ep-uu “4

ow:

‘21:-
~1-

was
#51

,3‘

:45
3
3..
3%

5?“w
:34“

 

 

 

 

JBRARY
,_ . . ISIS oce l a e
J 3'? Ne rSlty thesis entitled

 

 

A PROTOCOL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF NAIL POLISH

 

 

 

presented by
LISA ANN ROMERO

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of Science degree in Criminal Justice

  

 

//Vlajor Pfiessbr's Signature

7123/03

Date

MSU Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

—-—-——-n—_A.—-———

_____-—— awe——-— 4
_V _ A

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDue.p65«p.15

A PROTOCOL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF NAIL POLISH
By

Lisa Ann Romero

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Criminal Justice

2003

ABSTRACT
A PROTOCOL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF NAIL POLISH
By

Lisa Ann Romero

Nail polish has been largely ignored in the forensic science literature, and
this research opens the door to further investigation into the uses of a proposed
scheme of analysis.

In this research, a three-part protocol for the analysis of nail polish is
proposed. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy is used for the comparison of
chemical compositions. Microspectrophotometry is used to compare their
specific color. Lastly, traditional light microscopy is used to further distinguish
them. By combining these three techniques, almost all nail polishes studied
were distinguishable from each other.

Five blind samples were analyzed and compared to the nail polishes that
were analyzed in this project. The conclusions drawn about the blind samples

were all correct, demonstrating the usefulness of this protocol.

Copyright by
Lisa Ann Romero

2003

To my two best friends: my Maker and my husband.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have been inspired and encouraged by several people through the
course of this project. First of all, I’d like to thank Cheryl Lozen of the Michigan
State Police Crime Lab who took me under her wing as an intern and fueled my
love of trace evidence. A very special thanks to Dr. Jay Siegel, my professor,
my coach and my friend. Thank you for teaching me to question everything and
always seek the truth in everything.

I wouldn’t be who I am today without the encouragement of my parents
who always taught me to never settle for less than my best. A simple thank you
is so inadequate! Thanks to my new husband, Doug, for walking with me
through every step of the way and being my cheerleader every time I needed it.
I love you! Lastly, I give thanks to the Lord, who is the source of my strength
and everything I have. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your
own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your

paths straight. (Proverbs 3:6)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Classification .............................................................................................. 1
Review of Literature ................................................................................... 2
Purpose of this research ............................................................................ 3
Project overview ......................................................................................... 4
Introduction to the Techniques ................................................................... 5
MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................. 8
Samples ..................................................................................................... 8
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy .................................................. 9

Aging Study ................................................................................... 10
Reproducibility Study ..................................................................... 11

Brand Study ................................................................................... 12

Covergirl Study .............................................................................. 13
Lot Study ........................................................................................ 13
Microspectrophotometry ........................................................................... 14
Method of Analysis ........................................................................ 14

Microscopic Examination .......................................................................... 16
Blind test ................................................................................................... 17
RESULTS & DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 18
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy .................................................. 18

Aging Study ................................................................................... 18

Reproducibility Study .................................................................... 18

Brand Study ................................................................................... 24

Covergirl Study .............................................................................. 30
Lot Study ........................................................................................ 34
Microspectrophotometry ........................................................................... 34
Aging Study ................................................................................... 37
Reproducibility Study ..................................................................... 37

Brand Study ................................................................................... 42

Covergirl Study .............................................................................. 46

Lot Study ........................................................................................ 5O

Microscopic Examination .......................................................................... 50

Blind Test ................................................................................................. 57

FTIR .............................................................................................. 57

vi

Microspectrophotometry ................................................................ 58

Microscopic Examination ............................................................... 63
Summary ........................................................................................ 65
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 68
SUGGESTED PROTOCOL ................................................................................. 71
FUTURE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 73
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 76
APPENDIX A: Microspectrophotometry Calibration Procedure ................ 77
APPENDIX B: Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra ................................... 81
APPENDIX C: Microspectrophotometry UV-Visible Spectra .................. 125
APPENDIX D: Microscopy Results for the Brand and Covergirl
Studies ............................................................................ 162
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 168

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Similarity of Ingredients in the Brand Study .......................................... 25
Table 2. FTIR Percent Match Results of the Brand Study .................................. 27
Table 3. Ingredients of the Covergirl Nail Polishes in this Study ........................ 30
Table 4. Microspectrophotometry Peak Wavelengths for the Reproducibility
Study ..................................................................................................... 43
Table 5. Microspectrophotometry Results for the Brand Study ........................... 46
Table 6. Microspectrophotometry Results for the Covergirl Study ...................... 47
Table 7. Microscopy Results for Group A ........................................................... 54
Table 8. Microscopy Results for Group B ........................................................... 55
Table 9. Microscopy Results for Group C ........................................................... 56
Table10. Microscopy Results for Blind Sample Number 1 .................................. 63
Table11. Microscopy Results for Blind Sample Number 2 ................................. 64
Table12. Microscopy Results for Blind Sample Number 3 ................................. 64
Table13. Microscopy Results for Blind Sample Numbers 4 and 5 ..................... 65
Table 14. Summary of Results for Blind Samples .............................................. 66
Table 15. Microscopy Results for the Brand Study ........................................... 163
Table 16. Microscopy Results for the Covergirl Study ...................................... 165

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. FTIR Spectrum of 5 Minute Aged Sample ......................................... 20
Figure 2. FTIR Spectrum of 10 Minute Aged Sample ....................................... 21
Figure 3. FTIR Spectrum of 4 Hour Aged Sample ............................................. 22
Figure 4. FTIR Spectrum of Reproducibility Sample #1 .................................... 23
Figure 5. FTIR Spectrum of L’Oreal Sheer Moonberry Perle ............................ 28
Figure 6. FTIR Spectrum of Maybelline Daring Berry ....................................... 29
Figure 7. FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Classic Red ........................... 32
Figure 8. FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Pink WInk .............................. 33
Figure 9. FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot # 1353 ....... 35
Figure 10. FTIR SpectnIm of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot # 2191 ..... 36
Figure 11. UV-Visible Spectra of 5 Minute Aged Sample .................................. 38
Figure 12. UV-Visible Spectra of 10 Minute Aged Sample ................................ 39
Figure 13. UV-Visible Spectra of 4 Hour Aged Sample ..................................... 40
Figure 14. UV-Visible Spectra of Reproducibility Samples #1-10 ..................... 41
Figure 15. UV-Visible Spectra of Maybelline Daring Berry ................................ 44
Figure 16. UV-Visible Spectra of L’Oreal Sheer Moonberry Perle ..................... 45
Figure 17. UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Classic Red .................... 48
Figure 18. UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Pink WInk ....................... 49
Figure 19. UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot #

1353 ................................................................................................... 51

Figure 20.

Figure 21.
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Figure 29.
Figure 30.
Figure 31.
Figure 32.
Figure 33.
Figure 34.
Figure 35.
Figure 36.
Figure 37.
Figure 38.
Figure 39.
Figure 40.

Figure 41.

UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot #

2191 .................................................................................................. 52
FTIR Spectrum of Blind Sample #1 .................................................. 59
FTIR Spectrum of Blind Sample #3 .................................................. 60
UV—Visible Spectra of Blind Sample #1 ............................................ 61

UV-Visible Spectra of Blind Sample #3 ............................................ 62

FTIR Spectrum of 15 Minute Aged Sample ...................................... 82
FTIR Spectrum of 30 Minute Aged Sample ...................................... 83
FTIR Spectrum of 45 Minute Aged Sample ...................................... 84
FTIR Spectrum of 60 Minute Aged Sample ...................................... 85
FTIR Spectrum of 90 Minute Aged Sample ...................................... 86
FTIR Spectrum of 2 Hour Aged Sample ........................................... 87
FTIR Spectrum of 3 Hour Aged Sample ........................................... 88
FTIR Spectrum of 1 Day Aged Sample ............................................. 89
FTIR Spectrum of 2 Week Aged Sample .......................................... 9O
FTIR Spectrum of Reproducibility Sample #10 ................................. 91

FTIR Spectrum of Reproducibility Sample #20 ................................. 92
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Cranberry Cream ................. 93

FTIR Spectrum of L’Oreal Mulberry Creme ...................................... 94
FTIR Spectrum of Maybelline Native Berry ...................................... 95

FTIR Spectrum of Revlon Love Her Madly ....................................... 96
FTIR Spectrum of Revlon WIne VWth Everything .............................. 97
FTIR Spectrum of Revlon Super Top Speed WIney ......................... 98

Figure 42.

Figure 43.

Figure 44.
Figure 45.
Figure 46.
Figure 47.
Figure 48.
Figure 49.
Figure 50.
Figure 51.
Figure 52.
Figure 53.
Figure 54.
Figure 55.
Figure 56.
Figure 57.
Figure 58.
Figure 59.

Figure 60.

Figure 61.

FTIR Spectrum of Sally Hansen Hard As Nails Oasis Dawn

Cream ............................................................................................... 99
FTIR Spectrum of Sally Hansen Maximum Growth Beautiful

Beny ............................................................................................... 100
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Cabemet ............................ 101

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Cherry Brandy .................... 102
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Cherry Truffle ..................... 103

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Fabulous Fuchsia .............. 104

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Grape Ice ........................... 105

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink ...................... 106
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Mauve Sunrise ................... 107

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Mauvelicious ...................... 108

FTIR Spectmm of Covergirl Nailslicks Peek-A-Boo Pink ................ 109
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Aura ........................... 110

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Snow .......................... 111

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Plum Frost .......................... 112
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Satin Mauve ....................... 113
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Silver Plum ......................... 114
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Tickled Pink ....................... 115

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Twilight Mauve ................... 116
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Well Red ............................ 117

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot #

2170 ................................................................................................ 118

xi

Figure 62.

Figure 63.

Figure 64.
Figure 65.
Figure 66.
Figure 67.
Figure 68.
Figure 69.
Figure 70.
Figure 71.
Figure 72.
Figure 73.
Figure 74.
Figure 75.
Figure 76.
Figure 77.
Figure 78.
Figure 79.
Figure 80.

Figure 81.

FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot #

2206 ............................................................................................... 1 19
FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot #

2232 ............................................................................................... 120
FTIR Spectrum of Blind Sample #2 ................................................ 121
FTIR Spectrum of Blind Sample #4 ................................................ 122
FTIR Spectrum of Blind Sample #5 ................................................ 123
FTIR Spectrum of Blank Potassium Bromide Sample ..................... 124
UV-Visible Spectra of 15 Minute Aged Sample .............................. 126
UV-Visible Spectra of 45 Minute Aged Sample .............................. 127
UV-Visible Spectra of 60 Minute Aged Sample .............................. 128
UV-Visible Spectra of 90 Minute Aged Sample .............................. 129
UV-Visible Spectra of 2 Hour Aged Sample ................................... 130
UV-Visible Spectra of 3 Hour Aged Sample ................................... 131
UV-Visible Spectra of Reproducibility Samples #11-20 .................. 132
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Cranberry Cream ......... 133
UV-Visible Spectra of L’Oreal Mulberry Creme .............................. 134
UV-Visible Spectra of Maybelline Native Berry ............................... 135
UV-Visible Spectra of Revlon Love Her Madly ............................... 136
UV-Visible Spectra of Revlon WIne WIth Everything ...................... 137
UV-Visible Spectra of Revlon Super Top Speed WIney ................. 138
UV-Visible Spectra of Sally Hansen Hard As Nails Oasis Dawn
Cream .............................................................................................. 139

xii

Figure 82.

Figure 83.
Figure 84.
Figure 85.
Figure 86.
Figure 87.
Figure 88.
Figure 89.
Figure 90.
Figure 91.
Figure 92.
Figure 93.
Figure 94.
Figure 95.
Figure 96.
Figure 97.

Figure 98.

Figure 99.

UV-Visible Spectra of Sally Hansen Maximum Growth Beautiful
Beny ............................................................................................... 140
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Cabernet ...................... 141
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Cherry Brandy .............. 142
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Cherry Truffle ............... 143
UV-VisibIe Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Fabulous Fuchsia ........ 144
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Grape Ice ..................... 145
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink ................ 146
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Mauve Sunrise ............. 147
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Mauvelicious ................ 148
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Aura ..................... 149
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Snow .................... 150
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Plum Frost .................... 151
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Satin Mauve ................. 152
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Silver Plum ................... 153
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Twilight Mauve ............. 154
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Well Red ...................... 155
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot #

2170 ................................................................................................ 156
UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot #

2206 ................................................................................................ 1 57

Figure 100. UV-Visible Spectra of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink Lot #

2232 .............................................................................................. 1 58

Figure 101. UV-Visible Spectra of Blind Sample #2 ........................................ 159

xiii

Figure 102. UV-Visible Spectra of Blind Sample #4 ........................................ 160

Figure 103. UV-Visible Spectra of Blind Sample #5 ........................................ 161

xiv

INTRODUCTION

In the age of DNA analysis, the focus of research seems to have been
drawn to forensic biology. Although most trace evidence cannot be used to
identify a specific source of the questioned material, the accumulation of
supporting circumstantial evidence can be very persuasive in the courtroom.

Nail polish has been largely overlooked in research, and possibly at the
crime scene as well. Although nail polish manufacturers are constantly trying to
make their product more durable and chip-resistant, it still becomes damaged
even in normal day-to-day activities such as washing dishes and typing on a
keyboard. If a woman wearing nail polish is attacked and she fights back by
hitting and scratching her attacker, it is possible that her nail polish would flake
off and embed in or stick to her attacker’s clothing. Consider also the possibility
that a victim tied up on the floor of the backseat or in the trunk of her kidnapper’s
car may leave nail polish evidence as she desperately tries to untie her hands
behind her. The traces of nail polish that break off may be the only pieces of
evidence that link her to the defendant’s car. Nail polish can also be found as
evidence in the form of a smear on a hard surface such as a wall or door, placed
there by a flailing arm of a woman attempting to escape.

Classification

In order to establish a protocol of analysis for a forensic material, it is

helpful to classify it as a particular type of substance. According to the following

definitions from the Forensic Science Handbook (Saferstein, 2002), nail polish

could potentially be placed into three closely-related categories: paints, coatings
and lacquers. A paint is defined as “a suspension of a pigment in an oil vehicle”
or more broadly as “any surface coating designed for protection of a surface or
for decoration, or both.”. Nail polish would satisfy this definition, as it is a
decorative type of surface coating. Secondly, a coating is defined as, a “surface
covering intended to provide protection, corrosion resistance or an aesthetically
attractive appearance or to perform some specialized purpose”. The use of nail
polish to improve the appearance of one’s nails could classify this material as a
coating. Thirdly, lacquers are defined as “fast-drying coatings, clear or
pigmented, that dry by evaporation of the solvent rather than by oxidation or
polymerization.”. Solvent evaporation is the predominant means by which nail
polish dries. In conclusion, nail polish could fall into either of these three

categories, but generally falls under the heading of a type of paint.

