| Literature DB >> 32013054 |
Mattia Battistin1,2, Valeria Dissette1, Alessandro Bonetto3, Elisa Durini1, Stefano Manfredini1,4, Antonio Marcomini3, Elisa Casagrande5, Andrea Brunetta2, Paola Ziosi4, Sonia Molesini4, Riccardo Gavioli6, Francesco Nicoli6, Silvia Vertuani1,4, Anna Baldisserotto1.
Abstract
Skin cancer is the most common malignant cancer with an incidence of 1 million cases/year. It is well known that exposure to UV radiation from sunlight leads the most frequent risk factors for several skin disorders including skin cancer. Sunscreen filters represent a valid protection against dangerous effects derived from UV radiation, and they can be divided in organic and inorganic UV filters. Adding, at the product formulation, molecules with booster effect, or also substances that can increase the protecting effectiveness via synergic mechanisms, can further enhance their protection activity. Moreover, this approach leads to develop formulations with high SPF (Sun Protection Factor) with a reduced content of UV filters, this is in line with the recent decisions of yet a few countries (Palau, Thailand, Philippines, and Hawaii) to ban some sunscreen filters to preserve marine environments (i.e., reef). In this work, a new class of sunscreen UV filters has been synthesized, by means the combination of physical filter and Oxisol, an antioxidant molecule with booster effect. In this study, the synthesis of new physical multifunctional ingredients is reported, by means the direct surface functionalization of inorganic filters (in particular TiO2) with Oxisol. In this study, the full characterization of these multifunctional ingredients is also reported, in addition to the cytotoxicity tests, the photocatalytic activity and the rheological properties involved on skin application.Entities:
Keywords: Oxisol; SPF booster; TiO2; antioxidant; molecular combination; safety; sunscreen
Year: 2020 PMID: 32013054 PMCID: PMC7075142 DOI: 10.3390/nano10020231
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Oxisol structure.
Figure 2TiO2 coating by Oxisol. The reaction was carried out in ethanol at 50 °C for 24 h.
Chemical-physical characteristics of the TiO2 samples used in the experiments
| Properties and Test Methods | Nanometric | Non-nanometric |
|---|---|---|
| Specific surface (m2/g) | 50 ± 20 | 20 ± 10 |
| pH value in 4% dispersion | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 5.0 ± 0.5 |
| Moisture (wt %) (2 h at 105 °C) | ≤1.5 | ≤0.5 |
| TiO2 content (based on ignited material) (wt-%) | >99.5 | |
| Tamped density (g/L) | 100–180 | 90–160 |
Figure 3TEM images of nanometric TiO2 depicting the primary crystals (B) obtained by mean HRTEM and their aggregates and agglomerates (A).
pH and viscosity data for aqueous TiO2 dispersions.
| Formulation | pH | Viscosity (ŋ) |
|---|---|---|
| Only TiO2 | 5.36 | 20590 |
| TiO2 + Oxisol mixture | 5.41 | 15840 |
| Functionalized TiO2 (TiO2@Oxisol) | 5.48 | 28460 |
| Only TiO2 nano | 5.30 | 45700 |
| TiO2 nano + Oxisol mixture | 6.24 | 25630 |
| Functionalized TiO2 nano (n-TiO2@Oxisol) | 6.50 | 34900 |
Figure 4Comparison between FT-IR spectra of TiO2, TiO2/Oxisol mixture, functionalized TiO2, and Oxisol.
Figure 5Addition mechanism of Oxisol to TiO2 particles. As proved by FT-IR analysis option 1 and 2 are the most expectable (in particular the most frequent would seem option 2), anyway option 3 also can occur via bridge (a) or chelating (b) addition to titanium.
Figure 6TGA (blue line) and DSC (green line) curves of TiO2@Oxisol (A) and n-TiO2@Oxisol (B).
Percentage functionalization of titanium dioxide detected via TGA method. The reported value is the average of at least three measures ± standard deviation (carried out both with the direct and indirect method).
| Weight Loss (%) | |
|---|---|
|
| 10.6 ± 0.6 |
|
| 5.8 ± 0.3 |
Particle size values detected via DLS and CSA (first and second columns) and sedimentation rate (last column)
| DLS (nm) ± SD | CSA (nm) ± SD | Sedimentation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non nano TiO2 | 343 ± 18 | 523.9 ± 16 | 251.3 ± 9 |
| TiO2@Oxisol | 324 ± 16 | 328.9 ± 5 | 80.0 ± 1 |
| Nano TiO2 | 135 ± 7 | 187.5 ± 3 | 26.4 ± 2 |
| n-TiO2@Oxisol | 111 ± 6 | 166.2 ± 9 | 20.6 ± 0.2 |
Figure 7Z potential behavior for each kind of TiO2 coated and uncoated.
