Critique my TEWL reduction moisturizer base ?Posted by zink on April 2, 2019 at 12:41 pm
INCI Purpose % Water Wetness :-p Glycerin Humectant Sodium PCA Humectant 2.00 Hydrolyzed Jojoba Ester Film former 2.00 Dimethicone Film former? (CPS1000) 1.00 Niacinamide Preventative vs blemishes 1.00 Panthenol Humectant, skin soothing 1.00 Sodium Ascorbyl Phosphate Antioxidant 1.00 Acacia Senegal Gum, Xanthan Gum Thickener Allantoin Moisturizing Keratolytic 0.25 Hyaluronic Acid? Moisturization 0.20 Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride Emollient 4.00 Cetearyl Alcohol, Coco-Glucoside Emulsifier Glyceryl Stearate Co-emulsifier Cholesterol TEWL reduction 1.00 Linoleic Acid TEWL reduction 1.00 Palmitic Acid TEWL reduction 0.50 Ceramide 3 TEWL reduction 0.25 Lauric Acid Preservative (formula passes USP51) 0.50 Alpha-Tocopherol Antioxidant 0.25
It’s designed with normal and “troubled skin” in mind, using a blend of lipids and a film former(s) to strengthen and protect the skin barrier reducing TEWL, allowing you to make an elegant low viscosity formula with long term moisturization properties - at least that’s the idea.
1. Do you see any potential issues for people with acne? I know comedogenicity is controversial and dose dependent (based on 10% used on rabbit ears), but I’ve gotten a couple reports of people breaking out with whiteheads / milia - any likely culprits?
2. I initially used 50 kDa low molecular weight Hyaluronic acid, which migrated and caused eye irritation, are there other options that penetrate the skin and don’t have this feature? The sodium form perhaps?
3. Is there anything you would change, dosages or adding/removing ingredients?
MemberApril 2, 2019 at 1:00 pm
I would increase Niacinamide to 4% and reduce Panthenol to 0.2%. Reason for that, Niacinamide is proven to work and Pantehol is proven to add stickiness.
Regarding dimethicone, I would suggest adding more to support TEWL claim. To be honest, nothing is better for reducing TEWL than petrolatum…
The questionable thing here is your emulsification system. Why coco-glucoside? Any particular reason for choosing it?
MemberApril 2, 2019 at 1:25 pm
I believe you have way too many ingredients. You will have no idea what ingredients have any real effect. Start simple, then build from there.
I would get rid of all the ingredients except water, glycerin, & dimethicone and any others that need to stabilize the formula. Then you could start adding one ingredient at a time to see if it has any effect. Putting in 9 ingredients without knowing whether any of them have an effect is not advisable.
You also don’t have a proper preservative in the formula. Lauric acid is not suitable. x
MemberApril 3, 2019 at 6:58 amI would increase Niacinamide to 4% and reduce Panthenol to 0.2%. Reason for that, Niacinamide is proven to work and Pantehol is proven to add stickiness.1% Niacinamide might be on the low end to have effect, but do you think 4% is high in a daily use formula, why 4%? 1% Panthenol seems to work ok in this formula re: stickiness since the emulsifier is very “glidy”, but going down to 0.5% could be good here - thanks!Regarding dimethicone, I would suggest adding more to support TEWL claim. To be honest, nothing is better for reducing TEWL than petrolatum…
The questionable thing here is your emulsification system. Why coco-glucoside? Any particular reason for choosing it?The idea with the formula is to reduce TEWL over time in a low viscosity formula with great sensorials using skin identical lipids in certain rations and amounts + subtle film formers, good president for this in the literature, we’ll do a TEWL study later on. Not sure dimethicone is even needed.
Coco glucoside works very well with mineral pigment should one want to add that, also it has better sensorials IMO than e.g. Ewax.
MemberApril 3, 2019 at 7:17 amI believe you have way too many ingredients. You will have no idea what ingredients have any real effect. Start simple, then build from there.
Good president for the ingredients working in the literature, and I don’t see why there’d be any negative interaction between them. The dosages are however not set, and it’s interesting to try to elucidate what the minimum effective dosages are - if we only have studies on e.g. 4% niacinamidie, can we expect 1% to have any significant effect (based on the effect size and confidence seen in the studies/the pharmacology) or would you more likely be doing label beautification?
The philosophy is that of a multivitamin, add relatively low amounts of ingredients that should be long term beneficial to 99% of skin types/conditions. Then make versions more suited for people with acne, e.g. increasing Niacinamide or adding an OTC active potentially, or more suitable for dry skin increasing the amount of film formers and lipids etc.
You could argue that most people won’t see benefit from e.g. 0.5% Panthenol or 2-4% Niacinamide used daily, or that we don’t know if they’re safe for long-term use - interested in hearing your perspectives.
