search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
32 SKIN CARE A


Skin permeability is reduced, limiting negative effects of pollution on skin


With pollution


500% 400% 300% 200% 100% 0%


-45% *


Non-exposed untreated


B


Stratum corneum Epidermis


Dermis Placebo


Without Pollution Untreated


Blend 0.1% * p-value < 0.05 With Pollution Placebo Blend 0.1%


red colour in the epidermis= skin permeability


Degradation of skin barrier function


minor red colour in the epidermis= low skin permeability


Protection of skin barrier function


3000% 2500% 2000% 1500% 1000% 500% 0%


Collagen remains protected against pollution, maintaining its integrity as before exposure


With pollution -102% **


Non-exposed untreated


Placebo Blend 0.1% ** p-value < 0.01


400% 300% 200% 100% 0%


Skin is protected from oxidation due to pollution, maintaining its integrity close to before exposure


With pollution


-91% **


Non-exposed untreated


Placebo


Blend 0.1% ** p-value < 0.01


Epidermis Dermis


red spots = CHP


Collagen degradation induced by pollution


minor red spots = low CHP Collagen is protected from


pollutants, similar to its state before pollution


Epidermis Dermis


green spots colour = ROS Increase of skin oxidation


minor green spots = low ROS The skin is protected from


oxidation, close to its state before pollution


Figure 7: A: Bar graphs depict skin permeability, collagen damage and ROS level in response to pollution determined by respective stainings. B: Micrographs of ingredient and urban dust treated skin explants stained with respective dyes for image analysis of skin permeability, collagen damage and ROS protection


COX-2 and PGE2, and reduce filaggrin expression, culminating in barrier dysfunction.9 Reviews of skin inflammaging similarly describe a close relationship between environmental stress, declining barrier performance, and chronic low-level inflammation.4,10,11


by urban dust after 45 minutes, for three days. Semi-quantitative evaluation of skin permeability was performed by Rhodamine B (fluorescent dye) infiltration method. Collagen damage was visualized using a


The ‘exposome’ thus contributes


to sensitive-skin persistence through repeated oxidative and inflammatory triggers, while ageing skin exhibits barrier and microenvironment shifts that heighten susceptibility to daily insults and slow recovery, reinforcing a vulnerability loop. Within this context, our ex vivo data demonstrate that the blend, even at low use levels, can reduce oxidative stress, enhance resistance to pollution- driven permeability changes, and protect collagen integrity under daylight UV and urban-dust challenge conditions (Figure 7). Notably, following UV daylight and pollution


exposure, 0.1% of the blend reduced collagen damage as assessed by collagen hybridizing peptide (CHP) detection (Figures 7 and 8) and Rhodamine B (fluorescent dye) infiltration (Figure 7). Figure 7 shows skin explants treated daily with 0.1% of the ingredient or placebo followed


PERSONAL CARE MAGAZINE May 2026


fluorescently labelled Collagen Hybridizing Peptide (CHP) and ROS level were determined using HDCF. Images were analysed using Fiji software (fluorescence intensity and distribution). The placebo was 90% water and 10% DMSO. It was demonstrated that 0.1% safeguards skin


barrier and collagen structure against pollution stress possibly via ROS protection — helping preserve skin architecture and support long-term resilience and skin’s natural external shield. Figure 8 shows an ex vivo study in which skin was repetitively irradiated with UV daylight over three days. After each treatment, the blend was topically applied to the respective samples. After further three days, samples were harvested and processed for damaged collagen staining using CHP. Images were analyzed using Fiji software (fluorescence intensity and distribution). Placebo: 90% water and 10% DMSO. These results not only highlight the blend’s


anti-irritation potential but also supports its role in ‘skin longevity’ by reducing stress-linked matrix damage. Collectively, these findings emphasize that an ingredient capable of soothing irritated skin can also help mitigate the impact of environmental insults that perpetuate sensitivity, bridging acute comfort with long-term prevention.


From pathway modulation to visible skin benefit For all the value of mechanistic data, a soothing ingredient ultimately has to perform on skin. Our in vivo studies provide that translational layer. In an SDS-induced irritation model, a formulation containing 0.05% of the blend reduced visible redness by 49% within two days and returned skin to baseline within five days, outperforming the individual components alone (Figure 9). This is particularly meaningful because it indicates synergy rather than simple addition of benefits. Figure 9 Study A shows a test performed on 20 panelists subjected to redness induced by SDS treatment. Application on forearms: four to six hours after SDS treatment, then for seven days, twice daily. Evaluation before SDS treatment, four to six


www.personalcaremagazine.com


Rhodamine B infiltration (Relative % to non-exposed untreated)


CHP content (Relative % to non-exposed untreated)


ROS production (Relative % to non-exposed untreated)


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