Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 2013; 39(10): 1540–1546

© 2013 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.

ISSN 0363-9045 print/ISSN 1520-5762 online
DOI: 10.3109/03639045.2012.719902

Research Article

 etermination of required hydrophilic–lipophilic balance of

D
citronella oil and development of stable cream formulation
Jaya Gopal Meher1, Narayan Prasad Yadav1, Jagat Jyoti Sahu2, and Priyam Sinha1
Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 09/11/13

1
Herbal Medicinal Product Department, Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research), P.O. CIMAP, Lucknow, UP, India and 2Gayatri Institute of Science and Technology, Biju Patnaik
University of Technology, Rourkela (Odisha) India

Abstract
Context: Citronella oil is reported to have excellent mosquito-repellent activity. To develop a stable cream formulation
(emulsion), its hydrophilic–lipophilic balance (HLB) value is important.
Objective: To determine required hydrophilic–lipophilic balance (rHLB) value of citronella oil and to develop stable
cream formulation.
Materials and Methods: Emulsions of citronella oil were prepared by phase inversion temperature technique using
water, Tween 80 and Span 80. A first series of 11 emulsions with HLB values ranging from 5.0 to 15.0 and a second series
of eight emulsions with smaller interval in HLB values from 11.0 to 13.8 were prepared. Emulsions were evaluated
For personal use only.

for creaming index, droplet size and turbidity to determine rHLB. Utilizing determined rHLB, citronella oil cream
was formulated and evaluated for different texture parameters. rHLB of light liquid paraffin was also determined for
validation of methodology.
Results: rHLB of light liquid paraffin and citronella oil was determined to be 11.80 and 12.60, respectively. Stable
citronella oil cream was developed with 10% emulsifier blend. Texture parameters were found to be consistent over
the entire storage period.
Discussion: Creaming index, droplet diameter, percent increase in droplet diameter and turbidity are the established
parameters to determine rHLB and to develop stable emulsion. Emulsions with optimum emulsifier concentration
resulted in less percentage creaming index, smallest droplet, less percentage increase in droplet diameter and
highest turbidity. Texture properties evaluation ensures the stability of the developed cream.
Conclusion: rHLB value of citronella oil was found 12.6 and a stable cream was formulated utilizing determined rHLB.
Keywords:  Emulsion, emulsifier, creaming index, droplet size, turbidity, texture analysis

Introduction in emulsion such as light liquid paraffin, cetyl/stearyl

Most of the pharmaceutical as well as cosmetic semisolid
formulations are biphasic systems (emulsion, cream and
lotion), where hydrophilic–lipophilic balance (HLB) plays
a vital role by managing tension between two immiscible
liquids at their interface1–4. Exact knowledge of required
HLB (rHLB) value of different ingredients in an emulsion
guides towards the determination of rHLB of the system
(oil phase of formulation), which ultimately help in the
development of a stable formulation5,6. Fortunately rHLB
of most of the ingredients including emulsifiers used
alcohol, stearic acid, paraffin wax, Tween series, Span
series, glycerol stearates and many more are reported
in literature; whereas aromatic oils are still not properly
investigated and reported7.
Citronella oil is an aromatic oil from Cymbopogon
spp. It is reported to be an excellent mosquito-repellent
aromatic oil8,9. Candles and incense containing citronella
oil are sold as insect repellent in some countries10,11.
It has pale yellow to brownish yellow color with a
strong pungent/fruity odor. Different physicochemical

Address for Correspondence:  Dr. Narayan Prasad Yadav, Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research), P. O. CIMAP, Lucknow (U.P.) India 226015. Tel.: +91-522-2718657. Fax: +91-522-2342666. E-mail: npyadav@gmail.com
(Received 03 March 2012; revised 29 June 2012; accepted 06 August 2012)

1540
 rHLB of citronella oil and cream formulation  1541
properties of citronella oil, which is insoluble in water are Table 1.  Hydrophilic–lipophilic balance spread sheet of emulsion
Flash Point: 77°C, Boiling Point: 200°C, Specific Gravity: preparation.
0.897, Refractive Index (25°C): 1.4660–1.4750 and Optical Formulation
Rotation: −5° to 0°12,13. Some conventional and novel drug Formulation Span Tween (Light liquid
(Citronella oil) HLB 80 (%) 80 (%) paraffin)
delivery system of citronella oil for mosquito-repellent
First series emulsions
activity has been reported in the literature14–16.
 CE1 5.0 93.46 06.54 LE1
In the present study, a pharmaceutically and cosmeti-
 CE2 6.0 84.12 15.88 LE2
cally elegant cream formulation of citronella oil with dif-
 CE3 7.0 74.77 25.23 LE3
ferent cream bases was attempted to develop17,18. During
 CE4 8.0 65.43 34.57 LE4
the formulation development process, difficulty in selec-
 CE5 9.0 56.08 43.92 LE5
tion of suitable emulsifiers was experienced to produce a
 CE6 10.0 46.73 53.27 LE6
stable emulsion. These complications further guided to
 CE7 11.0 37.39 62.61 LE7
determine the rHLB value of citronella oil, which is not
 CE8 12.0 28.04 71.96 LE8
reported in the literature. Therefore in the present inves-
Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 09/11/13

