Rajarambapu College of Pharmacy, Kasegaon, India
This research centers on formulating and assessing a herbal-based cream using methanolic extracts of Cassia fistula and Lavandula bipinnata, well-known for their antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. The extracts were obtained via Soxhlet extraction and incorporated into an oil-in-water (O/W) cream base. The formulation was evaluated for physicochemical properties such as pH, viscosity, Spreadability, and stability under accelerated conditions. Antimicrobial activity was tested against common skin pathogens, and molecular docking studies were performed to predict the interaction of phytoconstituents with microbial protein targets. The results showed the cream to be stable, safe and effective in combating microbial infections. Hence, the formulated herbal cream presents a promising natural alternative for dermatological applications.
The global rise in demand for herbal cosmetics is attributed to their natural origin, safety profile, and multipurpose efficacy. Herbal creams have emerged as viable alternatives to synthetic products that often pose risks such as skin irritation and environmental toxicity. Cassia fistula and Lavandula bipinnata are traditionally used in Ayurveda and folk medicine due to their wide range of pharmacological properties, such as antimicrobial, antioxidant, anti- inflammatory, and wound-healing activities.
Fig no: 1.1 Cassia fistula
Fig no: 1.2 Lavandula bipinnata
OBJECTIVES
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
Plant parts of Cassia fistula (fruit pulp) and Lavandula bipinnata (leaves and flowers) were sourced locally and authenticated. Other ingredients included beeswax, stearic acid, borax, benzyl alcohol, rose water, and acetylglyceride.
Extraction
Methanolic extraction was done using a Soxhlet apparatus. Extracts were filtered, concentrated via rotary evaporation, and stored in airtight containers.
Cream Formulation
Oil-in-water emulsions were prepared using the fusion method. The active extracts were incorporated into the cream base.
Evaluation Parameters
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table no 2.1: Extraction results
|
Sr. No. |
Parameter |
Cassia fistula |
Lavandula bipinnata |
|
1 |
Plant part used |
Leaves & pulp |
Leaves & flower |
|
2 |
Solvent used |
Methanol: Water (70:30) |
Methanol: Water (70:30) |
|
3 |
Extraction Method |
Soxhlet Extraction |
Soxhlet Extraction |
|
4 |
Duration of extraction |
6-8 hours |
7-8 hours |
|
5 |
Color of extract |
Dark brown |
Light green |
|
6 |
Temperature |
60-70o c |
60-70oc |
|
7 |
Odor |
Mild |
Strong aromatic |
|
8 |
Consistency |
Thick-sticky semisolid |
Oily to semisolid |
|
9 |
%Yield |
10.4% |
6.5% |
|
10 |
Strong conditions |
Stored in air tight container at 4oc |
Stored |
Extraction of Lavandula oil
Yield (%) = (Volume of oil (mL) / Weight of flowers (g)) × 100
Weight of flowers = 500g
Volume of oil extracted = 1.25 mL
Yield = (1.25 / 500) × 100 = 0.25%
Table no 2.2: Oil Extraction
|
Sample Weight (g) |
Oil volume |
Yield (%) |
|
500 |
1.25 |
0.25% |
|
600 |
1.8 |
0.30% |
|
1000 |
3.5 |
0.35% |
Physical Properties of Extracted Oil
Table no 2.3: Phytochemical tests of extracts
|
Sr. No. |
Phytochemical Tests |
Reagents |
Observation |
Cassia fistula |
Lavandula bipinnata |
|
1 |
Alkaloids |
Dragendorff’s Wagner’s Mayers reagent |
Orange/ red/ brown ppt |
+ |
+ |
|
2 |
Flavonoids |
Alkaline reagent test |
Yellow color turns colorless with acid |
+ |
+ |
|
3 |
Tannins |
Ferric chloride test |
Blue – black color |
+ |
+ |
|
4 |
Saponins |
Foam test |
Foam |
+ |
- |
|
5 |
Glycosides |
Keller test |
Red-brown ring |
+ |
+ |
|
6 |
Phenolic compounds |
Ferric chloride test |
Bluish – black color |
+ |
+ |
|
7 |
Terpenoids |
Salkowski Test |
Reddish - brown coloration |
+ |
+ |
|
8 |
Steroids |