Review of Literature

The only journal article found to report research on nail polishes actually
focused more on automotive paint than nail polish. In this research, Garold L.
Gresham et al. analyzed thirty-nine automobile paints and only five nail polishes,
each of which was a different brand, using secondary ion mass spectrometry
(SIMS) to compare the chemical compositions. Their results indicated that the
five brands were distinguishable, but nothing further was concluded regarding
nail polishes. Gresham discusses how they determined the effects of SIMS on

the chemical properties by alternating reflectance FTIR and SIMS to check for

any change in the FTIR spectra after the sample was analyzed by SIMS. It was
concluded that there was some modification of the surface of the nail polish by
SIMS analysis, but it was not significant. (Gresham, 2000) Their use of FTIR to
evaluate the affect of SIMS indicates that the researchers had confidence in the
analysis of nail polish by FTIR, which was not questioned or tested further in this
research.

Perhaps there have been few journal articles published on nail polish
because some may consider it to be similar enough to paint, which has been
researched thoroughly. One should not assume that nail polish has the same
properties as paint or other coatings due to differences in the purpose of the
material, and therefore, differences in the composition and properties. This
research was necessary to show that different brands and colors of nail polish
could be distinguished by a protocol which is similar to the well-accepted method

of analysis used for paint.

Purpose of this Research

The purpose of this research project is to develop an efficient, reliable and
accurate scheme of analysis to compare and potentially identify nail polishes
found as trace evidence at crime scenes or on persons. Three methods are
used in combination for the proposed scheme. Fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy (FT IR) is used to compare the chemical composition. Second,
microspectrophotometry is used to compare the exact color of the material.

Lastly, microscopy, the most basic technique of trace evidence analysis, is

applied to compare microscopic characteristics of the nail polishes.

Project Overview

Several different studies are conducted on various samples of nail polish.
Initially, an aging study is conducted to determine how long it takes for solvents
to evaporate from nail polish painted on a glass slide. This determines if the
solvent components play a role in the identifying characteristics of or the
discrimination between nail polishes for the studies to follow. Second, the
analysis of twenty different colors of one brand of nail polish (Covergirl Nailslicks)
tests the ability to distinguish between differently colored nail polishes with
otherwise very similar chemical composition. Third, several nail polishes that are
visibly similar in color, but from different brands, are analyzed. This tests the
ability to distinguish between closely related colors by microspectrophotometry
as well as to determine whether microscopy or FTIR can be used to distinguish
between different brands. Fourth, a lot study is conducted involving the analysis
of several samples of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink nail polish from different
production lots as differentiated by the numbers printed on the bottom of the
bottles. The purpose of this study is to determine if one can distinguish between
different lots of the same nail polish. Fifth, a reproducibility study is conducted to
determine the amount of variation from sample to sample by analyzing the same
brand and color of nail polish twenty times. Finally, the entire scheme of analysis
is tested with five blind samples in an attempt to identify each nail polish brand

and color.

Introduction to the Techniques

There are a few other techniques that could potentially be used for the
analysis of nail polish, based on its similarity to paint. These include pyrolysis
gas chromatography- mass spectroscopy (pGC-MS), scanning electron
microscopy-energy dispersive x-ray analysis (SEM-EDX) , reflectance FT IR,
(Saferstein, 2002) and perhaps with more research, microchemical or solubility
tests that are currently used for paints and coatings.

The three techniques used in this research are all based upon different
scientific principles, which reduces the likelihood of inaccurate results.
lmportantly, none of the techniques in this research consume the evidence
sample. Microscopy and microspectrophotometry do not change the nail polish
in any way. For FT IR, the nail polish sample is ground to a powder, mixed with
potassium bromide (KBr) and made into a solid pellet. This changes only the
physical form of the nail polish, not the color or chemical composition. FI'IFI
should be performed last, but if it is necessary to recover the nail polish from the
KBr pellet for further analysis, the potassium bromide could be dissolved away by
water, leaving the nail polish in the form of a fine powder.

Visible light can be seen in a range of colors such as red, orange, yellow,
green, blue and violet as well as everything in between. The different colors
result from differences in the wavelengths (or the reciprocal of the frequency) of
the light. Visible light is a spectrum, ranging from 400 nanometers (nm)

wavelength for violet colors to 800 nm for red colors. Microspectrophotometry

can be a very useful tool for comparing colored materials by identifying exactly
what wavelength(s) of light shines through the material. While the human eye
can be used to distinguish between some colors, microspectrophotometry is able
to distinguish between many more closely-related colors than the naked eye.
Two slightly different colors of pink nail polish may appear to be the same color,
but microspectrophotometry in most cases should be able to tell the difference
between them. Microspectrophotometry is used for fibers, plastics, paint, ink,
colored glass, and other applications.

Below 400 nm is the ultraviolet range of light, and above 800 nm is the
infrared range of light. When infrared light is focused on a sample, the molecules
absorb radiation at certain frequencies, producing increased vibration of chemical
bonds between atoms. This vibration is detected by the infrared
spectrophotometer and produces a spectrum which shows the intensity of the
absorption of infrared light at each wavelength in the range analyzed. Each type
of chemical substance produces a different FT IR spectrum, making it a useful
tool for distinguishing between closely-related chemicals. FT IR is used for
analyzing forensic samples such as controlled substances, fibers, plastic, paint,
paper, ink, toxicology samples, explosives, adhesives, tapes, and several other
applications. (Saferstein, 2002) One limitation of FTIR is that substances less
than 5% weight in concentration will most likely not be detected. This is
especially a problem if the minor and major components of the substrate are
similar, because the major components’ peaks will mask those of the minor

components.

Microscopy is used in this research because it is the most basic of
analysis techniques. It can, however, be a very discriminating tool in the
examination of trace evidence. Traditional light microscopy does not require the
use of complicated or expensive equipment, and does not consume or change

the evidence sample, which can be limited in forensic samples.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Samples

The following is a list of the nail polishes that were used in this research.

Covergirl Nailslicks colors:

Cabernet Cherry Brandy

Cherry Truffle Classic Red

Cranberry Cream Fabulous Fuchsia

Grape Ice Ice Blue Pink (Lot #3 1353, 2170, 2191,

2206, and 2232)

Mauvelicious Mauve Sunrise
Peek-A-Boo Pink Pink Aura

Pink Snow Pink Wink
Plum Frost Satin Mauve
Silver Plum Tickled Pink
Twilight Mauve Well Red

L’Oreal Shockproof Mulberry Creme
L’Oreal Shockproof Sheer Moonberry Perle
Maybelline Express Finish Daring Berry
Maybelline Express Finish Native Berry
Revlon Love Her Madly

Revlon Wine With Everything

Revlon Super Top Speed Winey
Sally Hansen Hard as Nails Oasis Dawn Cream

Sally Hansen Maximum Growth Beautiful Berry

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

The Nicolet-Protégé 460 Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer
(FTIR), employing an MCT-A detector, was used to compare the chemical
compositions of various groups of nail polishes. For each of the five studies that
follow, a standard protocol was used for the preparation of the nail polish for
analysis. The following procedure was used for analyses on FTIR in all studies in
this project (unless otherwise indicated).

After shaking the nail polish bottle for at least 10 seconds, nail polish was
painted onto a clean glass slide and allowed to dry for at least twenty-four hours
before further preparation. A small amount (approximately 1 mm by 2 mm) of the
dried nail polish was used to make a potassium bromide (KBr) micropellet. The
first time the FT IR instrument was used each day, the bench was aligned. The
sample was analyzed using fifty scans, then the KBr micropellet was removed
and the background was run using fifty scans. When the instrument was finished
analyzing the sample and background, the baseline was automatically adjusted
by the OMNIC 5.1 software. The Y-axis scale was normalized so that the tallest
peak was equal to 1.0 Absorbance units, for easier comparison. The
wavelengths of all significant peaks were labeled on the spectrum. Peak heights

were also labeled using the automatic peak height function to mark the tallest

portion of each peak. All equipment used in the preparation of the KBr pellet

were cleaned with acetone and KimwipesTM, then allowed to dry.

Aging study

The purpose of the aging study was to determine how the chemical
composition of the nail polish changes as it dries, how fast the solvents
evaporate, and if the composition continues to change after the solvents have
evaporated. The results of this study are used to determine how long a sample
would have to dry to avoid any unnecessary error due to solvent evaporation
during the studies to follow.

The aging study was conducted by making samples from one bottle of
nail polish (Covergirl Nailslicks Twilight Mauve) on a clean glass slide. After
specific time increments had passed, a small amount of the nail polish was
removed and made into a potassium bromide pellet for analysis by Fourier
transform infrared spectroscopy. This method was conducted on samples at the
following intervals:

5 minutes

10 minutes

15 minutes

60 minutes

90 minutes

2 hours

3 hours

10

4 hours
24 hours
1 week

2 weeks

The spectra were compared to identify the peaks which change over
time and those which do not. Those peaks which changed were tracked over
time to determine if there was a pattern of change as the nail polish dried and

when the changing ceased.

Reproducibility study

The purpose of the reproducibility study was to determine how much
variation occurs in chemical composition from analysis to analysis, as detected
by FTIR, using one nail polish. Covergirl Nailslicks Twilight Mauve was used to
make several samples on glass slides. Twenty samples were taken (after
waiting at least 24 hours) and these were analyzed and compared for any
differences between the spectra. To obtain values for the variation between
these identical samples, the spectra were stored in a software library and each
sample was searched against it. The software program automatically compared
the shape, relative height and position along the horizontal axis for each peak in
the spectra that was being searched and the spectra that were stored in the
library. The software was able to calculate a rating (a “percent match”) of how

closely any two spectra relate to each other. There are several types of

11

searches that could be done, each of which places more weight on differentiation
between specific features of the spectra. For example, a squared difference
search would be best if one is especially concerned mainly with the predominant
peaks, while an absolute derivative search places more weight on small
differences between the positions of the peaks along the X-axis. The search that
was used for this research, a correlation search, was recommended by the
software as producing the best results for most applications. The formula used
by the program is a lengthy and highly complicated one, precluding its
presentation in the current writing.

The search results list the other nail polishes in the library in order of the
degree to which they match the sample that was searched, with a match rating
called the “percent match”. This percent match is a rating of how close one nail
polish is related chemically to another nail polish. The differences between the
samples would be used as a standard for sample-to-sample variation. For the
other studies, a spectrum with variation that was not within this normal sample-

to-sample variation would be considered to be a different nail polish.

Brand study

The purpose of the brand study was to determine if there were
differences in chemical composition of nail polishes that are different brands and
types. Ten nail polishes that were visually very similar in color were chosen for
analysis. These samples represented five brands, or seven subcategories (for

example, two were Sally Hansen brand nail polishes; one of them was ‘Sally

12

Hansen Maximum Growth Nourishing Nail Color’, and the other was ‘Hard As
Nails’, two different subcategories of Sally Hansen).

These ten nail polishes were analyzed by FTIR, as outlined previously.
The spectra were added to a software library for comparison to other nail
polishes. The percent matches of each spectra were compared to each other to
determine if different brands or types of similar color nail polish could be

distinguished from each other.

Covergirl study

The purpose of the Covergirl study was to determine if there are
differences in chemical composition between differently colored nail polishes of
one brand. Twenty colors of Covergirl Nailslicks nail polish were used to make
samples on clean glass slides, which were allowed to dry twenty-four hours, then
analyzed according to the method outlined previously. The ingredients on the
labels were recorded and compared. Those which had the same ingredients
listed on the label in the same order were compared closely to determine if the

dyes, pigments or other minor variations could be detected using FTIR.

Lot study

The lot study was performed to determine if the chemical composition of
nail polish from different production lots or batches of the same brand and color
could be distinguished from each other by FTIR. Five bottles of Covergirl

Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink nail polish, all from different lots were purchased and

13

analyzed by FTIR according to the method outlined previously. The spectra were
compared to determine if there is a detectable difference in chemical composition

between batches of the same nail polish.

Microspectrophotometry
To compare the precise color of the nail polishes in this research project,
microspectrophotometry was performed on the five groups of nail polish, just as
in the FTIR analysis. Each time the SEE 1100 microspectrophotometer was
turned on, it was calibrated using filters traceable to National Institute of Science
& Technology (NIST) standards. Calibration procedures used during this
research project are in Appendix A.
Method of Analysis
Slides that were prepared for analysis by FTIR were used for
microspectrophotometry. Each slide was placed on the stage of the
microspectrophotometer and the sample was brought into focus. The aperture
was moved just off the sample and a reference scan was run. Five sample
scans were run on each sample, in different areas of the nail polish smear.
Another reference scan was run before each sample scan that was outside of
the previous field of view. Once all five sample scans were run, the positions of
the peaks were marked by the software. If any obvious peaks were not
identified by the software, the peak position was marked manually, using the
cursor.

The above procedure was conducted on the ten nail polishes of a similar

14

color, the twenty samples of Covergirl Nailslicks nail polish, and the five lots of
Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink. Within the brand study, one pair and one
triplet were especially close in color (visually). The similar pair is L’Oreal
Shockproof Sheer Moonberry Perle and Revlon Love Her Madly. The triplet
included Revlon Super Top Speed Winey, Revlon Wine With Everything, and
Maybelline Express Finish Native Berry. The spectra were compared against
each other to determine if microspectrophotometry could distinguish between
different colors, even colors that appear very similar.

The aging study was conducted on Covergirl Nailslicks Twilight Mauve to
determine whether or not the color of this nail polish changed as it dried or
“aged”. The nail polish was painted on a clean glass slide and was analyzed as
before at the following intervals:

5 minutes

10 minutes

15 minutes

30 minutes

45 minutes

60 minutes

90 minutes

2 hours

3 hours

4 hours

For the reproducibility study, twenty sample scans were taken of Covergirl

15

Nailslicks Twilight Mauve, instead of the usual 5. These scans were printed out
on two plots for easier viewing. The plots were also printed out “stacked” which
separated the spectra, with their peaks marked. The peak positions in the

spectra would be compared to identify any variation that occurs among samples.

Microscopic Examination

As with most trace evidence, microscopic analysis can play a major role
in the comparison Of similar materials. The goal of this research was primarily to
obtain a reproducible, reliable method of analyzing nail polish. However,
microscopic analysis relies heavily on interpretation and is therefore subject to
human error. In this research, traditional light microscopy was applied, as
opposed to polarized light microscopy.

Sample preparation for microscopic analysis was minimal; each nail
polish was painted on a clean glass slide and allowed to dry. Under 400X
magnification, the sample was brought into focus and was examined in several
areas of the sample to assure a representative sampling of the material.
Several characteristics were compared, including the grain and color of the
substrate, the presence and size of any particles, and the color and distribution
of those particles. All nail polishes analyzed were compared microscopically
against each other to assess how discriminating microscopy can be for the

identification of nail polishes.

