Cosmetic compositions having antioxidant properties

Abstract

The present invention relates to cosmetic compositions having antioxidant properties and suitable for any type of skin.

Claims

1. A composition having antioxidant and visible and near infra-red light protection properties comprising a mixture of the following substances, the respective percentages by weight being in relation to the total weight of the composition a) one or more UVA and UVB filters at a percentage by weight from 5 to 24%, b) one or more pigments, selected from the group consisting of rutile (titanium dioxide), zinc oxide, silicon dioxide, zirconium oxide, aluminium oxide and mixtures thereof having different particle sizes in the micro and nano ranges and at a percentage by weight from 2 to 30%, c) one or more cooling agents at a percentage by weight from 0.1 to 20% d) one or more radical scavengers at a percentage by weight from 0.1 to 48%, or from 0.1 to 5%, and e) a residual percentage up to 100 wt % of cosmetic carriers, excipients, active substances and mixtures thereof, wherein the radical scavenger is a mixture of Rhodiola Sacra Root Extract, Coix Lacryma-Jobi Seed Extract, Dendrobium nobile Lindl Flower Extract and Camellia sinensis Leaf Extract, or wherein the radical scavenger is a mixture of Saussurea involucrata Extract, Calendula officinalis Flower Extract, Paeonia lactiflora Root Extract and Camellia sinensis Leaf Extract, or wherein the radical scavenger is a mixture of Scutellaria lateriflora Root Extract, Salvia miltiorrhiza Root Extract, Bletilla striata Root Extract and Camellia sinensis Leaf Extract.

2. The composition according to claim 1, which is a cosmetic light protection and sunscreen composition.

3. The composition according to claim 1, which is an anti-aging composition.

4. The composition according to claim 1, which is an anti-dark spot composition.

5. The composition according to claim 1, which is a whitening composition, said composition comprising a whitening agent.

6. The composition according to claim 1, comprising a mixture of the following substances, the respective percentages by weight being in relation to the total weight of the composition a) one or more UVA and UVB filters at a percentage by weight of 14.5%, b) one or more pigments, selected from the group consisting of rutile (titanium dioxide), zinc oxide, silicon dioxide, zirconium oxide, aluminium oxide and mixtures thereof having different particle sizes in the micro and nano ranges and at a percentage by weight from 2 to 30%, c) one or more cooling agents at a percentage by weight from 0.1 to 20%, d) one or more radical scavengers at a percentage by weight from 0.1 to 5%, and e) a residual percentage up to 100 wt % of cosmetic carriers, excipients, active substances and mixtures thereof, or comprising a mixture of the following substances, the respective percentages by weight being in relation to the total weight of the composition a) one or more UVA and UVB filters at a percentage by weight from 5 to 24%, b) one or more pigments, selected from the group consisting of rutile (titanium dioxide), zinc oxide, silicon dioxide, zirconium oxide, aluminium oxide and mixtures thereof having different particle sizes in the micro and nano ranges and at a percentage by weight of 10.5%, c) one or more cooling agents at a percentage by weight from 0.1 to 20%, d) one or more radical scavengers at a percentage by weight from 0.1 to 5%, and e) a residual percentage up to 100 wt % of cosmetic carriers, excipients, active substances and mixtures thereof.

7. The composition according to claim 1, wherein the UV filters are Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine, Drometrizole Trisiloxane, Terephthalylidene Dicamphor Sulfonic Acid, Ethylhexyl Triazone, Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane, Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate, Diethylhexyl Butamido Triazone, Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid, Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate, Ethylhexyl Salicylate, Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol, Octocrylene, Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid, or mixtures thereof, or wherein the UV filters are a mixture of Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate, Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate, Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine, Octocrylene and Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid.

8. The composition according to claim 1, wherein the pigment is a mixture of nanometer-size particles and micrometer-size particles in a weight ratio of the nanoparticles to the microparticles from 5:1 to 8:1.

9. The composition according to claim 1, wherein the cooling agent is selected from the group consisting of L-Menthone Glycerol Ketal, DL-Menthone Glycerol Ketal, mixtures of the two, N-Ethyl-p-Menthane-3-Carboxamide, Menthol, Isopulegol, Monomenthyl Glutarate, 3-L-Menthoxypropane-1,2-Diol, Ethoxycarbonylmethyl-3-p-Menthane Carboxamide, essential oils of camphor, mint, lavender and mixtures thereof.

