Research shelf / Chemistry & products / Hemp Harmony

Chemistry & products

A body lotion formulated the way a paper would argue it

Cosmetic formulation documents usually work backwards from marketing copy. This one works forwards from evidence: a lipid phase, a water phase and an active phase, each ingredient tied to a mechanism and each mechanism tied to a citation, across five dermatological axes.

Design document AGPL-3.0+ / commercial
Evidence level

Specified in detail; implementation partial or absent.

FolderBeauty Products
FieldChemistry & products
StatusFormulation design with an evidence review. No manufacture, no stability or challenge testing.
What it is

A three-phase botanical cosmeceutical with every ingredient class substantiated from peer-reviewed clinical, in-vitro and ethnobotanical evidence rather than asserted.

The lipid phase is dominated by hemp seed oil in combination with prickly pear, sea buckthorn and baobab oils. The water phase carries Tremella and snow-mushroom polysaccharides as humectants in place of synthetic ones. The active phase concentrates Centella asiatica, hibiscus, horsetail and rosehip seed oil.

The document’s method is to substantiate each ingredient class separately — peer-reviewed clinical data where it exists, in-vitro data where it does not, ethnobotanical evidence where neither does — and to be explicit about which of the three is doing the work in each case. That distinction is the difference between a formulation rationale and a claim sheet.

The five axes it argues across are trans-epidermal hydration, barrier reinforcement, collagen and elastin synthesis, anti-inflammatory cytokine modulation, and antioxidant free-radical scavenging — with the natural preservation system, fragrance rationale and sustainability credentials treated as formulation decisions rather than afterthoughts.

What the graded-evidence habit is worth. Saying "clinical evidence supports this ingredient, in-vitro evidence supports that one, and traditional use is all we have for the third" is a small discipline that makes the whole document checkable. Most formulation rationales collapse all three into a single confident register, and become unfalsifiable in the process.
Claims ledger

Every number, and what stands behind it

A claim is only worth the evidence attached to it. Each row below carries its basis: measured on the author’s own hardware, derived from the construction, measured on synthetic data, projected from literature, or simply cited.

Breakdown of this page’s claims by what stands behind each one
scroll to see the whole chart →
Every claim, weighted by its evidence. The table below is the same data row by row.
ClaimFigureBasisContext
Formulation phases3 (lipid, water, active)DerivedStandard emulsion architecture, specified by phase
Dermatological axes argued5DerivedHydration, barrier, collagen/elastin, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant
Evidence basis per ingredient classclinical, in-vitro or ethnobotanicalCitedStated explicitly for each — the document’s main discipline
Humectant strategyTremella / snow mushroom polysaccharidesCitedIn place of synthetic humectants
Preservationnatural systemDerivedReviewed alongside fragrance and sustainability

Measured — author-run experiment on the stated setup. Synthetic — measured, but on synthetic rather than real data. Derived — follows from the stated construction or proof. Projected — paper-stated projection, not an author-run benchmark. Cited — taken from external literature.

Methods

How it works

  • Phase-separated formulation. Lipid, water and active phases specified independently so each ingredient’s role is unambiguous.
  • Graded evidence substantiation. Clinical, in-vitro and ethnobotanical evidence distinguished rather than merged into one claim.
  • Mechanism-per-axis argument. Each of the five dermatological axes argued from a stated mechanism, not from an ingredient list.
  • Preservation and sustainability as design. Treated as formulation constraints alongside efficacy rather than as labelling.
Stated limitations

What it does not do

Taken from the folder’s own README. Nothing here has been softened.

  • No product has been manufactured, stability-tested or challenge-tested.
  • Ingredient-level evidence is not product-level evidence. Substantiating each component does not substantiate the formulation.
  • Natural preservation systems are the hardest part of a botanical formulation, and no challenge test is reported.
  • Cosmetic efficacy claims are regulated in most jurisdictions; nothing here has been assessed against those requirements.
  • No consumer testing, no dermatological trial, no shelf-life data.
Use it

Free under AGPL-3.0+ for almost everyone

Personal use, charities, education and organisations under AUD 50,000 a year pay nothing. A tiered commercial licence covers everyone else.