Battle of Glycerol and Sorbitol. Which is the all-rounder?
This is a very interesting article. It is what it is. No B.S. No scaremongering.
What caught my attention is Sorbitol is invoked. Oh I love Sorbitol simply because most people gravitate towards Glycerol. Bwahahaha!
The way @Perry described, Sorbitol is my ideal sort of humectant. Not tacky/sticky, more hygroscopic than Glycerol. However, I remember that I read an article of Swiftcraftmonkey (Susan), she says Glycerol is not washed away due to some aquaporin thing. I have been wondering how come Glycerin is seemingly the only thing that gets absorbed that efficiently, it is not even cationic. I could not retrieve the article because she had made her entire site a paid one.
I then consulted the Internet University (including Google Scholar), but to no avail. This ‘aquaporin’ is too general as it exists all over our body. I could not find the effect of putting Glycerol specifically on skin and how it actually works.
Can Sorbitol penetrate aquaporin and be resorbed like Glycerol?
Sorbitol is twice the size of Glycerol. Does molecular weight matter in this instance?
Is that aquaporin very important?
I always thought that as long as the skin is kept moist with whatever (e.g., Petroleum Jelly) then healing naturally takes place as enzymes require some level of moisture to work. But then Glycerol comes in with the claim of speeding up healing, lipid regeneration, and all-that-you-know, all due to aquaporin-Glycerol relationship.
Can Sorbitol also do what Glycerol does minus the stickiness and extreme gloss?
Sorbitol is very inexpensive, at least for me. My heart is not hurt even when I indiscriminately replace Glycerol with Sorbitol.
Log in to reply.