16

Blind test

A blind test was conducted to evaluate the protocol used in this research
for accuracy in comparing and identifying nail polishes. Five nail polish samples
were prepared by Dr. Jay A. Siegel, PhD., Professor of Forensic Science at
Michigan State University. The nail polishes available to choose from for the
blind samples included all nail polishes analyzed in this research plus four other
nail polishes, including two brands that had not been analyzed. The author was
unaware of which nail polishes were used to make these samples. The five
samples were analyzed by FTIR, microspectrophotometry and light microscopy
using the protocol presented herein to compare their characteristics to those

analyzed and to identify the brand and color of each of the blind samples.

17

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

i

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, a powerful and discriminating
technique, was used to compare the chemical compositions of nail polishes of
different brands and within one brand. A software library was built, containing
the spectra from these nail polishes. Each nail polish was searched against this

library, producing a list of similar nail polishes in order of their percent match to

the nail polish in question.

Aging Study

There was no continuous trend of change in chemical composition
observed as the samples aged, as detected by FT IR. The spectrum for the
sample that had dried five minutes (see Figure 1) was the most unique sample
(had the lowest percent match across all samples) in the aging study. The
spectrum for the sample that had dried ten minutes (see Figure 2) did not differ
significantly from the other samples (see Figure 3), suggesting that the majority
of solvent evaporation and any other chemical changes occur in less than ten

minutes.

Reproducibility study

The FT IR spectra of the twenty samples of Covergirl Nailslicks Twilight

Mauve (see Figure 4) were all very similar, as was expected. A library was

18

built, containing only the reproducibility samples, and each of the twenty
samples was searched against this library. The average lowest percent match
(the twentieth ranked match) from these searches was 96.01%. The lowest
percent match that falls within two standard deviations from the mean was
96.64%. Statistically, 95% of the data should fall within two standard deviations,
to limit any skewing of the data by outliers. These two percentages were used
as standards for ranges of acceptable error within one nail polish. Nail polishes
that fell outside of this range in other studies could be excluded as a common
source.

Since FTIR was used to compare the chemical compositions, the
information gained from the spectra was compared to the list of chemical
ingredients listed on each bottle. Based on the comparison of the ingredients, it
should be expected that the nail polishes with similar formulas would have
similar FTIR spectra, and the nail polishes with very different ingredients would
have different FTIR spectra.

There are a few ingredients that were found in every nail polish analyzed.
These are butyl acetate, ethyl acetate and isopropyl alcohol. All nail polishes
listed the following on the “may contain” ingredient lists: bismuth oxychloride,
iron oxides, mica and titanium dioxide (one nail polish does contain, the others
may contain). The rest of the ingredients are not constant throughout all nail
polishes studied, which supports the hypothesis that the chemical compositions

may be used to distinguish one nail polish from another.

19

 

oEEmw nom< 3252 m .6 83388 ”EL. .F 939“.

 

com

08?

9 EB BonEaco>w>>
89. Bow comm

ooov

 

VS'PQ'IV

79269

OL'B‘PL

 

 

 

ZZ'BSB

BL’BVZI

OB'BLZI

SB’ZCPI

 

 

 

\‘t/

QZ'GBIVI.

SE'IBSI

 

 

 

ZC‘OEZIC:,___.____=—

 

 

00'9V9l

0.0-

. {1.770

I Nd

 

aoueqmsqv

 

 

93.22 29:2,... 9.26.52 39900 3358 m

20

@253 um? 9:55. or Go Eazomqw «Eh. .N 239".

 

$-88 83.5552,

Doom Comm

000»

ooov

 

/i/>il

76169

1.07.91

SI'BBII

 

/

 

St'oetTf/

 

 

ZS’O‘PB
WC

9L'ZZIL

cv'szm
swat I,

 

 

 

ZG'ZS‘QL

 

 

 

iii/I

/

/

LE'SLBZ

a
a I

OI'EQGZ

EB'SSVS

\(III

 

aoueqmsqv

 

 

mics. 39:5. mxo__w__mz £9900 moscE or

21

waEmw coma. 501 v 00 83:00am m_._.n_ .m 239....

 

00m

000..

ATE“: 962E255;
ooom coma coon 8mm ooov

 

 

88169
ZV'QW.

 

69198

(7

SZ'SI6/,:;:;

SB’SLOI

GI'EZI 2...,-

1.988 I I,

 

u'oeu/

 

 

0%
,2

92' LBSI

zsceet

 

 

 

690991

crew”,

T 0.0-

) rfio
/ .

6? 9193
X
1 r j
N
0

660962 96 £862
1 T I I I l
V.
0

88 68W
eouquosqv

 

 

 

m>:m_2 39:5. 96:26.2 £9900 mason v

22

S 238 £38398”. Lo 5:8on m5 .4 959”.

 

000 002 003

2.53 83:23:05;

000m comm

coon comm 000v

 

 

868814

9(169

90 90
06'9L6
’89'089L

90291”
L9 OLSL

1.9ng

88888

 

Iv.
Ir
2
.8
e
L

89810!-

 

 

 

 

 

 

09'L79l

 

 

 

SV'LZLI

 

l/I/ \ m3

I 0.0.
\KIIII
I ad
I ad

I v.0

EZ'VLBZ

Ind

16'68178/
aouecposqv

 

681863

.__._———
I

. _..—-
I

T 0.0

980963

 

 

 

9522 39:5 9.26.52 :DmSO E

23

Brand Study

Table 1 shows a chart of the number of differences in ingredients, which
is based only on the presence or absence of each ingredient, not on the relative
amount Of each ingredient. The relative amount of each ingredient could
possibly be compared based on the order of the ingredients on the bottle,
assuming that they are in order of proportion, but this really doesn’t tell anything
about the actual amount of that chemical. For example, consider two theoretical
nail polishes that have the same ingredients, in the same order on the labels,
and both are in order with the main ingredients starting first. One of those nail
polishes is mostly composed of the first two ingredients, and the rest are
minimal in quantity, while the ingredients in the other nail polish gradually
decrease in amount down the list of ingredients. Theoretically, the FTIR spectra
should be distinguishable because their chemical makeup would be different
due to varied amounts of each ingredient even though their ingredient lists were
identical. Therefore, the order of ingredients on the label should not be used to
estimate or compare the amount of each ingredient.

What can be compared is the presence or absence of the ingredients. Of
course, not all of the differences in the FTIR spectra will be accounted for by
comparing the presence or absence of ingredients, as pointed out above. This
is merely a tool for comparison, to see if dissimilar chemical ingredients can be a
cause for differences in the FTIR spectra.

Nail polishes in the brand study revealed that three pairs of nail polishes

had identical ingredients listed on the labels. These were the two Revlon colors

24

(Wine With Everything and Love Her Madly), the two L’Oreal Shockproof colors

(Sheer Moonberry Perle and Mulberry Cream), and the two Maybelline Express

Finish colors (Native Berry and Daring Berry).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Blmlla of Iago—clients In the Brand M.
Sally Sally
Hansen Hansen
L'Oreal Revlon Maximum Hard As
Coverglrf Sheer L'Oreel Maybelllne Maybelline Revlon Revlon Super Top Growth Nelle anle
Cranberry Moonberry Mulberry Native Daring Mne WIth Love Her Speed Beautiful Dawn
Cream Perle CreLne Berry Berry Everythm Madly Wing Berry Cream ‘
L'Oreal
L'Oreal Sheer Maybelline Maybelline Revlon
Mulberry Moonberry Daring Native Revlon Love Wine With
Creme Perte Bony Berg Her Madly Everything
Sally Sally Sally
Hansen Hansen Hansen
5 Hard As Revlon Revlon Maximum Maximum Revlon Revlon
Nails Oasis Super Top Super Top Growth Growth Super Top Super Top Covergirl
Dawn Speed Speed Beautiful Beautiful Speed Speed Revlon Cranberry Maybelline
Cream aney Winey Berry Beny Wingy Wrney (both) Cregm (both)
Covergirl Covergirl
L'Oreal Revlon Revlon Cranberry Cranberry L'Oreel L'Oreal L'Oreal L'Oreal L'Oreal
(both) (both) (both) Cregm Cram (both) (both) (both) (both) (both)
g Covergirt Covergirl Covergirl Covergirl Covergirl Covergirf
Revlon Cranberry Cranberry L'Oreal L'Oreal Cranberry Cranberry Cranberry Revlon Cranberry
M) CregEm Cregm (both) (both) Cre_a_m Crag; Cre_a_m (both) Creln
Revlon
3 Super Top
Maybelline Maybelline Maybelline Revlon Revlon Maybelline Maybelline Maybelline Speed Revlon
both) (both) (both) (both) (bath) (both) (both) (both) Winey (both)
Sally Sally Sally Sally Sally
Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen
Revlon Hard As Hard As Revlon Revlon Maximum Maximum Maximum Revlon
Super Top Nails Oasis Nails Oasis Super Top Super Top Growth Growth Growth Super Top
Speed Dawn Dawn Speed Speed Beautiful Beautiful Beautiful Maybelline Speed
Wingy ngm Cream WIney Winey Berry Berry Berry (both) Winey
Sally Sally Sally Sally Sally Sally Sally Sally Sally Sally
Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen Hansen
Maximum Maximum Maximum Hard As Hard As Hard As Hard As Hard As Maximum Hard As
Growth Growth Growth Nails Oasis Nails Oasis Nails Oasis Nails Oasis Nails Oasis Growth Nails Oasis
Beautiful Beautiful Beautiful Dawn Dawn Dawn Dawn Dawn Beautiful Dawn
Bgrry Bony Berry Cream Cregm Crea_m Crea_m Cregm Be_rry Crea_m

 

25

Considering these three pairs and the twenty Covergirl nail polishes, it
seems as though nail polish formulas within each brand, and within the subtype
of each brand, are relatively constant, according to the results of FTIR. This is
not the case with Sally Hansen, based on the significant differences between the
spectra of these two nail polishes. On the other hand, Sally Hansen Hard As
Nails Oasis Dawn Creme and Sally Hansen Maximum Growth Beautiful Berry
are in different subcategories so it could be expected that they would have some
differences, especially considering that they have different “purposes” (the first
is for hard, chip-resistant nails, and the second nail polish’s purpose is to
promote nail growth and health).

For the different brands studied (Covergirl, Maybelline, Revlon, Sally
Hansen and L’Oreal), the FT IR spectra of the nail polishes within each brand
had a higher percent match than with any nail polish of another brand (Table 2).
The exception was Sally Hansen, where the chemical composition of these two
nail polishes were drastically different from each other, which may be explained
by their dissimilar ingredients. The results of this study show that FT IR is a
useful technique in distinguishing between different brands of nail polish (see
Figures 5 and 6).

On average, three nail polishes in the brand study had a 96.64% match
or higher, and three nail polishes had a 96.01% match or higher. In other
words, out of twenty Covergirl nail polishes and nine other nail polishes in the
brand study, twenty-six could be eliminated as a common source, leaving only

three possibly consistent nail polishes on average.

26

 

2.85

2:35.

Em 5.5000

250.2268

EEK—.820,

2.3.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BI 26.. 8:61 .8... 36.. 83cm :85... 2.30 :35: Elm , no... .250 550m .0... 26.. 5.6!
>o..s> uooom . Eon .Euaoon Eoo..0 Eon .Eaaeon Eon .Eason zoo: 2.35 2.32 Eon .Ezanon Eon 35:30
no.— .0230 co$e¢ c025... >=om .560 2.30 concur aim concur >..ow , .01 26.. 20.3: .0... 264 €3.61 .6: 26.. ..o.>o~. cons: >=om :85... >30
cone-I >=om
8.52.20 22.5.. ocean 8H .520 F680 .520 E53 uooqw 22.5.. 602.0 .653 602.0 2.32 2o...>> uooom
55> 2.2. 5.2.: .820 9.2.60 E355. .35.. £60 £30 .560 £30 no... .0220 :36: no» .oosm .626: ooh .oasm =o.>on 6: 25.. 5.6m no... .0220 8.23.
:85... 2.3 :85: 2:8
E30 02.52.00 .580 EonEU E620 E350 E120 Eoncflo 0.252.620 02.52.20 u...5>.o>w 0552.25 Egggw h
.560 £30 55> o25> 8261 2.9260 2.9260 2.9260 55> 85> :26: 55> 2...; :26! 55> o..s> 8.23. 55> o...>> :23: 55> o...>> 8.31 m
:35... 2.30 m
E30 5.3.3.0 Eon Eon Eon 2:00 .580 E020 IEon Eon 53.0 m
2.928 92.8 22.1252 9.55 8.62.62 92.8 2.2862 9.2.5 22.3.6: €8.32 .85.. 223...: .35... 9.50 2....362 9....5 8.62.6.2 2.3.22 .85... m
.520 EU 0.8... E05502 .580 .520 Eon 55:30 EwBo Eon Eon Eon 9
252.32 .35.. 2.8.32 .85... .85 380... €2.22 :20... 2.82:2 .35.. :85: 2.3 :33 ”.80 2.2.2 2.26.2 2....2 22.3.62 8.3.... 2....362 m
:35: 230
3.9... Eoncoofi En Eon Eon Eon 53.0 0200 E02832 .580 E3280 .580 Eon M
.86 380... 2.62 2.62.2 2.62 2:32.62 2.62 22.3%: 2.62 2....362 :35 «.80 .35 .35... c.9250 56.. 280 2.82 8.32.6.2
:35... 2.30 :3ch 2.6m
Eon atom. Eoncoos. zoos. 38o. E3805. 2.6... E22505. .580 2.23.3.0 .580 EoncEQ .520 E35 E0280 ocoagcoos.
2.62 2.2.32.5 .6020 39.0.. .e... 26.. 5.6”. .85 320.. 62% .35... 2.90.60 2.9260 .550 £30 2.0.260 .0020 380...
concur aim
Eon Eno.0 E3520 0552.20 29.5) 82.0 E52. vooom 36.... 2.69.8! Eon .2330 E30 25“. Eoncoos. .520
9.50 9.2.6965. E9260 55> 2.5. :23: no» .6220 .626”. 8... .0220 530m 62.0 320... :85... 2.3m Eons: 320.. .320 320... 2260 £30
:35: 2.8
zoos. u...§.o>w E50 En
8: 23 832.. 55> 85> 8.6... ocean. 22.9.6.2 2.32 8:62.62
.m
I
m
En .2330 EEO >ocs> .6on 0552.26 2.33. Eon Eon 26... 2.60.532 E20 .520 E3280 m
cons: Eon .560 £30 ooh 622m 8.60 55> o...>> 3.6m .2. 0.6. 5:61 25oz 05:365. 9.50 22:22.22 .85 .35.. E222: 320... c.9250 h
:85: 2.8 m
m
an
Eon .520 E53 vol—m no... niggw 55> 2.9a! E00 E30 act-0 atom Eenaoofi, e520 Eelo Pena-.0 m
.3035 536.0 .560 £30 .0220 20.6! 2...... .2261 .e: 26.. .333. 25.-z 22.—ego! e.....ea>~! 32.0 .120... E35! 120.4 29260 M
52....er 3.5. .1 Be...
23...... >210 cease... >=em
.. an 2.22 2.2.. £3... .. ice... 2F. « o3...

