Topic
How shampoo works
Shampoo is water plus a blend of cleansing molecules that lift oil off your scalp and hair, and the blend matters far more than any single label word.
Key takeaways
- Shampoo is mostly water plus a blend of surfactants. A surfactant molecule has a water-loving head and an oil-loving tail. The tails grab sebum and oily soil, and the heads let water carry it away.
- Almost every shampoo pairs a "primary" cleanser with one or more "secondary" surfactants. The primary (usually an anionic such as sodium laureth sulfate) does most of the cleaning at up to about 10% of the formula. The secondary (usually an amphoteric such as cocamidopropyl betaine, at about 1-5%) boosts foam and thickness and makes the blend gentler (Thompson 2023).
- Mixing surfactants makes them milder. Adding an amphoteric or non-ionic surfactant to an anionic one measurably reduces how much of the anionic gets into skin and how irritating it is (Moore 2003; Morris 2021; Lee 1994). "Contains sulfates" says little about mildness on its own.
- Lather does not equal cleaning. A review of shampoo physics states that foaming does not affect the surfactant's cleaning role (Thompson 2023). Sebum suppresses foam, which is why a second lather foams more than the first (D'Souza 2015).
- One wash removes essentially all surface oil from hair. What differs between surfactants is how much internal hair lipid they also pull out (Shaw 1979).
- "Mildness" is measured mostly on skin and in the lab, not on hair, and the tests do not always agree with each other or with real life (Goffin 1995; Chen 2026).
- A common claim is wrong: non-ionic surfactants are not the harshest oil strippers. They are generally the mildest and the weakest cleansers.
How surfactants lift soil
A surfactant ("surface-active agent") has a hydrocarbon tail that avoids water and a polar or charged head that likes it. In water, the molecules first line up at surfaces and lower surface tension. Above a threshold concentration called the critical micelle concentration they also cluster into micelles, tiny spheres or worm-like shapes with the tails inside and the heads outside.
A review from the University of Sheffield with Unilever co-authors describes three overlapping ways surfactants lift soil off hair: roll-up (oil droplets detach from the hair), emulsification (oil breaks into fine droplets) and solubilization (oil dissolves into the cores of micelles). Below the micelle threshold the first two dominate, and above it solubilization takes over (Thompson 2023).
The four surfactant classes
| Class | Typical role in shampoo | Examples | Cleaning power | Irritation potential |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anionic (negative head) | Primary cleanser and foamer | Sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate, ammonium lauryl sulfate, ammonium laureth sulfate, sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate, sodium cocoyl isethionate, sodium lauroyl methyl isethionate, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, sodium cocoyl glutamate, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, sodium cocoyl glycinate | Highest | Highest for small-headed sulfates such as SLS; much lower for isethionates and amino-acid types |
| Amphoteric (both charges) | Secondary surfactant: foam, thickening, mildness | Cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium cocoamphoacetate, sodium lauroamphoacetate | Moderate | Low; they reduce the irritation of anionics in mixtures |
| Non-ionic (no charge) | Foam booster, thickener, mild primary in gentle products | Decyl glucoside, coco-glucoside, lauryl glucoside, cocamide MEA and DEA | Lowest | Lowest, though glucosides and cocamide DEA are contact allergens |
| Cationic (positive head) | Conditioners and co-washes, not cleansing | Behentrimonium chloride, cetrimonium chloride | Poor | Disinfectant cationics such as benzalkonium chloride are known irritants (Presley 2021) |
Two classic over-simplifications are worth correcting.
- "Non-ionics strip the most." In a 1979 Unilever study of hair lipid extraction, anionic surfactants were significantly more efficient than the non-ionic Tween 20 (Shaw 1979). Reviews consistently call non-ionics the mildest and least effective cleansers (Thompson 2023; D'Souza 2015).
- "Cationics are the most irritating." The irritant cationics are disinfectants. The cationic conditioning agents in rinse-off conditioners are used differently and at different levels, so the comparison is not like for like.
Primary and secondary surfactants
A typical shampoo has 10-30 ingredients and a blend of two to four surfactants. The first surfactant listed is usually the primary cleanser. According to Thompson 2023:
- The primary is usually anionic, at up to about 10% of the formula, because a negatively charged head gives the strongest cleaning. Sulfates stay dominant because nothing else delivers the same performance as cheaply.
- The co-surfactant is usually an amphoteric such as CAPB, at about 1-5%. It forms mixed micelles with the anionic, lowers their charge density (reducing irritation), helps thicken the product and boosts foam.
