| Literature DB >> 24482779 |
Lívia Budai1, Nóra Kaszás1, Pál Gróf2, Katalin Lenti3, Katayoon Maghami1, István Antal1, Imre Klebovich1, Ilona Petrikovics4, Marianna Budai1.
Abstract
Developments in nanotechnology and in the formulation of liposomal systems provide the opportunity for cosmetic dermatology to design novel delivery systems. Determination of their physico-chemical parameters has importance when developing a nano-delivery system. The present study highlights some technological aspects/characteristics of liposomes formulated from egg or soy lecithins for topical use. Alterations in the pH, viscosity, surface tension, and microscopic/macroscopic appearance of these vesicular systems were investigated. The chemical composition of the two types of lecithin was checked by mass spectrometry. Caffeine, as a model molecule, was encapsulated into multilamellar vesicles prepared from the two types of lecithin: then zeta potential, membrane fluidity, and encapsulation efficiency were compared. According to our observations, samples prepared from the two lecithins altered the pH in opposite directions: egg lecithin increased it while soy lecithin decreased it with increased lipid concentration. Our EPR spectroscopic results showed that the binding of caffeine did not change the membrane fluidity in the temperature range of possible topical use (measured between 2 and 50 °C). Combining our results on encapsulation efficiency for caffeine (about 30% for both lecithins) with those on membrane fluidity data, we concluded that the interaction of caffeine with the liposomal membrane does not change the rotational motion of the lipid molecules close to the head group region. In conclusion, topical use of egg lecithin for liposomal formulations can be preferred if there are no differences in the physico-chemical properties due to the encapsulated drugs, because the physiological effects of egg lecithin vesicles on skin are significantly better than that of soy lecithin liposomes.Entities:
Keywords: Macroscopic/microscopic Appearance; Multilamellar vesicle; Natural lipid; Topical drug delivery
Year: 2013 PMID: 24482779 PMCID: PMC3867246 DOI: 10.3797/scipharm.1305-11
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Pharm ISSN: 0036-8709
Fig. 1Positive mode mass spectra of egg- (above) and soy- (below) lecithin. Lipid samples (dissolved in methanol) were injected with a flow speed of 0.1 ml/min. Capillary voltage was 4000 V and fragmentor was 70 V.
Lipid composition of lecithins from egg yolk (EL) and soybean (SL) determined from the MS spectra. Values are given in percentages. Values in brackets correspond to the figures given by the manufacturer.
| chain composition | EL | SL |
|---|---|---|
| 16:0 | 32 (33) | 15 (14) |
| 16:1 | 5 (1) | 4 |
| 16:2 | 1 | 0 |
| 18:0 | 14 (13) | 1 (4) |
| 18:1 | 19 (32) | 14 (11) |
| 18:2 | 13 (16) | 59 (64) |
| 20:1 | 4 | 0 |
| 20:2 | 6 | 0 |
| 20:3 | 2 | 1 |
| 20:4 | 2 (3) | 4 |
| other | 2 (5) | 2 (3) |
| saturated | 46 | 16 |
| unsaturated | 52 | 82 |
pH, viscosity, and surface tension of liposomal samples prepared from soybean (SL) or egg yolk (EL) lecithin with various lipid concentrations. 0 mg/ml lecithin concentration gives the data measured for distilled water. The number of parallel charges is at least three; data are given as mean ± S.D.; n.m. denotes „not measured”
| Lecithin concentr. (mg/ml) | pH | Viscosity (mPa·s) | Surface tension (mN/m) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| SL | EL | SL | EL | SL | EL | |
| 0 | 5.82±0.11 | 0.89 ± 0.01 | 73.0 | |||
| 0.5 | 6.55±0.05 | 5.20±0.09 | 0.92 ± 0.01 | 0.92 ± 0.01 | 67.1 ± 0.5 | 68.0 ± 0.4 |
| 2.0 | 6.83±0.07 | 4.47±0.04 | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.96 ± 0.01 | 65.2 ± 0.4 | 65.9 ± 0.5 |
| 5.0 | 6.93±0.02 | 4.26±0.03 | 1.10 ± 0.01 | 1.11 ± 0.01 | 60.5 ± 0.3 | 60.4 ± 0.4 |
| 7.0 | 7.12±0.05 | 4.15±0.03 | 1.17 ± 0.01 | 1.18 ± 0.01 | 53.0 ± 0.3 | 53.0 ± 0.3 |
| 10.0 | 7.23±0.08 | 4.03±0.02 | 1.26 ± 0.02 | 1.25 ± 0.01 | 44.3 ± 0.2 | 44.7 ± 0.3 |
| 12.0 | n.m. | n.m. | 1.31 ± 0.01 | 1.32 ± 0.02 | 41.6 ± 0.3 | 41.2 ± 0.2 |
| 15.0 | n.m. | n.m. | 1.34 ± 0.02 | 1.34 ± 0.02 | 39.6 ± 0.1 | 39.5 ± 0.2 |
Parameters determined on the basis of non-linear least square fit to the experimental EPR spectra. Values given in the table correspond to the representative EPR spectra given in Figure 2. For the control (cont) and caffeine-containing (caff) liposome samples.
| T (°C) | liposome | c20 | S | τave |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | cont | 2.37 | 0.51 | 35.4 |
| caff | 2.59 | 0.55 | 30.1 | |
|
| ||||
| 25 | cont | 1.76 | 0.39 | 8.1 |
| caff | 1.76 | 0.39 | 7.4 | |
|
| ||||
| 35 | cont | 1.58 | 0.35 | 6.2 |
| caff | 1.58 | 0.35 | 5.8 | |
|
| ||||
| 45 | cont | 1.57 | 0.35 | 3.8 |
| caff | 1.55 | 0.34 | 3.4 | |
average SEM values are for c20: ± 0.06, for S: ± 0.02; for the average rotational correlation time a relative SEM value is the best characteristics, which is ten percentages of the best fit parameter value.
Fig. 2Representative EPR spectra and the fitted components at four temperatures. The solid line represents the experimental spectrum, whereas the long dashed and dot-dashed lines show the components of longer and shorter correlation time, respectively. At 2 °C and 45 °C the sum of the two components are shown in the figure (dotted line).