Formulation and Evaluation of Herbal Facewash Tablets: Development, Characterization, and Comparative Assessment of Three Formulations

Abstract

Conventional facewash products are commonly aqueous gels/creams packaged in large tubes or bottles, increasing preservative needs, cost, and travel inconvenience. Solid facewash tablets may improve portability, reduce packaging, and minimize the need for preservatives. To formulate herbal facewash tablets via direct compression, evaluate pre- and post-compression parameters, and compare three formulations (F1–F3) to identify an optimal composition for performance and skin-compatibility. Liquorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra) and neem (Azadirachta indica) were selected as herbal actives. Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) served as surfactant; sodium starch glycolate (SSG) as disintegrant; starch and lactose as binder/fillers; Span 60 as emulsifier/wetting aid; sandalwood powder for sensorial attributes. Pre-compression properties (bulk/tapped density, Hausner’s ratio, Carr’s index, angle of repose) and post-compression quality attributes (appearance, thickness, hardness, friability, weight variation), pH of 1% dispersion, foaming capacity (cylinder shake method), washability, preliminary skin irritancy observation, and accelerated stability were assessed. All batches met basic quality criteria. F3 showed optimal balance: pH 5.7 (skin-compatible), hardness 4.6 kg/cm², friability 0.5% (lowest loss), foaming height 2.9 cm (highest among batches), good washability, and no visible irritancy under brief observation. F1 and F2 met acceptance but were inferior in foaming (F2) or friability (F2). Herbal facewash tablets prepared by direct compression are feasible, travel-friendly, and functionally effective. F3 demonstrated the best overall profile within the tested set. Future work should include replicated statistical validation, standardized dermatological safety testing, microbial quality evaluation, and longer-term stability studies.

Keywords

facewash tablets; herbal formulation; direct compression; sodium lauryl sulfate; sodium starch glycolate; foaming capacity; friability; skin pH compatibility

Introduction

EQUIPMENTS: -

Table 2: Equipments

Sr. No.	Equipment	Model No.	Maker
1.	Digital pH meter	6319	Eltek
2.	Friability Test appt.	DBK5163	Labline
3.	Direct compression machine	Nill	Karnavti
4.	Bulk and Tapped density appt.	Nill	Cos Lab

2.2 Formulation Design (percent w/w)?

Table 3: Composition of Herbal Face Wash Tablet Formulation

INGREDIENTS	F1	F2	F3
LIQUORICE	10%	10%	10%
SSG	30%	30%	30%
STARCH	10%	10%	10%
SPAN	10%	15%	10%
SLS	10%	15%	20%
NEEM	20%	10%	10%
LACTOSE	10%	5%	5%
SANDALWOOD	0%	5%	5%

Rationale: SLS was varied (10–20%) to optimize foaming; SSG (30%) supported rapid dispersion; starch/lactose balanced compressibility and strength; Span aided wetting; neem/liquorice provided cosmetic benefits; sandalwood improved aesthetics.?

2.3 Pre-compression Studies?

• Bulk and tapped density; Hausner’s ratio; Carr’s index; angle of repose (fixed-funnel).?

Acceptance references:?

• Hausner’s ratio ≤1.25 (good flow)?
• Carr’s index ≤15% (good compressibility)?
• Angle of repose ≤30–35° (acceptable flow for direct compression)?

2.4 Tablet Preparation (Direct Compression)?

All powders were sieved, geometrically blended, and directly compressed using flat-faced punches. Compression force was optimized to achieve target hardness while minimizing defects (capping, lamination). In-process checks ensured weight and hardness consistency.?

2.5 Post-compression Evaluation?

• Appearance/color: visual inspection?
• Thickness: caliper, mm?
• Hardness: kg/cm² (Pfizer/Monsanto)?
• Friability: ~100 rotations; target ≤1.0%?
• Weight variation: 20 units per formulation?
• pH: 1% w/v dispersion in purified water at ambient temperature (calibrated meter)?
• Foaming capacity: cylinder shake method (250 mL cylinder; standardized shaking); foam height (cm)?
• Washability: apply/rinse, qualitative assessment?
• Preliminary primary irritancy: small-area occlusion observation (brief, non-GLP screening)?

2.6 Accelerated Stability

40°C ± 2°C / 75% RH ± 5% RH for 3 months, sampling at 0, 1, 2, 3 months for appearance, hardness, friability, pH, foaming.?

3. RESULTS

3.1 Pre-compression Properties?

All blends exhibited acceptable flow/ compressibility suitable for direct compression based on bulk/ tapped density, Hausner’s ratio, Carr’s index, and angle of repose.

3.2 Post-compression Quality Attributes?

• Appearance/color:

Physically, the prepared face wash tablets were evaluated for parameters such as colour and appearance.