- Adding ethylene-oxide units (turning lauryl sulfate into laureth sulfate) makes the anionic milder but harder to thicken.
Why blends are milder
Several mechanisms seem to contribute, and the theory has shifted over two decades.
- Micelle size. Pure SDS (the lab name for SLS) micelles are small enough to fit the pores of the skin's outer layer, and mixing in a non-ionic made bigger micelles and reduced SDS penetration in vitro (Moore 2003). Sodium cocoyl isethionate forms micelles too large for those pores, which the authors proposed explains its mildness (Ghosh 2007).
- Free surfactant and barrier damage. A study of 16 surfactant systems on human cadaver skin found penetration tracked the critical micelle concentration and zeta potential (R2 = 0.76) but not micelle diameter (R2 = 0.12) (Morris 2019). In SDS plus lauramidopropyl betaine mixtures, SDS penetration fell steadily as the betaine fraction rose (R2 = 0.95 against predicted free surfactant) (Morris 2021).
- Real-world mismatch. A 2026 study found cell assays ranked one betaine blend as milder, while 24-hour human patch tests showed the opposite (Chen 2026). Lab rankings are a guide, not a guarantee.
In human patch tests on 15 volunteers, sodium lauroyl glutamate was much less irritating than SLS, and mixing it into SLS reduced SLS irritation (Lee 1994). In 105 patients patch-tested with eight cleansing surfactants, none caused irritation at the tested dilution, and the best tolerated included sodium cocoyl glutamate (Corazza 2010).
How mildness is measured
| Test | What it measures | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Zein test | How much corn protein a surfactant solution dissolves; more predicts more irritation | Cheap screen. Magnesium salts artificially lower scores (Goffin 1995). Small, fast micelles gave higher scores and lower skin-model viability (Lechuga 2026). |
| Corneosurfametry | Staining of skin-surface strips after brief contact | Agreed with established tests and was not distorted by magnesium (Goffin 1995). |
| Patch tests and water loss | Redness and water loss after covered application | The human reference standard, but covering the skin exaggerates exposure compared with a one-minute shampoo (Chen 2026). |
| Reconstructed skin and cell assays | Cell survival, inflammatory signals | Can disagree with human results (Chen 2026). |
| Hair protein loss | Protein washed out of hair | Damage correlates with surfactant charge density (Pires-Oliveira 2014). |
Foam and lather
Foam forms when surfactant stabilizes air bubbles and collapses as liquid drains and bubble walls rupture. Foaming capability does not affect cleaning, but consumers read more lather as better performance, so foam boosters exist to satisfy that expectation (Thompson 2023; D'Souza 2015). A low-foam sulfate-free shampoo can clean adequately, and a shampoo that barely lathers on very oily hair may simply be overwhelmed by sebum.
What surfactants do to hair itself
- Surface oils come off in one wash. Differences between surfactants reflected how much internal lipid they also eluted, roughly half of the ether-extractable lipid in total (Shaw 1979).
- Hair soaked in surfactant solutions at 38 C loses proteins, cuticle fragments and pigment granules, in an amount that scales with the surfactant's charge density (in vitro) (Pires-Oliveira 2014).
- Lipid loss can be reduced by formulation. Industry work shows polymer treatments can partly prevent surfactant-driven lipid loss in vitro (Song 2019). In a Procter & Gamble-funded study, four weeks of daily washing with a mild formula did not reduce internal hair lipids (Punyani 2021).
- The hair surface's water-repellent fatty acid layer (18-MEA) is gradually lost through combined daily stress. Repeated cycles of shampooing, blow-drying and sunlight caused marked loss in a Henkel study, though it did not isolate shampoo alone (Wiesche 2011).
Conditioning inside the shampoo
Modern shampoos also deposit things. Cationic polymers form coacervates with the anionic surfactant as the shampoo is diluted during rinsing, and these carry silicones or other conditioners onto hair. This is how "2-in-1" shampoos work (Thompson 2023). Procter & Gamble has also shown, in the lab, that a gel network of fatty alcohols in a shampoo can deliver them into hair (Marsh 2017).
