| Literature DB >> 33889065 |
Vincenzo Nobile1, Irene Schiano1, Ana Peral2, Silvana Giardina1, Eleonora Spartà1, Nuria Caturla2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Air pollution exposure is one of the major threats to skin health and accelerates skin ageing mainly through oxidative stress mechanisms. Since it is difficult to minimize skin exposure to air pollutants, especially in urban areas, strategies to protect the skin are needed. Plant phenolic compounds have been found to be effective in attenuating cellular oxidative stress and inflammation induced by different air pollutants and a dietary approach based on these compounds could provide an efficient protection measure.Entities:
Keywords: air pollution; anti-ageing; antioxidant; clinical trial; nutraceutical; plant polyphenols; skin
Year: 2021 PMID: 33889065 PMCID: PMC8035891 DOI: 10.29219/fnr.v65.5619
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Nutr Res ISSN: 1654-661X Impact factor: 3.894
Fig. 1Flow chart of inclusion of subjects.
Demographic and baseline characteristics of study participants
| Treatment group | Placebo group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asian | Caucasian | Overall | Asian | Caucasian | Overall | |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male ( | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Female ( | 25 | 25 | 50 | 25 | 25 | 50 |
| Age (years) | 48.3 ± 1.1 | 52.7 ± 1.3 | 50.5 ± 0.9 | 49.7 ± 1.2 | 51.9 ± 1.6 | 50.8 ± 1.0 |
| Sensitive skin (%) | 48 | 52 | 50 | 52 | 48 | 50 |
| Smokers (%) | 4 | 20 | 12 | 0 | 16 | 8 |
| Skin moisturization (a.u) | 46.2 ± 2.1 | 34.4 ± 1.4 | 40.3 ± 1.5 | 40.7 ± 1.8 | 37.7 ± 1.6 | 39.2 ± 1.2 |
| TEWL (g·h-1·m-2) | 17.6 ± 1.0 | 11.3 ± 0.5 | 14.5 ± 0.7 | 17.7 ± 0.9 | 11.9 ± 0.5 | 14.8 ± 0.6 |
| Wrinkle depth (μm) | 269.7 ± 19.6 | 299.7 ± 20.9 | 284.7 ± 14.3 | 252.4 ± 13.8 | 270.7 ± 23.1 | 261.6 ± 13.4 |
| Ra (μm) | 27.9 ± 1.4 | 30.7 ± 1.0 | 29.3 ± 0.9 | 27.2 ± 1.6 | 30.3 ± 0.9 | 28.8 ± 0.9 |
| R2 (Ua/Uf) | 0.5598 ± 0.0136 | 0.6686 ± 0.0135 | 0.6142 ± 0.0123 | 0.5419 ± 0.0151 | 0.6208 ± 0.0190 | 0.5814 ± 0.0133 |
| R0 (Uf) (mm) | 0.3279 ± 0.0190 | 0.3500 ± 0.056 | 0.3389 ± 0.0099 | 0.3491 ± 0.0130 | 0.3578 ± 0.0092 | 0.3535 ± 0.0079 |
| ITA° (°) | 42.0 ± 1.7 | 31.9 ± 1.4 | 37.0 ± 1.3 | 43.0 ± 1.5 | 32.2 ± 1.3 | 37.6 ± 1.2 |
| Skin radiance (a.u) | 5.7 ± 0.3 | 10.8 ± 0.3 | 8.2 ± 0.4 | 6.3 ± 0.2 | 11.6 ± 0.4 | 8.9 ± 0.5 |
| Sebum content (μg/cm2) | 100.9 ± 4.5 | 153.8 ± 13.4 | 127.4 ± 8.0 | 110.6 ± 4.1 | 174.3 ± 14.0 | 142.5 ± 8.5 |
| MDA (μM) | 2.7 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 2.6 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 2.6 ± 0.1 |
| TAS (μM Fe2+) | 446.5 ± 12.4 | 430.5 ± 16.6 | 438.5 ± 10.3 | 440.3 ± 11.2 | 419.2 ± 18.7 | 429.7 ± 10.9 |
Values are means ± standard error (SE).
Fig. 2Skin and systemic oxidative status after 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. (a) Lipid-peroxidation (LPO) levels measured by MDA content on skin cells. Data are means (μM) ±SEM. (b) Total antioxidant capacity of saliva (TAS) measured by FRAP technique. Data are means (μM Fe2+) ±SEM. Intragroup (vs. 0) statistical analysis is reported inside the bars of the histograms (in red). Intergroup (vs. placebo) statistical analysis is reported upon the bars of the histograms. Statistical analysis is reported as follows: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001. In the tables are reported the percentage variation versus baseline.
