20 ANTI-POLLUTION
New methods substantiating anti-pollution claims
n Richard Scott – Editor, Personal Care
As more and more people decide to live in cities, more consumers are subjecting their skin to high levels of pollution, which can lead to premature ageing. As awareness and interest of this issue grows, the number of ingredients aiming to protect skin from pollution has risen rapidly. Consumers are also becoming
increasingly focused on scientifically-proven efficacy, especially when the goal is to prevent heavy metals from harming one’s body, and so Personal Care spoke to Jessen Curpen of CIDP to discover more about the process of substantiating anti-pollution claims in the personal care industry. Jessen is biophysics manager and head of clinical study design at CIDP in Mauritius. CIDP (Centre International de Développement Pharmaceutique) is a private and independent CRO carrying out high performance research and clinical activities for pharmaceutical, medical device, nutrition and cosmetic industries. The company has centres across the world in Brazil, India, Mauritius, Romania and Singapore. Personal Care: Are you seeing more requests for anti-pollution claim substantiation currently? Jessen Curpen: Yes, indeed. I would say in the last three years we have received a lot
PERSONAL CARE EUROPE
of anti-pollution claim substantiation requests from big cosmetic companies but also smaller companies. It has been increasing every year. PC: What was your first approach to tackling substantiation claims in terms of formulating a test method? JC: CIDP has been really forefront in terms of establishing protocols for substantiating anti- pollution claims. The lack of standardised protocols has been one of the biggest issues here. We can do antipollution claim substantiation at CIDP India, located in Delhi, which has a very high level of pollution through outdoor studies with the subject just being outside to approach the three big claims: as a block to prevent the pollutants coming into contact with the skin; secondly acting like a cleanser, removing the pollutant before it can cause any damage on the skin; and thirdly to have some antioxidant activity which will act in case of oxidative stress. These three types of protocols can be done outdoors, and most of the CROs will be doing this.
The first two that I mentioned, which
relates to the block effect and the cleansing effect, will mainly deal with a quantification of pollutants, and will be done with tape- stripping to see if there are pollutants in the stratum corneum and then analysing the
tape strip to quantify the heavy metals. For protecting and repairing effect we
have protocols where we will be doing sebum swabbing and as well as tape- stripping. The sebum swabbing usually will be analysing the squalene, squalene mono hydroperoxide or MDA, Malondialdehyde, so we have two or three very good biomarkers for the effect of pollutants on the skin.
In the case of tape-stripping we will be evaluating carbonylated protein, which is another good biomarker for pollutants on the skin. PC: What are the limitations with this method? JC: The big downside of outdoor studies is that you can’t really control the atmospheric variables. It may happen that at the start of the study there is a high level of pollution, but during the study the level goes down. So this is why CIDP has set up a unique controlled pollution exposure system. This system allows us to dose a specific concentration of known pollutants on the skin. This is completely different from what other CROs are doing. Other organisations are working with cigarette smoke, or sprinkling dust or carbon particles on the skin. Of course, you can say that cigarette smoke is a pollutant, but when you are
November 2018
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