 CE9 13.0 18.70 81.30 LE9

tigation attempts have been made for the determination
 CE10 14.0 09.35 90.65 LE10
of rHLB value of citronella oil. To ensure correctness of
 CE11 15.0 00.00 100.00 LE11
the applied methodology, the rHLB value of light liquid
Second series emulsions
paraffin was also determined simultaneously, which is
 CE13 11.0 37.39 62.61 LE13
reported to be 11 ± 16,19,20.
 CE14 11.4 33.65 66.35 LE14
Utilizing the determined rHLB of citronella oil, cream
 CE15 11.8 29.91 70.09 LE15
formulation was developed and evaluated for differ-
 CE16 12.2 26.17 73.83 LE16
ent texture parameters such as firmness, adhesiveness,
 CE17 12.6 22.43 77.83 LE17
extrudability, spreadability, consistency and cohesive-  CE18 13.0 18.70 81.30 LE18
ness for a period of 90 days. These parameters help to  CE19 13.4 14.96 85.04 LE19
ensure reproducible quality of a specific product.  CE20 13.8 11.22 88.78 LE20
CE, citronella oil emulsion; LE, light liquid paraffin emulsion;
For personal use only.

Materials and methods HLB, hydrophilic–lipophilic balance.

Materials 11.0–13.8 were formulated separately for citronella oil

Citronella oil was obtained from Central Institute of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (CSIR-CIMAP), Lucknow.
Light liquid paraffin, Tween 80, Span 80, stearyl alcohol,
cetyl alcohol, hard paraffin wax were procured from SD
Fine Chem Limited, Mumbai. Glycerol monostearate
(GMS) was procured from Central Drug House Pvt. Ltd.
New Delhi. All the ingredients were of Analytical Reagent
grade and used as received.
Methods
Preparation of emulsion
For the determination of rHLB of citronella oil/light
liquid paraffin, 5% of the respective material was taken
as oil phase. Blend of Tween 80 (HLB 15.0) and Span 80
(HLB 4.3) in different ratio was chosen as emulsifier at
3% concentration and 92% water was taken as the con-
tinuous/aqueous phase7,21. Phase inversion temperature
technique was adopted for the preparation of emul-
sions. Emulsifier blends which could produce HLB in the
range of 5–15 were prepared for both citronella oil and
light liquid paraffin separately in first series of emulsion
preparation (Table 1). The required amount of Span 80
was dissolved in the oil phase and Tween 80 in the aque-
ous phase. Both the phases were maintained at 50–55°C.
Aqueous phase was poured in to the oil phase with gentle
stirring at the same temperature. Stirring was continued
for 15 min at 2000 rotations per minute (RPM) with the
help of an over head stirrer (Ika Eurostar). In second
series of preparation, eight emulsions in HLB range of
and light liquid paraffin (Table 1).
Physical evaluation
The first series of 11 emulsions were physically evaluated
for any visual changes in appearance and color or insta-
bilities such as phase separation, creaming or coales-
cence at regular interval of time (each alternate day) for
30 days. Creaming index (CI) of all the emulsions was
determined21. Based on the above investigations, most
stable emulsions were identified. Further a second series
of emulsions were prepared using smaller intervals in
HLB range of 11.0–13.8. The Second series of eight emul-
sions were subjected to other evaluation parameters.
Creaming index (CI)
CI was determined by taking the ratio of total height of
cream (HC) layer and total height of emulsion (HE) in
the storage container (plastic bottle with 2 cm diameter
and 8 cm height). CI was recorded on 3rd, 5th, 10th, 15th
and 30th day.
%CI = ( H C / H E ) × 100
Droplet size analysis
Droplet size measurement of the emulsions was per-
formed with an optical microscope (Unilab optical
microscope) fitted with X40 objective and a standard-
ized X10 ocular micrometer scale. Sampling was carried
out after a gentle shaking of the emulsion container to

© 2013 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.

