View Article

  • Role of Functional Nanoparticles in Improving Skin Penetration and Stability of Cosmeceuticals

  • Department of Pharmacy, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University Bareilly 243006, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract

The rapid development of the cosmeceutical science has led to the rise in the desire to discover sophisticated methods to deliver topical preparations overcoming the intrinsic limitations of traditional formulations. Nanoparticles have evolved functional nanoparticles such as lipid-based carriers, vesicular systems, polymeric nanoparticles, nanoemulsions, and metallic or hybrid nanostructures which have been proposed to be transformational in increasing skin penetrativity coupled with physicochemical stability of active cosmetic ingredients. The review consolidates the existing data on the mechanisms of action of nanocarriers to reveal how dermal permeation can be enhanced by nanocarriers via the barrier modulation by hydration by means of fluidization of lipid bilayers, follicular targeting, surface charge interactions, and structural deformability. These processes are important in enhancing dermal bioavailability of hydrophilic, lipophilic and molecule unstable actives. At the same time, nanoparticles can be used as micro-protective environments that suppress oxidative, photolytic, hydrolytic, and thermal decadence of labile compositions and compounds (retinoids, vitamins, peptides, botanical antioxidants, pigmentation modulators, etc.). The controlled-release characteristics also maximize the effect of the therapy besides decreasing the possibility of irritation. The comparative analysis of nanocarrier classes indicates unique benefits and consideration of formulations, which should be applied to formulations, and it is necessary first to be reasonable in the choice of the type of activity, the target skin layer, and the desired kinetics. The issue of safety and regulation continue to dominate responsible nanocosmetic development, and more and more focus on the characterization of particles, toxicological evaluation, and effective labeling is emphasized. The next steps will be stimuli responsive nanocarriers, biodegradable materials, hybrid structures, and AI-assisted formulation engineering which will come to change the face of cosmetic and dermatological development. All in all, nanoparticles are a breakthrough in the technology of cosmeceuticals which provide better delivery efficiency, increased stability, and broader formulation possibilities which altogether will improve the performance of the products and the benefit of the consumer.

Keywords

Functional nanoparticles; nanocarriers; cosmeceuticals; skin penetration; stability enhancement

Introduction

The cosmeceutical market has changed quite a lot in the last couple of years, as people have become more and more demanding of their cosmetic items in terms of appearance and demonstration of a subjective therapeutic effect. In contrast to conventional cosmetics, cosmectual also uses biologically active compounds which have the goal of modifying and/or improving the structure and functionality of the skin thereby being closer to pharmaceutical interventions in their level of performance expectation (Linter, 2021). Yet, the ability to effectively deliver a large amount of such active molecules is still limited due to the nature of defense mechanism of the skin. The stratum corneum is the most important barrier to consider since it comprises of the Keratin rich corneocytes that are immersed on highly order lipid matrix through which chemical genius and ingredients that are hydrophilic and have high Molertic weight as well as those that are chemically unstable generally enter through the stratum corneum during penetration (Elias,2012). As a consequence, most cosmeceutical agents particularly do not display a good absorption, low stability and lower therapeutic efficacy upon administration by topical conventional systems.

Nanotechnology-based delivery platforms have become a potential solution to these issues in the field of the contemporary cosmeceutical science. Functional nanoparticles: solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs), nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs), nanoemulsions, liposomes, niosomes, ethosomes, transfersomes, and polymeric nanoparticles and metal oxide nanoparticles contain infinite physicochemical properties that permit more successful contact with the skin surface and improved transport through the biological barriers (Prow et al.,2011). Their reduced size, extensive surface area, tunable surface chemistry, as well as flexibility to bear a wide range of categories of actives render them flexible solutions to enhancing both the penetration as well as stability of cosmetic actives (Souto et al.,2008).