10. The composition according to claim 1, wherein the radical scavenger has a radical protection factor of 40 to 100,000.

11. The composition according to claim 1, having a radical protection factor of 20 to 4,000.

12. The composition according to claim 1, having a sun protection factor higher than 40, or of 40 to 50+.

13. The composition according to claim 1, being in a form of milk, gel, lotion, stick, water in oil emulsion, oil in water emulsion, or fluid emulsion.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1: Optical properties absorption ta and scattering effective coefficient μs′ of the formulation LC and LC1

(2) The x-axis of the graph represents the wavelength in nanometers.

(3) The y-axis of the graph represents the absorption or scattering coefficient in (1/mm).

(4) FIG. 2: Relative radical formation in the skin after irradiation with 42.6 J/cm.sup.2 in the VIS/NIR spectral range. The data are calculated relative to the radical formation without any cream treatment, Mean±SEM, ** p≤0.01, *** p≤0.001.

(5) The x-axis of the graph represents the 3 samples tested: the untreated control, LC and LC1.

(6) The y-axis of the graph represents the relative cumulative radical formation to the untreated control in a.u.

(7) FIG. 3: Relative carotenoid concentration on the skin, before and after NIR irradiation (60 mW/cm.sup.2) for untreated and sunscreen treated skin (LC1; LC, 2 mg/cm.sup.2), * p≤0.05 (n=6).

(8) The x-axis of the graph represents the 3 samples tested: the untreated control, LC and LC1.

(9) The y-axis of the graph represents the relative carotenoid level.

(10) The invention will now be explained in greater detail by way of examples.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Examples

Example 1

(11) Light Protection and Sunscreen Formulation I

(12) Three separately prepared phases, A, B and C, are formed. Phases A and B are stirred together at 75° C. and homogenised at this temperature for about 15 minutes at approximately 3000 rpm. After cooling down to 40° C., phase C is added while stirring, and stirring is continued for another few minutes. The phase composition, in wt %, is as follows.

(13) Phase A: water up to 100%, Propylene Glycol 2.2, Acrylates Crosspolymer 0.5, Xanthan Gum 0.3.

(14) Phase B: Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate 5.0, Tinosorb M® (Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol) 3.0, TiO.sub.2 4.0 (100 to 200 nm), TiO.sub.2 0.8 (200 to 300 m), ZnO 1.0 (100 to 200 nm), ZnO 0.2 (100 to 150 m), Ethylhexyl Salicylate 4.0, Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane 3.0, Dicaprylyl Carbonate 6.0.

(15) Phase C: Colhibin® (Hydrolyzed Rice Protein) 0.5, mixture of antioxidant extracts 4.5 (rosewood (Rhodiola sacra Root Extract), Job's tear (Coix lacryma-Jobi Seed Extract), orchid (Dendrobium nobile Lindl Flower Extract) and green tea (Camellia sinensis Leaf Extract)), Isopulegol 2.0, Soy Protein 0.7, Preservative 0.8, Perfume 0.8.

Example 2

(16) Light Protection and Sunscreen Formulation II

(17) The preparation is similar to that of example 1. The phase composition, in wt %, is as follows.

(18) Phase A: water up to 100%, Propylene Glycol 2.0, Acrylates Crosspolymer 0.6, Guar Gum 0.4.

(19) Phase B: Mexoryl® XL (Drometrizole trisiloxane) 2.0, Mexoryl® SX (terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid) 1.0, Uvinul® T150 (Ethylhexyl Triazone) 2.0, Uvinul® A+(Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate) 2.80, TiO.sub.2 3.4 (100 to 200 nm), TiO.sub.2 0.4 (200 to 300 μnm), ZnO 0.4 (100 to 200 nm), ZnO 0.1 (100 to 150 m), Dicaprylyl Carbonate 5.5.

(20) Phase C: Colhibin® (Hydrolyzed Rice Protein) 0.6, mixture of antioxidant extracts 4.5 (Saussurea (Saussurea involucrata Extract), common marigold (Calendula officinalis Flower Extract), peony (Paeonia lactiflora Root Extract) and green tea (Camellia sinensis Leaf Extract)), Glycerol 2.0, Menthol 1.0, Rice Protein 0.9, Preservative 0.8, Perfume 0.5.

Example 3

(21) Light Protection and Sunscreen Formulation III

(22) The preparation is similar to that of example 1. The phase composition, in wt %, is as follows.