Liebermann - buchard test |
Bluish green ring |
+ |
+ |
|
9 |
Coumarins |
UV fluorescence test |
Blue/violet fluorescence under UV |
- |
+ |
|
10 |
Anthraquinones |
Borntrager test |
Pink/red layer |
+ |
_ |
|
11 |
Essential oils |
Sudan III |
Orange – Red |
_ |
+ |
Table no 2.4: Formulation Table of F1 to F5 of herbal cream
|
Component |
Function |
1 (F1) |
2 (F2) |
3 (F3) |
4 (F4) |
5 (F5) |
|
Lavandula bipinnata Oil |
Acts as a hydrating and softening agent |
1.0 ml |
2.0 ml |
3.0 ml |
4.0 ml |
5.0 ml |
|
Cassia fistula Extract |
Provides antibacterial & nourishing effects |
2.0 gm |
2.5 gm |
3.0 gm |
3.5 gm |
4.0 gm |
|
Isopropyl Myristate |
Works as an emulsifying agent |
0.5 gm |
1.0 gm |
1.5 gm |
2.0 gm |
2.5 gm |
|
Beeswax |
Serves as the base substance |
2.0 gm |
2.5 gm |
3.0 gm |
3.5 gm |
4.0 gm |
|
Stearic Acid |
Function as an emulsifier |
0.5 ml |
1.0 ml |
1.5 ml |
2.0 ml |
2.5 ml |
|
Benzyl Alcohol |
Acts as a preservative |
2.0 ml |
2.2 ml |
2.4 ml |
2.6 ml |
2.8 ml |
|
Borax |
Aids in emulsification |
1.0 gm |
1.5 gm |
2.0 gm |
2.5 gm |
3.0 gm |
|
Acetylglyceride |
Stabilizes the emulsion |
2.0 ml |
2.5 ml |
3.0 ml |
3.5 ml |
4.0 ml |
|
Rose Water |
Provides scent |
Qs |
Qs |
Qs |
Qs |
Qs |
|
Purified Water |
Used as a carrier/ liquid base |
Qs |
Qs |
Qs |
Qs |
Qs |
UV visible spectroscopy
UV visible spectroscopy of Cassia fistula extract
Fig no 2.1: Shows spectra of Cassia fistula Linn extract in methanol
Table no 2.5: Absorbance
|
Sr.No. |
Wavelength |
Absorbance |
|
1. |
224.00 |
0.051 |
After scanning, absorption maximum of Cassia fistula extract in distilled water was found to be at 224 nm
Calibration Curve of Cassia fistula linn Extract in methanol: Solution of Cassia fistula Extract in distilled water 2µg/ml was prepared and by suitable dilutions, solutions of concentrations ranging from 2 to 10µg/ml were prepared. A graph of absorbance versus concentration was plotted. It is observed that Beer’s and Lambert’s law is obeyed.
Table no 2.6: Absorption
|
Concentration |
Absorbance |
|
0 |
0 |
|
2 |
0.185 |
|
4 |
0.252 |
|
6 |
0.396 |
|
8 |
0.564 |
|
10 |
0.768 |
Fig no 2.2: Calibration curve of Cassia fistula linn extract in methanol
IR spectra of Cassia fistula linn extract
Fig no 2.3: Shows IR spectra of Cassia fistula linn extract
Table no 2.7: Interpretation of IR spectra of Cassia fistula linn extract
|
Peak |
Value |
Functional group |
|
1 |
994.58 |
C-O stretching |
|
2 |
1147.96 |
C-O stretching |
|
3 |
1304.40 |
C=C stretching |
|
4 |
1453.42 |
C-O-H bending |
|
5 |
1580.26 |
C=O stretching |
|
6 |
2854.70 |
C-H stretching |
|
7 |
3374.29 |
N-H stretching |
Characterization of optimized batch (F3)
FTIR Analysis of Optimized Batch (F3)
IR spectra of Cassia fistula linn extract:
Fig no 2.4: Shows IR spectra of Cassia fistula linn extract
Table no 2.8: Interpretation IR spectra of optimized batch (F3) herbal cream
|
Peak |
Value |
Functional group |
|
1 |
993.08 |
C-O stretching |
|
2 |
1045.45 |
C-O stretching |
|
3 |
1352.23 |
C=C stretching |
|
4 |
1631.77 |
C=O stretching |
|
5 |
1776.74 |
C=O stretching |
|
6 |
2883.95 |
N-H stretching |
|
7 |
3374.54 |
N-H stretching |
Table no 2.9: Evaluation tests for cream
|
Sr. No |
Parameter |
Method used |
Observed results |
Acceptance criteria |
|
1 |
Appearance/ color/ odor |
Visual-sensory examination |
Smooth, brown cream with pleasant odor |
Smooth, uniform, acceptable, natural odor |
|
2 |
pH |
pH meter |
5.8 |
4.5 – 6.5 |
|
3 |
Viscosity |
Brookfield viscometer |
3368 cps |
1000-50,000 cps |
|
4 |
Spreadability |
Slip and drag method |
9.1 g.cm/sec |
9.0 to 31.02 |
|
5 |
Extrudability |
Tube extrusive method |
92% cream extruded |
>90%easy extrusion |
|
6 |
Washability |
Rinsing with water |
Easily washable with water |
Easily washable |
|
7 |
Emulsion type |
Test of dye |
Oil-in-Water |
