4.7 Article

Ethnobotany and Toxicity Status of Medicinal Plants with Cosmeceutical Relevance from Eastern Cape, South Africa

Journal

PLANTS-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants11111451

Keywords

cosmeceutical; medicinal plants; natural products; skincare; toxicity

Categories

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF), Pretoria under the Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) category [93185]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the toxicity status of important medicinal plants used for skincare by indigenous people in the Eastern Cape and found that most of these plants are non-toxic and suitable for the formulation of skincare products.
The indigenous people of the Eastern Cape residing within the richest plant biodiversity in the world, including Africa's floral 'gold mine', have a long history of plant use for skincare. However, such rich flora comes with numerous plants that have the potential to cause harm to humans through their usage. Therefore, the study was aimed at documenting the toxicity status of important medicinal plants used by the indigenous people from the Eastern Cape for skincare and supported by literature for cosmeceutical relevance. A list of plants used for skincare was produced following an ethnobotanical survey. In addition, data on the level of toxicity and cosmeceutical relevance of plants listed from the survey were collected from literature resources. The study listed a total of 38 plants from 25 plant families, the majority being represented by the Asphodelaceae and Asteraceae, both at 13.2%. The most preferred plant parts were the leaves (60.4%) indicating sustainable harvesting practices by the community. The literature reports validated 70% of the medicinal plants surveyed for skincare were nontoxic. Most of the plants can be incorporated in the formulation of products intended for skincare due to their low toxicity and high cosmeceutical relevance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available