| Literature DB >> 33808196 |
Andreia Nunes1, Lídia Gonçalves1, Joana Marto1, Ana Margarida Martins1, Alexandra N Silva2, Pedro Pinto1,3, Marta Martins4, Carmo Fraga5, Helena Margarida Ribeiro1.
Abstract
The by-products of olive oil industry are a major ecological issue due to their phenolic content, highly toxic organic load, and low pH. However, they can be recovered and reused, since their components have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and photoprotector properties. In this work, oil-in-water creams containing three different olive oil industry by-products extracts were produced without the use of organic solvents. First, the extracts were thoroughly characterized in vitro for cytotoxicity, inhibition of skin enzymes, and antioxidant and photoprotection capacities. Safety studies were then performed, including ocular and skin irritation tests, ecotoxicity evaluation, and in vivo Human Repeat Insult Patch Test. The results obtained in this initial characterization supported the incorporation of the extracts in the cream formulations. After preparation, the creams were characterized for their organoleptic, physicochemical, droplet size and rheological properties, and microbial contamination. The results showed that all formulations were semi-solid creams, with stable pH, compatible with the skin, without microbial contamination, and with the expected droplet size range. The rheological analysis showed shear-thinning behavior with yield stress, with the viscosity decreasing with increasing shear rate. The oscillatory results suggest that the creams have a strong network structure, being easily rubbed into the skin. Finally, compatibility, acceptability and antioxidant efficacy were evaluated in vivo, in human volunteers. No adverse reactions were observed after application of the formulations on skin and the cream with the highest concentrations of phenolic compounds showed the highest antioxidant efficiency. In conclusion, the results suggest that olive oil industry by-products extracts have valuable properties that favor their re-use in the cosmetic industry. The example presented here showed their successful incorporation into creams and their impact in these formulations' appearance, pH, and rheological performance, as well as their in vivo compatibility with skin and antioxidant efficiency.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant; creams; cytotoxicity; ecotoxicity; extracts; olive oil industry by-products
Year: 2021 PMID: 33808196 PMCID: PMC8065837 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13040465
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Composition of the olive oil industry by-products extracts (OIBPE).
| OIBPE | Composition | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Phenol Compounds (mg GAE/L) | Hydroxytyrosol (mg/L) | Tyrosol (mg/L) | Oleuropein (mg/L) | |
| 1 | 5824 | 1117 | 134 | -- |
| 2 | 5825 | 47 | 133 | 2815 |
| 3 | 6197 | 1352 | 113 | -- |
Qualitative and quantitative compositions of the oil-in-water (O/W) creams.
| Disperse Phase | Ingredients (INCI) | Formulations (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Control Cream | ||
| Aqueous phase | Aqua | 68.05 | 68.05 | 68.05 | 73.05 |
| Hydrogenated Lecithin (and) C12–16 Alcohols (and) Palmitic Acid | 6.00 | 6.00 | 6.00 | 6.00 | |
| Glycerin | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | |
| Phenoxyethanol | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | |
| OIBPE | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | -- | |
| Oily Phase | Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
| Undecane (and) Tridecane | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | |
| Isopropyl Myristate | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | |
IC50* values of olive oil industry by-products extracts in two cell lines.
| OIBPE | IC50 (mg/mL) | |
|---|---|---|
| HaCaT | L929 | |
| 1 | 0.031 ± 0.003 | 0.016 ± 0.002 |
| 2 | >0.1 | >0.1 |
| 3 | 0.038 ± 0.001 | 0.042 ± 0.01 |
*IC50 values determined by the MTT method after 24 h of olive oil industry by-products extracts (OIBPE) incubation. Each IC50 value is the mean ± SD of, at least, three independent experiments with three replicates each.
Enzymatic inhibition assays of elastase, collagenase, hyaluronidase, and tyrosinase by olive by-products extracts.
| OIBPE | Enzymatic inhibition (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elastase | Collagenase 1 | Hyaluronidase | Tyrosinase 1 | |
| 1 | 94 ± 2 | NI | NI | 10 ± 4 |
| 2 | 97 ± 0.3 | 19 ± 7 | (3.1 ± 1.0) × 10 | (1.3 ± 1.5) × 10 |
| 3 | 100 ± 0.1 | 9 ± 4 | (2.0 ± 1.6) × 10 | 16 ± 6 |
1 The sample concentration used for tyrosinase was 0.0125 mg/mL and for collagenase was 0.0023 mg/mL, to overcome samples’ absorption effects at the same wavelength of the assay. (mean ± SD, n = 3) (NI—no inhibition).