Among other benefits of delivery by nanoparticles, increased skin penetration is one of the most researched. Patterns Nanotechnology makes it easy to penetrate in a number of ways, such as via intercellular lipid modification, follicular delivery, hydration-mediated permeation, and vesicle deformation. Ethosomes and transfersomes are examples of deformable vesicles that have high flexibility levels, which have the ability of traversing through small intercellular cavities in the stratum corneum resulting in greatly enhanced dermal delivery of active molecules (Cevc et al.,1992). Lipid nanoparticles, in their turn, cause the skin surface a protective layer against transepidermal water loss and increase hydration which elevates stratum corneum permeability (Wissing et al.,2002). Additional methods of enhancing permeation comprise nanoemulsions and polymeric nanoparticles which enhance thermodynamic activity, diffusion gradients and targeted follicular uptake (Shakeel et al.,2011). All these combined processes strongly explain the reason why nanoparticles are performing better than the traditional creams and lotions to deliver bioactives into deep layers of skin.

The other significant shortcoming of cosmeceutical formulation is the high degree of instability of the active ingredients of many of those, as most of the active ingredients are unstable and can be degraded by environmental factors like heat, light, oxygen, and changes in pH factors. Such prominent unstable (activities) are vitamin C, retinoids, coenzyme Q10, peptides, and botanical antioxidants (Wang et al.,2019) An effective solution to this is provided through nanoparticle encapsulation, which allows these compounds to be isolated against external routes or mechanisms of their degradation, enhances the shelf life of these compounds, hinders their oxidative degradation, and guarantees their continual therapeutic presence. Moreover, nanoparticle controlled-release characteristics enable the distribution of active components across time more evenly in order to minimize the risk of irritation and improve the overall products, thus improving their functionality.

The increasing demand for scientifically tested skin therapeutic items has further stimulated the routine of nanotechnology because functional nanoparticles enable formulators to bring quantifiable enhancements to efficacy, level of penetration, and active stability (Patel et al,2020) Nonetheless, regulatory and safety concerns are also raised as a consequence of their implementation. Such problems like possible toxicity, skin irritability, nanoparticle deposition, and relationships with the skin microbiome need to be assessed critically in the frames of uniform guidelines. Different regulatory bodies, especially in the European Union and other markets around the world, focus on full physicochemical characterization and safety testing of nano-enabled cosmetic products (SCCS.,2021).

To conclude, functional nanoparticles have become one of the biggest breakthroughs when it comes to improving the methods of delivering cosmetic products. Nanoparticles have immense potential to provide next-generation high-performance cosmetic solutions by overcoming the natural limitations created by the skin barrier, as well as enhancing the stability of sensitive active molecules. The review explains the significant types of nanoparticles applied in cosmeceuticals, how they deliver benefits of increased penetration and stability, how they rely on one another, and how their identified advantages, risks to safety and the novel research opportunities that are currently defining the future of dermal nanotechnology.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review used a systematic and orderly approach to research to be thorough enough to cover literature associated with the role of functional nanoparticles in improving cosmeceutical penetration and stability of the skin. An adapted PRISMA guideline framework was employed to structure the identification of the studies, screening, assessment of their eligibility, and inclusion of studies that were finally included (Mohar et al.,2009)

2.1 Literature Search Strategy

A systematic search has taken place in the large scientific databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of science and the ScienceDirect databases. Keywords consisted of “functional nanoparticles, cosmeceuticals, skin penetration, nanocarriers, nanocosmetics, enhancement of stability and topical nanoformulations”. Search combinations had to be narrowed by the use of such Boolean operators as AND/OR. The search was carried out on literature published in the period between 2005 and 2024, to ensure that both old literature and recent literature was located (Khan et al.,2003)

The grey literature such as conference papers, regulatory literature and industry white papers was also filtered to include the emergent trends and unpublished scientific findings. A reference management software was used to eliminate the duplicates by importing all the articles into the software and then screening the articles.