Effects on Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and on skin moisture (water content) in facial skin
| Measurement | Groups | Intervention period | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 weeks | 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | 12 weeks | |||
| TEWL (g/m2/h) | Treatment | Overall | 14.5 ± 0.7 | 13.9 ± 0.7 | 13.5 ± 0.6 | 13.0 ± 0.6 | 12.8 ± 0.6 |
| Caucasian | 11.3 ± 0.5 | 10.9 ± 0.4 | 10.7 ± 0.4 | 10.2 ± 0.4 | 10.2 ± 0.3 | ||
| Asian | 17.6 ± 1.0 | 17.0 ± 1.0 | 16.3 ± 0.9 | 15.7 ± 0.8 | 15.4 ± 0.8 | ||
| Placebo | Overall | 14.8 ± 0.6 | 14.5 ± 0.6 | 14.3 ± 0.6 | 14.3 ± 0.6 | 14.4 ± 0.6 | |
| Caucasian | 11.9 ± 0.5 | 11.7 ± 0.4 | 11.6 ± 0.4 | 11.6 ± 0.4 | 11.5 ± 0.4 | ||
| Asian | 17.7 ± 0.9 | 17.4 ± 0.8 | 17.0 ± 0.8 | 17.0 ± 0.7 | 17.7 ± 0.7 | ||
| Water Content (a.u.) | Treatment | Overall | 40.3 ± 1.5 | 42.5 ± 1.6 | 43.7 ± 1.6 | 44.7 ± 1.5 | 45.6 ± 1.4 |
| Caucasian | 34.4 ± 1.4 | 36.0 ± 1.3 | 36.8 ± 1.3 | 38.0 ± 1.2 | 39.1 ± 1.1 | ||
| Asian | 46.2 ± 2.1 | 49.0 ± | 50.7 ± 2.1 | 51.4 ± 1.9 | 52.1 ± 1.9 | ||
| Placebo | Overall | 39.2 ± 1.2 | 39.4 ± 1.1 | 40.4 ± 1.2 | 41.2 ± 1.2 | 41.0 ± 1.1 | |
| Caucasian | 37.7 ± 1.6 | 38.5 ± 1.6 | 39.0 ± 1.6 | 39.3 ± 1.6 | 39.3 ± 1.5 | ||
| Asian | 40.7 ± 1.8 | 40.3 ± 1.6 | 41.7 ± 1.7 | 43.2 ± 1.7 | 42.7 ± 1.6 | ||
Data are mean ± SEM. In brackets is reported the percentage variation versus baseline. Intragroup (vs. baseline) statistical analysis is reported as follows:
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01, and
P < 0.001.
Statistically different versus placebo.
Fig. 3Change on facial skin texture after 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. (a) Wrinkles depth variation. (b) Skin roughness (Ra parameter). Intragroup (vs. 0) statistical analysis is reported inside the bars of the histograms. Intergroup (vs. placebo) statistical analysis is reported upon the bars of the histograms. Statistical analysis is reported as follows: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001. Data are means (μm) ±SEM. In the tables are reported the percentage variation versus baseline.
Effects on skin elasticity
| Measurement | Groups | Intervention period | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 weeks | 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | 12 weeks | |||
| R0 | Treatment | Overall | 0.3389 ± 0.0099 | 0.3259 ± 0.0095 | 0.3224 ± 0.0091 | 0.3157 ± 0.0090 | 0.3143 ± 0.0092 |
| Caucasian | 0.3500 ± 0.0056 | 0.3394 ± 0.0053 | 0.3356 ± 0.0054 | 0.3284 ± 0.0051 | 0.3560 ± 0.0050 | ||
| Asian | 0.3279 ± 0.0190 | 0.3124 ± 0.0179 | 0.3092 ± 0.0172 | 0.3031 ± 0.0170 | 0.3027 ± 0.0175 | ||
| Placebo | Overall | 0.3535 ± 0.0079 | 0.3495 ± 0.0078 | 0.3524 ± 0.0078 | 0.3541 ± 0.0081 | 0.3497 ± 0.0080 | |
| Caucasian | 0.3578 ± 0.0130 | 0.3535 ± 0.0092 | 0.3506 ± 0.0089 | 0.3494 ± 0.0088 | 0.3488 ± 0.0088 | ||
| Asian | 0.3491 ± 0.0130 | 0.3454 ± 0.0127 | 0.3543 ± 0.0129 | 0.3588 ± 0.0137 | 0.3507 ± 0.0136 | ||
| R2 | Treatment | Overall | 0.6142 ± 0.0123 | 0.6303 ± 0.0121 | 0.6485 ± 0.0108 | 0.6550 ± 0.0110 | 0.6601 ± 0.0112 |
| Caucasian | 0.6686 ± 0.0135 | 0.6888 ± 0.0128 | 0.7025 ± 0.0100 | 0.7101 ± 0.0104 | 0.7171 ± 0.0106 | ||
| Asian | 0.5598 ± 0.0136 | 0.5718 ± 0.0124 | 0.5944 ± 0.0114 | 0.5999 ± 0.0116 | 0.6030 ± 0.0114 | ||
| Placebo | Overall | 0.5814 ± 0.0133 | 0.5872 ± 0.0138 | 0.5847 ± 0.0150 | 0.5831 ± 0.0147 | 0.5872 ± 0.0142 | |
| Caucasian | 0.6208 ± 0.0190 | 0.6309 ± 0.0188 | 0.6359 ± 0.0186 | 0.6394 ± 0.0179 | 0.6419 ± 0.0179 | ||
| Asian | 0.5419 ± 0.0151 | 0.5434 ± 0.0163 | 0.5334 ± 0.0188 | 0.5267 ± 0.0171 | 0.5325 ± 0.0161 | ||
R0: Skin distensibility measured (mm). R2: Gross elasticity measured by Ua/Uf ratio. Data are means ± SEM. In brackets is reported the percentage variation versus baseline. Intragroup (vs. baseline) statistical analysis is reported as follows:
P < 0.05,
**P < 0.01, and
P < 0.001.
