46 NATURALS
to its high nutritional profile, rich in vitamins, mineral salts, unsaturated fatty acids. The oil is obtained from the fruit by cold pressing. The restitutive properties, the capability to reduce TEWL and recover the hydrolipidic skin balance make it a valuable ingredient in the cosmetic field. Thanks to its unique composition, the natural detergent system creates a synergic harmony between functional elements, such as emolliency, detergency and cosmetic efficacy. Through an innovative production process, the natural detergent system shows uncommon characteristics which create transparent formulations without the use of solubilisers (PEG, PPG, Polisorbates).
Composition The natural detergent system (see Table 1) consists of a surfactant fraction from rice proteins and coconut oil and a valuable vegetal oil (avocado). Rice is one of the few plant sources of proteins that can actually be claimed gluten-free. In addition, rice proteins are known for their characteristics of mildness, this is why they are often included in formulations for sensitive individuals. Avocado oil, as well as rice and coconut, have a long history of use both in cosmetic and food, that is also why they are all considered safe nutritional ingredients in consumers’ minds. The natural detergent system is easily soluble in water or whatever detergent formulation, bringing its oil fraction, based on avocado oil, with a limpid and homogeneous appearance (Fig 1). This performance gives
Table 3: Formulation at 2% and 5% Avogelia® n Avogelia®
12,0 10,0 8,0 6,0 4,0 2,0 0,0
05’ 10’ Time (min) Figure 2: Foaming power of Avogelia® DS vs SLES at 5% in watery solution.
the finished formulation esthetical benefits, which recall the mildness and dermocompatibility features demonstrated by in vivo test.
The natural detergent system makes a smooth and creamy foam (Fig 2) with an emollient touch fully respecting the skin, making it suitable for use in delicate cleansing formulations.
Efficacy
Short term study A specific efficacy study was carried out on 10 healthy subjects aged between 18 and 65
DS and Placebo formulation. Placebo AB
Phase A B Acqua Glycerin Sodium Laureth Sulfate C
Aqua, Sodium Cocoyl Amino Acids, Glycerin, Persea Gratissima Oil
D Preservatives E F
Sodium Chloride Citric Acid
INCI Common name
Deminaralized water Glycerin SLES
Cocamidopropyl Betaine CAPB Avogelia® DS
Preservatives Salt
Citric acid % %% qb
29.87 6.67
qb qb
1 11 27.72 6.67
- 25
1.5 qb
1 11 1.5 qb
Preparation method Prepare phase A. Prepare phase B. Add phase B to the phase A under low agitation. Add phases C, D, E, F under low agitation. Adjust pH
pH
Viscosity in mPa*s (Viscolead One, Fungilab S.A. R3, 50 rpm, 25°C)
PERSONAL CARE EUROPE 967.1 5.0 – 6.0 1175.3 1523.3
24.49 6.67
years old, in order to determine and compare the cleansing effect and moisturising and protective power of the natural detergent system. The test was performed using the natural detergent system at 2 and 5% in a basic simple cleansing formulation based on SLES (Table 3) and towards placebo. The evaluation of the product efficacy was carried out by non-invasive bioengineering techniques able to quantify skin moisturising, TEWL and skin sebum content. The instrumental evaluations were integrated with the analysis of product cleansing effect.
Cleansing power Product cleansing efficacy was evaluated on the volar surface of the forearms: three skin sites are dirtied with carbon black and then cleansed with the tested products. The evaluation of product cleansing efficacy was carried out by visual analysis of carbon black particles that were deposited on the skin and that had not been removed by the product. Pictures were acquired by Visioscan®
VC 98 (Courage + Khazaka
GmbH) (Fig 3A-3B). The formulations containing the raw material showed comparable results with the placebo formulation containing a higher SLES percentage (Fig 3A-3B).
1.5 qb
Fast moisturising power
The quantification of the moisturising and protecting efficiency of the formulations containing the natural detergent system and the placebo was evaluated by simultaneously monitoring skin moisturisation and TEWL. The samples were applied by the experimenter in three specific areas of the face with a similar moisturisation index. The moisturising difference was
June 2019 15’ 30’ DS n SLES
Foam height (cm)
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
