Talk:Moisturizer/Archive 1

Untitled
Moisturizers are also in use for food, medications, or other uses in cosmetics. Cacycle 15:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Functions of moisturisers
As a practicing medico, we often use these products not just to improve hydration of the skin but also to provide a barrier function - to protect dry or damaged or healing skin against environmental insult. Insults can be as mild as warm water in a shower which has the effect of removing essential oils from the skin. These fatty acids are essential for normal skin function and are lost easily from skin that has been traumatised, inflamed or rubbed clean of its outer cornified layer. The fatty acids come back in to the skin from dietary sources and are not replaced by creams etc. It may be good then to expand this piece to discuss barrier functions.

This reference gives a feel for the complexity of the topic which I have only touched on! [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572299?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed Loden M Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4(11):771-88 Role of topical emollients and moisturizers in the treatment of dry skin barrier disorders] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdjkf (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Unverified claims and noise
What might a glan be, you may ask? aha! I have just the answer for you sweet thang! A glan is almost like a small trapdoor. Yes, a trapdoor! Do you know what it might trap? Oh gross! You guessed it, it's oil! Very discusting, isn't it? Well, we all need to wash our face! But oh no! Overdrying is the next problem! That is where dear life-saving moisturizes come in handy-dandy hand! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.106.237 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

While cautious in their scope, the numerous claims made are unverified and should not garner the benefit of the doubt for so long. After all, these are widely used products found in many, many households. Valid sources ought to be easy to find if its claims were legitimate. Mbac (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

cellulitis or cellulite in this sentence?
the addition of vitamins (A, B, C, D and E), [...] add to the moisturizer the capability to treat several skin conditions such as cellulitis, (or Cellulite??)

Structure
Please add comments below and I'll then try a consensus edit (its a transfer/rewrite of the two articles) - pages could always be reverted, but I would rather not tread on the toes of previous editors and get it about right the 1st time. -David Ruben 18:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This article seems a mess:
 * too much description of terms used, which have their own WP entries
 * Moisturizers do not "impart" hydration to skin, they provide barrier preventing loss of the skin's own water
 * Mechanism of action is mostly about the physiology of the skin, not the Occlusive, Humectant or Keratolytic actions
 * Composition is muddled by not having the major categorisation being Occlusive, Humectant or Keratolytic
 * Cosmetic (de-wrinkle, anti-aging) neads clearer separation.
 * Moisturisation is almost synonymous with Emollient which whilst a much tighter format is rather a stub.
 * I was initially tempted to just merge the two together, but they are not quite the same thing.
 * Could I suggest a partial mix, puting the physiology and more factual bits under 'Emolient' (a more medical term) and leave the more cosmetic parts (Vitamin A, cellulite etc) under 'moisturiser'.

"Could I suggest a partial mix, etc etc..." Agree, since you seem fairly knowledgable on this theme. Dr Gangrene 19:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I will tidy this up a bit as well. Correct a few bits and move things between here and the related pages (lotion,emollient Skin cream for starters.  My plan is to make this page the cosmetic (non drug) page, in contrast to the cream (phamacetical) page. By the way emollient is not a synonym for moisturiser.  Emollient is one of the ingrediants in a moisturizer.  And moisturizers do impart moisture to the skin because as well as containing barrier ingredients, they contain humectants such as glycerine.Obina 23:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think including a *brief* description for many of the terms associated with moisturizers is in fact beneficial. If a reader has no understanding of these then he has no hope of following the discussion.  True, one could look up the terms at their own wiki pages, but this is tedious, time-consuming, and often provides more information than desired for an overview of a topic such as moisturizers. tekito, February 18 2005

I think combining emollient and moisturizer is a mistake. They are, as you say, different things, even if closely related. The article is also totally directed as commercial products, as if the definition of a moisturizer is a commercial complex chemical product, as the article states, rather than a moisturizer being something that effectively increases moisture content, by reducing moisture loss, for which, amongst many choices, there are complex chemical products. Most commercial products are also emollient. Wiredrabbit (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mechanism of action
This part of the article does not actually discuss how exactly the moisturizers work, only where the water is kept and how we lose it (NOT how moisturizers help to keep it inside). This seems to be oddly off-topic.

I'm no expert on the field, so I won't make any changes in this section, but maybe some better versed in the cosmetic industry should make some amends there?

This article needs cleanup
I had wanted to merge the following from emollient here:

But I now am realizing that related information already is contained in several places throughout this article, so to merge it well, it would require a major rewrite of this article. Since that information isn't referenced, and it is not clear if it refers to emollients (the article in which it was written) or moisturizers (as I assume), I rather leave that up to people who know more about this topic. &mdash; Sebastian 18:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Emollients and moisturizers are hardly the same thing. Emollify is to soften, whereas moisturize I to add (or to do so effectively by reducing the loss of) moisture. Commercial moisturizers may do both. Oils, do both, so most people are confused. This article seems only to confirm the confusion. A seperate Artie on emmollients would be clearer. Also, the article states moisturizers are "complex" and "chemical" which is groundless. Many commercial products are complex chemical mixtures that contain moisturizers and are sold as such, but contain other chemicals to change the texture, make it more visually appealing etc, but olive oil is a natural moisturizer and there are many other simple natural choices. Wiredrabbit (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In my research for this article there was an abundance of medical source material to support that there is no difference between emollients and moisturizers... with many sources not only using the terms interchangeably, but also explicitly defining them as synonyms. The few articles that attempt to define them separately do so with little evidence or consistency. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Instructions to research
I deleted directions that were written to ask the reader to investigate further. Can we keep this clean from commercial plugs for websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.48.160 (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for trying to remove commercial plugs; this is indeed a problem here at Wikipedia. However, in this concrete case, the link you removed was not commercial. It was to a website by the Environmental Working Group, which appears to be well researched and informative. Providing a link that allows readers to investigate further is not in itself bad; to the contrary, such links can be a valuable addition to any encyclopedia. This link adds value to our readers, so I put it back. &mdash; Sebastian 07:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Causes Cancer
In the "Risks of Moisturizers" section, it is noted that a study found a correlation between cancer and moisturizer application in mice, it continues to mention that the mice were exposed to high amounts of UVB radiation before the tests. Although the source is not bogus, the study almost certainly was, at least at determining whether or not moisturizers cause cancer. A study attempting to find a correlation between a substance and cancer should never purposely expose the subjects to a confirmed cause of cancer (UVB rays), otherwise the study is completely meaningless. I suggest removing that part of the section, as it is almost certainly irrelevant due to the poor way the study was conducted. 174.112.6.146 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove redirect from Emollient
I doubt anybody's watching this, but I propose turning Emollient back into its own page. By the dictionary definition "emollient" means a preparation for smoothing/softening/soothing the skin, but in the cosmetics industry the term is used for a broad group of chemicals that impart this sort of benefit, not for the final preparation. Skin moisturizers are emollients, technically speaking, but not all emollients are something the average reader would associate with a skin moisturizer. Emollients are used to adjust feel and slip in lipstick, for example, which hardly fits into the current page. Recursivelement (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Paraffin based emollients and fire risk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39308748 https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/paraffin-based-skin-emollients-on-dressings-or-clothing-fire-risk https://www.swyapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Paraffin-containing-skin-products-and-fire-risk-FINAL-24-3-17.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43009261/fire-tests-show-dangers-of-paraffin-based-skin-creams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.52.82 (talk • contribs) 2018 February 14 (UTC)


 * Looks like you posted this shortly after the U.K. released the fire hazard warning. I've just added a section on it. It's been two years, but better late than never? Thanks for the info! --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)