 1542  J. G. Meher et al.
ensure even dispersion of the droplets. Each emulsion
was diluted to 100 times using aqueous propylene gly-
col22. Not less than 400 droplets were measured covering
at least six fields of view and the mean droplet diameter
(MDD) was calculated. The percent increase in MDD (X)
of each emulsion formulation after 30 days was deter-
mined by the following formula.
X % = 100 ( X 2 − X 1 ) / X 1
Where X1 and X2 are MDD of the emulsion, on day 1
and day 30 respectively. Sampling was done in triplicate
for this experiment.
Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 09/11/13
Evaluation of citronella oil cream formulation
Citronella oil cream formulation (CR4) was evaluated for
different texture parameters viz. cream firmness, adhe-
siveness, cohesiveness, consistency, spreadability and
extrudability by using CT3 Texture Analyzer (Brookfield
Engineering Laboratories, USA). Test parameters
(given in Supplementary Table S1) were selected as per
individual test requirement. All the graphs (shown in
Supplementary Figure S1) and data were generated using
Texture Pro CT V1.3 Software and formulation was evalu-
ated in triplicate.
Results

Turbidity analysis Creaming index

Five milliliter of each emulsion preparation was with-
drawn into colorless glass vials (15-mL Borosil culture
tubes). The vials were stored undisturbed at room tem-
perature (25 ± 1°C) and on the 7th day, 0.5 mL sample was
gently withdrawn from the base of the tube using 1 mL
syringe. The sample was diluted to 25 mL with double
distilled water and the percent transmission (%T) was
measured at 600 nm with the help of UV-Visible spectro-
photometer (Molecular Device) keeping blank control at
100% transmission. For this experiment, sampling was
done in triplicate, and turbidity of the diluted sample was
calculated by the following formula5,21.
For personal use only.
Percent CI of citronella oil and light liquid paraffin emul-
sions stored at room temperature have been shown in
Table 3. Citronella oil emulsions from HLB 5 to 9 (CE1 to
CE6) showed separation of aqueous and oil layers within
10–30 days. No phase separation was observed for emul-
sions of HLB 11–13 (CE7–CE9) and CI was determined
to be lowest (1.0–1.1% on day 3) for these emulsions;
whereas for HLB value of 14 and 15 (CE10, CE11), phase
separation was observed on day 30 and CI was found to
be comparatively higher (1.0–1.3% on day 3). CE7 showed
highest CI (10.2%) and CE9 showed lowest CI (9.8%) on
day 30. For light liquid paraffin emulsions, phase sepa-

ration was seen in emulsions of HLB 5–9 (LE1–LE5) and

Turbidity = 100 − %T 14–15 (LE10, LE11). Emulsions were comparatively
stable in the HLB range of 10 to 13 (LE6 to LE9). Lowest
The results obtained are average of three values.

Formulation of citronella oil cream Table 3.  Percent creaming index of citronella oil and light liquid
Based on the above investigations, rHLB value of cit- paraffin emulsions stored at room temperature.
ronella oil was determined and further utilized in the Emulsions Day 3 Day 5 Day 10 Day 15 Day 30
development of cream formulations which are shown in CE1 2.8 6.6 PS PS PS
Table 2. Oil phase of the cream containing light liquid CE2 2.4 6.3 PS PS PS
paraffin, paraffin wax, cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol CE3 2.1 6.1 PS PS PS
and GMS was heated up to 65°C for melting the ingre- CE4 1.9 5.8 PS PS PS
dients. Aqueous phase containing Tween 80 and water CE5 1.8 4.4 PS PS PS
was heated up to 50–55°C. Citronella oil was added to CE6 1.5 4.3 8.4 10.6 PS
oil phase when the temperature came down to 50–55°C CE7 1.1 3.8 6.8 8.3 10.2
and finally aqueous phase was mixed to the oil phase CE8 1.0 3.7 6.6 8.0 10.0
with constant stirring. The mixture was stirred for about CE9 1.0 3.7 6.2 8.0 9.8
30 min until homogenous cream was prepared7,21,24. CE10 1.0 3.9 6.2 8.2 PS
CE11 1.3 3.8 6.4 8.3 PS
Table 2.  Citronella oil cream formulationsa. LE1 2.9 5.9 PS PS PS
Formulations/Ingredients (%) CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4 LE2 2.7 5.9 PS PS PS
Light liquid paraffin 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 LE3 2.4 5.8 PS PS PS
Citronella oil 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 LE4 1.9 5.5 9.8 PS PS
Paraffin wax 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 LE5 1.8 4.6 8.8 10.2 PS
Cetyl alcohol 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 LE6 1.2 3.2 8.4 8.8 10.4
Stearyl alcohol 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 LE7 1.0 3.2 8.1 7.4 9.2
Tween 80 2.95 4.42 5.90 7.37 LE8 1.1 3.3 8.2 7.4 9.4
GMS 1.05 1.58 2.10 2.63 LE9 1.3 3.6 8.5 8.0 10.2
Water (up to 100 mL) q.s. q.s. q.s. q.s. LE10 1.3 3.5 8.6 8.2 PS
a
rHLB of oil phase in citronella oil cream formulation: 12.56. LE11 1.5 3.4 8.8 PS PS
Surfactant Blend is GMS: Tween 80 = 1:2.8. CE, citronella emulsion; LE, light liquid paraffin emulsion; PS,
GMS, glycerol monostearate; q.s, quantity sufficient; CR, cream. phase separation.

 Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy


CI was shown by LE7 (1.0%) and highest by LE6 (10.4%)
on day 30.
Droplet size
MDD of citronella oil emulsions and light liquid paraffin
emulsions over the period of 30 days has been depicted
in Figures 1 and 2, respectively and Figure 3 shows the
percent increase in MDD. On day 1, MDD of all citronella
oil emulsions were found to be 4.32 ± 0.09 µm (CE17) to
4.73 ± 0.13 µm (CE20). Considerable increase of MDD
was observed upon storage over a period of 30 days.
Lowest and highest MDD were found to be 5.03 ± 0.09
µm (CE17) and 6.66 ± 0.11 µm (CE13), respectively. For
citronella oil emulsions, CE17 (HLB = 12.6) showed low-
Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 09/11/13
est MDD over 30 days. On day 1, MDD of all light liquid
paraffin emulsions were determined to be 4.12 ± 0.19 µm
(LE15) to 4.61 ± 0.07 µm (LE16), whereas on 30th day drop-
let size increased to 5.24 ± 0.14 µm (LE15) and 7.27 ± 0.2
µm (LE20). LE15 (HLB = 11.8) showed lowest MDD
for light liquid paraffin emulsions over 30 days. CE17
showed 16.43% and CE14 exhibited 44.61% increase in
MDD, whereas 27.18% and 63.73% increase in MDD was
recorded for LE15 and LE20, respectively.
Turbidity
Turbidity of citronella oil emulsions and light liquid
paraffin emulsions has been exhibited in Figure 4. For
For personal use only.
citronella oil emulsions turbidity was found to be in the
range of 89.12 ± 2.4 (CE17, HLB = 12.6) and 60.14 ± 2.1
(CE19, HLB = 13.4) whereas for light liquid paraffin emul-
sions it was found to be 91.2 ± 3.6 (LE15, HLB = 11.8) and
62.9 ± 2.8 (LE19, HLB = 13.4).
Figure 1.  Mean droplet diameter of citronella oil emulsions over a
period of 30 days. Mean value ± SEM, n = 3.
Figure 2.  Mean droplet diameter of light liquid paraffin emulsions
over a period of 30 days. Mean value ± SEM, n = 3.
© 2013 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
rHLB of citronella oil and cream formulation  1543
rHLB and cream formulation
Based on the investigations viz. droplet size analysis,
turbidity and CI, rHLB value of citronella oil and light liquid
paraffin was determined to be 12.6 and 11.8, respectively
(Table 4). By utilizing experimentally determined rHLB of
citronella oil and light liquid paraffin, rHLB of the oil phase
of cream formulation was calculated and found to be 12.5623.
In view of the calculated rHLB value of oil phase, com-
bination of glycerol monostearate (HLB = 5.5) and Tween
80 (HLB = 15.0) was used as emulsifier blend in the ratio
of 1:2.823. Cream with 10% (CR4) emulsifier blend con-
centration was formulated successfully, whereas with 4%
(CR1), 6% (CR2) and 8% (CR3) of emulsifier blend, emul-
sification could not be achieved.
Texture profile
Texture profile analysis results of citronella oil cream for-
mulation is shown in Table 5. Firmness was found to be
6 ± 0.25 g on day one, whereas it was increased to 7 ± 0.55 g
over a period of 90 days. Consistency was determined to
be 0.8 ± 0.04 mJ on the day of formulation and for the next 3
months it was found to be 0.9 ± 0.06 mJ. Adhesiveness was
determined to be 1 ± 0.22 g on the day of formulation and
increased to 1.5 ± 0.42 g over next 3 months. Cohesiveness
was found to be within 0.94 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.02 on
the day of formulation and over 90 days respectively.
Spreadability of cream was found to be 1.8 ± 0.04 mJ over
entire 3 months. Extrudability was found to be 25.1 ± 1.04
mJ on the day of formulation whereas it was increased to
25.8 ± 1.45 mJ over a period of 90 days.
Discussion
Creaming index
Regardless of emulsifier concentration and/or combi-
nation, creaming is a natural phenomenon in biphasic
systems and is an indication of destabilization25–27. It
gives a preliminary idea of nearest range of stable emul-
sions which may be useful for determining the rHLB. All
the emulsions (Citronella oil emulsions and light liquid
paraffin emulsions) were studied for creaming for the
period of 30 days and their percent CI was determined
(Table 3). During first two days creaming was not seen
for any of the formulated emulsions, whereas 3rd day
onwards increase in creaming was observed with time.
It was also observed that the CI was decreased with the
increase in HLB value of the emulsion. After 30 days cit-
ronella oil emulsions with HLB value 11–13 were found
stable and rest of the emulsions were separated into two
different layers. These results indicate the rHLB of citro-
nella oil lies in between 11 and 13 (CE7–CE9), hence a
second series of eight emulsions with HLB value 11.0–
13.8 (CE13–CE20, Table 1) were prepared and subjected
to other evaluation parameters viz. particle size and
turbidity analysis. Similarly, light liquid paraffin emul-
sions in the HLB range of 10–13 were found compara-
tively stable and the same evaluations were performed
for these emulsions.
 1544  J. G. Meher et al.

