Anti-Pollution + Film Forming + Moisturizing
Technical Information Product Code: 16586 INCI Name: Selaginella Lepidophylla Extract INCI Status: Approved Suggested Use Level: 1.0-10.0% Suggested Applications: Moisturizing, Soothing, Antioxidant, Emolliency
Unlike animals, plants are immobile As plants cannot escape from danger by taking motion, they need a special mechanism to withstand environmental stress They develop secondary metabolites to empower them to withstand harsh external influence and preserve life The desert provides a unique set of challenges to plant life - Very low levels of humidity - Difficulty for plant survival As a result, desert plants have had to develop more complex strategies for moisture retention
Desert Plant: The Resurrection Plant Selaginella Lepidophylla These plants can endure almost total desiccation (loss of cellular water down to <5%) for long periods of time losing all appearance of life Under dry conditions Selaginella Lepidophylla is curled and wilted appearing almost as a fist Will fully recover when exposed to elevated moisture levels
The Resurrection Plant: Overcoming Stress Abscisic acid: Plant hormone that suspends primary & secondary metabolism during stress Stress Proteins: Provide anti-aggregation activity due to water stress Enzymes: Boost carbohydrate metabolism to repair damage caused by desiccation during rehydration Polysaccharides: Serves as energy storage while boosting metabolic activity, improving water holding capacity & enhancing membrane protection and stability Polyphenols: Work as antioxidants & membrane protectants
The Resurrection Plant: Synergistic Effect Traditional Cosmetic Approach Focused on isolation of natural components Novel Cosmetic Approach Focused on isolation of intact systems to achieve a synergistic effect All phyto-compounds in resurrection plants work synergistically to: Reduce cellular metabolism during desiccation Reduce damage during desiccation Resume cellular metabolism during re-hydration Repair damage during re-hydration
The Resurrection Plant: Complex Iridoid Systems Reduces protein aggregation Improves integrity of structural proteins Promotes repair and improved barrier function Intense water holding and hydrating properties Potent moisturizing benefits Reduced Trans Epidermal Water Loss (TEWL) Antioxidant Protection Complex carbohydrates enhance epidermal Slip Emolliency Enhanced formulation aesthetics Natural Silicone Replacement
Selaginella Lepidophylla Extract Unique manufacturing process - Allows for the extraction of intact systems as opposed to isolated compounds Provides a synergistic effect Globally Acceptable Sustainable
Efficacy Data In-vivo Efficacy Studies Assessment of Hair Characteristics Moisturization Comparison Skin Density TEWL Comparison Pollution Protection Assay In-vitro Efficacy Studies High Resolution Ultrasound Skin Imaging IL-6 ELISA Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity Assay Cellular Viability Scratch Assay
Rating from 1 (worst) to 10 (best) Phytofuse Renew 12 Assessment of Hair Characteristics Protocol Baseline-A sensory evaluation was conducted 10 8 Baseline Assessment of Untreated Hair Test Area: Hair 6 Half Head Assessment of Control Serum Concentration of active used: 2.0% Phytofuse Renew in a Serum 4 2 Half Head Assessment of Phytofuse Renew Serum Participant assessed hair characteristics 0 Assessments were made using a rubic scale from 1-10 Figure 1. Rating of hair characteristics following sensory assessment.
Assessment of Hair Characteristics Protocol Subject washed & dried hair as normal Baseline-Sensory evaluation was conducted Test Area: Hair Concentration of active used: 2.0% Phytofuse Renew in a Serum Figure 2. Full head Baseline, Untreated Hair.
Assessment of Hair Characteristics Half-Head Treated with Phytofuse Renew Serum Half-Head Control Serum Protocol Subject washed & dried hair as normal Baseline-Sensory evaluation was conducted Test Area: Hair Concentration of active used: 2.0% Phytofuse Renew in a Serum Figure 3. Half-Head Zoomed-Out Photo of Hair Treated with Test Serum vs. Control Serum.