2.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Others were chosen through preset inclusion criteria:

Inclusion Criteria

  1. Articles that were centered on nanoparticles in the cosmetic or dermatological use.
  2. Research comparing the penetration of the skin, or stability, or bioavailability of nano-enabled cosmeceuticals.
  3. In vivo, experimental, ex vivo or in vitro.
  4. Review articles with either mechanistic or comparative information.
  5. Publications in English

Exclusion Criteria

  1. Research not involving topical or dermal application.
  2. Nanoparticles employed exclusively to deliver drugs that are not related to cosmetic aspects.
  3. Non-scientific reports, opinion articles, or partial source of data.
  4. Articles with no experimental or mechanistic proof (Higgins et al.,2011)

2.3 Study Selection and Screening Protocol

Titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers based on the eligibility criteria. Shortlisted articles were then assessed by doing full-text evaluation. The differences were addressed by discussing or consulting with a third reviewer, and the methodological rigor and reduced bias were ensured (Liberati et al.,2009).

The evaluation of studies regarding relevance was performed according to the major themes: nanoparticles type, penetration enhancement mechanisms, stability enhancement, and safety measurements. One thousand four hundred and eighty-one studies were identified at the outset and then the number went through further screening as presented in the PRISMA flow chart.

2.4 Thematic Categorization and Data Extraction

Out of every study contained, data were collected on:

  1. Composition and physicochemical properties of nanoparticles.
  2. Mechanisms of skin penetration potentiation.
  3. Essay of bioactive compounds.
  4. Formulation strategies
  5. In vitro, ex vivo, animal, human, experimental models.
  6. Safety and regulatory issues (Tran et al.,2020).

The studies were categorized thematically and grouped into:

  1. Lipid-based nanoparticles
  2. Polymeric and hybrid nanoparticles
  3. Nanoemulsions and systems of vesicles
  4. Functionalized and metallic nanoparticles
  5. Stability-improvement strategies
  6. Regulatory and safety regulations

2.5 Quality Assessment

A modified version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the OECD Nanomaterial Testing Guidelines on nanoformulations were used to do quality appraisal (OECD.,2020). Filled criteria were clarity of experimental design, adequacy of controls, methods of characterizing nanoparticles, reproducible results, and applicability to cosmetical use. The quality rating was given to each study (low, medium or high).

Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Study Selection

Parameter

Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

Study Focus

Nanoparticles in cosmeceuticals and topical delivery

Nanoparticles for systemic or non-dermal use

Mechanistic Data

Required for penetration/stability insights

No mechanistic or experimental data

Study Types

In vitro, ex vivo, in vivo, clinical, reviews

Editorials, opinions, incomplete reports

Language

English

Non-English publications

Relevance

Skin penetration, stability enhancement

Irrelevant biomedical applications

Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram

3. RESULTS (THEMATIC SYNTHESIS)

The methodical review of the literature data showed six significant thematic areas that explain the application of functional nanoparticles in increasing skin penetration and the enhanced physicochemical stability of cosmeceutical substances. These themes are (1) types of nanoparticles and physicochemical properties, (2) enzyme-actives penetration mechanisms, (3) stabilization of sensitive cosmetic actives, (4) comparative nanoparticles formulation benefits, (5) safety and regulatory concerns and (6) technological and industrial translation. The results of the 151 studies reviewed reveal that the nanoparticles functionalized are revealing to be important in enhancing dermal permeation as well as stability and prove to be next-generation carriers of topical cosmetics.

3.1 Cosmetic Functional Nanoparticles

By the literature all the types of nanoparticles continue to be lipid-based, polymeric, vesicular, metallic, hybrid, and stimuli-responsive nanoparticles that remain the most common classes of nanocarriers utilized in cosmetic product development (Pardeike et al.,2009), (Mullar et al., 2002). The most popular lipid nanoparticles are lipid nanoparticles (solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) and lipid-soluble nanoparticles (nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs). These are biocompatible, lipid solubility of cosmetic actives is high, and their potential of complementary OCL and moisturizing properties (Wissing et al., 2002), (Lai et al., 2006) Liposomes, ethosomes and transfersomes are vesicles with high affinity toward the lipids of the skin, thus made of elastic material, which has a high tendency to enter deep into the follicles and intercellular areas (Verma et al., 2003), (Dragicevic et al., 2014).

