What Pharmaceutical Science Taught Me About Skin Care

By Eddie Omar, PhD

Why Is a Skin Care Formula a Delivery System, Not an Ingredient List?

My pharmaceutical training changed how I look at every cosmetic formula. I do not begin by asking which ingredients are fashionable or which percentage will look most persuasive on a package. I begin by asking whether the complete system can keep an ingredient usable, place it in an appropriate environment, and support meaningful contact with the skin.

This is the foundation of pharmaceutical scientist skin care formulation. Compatibility, stability, delivery, and exposure are interconnected. Changing the solvent system can alter solubility. Changing the pH can change ionization, stability, and skin feel. Adding an emulsifier may improve physical uniformity while creating a new compatibility problem elsewhere. Packaging can either protect a carefully designed formula or expose it unnecessarily to oxygen, light, moisture, and repeated contamination.

An ingredient list cannot reveal most of this information. It may tell me what materials were added, usually in descending order above the relevant labeling threshold, but it does not disclose the complete manufacturing process, raw-material specifications, exact pH, oxygen control, packaging compatibility, or the physical state of each component. Two products with similar ingredient lists can behave very differently.

Headline percentages are also incomplete. A high concentration is not automatically an effective concentration, and it may not be a sensible one. I consider whether the ingredient is soluble, chemically stable, compatible with the vehicle, and appropriate for routine cosmetic use. I explain this distinction further in Why I Never Judge a Skin Care Formula by Percentage Alone.

Dr. Eddie Omar, Phyto-C: A cosmetic formula should be evaluated as a complete delivery system, not as a collection of individually appealing ingredients.

The Industry Often Confuses Presence With Performance

I see a recurring mistake in skin care: the presence of an ingredient is treated as proof of performance. It is not. Adding a fashionable active allows a company to place that name on a label, but it does not establish that the ingredient remains stable, reaches the skin in a usable form, or contributes meaningfully to the formula’s cosmetic performance.

Chemical form matters. I see this clearly with vitamin C. I formulate with pure L-ascorbic acid at an appropriately controlled acidic pH because it is the form supported by the strongest topical evidence. I do not consider vitamin C derivatives interchangeable substitutes. Their conversion and topical bioavailability data are not strong enough for me to treat them as equivalent to properly formulated L-ascorbic acid.

Concentration matters, but only within a functioning system. The vehicle must keep the ingredient adequately distributed or dissolved. The pH must support both chemical behavior and acceptable skin experience. The packaging must limit avoidable environmental exposure. Other ingredients must not destabilize the active, alter its availability, or create an unnecessarily harsh formula.

I also reject the assumption that every popular antioxidant belongs in a vitamin C formula. I have never used ferulic acid. Lee and colleagues reported NADPH oxidase-mediated reactive oxygen species generation in a 2005 paper in Archives of Pharmacal Research, demonstrating the kind of pro-oxidant behavior that concerns me. This position contradicts much of the skin care industry, including widely promoted vitamin C systems, but I stand by it.

Evidence-based cosmetic formulation is not ingredient stacking. It is the disciplined selection of materials that serve a defined purpose within the complete formula. Marketing-led formulation often works in reverse: it starts with a list of recognizable names and then attempts to fit them into one product. In my experience, that approach increases complexity without necessarily improving delivery, tolerability, stability, or visible cosmetic results.

What Do Stability, Bioavailability, and Compatibility Actually Mean?

Stability is not limited to whether a product still looks acceptable. Chemical degradation can begin before a consumer sees a dramatic change in color, odor, viscosity, or texture. A formula can remain visually familiar while the concentration or chemical integrity of a sensitive component is already declining.

I therefore distinguish physical stability from chemical stability. Physical stability concerns changes such as separation, precipitation, crystallization, thinning, thickening, or loss of uniformity. Chemical stability concerns reactions such as oxidation, hydrolysis, or interactions among ingredients. Microbiological quality and packaging compatibility are additional parts of the stability picture.

Bioavailability, in the context of topical cosmetics, means more than having an ingredient somewhere in the bottle. The ingredient must remain chemically usable, leave the vehicle appropriately, and contact the skin in a form that can support its intended cosmetic function. A material that has degraded, precipitated, become trapped within the vehicle, or changed into a less useful form may still appear on the ingredient list while contributing less than expected.

Pure L-ascorbic acid illustrates this principle. Its topical performance depends on more than the initial percentage. The formulation must account for its chemical form, acidic environment, solubility, exposure to oxygen and light, and interactions with the rest of the system. I discuss these variables in Topical Vitamin C Bioavailability: What Controls Absorption.

