4.7 Article

Evaluation of the transdermal permeation of different paraben combinations through a pig ear skin model

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 391, 期 1-2, 页码 1-6

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2010.02.006

关键词

Parabens; Transdermal permeation; Pig ear skin; Capillary electrophoresis; Factorial design

资金

  1. CAPES/MEC
  2. CNPq/MCT (Brazil)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although parabens have several features of ideal preservatives, different studies have shown that they may affect human health due to their estrogenic activity. Therefore, various strategies have been applied to reduce their skin penetration. However, the effect of paraben combinations on transdermal permeation has not yet been investigated. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate paraben permeation in pig ear skin using a Franz diffusion cell system with capillary electrophoresis detection, in order to identify which paraben combinations (defined by a factorial design) have the lowest skin permeation. The permeation of isolated parabens was also evaluated and the permeation characteristics, obtained by the Moser model, confirmed that lipophilicity and molecular weight may influence the systemic absorption of these compounds. In previous tests using isolated parabens, methyl and ethyl parabens presented greater retention in the epidermis compared to the dermis, while propyl and butyl parabens had similar retention profiles in these layers. An increase in ethanol concentration and experimental time promoted greater parabens retention in the dermis compared to the epidermis. The binary combinations of methyl and ethyl parabens as well as of methyl and propyl parabens (added to several cosmetic products in order to increase the antimicrobial spectrum) reduced significantly their permeation rates through pig ear skin (with the exception of EP), probably due to the high retention of these parabens in the epidermis and dermis. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据