 

 

27

02m... E3285. $020 .280... .0 5.2.0on 0...". .0 8:9“.

 

2-2.8 anEaco>u>>
ooom comm coon comm oocv

 

 

 

32' W8

 

OO'SOOL

 

ZZ'SSL L,

 

 

 

99610

 

 

99'669l \\

 

 

 

 

69'6?9L

<1.
BC'OCU-

SVSLBZ
I
v
o

89 8863
r 1
ID
0
aoueqmsqv

zszgez/
l
CD
0

QQ'QG’VE

 

 

 

mtmn. E82005. 59.0 $00.... .0020. .280...

28

Eon c550 m2...mn>m.>. .0 2.2.0on 0...... .c 8.6.“.

 

com

com. P

2.2.0. 82.23532.
occm comm coco comm cccv

 

 

97969

60689
QC'VSL

 

H.098

——

LB'OQI-l

tram L_

 

 

 

QZBWL

 

C

SS‘ESQL

 

 

 

 

 

ocean/<2:

\I/ T

\

Ill.

/ id

“79963

96%
I l T I I
(D to
c c
aouecposqv

Tco
rco
T

1c.

j

T

 

 

 

 

Eon 02.50 3.22.... 380...”... 92:926.).

29

Covergirl Study
By comparing the ingredients in the twenty Covergirl Nailslicks colors,

they could be put into three classes of composition (Table 3).

Table 3. Ingredients of the Covergirl Nail Polishes in this Study.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Pink Wink Cherry Truffle Mauve Sunrise
Cabernet Tickled Pink
Classic Red Well Red
Satin Mauve
Cherry Brandy
Twilight Mauve
Pink Aura
Peek-A-Boo Pink
Ice Blue Pink
Mauvelicious
Plurn Frost
Fabulous Fuchsia
Grape Ice
Pink Snow
Cranberry Cream
Silver Plum

Base ingredients Base ingredients +: Base ingredients +3

Red 30 Lake Red 30 Lake
Aluminum Powder

Category 1 nail polishes contain what will be referred to as the “base
ingredients” which are common to all of the Covergirl nail polishes studied.
Category 2 has three colors which contain the base ingredients plus Red 30
Lake. Mauve Sunrise is the only nail polish in Category 3 and differs from
category 1 in that it contains both Bed 30 Lake and Aluminum Powder.

Comparing the percent matches of the FTIR spectra, it appears that the

30

nail polishes in each category are no more similar to each other than they are to
other Covergirl nail polishes. Additionally, Mauve Sunrise is no more similar to
those in category 2 than to those in category 1. Mauve Sunrise had the most
unique spectrum of the Covergirl nail polishes. Therefore, four conclusions may
be drawn: a) Bed 30 Lake is not in significant enough quantities to produce a
measurable difference in the spectra, b) the proportion of the common
ingredients differs enough to produce enough error to make small differences in
composition, 0) the ingredients on the “may contain” list account for the
differences in composition that cover over the small differences from Red 30
Lake, or d) any combination of the previous theories. Most likely, there is more
than one factor contributing to the unexpected results.

The Covergirl nail polishes had higher percent matches with each other
than with nail polishes of other brands (see Figures 7 and 8), with only a few
exceptions. Mauve Sunrise had as low of a percent match as the different
brands did, pointing to its unique composition. When both Plum Frost and Pink
Snow were searched against the library, they had similar results in that for both
of them, Fabulous Fuchsia, and Silver Plum had low percent matches, along
with Mauve Sunrise. All three were below Sally Hansen Oasis Dawn Creme. It
is possible that Oasis Dawn Creme just had a higher match than most other
Covergirl nail polishes. When Grape Ice was searched against the library,
Fabulous Fuchsia had a percent match just lower than Sally Hansen Oasis

Dawn Creme. Mauve Sunrise also had a low percent match.

31

com o.wmm.0 mxo._m._mz 2.9900 .0 2:50QO m...:.. K 9:9“.

 

i§

$-83 82.252935
ooo~ comm coon comm ooov

 

”191'
69199

 

90269

721?].

 

93688

VZ'QAOl

 

//

991:2”
69'69L L,/

 

 

 

 

 

96'889I

 

\lln‘!’

{It} I
.\
1

9991.82

81'7862

I v.0

 

Ind

 

 

 

 

 

OV'LVQL

009963
eouemosqv

1 cd

wean/f:—

99017178

 

 

 

com. o.mmm.0 9.0.6.52 2.9050

32

ES .52 92252 2998 .o 258QO 2E .m 9:9“.

 

8m

08..

A :20. m2onE32m>m>>
coca ccmw coon comm ccov

 

 

80'689

I—f

OL'QLO'

 

OZ'LSQL

5

K
/-~_

LQ‘ZZLL

, jll/l. \l - 3

I 0.0:

Lzszez//
//
\
,+ T 1 .
m N
o o

vascsg
99196?
u 2st
aouecposqv

 

 

 

.52. En. 92252 39960

33

On average, fourteen Covergirl nail polishes had a percent match of
96.64% or higher. Fifteen nail polishes had a percent match of 96.01% or
higher. Therefore, out of twenty Covergirl nail polishes and nine others from
different brands, only fourteen or fifteen of them can be excluded as being from
a common source. Infrared spectroscopy was not able to efficiently distinguish
between many of the nail polishes within the Covergirl brand. This may not be
the case for all brands, such as Sally Hansen. The two Sally Hansen nail
polishes studied were easily distinguished from each other, and therefore might
be an indication that other nail polishes within this brand can be distinguished
from each other. Further research would be needed for confirmation of this

hypothesis.

Lot Study

The five lots of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink were essentially
indistinguishable by FTIR. Only lot numbers 1353 and 2191 could be
distinguished from each other using the 96.64% match standard (see Figures 9
and 10). If the 96.01% standard was used, none of them could be distinguished
from each other because all five of them have a percent match higher than
96.01%. FTIFI was only able to distinguish between two of the five lots of

Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink that were analyzed.

Microspectrcmhotometry

The specific color of each nail polish was analyzed by

34

82 u .3 .52 85 8_ 9.0.22 2.928 .0 25.8on 2E .m 28.“.

 

$-25. a52E320>u>>

 

 

 

lL'SLOI-

 

 

 

 

 

8m 82 88 8.3 88 8.8 88
.3. w \ .
a .
I. 9 a .
W / Two
I..M m H. r
u. ... m .
m 6 w -8
g .3
.v \ . w
h. w m .3 w
m m .u. a . m
m .z
z m

 

r—'
‘.

67'999L

 

 

 

 

 

.25 gm 8. 9.2252 2.9960 82.. .3

35

 

55 u .3 3.52 35 8. 9.0.2.2 2.938 .0 2.2.0QO 2.5. .2 98....

 

p

2.50. 332.5226;
coon comm coon comm coov

 

LL’I79V

91.199

69911 09 901.

 

SZ'BCB

 

'7
0
I.
.9
I.
IV

 

 

DQ'BLZL

 

 

 

CL'SSQLC:

 

-"'

60'ZZLL

 

I

EH°.°

iwd

\ .
a,
M

II);

ZS'ZSSZ/

9L "9193

LQ’BCBZ

eouemosqv

8071963

 

 

 

v.2.n. mam m0. 9.0.6.52 .._.m2m>00 warm .9 5..

36

microspectrophotometry. The spectrum produced can be compared by the
wavelength of light absorbed, the shape of the peaks and the relative intensity of

multiple peaks in the spectrum.

Aging Study

The wavelengths of the peaks in the spectra for Covergirl Nailslicks
Twilight Mauve as it aged showed that the color of the nail polish did not change
as it dried (see Figures 11, 12 and 13). The wavelengths of the peaks were
consistently within the range of normal variation for one nail polish. This result
was expected, since the hardening of the nail polish is suspected to occur as the
solvents evaporate and possibly as the resins polymerize, neither of which

would be suspected to affect the color.

Reproducibility Study

The wavenumbers of the two peaks in the microspectrophotometry
spectrum for Covergirl Nailslicks Twilight Mauve were compared to the twenty
spectra obtained in the reproducibility study. The spectra were all consistent
with each other (see Figure 14), with some variation in the specific wavelengths
of the peaks. The range of wavenumbers for the peaks was: 504.9 to 509.1, a
difference of 4.2 units, and 540.6 to 548.5, a difference of 7.9 units (see Table
4). On the second peak, note that there were two outliers: 546 and 548.5. All
the rest of the samples had wavelengths between 540.6 and 544.4 (a difference

of 3.8 units). This study showed that the run-to-run variation for one sample

37

coo?

23$ 89.. 28.... m. .0 9.8% 235.2. .: 28.“.

830502.: . 823323

can con oov
,. u If

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

co

3.

 

28.8 .39.. 92...... S .o 9.0me 03.222. .9 $8.“.

coo

coo
P

282202.32 \ 323.62:

8..

o

 

.

 

 

 

.IN.

39

oocw

03250 89.. So... v .o 9630 o_n.m.>->3 .9 9:9“.

coo

2.3

9.822232 . 3233.3.

2.3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ué

 

 

4O

2-2... 3.253 3.3.3832 .0 9.0me 0555.2. .3 98.“.

9.30Eocaz . 32.332:

coo coo coo
. . pl

:3

 

 

 

 

.IN.

 

 

41

was within four to eight units of absorbance. Some of this variation could have
come from the manual marking of peaks. This variance was used in following
studies as a standard for acceptable error within one nail polish. If the
wavelengths of two samples differed by more than this standard, they could be

considered to be different colors.

Brand study

Covergirl Nailslicks Cranberry Cream, Maybelline Express Finish Daring
Berry (see Figure 15), and Maybelline Express Finish Native Berry could not be
distinguished from each other by microspectrophotometry. All three nail
polishes had two peaks around 529 and 569 nanometers absorbance. The
other seven colors in this study, however, could be distinguished from each
other, even those which appeared visually very similar in color [L’Oreal
Shockproof Sheer Moonberry Perle (see Figure 16) with Revlon Love Her
Madly, and Revlon Super Top Speed Winey with Revlon Wine With Everything
and Maybelline Express Finish Native Berry]. Sally Hansen Hard As Nails Oasis
Dawn Cream did not produce a useful spectrum, most likely because either the
coloring agents were not dense enough to have detectable absorption or that
the beige color did not reflect an outstanding amount of any particular range of

visible light. Results are summarized in Table 5.

42

Table 4. Microspectrophotometry peak wavelengths for the
Reproducibility study.

Sample # Peak 1 (nm) Peak 2 (nm)
1 506.6 548.5
2 508.2 542.7
3 507.7 542.5
4 507.4 541.1
5 507 540.9
6 508.1 542.6
7 506.3 542.7
8 505.0 541.6
9 504.9 540.8
10 507.0 541.2
11 507.3 540.6
12 507.1 543.1
13 509.1 546.0
14 507.5 542.4
15 507.0 544.4
16 505.6 542.6
17 507.0 542.3
18 508.1 543.2
19 508.2 543.0
20 506.1 543.0

43

cccr

>260 @228 65:696.). .0 96me o.n.m.>->3 .3 9.6.“.

82025222 x 32.332?

can ocm cow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44

026d 2.622022 .6620 .280... .o 8.6on o_2.m.>.>: or 82o...

9.8223222 2 3222.62:

8.: 8.. 2.5 8..

 

. o

.m...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

Table 5. Microspectrophotometry Results for the Brand Study.

 

Could Not Be
Distinguished From
Each Other

Could Be
Distinguished From
Others In The Study

Did Not Produce a
Useful Spectrum

 

Covergirl Cranberry
Cream,

L’Oreal Mulberry
Cream

Sally Hansen Hard As
Nails Oasis Dawn
Cream

 

Maybelline Daring
Berry, and

L’Oreal Sheer
Moonberry Perle

 

Maybelline Native
Berry.

Revlon Love Her Madly

 

Revlon Wine With
Everything

 

Revlon Super Top
Speed Winey

 

 

 

Sally Hansen Maximum
Growth Beautiful Berry

 

 

Covergirl Study

Silver Plum, Satin Mauve and Ice Blue Pink were not able to be

distinguished from each other by microspectrophotometry. All three had peaks

with wavelengths around 511 and 546 nm.

Plum Frost and Cherry Brandy had similar spectra. Both of them had a

broad peak around 524. They were distinguished from each other only by the

unique spectra of the red particles found in Cherry Brandy, but absent from

Plum Frost.

Twilight Mauve, Pink Snow, and Pink Aura were indistinguishable by the

wavelengths, shape and relative heights of their peaks. All three samples had

peaks with wavelengths around 508 and 543 nm.

46

 

Mauve Sunrise, Peek-A-Boo Pink and Tickled Pink did not produce useful
spectra, perhaps because of their pale colors. All other samples were
distinguishable from each other by microspectrophotometry (see Figures 17 and

18).

Table 6. Microspectrophotometry Results for the Covergirl Study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could Not Be Could Be Did Not Produce a
Distinguished From Distinguished From Useful Spectrum
Each Other Others In The Study ‘
Ice Blue Pink, Cabernet Mauve Sunrise
Satin Mauve, and Cherry Brandy Peek-A-Boo Pink
Silver Plum. Cherry Truffle Tickled Pink
Classic Red
Pink Aura, Cranberry Cream
Pink Snow, and Fabulous Fuchsia
Twilight Mauve. Grape Ice
Mauvelicious
Pink Wink
Plum Frost
Well Red

 

 

 

 

One reason that some colors were not able to be distinguished from each
other by microspectrophotometry could be because they are different intensities
of the same shade. It is possible, especially within one brand, that the same
combination and relative amounts of dyes are used, but are “diluted” during
production to make several shades of the same color. In this case,

microspectrophotometry would only detect differences in the intensity of the

47

82 0.390 9.2.2.2 2988 .0 80on 8.9.85.2. .: 28.“.

28220222 2 3222.023

83 8.. 8.. 8‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

coo?

v.22, En. 9.2232 _._9m>ou 3 238m m3_m_>.>: .8 9:9“.

83.8052 \ 3:332:

com com cow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4N9

color (which is not used for comparison), not in the wavelengths of the peaks.