Usually Oil-in- Water for creams |
|
8 |
Homogeneity |
Glass slide method |
Homogenous, no lumps or grittiness |
Uniform distribution |
|
9 |
Stability (1month) |
ICH conditions |
No change in pH, viscosity or phase separation |
Stable, no separation or degradation |
|
10 |
Phytochemical screening |
Qualitative chemical tests |
Alkaloids Glycosides Flavonoids Tannins Saponins Terpenoids Phenolic compounds |
Presence of active constituents |
Table no 2.10: Physiochemical properties
|
Property |
Formulation 1 (F1) |
Formulation 2 (F2) |
Formulation 3 (F3) |
Formulation 4 (F4) |
Formulation 5 (F5) |
|
Color |
Brown hue |
Brown hue |
Brown hue |
Brown hue |
Brown hue |
|
Fragrance |
Characteristic scent |
Characteristic scent |
Characteristic scent |
Characteristic scent |
Characteristic scent |
|
Texture |
Semisolid consistency |
Semisolid consistency |
Semisolid consistency |
Semisolid consistency |
Semisolid consistency |
Table no 2.11: Phase separation, Irritancy, Washability, after feel, Homogeneity results
|
Evaluation Parameter |
Formulation 1 (F1) |
Formulation 2 (F2) |
Formulation 3 (F3) |
Formulation 4 (F4) |
Formulation 5 (F5) |
|
Phase Separation |
No evidence observed |
No evidence observed |
No evidence observed |
No evidence observed |
No evidence observed |
|
Skin Irritation |
Absent |
Absent |
Absent |
Absent |
Absent |
|
Ease of Washing |
Washable |
Washable |
Washable |
Washable |
Washable |
|
Post-application Feel |
Softening effect |
Softening effect |
Softening effect |
Softening effect |
Softening effect |
|
Uniformity |
Homogeneous |
Homogeneous |
Homogeneous |
Homogeneous |
Homogeneous |
Table no 2.12: Viscosity
|
Formulation |
10rmp |
20rpm |
|
F1 |
1201centipoise |
1247centipoise |
|
F2 |
1254centipoise |
3322centipoises |
|
F3 |
1277centipoise |
3368centipoises |
|
F4 |
1385centipoise |
2013centipoise |
|
F5 |
1395centipose |
2278centipose |
Table no 2.13: Spreadability
|
Formulation code |
Spreadability (g,cm/sec) |
|
F1 |
7.5 |
|
F2 |
6.2 |
|
F3 |
9.1 |
|
F4 |
8.5 |
|
F5 |
8.6 |
Docking
Table no 2.14: Docking of Cassia fistula linn
|
Mol |
L |
LX |
Name |
Score |
Natom |
Nflex |
Hbond |
Hphob |
Vwint |
|
|
# |
1 |
Fragment |
-32.84 |
29 |
2 |
-6.406 |
-3.558 |
-26.6 |
|
Eintl |
Dsolv |
SolEl |
mfScore |
RTCNNscore |
dTSsc |
RecConf |
Molecule Name |
|
0 |
7.7132 |
8.1206 |
-68.7163 |
-27.58221 |
1.1989 |
1 |
1Fragment |
Figure no: 2.5
Table no 2.15: Docking of Lavandula bipinnata
|
Mol |
L |
LX |
Name |
Score |
Natom |
Nflex |
Hbond |
Hphob |
Vwint |
|
|
0 |
1 |
Fragment |
-15.23 |
29 |
7 |
-2.363 |
-4.868 |
-20.29 |
|
Eintl |
Dsolv |
SolEl |
mfScore |
RTCNNscore |
dTSsc |
RecConf |
Molecule Name |
|
1.5849 |
4.9315 |
8.2506 |
-19.2696 |
-17.21656 |
0.8737 |
1 |
1Fragment |
Fig no: 2.6
Table no 2.16: pH
|
Sample ID |
Measurement (Original) |
Description |
|
F1 |
5.6 |
Sample F1 recorded a value of 5.6 |
|
F2 |
5.7 |
Sample F2 recorded a value of 5.7 |
|
F3 |
5.8 |
Sample F3 recorded a value of 5.8 |
|
F4 |
5.4 |
Sample F4 recorded a value of 5.4 |
|
F5 |
5.5 |
Sample F5 recorded a value of 5.5 |
Table no 2.17: Accelerated stability testing
|
No of Days |
Temp (0C) |
Formulation code |
pH |
Homogenisity |
Appearance |
Spreadability |
After feel |
|
0 |
RT ACC45oC |
F3 F3 |
6.86 5.1 |
G G |
NC NC |
G G |
E E |
|
5 |
RT ACC45oC |
F3 F3 |
6.87 5.9 |
G G |
NC NC |
G G |
E E |
|
10 |
RT ACC45oC |
F3 F3 |
6.90 5.8 |
G G |
NC NC |
G G |
E E |
|
15 |
RT ACC45oC |
F3 F3 |
6.94 5.80 |
G G |
NC NC |
G G |
E E |
|
20 |
RT ACC45oC |
F3 F3 |
6.96 5.90 |
G G |
NC NC |
G G |
E E |
Accelerated stability testing
Acc- Accelerated condition, RT- Room Temperature, G- Good, NC-No change, E- Emollient. This study selected best formulation of herbal cream. This result show best physical stability of formulation. The formulation that was taken for further pharmacological evaluation F3.
