SOAP PRODUCTION PROCESS
I will now present the soap production process used in our study.
First, we begin by preparing all the necessary ingredients. These include
Kirby cucumber, native or Roma tomato, and sinta papaya.
Next, we thoroughly wash and peel the fruits to ensure that any dirt or
contaminants are completely removed. For the papaya, we also make sure
to remove the seeds.
After preparing the fruits, we then extract the juice from each one
separately. This is done using a blender followed by straining to achieve a
smooth extract, free from pulp or solid residues.
Once all fruit extracts are ready, we proceed with the formulation of the
different soap variants.
Soap A, in a 1-kilogram soap formulation we incorporate 15% cucumber
extract which is 150 g, 10% tomato extract 100g, and 10% papaya extract
100g.
We measure 60% of glycerin soap base, which is 600 grams, and cut it into
small pieces.
Using a double boiler on low heat, we melt the glycerin soap base until it is
fully liquefied.
Then, we add the prepared fruit extracts—cucumber, tomato, and papaya—
into the melted soap base. We mix it well and let it simmer for 5 minutes.
To enhance the soap, we add 3% sweet orange oil for fragrance and 2%
vitamin E oil for additional skin benefits. We stir this mixture continuously to
ensure all ingredients are properly combined.
After 3 minutes of mixing, we pour the mixture into soap molds and allow it
to set and solidify for 24 hours.
Soap B and C follow the same steps as Soap A, but with a different
formulation.
For soap B, we incorporate 10% 100g cucumber extract, 15% 150g tomato
extract, and again 10% 100g papaya extract.
For Soap C, we incorporate 10% 100g cucumber extract, 10% 100 g tomato
extract, and 15% 150 g papaya extract.
DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE
We employed purposive random sampling to select 30 participants—15
males and 15 females—aged 18 to 25 years from Bohol Island State
University. Each participant had either dry, oily, or combination skin types.
They were screened for allergies and asked about their soap preferences
and skin type.
The study involved testing three soap samples labeled A, B, and C. Each
participant first used Soap A for one week and then evaluated it based on
fragrance, texture, lather, cleansing ability, and moisturizing effect. The
same process was followed for Soaps B and C over the following two weeks.
After three weeks of testing, we collected all feedback, tallied the results,
and conducted an analysis to interpret the effectiveness of each soap
sample.
TABLE 2.5
Table 2.5 presents the students’ evaluation of the acceptability of Soaps A,
B, and C in terms of moisturizing effect. Specifically, regarding skin
smoothness, Soaps A and B had nearly identical mean ratings of 6.900 and
6.867, respectively, while Soap C received a slightly higher mean rating of
7.100. All three soaps were rated as “Moderately Acceptable.”
In terms of moisturizing effect after application, both Soaps A and C
received a mean rating of 7.067, while Soap B had a slightly lower rating of
6.900. These scores also fall within the “Moderately Acceptable” level.
For criteria such as skin texture improvement, elasticity, and the lightweight
feeling after application, Soaps A, B, and C had mean ratings ranging from
6.567 to 7.200, all of which are also classified as “Moderately Acceptable.”
This suggests that the three formulations performed satisfactorily, likely due
to their specific active ingredients.
Overall, Soap C consistently received the highest mean ratings across all
moisturizing-related criteria compared to Soaps A and B.
TABLE 3
As seen in the table, Soap A received a mean rating of 6.53, Soap B
received 6.74, and Soap C received the highest mean rating of 6.95. Among
the three, Soap C was the most acceptable based on these ratings.
To determine if the differences in these ratings were statistically significant,
we used Friedman’s Test, which is appropriate for comparing more than two
related groups. The test yielded a p-value of 0.048 with 2 degrees of
freedom, indicating a statistically significant difference at alpha = 0.05.
Because of this significant result, we proceeded with Dunn’s Post-Hoc Test to
identify where the differences lie between the soap types. The following
pairwise comparisons were made:
Soap A vs. Soap B: p-value = 0.120 — not significant
Soap A vs. Soap C: p-value = 0.032 — significant at α = 0.05
Soap B vs. Soap C: p-value = 0.300 — not significant
This tells us that Soap C was significantly more acceptable than Soap A,
while the differences between the other pairs were not statistically
significant.
Conclusion
Based on the following findings presented, the researchers conclude that
there is a significant difference in overall acceptability level among the
three types of soap. Thus, the null hypothesis has been rejected. Soap C,
which contains a higher concentration of papaya extract, is the most
acceptable formulation among the three. The results indicate that the
presence of papaya extract significantly enhances the soap’s fragrance,
texture, lathering ability, cleansing performance, and moisturizing effect.
Recommendations
In light of the abovementioned findings and conclusions of the study, it
is suggested that the following recommendations be taken into
consideration:
1. Future researchers may consider varying the concentration of each
fruit extract to determine the most effective combination for enhancing
the soap’s fragrance, texture, and overall quality. Additionally, they
may explore the incorporation of safe substances that can improve the
soap’s lathering ability.
2. Further studies may also be conducted using other organic ingredients,
including a variety of fruits and vegetables, to explore their potential
as alternative components for skincare products.
