Bare Minerals Makeup - Company Review

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the makeup product Bare Minerals, focusing on its composition, application methods, and potential effects on the skin. Participants explore both the benefits and concerns associated with mineral makeup, particularly regarding its ingredients and application techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Bare Minerals claims to be made from crushed minerals and free of various irritants, while others mention that some users have experienced breakouts or rashes.
  • One participant highlights the potential inhalation hazards associated with titanium dioxide, suggesting that its fine particles may pose risks to respiratory health.
  • Another participant raises the question of whether titanium dioxide causes more harm than the sun it protects against, indicating ongoing research in this area.
  • A participant shares personal experience, stating that Bare Minerals is suitable for sensitive skin and does not cause breakouts.
  • Discussion includes the application method of the makeup, with one participant speculating about the role of static electricity in how the product adheres to the skin.
  • Another participant challenges the idea that static electricity is a unique factor for Bare Minerals, arguing that similar application methods are used for other makeup powders.
  • Some participants engage in a technical exploration of the triboelectric scale and how it might relate to makeup application.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the effectiveness and safety of Bare Minerals. While some share positive personal experiences, others raise concerns about the ingredients and application methods, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the health effects of specific ingredients, particularly titanium dioxide, and the role of static electricity in makeup application. The discussion also touches on broader concerns about the safety of nanoparticle exposure.

Greg Bernhardt
Admin
Insights Author
Messages
19,881
Reaction score
10,890
This is an interesting product because I know quite a few females who use it and I know some salons even use it. Bare minerals is a makeup kit. They claim it's made from crushed minerals and is actually good for the skin. They also say is free of preservatives, talc, oil, fragrance and other potential skin irritants, is free of fillers and binders, is weightless, provides adjustable coverage—from light to full, will improve the condition of the skin over time. There are some reviews that it mde some customers breakout or get rashes.

http://www.bareminerals.com
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This site http://www.sephora.com/browse/produ...0OF4PZUCV0KRRRXCQ?id=P209821&categoryId=C7010
lists the ingredients in many of their products.

We have a relevant discussion in the biology forum about some of those ingredients: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224923

Especially since these products are applied as powders, BOTH the harmful effects to skin and the inhalation hazards are relevant. Titanium dioxide is one of the primary compounds being used to model the deleterious effects of nanoparticles because of the occupational exposure risks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

On the other hand, this article also mentions the usefulness of titanium dioxide as a sunscreen.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
The question is whether they cause more harm than the sun they're protecting you from.

It's really a hot research topic, because these particles are used so commonly but their health effects have only fairly recently begun to be explored. The reason they're so much of a concern for inhalation exposure is that they can be so fine as to pass through the usual barriers protecting our respiratory system and get into the deep lung where they cause irritation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Titanium dioxide as a sunscreen? That sounds interesting...We offer titanium mill products for years, but I've never heard of this before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A friend sent me some samples of a mineral makeup and I've been quite taken with it. The company in question also addresses the nano-particle issue upfront. Fairly rare in the scheme of things.

In case anyone wants to do more research on a product this page has links to most of the larger companies out there. They also have an ingredient list for many of them. I'd rather contact the company first hand, though.

Far Star
 
I use it, and so does my mother and we both have sensitive skin. This is lile the only make up we can use and not break out. I can actually leave it on all night, and still have nice skin.
 
Felt the urge to bump this to see what you all thought of my guess about why this stuff works.

I noticed that the slogan "swirl, tap, and buff" was VERY prominent... and wondered why.

Turns out the lid of the makeup jars is metal with a matte finish, the brush has a very particular type of bristle that resembles untreated hair, and the handle of the brushes are chromed metal. You're instructed to swirl the brush on the plastic inside of the lid, tap the chromed metal on the matte metal, and then buff it on your skin.

Anyone else think it sounds awfully like rubbing your socks on the carpet to generate a static charge to zap your friends/little sister with?

Just got me thinking, perhaps she worked out how to use that to make the mineral stuff stick without a heavy liquid to "glue" it on?
 
All powder style make-up needs the excess tapped off the brush before you apply it.
 
Yeah, but after reading up on the triboelectric scale, I've come up with this:

Positive
Skin ~Application surface
Goat hair ~Bristles

Mica ~Makeup component

Wood ~Insulates between bristles and hand
Steel ~Further insulation
Zinc/Titanium/Bismuth Oxides ~Makeup component
Iron Oxide ~Makeup component

Plastic ~Lid component
Negative

You're rubbing a positively charged item (the goat bristles) against a negatively charged surface covered with powder that sits between the two on the triboelectric scale. Then you tap the smooth chrome handle (nearly neutral triboelectric) against the rough matte lid, which I would expect increases the charge difference between the handle, the bristles, and your skin while tapping off excess powder.

Then you brush the makeup on lightly, transferring the powder along with the charge you built up, causing it to adhere strongly to your skin.

Same concept as a piece of tape, positive backing, negative glue, when you peel it off it builds up a differential, when you apply it the charge transfers and the tape sticks.
 
I could see a static charge occurring if the process took a much longer time.
 