Lot Study

The five lots of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink that were analyzed
showed that they were consistent in color with each other (see Figures 19 and
20). The ranges of wavelengths of the two peaks were within normal ranges of
error for one nail polish, as determined by the reproducibility study. One factor
that has not yet been necessary to discuss is the peak height ratio comparison.
Most of the other nail polishes analyzed thus far by microspectrophotometry
have been easily distinguished by wavelengths alone. Looking at the overlaid
spectra of the five lots, it appears that the peaks in lot number 2191 are of a
different ratio than the peaks in the other lots. More specifically, the height of
the second peak in lot number 2191 was a larger proportion of the total of the
two peaks. This indicates that this lot of nail polish contains a slightly different
proportion of dyes or other coloring agents. The other four lots are

indistinguishable by the wavelengths, shape and heights of the peaks.

Microscopic Examination

Comparative microscopy was conducted differently than the other
techniques. The nail polishes were not divided into separate studies; they were
all compared against each other to determine how useful microscopy is for
distinguishing between nail polishes, regardless of their brand or color. Some of

the characteristics used in comparison included the grain, the size and colors of

50

23..

mm? % 5.. xEn. mam mo. 9.26.62 39900 “.0 98me 0365.2... .3 9:9“.

9.038052 \ 3:332?

can see on.
. _ a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

ofio w

55 a 6.. in. $5 8. 9.222 _._9w>oo .6 28% 29.0.5.5 .8 9:3

con

2.5 .

2305232 ‘ 3:332?

2.x.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r".

52

particles, and the relative amounts of particles.

Microscopy was able to distinguish between each of the nail polishes in
this research with the exception of the five lots of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue
Pink. These lots could not be distinguished from each other, but they could be
distinguished from the other nail polishes.

There are three groups of nail polishes that could not be distinguished by
microspectrophotometry, but microscopy was able to discriminate between
them. The results of the microscopy are shown below in Tables 7 through 9,
and in Appendix D. Each of the nail polishes within the three groups of nail
polishes were examined at 400X magnification, and compared to each other.
The following is a description of what was viewed under the microscope for each
of those nail polishes. In the tables below, the italicized portions are the
predominant particles noted for that sample.

Group A consists of three Covergirl Nailslicks colors: Silver Plum, Satin

Mauve and Ice Blue Pink.

53

Table 7. Microscopy Results for Group A

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Silver Plum

 

 

 

 

Grain Coarse granules

Small Particles Pink

Medium and small particles Violet, pink, green, blue, pale yellow,
peach

Large and very large particles Clear, pale yellow

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Satin Mauve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grain Fine particles, densely distributed
Small Particles Red, clear shiny particles

Medium particles NONE

Large and very large particles NONE

Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink

Grain Fine and coarse particles

Small Particles Violet, blue, green, peach, pink, red
Medium particles Violet, blue, green, peach, pink
Large particles NONE

 

Each of the three nail polishes in Group A could be distinguished from
each other microscopically. Silver Plum was the only one of the three that had
large and very large sized clear and pale yellow particles. Satin Mauve was the
only one in the group that had small clear, shiny particles. Ice Blue Pink was the
only one that had predominantly violet and blue small and medium particles, and
did not have large particles or small clear, shiny particles.

Group B consists of three Covergirl Nailslicks nail polishes: Pink Aura,

Pink Snow and Twilight Mauve.

54

Table 8. Microscopy Results for Group B.

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Aura

 

 

 

 

Grain Fine

Small Particles None

Medium particles Pink, clear, periwinkle, pinkish-peach
Large particles Pink, clear, periwinkle, pinkish-peach

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Snow

 

Grain Fine

 

Small Particles Clear, purple, blue, green, yellow,
orange, some pink (all pale in color)

 

Medium particles Clear, purple, blue, green, yellow,
orange, some pink (all pale in color)

 

Large and very large particles Clear

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Twilight Mauve

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grain Fine

Small Particles None

Medium particles Blue, pink, some green, some orange
Large particles None

 

All three nail polishes in Group B could be distinguished from each other.
Pink Snow is distinguished by its large and very large particles that are
transparent. Pink Aura and Twilight Mauve are distinguished from each other by
their predominant particles and the presence of large particles in Pink Aura
which are not present in Twilight Mauve.

Group C consists of Covergirl Nailslicks Cranberry Cream, Covergirl
Nailslicks Pink Wink, Maybelline Express Finish Native Berry, and Maybelline

Express Finish Daring Berry.

55

 

Table 9. Microscopy Results for Group C.

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Cranberry
Cream

 

Grain

Fine pinkish-red

 

Small Particles

White shiny particles (approximately 30
per field of view at 4OOX), some
elongated (approximately 9 out of 30)

 

 

 

 

Medium particles None
Large particles None
Maybelline Express Finish

Native Berry

Grain Medium

 

Small Particles

White shiny particles (approximately 75
per field of view at 4OOX) mostly
elongated , some small round (10 out of
75)

 

Medium particles

Violet, blue, peach, green

 

Large particles

None

 

Maybelline Express Finish
Daring Berry

 

Grain

Fine, medium

 

Small particles

Dark red-orange, some blue

 

Medium particles

Dark red-orange

 

Large particles

Dark red-orange

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Wink

 

Grain

Medium and coarse, not very dense

 

Small particles

Peach, pink, few: blue, green, red

 

Medium particles

Peach, pink, yellow, blue

 

 

Large particles

 

Peach, blue, pale yellow/clear, a few
very large multicolored clumps

 

56

 

All four nail polishes in Group C could be distinguished from each other.
The first two listed in Group C can be distinguished from each other by the
presence of medium sized particles in Maybelline Express Finish Native Berry,
while no medium particles were noted in the Covergirl Nailslicks Cranberry
Cream. Although the main portions of both nail polishes are similar in
appearance under the microscope, there was a difference in the amount of
small white, shiny particles per field of view. These particles were seen in
greater proportion in the Maybelline nail polish in comparison to the Covergirl
sample. Also, there were more small elongated shiny particles than small round
shiny particles in the Maybelline while the opposite is true for Covergirl Nailslicks
Cranberry Cream.

Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Wink can be distinguished by its unique
predominant peach colored particles that are not a major component of the
others. Maybelline Express Finish Daring Berry can easily be distinguished from
the other four in this group because of its predominant dark red-orange particles
that are not noted in the rest of Group C.

In summary, each of the nail polishes that could not be distinguished by

microspectrophotometry could be distinguished by traditional light microscopy.

Blind Tests
FT IR
After analyzing the five blind samples by Fourier transform infrared

spectroscopy, each was searched against the library of nail polishes from this

57

research project. Blind sample numbers 1 (see Figure 21), 2, 4 and 5 were all
consistent with Covergirl nail polish and inconsistent with Sally Hansen,
Maybelline, Revlon and L’Oreal brands. The top two matches for blind sample
#3 (see Figure 22) were both Maybelline nail polishes, with a percent match
rating near 99%. The next highest match was only a 90% match, and was
outside of the normal range of variation that occurs within one brand (with the
exception of Sally Hansen brand) and therefore neither Covergirl, L’Oreal,
Revlon nor Sally Hansen could be considered to be the brand of blind sample

#3.

Microspectrophotometry

Blind sample number 1 (see Figure 23) had three peaks with wavelengths
around 489, 510 and 545 nm. The closest matches of the nail polishes that had
been analyzed were Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Aura, Pink Snow and Twilight
Mauve. All other nail polishes analyzed were excluded.

Blind sample number 2 had a spectrum that was unique to all the nail
polishes analyzed. The spectrum had several peaks close together between
521 and 574 nanometers absorbance. All nail polishes analyzed were excluded.
Blind sample number 3 (see Figure 24) had three peaks with wavelengths
around 488 nm, 525 nm and 569 nm. The closest matches out of the nail
polishes that had been analyzed were Covergirl Nailslicks Cranberry Cream,
Maybelline Express Finish Native Berry and Daring Berry. All other nail polishes

analyzed were excluded.

58

 

a 035.8 Ba. .8 226QO mi... .5 9:?

 

com w

:53 3352553
88 comm ooon comm ooov

 

lO'SQ‘V
LO' lSS

 

L9 '888

GS'SLOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96089 L

 

 

 

06'099L

 

99't'Z/J

1 06

1rd

CS'SLBZ

308962
1597178
I I

v

o

r},
o
aouquosqv

 

 

 

F a 295m. 95m

59

Blind Sample # 3

 

”'969
88689
EV'VSL
26'0”

 

 
 
  

lZ'llOL
GL'SZOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1000

2000

2500

 

 

 

0909“
1991”
an
QL'BVQL
scout/C 3
trl'BLBZ
999962

users
I ff "f I l I l ' I I I 7 I T I I r I I I I I I I I 1’ I I j I I I I 1
0. m. «a N «a in. v. n. 0! .._ 9
V" O O D O O O O O O O

600941qu

Wavenumbers (cm-1)

 

 

60

Figure 22. FTIR Spectrum of Blind Sample #3

E 29:8 35 so 96me 0335.5 .8 2:9“.

28.5352 ‘ 3:332?

82 8.. com 8..
_ a

 

to;

 

 

 

 

61

ms 238 BE so 58QO m_n_m_>.>o .8 9:9...

23.5052 ‘oocueoofix

ooow com com

2.:

 

 

 

 

 

mé

62

Blind sample numbers 4 and 5 were indistinguishable from each other by
microspectrophotometry. The both had three peaks with wavelengths around
489, 510 and 548 nm. The closest matches to these two blind samples are
Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink, Satin Mauve and Silver Plum. All other nail

polishes analyzed were excluded.

Microscopic Examination
Microscopic analysis showed that blind sample number 1 was consistent
with Covergirl Nailslicks Pink Aura, and inconsistent with all other nail polishes

examined.

Table 10. Microscopy Results for Blind Sample Number 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blind Sample #1

Grain Fine

Small particles NONE

Medium particles Pink, blue-violet, pinkish-peach, few
green

Large particles Pink, blue-violet, pinkish-peach

 

Blind sample #2 was not consistent with any of the nail polishes that were

examined.

63

Table 11. Microscopy Results for Blind Sample Number 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blind Sample #2

Grain Medium

Small particles Blue, some pink
Medium particles Some blue
Large particles NONE

 

Blind sample #3 was consistent with Maybelline Express Finish Native

Berry and was inconsistent with all other nail polishes analyzed.

Table 12. Microscopy Results for Blind Sample Number 3.

 

Blind Sample #3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grain Medium

Small particles White, shiny particles (round and
elongated, about 50-60 per field)

Medium particles Blue, violet, green, peach

Large particles NONE

 

Blind sample numbers 4 and 5 are indistinguishable from each other and
from Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink. All other nail polishes analyzed were

inconsistent with blind samples 4 and 5.

64

 

 

Table 13. Microscopy Results for Blind Sample Numbers 4 and 5.

 

Blind Sample #4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grain Coarse, sparsely distributed

Small particles Blue, violet, pink, orange, some green
and red

Medium particles Blue, violet, pink, orange, some green

Large particles NONE

Blind Sample #5

Grain Coarse, sparsely distributed

Small particles Blue, violet, pink, orange, some green
and red

Medium particles Blue, violet, pink, orange, some green

Large particles NONE

Summary

Table 14 summarizes the conclusions from each of the three techniques
applied to the blind samples. Underneath the name of the technique, the nail
polishes that were consistent with each blind sample are listed. The results of
FTIR that are in parentheses had percent matches that fell between 96.01% and
96.64%.

Although FT IR results for blind sample #4 indicated that Ice Blue Pink lot
numbers 2170, 2206, and 2232 were all consistent with #4, lot number 2170 had
the highest match out of the lots. Even though one could not conclude that Ice
Blue Pink lot number 2170 was the only possibility, the fact that it had the
highest match of the lots supports the accuracy of the technique since this lot

number was the one used to make the sample.

65

Table 14. Summary of Results for Blind Samples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FTIR Microspectro- Microscopy Actual Nail

photometry Polish
A" Covergirl except Silver Pink Aura, Pink Pink Aura CPVGVQI"
Plum, Fabulous Fuchsia and Snow, Twilight (excluded P'nk Aura
Mauve Sunrise Mauve Pink Snow

and Twilight
Mauve)

Consistent with Covergirl Excluded all nail None CPVGFQI“
brand, Plum Frost, Tickled polishes R'Ch Garnet
Pink, Grape Ice, Cabernet, analyzed ("0t
Pink Snow, (Twilight Mauve, analyzed)
Peek-A-Boo Pink or
Mauvelicious)
Consistent with Maybelline Covergirl Maybelline Maybelline
brand, Maybelline Express Nailslicks Express Express
Finish Native Berry or Daring Cranberry Finish Native Hm?"
Berry Cream, Berry Native Berry

Maybelline

Express Finish

Native Berry or

Daring Berry
Consistent with Covergirl ice Blue Pink lot Ice Blue Pink C0Ve'9'"
brand, Classic Red, Satin #5 2170, 2206, lot #s 2170, '99 3"”
Mauve, Cranberry Cream, 2232, 1353, 2206, 2232, Pm"! IOt
Well Red, Cherry Brandy, 2191,Satin 1353, 2191 #2170
Pink Aura, Tickled Pink, Mauve, Silver
(Mauvelicious, Pink Wink, Plum
Cherry Truffle, Ice Blue Pink
lot #8 2170, 2206, 2232,
Peek-A-Boo Pink)
Consistent with Covergirl Ice Blue Pink lot Ice Blue Pink Covergirl
brand, Classic Red, Well Red, #s 2232, 2206, lot #5 2232, '99 3"”
Satin Mauve, Pink Aura, 1353, 2170, 2206, 1353, P'm‘r '0‘
Cranberry Cream, Cherry 2191, Satin 2170, 2191 #2232

Brandy, Ice Blue Pink lot #s
2232,2206, 1353,2170,
2191, Cherry Truffle,
Mauvelicious, (Pink Wink,
Twilight Mauve, Fabulous
Fuchsia, Silver Plum, Tickled
Pink)

 

Mauve, Silver
Plum

 

 

 

66

 

For blind sample #5, FTIR did not eliminate any of the lots of Covergirl Ice
Blue Pink. The highest match out of the lots of Ice Blue Pink was number 2232,
which in fact was the lot number used to make the sample. This piece of

information, along with blind #4 supports the discriminating power of FT IR.

67

CONCLUSIONS

Reproducibility studies on infrared spectroscopy indicated that there was
a small amount of error from sample to sample of one bottle of nail polish. This
error was used as a standard for the other studies to judge whether or not the
matches could be excluded or included as potentially common sources.
Microspectrophotometry had very little error from run to run and was
demonstrated to be a reliable and reproducible technique.

The only technique that was able to distinguish between brands was
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Although microspectrophotometry and
microscopy could distinguish between individual nail polishes of different brands,
they could not be used to make a conclusion as to what brand the nail polish
might be. FT IR was useful in the blind tests, where this technique was used not
only to identify what brand each sample could be, but also to eliminate a few of
the possible matches of nail polishes within that brand (in some cases). Each
brand studied had unique chemical compositions that could be distinguished
from each other.