Figure 1Effect of the OIBPE on the reduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation (%) in HaCaT cells exposed to (a) hydrogen peroxide, or (b) UVB light for 15 min. An ascorbic acid (AA) solution (1 mg/mL) was used as positive control. Results are mean ± SD, n = 9 (*; ** p < 0.05).
MIC results represented by dilutions of the extracts.
| OIBPE |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | N/A | 1:4 | 1:2 | N/A | 1:2 |
| 2 | 1:4 | N/A | 1:8 | N/A | N/A |
| 3 | 1:4 | 1:8 | 1:4 | 1:2 | 1:4 |
N/A—No inhibition activity.
Figure 2Tissue viability results obtained in (a) SkinEthic™—Eye irritation test, and (b) EpiSkin™—Skin irritation test. PBS was used as a negative control for both assays, while methyl acetate (MeOAc) and SDS were used as positive controls for SkinEthic™ and EpiSkin™, respectively. Results are mean ± SD, n = 2 (a), n = 3 (b).
EC50 results obtained in the ecotoxicological evaluation of the extracts.
| OIBPE | Exposure Time (min) | EC50 (%) | 95% Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | 27.35 | 20.79–35.98 |
| 15 | 28.07 | 20.47–38.48 | |
| 25 | 28.40 | 19.99–40.36 | |
| 2 | 5 | 25.15 | 24.50–27.91 |
| 15 | 35.27 | 31.5–39.48 | |
| 25 | 35.27 | 32.6–38.04 | |
| 3 | 5 | 39.75 | 33.70–46.90 |
| 15 | 41.53 | 33.70–51.17 | |
| 25 | 43.73 | 36.07–53.02 |
Droplet size distribution. Results are mean ± SD, n = 3.
| Formulation | Span | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cream 1 | 2.66 ± 0.25 | 2.79 ± 0.12 | 34.98 ± 4.61 | 95.06 ± 4.49 |
| Cream 2 | 1.10 ± 0.08 | 23.34 ± 0.97 | 44.34 ± 0.62 | 72.37 ± 3.30 |
| Cream 3 | 1.74 ± 0.03 | 5.47 ± 0.14 | 43.55 ± 0.38 | 81.10 ± 0.56 |
| Control Cream | 3.78 ± 0.01 | 2.78 ± 0.10 | 16.33 ± 0.95 | 64.46 ± 3.71 |
Figure 3Photomicrographs of creams. Magnification: 40×.
Figure 4Flow curves obtained in the viscosity ramp up/ramp down assays from the extract-containing creams.
Fitting of mathematical models to rheological data. The Power Law and Herschel–Bulkley models were fitted to Table 2.
| Formulation | Model | Yield Stress (Pa) |
| Chi Square |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cream 1 | Power law | - | 9.77, | 9569 | 0.975 |
| Herschel–Bulkley | 0.7097 | 5.48, | 21.9 | 0.996 | |
| Cream 2 | Power law | - | 11.09, | 10,280 | 0.975 |
| Herschel–Bulkley | 1.398 | 4.05, | 25.24 | 0.996 | |
| Cream 3 | Power law | - | 5.17, | 3640 | 0.991 |
| Herschel–Bulkley | 0.4718 | 2.41, | 6.97 | 0.998 | |
| Control Cream | Power law | - | 6.94, | 4663 | 0.989 |
| Herschel–Bulkley | 1.459 | 2.96, | 13.18 | 0.997 |
Figure 5Results of the oscillatory frequency sweep test for the different creams.
Figure 6Effects of the application of the different creams on b*parameter changes before and after UVA irradiation. Mean values of all volunteers (n = 10). Untreated, was used as a control and a blank skin area was also used as a negative control. The statistical comparison between products and controls is also shown (*, **, ***: p < 0.05).