BASF announced new volatility insights for its Emollient Maestro formulation tool in an 8 October 2026 release ahead of the SEPAWA Congress, scheduled for 14–16 October in Berlin. The company says the update helps customers explore volatile, natural-based alternatives to silicones and other light emollients.
The announcement is relevant to skincare teams considering a change in emollient blends. It describes a digital development capability, rather than a tested substitute for every finished formula. Our buyer interpretation is that the new information can help build a shortlist; approval should follow comparison in the actual product.
Start with the approved reference formula and its intended use. Ask the formulator which aspects of the current emollient blend need to be retained: spreading, dry-down, residual feel, appearance or compatibility with the rest of the system. A request for a “natural alternative” is clearer when it also defines the product experience that matters.
Record the reason for the proposed change. It may be a brand positioning decision, an ingredient sourcing preference or a specific development target. Avoid treating those different objectives as interchangeable. They can lead to different candidate blends and different evidence requests.
For each shortlisted option, request the ingredient identities, blend proportions and an explanation of the available volatility data. Ask whether the information comes from a calculation, a measurement or a combination of the two, and which conditions and limitations apply.
Our suggested comparison is to evaluate the reference and candidate in the same product format, using agreed application amounts and observation times. Record early spreading and the later finish separately. Ask the technical team which additional measurements would help interpret differences. A result for an emollient blend is useful evidence, but it does not establish the behaviour of a complete cream, serum or lotion.
Keep a clear formula version for each trial. Record any accompanying changes to emulsifiers, fragrance or other components, so that an apparent improvement can be traced to the correct sample. Changing several variables at once can make a buyer's comparison difficult to interpret.
Ask the responsible technical team to agree on appropriate stability and packaging compatibility checks for the shortlisted finished formula. The sample reviewed by purchasing, the sample used for technical evaluation and the version proposed for production should be identifiable. Sensory preference alone cannot establish moisturising, barrier or other efficacy claims.
BASF's description of natural-based alternatives is a supplier statement about development options. For a commercial project, ask what documentation supports the chosen ingredient description and what the proposed finished-product wording means. A change in one blend does not establish the origin or composition of every ingredient in the formula.
If a brand plans to use a silicone-free or environmental claim, provide the exact wording to the team responsible for reviewing the full formula and supporting documents. Agree on the evidence required before approving artwork. This article does not establish certification, environmental superiority or market-specific compliance.
Prepare a short comparison brief with the reference formula, target experience, candidate blend, formula version, evaluation conditions and open questions. Ask suppliers to confirm ingredient availability and commercial terms for that particular project. The release does not establish that Lanthome offers the BASF tool or any named component.
Explore the Lanthome Skincare product range and share your development brief with the target market, product format and desired finish. Clear reference samples and priorities make the next discussion more useful.
BASF: SEPAWA 2026 personal care announcement, published 8 October 2026; reviewed 13 October 2026. The congress dates are upcoming at the time of writing.
