Formulation And Evaluation of Loose Powder from Seashells

Abstract

The growing demand for safe, eco-friendly and sustainable cosmetic products has accelerated interest in natural raw materials as alternatives to traditional synthetic and mineral-based ingredients. This research explores the formulation and evaluation of a natural loose powder incorporating seashell-derived calcium carbonate, a biodegradable and underutilized marine resource. Rich in calcium carbonate, seashells offer inherent qualities such as whiteness, smoothness and mild absorbency, making them ideal for cosmetic applications. The study aims to develop a loose powder formulation aligned with clean beauty principles by replacing conventional fillers like talc and silica, which are increasingly scrutinized for their potential health and environmental risks. The formulation process includes cleaning, grinding and sieving of seashells to achieve the desired particle characteristics, followed by incorporation with natural excipients. The resulting powders were evaluated for physical properties including particle size uniformity, flowability, bulk and tapped density, as well as organoleptic characteristics such as colour, texture and fragrance. Sensory assessments and skin compatibility tests were also conducted to ensure safety and user satisfaction. The findings suggest that seashell powder is a viable, sustainable alternative that provides essential functional benefits while promoting waste valorisation and circular economy practices. This study contributes to the advancement of green formulation strategies in the cosmetics industry and underscores the potential of marine-derived materials in meeting contemporary consumer expectations for high-performing, environmentally responsible products.

Keywords

Introduction

Calculations:

The angle of repose was calculated using the formula: θ

 = tan^-1hr

For Formulation F1,

θ

 = tan^-13.84.5

= tan^-1(0.844)

= 40.2?

For Formulation F2,

θ

 = tan^-14.05.0

= tan^-1(0.8)

= 38.7?

The angles of repose for both formulations (F1 = 40.2°, F2 = 38.7°) fall within the range indicating fair to good flow properties. This suggests that the powder blends are suitable for handling and processing in formulation steps like filling and packaging.

2. Bulk Density

The bulk density was calculated using the formula:

Bulk Density (g/mL) = Mass of Powder (g)?Bulk Volume (mL)

For Formulation F1,

20 g of powder occupied a volume of 28.02 mL.

Bulk Density =  2028.02

  ?= 0.714 g/mL

For Formulation F1,

20 g of powder occupied a volume of 27.59 mL.

Bulk Density =  2027.59

  ?= 0.725 g/mL

The bulk densities of F1 and F2 were 0.714 g/mL and 0.725 g/mL, respectively, indicating moderate particle packing suitable for pharmaceutical or cosmetic formulations.

3. Tapped Density

The Tapped Density was calculated using the formula:
Tapped Density (g/mL) =  Mass of Powder (g)?Tapped Volume (mL)

For Formulation F1,

The final tapped volume was 22.50 mL

Tapped Density =  2022.50

  ?= 0.889 g/mL

For Formulation F2,

The final tapped volume was 22.10 mL

Tapped Density =  2022.10

  ?= 0.905 g/mL

The tapped densities of F1 and F2 were 0.889 g/mL and 0.905 g/mL, respectively, indicating efficient particle rearrangement and good packing behaviour upon tapping.

4. Carr’s Index

The Carr’s Index was calculated using the formula:

Carr’s Index (%) =  Tapped Density-Bulk DensityTapped Density

 × 100

For Formulation F1,

Bulk Density = 0.714 g/mL & Tapped Density = 0.889 g/mL

Carr’s Index (%) = 0.889-0.7140.889

 × 100

= 0.1750.889

 × 100 = 19.7%

For Formulation F2,

Bulk Density = 0.725 g/mL & Tapped Density = 0.905 g/mL

Carr’s Index (%) = 0.905-0.7250.905

 × 100

= 0.180?0.905

 × 100  = 19.89%

Carr’s Index values of 19.7% (F1) and 19.89% (F2) were calculated, indicating fair to good flowability. These values fall within the 15–20% range, suggesting both formulations possess acceptable flow properties for cosmetic processing.

5. Hausner’s ratio

The Hausner’s ratio was calculated using the formula:

Hausner’s ratio =  Tapped Density?Bulk Density

For Formulation F1,

Tapped Density = 0.889 g/mL & Bulk Density = 0.714 g/mL.