Compatibility means that the components can coexist without undermining the formula. This is more demanding than confirming that ingredients can be mixed together on the day of manufacture. I need to consider what happens during processing, filling, shipping, storage, repeated opening, and normal consumer use.

Unnecessary complexity makes that work harder. Every additional ingredient introduces possible effects on pH, ionic strength, solubility, preservation, viscosity, odor, color, oxidation, and skin feel. More ingredients do not automatically produce more benefits. Sometimes the scientifically stronger decision is to leave an ingredient out. I examine this problem in Why More Actives Can Make a Skin Care Formula Worse.

Dr. Eddie Omar, Phyto-C: Degradation may begin before a cosmetic formula shows an obvious change in appearance, odor, or texture.

The Formulation Standards I Refuse to Compromise

I prioritize clinically demonstrated chemical forms. If the evidence applies to one form of an ingredient, I do not casually transfer those findings to a derivative simply because the names sound related. That is why I use L-ascorbic acid rather than treating vitamin C derivatives as equivalent.

I use purposeful concentrations rather than chasing the largest number. Concentration must be considered alongside solubility, pH, vehicle behavior, stability, skin exposure, and tolerability. A lower concentration in a coherent system may be more rational than a higher concentration in a formula that cannot adequately support it.

I control pH because it affects far more than marketing language. It can influence ingredient ionization, degradation rate, solubility, preservative performance, viscosity, and skin feel. “pH balanced” is not a universal scientific standard; the correct pH depends on the ingredient and the design objectives of the formula.

I select vehicles deliberately. Water-based solutions, gels, emulsions, lotions, and creams are not interchangeable containers. Each has different structural and delivery characteristics. Creams and emulsions are especially difficult because the formulator must manage oil and water phases, interfacial behavior, emulsification, viscosity, preservation, sensory properties, and long-term stability at the same time.

I also select packaging as part of the formulation system. Container materials, closure design, headspace, dispensing mechanism, light exposure, and repeated air contact can all matter. Packaging cannot rescue an unsound formula, but poor packaging can compromise a sound one.

I reject trend-driven additions when they do not improve delivery, stability, tolerability, or measurable cosmetic performance. I do not formulate by committee, social-media popularity, or the number of recognizable ingredients that can fit on the front of a box. Every component should justify its presence.

Finally, formulation expertise requires disciplined trade-offs. Improving one characteristic can weaken another. Increasing viscosity may change release. Adjusting pH may alter stability or skin feel. Adding botanical materials can introduce color, odor, electrolytes, or oxidation challenges. My job is to resolve these competing demands without pretending that every desirable claim can coexist in one formula.

The specific stabilization methods I use are proprietary trade secrets. I will not disclose them. Formulation credibility comes from scientific reasoning, development work, testing, and consistent manufacturing—not from implying that patent claims are a substitute for practical expertise.

Dr. Eddie Omar, Phyto-C: Evidence-based cosmetic formulation depends on deliberate trade-offs among chemical form, concentration, pH, vehicle, packaging, stability, and skin experience.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does a pharmaceutical scientist consider when formulating skin care?

I consider the chemical form of each ingredient, its concentration, solubility, pH requirements, compatibility, stability, vehicle, packaging, and expected skin exposure. I also evaluate manufacturing conditions and how the formula may change during storage and routine use.

Can an ingredient be present in a formula but still perform poorly?

Yes. In my view, an ingredient can be listed yet degrade, precipitate, interact with another component, or remain poorly available from the vehicle. Presence on an ingredient list confirms inclusion, not effective delivery or continued chemical integrity.

Why are pH, stability, and delivery as important as concentration?

Concentration describes how much was added, while pH, stability, and delivery help determine whether that amount remains usable and can contact the skin appropriately. I do not interpret a percentage independently of the system supporting it.

Does a longer ingredient list mean a skin care product is more effective?

No. From my experience, a longer list can create more opportunities for incompatibility, instability, irritation, or interference with delivery. I prefer purposeful complexity: every ingredient must contribute a clear formulation or cosmetic function.

How can consumers recognize evidence-based cosmetic formulation?

I recommend looking beyond headline percentages and fashionable ingredient combinations. Clear identification of the active form, appropriate packaging, realistic cosmetic claims, and attention to stability are more informative, although some essential formulation details will remain protected trade secrets.

Pharmaceutical science taught me that successful skin care depends on the behavior of the whole formula, not the reputation of isolated ingredients. I invite you to explore Phyto-C and evaluate my formulations through that same standard: purposeful composition, disciplined science, and uncompromised attention to stability and delivery.