FTIR, microspectrophotometry and microscopy were all useful in
discriminating between nail polishes within the Covergirl brand. FTIR was the
least useful technique for this study, as this method’s strength was in
determining what brand a questioned sample could be, not necessarily in
narrowing down the possibility of the matches. Microspectrophotometry was

demonstrated to be useful for distinguishing between different nail polishes of

68

the same brand. There were four small groups of nail polish that could not be
distinguished from each other by microspectrophotometry, but the rest of them
had unique spectra. Microscopy was the most useful method because each nail
polish was unique, microscopically, and was able to be distinguished from all
others examined.

The only way that lots of Covergirl Nailslicks Ice Blue Pink were
distinguished from each other in this research was by using FTIR and searching
a library of nail polish spectra to compare the Closest matches to a given nail
polish. In some cases, some of the lots could be excluded from matching a
given sample because they had lower percent match ratings than the standard
(96.64 °/o or 96.01%), as was seen in the blind tests. Microspectrophotometry
and microscopy were not useful in discriminating between these five lots. The
results of the lot study are not surprising, since each lot should have the same
ingredients.

It was demonstrated that differences in the ingredients listed on the
bottles of Covergirl nail polish in this research did not necessarily coincide with
differences in the FTIR spectra. Therefore, the similarity or difference between
nail polish ingredients cannot be used to include or exclude potential matches.

The aging study demonstrated that the majority of the solvent
evaporation and possibly polymerization that occurs as nail polish dries is over
in less than ten minutes. Since the samples in the other studies were allowed to
dry for at least twenty-four hours, change in chemical composition due to drying

was not a source of error. Microspectrophotometry showed that the color of nail

69

polish did not change as it dried over a four hour period.

The conclusions drawn about the five blind samples that were analyzed
were all correct. This shows the ability to apply infrared spectroscopy,
microspectrophotometry and microscopy to nail polish and obtain accurate

results objectively.

7O

SUGGESTED PROTOCOL

Before beginning a scheme of analysis for forensic evidence, there are
several factors which a scientist must keep in mind, including the quantity of
sample available, what tests must be performed, which if any use up the
sample, and what order the tests should be conducted in. Considering these
and other factors, a protocol is suggested for the comparison of forensic nail
polish samples.

If a forensic scientist was to receive a questioned chip of nail polish and a
known sample of nail polish, s/he must first assess the quantity of sample
available. If there is limited quantity, then reflectance FT IR should be
conducted, as opposed to transmittance FTIR using a micropellet. This is
because the physical form of the nail polish is destroyed by making a pellet,
although the chemical composition is unchanged. Reflectance FTIR does not
change the Chemical or physical properties of the substance being analyzed.
(Humecki, 1995)

If the questioned and known samples are large enough and in good
condition, the forensic scientist must determine whether or not a physical match
can be made between the two samples. This could be conducted with the aid of
a stereomicroscope. In most cases, the evidentiary samples are small, and
physical matches are not possible.

The first step in the comparison of the questioned and known samples is

to study each under a microscope and take note of the identifying characteristics

71

that can be seen. These may include the size and distribution of the grain, and
the size, shape, color and distribution of any particles visualized. One should
look at several areas of the sample to look for irregularities within that sample.

The second step would be to analyze the specific color of each sample
using a microspectrophotometer. Again, it is important to analyze a
representative sample of the substance. Therefore, at least five areas should
be analyzed.

Thirdly, the chemical composition could be compared, using either a
micropellet for Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy, transmission
microscopy FT IR, or reflectance FTIR. If a sample is limited in quantity, then
either reflectance or transmission microscopy FTIR should be used, in order to
conserve the evidence.

Lastly, the results of all examinations should be taken into account when
drawing a conclusion as to whether or not the questioned sample could or could

not have come from the same source as the known sample.

72

FUTURE RESEARCH

Although nail polish has been analyzed in forensic science laboratories in
the past, research has now been performed which demonstrated the abilities of
three techniques to distinguish between nail polishes of different brands, colors,
and in some cases, different lots. This research shows the significance of a
“match” between two nail polishes that has only been assumed previously.
Before research, forensic scientists could only assume that FI'IR would be able
to detect differences in the chemical compositions of nail polishes. This is a
dangerous assumption because of the possibility that all nail polishes could
have the same major components that would overpower any differences in
minor components, making all nail polishes appear consistent with each other.
Now that more research has been conducted, the full potential of technology
can be realized for the analysis of nail polish.

There are several potential research projects that could stem from the
present work. The first is a study of transfer and persistence of nail polish as
trace evidence. The present research has shown the significance of the results
of analysis, however, a transfer-persistence study would show the significance
of the presence of nail polish evidence at the crime scene.

As a continuation of the present research, more brands of nail polish
could be studied to compare for differences between the formulas. These
brands could be added to a library for comparison to questioned samples.

Another area of potential research is a study of the affect of layering

73

different nail polishes on top of one another. Layering presents a problem
because as the second coat is painted on, the solvents may begin to dissolve
the first coat before the solvents evaporate, resulting in a blending of layers. It
is doubtful that these layers could be separated as easily as they are in
automobile paint analysis, but perhaps another method could be devised for
analysis of layers as applied to nail polish. It may not be possible to analyze the
layers together because differences in thickness of the layers may skew results
due to differences in proportion of the ingredients. (p. 171, Practical Guide to
Infrared Microspectroscopy)

Nail polish can be found as evidence in the form of chips or as smears on
hard surfaces. Research may need to be performed to figure out efficient ways
of collection and analysis of nail polish in the form of a smear.

More research needs to be conducted on clear and light-toned nail
polishes. Since these do not have much, if any, color, microspectrophotometry
cannot be used to compare these nail polishes. On the other hand, beige or
brownish colored nail polishes most likely have a balance of several colors, and
do not have distinct peaks in the UV-visible spectra. These three groups of
polishes should be further researched to develop another method of
comparison, since microspectrophotometry would not be useful.

Other techniques could be researched as an application to nail polish
analysis. These techniques could include scanning electron microscopy- energy
dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM-EDX), or pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass

spectroscopy.

74

Lastly, microchemical tests that are currently used for paints could be
researched as an application to nail polish for an additional method of

discriminating between brands.

75

APPENDICES

76

APPENDIX A

Microspectrophotometry Calibration Procedure

77

Due to the sensitive nature of the instrument and the need for a high
degree of accuracy in results, the SEE Microspectrophotometer was
calibrated each time it was turned on, following the recommendations of the
manufacturer. The following is the step-by-step procedure that was followed
for the calibration. All filters used in this procedure were supplied by the
manufacturer and were calibrated in accordance with the standards from the
National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)

The toggle switch on the back of the back of the
Microspectrophotometry instrument was turned on and the light intensity was
turned up to 10. After the instrument had warmed up for 20 minutes, the
calibration was begun. Several filters from SEE were used in the calibration
of the instrument. The SEE Image software and the Grams/32 software were
opened. On the SEE Image program, the “Grab” command was clicked to
show what was under the microscope on the 20x objective. The reference
filter was placed upon the stage and the ink spot was brought into focus, then
the aperture was moved off the ink spot. The Kohler illumination was
checked by turning the field stop all the way to the right . The condenser
focusing knobs were adjusted to make the decagon shape around the
aperture have a blue hue. The centering screws were adjusted to center the
aperture in the field of view. The field stop was turned 2 places to the left.

On the Grams/32 program, “Autogain” was clicked. To adjust the
maximum Y counts, the parameters button was clicked and the sampling

frequency was adjusted to attempt to bring the maximum y counts of

78

autogain near 3500. This was often unsuccessful.

After the autogain was satisfactory, a dark scan was performed by
closing the transmission shutter and clicking “Dark Scan”. The data file was
named “{c:\see\calibration\dmmddyy-1.dr0” where “mmddyy” represents the
date. A reference scan was performed by opening the transmission shutter
and selecting “Reference scan”. The data file was named
“c:\see\calibration\rmmddyy-1 .rf0”.

The Holmium Oxide filter was placed on top of the field stop. Sample
scan was selected and the % transmission was selected as the
measurement. The data file was named “c:\see\calibration\hommddyy-
1.spc”. The NIST data values were overlaid, compared to be sure that the
values obtained from the sample scan are within acceptable parameters from
NIST. This spectrum was printed out and stored in the log book. Next, the
Holmium Oxide filter was replaced with the Didymium filter on the field stop.
This sample scan was performed, saved as the file
“c:\see\calibratlon\didmmddyy-1.spc and the values were again compared to
the NIST values. Next, the Didymium filter was replaced with Neutral
density filter OD=0.1. This sample scan was run and measured as
absorbance. The data file was saved as “c:\see\calilbration\01ndmmddyy-
1.spc”. This filter was then replaced with a Neutral Density filter OD=0.5.
This sample scan was run and saved as “c:\see\calibration\05ndmmddyy-
1.spc”. Lastly, this filter was replaced with a Neutral Density filter OD=1.0.

This file was saved as “c:\see\calibration\1ndmmddyy-1.spc”. All three

79

neutral density filter spectra were compared to the NIST values and printed

out.

80

APPENDIX B

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra

81

casem no? mass. 9 .6 528% m5 .8 can:

 

89

9.88 9.38353;
ooom oomu ooon oomm ooov

 

 

 

l6'69ll/ zZ'esil

96'ch
99w i/

OS'SLOL

 

 

 

OQ'CBSI

 

PZ'SLQZ

IS'ZSGZ

 

‘—

sszsmrfi

083923;

 

09 2962
[J 8878
i ' 1'
ID
0'
aouecuosqv

zvvzu/

 

 

 

026$. Em___>>tr 326.62 39080 woSsE ms

82

29:8 82 2:52 on Co 5288 at... em 28:

 

:Es 90nE=co>a>>
ooo~ oomm coon oomn ooov

 

 

V2169

'9'th

 

sous

89‘88l l

//

00'9le

VL'SLOL

 

9I'09ll/

 

 

ISQ'SLZI

 

89°C

 

OO'IQSL

2

 

 

 

96'999l

 

SZ‘PZLl//":

SS'SLBZ

. zosssz

OI eesz,
ZL'LWC
l 1
ID
o
eouquosqv

 

 

 

0262 39:5. 9.23sz 29060 .3ng on

83

23$ 8?. 9:22 we so 538% m5 .R 9:9”.

 

3.88 80953262,
89 ooow comm coon 3mm ooov

 

8l'9l17l

ko'czs
IZ'LI6//

9988“ /: 7"?

 

 

98888

IQ'SLOL

 

 

 

 

E'BLZL

 

k
v

xiii:

CC 68”

VO'IBSI

 

*7—

l9 91.83

I r

ID

o
aoueqmqv

969862

98'8962/

 

ze'om

 

ZV'QVQI
l
O

 

 

1.

o>:m_>_ 29:5. mxozmzmz _.__90>oO mmSEE mv

 

 

22.8 no? mass. 8 so 528ch m5 .8 asst

 

oée assesses;
o8~ 88 88 8mm 89.

 

l8'9917

 

 

00689

C

If
0
I.
t.
9
9

 

 

 

 

96'089l

 

 

QQ'EZLl/C

 

 

80ng

2 \/ r
ll/Jl. r

IQ'BSVS

IS 8962
T I
I!)
O
aouecposqv

was

Tho

r0...
T
r

 

 

 

o>:m_>_ 39:3. mxo:m:mz £9060 meEE oo

85

22.8 82 9:52 8 so 523% gr. .8 2:9“.

 

08..

08..

3.63 8353553
88 comm ooon 8.9” ooov

 

 

I

86099 ,,

 

99'988

06‘Ll6

69'910I.

617'88l» I /

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W'SBSL

——-

ZO'IBSI

 

\llllllllrll/tlll \lllJ - ed
\ x

. / \_

| I I 7

91791.83
P047963

ec'sssz,

 

T Y T
I!)
o
.aouquosqv

SL'SZLL,

 

vessel:

 

 

 

o>:m_>_ “59:3: mxo__m:mz 39060 335:. oo

86

anmw oco< So: N Co 528on 1E on 059“.

 

80.

89

9-53 335533
ooou coma ooon

- p .

 

 

 

62'8‘28

29'910l.

 

 

 

9622 l

 

 

VI'SBVI

 

 

iz‘vzzi/./€

 

62’ 1V9 L

 

. i Gd.
/1/ L H
ll/Ji \rll.

(J) 1:6

99.91.82
1
v
o

89 £862
7T 7 t 1‘
l0
o
aouquosqv

888962

8918“:
i
N
0

rod

 

 

 

0265. 39:2,... mxo:m:mz E9900 2:05 W

87

033mm ooo< 50: m :o 328on act .5 9:9“.

 

2-33 833.3963
oooN oomm oooo oomn ooov

 

169

61.1172

6 L
68'197L

2€’I99____
902991
swisl

 

617888

LVSLOL

 

 

 

179299 I

 

 

BS'GLZL

j!) \{Irllller

l
V.
o

 

228962

 

so val/C
8l'lm
aouemosqv

 

 

0262 39:5. 9.2.232 39050 9503 m

88

 

0333 wood. >8 P So 328on m_._.n_ .Nm 9:9...

 

3.33 8353262,
ooou comm

 

 

 

l2'8fl

 

98188

99'910l

00'09l l

 

 

 

‘LQ'GLZI

 

 

 

9L'tr991:

 

 

6682.“

\I‘I/IIII. t

l2'1'862

#78962
81 98%:

r 1
ID
0
WWW

 

 

 

952.. 39:5 9.2.2.2 .._9a>oo :8 F

89

033mm oom< xoo>> N .6 32303 m_._.n_ .mm 059".

 

08:

.25. 32.53832,
88 88

 

 

08'229

 

08'888

l2'U6

88'910l

 

 

6‘6L2I»

 

61°888l

26089 I

 

\lIl/ill’l/rl

 

 

 

erect»:

ZO'EZLI/C

228962,,

9L'68V8

\

rod

 

CIV

 

 

o>3m3 39:5. 33932 39060 9.003 N

90

 

or... caemm 2.3.88.8”. .0 52.88 m5 .8 Bear.

 

000:

2.38 8332553
88 SN ooon

.

y.
.-

 

791797

4

#8171.

 

£9888

OL'SLOI :

9020 l,,../

 

l2'09ll /

t

 

 

 

28'888l

fl,—

 

88‘899lc

\ll./l|1ll. \Plllltwodr
\ m;

 

 

 

 

aouquosqV

U Cal/"M
99226:
002962,.
//
22‘ IM/
r I I l T I T T |

V N
D o

 

 

 

9522 39:5 22.262 3928 o;

91

w.—

oma caeam 3.5.88.8”. .6 22.88 E... .8 can...