Hausner’s ratio =  0.889?0.714

  = 1.24

For Formulation F2,

Tapped Density = 0.905 g/mL & Bulk Density = 0.725 g/mL.

Hausner’s ratio =  0.905?0.725

  = 1.25

5. Moisture Content

The Moisture content was calculated using the formula:

Moisture Content (%) =  Initial Weight-Final WeightInitial Weight

 × 100

For Formulation F1,

Initial Weight = 5.00 g & Final (Dry) Weight = 4.912 g.

Moisture Content (%) =  5.00-4.9125.00

 × 100

= 0.0885.00

 × 100

= 1.76%

For Formulation F2,

Initial Weight = 5.00 g & Final (Dry) Weight = 4.895 g

Moisture Content (%) = 5.00-4.8955.00

 × 100

 = 0.1055.00

 × 100

= 2.10%

Both F1 and F2 show no signs of irritation, indicating they are non-irritant and safe for topical use.

CONCLUSION

The flow properties, moisture content, pH and skin irritation potential of formulations F1 and F2 were evaluated. The angle of repose for F1 and F2 was 40.2° and 38.7°, respectively, indicating fair to good flow properties. The bulk density for F1 and F2 was 0.714 g/mL and 0.725 g/mL, reflecting moderate packing, while the tapped density was 0.889 g/mL for F1 and 0.905 g/mL for F2, suggesting good particle rearrangement and packing upon tapping. The Carr’s index was 19.7% for F1 and 19.89% for F2, both indicating fair to good flowability. The Hausner’s ratio was 1.24 for F1 and 1.25 for F2, which reflects good flow characteristics. Additionally, the moisture content of both formulations was within acceptable ranges, ensuring stability during storage and preventing degradation. The pH of both formulations was within a neutral to slightly acidic range, confirming their compatibility with the skin and minimizing irritation risk. The skin irritation test showed no signs of irritation (e.g., redness, swelling or itching) for either formulation, confirming both F1 and F2 as non-irritant and safe for topical use. In conclusion, both formulations exhibit good flowability, moderate packing and adequate compressibility. The moisture content, pH and skin irritation test results further support their stability, skin compatibility and safety for topical use. F1 and F2 are both suitable for handling, processing and large-scale production. These evaluation outcomes collectively validate the functional potential of both formulations for use as loose powders in cosmetic applications. The consistent results between F1 and F2 indicate reproducibility and formulation reliability, which are essential for product development and scale-up. Furthermore, the incorporation of natural ingredients contributes to the eco-friendliness and market appeal of the final product, aligning with current trends in sustainable and skin-friendly formulations.

