SKIN CARE 59 Table 2 VW W M FC C VC S


T0 D0


T 3h E 3h R 3h P1 3h P2 3h P3 3h P4 3h D 3h ED 3h RD 3h P1D 3h P2D 3h P3D 3h P4D 3h


VW: very weak W: weak M: moderate FC: fairly clear C: clear VC: very clear S: strong


Table 2: Expression of Filaggrin at T0 an T3 hours in Non-Delipidised and Delipidised Skin (D = Delipidised; E = Vehicle; R = EPO 2%; P1 = 2% Buhle Manketti Seed Oil; P2 = 5% Buhle Manketti Seed Oil; P3 = 2% Elula KMSo; P4 = 5% Elula KMSO).


samples were dehydrated and impregnated in paraffin using a Leica PEARL dehydration automat.


Samples were embedded using a Leica EG 1160 embedding station and 5-μm-thick sections made using a Leica RM 2125 Minot- type microtome. Sections were mounted on Superfrost®


histological glass slides. The


general morphology study of epidermal structure, with a focus on the stratum corneum and dermal structures was performed on slides stained according to Masson’s Trichome staining method.18


Microscopy observations of


staining were performed using a Leica DMLB or Olympus BX43 microscope and images digitised using a numeric DP72 Olympus camera with CellD storing software.


Cellular viability


The cellular viability of the epidermal and dermal structures in all treated samples was assessed by microscopical observation of paraffin sections after Masson’s trichrome staining and stratum corneum morphology (thickness and lamination) specifically evaluated.


Filaggrin immunostaining


Filaggrin immunostaining was carried out with an anti-filaggrin monoclonal antibody, and performed using an automated slide- processing system (Dako, AutostainerPlus) then assessed by microscopic observations.


April 2019


T J1 E J1 R J1 P1 J1 P2 J1 P3 J1 P4 J1 D J1 ED J1 RD J1 P1D J1 P2D J1 P3D J1 P4D J1


Table 3 VW W M FC C VC S


VW: very weak W: weak M: moderate FC: fairly clear C: clear VC: very clear S: strong


Table 3: Expression of Filaggrin at T24 hours in Non-Delipidised Skin and Delipidised Skin (D = Delipidised; E = Vehicle; R = EPO 2%; P1 = 2% Buhle Manketti Seed Oil; P2 = 5% Buhle Manketti Seed Oil; P3 = 2% Elula KMSO; P4 = 5% Elula KMSO).


* Vehicle control (Aqua, Glyceryl Stearate, Glyceryl Stearate Citrate)


Skin barrier recovery


Results showed that delipidation induced no modification of cell viability in the epidermis or dermis. A slight decrease in the stratum corneum (SC) lamination i.e. more compaction was observed which is to be expected from such treatment. None of the oil treated samples or vehicle control treated sample, exhibited any changes in cell viability. Effects on filaggrin expression in both non- delipidised and delipidised skin samples at T0 and T3 hours are shown in Table 2, and at 24 hours in Table 3. At T0 (immediate effect) all test samples induced a slight increase in filaggrin expression over the vehicle control (E), with Elula KMSO (P3 & P4) being more effective at both 2% and 5% applications. At 3 hours, the effect of EPO (R) increased filaggrin expression, which was also observed at 24 hours, thus a slight improvement in of the skin barrier. The control vehicle (E) slightly reduced filaggrin expression after 3 hours, which did not change at 24 hours. No modification of the skin barrier was observed. 2% BMSO (P1) slightly increased filaggrin


expression after 3 hours and 24 hours treatment meaning a slight improvement of the skin barrier. At 5% (P2), the effect on filaggrin was increased further with a


concomitant improvement of skin barrier especially at 24 hours.


2% Elula KMSO (P3) moderately increased the filaggrin expression 3 hours post- treatment with a further improvement clearly observed at 24 hours. A clear improvement in the skin barrier could be seen. At 5%, Elula KMSO (P4) T moderately increased filaggrin expression 3 hours post-treatment yet was slightly decreased at 24 hours meaning a moderate and transient improvement of the skin barrier.


Following impairment of the skin barrier by de-lipidisation, EPO was effective in its repair; however, a better effect was observed with Buhle Manketti Seed Oil at both 3 and 24 hours (2%), whereas 5% BMSO required 24 hours to exhibit all improvements. In comparison, Elula KMSO showed a marked improvement in the barrier at 2% which was fairly clear at 5% (Fig 2).


Concluding remarks and future perspectives With an ever growing industry trend toward natural cosmetics, the formulator’s armoury of naturally sourced oils requires constant replenishing for ever-improved product effectiveness and fresh marketing consumer messages. We believe these initial observations to be the first piece of concrete evidence for KMSO skin barrier benefits.


PERSONAL CARE EUROPE


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  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188