Another size category is nanoemulsions, which are defined by the small sizes of droplets and high solubilization property as well as increased cutaneous spreadability (Baboota et al., 2011). Nanoparticles made of polymers such as PLA, PLGA, chitosan and PEGylated derivatives are highly stable and tunable release material, hence they are a good choice with anti-aging and antioxidant formulations (Prow et al., 2011), (Kwon et al., 2003).

Photoprotection, anti-inflammatory effects, as well as enhanced stabilization of active ingredients are achieved by using metallic systems, particularly, gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO-NPs) (Dykman et al., 2012), (Jiang et al., 2009). A number of hybrid technologies include lipid-polymer nanohybrids and core-shell nanoparticles that bring the benefits of various types of nanocarriers to the forefront and improve multifunctionality and performance (Zhang et al.,2008), (Pardieke et al., 2011).

3.2 Pathways of Enhanced Skin Penetration

The findings indicate that nanoparticles increase skin penetration under five major mechanisms:

3.2.1 Occlusive Hydration Effect

The hydrating effect of SLNs and NLCs lies in the creation of an occlusive film that minimizes the transepidermal water loss (TEWL) (Alvarez et al., 2004). Wet skin becomes swollen and the stratum corneum lipids are loosened so that actives permeate deeper (Doktorovova et al., 2016).

3.2.2 Lipid-Lipid Interaction and Membrane Fluidization

Vesicular nanoparticles have its lipid content interacting with the lipids of the skin resulting in transient fluidization and elevated permeability (Lunder et al.,2012). Transdermalhydration gradients are used by transfersomes to deform and cross intracellular pathways (Benson et al., 2012).

3.2.3 Follicular Targeting

Nanoparticles less than 300nm are able to get into the hair follicles like reservoirs where a drug is slowly released. Folicular uptake is exceptionally high in polymeric and metallic nanoparticles, increasing the usefulness of anti-inflammatory and pigmentation therapy (Toll et al., 2004).

3.2.4 Electrostatic Interactions and Surface Charge

Cationic nanoparticles enhance penetration through the enhancement of adhesion to negatively charged skin surface, leading to an improved deposition and translocation (Contado, 2015).

3.2.5 Structure Deformability and Elasticity

Transfersomes, ethosomes and invasomes are elastic vesicles that can enter 10-50x smaller pores, which significantly increase the dermal delivery of hydrophilic and lipophilic molecules (Dragicevic et al., 2013).

3.3 Improvement of Cosmetic Actives Stability

One of the most critical formulation situations in cosmetics is instability of active molecules that are potent e.g. vitamins C and A, peptides, phenolic antioxidants, photoactive and UV sensitive ingredients. Nanoparticles are very important because they enhance stability by:

3.3.1 Oxidation and Photodegradation Protection

Preservatives SLNs and polymeric nanoparticles shield retinoids, flavonoids and phenolic antioxidants against UV-degradation which shortens their shelf-life several-folds (Karthikeyan et al., 2013), (Li et al., 2016).

3.3.2 Hydrolysis and Volatilization Safeguarding

Nanoemulsion and polymerized nanopakages allow hydrolytic decay of vitamin c derivatives, kojic acid and a-arbutin, without limiting their useful performance in a formula (Martin et al., 2012), (Zhai et al., 2016).

3.3.3 Controlled and Sustained Release

Elimination of burst degradation of unstable bioactives, sustained delivery and reduced risk of irritation due to acidic or oxidizing substances are some of the benefits of controlled release (Kang et al., 2011), (Shah et al., 2020).

3.3.4 Thermal Stability through Encapsulation

Thermosensitive actives like peptides and botanical extracts demonstrate a better level of thermotolerance once packed in lipid/hybrid nanoparticles (Shah et al., 2020).

Combined, these processes underscore the key role of nanocarriers in the improvement of the integrity of cosmetic ingredients in the product-making process, throughout storage, and during topical use (Fathi et al., 2018).