 

000—.

com:

$-38 803E326;

ooow comm

coon comm ooov

 

 

 

 

88'888

W'SLOL

 

98'69ll/

 

8'6L2L

0768”

l0'1788l

 

 

 

98‘9L9l

 

(an——
“

66'299I

 

 

fl

99'821l

 

0991.98

1 .r'.
o
aouquosqv

 

 

 

9522 39.5 0.2.2.2 39960 om...

92

 

39.30 E0330 9.0.3.32 2.9900 .6 328on mi... .8 3:9“.

 

*§

08:

com:

$-30. 233.3963
88 oomN

1"

coon 8mm ooov

 

W899
68'099

 

’76'888

VB'SLOI.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lL'089l

 

 

 

80'899l

xii/ll!

 

 

F Odt

8l'89178

 

 

 

38.0 b.2330 9.2.932 2.9060

93

030.0 E0222 .005... 3 3:30am ”Eh. Rm 059“.

 

:38 80333533
doom 39m

tr

coon comm ooov

 

l9'6917

 

 

 

20'8f8

 

827001.

 

 

 

r

/

LO'69I»

 

 

 

 

99'LVQI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f
F

£818“

q;

 

 

.3.
F.
T

l2 2862
I0 2962
' T T T f
«P. to.
o o
my

692998
I
a:
o

 

 

 

030.0 E0222 Cook. xoocm. 30.0...

94

30m 9.82 03.83.). so 52880 gr. .8 98..

 

3.30. 30932.03;
com. 88 83 ooon oomn ooov

.- b - lI

 

99889
80991.

 

90'98I I

 

98178

 

I9'09l l/

 

 

treat

\l/l ll... to
J

.. v.0

 

 

 

imd

GOWQV

i md

I8‘9H'8

ind

C .3
r

l ad

 

 

99'099I

 

to:

 

 

Emm. 0232 3.03.... 0.00.qu.. 03:09.03.

95

 

>305. .0... 05.. co_>0m 3 33.30% m_._....

.8 0.8.“.

 

$-33 333.3053

com: oooN comm

 

 

26'297

001 I9

78'989

68'2I1

 

 

 

18'988

02'920I

91'010I

 

I7'7I II _,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

002091.

Ls'zisl/

 

 

 

98'099I

29'9182

97.09535

091862

968778

 

 

 

 

 

>305. .01 05.. .3302

96

 

8.5690 55> 85> 6.6”. 6 6262.0 mi. .9. 059“.

 

.766. .2956; .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no» 82 82 88 88 88 88 89.
10.6.
.1
fa
:
9 1 T
m w .3
ma .
. t .i -3
w m 9 H
a ,.
.z .15
c
e _ r
m v w. .13 m
. s
w m m u ..e- W m
a w. .- m 0 -06
7 I a
z Ir r
mm -
ml -8
m u m .
.9 .2 -
u u -20
M Mad
.7 .
6 F
u .9:
r. .
.6 -
7w -

 

 

 

8636...”. 5.2. 8.2. 6.6m

97

>053 326 a8. .85 co_>om ho 828me «EL. .3 959“.

 

$-63 835353;

 

 

017'le

 

 

 

L‘VQCQ

flit

Offl- H

 

 

 

 

 

 

29'999LC

 

 

 

 

 

 

8m 8o. 82 88 83 o§ 8mm 89.
led

\../..|I..ll.\</!II \(III:

6 / w
/\ f r to
m m L m wuo

u .m cm ,
m. w, m .é

a m f

l T I
‘0.
O
aouquosqv

 

 

 

>m£>> Avmmam a8. .maamv co_>mm

98

 

2390 :38 £me m__mz m< Ba: :3ch 26w 8 83:0me «:5. .Nv 939m

 

08..

3.83 9.355532,
89 Saw comm coon 8mm 80..

 

91997

71688

 

 

 

 

LIQQVL<§
Cl'669t

.——-

.a

993962 _,...

I!
1 T 1
‘0.
0
women;

’

 

 

znzs L/

LQ'ZZIJ
\

 

 

 

9L'LCVC

 

 

 

ZE'QVQL
1
o:
o

 

 

1961.0

 

 

Emmbo Esme w_mmO Amzmz m< 22.: :3ch 3:3

99

b..mm _E_Smmm £320 82535. :3ch 3mm :0 E3025 NE“. .9. 9:9“.

 

3.83 20:63:05;
8m 8o. 89‘ ooo~ oomN ooon comm ,

 

 

7/ z.

SUE/.08

aouquosqv

 

I no

‘9
o

 

SL'SZI.
oz
0'

ZS'SCVS
0.

ZL‘ZQQL

u-llv'IIrxrr1I7

 

JS'OBZL

 

aim 353mm 2:590 E:E_xm_>: :3ch >=mw

 

100

5:5an 9.2.262 E9900 “6 836QO «EL .3 2:9“.

 

$-53 20:63:26;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

com coo? oomw Son 83 88 comm ooov
10.0
I to
L 1N6
mm. 2 T
um m n
9
Z 1n 0
am
a z 1 .
.8 OW. [V o
9 I
/ ,. ... m -
m” WW .0.. f W
.6 .LV r
.7 Ir I. a.
0 Z rm o
.L S
.9 .0 r
.9, e H
15.0
q r
L 1o o
9 .l
n H
w 1a.:
lr IO.—.
Z -
l
.6 r
9

 

 

 

omEmomo mxozmzmz _:_o._m>oo

101

955 :55 wxo__m__mz 39050 ho €26QO EH... .3 959m

 

$-68 mBnEocm>m>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oomw OOON 8mm
\l/‘II/J)
g
C.
m u
m V
W.
9 u .9. w
9 R .6 m
9 . 9 x m.
w a” 6 Ir/ W
Ir I. m
o z
m .7. r
.m w H
1.5.0
C
m u
g
.9» r
Ir lo.—.
a T
.6 .I

 

 

€55 €20 mxo=w=mz _:_9m>oo

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1000

1500

2000
Wavenumbers (cm-1)

2500

 

 

 

09099
Lugs
60169
191w.
69999
CNN
99mm
LZ'EZU/
sv'esu/ }
Lg'ezzr
es'zset
(3:;
#O'EZLl/C———:, x
a) 66'896Z ‘ 20919:
E erase:
:3
L...
*- J
E
a)
.r:
0 6069178
U)
x
.2
E
'5
2
E
9 1IF'fiTII—IfilllITTTTIITIIITWjfi'Wllj—rii‘llfrrf I
o a. no r~ c0. ‘0. v. n. N -. C:
“>3 -' o' o' d o o o o o o o
o
0 aouwosqv

4000

 

 

103

Figure 46. FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Cherry Truffle

£9.03“. $0.39. 9.0.6.52 39030 .0 82.025 m2... .5. 9.5.“.

 

com?

9 .E3 209E353;
coca oomw

- L

 

 

 

79

'0

 

L9‘SLOL

/
I,
Ir
9
.6
n

GS'SZt p

 

Z9'6LZL

SS'ZSH

 

 

 

V9697!»

 

ZL'QVQl

 

09'ZZIJ

 

 

 

 

mazes”. 26.3%... mxo_.m..mz 39900

104

—"’-~

mo. 0:90 9.0.3.32 c.9900 ho €28me «Ex... .3 9:9“.

 

$.50. 80:83:26.5
comp ooo~ comm ooon comm ooov

P . n pl w

 

Ol'ZQV
[.0299

_—

 

f

 

4

1

96999
9V'69H /

09'9le

9L'SLOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

aouquosqv

LB'ZZU/

 

 

 

;
I T

Q

0

SS'BVQL

 

 

 

me. 0:90 mxo._m..mz 2.9030

105

 

0.5: 3m 8. 9.27.52 ___9m>oo .0 52608 :E .9 23.:

 

oom

coo?

3-83 83:55.63
ooom

ooom 00mm ooov

 

 

 

99999

96'910l

u‘ezt 0,1?

 

/

OO'SBH 7‘7

Z909”

vs'egt r/

 

 

 

 

 

 

(”i
‘

29'Z99L

 

 

g.
Z9‘9V9Z I ’ §
N

696

 

992215,- “——

eoueqmsqv

r No

69'0W€</

 

 

 

.5: 3m 8_ 0.2.252 2.928

106

00:55 02.0.2 0.2.0.02 E9050 0o 82803 ”EL. on 059...

 

80..

89.

9.83 £539.26;
coon comm

b

 

 

SL'OVB

961 L6

96'Z9L L

 

9L'61ZL

96'99fL

ZL'ZCV L

96'999L

 

 

 

69'Z99L

 

ZE‘SZL L

 

3.0.
T

9.
lo

ZL £909
1 T I I
ID
0
eouemosqv

0619179

 

 

 

 

 

00:55 02.0.2 9.3.2.02 39030

107

 

0322.02.05. 9.2.0.02 c.9050 .6 83:00am 1...... .3 059“.

 

com

2-20. 039855
88 82. 88 80a 88

 

697917

09'Z69
1.9971

 

99999

 

Ir
0
L
.9
I.
6

 

L'GLZL

9L9 LVL

geezer

 

VL'999L

 

ce'zzz 5.6—;

 

 

1.9'999L

r 0.0

\FLLIst v.0

LL 999z_
79’690€\
[ I I
n
O

99'SL9Z
I
v
o

9L'69L’9
I
N
O

 

 

 

03.2.0505. 9.0.2.02 2.90.60

108

 

En. 08-4.09: 0.2.2.2 3998 .o 52.080 :E .mm 9.6....

 

AF.:30?§E::0>0>>
coon comm

by b

 

99'Z9V
09'099

 

99'01’9

9L'99LL

 

 

 

9999*”

 

 

 

 

ZC'VSQL;

 

209032~

T I T

I!)

c
eouecposqv

:0...

1|

 

 

 

En. 80-43.80. 0.2.232 392.8

109

92 0...... 0.2.0.02 _..9o>oo .o 5208.0 «E... .8 9:9“.

 

09.2

3.88 90:53:05;
coca comm coon coon ccov

 

09069

Witt

 

9Z'999

96'SLOL

 

 

 

999991

5

 

 

99'0L9L

 

09' “'9 L

\F‘

 

 

9L'SZLL_,

7. I
.3le r to

it"
D
aouquosqv

CL'OW‘Z
r I

a:

O

 

 

 

 

 

05¢. x:.n. 9.2.3.02 ...90>o0

110

 

26:0 v.20 9.2.0.52 ...90>o0 5 E28000 1...“. .00 050.“.

 

3.80. 838296;
coon cmmn coon comm cocv

 

”“997

99199

 

V0999

ZG'SLOL

 

LZ'99L L

 

[SLZL

 

699991»

00'L99L

 

 

9L'999L

ZV'ZZLL

99205: 7

96.3%Z
[ T
v
0

ZS 0m
7 1 T I i
ID
0
aouquosqv

 

 

 

26:0 v.20 9.2.0.52 ...90>o0

111

.00.“. 82.... 9.2.0.52 E9050 5 825000 «E... .00 0.59“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2-880.353553
o.om oo.cr coon comm coon comm cocv
. r00
\2} Lilli]!
s r
C. 1
0 .0 w. m -3
z 0 .L .9 ,
m... m “a t
L. m -0.:
m f ,
. u m m
// w o .2:
LC, , w -
0 R0 w 100 w
9 Z I. -
.9 06 a - m
u L .0 .
m 0 10.0 m
.9 r
0 H
1....c
w... 10.:
'8‘ .U
7 L
9 r
rad
T
W... .10.?
I.
B I
I.

 

 

 

.02“. San. 9.2.0.52 E9050

112

0505. E50 9.2.0.52 E9050 .6 83.5000 «EL. .00 05c...

 

comp

$-53 9383553

caom coma

P

 

 

 

LS'LEQ

Z9'W6

96'Z9L L .

 

ZZ'SZL L,
Lv'69L L,/

SZ'QLO L

SIZE? L

 

 

u'69fL

90' L99L

 

90'91'9L

 

sea/4F!”

 

(”——
F

€9'099Z

971

113

96 996Z
aouecposqv

09'996Z
‘ I

to

o

LL'LW‘E

 

 

 

050.2 250 9.2.0.52 E9050

sen. 02.0 0.2.0.02 2.9960 .0 5202.0 0E .3 05.0.”.

 

3.88 9352553 . .
080 , 89 88 800 89.

 

LZ'LVL
090991»

 

99'999L

 

 

 

9L'L99

99'69LL/

 

 

ZB'EZL L /

 

 

 

9L'9LOL

 

wean/c:

9V'9179L .

 

 

 

\

91'719Z
I
v
o

 

9L 996Z
6919179
1
ID
c
aouquosqv

1 I
‘9
o

09'Z96Z

 

 

 

 

 

E20 .020 9.2.0.52 E9050

114

0.2.: 8.0.0.2 0.2.052 2.0.960 .0 5208.0 mE .00 050.“.

 

000'

3.83 93:20:05;
com? cccu comm

 

 

 

91.079

 

09'69L L cf)
L0'799L

 

 

 

se'czufl

 

Q

 

09'999L

 

 

0.?

7L 996Z
99 6979
‘ l
. ‘9.
O
aouemosqv

 

 

 

0.2.... 9.0.0: 9.2.2.02 2.9.98

115

.2522 20...): 0.2.052 2.90.60 .0 82080 0:”. .00 050.“.

 

com

000—.

3.88 0:353:05;
cocN coma

111.

coon comm ooov

 

91797
99' L99

 

09' L69

9L°97£

 

ZZ'999

LB'SLOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LL'679L

\\\||/

-3.

>111...“
wwd
pm...

7nd

1.

r v.0
r

10.0

99'996Z
1 16

L 9' 0779
l
to
o

 

 

 

25...). 29...: 0.2.0.62 2.9960

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76'097
L6'099 '§
LZ'DL
29999
90910 LE
99'92LL,/-g’
96'69LL,/_____—____,:.‘::7
96'999L____
.8
_..—————=‘: $3
9L'979Lf__f
se'zzzL/v—-‘="'"—;'
fix\
6
9
5
.g 3
N
j)
//
999962
Z9'9962 .g
'0
a)
{I
5 1
g LL'6979
w 9
x
2 \\
E \
To
2
E
E) rvrrirfI‘rTTTT1I'1'LWI'LTIILI‘IIIjTI‘.TITWT§
0. c». w. r2. «3. m. V. n. N. P. 0. v
g) .- o o o o c o o o o q
o
0 eouquosqv
117

Figure 60. FTIR Spectrum of Covergirl Nailslicks Well Red

ctm % 3.. x:.n. 03.0 00. 9.2.0.52 2.9050 06 83.5000 1...... .5 0.30.“.

 

 

 

c-Eo.0..0383:o5>> I:
com 08.. com? ooou comm coon comm coov
L co
0 .1
«b a
u r
.. Ir Ir.°
m m m m z N
. . g r
m m w 0 .7... IN...
0 u. a .
.9 0 .
W W m “.00
.m H
m .90
9 L
.. 0 fl . w
W m .Lno m.
L v T
g g r
o L ../ 10.3 m.
w L m
.9 1. 1
0 m :3
7 - _
r
L :06
0 .
.9 1
mm firmd
.13
m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2:.n. 03.0 00. 9.2.0.52 _...9.0>oo 0:9... .0..