What it means by hair profile
| Profile | What matters most in the blend |
|---|---|
| Oily scalp, fine straight hair | Enough cleaning power to remove sebum. A sulfate or olefin sulfonate primary is reasonable; skip heavy conditioning agents. |
| Dry, curly or coily hair (3A-4C) | Gentler primaries (isethionates, amino-acid surfactants, glucosides) or lower surfactant levels. Lather is not a quality signal. |
| Sensitive or itchy scalp | Avoid high-SLS formulas; if itch persists, check for contact allergens. See itchy scalp. |
| Colour-treated, bleached, high porosity | Damaged hair loses more protein, so milder blends are logical, though hair-specific trials are scarce. |
| Heavy product, oil or silicone users | A stronger anionic cleanser now and then removes buildup that mild blends leave behind. |
Myths and facts
| Claim | Verdict |
|---|---|
| More lather means cleaner hair. | False. Foam does not affect cleaning. |
| Sulfate-free means gentle. | Oversimplified. Sulfates mixed with amphoterics are much milder than SLS alone, and some sulfate-free primaries (olefin sulfonates) are strong cleansers. |
| Non-ionic surfactants strip the most oil. | False. They are the weakest cleansers. |
| Natural surfactants clean better. | Not supported. Saponin-based natural cleansers lather but clean poorly, according to a dermatology review (D'Souza 2015). |
| Surfactants strip all your hair's lipids every wash. | Partly. Surface sebum yes; internal lipids only partly. |
Bottom line
Read the first surfactant on the ingredient list: that is the main cleanser, and the next one or two are the mildness and foam helpers. Match cleaning strength to your scalp, not your ends. If a gentle shampoo does not feel like it is cleaning, two short washes work better than one long one. If your scalp reacts to many shampoos, a contact allergen may be the cause rather than "harshness", and patch testing can find it.
Studies 19
Thompson CJ, Ainger N, Starck P, Mykhaylyk OO, Ryan AJ. Shampoo Science: A Review of the Physiochemical Processes behind the Function of a Shampoo. Macromol Chem Phys. 2023
Result: Reviews how surfactants lift soil from hair (roll-up, emulsification, solubilization), why shampoos pair a primary anionic with an amphoteric co-surfactant, and states that foaming does not affect cleaning. Two authors were from Unilever R&D.
Read the study ↗Shaw DA. Hair lipid and surfactants. Extraction of lipid by surfactants and lack of effect of shampooing on rate of re-fatting of hair. Int J Cosmet Sci. 1979
Result: Changing shampoo frequency from once to three times a week had no significant effect on how fast hair re-fatted.
Read the study ↗D'Souza P, Rathi SK. Shampoo and Conditioners: What a Dermatologist Should Know? Indian J Dermatol. 2015
Result: Dermatology review of shampoo and conditioner ingredients: foam does not equal cleaning, non-ionics are the mildest and weakest cleansers, and saponin-based natural cleansers lather but clean poorly.
Read the study ↗Moore PN, Puvvada S, Blankschtein D. Challenging the surfactant monomer skin penetration model: penetration of sodium dodecyl sulfate micelles into the epidermis. J Cosmet Sci. 2003
Result: SDS penetration into skin rose as concentration went above the critical micelle concentration, implying micelles themselves enter skin; pure SDS micelles are small enough to fit skin pores.
Read the study ↗Moore PN, Shiloach A, Puvvada S, Blankschtein D. Penetration of mixed micelles into the epidermis: effect of mixing sodium dodecyl sulfate with dodecyl hexa(ethylene oxide). J Cosmet Sci. 2003
Result: Mixing a non-ionic surfactant into SDS made larger micelles and reduced SDS penetration into skin.
Read the study ↗Ghosh S, Blankschtein D. Why is sodium cocoyl isethionate (SCI) mild to the skin barrier? An in vitro investigation based on the relative sizes of the SCI micelles and the skin aqueous pores. J Cosmet Sci. 2007
Result: Sodium cocoyl isethionate forms micelles of about 33.5 angstroms, larger than skin aqueous pores (about 29 angstroms), which the authors proposed explains its mildness.
Read the study ↗Show 13 more studies
Morris SAV et al. Mechanisms of anionic surfactant penetration into human skin: Investigating monomer, micelle and submicellar aggregate penetration theories. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2019
Tested: 16 surfactant systems
Result: Penetration tracked critical micelle concentration and zeta potential (R2 = 0.76) but not micelle diameter (R2 = 0.12); authors proposed free surfactant drives short-term penetration and barrier damage drives longer-term penetration.
Read the study ↗Morris SAV et al. Surfactant Penetration into Human Skin from Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate and Lauramidopropyl Betaine Mixtures. Langmuir. 2021
Tested: SDS mixed with lauramidopropyl betaine
Result: SDS penetration fell log-linearly as the betaine fraction rose and tracked predicted free-surfactant concentration closely (R2 = 0.95).