Table 4: Appearance/ colour

Batch	Colour
F1	Dark Green
F2	Green
F3	Light Green

Batch F3 was in good colour and appearance

Fig 2: Appearance of herbal facewash tablets

• Thickness (mm):

Table 5: Thickness

Batch	Thickness (kg/cm2)
F1	4.2
F2	4.5
F3	4.0

The Thickness of tablet of Batch F3 was 4.0,which was good As per standards.

Fig 3: Caliper

• Hardness (kg/cm²):

Table 6: Hardness

Batch	Thickness (kg/cm2)
F1	4.2
F2	4.5
F3	4.0

The Thickness of tablet of Batch F3 was 4.0,which was good As per standards.

Fig 4: Pfizer Hardness Tester

• Friability (%):

Table 7: Friability

Batch	Wt Loss
F1	0.8%
F2	1%
F3	0.5%

The weight loss of the tablet of Batch F3 was less.

Fig 5: Friabilator

• Weight variation:

For the weight variation test, 20 tablets of each formulation were taken. Each tablet was weighed separately on an electronic balance, and the average weight was calculated, with the deviation recorded by comparing the average value to the deviation. The maximum weight variation should not exceed 7.50.

Formula:% Of Weight variation = Individual weight - Average Weight/Average weight *100

• pH (1% dispersion):

Table8: pH

Batch	PH
F1	5
F2	4
F3	5.7

Batch F3 was determined with No skin irritation.

Fig 6: pH meter

• Foaming height (cm):

Table9: Foaming height (cm)

Batch	Foam Ht (In cm)
F1	2.5
F2	1.9
F3	2.9

F3 highest

Fig 7: Foaming height

• Washability:

All acceptable; F3 best rinse-off feel (qualitative).?

Fig 8: washability

• Preliminary irritancy:

No visible erythema/edema with F3 under brief observation.?

1. 3. Accelerated Stability

F3 showed no notable change in appearance, hardness, friability, pH, or foaming over 3 months at accelerated conditions.

1. 4. Comparative Performance Summary?

F3 provided the most favourable balance of skin-compatible pH, highest foaming, lowest friability, and acceptable hardness and washability

4. DISCUSSION?

This study demonstrates the feasibility of solid herbal facewash tablets manufactured by direct compression. Among the formulations tested, F3 (20% SLS, 30% SSG, 10% liquorice, 10% neem, 10% Span, 10% starch + 5% lactose + 5% sandalwood) achieved the best performance. Increased surfactant content likely contributed to higher foaming and improved cleansing perception while the fixed disintegrant level supported rapid dispersion. The skin-compatible pH (5.7) of F3 aligns with maintaining barrier integrity and user comfort.?

Herbal actives likely contributed complementary benefits: neem for antibacterial/anti-acne support and liquorice for soothing and brightening effects, consistent with cosmetic literature. Compared with gels/liquids, tablet format offers portability, dosage consistency, and potentially lower packaging footprint and preservative burden. ?

Limitations include small sample sizes, limited statistical analysis, non-GLP preliminary irritancy checks, lack of microbial quality testing, and short accelerated stability duration. Future studies should include:?

• • Replicate testing with full statistical analysis and confidence intervals.?
  • Dermatologist-supervised patch testing (and HRIPT where indicated).?
  • Microbial limits and preservative efficacy (if needed) or water activity control strategy.?
  • Consumer sensory/acceptability and comparative benchmarking versus commercial liquid facewashes.?
  • Scale-up feasibility and extended stability (12–24 months real-time).?

CONCLUSION?

Herbal facewash tablets prepared by direct compression are feasible and promising as portable, dose-consistent, and potentially preservative-sparing cleansers. Within the tested set, F3 exhibited the optimal balance of pH, foaming, friability, and overall usability. With further validation (statistics, dermatological safety, microbiological quality, and extended stability), this format shows strong potential for practical use and commercialization.?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS?

The authors acknowledge KCT’s R.G. Sapkal College of Pharmacy for laboratory facilities and support.?

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.?

DATA AVAILABILITY?: Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.?

