Search

Background: Sunscreens and catechins from grape seed extract (GSE) are sensitive to various environmental factors and undergo certain changes over time that might affect the effectiveness of the final product. To this date, effects of thermal storage conditions have not been sufficiently addressed to guarantee the long‐term stability of sunscreen formulations. Aims: To study the chemical and mechanical accelerated and long‐term stability of sunscreen formulation containing GSE at the Climatic Zone IVb conditions. Methods: Stability studies were performed for 6 months for accelerated stability study at 30°C ± 2 and 50°C ± 2, 75 ± 5% relative humidity; and long‐term stability study at 5°C ± 5. The quantification of constituents of three formulations: sunscreen with GSE, cream with UV filters only, and cream with GSE only was performed by high‐performance liquid chromatography. In vitro spectrophotometry was used to determine changes in sun protection effectiveness through SPF and UVAPF values. Mechanical stability was evaluated by textural and rheological analyzes. Results: All tested formulations were less stable at high‐temperature conditions. The contents of catechin (С) and epicatechin (EC) in sunscreen with GSE were reduced to 37% and 50% at 50°C, respectively, whereas UV filters appeared to be stable. However, despite the significant reduction in catechins over time, polyphenols in GSE remained unchanged at different stored conditions. The SPF values and water resistance of sunscreen with GSE were maintained throughout the study. Conclusions: A current in vitro study has shown that sunscreen with GSE is a value‐added anti‐aging ingredient in sunscreen formulation because its polyphenolic composition as well as SPF values and water resistance were maintained under all temperature conditions over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure is related to skin and lip tumors. Therefore, the development of photoprotective lipstick formulations is of utmost importance. Aims: Considering the biological properties of Shea butter (Butyrospermum parkii), we assessed its potential as an adjuvant in a molded lipstick sunscreen system by in vivo tests and photostability. Patients/Methods: Shea butter was used in a photoprotective lipstick formulation at two different concentrations (10.0% and 15.0% w/w) associated with ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate (EHM) and titanium dioxide. Skin compatibility was assessed in vivo. The in vivo SPF value was determined according to the current recognized method. Additionally, the photostability of EHM was determined by high‐performance liquid chromatography. Results: By the cutaneous compatibility, the product presented no interference with skin barrier and no adverse reactions, thus proving its safety. The in vivo SPF assay showed that the highest concentration of Shea butter increased the in vivo SPF value of the sample by 35%, demonstrating it to be a booster in photoprotective lipstick formulations. Also, Shea butter was proved to enhance the photostability of EHM, a commonly used UVB filter available in several countries. Conclusion: Shea butter increased the photostability and in vivo SPF of a molded lipstick sunscreen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intense pulsed light therapy (IPL) decreases facial erythema and telangiectasias associated with rosacea. Topical skin care products decrease facial erythema by the action of active ingredients and masking effects. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of combining a topical skin care regimen (TSCR) comprised of a multifunctional three‐in‐one facial cream and a mineral‐based brush‐on SPF50 powder sunscreen with a single IPL treatment for treating mild‐to‐severe facial redness associated with rosacea. Methods: Twenty female subjects with Fitzpatrick skin types I‐III received TSCR monotherapy for 12 weeks. At that time, subjects received a single IPL treatment and continued TSCR for 6 additional weeks. Subjects were evaluated at Baseline and at Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 18. Results: Using a 7‐point redness scale, the overall mean (SD) redness score significantly improved from 3.05 (0.97) at baseline to 2.05 (0.76) at Week 18 (P < 0.01). There was a decrease in investigator‐rated erythema from baseline (bare skin) to Week 12 (bare skin, before IPL) when TSCR was used as monotherapy which did not achieve significance (P = 0.12). Most subjects (80%) were satisfied or Very satisfied with the TSCR at Week 18. All subjects (100%) agreed that it improved their baseline skin redness and most (85%) would recommend TSCR to others. TSCR was well‐tolerated with no significant changes in skin dryness, scaling, or itching. Mild burning occurred immediately following the IPL treatment at Week 12. Conclusion: TSCR in combination with a single IPL treatment produced a significant improvement in overall facial redness in patients with rosacea. Longer‐term treatment with TSCR may produce continued improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sun protection factor (SPF) of sunscreens is determined after application of a standard amount. The European Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (COLIPA) standard amount is 2 mg/cm2. Real-life application of sunscreen is probably less than this.To determine the amount of sunscreen present on the skin of people at the beach.Volunteers at the beach were selected randomly and were not aware of being tested for the adequacy of their sunscreen application. All volunteers had applied sunscreen. Application had been more than 30 min before testing (sometimes up to 4 h earlier). The amounts of sunscreen applied to different body sites were determined quantitatively by tape stripping. Actual amounts of sunscreen applied were compared with the COLIPA standard. Also, sunscreen containing a fluorescent dye was applied to the skin of volunteers in a laboratory setting. The distribution of sunscreen application was visualized by UVA photography in a darkened room.Sixty volunteers, 33 males and 27 females, aged 17–68 years (median 32 years), were recruited at the beach. Sunscreen coverage was inadequate at all body sites. Coverage at various body sites differed greatly. Most volunteers had applied 10% or less of the COLIPA standard amount to all body sites assessed. The best protected areas were the upper arm and décolleté but, even in these areas, most volunteers had only applied 10% of the COLIPA standard amount. The worst protected areas were the ears and top of the feet. The back was typically badly protected if treated by the volunteers themselves. The back was better protected if another person had applied the sunscreen. In the laboratory, the fluorescent dye-containing sunscreen showed the same pattern of sunscreen application as at the beach.In real life, at the beach, very little sunscreen remains present on the skin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]