ANTI-POLLUTION 47 a Adhesion
500 400 300 200 100 0
-100
applied to individual wells of the donor plate and left to dry. The donor plates were then placed onto the acceptor plates containing the acceptor medium. The model pollutant, a fluorescein-based fluorescent dye, was applied to the donor chambers. After an incubation time of ten minutes, the penetration of the fluorescent dye into the acceptor plate was measured via spectrometric analyses. The concentrations of the dye found in the acceptor medium were compared to those of the untreated control which served as reference for 100 percent penetration. The choice of polymers proved to play a
key role in terms of anti-penetration effect. Penetration levels varied significantly between the different products, with values ranging from 1 to 96 percent. The most efficacious polymers in this test were Cosmedia®
Triple C, Cosmedia® Rheocare XGN, and Tinovis® without SPF b Rinse-off
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
-10 -20
with SPF In addition, eleven emollients were also
tested. All of them exhibited excellent anti- penetration effects. Nine even showed penetration values of 2 percent or less (data not shown). In addition to being tested undiluted, they were also analysed in various low lipid formulations to observe the interactions with different fatty alcohols. Depending on the formulation composition, Cetiol LC, CC, RLF, C5 and Cegesoft®
PS 6
exhibited the best performance, still achieving penetration levels of between 5 and 8 percent (data not shown). Based on the test results obtained, the
without SPF with SPF
Figure 3: Adhesion (A) and removability performance (B) of the formulations SC-DE-17-017-48, SC-DE- 18-117-2 and SC-DE-17-017-54 compared to benchmark products, relative to untreated skin (baseline = 0); charcoal average diameters of 80 µm.
components. Yet, it cannot be entirely prevented – making it even more important to reduce the penetration of harmful substances possibly adhering to the PMs into deeper layers of the skin. In a second approach, an in vitro permeability model simulating the penetration of pollutants through the skin was developed to test and identify ingredients that help form a protective layer. A test set-up similar to previously
November 2020 described methods (e.g. Skin PAMPA)9 was
used. The plates have a history of use in skin penetration studies and the set-up is based on a similar principle as that of Franz- cell studies. They consist of a donor chamber (for product application), an artificial membrane (mimics the stratum corneum) and a receptor chamber (represents the viable skin). In this experimental set-up, the test product was
Shielding Skin Cream SC-DE-19-087-1110 was developed. Compared with a benchmark product, the formulation showed a significantly better protective effect as evidenced by the lower degree of penetration. While 50 percent of the model pollutant permeated the membrane that was treated with the benchmark product, formulation SC-DE-19-087-11 allowed only 15 percent of model pollutant to penetrate (Fig 6). At the same time, it was also superior in terms of sensory properties, as proven by a pairwise comparison with the benchmark product. The test formulation showed to provide a light, luxurious texture and a particularly smooth, silky sensory experience. To complement the protective shield against urban influences, the formulation was further boosted with the active ingredient Dulcemin™ PW BIO LS 9903 that offers protection against both external and internal stresses.
Cleansing: actively removing pollutant particles During the course of the day and depending on the exposure to the pollutants, full protection cannot necessarily be ensured. Therefore, thorough removal of the remaining particles of the pollutant from the skin is important. A third test set-up
PERSONAL CARE EUROPE
Ultragel 300, GTC UP (Fig 5).
Rinse-off adhered pollutant [%] better
worse
Pollutant adhesion rel. to untreated skin [%] worse
better
SC-DE-17-017-48
SC-DE-17-017-48
SC-DE-18-117-2
SC-DE-18-117-2
Benchmark 1
Benchmark 1
Benchmark 2
Benchmark 2
SC-DE-17-017-54
SC-DE-17-017-54
Benchmark 3
Benchmark 3
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
