The researchers present an informative and brief abstract about the work that they are going to develop. There are several descriptive sentences with the help of which Rigano et al. (2019) explain the main idea of Caesalpinia spinosa gum and its potential worth for cosmetic products. The reader gets a chance to learn that this type of gum is a vegetal polysaccharide that is commonly used in the food industry. Caesalpinia spinosa has a number of rheological properties, including its high compatibility with other ingredients and the possibility to be a thickening agent.
The authors follow the correct order of words in the abstract to make sure that the information is consistent and clear. Still, there are several parts that need additional explanations, like the relationship between concentrations and behaviors of the substances. Although some statistical data is given to strengthen the study and its application in different fields, it is hard to comprehend its value in the abstract. For example, an ordinary reader may not understand the differences between the Newtonian and pseudoplastic behaviors, and extra search is required to learn the main idea of the chosen article (Piednoir et al., 2020).
Besides, Rigano et al. (2019) underline that some tests were conducted in combination with salts and other agents, but no information about the nature of methods and results is given. Caesalpinia spinosa gum is proved to be a promising ingredient for cosmetic products due to its thickening and rheological qualities. However, regarding the title of the article, the examination of the gel formation is missing in the abstract, and several questions about the chosen research process emerge.
Critique of Introduction
When writing introductions, authors have to focus on the scope of their study and identify the goals and major steps for the reader. In the article, the authors provide a solid background about rheology modifiers and the properties of Caesalpinia spinosa gum. They introduce gelatinizers as substances to increase viscosity, emulsions, and suspensions (Rigano et al., 2019). Another strength of the introductory section is the discussion of Caesalpinia spinosa gum, also known as Peruvian carob and a representative of the Leguminosae family (Rigano et al., 2019).
In addition to general definitions and examples, this part contains a chemical discussion of the chosen component and two figures to share the main idea of the topic using illustrations. In general, the reader gets a clear idea of the rheology modifier category and understands the urgency of using Caesalpinia spinosa gum as a new gelling agent in the cosmetics field.
At the same time, the introduction of this article misses several critical components. The authors fail to define their research goals and hypotheses in the study. They do neither ask questions nor offer statements about the possibility of implementing Caesalpinia spinosa gum for cosmetic products. The main idea of the project remains unclear, and it is impossible to learn the intentions of the authors. This introduction completes the background function of explaining the terms and introducing the elements of the discussion. However, several questions must be answered in this part for the reader to learn what to expect from the study and if the results are appropriate to cover the initial goals. It is recommended to add several sentences about the aims of the study, ask at least two questions (or develop two hypotheses), and share some expectations.
Critique of Materials and Methods
The way of how the information is presented in the “Materials and Methods” section provokes ambiguous attitudes. On the one hand, the authors do not describe what research design they choose to explain why Caesalpinia spinosa gum could be an effective gelling agent and rheology modifier in cosmetic products. If the reader does not have an appropriate scientific background, it is difficult to understand the main idea of this project. It is said that aqueous solutions were prepared at different percentage levels to homogenize the powder (Rigano et al., 2019). On the other hand, the essence of this solution remains unclear without additional research to clarify that this method means using water as the only solvent in the experiment (Helmenstine, 2019). Further complex chemical terms like a rotational rheometer and a rotational viscometer were applied to explain how measurements were organized.
Compatibility trials were properly conducted in the study to test the gum using different surfactants. However, due to a poor description of the processes and no attention to its organizational aspects, not many people are able to repeat the experiment. The reader learns that trials are focused on the investigation of the compatibility of pigments and substances with different intervals. Suspending and emulsification power was also verified at several speeds to define the potential of the gum. The samples were clearly described, but the core idea of the experiment remains limited because of the lack of definitions and the relation between the project’s goals and the offered methodologies. In other words, one descriptive paragraph about the organization of the experiment and its appropriateness to the study could improve an overall impression of the section.
Critique of Results
The next section in the article is devoted to the results and discussion of the experiment. Regarding the initial goal of this part, the authors succeeded in meeting all the necessary requirements and tasks. Rigano et al. (2019) used figures to present flow curves, thixotropy, and viscosity vs. temperature vs. concentration and tables to illustrate the values of gum concentration and share several formulation examples and foundations.
The chosen material allows to prove the professionalism of the researchers to explain their findings in different ways. As well as in the previous section, the results contain information about three methods, namely rheological/viscosity measurements, compatibility trials, and suspending/emulsification power. This approach was effective in comparing the results with the taken steps and see that the authors covered everything they planned.