Percent (%) Difference Phytofuse Renew Difference of Hair Sensory Assessment Results 70% 60% Phytofuse Renew Serum vs. Control Serum: 50% 40% 30% Experimental Serum vs Untreated Control Shine-14% Smoothness-28% Hydration-50% Manageability-43% 20% 10% 0% Experimental Serum vs Control Serum Phytofuse Renew Serum vs. Untreated Improved: Shine-60% -10% -20% Smoothness-29% Hydration-50% Manageability-25% -30% Figure 4. Hair Assessment results for sensory characteristics.
Percent (%) Difference Phytofuse Renew Moisturization Comparison Protocol 120% 110% 108% Equipment: DermaLab Combo 100% 80% 71% 95% Principle of measurement: Conductance, single frequency 60% Subjects: 10 (m/f) 40% 20% 0% -20% -3% 26% 27% 26% t = 24 1 week 2 week 3 weeks Experimental vs. Untreated Control Experimental vs. Base Lotion Figure 5: Improvements in moisturization following application of the test materials after a period of 3 weeks. Test area: Volar forearms Concentration of active used: 2.0% Frequency of application: Twice Daily
Percent (%) Difference Phytofuse Renew Skin Density Comparison Protocol 0.16 15% Equipment: DermaLab Combo 0.14 0.12 13% 12% 14% Principle of measurement: Ultrasound Probe 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 5% 2% 8% 6% Subjects: 10 (m/f) Test area: Volar forearms Concentration of active used: 2.0% 0 t = 24 hours 1 week 2 week 3 weeks Experimental vs. Untreated Control Experimental vs. Base Lotion Frequency of application: Twice Daily Figure 6: Improvements in skin density following application of the test materials after a period of 3 weeks.
Percent (%) Decrease Phytofuse Renew TEWL Comparison Protocol 30% Equipment: DermaLab Combo 25% 20% 22% 23% 24% 19% Principle of measurement: Open Chamber, vapor diffusion gradient 15% 12% 14% Subjects: 10 (m/f) 10% 5% 0% 9% 3% t = 24 1 week 2 week 3 weeks Experimental vs. Untreated Control Experimental vs. Base Lotion Figure 7. Improvements in barrier function following application of the test materials after a period of 3 weeks. Test area: Volar forearms Concentration of active used: 2.0% Frequency of application: Twice Daily
Percent (%) Difference Between Test Sites Phytofuse Renew High Resolution Ultrasound Skin Imaging 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% Experimental vs. Untreated Base Lotion vs. Untreated Control Experimental vs. Base Lotion Protocol 10 M/F Equipment: DermaLab Skin Combo Apply 2 mg of each test material on volar forearms Measurements were taken 24 hours after application of test materials and then weekly for 4 weeks Concentration: 2.0% Phytofuse Renew 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% t=24 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week Figure 8. Percent difference in skin density recordings between test materials.
Hair Pollution Protection Assay Method 16 virgin hair swatches 4 testing groups untreated, shampoo/conditioner, saturation with rinse, saturation without rinse Experimental 2.0% Phytofuse Renew in Shampoo and Conditioner, 2.0% Phytofuse Renew aqueous solution Hair was exposed to cigarette smoke in a custom 22 x15 x6 smoke chamber for 30 minutes Lipid peroxidation assay was performed to quantitatively assess oxidative damage Malondialdehyde is useful for quantitatively measuring the end product of lipid peroxidation and determining oxidative stress. An increase in MDA indicates an increase in lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress.
nmol/µl Phytofuse Renew MDA Lipid Peroxidation Results 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Untreated Control Average MDA Concentration Shampoo/Conditioner Control 2.0% Phytofuse Renew in Shampoo and Conditioner 2.0% Phytofuse Renew Saturation with Rinse 2.0% Phytofuse Renew Saturation without Rinse 2.0% Phytofuse Renew demonstrated significantly lower levels of MDA than the control standards 2.0% Phytofuse Renew in Shampoo and Conditioner showed 41.8% less MDA than shampoo and conditioner alone. 2.0% Phytofuse Renew with Rinse showed 69.0% less MDA than the untreated hair sample 2.0% Phytofuse Renew without Rinse showed 41.9% less MDA than the untreated hair sample Figure 9. Average values of MDA.
