391 The Human Stratum Corneum
Polymers, because of their interaction with surfactants, can also modulate the surfactant
monomer activity and, in the process, can enhance the mildness of surfactant systems.59
Hydrophobically modified polymers have been shown to be even more effective in
modulating the monomer activity than the unmodified ones.60 Another area of application
of hydrophobically modified polymers is in emulsification.61–64 Their superior emulsification
and stabilization properties have made them the preferred materials for formulators.
MOISTURIZING AND SKIN BENEFIT INGREDIENTS
Leave-on skincare products are generally multiphase systems containing emulsions or
dispersions for such varied functional benefits as moisturization, sun protection, and other
advanced care benefits as antiaging, acne or dandruff treatment.65–68 Typical moisturization
ingredients include occlusives, humectants, and emollients.66–67,70 Commonly used
advanced skin benefit ingredients include AHAs (alpha hydroxy acids), BHAs (beta hydroxy
acids), retinol family of actives (vitamin A family), Niacinamide (Vitamin B group) and
antioxidants like Vitamin C (e.g. ascorbic acid) and Vitamin E.68 In addition to the active
ingredients, they may also contain polymers, emulsifiers, penetration enhancers, fragrances,
and preservatives. Volatile silicones and silicone elastomers are also often found in skincare
products specifically for their ability to spread on the skin surface and provide consumer
desired skin feel.69,70 As discussed earlier, polymers themselves are not of any safety concern
from a skin barrier point of view. In the sections below the interaction of other ingredients
with SC is reviewed briefly.
EMULSIFIERS
Traditional emulsifiers tend to be nonionic surfactants with ethylene oxide groups (EO)
or hydroxyl (OH) groups as their hydrophilic moieties and hydrocarbon chain as the
hydrophobic part.71 As mentioned earlier, polymeric emulsifiers which are essentially
hydrophobe-modified polymers have become popular lately because of their ease of use and
their ability to provide enhanced emulsion stability.61–64
The traditional nonionic surfactant-based emulsifiers are generally thought to be
nonirritating to skin. They do not induce any significant swelling of the human SC by
strong interaction with skin proteins but may impact the lipid layers. They are known to
alter the permeability of the SC by interacting with the bilayer lipid layers. In leave-on
moisturizers and advanced skincare formulations, this property is often thought to be
beneficial in helping the main active penetrate deeper layers of skin. However, this can
result in skin irritation and inflammation because of enhanced penetration of actives as
well as other potentially irritating ingredients such as fragrance molecules in a formulation.
It is therefore important that the irritancy potential of fully formulated systems be tested
rather than that of a single ingredient.
Barany et al. investigated the impact of a range of emulsifiers while keeping the
moisturization package same.72 Their in-vivo results on normal skin showed that for the same
moisturization package, certain emulsifiers (PEG-2 Stearate, PEG-9 Stearate, Steareth-10,
and Steareth-21) increased the TEWL, while some others decreased it. The enhancement
in TEWL was not accompanied by any erythema or increased blood flow, which suggests
that these emulsifiers were perturbing the lipid layer but that they themselves or other
392 JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE
components in their model formulations were not causing any irritation. Interestingly, the
emulsifiers that increased TEWL in normal skin in fact reduced TEWL in SLS treated
irritated skin. Note that in SLS irritated skin, the baseline TEWL was significantly higher
than that in normal skin possibly because of both lipid and protein damage, and the
emulsifier that perturbed skin lipid structure in normal skin resulted in an improvement
in this case. It is not unreasonable to expect added lipids to strengthen an already weakened
barrier or fluidize a healthy barrier both by incorporating into the bilayer.
Unlike that of anionic and cationic surfactants, the inherent skin irritation potential of
nonionic surfactants has not been investigated in detail. Recently, Lemery et al.73 investigated
the skin toxicity potential of 4 ionic and 14 nonionic surfactants using four in vitro assays.
These include MTT assay, cell viability, and release of biomarkers such as IL1 α (primary
inflammation marker) and IL-8 (delayed inflammation marker) using Reconstructed Human
Epidermis (RHE) tissues. The tissue was exposed to 14 surfactants as emulsifiers at 3% level
along with caprylic/capric triglycerides as the oil phase. Their results for the two irritation
markers are reproduced in Table II. The authors chose a threshold value of three, with less
than three as relatively mild and the higher ones indicating increasing levels of potential
for irritation. These results show that the soluble ionic surfactants (SLS and cetyl trimethyl
ammonium bromide), irrespective of their nature of the charge (i.e. cationic or anionic),
caused more damage than the relatively insoluble longer chain ionic surfactants (sodium
stearoyl lactylate and distearyl diammonium chloride). The low value of IL8 release from
SLS was attributed to cell death occurring rapidly preventing any further release of delayed
markers. The differences observed between the soluble and the insoluble ionic surfactants
are not surprising as insoluble surfactants will not have enough monomers or micelles in the
aqueous phase to bind to proteins or intercalate with lipids from aqueous systems.
The above results for nonionic surfactants showed that several nonionic surfactants caused
significant IL1-α release and IL8 release. A detailed examination of the results showed that
Table II
IL-1a, IL-8, and IL-8/IL-1a Ratios for Different Surfactants
Surfactant IL-1α IL-8 Ratio IL-8/IL-1α
PEG-20 stearate 0.985 0.787 0.799
PEG-100 stearate 0.735 0.985 1.341
PEG-25 hydrogenated castor oil 6.860 5.512 0.804
Laureth-23 3.105 0.484 0.156
Ceteth-10 90.400 4.250 0.047
Steareth-100 6.363 5.453 0.857
Oleth-20 34.359 3.111 0.091
Beheneth-25 24.592 11.502 0.468
Polyoxyethylene sorbitan laurate 0.801 0.441 0.55
Polyoxyethylene sorbitan stearate 0.865 0.612 0.707
Polyoxyethylene sorbitan oleate 0.784 0.866 1.105
Sucrose laurate 7.113 9.109 1.281
Sucrose stearate 1.404 0.791 0.563
Sucrose oleate 1.073 0.948 0.883
Sodium lauryl sulfate 22.121 0.810 0.037
Sodium stearoyl lactylate 0.582 3.407 5.85
Distearyldimonium chloride 1.242 0.648 0.522
Cetyl trimethylammonium chloride 6.326 0.172 0.027
*IL-1a and IL-8 above the threshold of 3 given from the frequency distribution are given in
bold characters. Table reproduced from Lemery et al.73
Previous Page Next Page