3.4 Comparative Performance Across Nanoparticle Classes

Table 2. Comparative Advantages of Major Nanoparticle Systems

Nanoparticle Type

Penetration Efficiency

Stability Improvement

Key Advantages

SLNs / NLCs

High (occlusive effect)

Strong (oxidation & UV protection)

Biocompatibility, moisturizing, sustained release

Liposomes

Moderate–High

Moderate

Biomimetic structure, good for hydrophilic actives

Transfersomes / Ethosomes

Very High

Moderate

Elasticity, deep dermal penetration

Nanoemulsions

Moderate

High (solubilization, dispersion stability)

Excellent sensory feel, scalable

Polymeric Nanoparticles

High

Very High

Strong protection for peptides and antioxidants

Metal/Oxide NPs

Low–Moderate

Very High

UV protection, anti-inflammatory properties

It has been verified by comparative literature that transfersomes and ethosomes can give the greatest penetration in the dermal layer, and polymeric nanoparticles can offer maximum stability of sensitive constituents (Hao et al., 2019). Stability, safety, and penetration of SLNs and NLCs are the most balanced, which is why it can be stated that these types of nanocarriers are the most prevalent commercial nanocarriers (Sivaramakrishnan et al., 2020).

3.5 Safety, Toxicity and Regulatory Considerations

The safety profiles of the various types of nanocarrier were different:

  1. The safest were always ranked as SLNs, NLCs, and liposomes since the lipid composition is biomimetic (Vogt et al.,2014).
  2. Polymeric nanoparticles were also very safe using biodegradable polymers but they need to be cautious with residual monomers (Santos et al., 2015).
  3. Metallic nanoparticles proved to have dose dependent cytotoxicity which was mainly as a result of the production of reactive oxygen species (SCCS., 2014).
  4. Regulators focus on determining the nature of nanoparticles, toxicological research and compulsory labelling of cosmetic products (Lopez-Garcia et al., 2021).

3.6 Technological and Industrial Translation

The improvements in nanoformulations have hastened the transformation of the nanoformulations in laboratory research to commercial cosmeceuticals based on:

  1. High pressure homogenization and scalable emulsification.
  2. Technologies of cold processing heat-sensitive actives.
  3. Real-time size Readings and Prediction of Stability of nanoparticles with AI models.

Industry reports affirm that the market has been growing significantly in the nano-enabled skincare (especially the anti-aging, pigmentation, UV-protection, and antioxidant products).

Table 3. Summary of Stability Improvements Achieved Through Nanocarriers

Active Ingredient

Stability Challenge

Nanocarrier Used

Improvement Observed

Vitamin C

Oxidation, pH sensitivity

Polymeric NP

4–6× retention of potency

Retinol

Photodegradation

SLN, NLC

Improved UV tolerance, reduced irritation

CoQ10

Poor solubility

Nanoemulsion

3× increase in dermal absorption

Botanical Extracts

Thermal & oxidative instability

Liposomes

Enhanced bioavailability & shelf life

Peptides

Enzymatic degradation

Polymeric NP

High protection, sustained release

Figure 2: Mechanisms of Enhanced Skin Penetration by Nanoparticle

Figure 3: Stability Enhancement Pathways of Nanocarriers in Cosmeceuticals

4. DISCUSSION

The knowledge presented as a synthesis of the literature shows that functional nanoparticles provide revolutionary possibilities in the field of cosmeceutical science, specifically, the combination of penetration of the skin and physicochemical stability of the active substances. The growing variety of nanocarrier systems, such as lipid nanoparticles, vesicular formulations, polymeric particles, nanoemulsions, metallic nanoparticles, and biomimetic nanocarriers, has opened the opportunity to implement strategies of topical delivery with an increasing level of efficiency based on the specific molecular properties and therapeutic objective (. In this discussion, the themes of mechanistic insights, comparative performance, and safety, and the consideration of translational challenges are incorporated to put the findings of the thematic synthesis in perspective.

