the influence of hmw cosmetic ingredients on the skin parameters n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The influence of HMW cosmetic ingredients on the skin parameters PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The influence of HMW cosmetic ingredients on the skin parameters

The influence of HMW cosmetic ingredients on the skin parameters

127 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

The influence of HMW cosmetic ingredients on the skin parameters

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The influence of HMW cosmeticingredientson theskin parameters Katarzyna Pytkowska MD Eng. Maria Statkiewicz BSc. Jacek ArctPhD. Eng. Academy of Cosmetics and Health Care, Warsaw, Poland

  2. Hyaluronicacid and chitosan • Hyaluronicacid and chitosanarethe most popular cosmetichydrophilicHMW ingredients of moisturizing and film-forming activity. • Hygroscopicity • Chelatingproperties • Hyaluronicacidiswidelyusedinpharmacetical industry (in wounddressingsamongothers) and aestheticmedicine (filler). • Hyaluronicacidhydrolysis/degradation products possessbiologicalactivity • Chitosanisalsousedinwoundhealing, intextile industry, as chelating agent etc.

  3. Materials and methods • We investigated the influence of low concentrations of chitosanglycolate (CG) and hyaluronic acid (HA) after topical applicationfrom: • Hydrogelscontaining 0,2-0,6 % w/w of thepolymer • Oil-in-wateremulsionscontaining 0,2-0,6 % w/w of thepolymer • on the: • Skin barrierproperties (TEWL measurementin controlled temperature and humidity conditions) • Skin hydration (corneometricmeasurementincontrolled temperature and humidity conditions) • Basic skin sensory parameters

  4. Materials and methods • Sensory evaluation was performed on the group of 10 trained panelists with dry or normal skin in controlled temperature and humidity conditions. • The evaluation consisted of the assessment of • the general and visual criteria (consistency, adhesion), • feelings during the application (spreadability) • afterfeel (tackiness, skin smoothness) • Thefive-point sensory scale was applied (from 1 - “the worst” to 5 - “the best”).

  5. Hydrogelformulations

  6. Emulsionformulations

  7. Skin barrier influence assessment

  8. untreated skin untreated skin placebo hydrogels placebo hydrogels HA hydrogel HA hydrogel CG hydrogel CG hydrogel

  9. untreated skin placebo hydrogels HA hydrogel CG hydrogel

  10. untreated skin untreated skin Placebo emulsions placebo emulsions HA o/w emulsion HA o/w emulsion CG o/w emulsion CG o/w emulsion

  11. untreated skin placebo emulsions HA o/w emulsion CG o/w emulsion

  12. Skin barrier assessment • Investigated HMW polymersstronger influence TEWL reduction by hydrogelsthan by emulsions, • In morecomplex systems thepolymer influence could be masked by otheringredients (emollients?) • In hydrogels: thehigherconcentration of polymer , thestronger TEWL reduction, • But: we investigated TEWL on the group of panelists of damaged/impairepidermalbarrier (↑TEWL), investigations on the group of normalbarrierpropertiesshould be conductedinthefuture.

  13. Corneometricassessment

  14. Corneometricevaluation placebo hydrogels CG and HA hydrogels Dn

  15. Corneometric evaluation results • Strong film-forming properties of CG and HA causecorneometrycompletelyuselessmethod for skin hydrationevaluation of hydrogels and oil-in-wateremulsionscontaining ≥0,2% of thepolymer • As TEWL is not goodindicator of hydration, the sensory subjectiveassessmentremains a way for thatkind of evaluation

  16. Sensory evaluation • Becausehydrogelswereperceived by panelistsduring TEWL and hydrationassessmentas „too film-forming” and „unpleasant”, we havecheckedonly sensory parameters of polymer-containingemulsions.

  17. Sensory evaluation results for o/w emulsions containing from 0,2 to 0,6% of hyaluronic acid

  18. Sensory evaluation results for o/w emulsions containing from 0,2 to 0,6% of chitosan

  19. Sensory evaluationresults • For CG-containing emulsions a dependence of polymer concentration on received scoring is strong, • Preparation of 0.6 % CG concentration is standing out high tackiness, so this parameter was assessed to the only 1 point • Emulsions containing hyaluronic acid are less sensory-dependent on thepolymerconcentration. • Only high concentration of the HA influences on the tackiness of cosmetic. • HA-containingemulsionswerebetteracceptedthanCG-containingemulsions. • As sensory parametersarestronglyformulation-dependent, resultsof ourexperiments cannot be treated as the general rule withoutfurtherresearch

  20. Thankyou for yourattention