Read the study ↗Chen M et al. Revealing the discrepancy between in vitro and in vivo mildness of surfactant systems: mechanistic insights from physicochemical and structural analyses. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2026
Result: Cell assays ranked a betaine blend as milder, but 24-hour human patch tests showed the opposite; larger aggregates were linked to more irritation under prolonged covered contact. Authors were from a cosmetics company.
Read the study ↗Lechuga M et al. Mechanistic in vitro evaluation of surfactant-induced skin irritation: correlating micellar physicochemistry with 3D reconstructed human epidermis, zein, and ecotoxicity endpoints. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2026
Result: Small, fast-moving micelles gave higher zein protein solubilization and lower reconstructed-skin viability; non-ionics with larger, less mobile aggregates were milder.
Read the study ↗Goffin V, Paye M, PiĆ©rard GE. Comparison of in vitro predictive tests for irritation induced by anionic surfactants. Contact Dermatitis. 1995
Result: Magnesium salts artificially lower zein test scores; corneosurfametry agreed with established tests and was not distorted by magnesium.
Read the study ↗Lee CH, Kawasaki Y, Maibach HI. Effect of surfactant mixtures on irritant contact dermatitis potential in man: sodium lauroyl glutamate and sodium lauryl sulphate. Contact Dermatitis. 1994
Tested: sodium lauroyl glutamate, SLS, and mixtures
Result: Sodium lauroyl glutamate was much less irritating than SLS, and mixing it into SLS reduced SLS irritation.
Read the study ↗Corazza M et al. Irritant and sensitizing potential of eight surfactants commonly used in skin cleansers: an evaluation of 105 patients. Dermatitis. 2010
Tested: eight cleansing surfactants
Result: None caused irritation at the tested dilution; best tolerated were sodium cocoyl glutamate, sodium lauroyl oat amino acids and disodium cocoamphodiacetate.
Read the study ↗Presley CL et al. The History of Surfactants and Review of Their Allergic and Irritant Properties. Dermatitis. 2021
Result: Reviews allergic and irritant properties of surfactant classes; benzalkonium chloride (a cationic disinfectant) is a known irritant.
Read the study ↗Pires-Oliveira R, Joekes I. UV-vis spectra as an alternative to the Lowry method for quantify hair damage induced by surfactants. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014
Tested: hair soaked in surfactant solutions at 38 C
Result: Hair lost proteins, cuticle fragments and melanin granules in amounts that scaled with the surfactant's charge density.
Read the study ↗Song SH et al. Prevention of lipid loss from hair by surface and internal modification. Sci Rep. 2019
Result: Surfactant-driven lipid loss from hair depends on the lipid type and can be partly prevented by polymer treatments. Authors were from LG Household and Health Care.
Read the study ↗Wiesche ES et al. Prevention of hair surface aging. 2011
Result: Cycles of shampooing, blow-drying and sunlight stripped 18-MEA from the cuticle surface.
Read the study ↗Marsh JM et al. Gel network shampoo formulation and hair health benefits. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2017
Result: A fatty-alcohol gel network in a shampoo delivered cetyl and stearyl alcohol into hair and improved fatigue resistance in lab testing. Procter & Gamble study.
Read the study ↗Punyani S, et al. The impact of shampoo wash frequency on scalp and hair conditions. Skin Appendage Disord. 2021
Result: In a Procter & Gamble-funded survey of Chinese adults, more frequent washers had less flaking and reported less dandruff, itch and dryness, but the groups differed hugely in age; a 60-person daily-washing trial had no control arm.
Read the study ↗Related
- Shampoo types and how to chooseShampoo types are marketing labels built from the same few parts, so choose by your scalp problem first and your hair type second.
- How often to wash your hairYour scalp sets how often you need to wash and your hair lengths set how rarely you can, so the right number depends on your hair type and scalp.
- Double shampooing and wash techniqueThere is almost no trial evidence on how to shampoo, so the sensible default is one gentle wash on the scalp, with a second only after heavy buildup.
- Sodium lauryl sulfateA cheap, strong cleanser and foamer that removes oil very well but is the most irritating common shampoo surfactant, so dermatologists use it as their standard test irritant.
- Sodium laureth sulfateThe workhorse cleanser of mainstream shampoos, SLS with a short ethylene-oxide chain added, which keeps most of the cleaning and foam and is gentler, with a trace by-product called 1,4-dioxane.
- Cocamidopropyl betaineThe most common helper surfactant in shampoo, which makes sulfate cleansers gentler, thicker and foamier, and a rare cause of scalp allergy that usually comes from manufacturing impurities.