-
Beneficial % of Vitamin E acetate and Tetrahexyldecyl ascorbate in serums
I’m doing some final tweaks on our company’s leave-on facial serum, and working on the vitamins and other ‘active’ ingredients. The Chief Scientist at a manufacturing facility was surprised that I had 2.5% vitamin E acetate, saying that all clients use 1% or less. I read in a few places that 0.5-1% E is added to keep the oil from going rancid, but that > 1% is for therapeutic benefit. I’m aiming for more of a therapeutic benefit, though without claiming such until we’ve paid for the testing needed to make any claims. She was concerned about skin irritation, but CIR shows up to 5% use in products for dermal contact and no irritation except for one questionable study. Any thoughts on the percentage here?
I’m also at 2.5% Vitamin C (Tetrahexyldecyl ascorbate). The CIR shows a maximum of 3% for use in leave-on cosmetics, including those for dermal contact. Does 2.5% seem reasonable? I know this is a pretty open ended question. Just trying to get some general thoughts and feedback.
-
14 Replies
-
In truth, whether you have the vitamin E in the formula or not, you are unlikely to notice any difference. I agree with your Chief Scientist, you don’t need any more than 1%.
And putting 2.5% Vitamin C seems like a waste to me also. That is a lot of material and it is simply going to oxidize when it is sitting on the store shelf. You will get no therapeutic benefit from it.
I answer this question as a scientist and I realize that as a product marketer, you might see things differently. In my opinion, Vitamin E & C are simply marketing ingredients that have little noticeable effect when delivered from topical cosmetic products. None of the evidence I’ve seen has convinced me otherwise.
I do realize that others might disagree. What evidence convinces you that you need such high levels of these ingredients in the formula?
-
I may end up taking the Vitamin C down a bit because it does seem a little high to me as well. I’ve read some publications about the therapeutic benefits of C and E, and believe that the combination of our delivery vehicle and approach of stabilizing the C will help, but I don’t think it will be that productive to debate the therapeutic benefits. From a marketing standpoint then, what percentages of Vitamin E do you typically see in creams, lotions, and serums that use it to slow the degradation of oils versus products that claim a benefit beyond stabilizing the oil phase?
-
-
I was under the impression that the acetate form of E did very little in the area of oil preservation, and was used for purported skin benefit? Am I misguided? I thought you needed MT E for oil preservation.
-
I know that Vitamin E is effective against peroxyl radicals, singlet oxygen radicals, and lipid peroxide radicals, which oxidize oils through various mechanisms and stages. When the phenolic hydrogen on Vitamin E is replaced by acetate, it may very well not work as an antioxidant in the bottle.
-
-
As a scientist, I see Vitamin E & C as marketing ingredients that have little
(if any) effect in topical skincare. But the marketing people will see it differently. -
You are not going to get any effect whatsoever from Tocopheryl Acetate. The conversion rate on the skin is only 6% or so. Better to use tocopherol or tocotrienols.
-
In typical formulation, I absolutely agree. However, I designed our delivery system to penetrate very deeply into the skin where Vitamin E acetate has a high rate of conversion.
-
-
Unless you can are willing to chase a benefit in clinicals, cut it down to minimal levels.
-
VE acetate does not penetrate stratum corneum as per Franz Cell tests so not even worth chasing clinical or some bogus claimVE phosphate by comparison penetrates epidermis/dermis and is a potent anti inflammatory.(ASHLAND)
-
Thanks for letting me know about Vitamin E phosphate. I wasn’t aware that it penetrated that deeply into the skin, but I suppose that makes sense because it’s water soluble. In my formula, I’m using nanocarriers to transport oil-soluble compounds deeply into the skin.
-
@DRBOB@VERDIENT.BIZ The marketing on this form of E glistened nicely off the shiny brochure. I was a little bit dazzled. ????
They say the Molecular Weight is 554.65.
How does this so easily slip through the skin at this size, when other things of this size struggle to wiggle through the cracks? ????
-
-
@ graillotion MARKETING Brochures are meant to be dazzling (tocopheryl phosphate is just outside 500 Dalton Rule at mw 555 which is a guide and not absolute ;actually T2P penetrates also as per Franz Cell work.Read patent literature as per Phosphagenics (now Avecho Biotechnology) TPM (TP and T2P) technology is also a penetration enhancer. Research which I co-led established the Company Try it one one of your difficult compounds.
-
Nanocarriers? Having interned with Ciba Geigy in the TransDerm Nitro QC line, I don’t think it is quite that simple.
-
Nanocarriers can be tricky, but my grad school and postdoctoral research was in nanotechnology and I specialized in multifunctional and multilayered nanoparticles made from all sorts of materials. I can make microemulsions, lipsomes, and lipid nanoparticles at my home and do some preliminary characterization at local universities. In fact, I’m literally taking a day trip to my alma mater tomorrow to use a few tools in their characterization labs. We’ve got a team member who’s a professor and specialist in dermal drug delivery, and another good friend specializes in wearables.
-
Log in to reply.