Figure 3.  Percent increase in mean droplet diameter of citronella oil emulsions and light liquid paraffin emulsions on day 30.

particle size and hence negatively influences the stability

Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 09/11/13

of emulsion22. Suitable combination of emulsifiers and

their concentration play a vital role in minimizing the
surface tension of two phases (aqueous and oil phase),
consequently minimize the coalescence of droplets28.
Based on the above fact, it is considered that emulsions
(specific HLB) showing smallest particle size is close to
the required HLB of oil. Droplet size for both citronella
oil and light liquid paraffin emulsions was analyzed over
30 days, and MDD was determined which is depicted in
Figures 1 and 2. Interpretation of stability of the emul-
sions based on droplet size investigation at initial days
may be biased; hence it was studied over the storage
Figure 4. Turbidity of citronella oil emulsions and light liquid period of 30 days. It was found that citronella oil emul-
For personal use only.

paraffin emulsions. sions, CE17 (HLB = 12.6) and light liquid paraffin emul-
sions, LE15 (HLB = 11.8) showed minimal droplet size
Table 4.  Required HLB of citronella oil and light liquid paraffin over the course of investigation. Percent increase in
(experimentally determined). MDD, over storage is another useful indicator for access-
Methods for determination of HLB
ing the stability of emulsions, because suitable emulsifier
Percent increase Percent
results in to minimum increase in droplet diameter. As
Oils MDD in MDD Turbidity CI
depicted in Figure 3, CE17 and LE15 have shown 16.43
Citronella oil 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.0, 13.0,
14.0 and 27.18% increase in MDD which suggests that these
Light liquid 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.0 emulsions are close to rHLB of the respective oils.
paraffin
MDD, mean droplet diameter; CI, creaming index; HLB, Turbidity
hydrophilic–lipophilic balance. Rate of creaming in a polydisperse system can be
defined as:
Table 5.  Texture analysis of stable citronella oil cream formulation
(CR4).
 8π 
Duration (Days) u = ∑i gni ri5 (d1 − d2 )
Parameters 0 30 60 90  27ηV 
Consistency 0.8 ± 0.040 0.9 ± 0.025 0.9 ± 0.038 0.9 ± 0.064
(mJ) Where ni is number of droplets, ri is the radius of drop-
Firmness (g) 6.0 ± 0.25 6.0 ± 0.45 7.0 ± 0.15 7.0 ± 0.55 lets, V is total volume of dispersed phase, η is viscosity
Spreadability 1.8 ± 0.042 1.8 ± 0.045 1.8 ± 0.034 1.8 ± 0.024 of emulsion, g is acceleration due to gravity and (d1–d2)
(mJ) is the density difference between the dispersed and con-
Adhesiveness 1.0 ± 0.22 1.5 ± 0.15 1.5 ± 0.42 1.5 ± 0.32 tinuous phases28. If all the parameters are kept constant,
(g) rate of creaming will depend on droplet diameter. Bigger
Cohesiveness 0.94 ± 0.011 0.99 ± 0.018 0.99 ± 0.022 0.99 ± 0.025 droplet causes more creaming, which leads to poor sta-
Extrudability 25.1 ± 1.04 25.1 ± 1.25 25.8 ± 1.45 25.8 ± 0.95 bility of emulsion, whereas smaller droplet causes slower
(mJ)
creaming, hence better stability is the consequence. The
Mean value ± SEM, n = 3.
emulsions with smaller droplet are turbid in comparison
Droplet size to bigger droplet emulsion; which is determined by tur-
Droplets of dispersed phase have the tendency to bidimetry method29. For citronella oil emulsions highest
coalesce over the storage period, which increases the turbidity was found to be 89.12 ± 2.4 (CE 17, HLB = 12.6),
whereas for light liquid paraffin emulsion it was 91.2 ± 3.6

 Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy


(LE15, HLB = 11.8). Based on the theory discussed above
and the obtained results it was interpreted that the rHLB
might be close to 12.6 and 11.8 for citronella oil and light
liquid paraffin respectively. While comparing the results
of turbidity and particle size it was observed that turbid-
ity was found maximum, at the same HLB value at which
the MDD was determined to be minimum.
rHLB and cream formulation
Based on the theory that emulsions with optimum emul-
sifier concentration will result in smallest MDD, less per-
cent increase in MDD over storage and highest turbidity,
the required HLB of citronella oil was determined5–7,28.
For the validation of the methodologies, rHLB of light
Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 09/11/13
liquid paraffin was also determined simultaneously.
Based on the above mentioned evaluation parameters
rHLB of citronella oil and light liquid paraffin was found
to be 12.6 and 11.8, respectively. Reported rHLB of the
later is in the range of 11 ± 119,20. Experimentally deter-
mined rHLB value of both citronella oil and light liquid
paraffin by three different methods is shown in Table 4.
After the determination of rHLB of citronella oil, it was
implemented for the development of cream formulation.
Blend of Glycerol monostearate and Tween 80 in the
ratio of 1:2.8 at 10% concentration could produce stable
emulsion. These observations suggest that not only the
rHLB of oil phase but the appropriate concentration of
For personal use only.
emulsifiers is also crucial for the stable cream formula-
tion. Further it was found that emulsifier with higher
HLB value (e.g. Sodium lauryl sulfate, HLB 40) could
stabilize the emulsion at lower concentration. Therefore
it can be inferred that the ratio and percentage of specific
emulsifier blend is unique to the developed formulation.
If the emulsifiers with different HLB value are used, the
concentration of emulsifiers to stabilize the same emul-
sion may vary.
Texture profile
Consistency, firmness, adhesiveness and cohesiveness
are the different texture parameters that define a specific
type of formulation and imitate human perception for
any cosmetic/medicated products30,31. These parameters
do not have any fixed selection criteria or any official
standards (pharmacopoeial/regulatory), but based on
the product specific requirement, these parameters can
be characterized and standardized.
Firmness of any semisolid formulation is a reflection of
its hardness. It is the maximum positive force to deform/
penetrate the sample with finger30–32. Based on the type
of product, firmness should be defined. For citronella oil
cream, firmness was found to be 6 ± 0.25–7 ± 0.55 g over a
period of 3 months. Consistency of the sample is related
to the work done to hardness. For this cream, consistency
was found to be similar over a period of 3 months as indi-
cated by the work done to hardness, which was ranging
from 0.8 ± 0.04 to 0.9 ± 0.06 mJ.
Stickiness of semisolid formulation is a major issue
for its acceptance, especially for cosmetic products.
© 2013 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
rHLB of citronella oil and cream formulation  1545
Adhesiveness, which can be defined as the maximum
force required for overcoming the attractive force
between surface and sample, was characterized as a
measure for stickiness of the sample30,31. CR4 cream
formulation was found to require 1 ± 0.22–1.5 ± 0.42 g
force to get separated from the surface. Cohesiveness
is another parameter which indicates the strength of
internal bonds that is ultimately responsible for overall
elegance of the cream. Mathematically it is the ratio of
hardness work done at two cycles30,31. For CR4 cohesive-
ness was found to be within 0.94 ± 0.01–0.99 ± 0.02. The
values determined for different evaluation parameters
were reproducible over the entire storage period of time
and hence can be utilized as formulation finger print to
ensure consistent quality of citronella oil cream formu-
lation. Table 5 exhibits the texture analysis data of citro-
nella oil cream formulation.
Spreadability of cream, lotion or gel depends upon the
ingredients used33,34. For instance products with rich con-
tent of lipid/high molecular weight wax are less spread-
able because of high viscosity and surface tension. The