Percent (%) Difference Phytofuse Renew 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 MDA Lipid Peroxidation Comparative Difference in Protection 2.0% Phytofuse Renew in Shampoo and Conditioner vs. Shampoo/Conditioner Control 2.0% Phytofuse Renew Saturation 2.0% Phytofuse Renew Saturation with Rinse vs. Untreated Control without Rinse vs. Untreated Control Results 2.0% Phytofuse Renew demonstrated significantly lower levels of MDA than the control standards 2.0% Phytofuse Renew in Shampoo and Conditioner showed 41.8% less MDA than shampoo and conditioner alone. 2.0% Phytofuse Renew with Rinse showed 69.0% less MDA than the untreated hair sample 2.0% Phytofuse Renew without Rinse showed 41.9% less MDA than the untreated hair sample Figure 10. Average values of MDA.
Skin Pollution Protection Assay Method Volunteers, male and female, between the ages of 23 and 45 Apply 2 mg of each test material, experimental, control, and untreated on volar forearms Lotions were allowed to dry completely before the addition of 5 mg of micronized charcoal The micronized charcoal used has a particle size of 2.5 microns (PM 2.5) or less that mimics the small particulates found in polluted air Each treatment area was washed five times using deionized water Images were taken pre- and post-wash using a dissecting microscope The test material consisted of 2% Phytofuse Renew in a Cetaphil Moisturizing for All Skin Types
Pre-Wash Post-Wash Test Sites (Left to Right): Untreated, Phytofuse Renew, Control
Pre-Wash Post-Wash Phytofuse Renew Lotion Control Untreated Control
IL-6 Concentration (pg/ml) Phytofuse Renew IL-6 ELISA Analysis Protocol 2500 Human dermal fibroblasts were seeded into 12-well tissue culture plates 2000 1917.9 Phytofuse Renew were added to complete DMEM containing 1µg/mL LPS and incubated with fibroblasts for 24 hours 1500 1000 1267.1 1432.9 1458.9 Concentrations: 1%, 0.1%, 0.01% Phytofuse Renew -exhibited antiinflammatory effects on LPS-treated fibroblasts 500 450.1 The changes in IL-6 production using Phytofuse Renew appear to be dose dependent 0 1% 16586 Phytofuse Renew 0.1% 16586 Phytofuse Renew 0.01% 16586 Phytofuse Renew Positive Control Negative Control Figure 11. Phytofuse Renew -treated fibroblasts IL-6 concentrations.
Antioxidant Capacity (µm TE) Phytofuse Renew 140 120 ORAC Assay Protocol Trolox was used as the positive control 100 Solutions were prepared at two concentrations, as a reference 80 60 Florescent measurements were taken every 2 minutes for 2 hours 40 20 Phytofuse Renew showed antioxidant activity 0 200 µm Trolox 12.5 µm Trolox 10% Phytofuse Renew Figure 12. Antioxidant capacity of Phytofuse Renew.
Viability (% of control) Phytofuse Renew Cellular Viability Assay Protocol 150% 140% 130% 120% 110% 100% 90% 123.86% 100.95% 114.11% Human dermal fibroblasts were seeded into 96-well tissue culture plates Ten microliters of viability reagent was added to 90µL of cell culture media in culture wells Concentrations: 1%,.10%, 0.01% Phytofuse Renew at all concentrations is able to increase cellular metabolism compared to the control 80% 70% 60% The increase in fluorescent signal indicates an increase in cellular metabolism and viability post Phytofuse Renew treatment 50% 1% 0.10% 0.01% Concentration of Sample Figure 13. Cellular Metabolism of Phytofuse Renew -treated fibroblasts expressed in terms of percent of control.
Negative Control Positive Control Phytofuse Renew A Scratch Assay t=0 t=96 t=96 B C Protocol Human dermal fibroblasts were allowed to grow to confluency in complete DMEM D E F 0.5% Phytofuse Renew was added to the serum free DMEM & incubated with fibroblasts G H I The confluent cells were scratched Cells were stained for enhanced microscopy Figure 14. Images right after scratch, after 5 days and after 5 days but stained for enhanced microscopy.
Technical Information Product Code: 16586 INCI Name: Selaginella Lepidophylla Extract INCI Status: Approved Suggested Use Level: 1.0-10.0% Suggested Applications: Moisturizing, Soothing, Antioxidant, Emolliency
THANK YOU For more information Visit our website! www.activeconceptsllc.com