| Literature DB >> 35458642 |
Tomasz Wasilewski1,2, Zofia Hordyjewicz-Baran3, Magdalena Zarębska3, Natalia Stanek3, Ewa Zajszły-Turko3, Magdalena Tomaka3, Tomasz Bujak4, Zofia Nizioł-Łukaszewska4.
Abstract
This study sought to evaluate the possibility of using grape pomace, a waste material from wine production, for the preparation of cosmetic components. Following the existing clear research trend related to improving the safety of cleansing cosmetics, an attempt was made to determine the possibility of preparing model shower gels based on grape pomace extract. A new method for producing cosmetic components named loan chemical extraction (LCE) was developed and is described for the first time in this paper. In the LCE method, an extraction medium consisting only of the components from the final product was used. Thus, there were no additional substances in the cosmetics developed, and the formulation was significantly enriched with compounds isolated from grape pomace. Samples of the model shower gels produced were evaluated in terms of their basic parameters related to functionality (e.g., foaming properties, rheological characteristics, color) and their effect on the skin. The results obtained showed that the extracts based on waste grape pomace contained a number of valuable cosmetic compounds (e.g., organic acids, phenolic compounds, amino acids and sugars), and the model products basis on them provided colorful and safe natural cosmetics.Entities:
Keywords: bioactive compounds; cosmetics; grape pomace extracts; loan chemical extraction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35458642 PMCID: PMC9025557 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27082444
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Variation in surface tension as a function of surfactant concentration.
Figure 2Particle size distribution curves of the extraction medium.
UPLC-ESI-MS/MS quantification of the detected compounds in tested grape pomace extracts mean values ± standard deviation (n = 4).
| Compound | Quantification/ | Family | GPE_10pDG2p | GPE_20pDG2p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tartaric acid | 148.9 > 87.0 | organic acids | 1104 ± 11 b | 2817 ± 17 a |
| 2 | Maleic acid | 114.9 > 70.9 | organic acids | 4.20 ± 0.80 a | 5.15 ± 0.48 a |
| 3 | DL-malic acid | 132.9 > 114.9 | organic acids | 848 ± 11 b | 1147 ± 17 a |
| Sum of organic acids | 1956 b | 3969 a | |||
| 4 | Gallic acid | 168.9 > 124.8 | phenolic acids | 1.87 ± 0.19 b | 4.91 ± 0.33 a |
| 5 | D-(−)-quinic acid | 190.9 > 84.9 | phenolic acids | 4.88 ± 0.26 b | 10.86 ± 0.17 a |
| 6 | Quercetin | 300.9 > 151.0 | flavonols | 0.26 ± 0.08 b | 0.27 ± 0.03 a |
| 7 | (+)-Catechin | 290.9 > 139.0 | flavanols | 5.76 ± 0.06 a | 5.36 ± 0.1 a |
| 8 | (−)-Epicatechin | 290.9 > 139.0 | flavanols | 4.40 ± 0.22 a | 4.64 ± 0.10 a |
| 9 | (−)-Catechin 3-gallate | 306.9 > 288.8 | flavanols | 2.67 ± 0.10 b | 4.23 ± 0.17 a |
| Sum of phenolic compounds | 19.9 b | 30.3 a | |||
| 10 | L-methionine | 150.0 > 103.9 | amino acids | 2.78 ± 0.08 b | 6.10 ± 0.77 a |
| 11 | L-tryptophan | 205.1 > 188.0 | amino acids | 3.05 ± 0.25 b | 6.96 ± 0.16 a |
| Sum of amino acids | 5.8 b | 13.1 a | |||
| 12 | D-(+)-xylose | 149.9 > 104.0 | sugars | 776 ± 12 b | 1417 ± 39 a |
| 13 | Sucrose | 340.9 > 179.0 | sugars | 2.77 ± 0.13 b | 3.50 ± 0.13 a |
| Sum of sugars | 779 b | 1420 a | |||
| TOTAL | 2760 b | 5432 a | |||
The superscripts a and b denote significant (p < 0.05) differences between the two concentrations within each compound identified.
Figure 3UPLC-ESI-MS/MS extracted ion chromatograms (XICs) in positive-ion mode for GPE_10pDG2p. The numbering of the peaks is by the retention time. Peak assignment is reported in Table 2.
Figure 4Characterization of identified anthocyanins in the order of elution time.