male female probe (TA15/100: conical probe, Brookfield
Engineering Laboratories, Inc. USA) for spreadabil-
ity evaluation is an imitation for human perception
of spreading any cream over skin surface30,31. Certain
amount of work is done by these probes to penetrate the
sample (cream/gel/semisolid products) up to a definite
depth and the energy (mJ) required for this purpose
define the spreadability of the formulation. Higher firm-
ness and hardness value implies a less spreadability and
vice versa. Spreadability of citronella oil cream was found
to be 1.8 ± 0.02 mJ at 25 ± 1°C. Table 5 exhibits the spread-
ability data of citronella oil cream formulation.
Packaging of formulations is an important issue for
overall acceptance of product by end users. From con-
sumer’s compliance point of view, extrusion of cream/
lotion/gel from the container (tube, box) is a major con-
cern35. A good product with poor extrudability may not
be acceptable. CR4 was evaluated for forward extrusion
with TA-DEC probe and work done in extrusion was
determined to be 25.1 ± 1.04–25.8 ± 1.45 mJ. It was found
that forward extrusion of citronella oil cream was smooth
and continuous. Table 5 exhibits the extrudability data of
citronella oil cream formulation. All the texture parame-
ters of optimized cream formulation CR4 were reproduc-
ible and consistence over the storage period of 3 months.
Conclusion
Based on the theory that emulsions with optimum emul-
sifier concentration result in smallest MDD, less percent
increase in MDD upon storage and highest turbidity value,
the rHLB of citronella oil and light liquid paraffin was
found to be 12.6 and 11.8, respectively. Cosmetically ele-
gant citronella oil cream was developed with 10% emulsi-
fier (glycerol monostearate and Tween 80 in the ratio of 1:
2.8) concentration. Citronella oil cream was evaluated for
different texture parameters viz. consistency (0.8 ± 0.040
 1546  J. G. Meher et al.
mJ), firmness (6.0 ± 0.25 g), adhesiveness (1.0 ± 0.22 g),
cohesiveness (0.94 ± 0.011), spreadability (1.8 ± 0.042 mJ)
and extrudability (25.1 ± 1.04 mJ) for quality control of
developed cream. Normally in practice, achievement of
required concentration of emulsifier blend is based on
trial and error methods, but there is a need of evolving
the methods/hypothesis/formulae or law for determin-
ing emulsifier concentration in the development of a
stable cream formulation.
Acknowledgement
Authors are highly thankful to Central Institute of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants-Council of Scientific and
Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 09/11/13
Industrial Research (CIMAP-CSIR), India for providing
infrastructure facilities and financial support for carrying
out this work.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
References
  1. Griffin WC. (1949). Classification of surface active agents by “HLB”.
J Soc Cosmet Chem, 1:311–326.
 2. Griffin WC. (1954). Calculation of HLB values of non-ionic
For personal use only.
surfactants. J Soc Cosmet Chem, 5:249–256.
  3. Pasquali RC, Taurozzi MP, Bregni C. (2008). Some considerations
about the hydrophilic-lipophilic balance system. Int J Pharm,
356:44–51.
  4. Couteau C, Deme A, Cheignon C, Coiffard LJM. (2012). Influence
of the hydrophilic-lipophilic balance of sunscreen emulsions on
their water resistance property. Drug Dev Ind Pharm [online];0:1–3.
Available at: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/036
39045.2011.653362. Accessed on 21 April 2012.
 5. Nielloud F, Marti-mestres G, Laget JP, Fernandez C, Maillols
H. (1996). Emulsion formulations: study of the influence of
parameters with experimental designs. Drug Dev Ind Pharm,
22:159–166.
  6. Orafidiya LO, Oladimeji FA. (2002). Determination of the required
HLB values of some essential oils. Int J Pharm, 237:241–249.
 7. Rieger MM. (1987). Emulsion. In: Lachman L, Lieberman HA,
Kanig JL, ed. The Theory and Practice of Industrial Pharmacy.
Bombay: Varghese Publishing House, 502–533.
  8. Thorsell W, Mikiver A, Malander I, Tunon H. (1998). Efficacy of
plant extracts and oils as mosquito repellents. Phytomedicine,
5:311–323.
  9. Ansari MA, Razdan RK. (1995). Relative efficacy of various oils in
repelling mosquitoes. Indian J Malariol, 32:104–111.
10. Data requirements for registration of biopesticides in OECD
member countries: survey results, OECD Environment Monograph