But how would you have an idea anyways if you’re not doing studies to quantify the effects? I would definitely like to study the effects on a molecular and clinical level of different ingredient combinations (how someone got that Vit C patent), but that would require more funding than I have. It’s an interesting question most formulators face.
MemberApril 3, 2019 at 7:33 am
Here’s an interesting study on the effect of 0.5, 1 and 5% Panthenol on TEWL, 0.5% seems like the lower limit for it doing anything, and only 1% reaches statistical significance. x
MemberApril 3, 2019 at 7:30 pm
@Zink - Interesting study and I have no doubt that you can get some moisturizing effect from panthenol. I was also impressed that the authors did a proper Vehicle and Blank control.
However, I don’t find this study particularly compelling. Primarily because they didn’t compare the performance of the ingredient to the best technology for skin moisturization via humectancy, glycerin. They used glycerin in the control vehicle, but only at 2.5% (actives ~2.1%) If they used 5% glycerin which is common then it’s unlikely you’d see any statistical improvement.
So why use any panthenol if you can get the same or better results from glycerin?
But that’s not even where to stop. When evaluating the usefulness of an ingredient you shouldn’t just compare it to no treatment or a weak treatment. You should compare it to the best treatment. If a product / ingredient shows no more benefit than a blend of Petrolatum/Mineral Oil/Glycerin then it’s really not a consumer benefit.
There are three types of compounds used in moisturizers.
Occlusive agents to reduce TEWL - nothing is better than petrolatum / mineral oil
Humectants to attract water - nothing is better than glycerin
Emollients help to soften skin - the best is more a personal preference.
Here’s a good article on the subject.
It is easy to prove that an ingredient moisturizes. But for consumers if you can provide them the best benefit at the lowest cost, why wouldn’t you do that?
MemberApril 3, 2019 at 8:13 pm
@Perry it’s definitely an interesting yet very limited study, as you say, there are definitely better ways to decrease TEWL. I wouldn’t add panthenol due to that effect!Occlusive agents to reduce TEWL - nothing is better than petrolatum / mineral oil
Floratech claims that their Jojoba esters outperform Petrolatum in TEWL reduction, and the sensorials are certainly better IMO at the concentration used in the study. https://www.floratech.com/PDFs/ClaimSheets/CS10-030.pdf
If the results are true, and it wouldn’t be too hard to validate this in a formula, it’s a greener, label-friendlier, more effective and elegant way to reduce TEWL at a negligible cost differential in most say >=$15 products.
My favorite quote from the review article:The search for an ideal moisturizer is a vain task, for the needs and results are highly subjective.
MemberApril 3, 2019 at 9:17 pm
@Zink - the Floratech technology certainly looks intriguing for all of the reasons you posted. I’m skeptical of claims that it outperforms Petrolatum since those come from a biased source. I’d need to see multiple replications by independent sources before I buy into it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Evidence from suppliers should be viewed as directionally interesting but not definitive. How many studies did they run to get those results? Having personally conducted some TEWL meter studies, I know how difficult it is to get any repeatable data.
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 7:18 am
@Perry indeed, they have another study where they compare 2% KW20 ester to 10% petrolatum where petrolatum wins out on absolute terms http://www.floratech.com/PDFs/ClaimSheets/CS10-021.pdf
Their 2% KW60 that outperformed 5% petrolatum in the other study I believe is simply a 3x more concentrated form of KW20. Since they haven’t used any higher percentages, 2% KW60 that might be the ceiling of good sensorials with their esters, who knows. I’ve used a tewameter and it wasn’t fun.
Another big question making multi-active formulas is whether the ingredients have additive effects or not, if panthenol decreases TEWL, is it likely additive with Glycerin or not? How long does the individual ingredient effects last? Where do you get to diminishing returns?
Here’s one study that seems to show that glycerin has a shorter TEWL reduction effect duration alone compared to silicone oil, but extends the duration and effect size of silicone oil when used together with it.Comparing TEWL before application and 30 minutes and 6 hours after application of six creams with or without glycerin, hyaluronic acid and/or silicone oil, the cream including both glycerin and silicone oil showed the most decreased value of TEWL and the longest holding time. The second on the result was the cream with both hyaluronic acid and silicone oil, followed by the silicone oil cream, the glycerin cream and the hyaluronic acid cream. Although glycerin, hyaluronic acid and silicone oil affect increasing skin hydration and decreasing TEWL, our data showed that the product containing not only silicone but also moisture factors such as glycerin and hyaluronic acid is more effective rather than applying the product with silicone oil only.
@MarkBroussard target market are young professionals 20-35 who want time-saving multi-function products, primarily women but also men. Keep in mind the idea is to make a base common to several products similar to what Cerave has done, then add actives ranging from mineral sunscreen (hence the emulsifier) to retinoid nightcream.
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 11:05 am
My point was also … do you have restrictions on which ingredients you will use … for instance, Petrolatum is a no-go in several target markets so no point in debating the effectiveness of Petrolatum relative to other alternatives if you will not use Petrolatum under any circumstances.