Anthocyanin compounds identified using UPLC-ESI-MS/MS in positive-ion mode in GPE_10pDG2p and GPE_20pDG2p.
| Peak | Retention Time [min] | Identification | Molecular Formula | Molar Mass [Da] | Precursor Ion | Main Product Ions MS2 [ | CE [V] | GPE_20pDG2p/GPE_10pDG2p Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.5 | Cyanidin 3-glucoside | C21H21O11+ | 449 | 449 [M + H]+ | 287 [M-C6H11O5]+ 315 [M-C5H10O4]+ | 24 | 1.3 ± 0.1 b |
| 2 | 10.3 | Petunidin 3-glucoside | C22H23O12+ | 478 | 479 [M + H]+ | 317 [M-C6H11O5]+ 302 [M-C6H11O4]+ | 10 | 1.9 ± 0.2 a |
| 3 | 11.6 | Peonidin 3-glucoside | C22H23O11+ | 462 | 463 [M + H]+ | 301 [M-C6H11O5]+ 201 [C9H5O4]+ | 20 | 1.1 ± 0.1 b |
| 4 | 11.7 | Malvidin-3-(6”-acetoyl)glucoside-5-glucoside | C31H37O18+ | 696 | 697 [M + H]+ | 535 [M-C6H10O5]+ | 34 | 1.8 ± 0.1 a |
| 5 | 12.1 | Malvidin 3-glucoside | C23H25O12+ | 492 | 493 [M + H]+ | 331 [M-C6H11O5] +315 [M-C5H10O4]+ | 15 | 1.2 ± 0.2 b |
| 6 | 16.0 | Cyanidin 3-(acetylglucoside) | C23H23O12+ | 490 | 491 [M + H]+ | 287 [M-C8H13O6]+ 163 [M-C17H13O7]+ | 18 | 1.2 ± 0.1 b |
| 7 | 17.6 | Malvidin 3-(6”acetyl) glucoside | C25H27O13+ | 534 | 535 [M + H]+ | 331 [M-C8H13O6]+ 315 [M-C8H13O7]+ | 12 | 1.2 ± 0.1 b |
| 8 | 19.9 | Cyanidin 3-O-p-coumarylglucoside | C30H27O13+ | 594 | 595 [M + H]+ | 287 [M-C15H17O7]+ 415 [M-C9H8O4]+ | 19 | 1.0 ± 0.1 b |
| 9 | 20.1 | Petunidin 3-(6”-cumaroyl)-glucoside | C31H29O14+ | 624 | 625 [M + H]+ | 317 [M-C15H17O7]+ 301 [M-C15H18O8]+ | 23 | 1.4 ± 0.1 ab |
| 10 | 21.0 | Malvidin 3-(6”-cumaroyl)-glucoside | C32H31O14+ | 638 | 639 [M + H]+ | 331 [M-C15H17O7]+ 447 [M-C6H10O5]+ | 35 | 1.1 ± 0.1 b |
| 11 | 21.0 | Peonidin 3-(6”-cumaroyl)-glucoside | C31H29O13+ | 608 | 609 [M + H]+ | 301 [M-C15H17O7]+ 492 [M-C9H8O4]+ | 20 | 0.9 ± 0.1 b |
Ratio as a mean value ± standard deviation (n = 4). The superscripts a and b denote significant (p < 0.05) differences between ratios of all the identified compounds.
Antioxidant capacity (DPPH, ABTS), total phenolic (TPC), flavonoid (TFC), and anthocyanin (TAC) content in grape extracts.
| TPC | TFC | TAC | DPPH | ABTS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC ± SD | TFC ± SD | TAC ± SD | DPPH ± SD | ABTS ± SD | |
| GP_10pDG2p | 543.1 b ± 12.7 | 139.2 b ± 11.2 | 236.7 b ± 18.6 | 815.4 b ± 10.3 | 743.6 b ± 5.2 |
| GP_20pDG2p | 709.1 a ± 6.7 | 177.6 a ± 5.6 | 395.7 a ± 6.9 | 1126.6 a ± 24.7 | 954.3 a ± 10.2 |
Each value represents the average from three parallel measurements. Values are expressed as mean ± SD. The superscripts a, b denote significant (p < 0.05) differences between the obtained results.
