FORMULATING FOR MILDNESS 93
glucoside liquid (Figure 2B, Figure 3). These findings suggest that this ingredient helps protect against surfactant-induced skin roughness.
Mechanism underlying the protective effect As saccharides are recognized as protein stabilizers, maltooligosyl glucoside liquid is hypothesized to mitigate skin roughness by preventing surfactant-induced protein denaturation. To verify this mechanism, the Zein test, a method commonly used to estimate the irritation potential of surfactants, was performed.8 Zein protein was suspended in a 1% SLS
solution with or without maltooligosyl glucoside liquid, and dissolved. After filtration, the residual protein weight was measured to calculate Zein solubility, an indicator of protein denaturation. The addition of maltooligosyl glucoside liquid
significantly decreased Zein solubility, indicating its preventive effect against protein denaturation caused by surfactants (Figure 4). Another experiment confirmed that this
ingredient has minimal impact on the critical micelle concentration (CMC) of SLS (data not shown), suggesting that it does not interfere with the surface activity of surfactants. These results suggest that maltooligosyl glucoside liquid protects the skin primarily through interactions with proteins rather than by altering surfactant properties.
Enhancement of foam quality Foam provides a sense of thorough cleansing and is essential for a pleasant washing experience. Beyond these sensory benefits, foam also plays an important role in reducing skin damage associated with cleansing. During washing, mechanical stimuli such as friction can damage the skin, and foam acts as a physical cushion to minimize this friction. In addition, fine bubbles reduce surfactant
penetration into skin and help prevent surfactant- induced inflammation.9
Recent studies have also
shown that fine bubbles spontaneously absorb oil, thereby enhancing cleansing performance.10
Based
on this finding, improving foam fineness may enable effective cleansing with less surfactant.
Foam fineness The effect of maltooligosyl glucoside liquid on
A TEWL
120 100 80 60 40 20 0
† ** ** † **
120 100 80 60 40 20 0
1h 2h Time after patch removal Figure 2: Protective effect against surfactant-induced skin roughness8
www.personalcaremagazine.com 24h 1h Trehalose-based structural motif
Figure 1: Structural formula of maltooligosyl glucoside
foam fineness was evaluated using a dynamic foam analyser. A hand soap formulation, with or without 5% maltooligosyl glucoside liquid, was diluted twofold with water, and the foam was mechanically generated by the analyser. Images of the foam were captured immediately after its generation and again after 30 minutes, and the average bubble size was calculated. In the control hand soap, foam bubbles
increased in size after 30 minutes due to coalescence, whereas the addition of maltooligosyl glucoside liquid significantly suppressed this increase (Figure 5, 6). This indicates that the oligosaccharide helps maintain foam fineness, contributing to reduced surfactant- induced skin damage.
Foam texture Foam texture was assessed using the Hart- deGeorge blender method.8, 11
was diluted tenfold with water, and agitated in a blender to generate foam. The foam was poured into a funnel placed on a mesh sieve, and the drain time, the time required for the foam level to reach the mesh, was measured as an indicator of foam viscosity. The drain time of the formulation containing
maltooligosyl glucoside liquid was significantly longer than that of the control, indicating increased foam viscosity (Figure 7). Furthermore, the formulation containing maltooligosyl glucoside liquid exhibited a more distinct foam peak compared to the control, visually supporting its effect on viscosity (Figure 8). Since higher foam viscosity corresponds
A skin cleanser
with or without 5% maltooligosyl glucoside liquid B
a* value *
to reduced shape deformation under shear stress during application, this oligosaccharide is expected to contribute to bouncier foam, providing a cushioning effect and pleasant texture. Collectively, these findings highlight the potential of maltooligosyl glucoside liquid to
2% SLS ■
2% SLS + 2% maltooligosyl glucoside liquid ■ 2% SLS + 5% maltooligosyl glucoside liquid ■
†
2h Time after patch removal † p<0.1, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01 vs. 2% SLS in Dunnett’s test April 2026 PERSONAL CARE MAGAZINE
24h
Percentage change in TEWL (%) vs. before patch application
Percentage change in a* value (%) vs. before patch
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