REFERENCES

1. Kim J, Lee Y, Kim B. Seashell Derived Calcium Carbonate: A Review of Its Applications in Cosmetics and Pharmaceuticals. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020;19(2):151-158.
2. Lee S, Kim J, Lee Y. Marine Derived Ingredients in Cosmetics: A Review of Their Applications and Benefits. J Mar Biosci Biotechnology. 2019;19(1):1-9.
3. Kim B, Lee Y, Kim J. Sustainable Cosmetics: A Review of the Use of Seashells as a Renewable Resource. J Clean Prod. 2020; 243:118532.
4. Lee Y, Kim J, Kim B. The Use of Seashell Derived Calcium Carbonate in Pharmaceutical Applications: A Review. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108(5):1731-1738.
5. Kim J, Lee Y, Kim B. Seashell Derived Calcium Carbonate: A Review of Its Characterization, Applications and Future Perspectives. J Mater Sci. 2020;55(10):6411-6422.
6. Rajakumar V, et al. Development and Characterization of a Novel Loose Powder from Sea Shells for Pharmaceutical Applications. Patel S, et al. Evaluation of Sea Shell Powder as a Sustainable Material for Cosmetic Applications.
7. Senthil K, et al. Formulation and Characterization of a Loose Powder from Sea Shells for Wound Healing Applications.
8. Kumar R, et al. Investigation of the Physicochemical Properties of Sea Shell Powder for Pharmaceutical Applications.
9. Sharma P, et al. Development of a Novel Loose Powder Formulation from Sea Shells for Biomedical Applications.
10. Karthik V, et al. Assessment of the Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Sea Shell Powder for Pharmaceutical Applications.
11. Pereira L, Valado A, Silva A, et al. Exploring the potential of using marine-derived ingredients in cosmetics: A review. Mar Drugs. 2023;21(1):47.
12. Zhang Y, Wang L, Li Y, et al. Biomaterials from the sea: Future building blocks for biomedical applications. Mar Drugs. 2021;19(5):238.
13. Silva T, Moreira-Silva J, Marques ALP, et al. Marine natural products as innovative cosmetic ingredients: A comprehensive review. Mar Drugs. 2023;21(3):150.
14. Tan YN. Upcycling of biomaterials from seafood waste and their applications. [PhD thesis]. Nanyang Technological University; 2021.
15. Ghosh S, Chatterjee S, Das N, et al. Marine-derived compounds with potential use as cosmeceuticals. Molecules. 2020;25(11):2536.
16. Rotter A, Pimentel T, Sousa-Pinto I, et al. Marine cosmetics and the blue bioeconomy: From sourcing to sustainability. iScience. 2024;26(5):106789.
17. Kumar R, Singh S, Sharma A, et al. Progress of bio-calcium carbonate waste eggshell and seashell fillers in polymer composites: A review. Mater Proc. 2020;4(2):70.
18. Azarian A, Sutapun W. Biogenic calcium carbonate derived from waste shells for advanced material applications: A review. Front Mater. 2022; 9:1024977.
19. Puschmann FB, Jäger E, Grahn M, Strømme M. Mesoporous magnesium carbonate for use in powder cosmetics: Absorption, release and safety aspects. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2021;43(1):66–74. doi:10.1111/ics.12631.
20. Pandya D, Chavda D. An extensive review of face powder formulation considerations. Auctores J Dermatol Skincare. 2022;2(1):10–16.
21. Dudek A, et al. Development of cosmetic powder formulations with plant extracts for acne-prone skin. Pharm Dev Technol. 2019;24(5):575–81. PMID: 31322532.
22. Aswad S, Nurhayani N. Evaluation of loose powder formulation using Manihot and Maydis starch with natural orange sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Ad-Dawaa’ J Pharm Sci. 2023;3(1):30–40.
23. Jian K, Weng F, Zhang P, et al. Effects of Different Kinds of Shell Powder on the Structure and Properties of Polycaprolactone-Based Composites. J Biomater Appl. 2023;37(9):1304-1315. doi:10.1177/08927057231154424.
24. Liang Y, Zhao J, Wu CW. Surface Modification and Properties Analysis of Shell Powder with Sodium Stearate Surface Modifier. Adv Mater Res. 2014;912-914:352-355. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.912-914.352.
25. Kowsalya S. Development and Nutritional Evaluation of Egg Shell Powder and its Nanoparticles. Indian J Nutr Diet. 2015;52(4):380-389.
26. Sali SS. Natural calcium carbonate for biomedical applications. arXiv preprint. 2016. arXiv:1606.07779.
27. Zhang X, Wang L, Wang Y, et al. Pearl Powder—An Emerging Material for Biomedical Applications: A Review. Materials. 2021;14(11):2797. doi:10.3390/ma14112797.
28. Wang L, Zhang J, Wang Y, et al. Development of the powder formulas for acne treatment based on natural plant extracts. Molecules. 2019;24(12):2267. doi:10.3390/molecules24122267
29. Mahendran R, Jayavel R. Recent advances in cosmetics: Evaluation techniques and stability studies. Journal of Cosmetics, Dermatological Sciences and Applications. 2020;10(4):347–362. doi:10.4236/jcdsa.2020.104032
30. Kawashima Y, Serigano T, Hino T, Yamamoto H, Takeuchi H. A new powder design method to improve inhalation properties of pharmaceutical dry powders by surface modification with dry coating. International Journal of Pharmaceutics. 1998;172(1-2):1–10. doi:10.1016/S0378-5173(98)00148-3
31. Koutsouki E, Papaioannou A. Cosmetic powders: Composition, formulation and properties. In: Cosmetics Formulation, Design and Manufacture. Elsevier; 2017:267–285. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-802005-0.00013-0
32. Benson HAE, Filho AN, Leite-Silva VR, Leonardi GR. Powders in cosmetic formulations. In: Cosmetic Science and Technology: Theoretical Principles and Applications. CRC Press; 2017:351–371. doi:10.1201/9780429190674-13.