 75-year-old traditional HLB systems of the past. By establishing a new baseline of Bioavailability, we allow every product, and every advanced ingredient, to perform at its maximum potential.
#Bioavailability #CosmeticScience #PeptideTechnology #NanoBase #Bioengineering #SkinBarrier #PrestigePerformance