(23) Phase A: water up to 100%, Propylene glycol 2.1, Acrylates Crosspolymer 0.6, Guar Gum 0.4.

(24) Phase B: Mexoryl® SX (terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid) 2.0, Uvinul® T150 (Ethylhexyl Triazone) 1.0, Avobenzone (Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane) 2.5, Enzulisol (Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid) 1.6, TiO.sub.2 4.3 (100 to 300 nm), TiO.sub.2 0.6 (200 to 250 m), Dicaprilyl Carbonate 5.0.

(25) Phase C: Colhibin® (Hydrolyzed Rice Protein) 0.5, mixture of antioxidant extracts 4.5 (Scutellaria (Scutellaria lateriflora Root Extract), Salvia (Salvia miltiorrhiza Root Extract), orchid (Bletilla striata Root Extract) and green tea (Camellia sinensis Leaf Extract)); N-Ethyl-3-p-Menthone Carboxamide 2.0, Urea 6.0; Soy Protein 0.9, Preservative 0.7, Perfume 0.9.

Example 4 Comparative Example

(26) A sun protection cream I is applied to an area of skin of approximately 20 cm.sup.2 in 10 dark-skinned subjects of skin type V, and a sun protection cream II to another area of similar size. The applied amount corresponds to the typical amount of 2 mg/cm.sup.2. Both areas are exposed to IR radiation for a duration of 15 minutes and at an intensity of 70 mW/cm.sup.2 using an LOT QuantumDesign solar simulator. After a break of another 5 minutes, the number of radicals formed is measured using the RPF method described above.

(27) Sun protection cream I (commercial): UV filter Mexoryl® XL 2.0, Mexoryl® SX 1.0, Uvinul® T150 2.0, Uvinul® A+2.80, TiO.sub.2 2.0 (100 to 200 nm); radical scavenger tocopherylacetate 0.8; other common accompanying substances.

(28) Sun protection cream II: Composition as in example 2.

(29) It is found that the number of free radicals on the skin is distinctly reduced by the sun protection cream II of the invention.

(30) The untreated skin shows under radiation with a sun simulator or with a water-filtered IR lamp, respectively, a high radical formation for skin type I-III. In the UV range the radical formation is three times higher (radical formation=0.12 in relative units) than for skin type V (radical formation=0.4 rel. units). However, in the near-IR wavelength range are formed two times more free radicals (radical formation=0.04 rel. units) in dark skin than in light skin (radical formation=0.02 rel. units).

(31) Tests show that under application of the commercial sun protection cream I in the UV range the radical formation in light skin is reduced below 0.01 rel. units by the UV filters. The same takes place also for dark skin. In the near-IR range the radical formation for both skin types is reduced a little in comparison with the untreated skin. The radical formation in the near-IR range is 0.18 rel. units in light skin (reduction by 10%) and in the dark skin 0.36 rel. units (reduction by 10%).

(32) If sun protection cream II of the invention is applied on the skin also a good protection in the UV range is proved. But also in the IR spectral range a significant reduction of the radical formation will be found. For light skin the value of radical formation is reduced to 0.0028 rel. units (reduction of 86%) and for dark skin to 0.0036 rel. units (reduction of 91%). The skin temperature is measured with a contactless IR thermometer before and after radiation and the value is after application of sun protection cream II below 40° C.

(33) The radiation in the near-IR range has taken place with a water-filtered IR lamp in the spectral range of 600 nm to 1400 nm.

Example 5

(34) Cream formulations LC and LC1 have been tested

(35) Compositions:

(36) TABLE-US-00001 Vehicle Phase Ingredients % A DIMETHICONE 24.0000 CYCLOPENTASILOXANE, 2.5000 CYCLOHEXASILOXANE DISTEARDIMONIUM HECTORITE 0.5000 ISODODECANE 6.0000 ETHYLHEXYL METHOXYCINNAMATE 7.5000 ISOPROPYL MYRISTATE 3.0000 OCTOCRYLENE 2.0000 DEXTRIN PALMITATE 0.3000 CYCLOPENTASILOXANE 1.0000 DIISOPROPYL SEBACATE 2.0000 POLYMETHYLSILSESQUIOXANE 2.0000 PEG-9 POLYDIMETHYLSILOXYETHYL 1.5000 DIMETHICONE DIETHYLAMINO HYDROXYBENZOYL 2.0000 HEXYL BENZOATE BIS-ETHYLHEXYLOXYPHENOL 1.0000 METHOXYPHENYL TRIAZINE DIISOSTEARYL MALATE 0.1500 TOCOPHERYL ACETATE 0.1000 B AQUA qsp 100 GLYCERIN 3.0000 PEG/PPG-17/6 COPOLYMER 0.5000 DISODIUM EDTA 0.0200 PHENYLBENZIMIDAZOLE 2.0000 SULFONIC ACID TRIETHANOLAMINE qs C ALCOHOL 15.0000 PARFUM 0.2000 D PHENOXYETHANOL 0.1500 ETHYLHEXYLGLYCERIN 0.0500 E ZINC OXIDE 5.05 TALC 2.5 TITANIUM DIOXIDE 2.52 LC Vehicle + cooling agent (0.1% menthol) + antioxidants (Scutellaria baicalensis + Saussurea involucrata) + Leucojum aestivum bulb extract LC1 Vehicle + TiO.sub.2 2.52% + green tea extract 0.06% + cooling agent (1% menthol) + antioxidants (Scutellaria baicalensis + Saussurea involucrata) + Leucojum aestivum bulb extract
Preparation of the Compositions:

(37) Phases A, B and E are prepared separately, heat at 70° C., and mix carefully by stirring to emulsify the mixture. After cooling down the mixture at 30-35° C., phases C and D are added.

(38) Determination of the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of LC1:

(39) An SPF of 44 was determined for the formulation LC1 according to the guidelines (ISO 24444).

Example 5-1: Determination of the Radical Protection Factor (RPF) In Vitro

(40) Method:

(41) The principle of the RPF technology is the determination of the radical scavenging activity of a substance/product, which contains antioxidants (T. Herrling, L. Zastrow, and N. Groth, “Classification of cosmetic products—The Radical Protection Factor (RPF),” S™ FW-Journal 5(124), 282-284 (1998)).

(42) This test is performed by EPR spectroscopy using a test radical, which is reduced by the antioxidative system. The number of reduced test radicals represents the radical scavenging activity that is normalized to 1 mg input of the antioxidant substance/product. The RPF is calculated by the following equation (1):

(43) $\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{RPF}=\frac{\mathrm{RC}.Math.\mathrm{RF}}{\mathrm{PI}}& \left(1\right)\end{array}$
RC=concentration of the test radical [radicals/ml]
RF=The reduction factor represents the difference between the untreated test radical intensity and the decreased signal intensity after treatment with the antioxidant normalized to the signal of the untreated test radical.
PI=Product input represents the amount of the substance/product measured in [mg/ml]
The RPF is expressed by a positive number N with the measuring unit 10.sup.14 radicals/mg, which means:
RPF=N.Math.[10.sup.14 radicals/mg].

(44) For the RPF analysis a X-Band EPR spectrometer (MS5000, Magnettech GmbH by Freiberg Instruments GmbH, Freiberg, Germany) was used to analyze the reduction of the test radical 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl DPPH (Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany) by the antioxidative system. The calculation of the spin concentration of the 1 mM ethanolic DPPH solution was performed by a X-Band EPR spectrometer from Bruker BioSpin GmbH (Bruker Elexsys E500, Karlsruhe, Germany) as previously described (8). The analysis of the EPR data was performed using the Bruker device control software Xepr (Bruker Biospin, Karlsruhe, Germany). The spin quantification was performed according to procedure detailed in the Xepr manual (Bruker Biospin, Karlsruhe, Germany). The absolute spin concentrations and the spin amounts were calculated in triplicates.

(45) For the RPF analysis of the samples, 500 mg of the formulations were solubilized in 10 mL ethanol, followed by a dilution (1:1) with a 1 mM DPPH ethanolic solution of known spin concentration. The samples were kept dark at room temperature by constant panning. The measurements took place directly after sample preparation (0 hours) and 23 to 28 hours after sample incubation, until stabilization of the DPPH signal. The calculation of the RPF value was performed by using the EPR software “ESR Studio” (Freiberg Instruments GmbH, Freiberg, Germany) and the calculation program Microsoft Excel 2016 2016 (Microsoft Office 2016).

(46) Results:

(47) TABLE-US-00002 Compositions RPF in 10.sup.14 radicals/mg LC 48 LC1 33
LC and LC show good RPF values.

Example 5-2: Evaluation of the Optical Properties (In Vitro)

(48) Method:

(49) The optical parameters μ.sub.a and μ.sub.s′ were calculated by inverse Monte Carlo simulation (iMCS) (Reference: M Friebel et al., “Determination of optical properties of human blood in the spectral range 250 to 1100 nm using Monte Carlo simulations with hematocrit-dependent effective scattering phase function,” Journal of Biomedical Optics 11(3), (2006)).