118

Saw a, 8.. in. 85 8. 32.252 _._9m>oo s 228me m5 .3 05mm

 

r§

$-53 8383532,

 

8019’!

99’ L99

 

 

 

OC'QLOL

 

 

 

 

 

GS'ZOQL

-.~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0'99ch

n.
o

in
O
aoueqaosqv

l l Iiifi Tf' 9 l I r I T I r‘ ‘j
'12 V
O O

I
N.
O

 

 

 

En. mam 8. $2.232 ___90>oo comm a. 6..

119

mmmm u 6.. 65 6:5 8. 9.2.6.62 _._96>oo 6 62680 «E .8 2.6:

 

Ԥ

89.

one»: E38390;

coon

comm occm comm ooov

r h -

 

 

 

89988

817136

96910!

 

 

 

 

\I/I}

 

 

 

 

ES'ZQQL

99'zzu/I

OVQESZ
1.51982

]2 .13

>

\ fl

ZS'BVSZ
686
I I r l ! I I I .
v m N
o o o

96 2962“,-
‘l I 1 1
ID
0
aouquosqv

690”}:
I

[s

O

 

 

 

x:_n_ 02m 00. mxo=m=mz :_m._0>oo NmNN $0..

120

 

Na, 66660 25m 6 626QO «E .3 656E

 

“75$ §E3c0>n>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8m 82 89 88 8mm 88 83 89
6.6
r
06/) IP.°
m m 13
6 . -
m -2
m M
8 Hui.” wvd
m am - w
L a»... w n .3 w
m .L m 1
.... m w H m
w -66
LB
.9. ,
.7... .66
w H
16.6
-3

 

 

 

N 6 66660 22m

121

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 65. FTIR Spectrum of Blind Sample #4

 

 

93689
LZ'GBfl
0
’§
LC'EQQL
wean/Cr”;
~§ é
N 2,
I)
B
.0
E
3
C
2
0
§ 3
ra'cssz ’
N
1.82962: g
961%
1%
v
41:
.92
o.
5
w I T I I I T F I I T o . f I T I Y I T fif I T T T I Tifi' I T T I 7 I T T j I l I I 1 g
Q 0) Q N (D ID V ('0 N Y- O V
‘0 - o’ o' o' o' o' o‘ o' o' cs 6
.E '
CD aouemosqv
122

mu macaw 35 6 62668 m5 .6 26:

 

coop

$-53 33:55.63

coca comm

 

 

99269

01'9”.

 

 

#0699

091 L6

0L'9£0l

9992”»

ween/1,;

 

 

 

90799!»

Z9099

 

swan/<2

 

 

 

 

SVU'QI-

939193

937863

[.9 Z967.
I I T
to
o'
aouquosqv

O6'9W9

 

 

 

m 6 66660 655

123

0.0800 02890 E28080 xc0_m ho £26000 m_._.n_ No 0.390

 

coop

com —

AYES 2353:0203
coca comm

coom comm coov

 

 

 

 

OZ'OVQL

\/

9L'ZQQZ

937526;

 

r l T
5
c
aouquosqv

 

 

 

03800 gmx xc0_m

124

 

APPENDIX C

Microspectrophotometry UV-Visible Spectra

125

 

ccc w

 

 

66:60 662 665.2 2 6 9680 6665.23 .8 669”.

80.050002 22.00.62?

660 com 66¢

 

 

126

coop.

66:60 89.. 665.2 9. 6 9680. 6665.2. .8 2.60

2220252 ‘ 3:332;

26 26 2:.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TV.

 

 

 

127

6.860 .69.. 6682 8 6 0.680 6665.23 .2 659...

28082.02 \ oo:3..03<

83 68 2.6 2.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

66:60 8?. 2.6.2 8 6 9680 6665.2. .E 6:60

22082.02 \ 3:00.823

82. can can 80
. _ . "

 

129

 

 

 

 

 

 

66600 669.. :6: N 6 9680 6665-5 .2 9.6:

83080802 2 02.0202?

ccov com com ccv
. _ U

 

S.

130

-m...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0800 00m< So: 0 00 020000 0_n_m_>->3 .9. 0590

23082.02 2 353.322

82 8.. 2.6 2.6

 

131

 

m...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8-2 :2 86600 56666660 6 0.6660 6665.23 E 659...

9.308052 2 0223.622

coo cwo ccV
2 ill 1L o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

8005 2802.020 9.2.0.02 2.9050 20 0.20000 0.0.05.2. .00 059“.

2208202 2 02.3.3092

ccc 2. occ owe cow

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

133

080.0 800.35. .0020... 20 0.8000 03.05.23 .02. 059“.

s. 3. a... e. 9..

 

 

 

I
C

1n.“

 

 

 

134

ccc 2.

860 0262 8:66.62 6 96.60 0665.2. 2.2 6.6.“.

88082.02 2 02.320342

68 2.6 as.
. . o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

ccc 2.

200.2 .02.. 0>o.. .8300. 20 0.20000 0.0.05.2... .0» 050.“.

83082.02 2 02.22.6032

can 626 666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11365

828020 55> 25> 2.2.60 6 96060 0665.2. .2 050.”.

23082.02 2 38330.2(

ccc r ccc coo ccv

 

c

 

 

-0...

 

 

 

 

 

 

137

cocv

20:25 00000 no... .0030 5300. 20 0.20000 03.0553 .00 050....

28082202 2 0053.622

ccc con

r—

82.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mé

 

 

138

800.0 850m. 0.000 0.02 0< 0.02.. 2.00ch 2.00 20 0.20000 03.0553 .20 0.26....

23082.02. 2 02.00.02?

ccc.. com com ocv
LY . “I . O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

 

>800 32.20000 0226.0 80820.2 8002.0... 2.00 .0 0.00000 0.0.0553 .Nm 0.00...

83082.02 2 02.00.02?

coo ccv
. .I... O

2....

cccv

 

 

 

 

 

140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2080000 0x0..0_.0z 2.90.60 .0 0.20000 0.0.0553 .00 0.30.“.

83082.02 2 00:00.02?

cocw con cmc 2.2V

 

 

141

 

r0

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

20:80 3.000 8.2.0.02 c.9050 .0 0.20000 0.0.0553 .00 0.30.“.

82082.02 2 02.00.0032

ccc 2. com com cot

Fll lollllos -L..L .11: .l .o

 

 

 

 

 

 

142

ccc2

08:... 8.000 0xo..0_.0z 0.9050 .0 0.20000 0.0.0553 .00 0.30....

88082.02 2 02.00.02?

coo coo oov

 

 

 
   

:2
a

((f
)
I\

   

«Ix/2)).

 

 

143

0.002.“. 030.300“. 0xo._0..0z 2.0.0260 .0 0.20000 0.0.0553 .00 0.30.“.

82082.02 2 00000.000<

ccc 2. com 2.20 ccv

 

c

2.0.

\ 2
2\ 2 .2
\ 2

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coo 2.

00. 000.0 0.2.0.02 8.0.050 20 0.00000 0.0.0553 2.0 050.”.

83082.02 2 32.00.0092

2.... 2.6 220

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

cog.

in. 35 8. 9.2.252 23.98 ,5 95me m_n_m_>.>: .8 2:9“.

com

owo

EouoEocaz \ 353333

8..

a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

$5.5 $3.2 9.26.52 _._9m>oo B 93me o_n_m_>.>3 .3 93mm

882.552 ‘ 02.3.32?

coo r can com .3?

 

147

M

 

 

 

 

 

m:o_o__m>:ms_ mxo=m=mz 39900 ho 88me m_n_m_>.>: .8 9:9“.

23 r can own

2308232 ‘ 3:332:

cov

 

 

 

 

 

 

l.

min

 

 

 

148

ooo p

93 in. 9.2352 _._9o>oo 3 958m m_n_m_>.>: .5 052“.

2805232 o 3:333?

com com one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141$)

ooov

26% in. 9.2.2.2 _._9m>oo 3 968m m_n_m_>.>: .8 23?.

232:0an 30:33.53

8.. 2.x. 2....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

mom 52.... 9.2232 ___9m>oo 3 9.68m m_n_w_>.>: .8 23mm

2.3

ooo

2205052 ‘ 353.822

2.3.

 

 

”‘.

 

m

 

 

 

FN.

151

9592 .53 32.2.2 _._9o>oo .0 96on 2935.2. .5 9:9”.

nhoqu—OCQZ \ 003085008<

 

oo.ow ooo 2.3 oov o
7N.
xii???
\,\./\/(.\I\(
N . > / rv

 

 

 

”I,
F

 

152

ooow

:5... 52a 9.2.»:«2 c.9960 .0 96on 2333.2. .8 2%.”.

ooo

omen

33.5052 \ 82.3323

2:.
o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

153

95m: 29...: 30.2.“: _._9o>oo .0 98QO 2335.2. .8 9%.".

23.5232 . oucaahoun<

2.... 2w» 8..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

8m :25 9.2.2.2 .2998 .o 9.0on 222>.>: .3 9:22

882.352 . 353333

82 8.. 2.5 2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155

ER 2 8.. 9.2... 2.5 8. 22.252 29960 6 9.08m 222>.>: .8 2.32“.

9:32.552 2 3:338?

ooo ooo om:

 

 

 

 

 

156

8mm 2 .3 22¢ mam 8. 9.2.2.2 .2998 .6 20QO 222>.>: .8 2:2”.

9.805232 \ oucn€0un<

ooo r ooo 2.5 oorv

 

157

 

 

 

 

 

NmNN # “0.. 25¢ mam 02 9.2.2432 26.050 .6 9.8QO m_£m_>.>3 .oo_, 9:9“.

9.8.8232 \ 353.022

82 28 2.... 8..
. _ o

 

I I.

z.

 

 

 

 

 

 

158

ooo

N... 29:2 2.5 .0 28am 222>.>: .8. 9:2“.

382.352 2 3:33.32

cam oov

 

 

 

 

 

 

15%?

x... 258 22.2 .6 9.0me 222>.>: .82 9:2...

332.6522 2 8:22.82?

ooo _. ooo ooo omv
_ 27

 

 

 

 

 

 

160

8 20.28 2.5 .o 20QO 222>->: .82 9:2“.

222.2232 2 35320.3(

ooor ooo ooo oov
. . o

 

161

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

Microscopy Results for the Brand and Covergirl Studies

162

Table 15. Microscopy Results for the Brand Study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revlon Super Top Speed Winey

Grain Fine, medium
Small particles Pink

Medium particles Pink

Large particles Pink

Revlon Wine With Everything

Grain Coarse

Small particles Some black, Pink
Medium particles NONE

Large particles NONE

 

Revlon Love Her Madly

 

Grain

Coarse, sparse

 

Small particles

Few black, Pink

 

Medium particles

Few Pink

 

Large particles

NONE

 

L’Oreal Sheer Moonberry Perle

 

Grain

Medium, coarse

 

Small particles

Blue, some pink

 

Medium particles

Blue, some pink

 

 

 

 

 

 

Large particles Some blue
L’Oreal Mulberry Cream

Grain Coarse
Small particles Some red
Medium particles NONE
Large particles NONE

 

 

Sally Hanson Maximum Growth
Beautiful Berry

 

 

163

 

 

Grain

Coarse

 

Small particles

Violet, yellow-orange, orange

 

Medium particles

Orange

 

Large particles

Some orange, some very large
pale yellow/clear

 

Sally Hanson Hard As Nails
Oasis Dawn Creme

 

Grain

Coarse, dense

 

Small particles

Pinkish-red, white/shiny (50-70
per field), some black

 

Medium particles

Pale yellow/clear

 

 

Large particles

 

NONE

 

164

 

Table 16. Microscopy Results for the Covergirl Study.

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Mauve
Sunrise

 

Grain

Coarse, dense

 

Small particles

Orange, blue, green, pink,
violet

 

Medium particles

Orange, blue, green, pink,
violet

 

 

 

 

Large particles NONE
Covergirl Nailslicks Peek-A-
800 Pink
Grain Fine
Small particles Orange, pink

 

Medium particles

Very few: blue, orange, red

 

Large particles

NONE

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Tickled
Pink

 

Grain

Medium, dense

 

Small particles

Pink, blue, violet, white/shiny
round

 

Medium particles

Very few: pale pink/clear, blue,
orange

 

 

 

Large particles NONE
Covergirl Nailslicks

Mauvelicious

Grain Fine

 

Small particles

Pink, red, white/shiny round
(80 per field)

 

Medium particles

NONE

 

 

Large particles

 

NONE

 

165

 

Table 16. Microscopy Results for the Covergirl Study. (Continued)

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Classic
Red

 

Grain

Coarse, sparse

 

Small particles

Pink, blue, red

 

Medium particles

Pink, some: blue-violet, peach,
white/shiny

 

Large particles

NONE

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Well Red

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grain Fine, medium, sparse

Small particles Pink, blue-violet, red,
white/shiny

Medium particles Few pinkish-orange

Large particles NONE

Covergirl Nailslicks Cabernet

Grain Fine

 

Small particles

Dark red, clear, white/shiny

 

Medium particles

Dark red, clear

 

Large and very large particles

Dark red

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Cherry
Truffle

 

Grain

Coarse, dense

 

Small particles

Red, orange, pink

 

Medium particles

Clear, pink

 

 

Large particles

 

Very few red

 

166

 

Table 16. Microscopy Results for the Covergirl Study. (Continued)

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Plum Frost

 

Very Grain

Fine and coarse

 

Small particles

NONE

 

Medium particles

Peach/orange, bluegreen, a
few pink

 

Large particles

Peach/orange, blue-green, a
few pink

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Fabulous
Fuchsia

 

Very Grain

Fine

 

Small particles

Peach, pink, few: blue, green,
red

 

Medium particles

Peach, pink, yellow, blue

 

Large particles

NONE

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Cherry
Brandy

 

Grain

Coarse

 

Small and very small particles

Dark red-orange

 

Medium particles

Dark red-orange, Blue-violet,
clear, some pink

 

Large particles, some very large

Dark red-orange

 

Covergirl Nailslicks Grape Ice

 

Grain

Coarse, dense

 

Small particles

Pink, peach, blue, yellow-
green, violet

 

Medium particles

Pink, peach, blue, yellow-
green, violet

 

 

Large particles

 

Pink, green, orange, blue

 

167

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

168

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gresham, G. et al. (2000). Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometric Characterization
of Nail Polishes and Pain Surfaces. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(2):
310-323.

Humecki, H. (1995). Practical Guide to Infrared Microspectroscopy. New York,
NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Saferstein, R. (2002). Forensic Science Handbook. Volume 1. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

169

infill:

8

«liliilillli