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 12:37 pm
@MarkBroussard I’m pragmatic, only I have a preference for natural and organic ingredients if they don’t compromise performance significantly so there’s a point for me to debate the effectiveness of petrolatum. I use it myself sometimes too.
Everyone is making “natural” products these days, it’s not a huge selling point IMO unless you can actually make something USDA organic certified, or some gimmick like “edible skincare”, but that typically leads to too many compromises re: efficacy.
I am concerned with long-term safety and effects, for instance, one Phd dissertation/study I remember indicated that a common polyacrylate emulsifier had long term negative effects on the skin barrier (also true for olive oil for that matter).
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 12:59 pm
Edible skincare.. I saw a drinkable perfume yesterday. Made of 60% of gin…
Do you mind specifying which polyacrylate emulsifier was it? I have quite a few and wondering whether I use it.
Very interesting point on olive oil. Would appreciate a link to a paper if you have it. I noticed it’s quite drying after a couple uses, but thought it’s an anecdotal evidence.
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 2:13 pm
@MarkBroussard You made the point for me, everyone is doing it. I wasn’t saying natural isn’t big, it’s just not a strong differentiator any longer IMO.
The biggest hits in skincare the last few years didn’t come from focus on being natural, e.g. drunk elephant, curology, the ordinary etc, correct me If I’m wrong.
Also, skincare statistics vary a lot depending on source, the typical CAGR I’ve seen for natural skincare is around 8-10% and 4-6% for skincare as a whole.
Olive Oil is around 70% Oleic Acid which disrupts the skin barrier, and has been tested as a penetration enhancer for this reason, I don’t have the exact study but here’s one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12520175/
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Yes, you are correct that some companies who are not natural have done well. and there are companies that are natural who have done better.
Back to the issue at hand … if you are not adverse to Petrolatum, then you should Petrolatum … you won’t find anything better at reducing TEWL.
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 5:05 pm
@Zink I use acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer quite a lot… The article you shared doesn’t say which ingredient increases TEWL though, it says “The ingredients which influence the skin barrier function need to be identified, and the mechanism clarified at the molecular level”. Have I missed anything?
Regarding companies like Drunk Elephant, they are in what is now called “clean beauty”. Has nothing to do with any natural standards such as Ecocert. They just put together a list of “bad” ingredients depending on their preferences (I saw glycerin in that list once) and claim they are “clean”. Drunk Elephant made vilans of parabens (so original!), silicones and perfume. There is whole section for “clean beauty” in Sephora.
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 5:20 pm
DECIEM does not make any “natural” or “clean” claims as far as I know. They are quite conventional and use silicones in many of their lines. They use “something” - free table (as the one below), but they have water-free products with are not silicones-free.
As you can see there are no common “criminals” as parabens in this table.
They probably imply that alcohol and gluten are the “criminals”, but IMHO it’s quite easy to make efficient, cost effective and well performing products without nuts, alcohol (I am not talking about sanitisers) and gluten. The one below could actually be officially claimed as preservatives free, as it’s two ingredients in propanediol 1,3.
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 6:20 pm
@MarkBroussard eager to know which companies of the last 5 years leading with a natural message have done better! The honest company comes to mind, but they only recently got into skincare. I’ll stick to Jojoba esters for now.
@ngarayeva001 the acrylates were the only ingredient in one of the formulas, and it lead to statistical increase in TEWL. There was also a Phd dissertation finding something similar.
Drunk elephant is mostly a packaging and design play, they did a great job making a (overpriced and ingredient wise nothing special) total package that resonates with their target market and they knew how to market it.
I don’t think a fraction of people can differentiate between ecocert, different organic labeling, what a product should be free of etc. It’s all confusing and you won’t stand out from just being natural. You might as well call DECIEM The Ordinary, which went viral and exploded open a new market combining unprecedented low price, transparent labeling of effective dosages and great design. Young prosumers into DIY / tailored skincare went mad for it and understandably so! Nothing to do with their free-of chart.
MemberApril 4, 2019 at 8:11 pm
I was quite surprised by textures of Drunk Elephant’s products, provided that they don’t use silicones. I agree it’s overpriced and marula oil doesn’t do anything special.
I said DECIEM because I used their other brands (NIOD, Hylamide) as well, not only the ordinary. None of them claim to be ‘free of’
MemberApril 6, 2019 at 12:47 pm
Arguably NIOD and to a lesser extend Hylamide are confusing messes, the Ordinary is their big hit and the reason Estee Lauder bought a stake hence why I focused on it. But yes, certainly not leading with natural or “free-of” marketing:)
MemberApril 6, 2019 at 2:14 pm
I am actually quite impressed by some of NIOD’s formulas but I can totally see that NIOD doesn’t have a significant contribution to the sales. Loaded with expensive activities and I don’t think that the margin is impressive (ethyl ascorbic acid serum is an example).
Log in to reply.