ANTI-AGEING
for 56 days, either with 2% active ingredient or placebo. Instrumental measurements of various properties were made at days 0 and 56.
The biomechanical skin properties of firmness and elasticity were both measured with a cutometer. Their value represents the force necessary to elevate the skin and the ability of the skin to return to its original position respectively (Figure 5). Representative images obtained by the Primos system were taken to show that the active ingredient reduces skin roughness and wrinkles (Figure 6). Similarly, images obtained by instrumental
measurements of the collagen quality, with a confocal microscope showed that the active improves collagen perimeter and directionality (Figure 7). This reflects a structural rearrangement of the collagen fibre network by newly formed collagen fibres and an increase in collagen network quality. Trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL) was
measured using a tewameter. The results showed that the active ingredient reduces TEWL (Figure 8) In a second in vivo test, we directly
compared the skin hydration efficacy of the acacia-derived collagen alternative with animal-derived collagen. 20 women with dry skin applied a test cream with 1% active ingredient to one forearm and a second test cream containing 1% animal collagen to the other forearm. Skin hydration was measured with a corneometer. After seven and 14 days, the treatment with both products equally increased skin hydration. (Figure 9). The studies confirmed that the plant-
derived collagen alternative is a functional equivalent to animal-derived collagen in cosmetics with a broad spectrum of cosmetic activities. It enhances the biomechanical properties of skin, improves skin topography, remodels and improves collagen network quality, and enhances skin barrier function and moisturisation.
Conclusion PhytoCollagen represents a functional equivalent to animal-derived collagen in cosmetics with a broad spectrum of cosmetic activities. It also picks up current trends of more
D Untreated ■ 1% PhytoCollagen ■ 1% animal collagen ■ 60 * 40 +15% +35% 20 20 +33% * * 40 * * +41% * 60 A
30 20 10 0
-10 Placebo PhytoCollagen 2% * +14% * +14%
30 20 10 0
-10 Placebo PhytoCollagen
Figure 5: Analysis of biomechanical skin properties N = 20, Mean + SEM. Student’s t-test vs. baseline and between treatments; * = p < 0.05.
B
15 10 5 0
-5 Placebo PhytoCollagen 2% * +8% * +7% *
40 20 0
+9% * * +33% 0 +500 D0 D56 2% * +14% * +13%
0.3 0.2 0.1 0
85
Skin elevation phases (=Firmness) Skin relaxation (=Elasticity)
0 10 20 Time (s) 30 40
-500 Placebo PhytoCollagen
Figure 6: Analysis of skin topography N = 20, Mean + SEM. Student’s t-test vs. baseline and between treatments; * = p < 0.05.
C
20 15 10 5 0
D0 * +7% * +9% Placebo PhytoCollagen 2%
80 40 0
* * +22% +46% Placebo PhytoCollagen 2% D56 2% Crow’s feet Vol #7 Less wrinkles
Diffuse collagen network
Figure 7: Analysis of collagen quality N = 20; Mean + SEM. Student’s t-test vs. baseline and between treatments; * = p < 0.05.
sustainable, vegan, cruelty-free cosmetics and perfectly matches consumer expectations. Therefore, it is the ideal replacement for animal-derived collagen in collagen-based cosmetic concepts.
3. Alves et al. Cosmetic potential of marine fish skin collagen. Cosmetics. 2017. 4, 39
PC
References 1. Matthewet al. Collagen structure & stability. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2009. 178, 929–58
2. Rodríguez et al. Collagen: A review on its sources & potential cosmetic applications. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2017. 17, 20–26
4. Peng et al. Non–animal collagens as new options for cosmetic formulation. Int. J. Cos. Sci. 2015. 37, 636–641
5. Li et al. Comparative study of the physiological properties of collagen, gelatin and collagen hydrolysate as cosmetic materials. Int. J. Cos. Sci. 2015. 27, 101–106
6. Patel et al. Applications of natural polymer gum Arabic: A review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2015. 18, 986–998
Structural rearrangement
0 Placebo PhytoCollagen 2% 7 days
Figure 8: Analysis of skin barrier function N = 20; Mean + SEM. Student’s t-test vs. baseline and between
treatments; * = p < 0.05. 14 days
Figure 9: Comparison of skin hydration using animal-derived & acacia-derived collagen Note: N = 20; Mean + SEM. Student’s t-test vs. untreated; * = p < 0.05
www.personalcaremagazine.com April 2022 PERSONAL CARE
0
TEWL Improvement (%)
Skin Hydration (%)
Collagen Perimeter (%)
Redduction of Roughness
Increase in Elasticity (%)
Collagen Directionality (%)
Reduction in Wrinkles (%)
Increase in Firmness (%)
Height (µm) Elevation (mm)
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