REFERENCES

1. Yadav N. A review on formulation and development of face wash. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR). 2021;8(6):410.
2. Fadtare SJ. Formulation, development and evaluation of dual-purpose antimicrobial polyherbal gel. World Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research (WJPMR). 2020;6(3):198.
3. Devaraj S. Formulation and evaluation of consumer-friendly face wash tablet. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology (RJPT). 2021;14(2):838–842.
4. Meshram MB. Formulation and evaluation of ayurvedic face wash. International Journal of Phytopharmacy. 2018;8(3):1–5.
5. Mane PK. Herbal face wash gel of Cynodon dactylon having antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. Pharmaceutical Resonance. 2020;3(1):36.
6. Ghotkar MN. Formulation and evaluation of herbal facewash for acne. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis. 2018;8(4):183–185.
7. Solanki DS. Formulation development and evaluation of instant whitening face wash. World Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2020;9(5):2541–2546.
8. Vandkar A. Formulation and analysis of herbal face wash using Luffa cylindrica seed oil extract as soap base. American Journal of PharmTech Research. 2018;8(1):248–253.
9. Khan AD, Alam MN. Cosmetics and their associated adverse effects: a review. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. 2019;2(1):1–6.
10. Lakshmi T, Geetha RV. Glycyrrhiza glabra Linn commonly known as licorice: a therapeutic review. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2011;3(4):20–25.
11. Aseem Sood. Benefits of herbal face wash [Internet]. Storify.com. [cited 2025 Aug 23]. Available from: https://storify.com/ASEEM_SOOD/benefitsofherbalfacewash
12. Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia [Internet]. [cited 2025 Aug 23]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
13. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Antioxidants [Internet]. MedlinePlus. [cited 2025 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/antioxidants.html
14. IUPAC. Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed. (the "Gold Book"). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1997. p. 31, 612.
15. Nanda S, Nanda A, Khar RK. Introduction and design of the study. In: Cosmetics Technology. 1st ed. New Delhi: Birla Publications; 2006–2007. p. 243.
16. Sharma PP. Cosmetic Formulation, Manufacturing & Quality Control. 4th ed. Delhi: Vandan Publications Pvt. Ltd.; 319 p.
17. Wilkinson JB, Moore RJ. Harry’s Cosmeticology. 7th ed. Singapore: Longman Singapore Publishers Pvt. Ltd.; 494 p.
18. Phate R. Human Anatomy & Physiology: “The Skin”. 1st ed. Delhi: Career Publications; 2001. pp.?241–246.
19. Wilkinson JB, Moore RJ. Harry Cosmetology: Sunscreen Lotion. 7th ed. Singapore: Longman Singapore Publishers; pp.?556–567.
20. Wikipedia contributors. Gel [Internet]. Wikimedia. [cited 2025?Aug?23]. Available from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/gel.
21. Wikipedia contributors. Skin_whitening [Internet]. Wikimedia. [cited 2025?Aug?23]. Available from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/skin_whitening.
22. Gulrez SKH, Al Assaf S, Phillips GO. Hydrogels: Methods of Preparation, Characterisation and Applications. 2011. pp.?124–125,?126–141.
23. Ubale AT, Sorate R, Patil JS, Shinde SS, Paloji SS, Parab AT, Raul SA. An overview of a study on the formulation of herbal facewash tablets. Res Rev J Pharmacognosy. 2025;12(1):53–66. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/rrjopc/article%3D2025/view%3D208567/
24. Mirza I, More S, Narwade S, Mule S. Formulation and evaluation of consumer friendly facewash tablet. ResearchGate. 2024 [cited 2025 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351353084_Formulation_and_evaluation_of_consumer_friendly_facewash_tablet
25. Shaikh A, Patel N, Khan M, Waghmare R, Chaudhary S, Wagh S. Formulation and evaluation of herbal face wash. Int J Pharm Sci. 2024;2(6):539–546. Available from: https://www.ijpsjournal.com/article/Formulation%20And%20Evaluation%20Of%20Herbal%20FaceWash
26. Shinde M, Vhanwad K. Formulation and evaluation of anti-acne face wash enriched with natural goodness. Int J Pharm Sci. 2024;2(12):1530–1542. Available from: https://www.ijpsjournal.com/article/Formulation%20And%20Evaluation%20of%20AntiAcne%20Face%20Wash%20Enriched%20with%20Natural%20Goodness
27. Das K, Bhattacharya R, Chakraborty S, Nayak AK. Formulation and evaluation of herbal facewash preventing dermatological problem. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol (IJRASET). 2023 Jun;11(6). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385583924_Formulation_and_Evaluation_of_Herbal_Facewash_Preventing_Dermatological_Problem
28. Yadav SK, Patel H, Kumbhar M, Shahane A. A review on the formulation, evaluation, and therapeutic efficacy of herbal face wash for skin care. ResearchGate. 2025 Mar [cited 2025 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389797859_A_Review_on_the_Formulation_Evaluation_and_Therapeutic_Efficacy_of_Herbal_Face_Wash_for_Skin_Care
29. Rakesh SA, Anusha BN, Prathiksha CC, Nisarga K, Gagan HS, Bhumika BC, Bhagya VH. Phytotherapeutic face wash gel: formulation and evaluation for acne treatment. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2025;14(3):635–638. DOI: 10.22271/phyto.2025.v14.i3h.15418
30. Kamble M, Selwate T, Dhabarde D, Ingole A, Baheti J. Formulation and evaluation of anti acne face wash gel using guava seed extract. J Drug Deliv Ther. 2025;9(3):2595. DOI: 10.22270/jddt.v9i3.2595