[online] 1996;106:72–73. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/
officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=OCDE/
GD(96)13&docLanguage=En. Accessed on 28 April 2012.
11. Proposed Rules Federal Resister US FDA [online] 2007;72:7941–
7945. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/
E7-2890.pdf. Accessed on 25 April 2012.
12. Sweetman SC. (2005). Dose adjustment in renal impairment:
response from Martindale: the Complete Drug Reference. BMJ,
331:292–293.
 Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy
13. Material safety data sheet Citronella Oil MSDS [online]
2005;1–5. Available at: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.
php?msdsId=9923497. Accessed on 25 April 2012.
14. Solomon B, Sahle FF, Gebre-Mariam T, Asres K, Neubert RH.
(2012). Microencapsulation of citronella oil for mosquito-repellent
application: formulation and in vitro permeation studies. Eur J
Pharm Biopharm, 80:61–66.
15. Specos MM, García JJ, Tornesello J, Marino P, Vecchia MD,
Tesoriero MV et al. (2010). Microencapsulated citronella oil for
mosquito repellent finishing of cotton textiles. Trans R Soc Trop
Med Hyg, 104:653–658.
16. Usawadee S, Onanong N, Napaporn U, Satit P, Apinan S, Uracha
R. (2009). Characterization and mosquito repellent activity of
citronella oil nanoemulsion. Int J Pharm, 372:105–111.
17. Baudonnet L, Grossiord JL, Rodriguez F. (2004). Physicochemical
characterization and in vitro release of salicylic acid from O/W
emulsions prepared with Montanov 68: effect of formulation
parameters. Drug Dev Ind Pharm, 30:975–984.
18. Krajisnik D, Milic J. (2003). Polymer-stabilized emulsion systems:
structural characteristics and physical stability evaluation. Drug
Dev Ind Pharm, 29:701–711.
19. Lund W. (1994). The pharmaceutical codex, principles and practice
of pharmaceutics. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 86–87.
20. Prinderre P, Piccerelle Ph, Cauture E, Kalantzis G, Reynier JP,
Joachim J. (1998). Formulation and evaluation of o/w emulsion
using experimental design. Int J Pharm, 163:73–79.
21. Ferreira MR, Santiago RR, de Souza TP, Egito ES, Oliveira EE,
Soares LA. (2010). Development and evaluation of emulsions
from Carapa guianensis (Andiroba) oil. AAPS PharmSciTech,
11:1383–1390.
22. Levius HP, Drommond FG. (1953). Elevated temperature as an
artificial breakdown stress in the evaluation of emulsion stability. J
Pharm Pharmacol, 5:743–756.
23. Emulsion and HLB System. Convergent Cosmetics [online] 2007
Available at: http://www.lotioncrafter.com/pdf/Emulsions_&_
HLB_System.pdf. Assessed on 12 November 2011.
24. Gupta A, Myrdal PB. (2004). Development of a perillyl alcohol
topical cream formulation. Int J Pharm, 269:373–383.
25. Margaret MR, Andrew DW, Peter JW. (2002). Emulsions creaming
and rheology. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci, 7:419–425.
26. Pal R. (2011). Rheology of simple and multiple emulsions. Curr
Opin Colloid Interface Sci, 16:41–60.
27. Gullapalli RP, Sheth BB. (1999). Influence of an optimized non-
ionic emulsifier blend on properties of oil-in-water emulsions. Eur
J Pharm Biopharm, 48:233–238.
28. Bechner P. (1965). Emulsion theory and practice. London:
Chapman & Hall; 152–153.
29. Hamed M, Chin PT, Nazimah SAH, Salmah Y. (2008). Optimization
of the contents of Arabic gum, xanthan gum and orange oil affecting
turbidity, average particle size, polydispersity index and density in
orange beverage emulsion. Food Hydrocolloid, 22:1212–1223.
30. Brookfield. CT3 Texture Analyzer Operating Instructions. Manual
No. M/08-371A0708, Brookfield Engineering Laboratories, Inc. USA.
31. Brookfield Texture Pro CT3 Application Software Operating Instructions
Manual No. M08-373. Brookfield Engineering Laboratories, Inc. USA.
32. Aime DB, Arntfield SD, Malcolmson LJ, Ryland D. (2001). Textural
analysis of fat reduced vanilla ice cream products. Food Res Int,
34:237–246.
33. Contreras MD, Sanchez R. (2002). Application of a factorial design
to the study of the flow behavior, spreadability and transparency of
a Carbopol ETD 2020 gel. Part II. Int J Pharm, 234:149–157.
34. Riel RR. (1960). Specifications for the spreadability of butter. J
Dairy Sci, 43:1224–1230.
35. Mahalik NP, Nambia AN. (2010). Trends in food packaging and
manufacturing systems and technology. Trends Food Sci Tech,
21:117–128.