4.1 Mechanistic Significance of Enhanced Pathways of Penetration

Skin penetration enhancement facilitated by nanoparticles is a convergence between structural, physicochemical and biological processes. The stratum corneum that is thought to be a conventional and main barrier to molecular permeation is restrictive of hydrophilic, charged and large actives. These barriers are avoided by functional nanoparticles in various ways and all of them signify a unique contribution to the dermal delivery arena [92].

4.1.1 Hydration-Mediated Permeability Thiokolysis

Research confirms that SLNs and NLCs enhance dermal hydration by forming an occlusive layer that decreases the level of transpiration. This makes the stratum corneum more water-filled, un-packed lipids, and allows the actives that are incorporated to penetrate further [93-95]. This type of permeation through hydration is especially beneficial when applying anti-aging agents such as retinoids, peptides and hyaluronic acid.

4.1.2 Lipid Bilayer Fluidization and Modulation of Structure

Transfersomes, ethosomes, and invasomes are elastic types of vesicles that contact stratum corneum lipids and destabilize their crystalline structure making them more fluid [96]. The CDE-based formulations with ethanol alter ethanol lamellar lipid transition temperature drastically, which promotes inter- and transcellular diffusion routes [97-99]. This process has proved to be quite useful in terms of delivering antioxidants, pigmentation regulators and anti-inflammatory activities.

4.1.3 Follicular Penetration as a Drug Guide

Hair follicles also act as appendageal shunts to deliver nanoparticles and the follicles offer more profound dermal access with little barrier limitations. Nanoparticles made of polymers, metal nanoparticles, and nanoemulsions have the characteristic of better follicular accumulation as a result of their physicochemical characteristics including low charge and optimal size (<300 nm) [100-102]. The follicular reservoir effect can be benefitted to prolonged delivery of sebum-regulating, anti-inflammatory, and photoprotective agents [103].

4.1.4 Dynamics of Surface Charge and Electrostatic Interactions

Cationic nanocarriers react well with the negative skin surface, increasing deposition, and subsequent penetration [104]. An example of such is the chitosan systems in nanoparticles with better adhesion and retention, which is helpful to hydrophilic actives and peptides [105-106].

4.1.5 Elasticity and Deformability Driven Transport

The demonstration of the effectiveness of deformability-based penetration is the capacity of transfersomes and other nanopart with similar dimensions to traverse pores that could be smaller than the nanoparticle itself. These vehicles are compression-resistant and hydration-exploitative and capable of delivery of both lipophilic and hydrophilic functionalities [107-109].

In totality, these systems explain the superiority of nanocarriers over traditional topical formulas in the efficacy of dermal delivery.

4.2 Nanoparticles in Stabilizing Cosmetic Actives

Nanocarriers allow the introduction of volatile, oxidizing, heat-sensitive, and hydrolysis-prone ingredients, and greatly minimize their cooking or storage life. The varied stability enhancement paths that have been reported to exist in diverse studies denote the heterogeneity of defensive mechanisms inherent to the nanoencapsulation concept.

4.2.1 Chemical Degradation Protection

Vitamin C, retinoids, polyphenols, and coenzyme Q10- ingredients commonly used as cosmeceuticals are susceptible to oxidative, photolytic and hydrolytic degradation. These actives are surrounded by polymeric nanoparticles, lipid matrices, and nanoemulsions to shield actives in protective micro environments that cannot be broken by environmental pressures [110-112].

4.2.2 Thermal Stability and Bio-Physical Protection

Peptides and botanical extracts are sensitive to heat and so they cannot be used in hot homogenized emulsions. Cold processing strategies or thermal protection can be implemented with nanocarriers and enhance the mechanic strength of the structure and biologic viability during storage [113-115].

4.2.3 Sustained and Controlled Release Profiles

Controlled-release nanocarriers stabilize compounds via slows diffusion that reduce burst degradation, increase skin residence-time and decrease irritation with active potent compounds [116-118]. Sustained release is especially useful in exfoliating acids and retinoids whose profile of irritation usually prevents their usage on a daily basis.

