| Literature DB >> 22205093 |
Ivana Arsić1, Ana Zugić, Vanja Tadić, Marija Tasić-Kostov, Dušan Mišić, Marija Primorac, Dušanka Runjaić-Antić.
Abstract
Oleum Hyperici, the oil extract of St. John's Wort (SJW), is one of the oldest folk remedies, traditionally used in the topical treatment of wounds, bruises, ulcers, cuts, burns, hemorrhoids and also as an antiseptic. Considering the advantageous characteristics of emulsion applications, in the present study we have formulated three O/W creams containing 15% (w/v) of SJW oil extract as an active ingredient. The aim was to estimate dermatological application of the prepared creams for the abovementioned indications. The extracts were prepared according to the prescriptions from traditional medicine, however with different vegetable oils used as an extractant, namely: Olive, palm and sunflower oil. The investigated O/W creams demonstrated significant antiinflammatory effects in an in vivo double-blind randomized study, using a sodium lauryl sulphate test. Both skin parameters assessed in the study (electrical capacitance and erythema index), were restored to the baseline value after a seven-day treatment with the tested creams. Almost all investigated SJW oil extracts and corresponding creams displayed the same antimicrobial activity against the most of the investigated microorganisms with obtained minimal inhibitory concentrations values of 1,280 µg/mL, 2,560 µg/mL or >2,560 µg/mL.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22205093 PMCID: PMC6268942 DOI: 10.3390/molecules17010275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1HPLC profile of SJW methanolic extract: (1) chlorogenic acid; (2) rutin; (3) hyproside; (4) quercetin.
Total hypericins content in SJW oil extracts.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| SJW | 0.47% |
| OO-E | 0.003% |
| PO-E | 0.001% |
| SO-E | 0.004% |
pH values of the creamsstored at 5 ± 2 °C, 22 ± 2 °C and 45 ± 2 °C as a function of time.
| Sample (storage T) | pH value | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 48 h after preparation | 1 month after preparation | 3 months after preparation | |
| 5.97 | 6.24 | 6.45 | |
| 5.97 | 6.17 | 6.35 | |
| 5.97 | 6.05 | 6.40 | |
| 5.49 | 5.59 | 5.57 | |
| 5.49 | 5.74 | 5.95 | |
| 5.49 | 5.71 | 6.01 | |
| 5.44 | 5.57 | 5.74 | |
| 5.44 | 5.44 | 5.64 | |
| 5.44 | 5.47 | 5.75 | |
Rheological characteristics/ samples stored at 45 ± 2 °C.
| Sample | Maximum apparent viscosity ηmax (Pas) (D = 10 s−1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 48 h after preparation | 1 month after preparation | 3 months after preparation | |
|
| 3142 | 3454 | 3170 |
|
| 3154 | 3178 | 3454 |
|
| 3476 | 3544 | 3146 |
Rheological characteristics/ samples stored at 5 ± 2 °C.
| Sample | Minimum apparent viscosity ηmax (Pas) (D = 10 s−1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 48 h after preparation | 1 month after preparation | 3 months after preparation | |
|
| 2002 | 2116 | 2206 |
|
| 2054 | 2304 | 2136 |
|
| 1996 | 2067 | 2145 |
Figure 2The influence of the irritation per se and samples C-OO, C-PO and C-SO after irritation on EC. Parameters were expressed as absolute changes to baseline at distinct time points. The effects of different formulations were compared mutually and to UC and UCO (significant differences being marked with &). Differences to corresponding sample with SJW (C-OO-E, C-PO-E and C-SO-E) were checked only on day 7, significant differences being marked with (#). (*) is for significant difference of EC at distinct time point related to baseline (means were compared).
Figure 3The influence of the irritation per se and samples C-OO-E, C-PO-E and C-SO-E after irritation on EC. Parameters were expressed as absolute changes to baseline at distinct time points. The effects of different formulations were compared mutually and to UC and UCO (significant differences being marked with &). Differences to corresponding sample without SJW (C-OO, C-PO and C-SO) were checked only on day 7, significant differences being marked with (#). (*) is for significant difference of EC at distinct time point related to corresponding baseline (means were compared).
Figure 4The influence of the irritation per se and samples C-OO, C-PO and C-SO after irritation on EI. Parameters were expressed as absolute changes to baseline at distinct time points. The effects of different formulations were compared mutually and to UC and UCO (significant differences being marked with &). Differences to corresponding sample without SJW (C-OO, C-PO and C-SO) were checked only on day 7, significant differences being marked with (#). (*) is for significant difference of EI at distinct time point related to corresponding baseline (means were compared).
Figure 5The influence of the irritation per se and samples C-OO-E, C-PO-E and C-SO-E after irritation on EI. Parameters were expressed as absolute changes to baseline at distinct time points. The effects of different formulations were compared mutually and to UC and UCO (significant differences being marked with &). Differences to corresponding sample without SJW (C-OO, C-PO and C-SO) were checked only on day 7, significant differences being marked with (#). (*) is for significant difference of EI at distinct time point related to corresponding baseline (means were compared).
O/W creams prepared with different vegetable oils and corresponding SWJ oil extracts.
| Sample name | SJW oil extract | Vegetable oil | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| C-OO | - | OO |
| C-PO | - | PO | |
| C-SO | - | SO | |
|
| C-OO-E | OO-E | - |
| C-PO-E | PO-E | - | |
| C-SO-E | SO-E | - |