Packaging & Stability / CASE STUDY

Cosmetic wand-package testing: temperature and altitude

ARE Labs evaluated an anonymized cosmetic serum wand package in two separate experiments: a 226-hour climate-storage study and a simulated-altitude exposure study.

PackagingEnvironmental simulationProduct evaluation
Packaging and stability

Temperature and reduced pressure produced different findings

Abstract

The climate experiment measured formulation and component behavior across five temperatures. A separate altitude experiment evaluated leakage and package observations at three simulated elevations. The main package-function findings occurred at elevated temperature.

Study question

The study separated temperature-related formulation and applicator behavior from reduced-pressure leakage risk in three anonymized package variants.

Selected findings

  • At 40 °C, maximum losses were 93 mg, 52 mg, and 51 mg; the 93 mg result came from one anomalous unit, while the maximum among the remaining Variant A units was 46 mg.
  • At 60 °C, all 42 evaluated units had bent wands and wipers that were displaced or stuck during opening.
  • Across 54 altitude-study units, no exterior or thread leakage was observed, while an internal-visual source inconsistency limits a broader pass claim.
Climate experiment
210 unitsThree variants across five temperatures in a study spanning 226 hours
Altitude experiment
54 unitsThree variants across 18,000, 26,000, and 40,000 ft simulated elevation
Main package signal
60 °CAll 42 units had bent wands and displaced or stuck wipers during opening

Two experiments, two development questions

Climate storage and pressure exposure answer different development questions. The climate study measured mass change and examined formulation appearance, applicator condition, and package function. The altitude study looked for leakage or measurable package changes under reduced pressure. Results from the two studies should not be combined into a single pass/fail claim.

TABLE 1The climate and altitude experiments were separate studies.
ExperimentUnitsConditionsObservation planPrimary question
Climate storage210 total; 70 per variant-30, 5, 23, 40, and 60 °C; study spanning 226 hoursSeven timepoints; immediate and 4-hour room-temperature observationsMass change, formulation appearance, applicator condition, and package function
Simulated altitude54 total; 18 per variant18,000, 26,000, and 40,000 ft simulated elevationImmediate and 4-hour room-temperature/pressure observationsLeakage and package behavior under reduced pressure

The experiments used the same three anonymized variant labels but were not one combined protocol.

Climate-storage design

The climate experiment included 210 units: 70 per anonymized variant and 14 per variant at each of -30 °C, 5 °C, 23 °C, 40 °C, and 60 °C. The study ran for 226 hours. At each of seven observation points, two units from every variant-temperature group were removed. One was evaluated immediately, and the other was evaluated after four hours at room temperature.

ARE Labs weighed each unit before and after exposure. The inspections covered residue, internal appearance, cap and wand behavior, brush appearance, product accumulation, crystallization, and wiper seating. Because the qualitative accumulation scale was intentionally strict, a slight level-1 observation did not necessarily indicate an unacceptable condition.

Climate-storage results

FIGURE 1Maximum measured weight loss by storage temperatureThree anonymized variants; 14 units per variant at each temperatureGrouped bar chart of maximum measured weight loss for Variants A, B, and C at -30, 5, 23, 40, and 60 degrees Celsius.
View figure data as a table
temperatureVariant AVariant BVariant C
-30 °C0 mg0 mg0 mg
5 °C0 mg0 mg0 mg
23 °C15 mg15 mg15 mg
40 °C93 mg52 mg51 mg
60 °C88 mg95 mg90 mg

Values summarize the climate-storage experiment.

  • The 40 °C Variant A bar includes one anomalous 93 mg result; the maximum among the remaining Variant A units was 46 mg.
  • The report did not determine the cause of elevated-temperature mass loss.
TABLE 2Maximum measured weight loss in the climate-storage experiment.
TemperatureUnits across variantsVariant AVariant BVariant CObserved package/formulation condition
-30 °C420 mg0 mg0 mgFrozen immediately after removal; thawed after four hours
5 °C420 mg0 mg0 mgGenerally normal; occasional slight accumulation
23 °C4215 mg15 mg15 mgWeight loss observed; occasional accumulation
40 °C4293 mg (46 mg among remaining units)52 mg51 mgMore visible accumulation; a pre-existing residue condition dried or crystallized
60 °C4288 mg95 mg90 mgAll 42 wands bent; all wipers displaced or stuck during opening

The 93 mg result came from one anomalous Variant A unit. The maximum among the other Variant A units at 40 °C was 46 mg. Cause of mass loss was not determined.