Spectrophotometric data of the GPE_10pDG2p and GPE_10pDG2p obtained by D65.
| L* | a* | b* | C* | ho | ΔE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DG2p | 27.16 ± 0.13 c | −0.55 ± 0.05 c | 0.18 ± 0.04 c | 0.6 ± 0.1 c | −18.1 ± 0.3 c | - |
| GPE_10pDG2p | 5.25 ± 0.05 a | 20.53 ± 0.07 a | 8.38 ± 0.07 a | 22.2 ± 0.2 a | 22.2 ± 0.3 a | 31.5 ± 0.4 a |
| GPE_20pDG2p | 2.55 ± 0.03 b | 15.62 ± 0.06 b | 4.44 ± 0.05 b | 16.2 ± 0.2 b | 15.7 ± 0.2 b | 29.7 ± 0.4 b |
ΔE compared to extraction medium DG. Values are means of five replicate determinations ± standard deviation (n = 5). The superscripts a, b and c denote significant (p < 0.05) differences within a given color parameter between extracts.
Figure 5The irritant potential of model bodywash gels. The superscripts a and b denote significant (p < 0.05) differences between the test extracts.
Figure 6Influence of plant extracts on skin pH. The superscripts a and b denote significant (p < 0.05) differences between the test extracts within the individual test times.
Figure 7Influence of plant extracts on skin hydration (A) and TEWL (B). The superscripts a, b and c denote significant (p < 0.05) differences between the test extracts within the individual test times.
Spectrophotometric data of the cosmetics with GPE_10pDG2p and GPE_20pDG2p obtained by D65.
| L* | a* | b* | C* | ho | ΔE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SG | 30.72 ± 0.12 c | −0.06 ± 0.05 c | 0.55 ± 0.03 c | 0.6 ± 0.1 c | −83.8 ± 0.3 c | - |
| SG_GPE_10pDG2p | 7.75 ± 0.06 a | 30.45 ± 0.06 a | 11.87 ± 0.05 a | 32.7 ± 0.2 a | 21.3 ± 0.2 a | 39.8 ± 0.3 a |
| SG_GPE_20pDG2p | 4.16 ± 0.04 b | 23.17 ± 0.05 b | 7.16 ± 0.04 b | 24.3 ± 0.2 b | 17.2 ± 0.2 b | 35.9 ± 0.4 b |
ΔE extracts compared to SG. Values are means of five replicate determinations ± standard deviation (n = 5). The superscripts a, b and c denote significant (p < 0.05) differences within a given color parameter between cosmetics.
Figure 8Rheogram of detergents; (a) Viscosity vs. shear rate; (b) Shear stress vs. shear rate.
Figure 9Foam properties.
Figure 10Example plates for microbiological stability testing: (a) microcount® duo plate for total bacterial colonies count, (b) microcount® duo plates for yeasts, fungi, and molds culture.
Quality parameters of harvested grapes (according to the Compendium of International Methods Of Analysis—OIV) [96].
| Acidity [g/L] | pH | Sugar [°Bx] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tartaric Acid | Malic Acid | Citric Acid | Acetic Acid | Sulphuric Acid | |||
| Regent | 6.75 | 6.03 | 5.76 | 5.40 | 4.41 | 3.46 | 20 |
| Léon Millot | 8.80 | 7.86 | 7.51 | 7.04 | 5.75 | 3.43 | 21 |
| Rondo | 9.15 | 8.17 | 7.81 | 7.32 | 5.98 | 3.23 | 20 |
The formulation used to prepare extracts.
| Ingredient (INCI Name) | GPE_10pDG2p | GPE_20pDG2p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Decyl glucoside | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | Benzyl alcohol, benzoic acid, dehydroacetic acid, tocopherol | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 3 | Aqua | 87.5 | 77.5 |
| 4 | Grape pomace | 10 | 20 |
Formulation of a model cosmetic (shower gels).
| Ingredient (INCI Name) | SG_GPE_10pDG2p | SG_GPE_20pDG2p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sodium coco-sulfate | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| 2 | Aqua | to 100 | to 100 |
| 3 | GPE_10pDG2p | 65 | - |
| 4 | GPE_20pDG2p | - | 65 |
| 5 | Decyl glucoside | 3.8 | 3.8 |
| 6 | Benzyl alcohol, benzoic acid, dehydroacetic acid, tocopherol | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 7 | Citric acid | to pH 5.5 | to pH 5.5 |
| 8 | Parfum | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 9 | Cocamidopropyl betaine | 2 | 2 |
| 10 | Sodium chloride | 1 | 1 |