Each sub-section begins with the introduction of the results of the experiment. For example, in an aqueous solution, Caesalpinia spinosa gum showed pure Newtonian behavior, meaning that viscosity did not change and the gum did not possess thixotropic characteristics (Rigano et al., 2019). During the compatibility trials, it was revealed that Caesalpinia spinosa gum is exposed to high compatibility with other ingredients with a stable pH range (Rigano et al., 2019).
Finally, good suspending power was demonstrated compared to the partial emulsification power of the gum. Each time an observation is mentioned in the text, the authors add a figure to illustrate why such conclusions are made and how it is possible to introduce the obtained data. In general, the results of the experiment were described in the first three sub-sections, and it is correct to consider the rest part as a discussion of the study where the optimal concentration of usage is argued.
Critique of Discussion/Conclusions
The evaluation of the Discussion and Conclusion sections requires more attention because of the structure of the article. The Discussion part goes directly after several paragraphs with the Results. The authors explain the optimal concentration of Caesalpinia spinosa gum for avoiding unnecessary “gommage” effects between 0.1% and 1% (Rigano et al., 2019). They pay attention to the film forming properties and the compatibility of Caesalpinia spinosa with different hydrophilic polymers and monomeric or polymeric cationic conditioners.
There are five formulation examples presented in three clear forms: a table with the identification of a phase, ingredients, and weight concentration, a plan of production technology with specifications, and the description of an appearance. The authors give several recommendations on how to use the obtained forms of Caesalpinia spinosa gum, including light-green paste for toothpaste, slightly opaque fluid for cleansing formulas, or skin-colored fluid emulsion for skin products (Rigano et al., 2019). The discussion of the study is full and detailed, with the possibility to understand the properties of the chosen substance at different levels.
Caesalpinia spinosa gum is proved to be an effective rheology modifier to be implemented in the cosmetic industry. In the concluding part, four main findings are presented and explained, namely its compatibility with most cosmetic ingredients, its synergy with other gums, enhancement properties, and low cost. No new or unnecessary information is given in this part, and the reader gets a solid understanding of what is known about Caesalpinia spinosa at the moment, what other compounds matter in the creation of cosmetic products, and what further implications can be observed (e.g., in the food industry). No additional questions or concerns about Caesalpinia spinosa gum as a rheology modifier occur after reading this section of the article.
Critique of References
A reference list is one of the most significant parts of any research project because it shows what outside sources were used and if it is possible to call the current study credible and valid. Rigano et al. (2019) introduce 11 sources, which are books and articles about the properties of the necessary compounds, rheology modifications, and cosmetic discoveries. The publication years of the chosen sources vary from 1999 to 2019, and regarding the year of this study’s publication (2019), some sources can be called outdated.
For example, the work by Bresolin et al. in 1999 was referenced to compare the characteristics of polymers and galactomannans when combined and used alone. This field is constantly improved and investigated, and more recent projects could be considered. However, the handbook created by Braun et al. in 2000 seems to be a rational choice because it contains the discussion of the basics of rheology, which are usually permanent in different decades. Most articles were created between 2015 and 2019, which is applicable for biological research.
Overall, the reference list is properly organized and meets the standards of a particular citation format. It includes all the references cited within the text of the article, and the authors use the sources meaningfully in different parts of their work. Intext quotes are inserted as per the rules of the guide and support the position of the authors. However, the number of sources could be increased because 11 books and articles may not be enough to create further effective reading practice. All sources are relevant to the topic, but some of them may be replaced with more current studies where similar observations are discussed.
Conclusion
This critical evaluation shows that the article by Rigano et al. has certain benefits and shortages but remains a significant contributor to the cosmetics industry and research. There are six properly organized sections to discuss the study’s main ideas, methodology, and findings. Cosmetic products are never the same, and this research offers Caesalpinia spinosa to be a new gelling agent and a solid rheology modifier.
Reference List
Helmenstine, A.M. (2019) Aqueous solution definition in chemistry. Web.
Piednoir, A. et al. (2020) ‘Apparent non-Newtonian behavior of ionic liquids’, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 124(13), pp. 2685-2690.
Rigano, L. et al. (2019) ‘A new gelling agent and rheology modifier in cosmetics: Caesalpinia spinosa gum’, Cosmetics, 6. Web.