4.2.4 Solubility and Homogenous Dispersion

Nanocarriers enhance the solubility of poorly water-soluble actives, enhance the consistency of a formulation, and enhance bioavailability [119-120]. Lipophilic antioxidants are better dissolved in Nanoemulsions and mixed-micelle systems than in conventional emulsions.

4.3 Comparative Effectiveness through Nanocarrier Systems

The comparative analysis of nanocarriers shows that each of them presents unique benefits due to physicochemical characteristics, compatibility with actives, and desired dermal effects.

Table 4. Comparative Roles of Major Nanocarriers in Dermal Delivery

Nanocarrier Type

Strengths

Limitations

SLNs/NLCs

Stability enhancement, occlusion, moisturizing, sustained release

Limited loading of hydrophilic actives

Liposomes

Biomimetic, suitable for hydrophilic compounds

Prone to leakage, lower stability

Transfersomes/ Ethosomes

Deep penetration, high elasticity

Higher production cost, ethanol-associated irritation

Polymeric NPs

Protection of fragile actives, tunable release

Possible monomer toxicity

Nanoemulsions

High solubilization capacity, good aesthetics

Surfactant irritation at high levels

Metallic NPs

UV protection, antimicrobial activity

Cytotoxicity risk, regulatory limitations

Research indicates that transfersomes and ethosomes perform better and better in penetration profundity compared to other carriers, and polymeric nanocarriers are superior at stability enhancement [121-123].

4.4 Safety, Toxicity, and Regulatory Views

4.4.1 Dermal Safety Issues

Individually, most lipid-based nano-carriers show a high biocompatibility profile, whereas polymeric and metallic nanoparticles are more complicated, with respect to their safety profile. Shots of cytotoxicity associated to reactive oxygen (ROS), nanoparticle accumulation, and inflammatory reactions have been seen with high concentrations of silver, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide [124-126].

4.4.2 Systemic Absorption and Accumulation Risk

The size of the nanoparticles above 20-30 nm is associated with evidences that they rarely enter the systemic circulation when using intact skin [127]. Nevertheless, inflamed and damaged skin is highly permeable, and there should be caution when exposing skin to chronic products.

4.4.3 Regulatory Requirements

Consumer safety regulators like the EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) are extremely strict on the characterization of nanomaterial, size, distribution, surface charge, solubility, and toxicology research [128-129]. Labeling requirements entail mandatory displaying of nanomaterials in cosmetic products.

4.5 Industrial Implications and Commercial Implications

The new product development in the field of anti-aging, pigmentation correction, UV protection and antioxidant formulations have occurred due to nanotechnology. The development trend of the industry is based on scientific benefits in research [130-131]. However, there are still a few difficulties such as scalability, price of raw material, equipment needs and batch-to-batch repeatability [132].

Another potential solution is the AI-enhanced nanoformulation design, which allows predicting the interactions of nanoparticles, their stability, sensory properties, and skin penetration behavior [133-134].

4.6 Future Research Directions

Future work must address:

  1. Long-term toxicology analysis of chronic exposure and accretion of nanoparticles.
  2. Nanoparticles that are biodegradable and biosafe.
  3. Nanocarriers that can release actives based on changes in pH, temperature or oxidative conditions by being stimulated.
  4. Individualization to the different types of skin, with regard to differences in barrier properties.
  5. Optimization of formulations through integration of machine learning.

Table 5. Future Innovation Areas in Nanocosmeceutical Development

Research Focus

Scientific Rationale

Expected Impact

Biodegradable nanocarriers

Reduce toxicity, improve clearance

Safer long-term use

Stimuli-responsive systems

Triggered release increases precision

Higher efficacy with fewer side effects

AI-assisted formulation

Predictive modeling of stability & penetration

Faster development, reduced cost

Skin-type personalization

Enhanced efficacy across populations

Inclusive product development

Hybrid nanocarriers

Multifunctional delivery and stability

Broader application range

4.7 Overall Interpretation

The overall literature results prove that functional nanoparticles can significantly improve the activity of cosmeceuticals. Their enhanced penetration systems, stabilization system, and their non-incompatibility with numerous active ingredients make them core ingredients of the future generation dermal products. Nevertheless, the mass commercial use should be accompanied by strict safety evaluation, law compliance, and moral product manufacturing standards.