  • #10
Max, I'm trying really hard to understand your point, here. I get that you're suggesting that the product "Bare Minerals" is held to a person's skin by static electricity. Which I do not have the science knowledge to argue. I *can* say that there is absolutely nothing exclusive (as hypatia pointed out) about the equipment or packaging involved with Bare Minerals make-up. All make-up powders are applied (or I could say "properly applied" because sponges may be employed, but the results aren't as good) in precisely the same method, using the same brush equipment as this product. Although some brushes have plastic handles and some powder packaging is entirely plastic, one still employs the swirl and tap method. If one doesn't tap the excess powder off of the brush before applying, one winds up with a blob of too much powder at the point where contact is made with the face.

The powders adhere to your skin even without the swirling and tapping. Those methods simply ensure that one evenly distributes the product over the largest brush area (swirling) and that one gets rid of potentially blobbing excessive amounts of product on the brush. The whole of that methodology has to do with achieving the right appearance with the product. It's not making certain that the powder will adhere to your face.

Here's a question, though, Max. Employing your theory, would a person's make-up spontaneously fall off if their face was to suddenly become the opposite charge of the make-up?
 
  • #11
Then we would carry mini static motors, of course hidden discreetly in our bras. I can see the info-mercials already.
 
  • #12
GeorginaS said:
Max, I'm trying really hard to understand your point, here. I get that you're suggesting that the product "Bare Minerals" is held to a person's skin by static electricity. Which I do not have the science knowledge to argue. I *can* say that there is absolutely nothing exclusive (as hypatia pointed out) about the equipment or packaging involved with Bare Minerals make-up. All make-up powders are applied (or I could say "properly applied" because sponges may be employed, but the results aren't as good) in precisely the same method, using the same brush equipment as this product. Although some brushes have plastic handles and some powder packaging is entirely plastic, one still employs the swirl and tap method. If one doesn't tap the excess powder off of the brush before applying, one winds up with a blob of too much powder at the point where contact is made with the face.

The powders adhere to your skin even without the swirling and tapping. Those methods simply ensure that one evenly distributes the product over the largest brush area (swirling) and that one gets rid of potentially blobbing excessive amounts of product on the brush. The whole of that methodology has to do with achieving the right appearance with the product. It's not making certain that the powder will adhere to your face.

Here's a question, though, Max. Employing your theory, would a person's make-up spontaneously fall off if their face was to suddenly become the opposite charge of the make-up?

I've noticed that other mineral makeups don't get the same reviews, or need a liquid to "glue" the powder on.

The brushes used by bare minerals are VERY particular in their design, no one else uses that same type of brush, and I can't find any explanation for why they INSIST you need to use those ones (wood/chrome/goat bristles), and why the insist you need to "swirl, tap, and buff" to the point that it is trademarked.

I've seen myself where my gf didn't get the same results from other mineral products, and I've seen her use different brushes without the usual results from the bare minerals powder.

A lightweight powder with even a slight triboelectric charge would adhere more strongly than otherwise, it doesn't take a long time to generate these types of charges, peeling tape off of a roll builds a charge differential between the glue and the backing.

Turning a TV on and off generates enough charge to make dust "glue" itself to the screen/box, I don't see why this makeup wouldn't benefit from the same effect.


Incidentally, yes, I do suspect the makeup would come off easier/easily if you applied the appropriate charge to your face.
 
  • #13
perhaps you should google goat hair make up brushes. They are very common, along with wood handles and metal bindings. I would be more concerned with a nylon brush.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Nylon is on the negative end of the triboelectric scale, if you're trying to set up a tape-adhesion type of effect you want positive -> negative <- positive for the skin -> minerals <- bristles I'd think.

The coarseness of the goat bristles helps pick up the makeup, but it would also help generate a charge.


Right now you have this:

Swirl: negative (plastic lid) -> less negative (makeup) <<- positive (bristles) <- less positive (handle)

Tap: middle of the scale + smooth (handle) -> more negative + rough (matte lid)

Buff: most positive (skin) <<- negative (makeup) <- less positive (bristles) -> more negative (handle)
 
  • #15
#1: Every single cosmetic line will boast their products! It's all about driving that sale. Why tell your customer that any make-up brush is comparable and will deliver the same results would be detrimental. Building brand loyalty is HUGE.

With that said, these cosmetic lines do design their products (make-up brushes, lip gloss wands, etc.) to specifically compliment the products they will be applying. Which means that a Lancome brush will pick up the pigment of a Lancome shadow, let's say, than a MAC brush would & vice versa. Not that any premiere cosmetic line's make-up brushes are inferior to another, however, when comparing a drug store cosmetic line you can stand by the line "you get what you pay for".

Therefore, of course a Bare Escentuals Kabuki brush is going to be the best brush to use when putting on your Bare Minerals foundation.

#2: The "liquid" that your talking about using to "adhere" the powder to your face, is called a foundation primer & Bare Escentuals is only one of MANY cosmetic lines that carry one. It pro-longs the wear of your make-up, as well as, helps to smooth the appearnce of any imperfections and keeps your foundation from settling into any crevices/wrinkles you don't want to draw attention to.

FACT: Any powder make-up will provide a fuller coverage when applied with a wet sponge.

FACT: Moisturized skin not only appears healthier, but feels better AND wears any kind of make-up better.


So is it static electricity that also keeps my hair combed and allows my clothing to remain on my body? When used libearlly, I can apply a swirl, tap, buff ritual in both scenarios.