| Title |
Topical Formulation Containing Beeswax-Based Nanoparticles Improved In Vivo Skin Barrier Function
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AAPS PharmSciTech, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1208/s12249-017-0737-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carla Souza, Luis Alexandre Pedro de Freitas, Patrícia Maria Berardo Gonçalves Maia Campos |
| Abstract |
Lipid nanoparticles have shown many advantages for treatment/prevention of skin disorders with damaged skin barrier function. Beeswax is a favorable candidate for the development of nanosystems in the cosmetic and dermatological fields because of its advantages for the development of products for topical application. In the present study, beeswax-based nanoparticles (BNs) were prepared using the hot melt microemulsion technique and incorporated to a gel-cream formulation. The formulation was subsequently evaluated for its rheological stability and effect on stratum corneum water content (SCWC) and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) using in vivo biophysical techniques. BNs resulted in mean particle size of 95.72 ± 9.63 nm and zeta potential of -9.85 ± 0.57 mV. BN-loaded formulation showed shear thinning behavior, well adjusted by the Herschel-Bulkley model, and a small thixotropy index that were stable for 28 days at different temperatures. BN-loaded formulation was also able to simultaneously decrease the TEWL and increase the SCWC values 28 days after treatment. In conclusion, the novel beeswax-based nanoparticles showed potential for barrier recovery and open the perspective for its commercial use as a novel natural active as yet unexplored in the field of dermatology and cosmetics for treatment of skin diseases with damaged skin barrier function. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mauritius | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 107 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 35 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 24% |
| Chemistry | 8 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 46 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,554,560
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from AAPS PharmSciTech
#202
of 1,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,048
of 309,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AAPS PharmSciTech
#4
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,469 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.