Three abnormalities were documented before climate exposure. One Variant A unit had an internal-leak observation. A second had serum on the exterior, thread, and wand, while one Variant C unit was difficult to open. The unit later photographed with dried or crystallized thread residue at 40 °C was the same unit that had residue before exposure. The image therefore does not establish a new storage-caused leak.

The report did not determine what caused the elevated-temperature mass loss. It discussed possible mechanisms, but none were measured as causal findings.

Altitude-exposure design

The altitude experiment included 54 units: 18 per variant, with six per variant exposed at each simulated elevation. For each variant/elevation combination, three units were inspected immediately and three after four hours at room temperature and pressure. The samples were held close to horizontal in a sealed chamber for 15 minutes at the target condition.

TABLE 3Pressure and timing for the separate altitude-exposure experiment.
Simulated altitudeEquivalent absolute pressureGauge vacuumRampDwellUnits
18,000 ft7.6 psi-15.0 in Hg9 min15 min18
26,000 ft5.2 psi-19.5 in Hg13 min15 min18
40,000 ft2.7 psi-24.5 in Hg20 min15 min18
TABLE 4Mean weight change and sample standard deviation, six units per variant/elevation combination.
Variant18,000 ft26,000 ft40,000 ft
A0.167 ± 0.408 mg0.333 ± 0.516 mg0.833 ± 0.753 mg
B0.667 ± 0.816 mg0.333 ± 0.516 mg0.500 ± 0.548 mg
C0.500 ± 0.548 mg0.667 ± 0.516 mg0.833 ± 0.753 mg

The report recorded no observed exterior or cap-thread leakage. An internal-visual inconsistency between summary and inspection sheets remains disclosed in the article.

What the altitude results support

The report recorded no exterior or cap-thread leakage at either post-exposure time. Mean weight changes were below 1 mg for every variant/elevation combination. The individual inspection sheets marked the bottom viewing window as cloudy throughout, while the summary described a moving or visible bubble. Because those records are inconsistent, the conclusion is limited to the supported leakage and inspection findings. The data do not support an unqualified statement that every internal-visual observation agreed.

Development interpretation

For this anonymized product-package configuration, elevated temperature produced a clearer package-function signal than the tested reduced-pressure exposures. The most consequential observation involved the working applicator system: at 60 °C, wand deformation coincided with wiper displacement during opening.

STUDY DOWNLOADS

Take a closer look.

Explore the methods, findings and supporting detail.

01 / THE QUICK READ

Two-page summary

The study question, methods, selected results and interpretation in a concise brief.

PDF · 2 pages · 172 KB · revision 1
02 / THE TECHNICAL DETAIL

Detailed study report

A separately reviewed public edition with supporting methods, figures and result tables.

Altitude exposure technical edition · PDF · 12 pages · 938 KB · revision 1View report Download
Climate storage technical edition · PDF · 13 pages · 1.5 MB · revision 1View report Download
PUBLIC SOURCES

References and study evidence

  1. 1ASTM D6653/D6653M-13(2021): Standard Test Methods for Determining the Effects of High Altitude on Packaging Systems by Vacuum MethodASTM InternationalPublic standards context for vacuum-method evaluation of high-altitude effects on packaging systems.Open source
  2. 2Cosmetic ProductsU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationPublic category context for cosmetic products; not used as approval evidence.Open source
QUESTIONS

What to know about this study

Why were climate storage and altitude exposure evaluated separately?

Climate storage measured mass change and examined formulation appearance, applicator condition, and package function. Altitude exposure evaluated leakage and package behavior under reduced pressure. Keeping the experiments separate makes the two sets of findings easier to interpret.

What was the strongest observed package-function result?

At 60 °C, all 42 evaluated units had bent wands and wipers that were displaced or stuck during opening.

Did the altitude experiment show leakage?

No exterior or cap-thread leakage was observed in the 54 tested units at either post-exposure observation time. The report discloses an inconsistency in the internal-visual records, so the conclusion is deliberately limited to the supported observations.