PCL results performed on the emulsions containing TiO2. Each value was obtained from three different experiments (mean ± SE).
| Formulation | µmoli TE/Gram |
|---|---|
| Emulsion with Oxisol 0.5% | 41.96 ± 2.1 |
| Emulsion mixture (Non nan TiO2 + Oxisol) | 10.37 ± 0.3 |
| Emulsion mixture (Nano TiO2 + Oxisol) | 1.96 ± 0.02 |
| Emulsion with non nano TiO2@Oxisol | 11.91 ± 0.1 |
| Emulsion with nano TiO2@Oxisol | 53.70 ± 3.7 |
Oxisol release from particles in different solvents and pH value for coated TiO2
| Substrate | Solvent | pH | Time (h) | Oxisol Desorption(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12.0 | 61.43 ± 6.76 | |||
| CH3CH2OH/H2O | 6.1 | 9.77 ± 1.95 | ||
| 2.7 | 11.05 ± 2.21 | |||
| Nanometric | CH3CH2OH | - | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 9.71 ± 2.01 |
| TiO2 | 12.0 | 1.73 ± 0.31 | ||
| H2O | 6.1 | <1.0 | ||
| 2.7 | <1.0 | |||
| 12.0 | 7.45 ± 1.86 | |||
| CH3CH2OH/H2O | 6.1 | 5.01 ± 1.87 | ||
| Non | 2.7 | 4.13 ± 1.03 | ||
| nanometric | CH3CH2OH | - | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 9.54 ± 0.922 |
| TiO2 | 12.0 | 7.01 ± 2.01 | ||
| H2O | 6.1 | <1.0 | ||
| 2.7 | <1.0 |
Oxisol percentage released from emulsions. The percentage are referred to Oxisol linked to TiO2.
| Substrate | Issue of Release of the | Time (h) | Oxisol Released in the |
|---|---|---|---|
| n-TiO2@Oxisol | H2O 0.90% NaCl | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 4.36 ± 0.22 |
| TiO2@Oxisol | H2O 0.90% NaCl | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 4.31 ± 0.25 |
Photocatalytic activity of untreated and functionalized TiO2. The values are reported as dye concentration: µM and expressed as a percentage (value in brackets) after treatment.
|
| ||
| Only acid blue 9 solution (Dark) | 109.99 ± 23.59 | |
| Only acid blue 9 solution (UV) | 86.50 ± 18.86 | |
|
|
| |
| TiO2@Oxisol (Dark) | 59.64 ± 13.51 (65.60%) | 76.31 ± 16.87 (83.93%) |
| TiO2@Oxisol (UV) | 47.08 ± 11.03 (51.78%) | 57.80 ± 13.14 (63.57%) |
| TiO2 (Dark) | 41.74 ± 9.91 (45.91%) | 43.68 ± 10.28 (48.04%) |
| TiO2 (UV) | 2.70 ± 2.08 (2.97%) | 2.18 ± 1.95 (2.40%) |
Figure 8Possible mechanism of photocatalytic quenching. (a) Steric hindrance and (b) electron injection by ligand: after UV radiation the ligand direct inject electron in conduction band. This significant decrease the hole formation in valence band, then its oxidative activity. Both mechanisms could take place during the tests.
Cytotoxicity values (cell growth inhibition) obtained evaluating different concentration of powders (1,10,100 µg/mL).
| Sample | Concentration µg/mL | % Inhibition ± |
|---|---|---|
| Control | 0 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 1 | −2.73 ± 1.78 | |
| Nanometric TiO2 | 10 | −7.50 ± 1.04 |
| 100 | 3.08 ± 5.24 | |
| 1 | −1.37 ± 4.27 | |
| Nano-TiO2@Oxisol | 10 | 0.18 ± 4.80 |
| 100 | 4.17 ± 6.20 | |
| 1 | −1.75 ± 1.77 | |
| Non-nanometric TiO2 | 10 | −0.84 ± 1.97 |
| 100 | 0.30 ± 6.02 | |
| 1 | −4.40 ± 3.03 | |
| TiO2@Oxisol | 10 | 0.51 ± 8.58 |
| 100 | 6.34 ± 5.94 |