(50) The iMCS uses forward Monte Carlo simulations iteratively to calculate the optical parameters μ.sub.a and μ.sub.s′ on the basis of a given phase function and the experimentally measured values for reflection and transmission (R.sub.t.sup.M and T.sub.t.sup.M). The iMCS uses a start set of μ.sub.a and μ.sub.s′ to calculate the resulting simulated reflectance and transmission values R.sub.t.sup.S, and T.sub.t.sup.S. These values are then compared to the R.sub.t.sup.M and T.sub.t.sup.M values, measured experimentally. By systematic variation of μ.sub.a and μ.sub.s′ the deviation of the simulated R.sub.t.sup.S and T.sub.t.sup.S values from the ones measured is minimized until a set of optical parameters is found, where the deviations are within an error threshold of 0.20%. For the refractive index of the formulations, the values for water were used and an isotropic scattering was used to calculate μ.sub.s′.

(51) The investigations were done for the sunscreen formulations LC and LC1.

(52) Results:

(53) Both creams, LC and LC1, were prepared two times and each sample was three times measured. The spectra for each sample were averaged and dependently simulated.

(54) Cream LC shows medium scattering parameters decreasing with increasing wavelength; cream LC1 represents a further development with doubling of the scattering properties (FIG. 1).

Example 5-3: Radical Formation after VIS/NIR Irradiation (Ex Vivo)

(55) Method: EPR Investigations: Prevention of the Radical Formation in the VIS/NIR Spectral Regions

(56) Sample Preparation and EPR Measurements

(57) The EPR technology enables measurements of free radicals within the skin, induced by exogenous stressors, like irradiation by using the spin marker PCA (3-(carboxy)-2,2,5,5-tetramethylpyrrolidin-1-oxyl). It could be shown by this method that different spectral regions show different strong tendencies in the radical production in vivo as well as ex vivo. UV light promoted the strongest radical formation, followed by VIS and NIR irradiation. UV is responsible for at least 50% of ROS formation, the remaining radicals are produced by the VIS/NIR radiation.

(58) In this study, porcine ear skin, which is a suitable model for human skin, was used to analyze the radical protection effect of two sunscreen formulations (LC and LC1).

(59) X-Band EPR is a suitable and reproducible technique for analyzing skin samples with and without irradiation in a defined manner. This method is established and has already been published (C. Souza et al., “Radical-Scavenging Activity of a Sunscreen Enriched by Antioxidants Providing Protection in the Whole Solar Spectral Range,” Skin Pharmacol Physiol 30(2), 81-89 (2017)).

(60) For the testing of the various cream formulations, 2.0 mg/cm.sup.2, according to the COLIPA standard procedure, were distributed evenly onto the skin surface by massage (Rehaforum Medical GmbH, Elmshorn, Germany) for 2 min. The EPR investigations were performed 30 minutes after application time. Skin biopsies were treated as previously described followed by EPR investigations.

(61) For the evaluation, the signal amplitude of PCA was determined from each spectrum by the evaluation software “ESR Studio”. The amount of PCA could be derived from the signal height of the central line of the spectrum, since the line shape of the EPR spectrum remained unchanged over the measured time period. To calculate the radical formation, the EPR intensity of the irradiated samples was subtracted from samples without irradiation. Also, irradiated and non-irradiated control biopsies without any cream application were analysed.

(62) Each experiment was repeated in duplicate, on 6 porcine ears.

(63) Results:

(64) LC1 reduces the radical formation by 53%, LC by 28% in skin in comparison to the untreated skin (FIG. 2).

Example 5-4: NIR Protection

(65) Method: Determination of the Influence of NIR Irradiation on the Antioxidative Network of Skin

(66) To analyze the NIR protection of the sunscreen formulation LC and LC1, the carotenoid concentration was determined in skin by resonance Raman spectroscopy (RRS) in vivo.

(67) Two skin areas of the inner forearm of 6 female volunteers (skin type IV-V, according to the Fitzpatrick scale (T B. Fitzpatrick “The Validity and Practicality of Sun-Reactive Skin Type-I Through Type-Vi,” Arch. Dermatol. 124(6), 869-871 (1988))) were analyzed regarding their carotenoid levels. One skin area remain untreated, the other skin area was evenly treated with the cream formulations LC and LC1, respectively (according to the COLIPA standard procedure). The carotenoid levels were determined after 30 min penetration time before irradiation, and 60 min after NIR irradiation. The irradiance was 60 mW/cm.sup.2 and was applied for 30 min.