Statistically different versus placebo.
Fig. 4Effects on radiance and skin colour after 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. (a) Change on facial skin radiance. Data are means of gloss parameter (L) ± SEM in arbitrary units (a.u.). (b) Evolution of dark spot pigmentation. Data are presented as the means of ITA angle value ± SEM. Intragroup (vs. 0) statistical analysis is reported inside the bars of the histograms (in red). Intergroup (vs. placebo) statistical analysis is reported upon the bars of the histograms. Statistical analysis is reported as follows: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001. In the tables are reported the percentage variation versus baseline.
Effects on skin sebum content
| Measurement | Groups | Intervention period | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 weeks | 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | 12 weeks | |||
| Sebum content | Treatment | Overall | 127.4 ± 8.0 | 121.0 ± 6.8 | 118.6 ± 6.5 | 113.1 ± 6.1 | 111.4 ± 5.9 |
| Caucasian | 153.8 ± 13.4 | 145.5 ± 11.0 | 142.6 ± 10.4 | 135.1 ± 9.7 | 132.4 ± 9.5 | ||
| Asian | 100.9 ± 4.5 | 96.5 ± 4.3 | 94.6 ± 4.0 | 91.2 ± 3.9 | 90.4 ± 4.1 | ||
| Placebo | Overall | 142.5 ± 8.5 | 140.1 ± 8.5 | 137.2 ± 8.2 | 133.4 ± 8.1 | 132.4 ± 8.0 | |
| Caucasian | 174.3 ± 14 | 171.2 ± 14.1 | 167.6 ± 13.2 | 162.8 ± 13.6 | 160.9 ± 13.4 | ||
| Asian | 110.6 ± 4.1 | 109.0 ± 3.6 | 106.7 ± 3.5 | 104 ± 3.5 | 104.0 ± 3.5 | ||
Data are means of Sebum content (μg/cm2) ± SEM. In brackets is reported the percentage variation versus baseline. Intragroup (vs. baseline) statistical analysis is reported as follows:
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01, and
P < 0.001.
Statistically different versus placebo.
Results of self-assessment questions for the treatment and placebo at week 4 and 12
| Questions | Week 4 | Week 12 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Treatment | Placebo | Treatment | |
| My skin is protected from environmental pollution | 58% | 72% | 62% | 84% |
| I perceive a protective sensation on my skin | 64% | 74% | 64% | 84% |
| My complexion is more uniform | 62% | 74% | 68% | 84% |
| My skin is brighter | 62% | 74% | 68% | 76% |
| Wrinkles are less visible | 62% | 70% | 60% | 80% |
| My skin is firmer | 58% | 70% | 68% | 82% |
| My skin complexion is healthier | 62% | 70% | 64% | 84% |
| The colour of your skin is lighter (whiter skin) | 52% | 60% | 52% | 74% |
| I feel my skin more moisturized | 64% | 76% | 70% | 86% |
| I feel my hair healthier and stronger | 54% | 68% | 62% | 80% |
| I feel less discomfort related to pollutants-sensitivity | 58% | 70% | 58% | 82% |
| | ||||
| I notice an improvement of my skin imperfections (dilated pores and/or pimples) | 58% | 66% | 68% | 82% |
| I would buy the product | 44% | 56% | 18% | 82% |
The results of question 1 to 12 are expressed with the percentage of subjects who selected Strongly Agree or Agree to the questions presented. Question 13 are expressed as the percentage of subjects who would buy the product. Intergroup statistical analysis was performed between dietary supplement and placebo group (Caucasian+ Asian subjects) by means of Mann-Whitney statistical analysis.
(*) statistically significant P < 0.05.