Table no 2.18: Comparative study of herbal cream & Fluconazole (1%) cream
|
Parameter |
Herbal Cream |
Fluconazole Cream (1%) |
Control/Base Cream |
Statistical Significance |
|
Zone of Inhibition (mm) |
18.5 ± 0.6 |
22.8 ± 0.4 |
0.0 ± 0.0 |
Significant |
|
Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC, µg/mL) |
125.0 ± 0.0 |
62.5 ± 0.0 |
— |
— |
|
Minimum Fungicidal Concentration (MFC, µg/mL) |
250.0 ± 0.0 |
125.0 ± 0.0 |
— |
— |
|
Healing Time (Days) |
6.5 ± 1.0 |
5.2 ± 0.8 |
>10.0 |
Significant |
|
Skin Irritation Score |
0.5 ± 0.1 |
0.3 ± 0.1 |
0.0 ± 0.0 |
Not Significant |
|
Viscosity (cPs) |
3368 ± 200 |
10,500 ± 180 |
10,000 ± 250 |
Not Significant |
|
Spreadability (g·cm/sec) |
9.1 ± 0.3 |
7.2 ± 0.2 |
6.5 ± 0.4 |
Not Significant |
|
pH of Formulation |
5.8 ± 0.2 |
6.0 ± 0.1 |
6.2 ± 0.1 |
Not Significant |
|
Stability (3 Month @ 40°C/ 75%RH) |
No change |
No change |
— |
Stable |
Table no 2.19: Antimicrobial Test
|
Control |
Standard(1mg/ml) |
Test |
|
- |
Fluconazole |
5mg, 10 mg |
Table no 2.20 Zone of inhibition
|
Parameter |
Herbal Cream |
Fluconazole |
Cream control |
|
Zone of inhibition (mm) |
18.5 ± 0.6 |
22.8 ± 0.4 |
0 |
|
MIC (µg/mL) |
125 |
62.5 |
- |
|
MFC (µg/mL) |
250 |
125 |
- |
|
Healing time (Days) |
6.5 ± 1.0 |
62.5 ± 0.0 |
>10 |
Fig no 2.7: Antimicrobial Test
Fig no 2.8: Antimicrobial Test
CONCLUSION
The formulated herbal cream containing Cassia fistula and Lavandula bipinnata extracts demonstrates strong antimicrobial activity, good physicochemical properties, and excellent stability. Molecular docking further supports the pharmacological claims. The herbal extracts were efficiently obtained and underwent preliminary phytochemical analysis, which revealed owing to the presence of essential secondary metabolites such as flavonoids, tannins, alkaloids, and others. phenolic compounds. The results indicated that the cream possessed good consistency, pH within skin-compatible range, excellent Spreadability, homogeneity, and washability. It remained stable over three months under accelerated conditions, showing no signs of phase separation or significant changes in viscosity or pH. Microbial evaluation demonstrated that the formulation was free from harmful pathogens and within acceptable microbial load limits, confirming its microbiological safety. In vitro antimicrobial studies showed significant zones of inhibition against common skin pathogens including Candida albicans supporting the antimicrobial potential of the cream. The formulation stands as a promising natural skincare alternative with therapeutic and cosmetic benefits.
REFERENCES
Rutuja Kadam, Dr. Shriniwas Mohite, Dr. Sandeep Kane, Dr. Manojkumar Nitalikar, Dr. Indrayani Bandgar, Formulation and Evaluation of Cream Containing Extracts of Cassia fistula and Lavandula bipinnata: In Vitro and Docking Study of Phytochemicals, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2025, Vol 3, Issue 7, 3453-3462. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16420943
10.5281/zenodo.16420943