(68) Results:

(69) To analyze the protection of the cream formulations LC and LC1 in the NIR spectral region with regard to the antioxidant status, the carotenoid levels were investigated by resonance Raman spectroscopy non-invasively in vivo (FIG. 3).

(70) Former investigations have demonstrated that carotenoids could serve as a marker substance of the antioxidant status of the human skin.

(71) For untreated skin, the carotenoid level decreases after 60 min NIR irradiation. In contrast to this result, an application of the cream formulations LC and LC1 respectively promote an increase of the carotenoid levels in both cases significantly (p≤0.05, FIG. 3). Thus, the antioxidant status was not only stabilized, the antioxidant status was even improved. These results strongly indicate that both sunscreens, LC and LC1, provide a very good radical protection in the NIR spectral regions; LC1 support the antioxidant network a little bit stronger. NIR irradiation reduces carotenoids in the skin. The included antioxidants within the cream formulations support the antioxidative network of the skin, showing that antioxidants in the skin can be effectively enhanced by the topical application of the new developed sunscreen formulations.

Example 6: Example of a Sun Protection Milk Formulation

(72) TABLE-US-00003 Sun protection milk W/Si % Dimethicone, Dimethicone 3 PEG 10/15 crosspolymer Cyclopentasiloxane, Dimethicone/ 2 vinyl Dimethicone crosspolymer Dimethicone 5 Cyclopentasiloxane 5 PEG-9 Polydimethylsiloxethyl 1 Dimethicone Isotridecyl isononanoate 4 Ethylhexyl methoxy cinnamate 5 BIS-ETHYLHEXYLOXYPHENOL 2 METHOXYPHENYL TRIAZINE TiO2 10 Isononyl isononanoate 15 Cyclopentasiloxane/cyclohexasiloxane 15 Cetyl dimethicone 6 Sodium chloride 1 TiO2 10 Propylene glycol 2 Menthol 0.1 Alcohol 10 Green tea 0.04 Scutellaria Baicalensis 0.02 SAUSSUREA INVOLUCRATA EXTRACT 0.01 preservative qsp aqua ad 100

Example 7: Example of a Sun Protection Gel Formulation

(73) TABLE-US-00004 Sun protection gel % Octocrylene 10 Ethylhexyl salicylate 5 Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane 2 Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl 1 Benzoate PVP/hexadecene copolymer 1 Dicapiylylcarbonate 6 Stearoxy dimethicone 1.2 Cyclopentasiloxane/cyclohexasiloxane 3 TiO2 5 ZnO 2 Green tea 0.06 Scutellaria Baicalensis 0.01 Menthol 1 Alcohol 8 Acrylates copolymer 2 Disodium EDTA qsp Sodium hydroxide qsp Aqua ad to 100

Example 8: Example of a Sun Protection Lotion Formulation

(74) TABLE-US-00005 Sun protection lotion % TiO2 6 ZnO 1 Arachidyl alchol, benyl alcohol, 3.5 arachidyl glucoside Myristyl alcohol, myristyl glucoside 1.5 C12-C15 Alkyl benzoate 6 Octocrylene 8 Ethylhexyl Triazone 2 Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane 1 Isohexadecane 4 Caprylic/capric triglyceride 10 Green tea 0.04 Scutellaria Baicalensis 0.01 SAUSSUREA INVOLUCRATA EXTRACT 0.01 Menthol 0.5 Alcohol 10 Propylene glycol 5 Xanthan gum 0.3 Aqua qsp 100

Example 9: RPF Evaluations

(75) We carry out the evaluation of ROS (Reactive Oxygen species) formation according to the previously described method of the following samples: 1% of menthol The following mixture of antioxidants used in the LC1 composition: mixture of Scutellaria baicalensis root extract, Saussurea involucrata extract, Leucojum aestivum bulb extract and green tea extract The association of the above-described mixture of antioxidants and 1% of menthol for the synergistic effect of the composition ingredients.

Example 10: RPF Evaluations

(76) We carry out the evaluation of ROS formation according to the previously described method of the following samples: the composition LC1 the composition LC1 without 1% menthol
for the synergistic effect of the composition ingredients.