Nanotechnology is therefore, a revolutionary platform of cosmetic science- one, which is still developing, advancing, and pushing the limits of topical treatment and cosmetic improvement.

5. CONCLUSION

The consolidation of functional nanoparticles in cosmeceutical preparations is a sub-revolution in the current dermatological research practice that seeks a way out of the existing dilemma faced by low penetration of active ingredients and unstability of active ingredients. Nanocarriers increase dermal delivery pathways previously inaccessible to traditional formulations; through a variety of different mechanisms, such as hydration-mediated permeation, lipid membrane fluidization, follicular targeting, electrostatic interactions, and structural deformability. These enhancements simultaneously enhance the depth and rate of penetration in addition to maximizing the bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy of both hydrophilic and lipophilic actives.

Parallel to this, nanoparticles also offer potent methods of stabilization where sensitive cosmetic ingredients are not subject to oxidative degradation, photolysis, hydrolysis, thermal unstable components. The beneficial effects of nanoencapsulation in facilitating formation of microenvirons that may resist environmental pressure factors and controlled sustained release is extending shelf life of products and limiting the irritability of high-potency compounds. The aforementioned characteristics highlight the dual functional nature of nanocarriers as carriers in improving the delivery, and the modulations of stability.

Comparative analysis between the nanocarrier systems reveals that all technologies have their own strengths and weaknesses, with lipid-based nanoparticles having the best balance of performance, vesicular carriers better than other technologies in penetration, and polymeric nanoparticles having the best in protecting the active ingredients. Though, scientific evidence is highly encouraging that they are effective, the long-term safety issues are of concern, as well issues of systemic absorption and regulatory compliance address can only be addressed through the use of further research and strict review assessments.

In the future, the next generation of the cosmetical technologies is predicted to have advancement through innovations in stimuli-responsive nanomaterials, hybrid carrier systems, biodegradable polymers and AI-based formulation design. With the development of the field, a balance of efficacy and safety as well as regulatory prerequisites will need to be struck in connection to accountable and effective translation into commercial skincare practices.

All in all, functional nanoparticles can be considered as the leaders in the revolution of the cosmeceutical innovation by providing unprecedented chances to as well as improve the health of the skin, aesthetic performance, and customer satisfaction as well as carving out the future of future advanced topical therapies.

REFERENCES

  1. Lintner K. Cosmetic peptides for skincare: Functions, formulations, and clinical effectiveness. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2021; 43:1–12.
  2. Elias PM. Stratum corneum defensive functions: An integrated view. J Invest Dermatol. 2012; 132:2131–43.
  3. Prow TW et al. Nanoparticles and microparticles for skin drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011; 63:470–9.
  4. Souto EB, Muller RH. Cosmetic applications of lipid nanoparticles. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2008; 30:157–65.
  5. Cevc G, Blume G. Lipid vesicles penetrate into intact skin. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992; 1104:226–32.
  6. Wissing SA, Müller RH. Solid lipid nanoparticles as carriers for sunscreens. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2002; 28:149–55.
  7. Shakeel F et al. Nanoemulsions as enhanced topical delivery systems. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011; 3:223–3.
  8. Wang L et al. Stability issues of skincare actives and nanoencapsulation solutions. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2019; 18:1850–7.
  9. Patel R et al. Advances in nanotechnology for cosmeceutical applications. Drug Dev Res. 2020; 81:377–85.
  10. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Guidance on the Safety Assessment of Nanomaterials in Cosmetics. European Commission; 2021.
  11. Moher D et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PLoS Med. 2009;6: e1000097.
  12. Khan KS et al. Systematic reviews: Literature searching strategies. Health Info Libr J. 2003; 20:3–9.
  13. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley; 2011.
  14. Liberati A et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009;339: b2700.
  15. Tran N, Park J. Nanomaterial-based cosmeceuticals: Mechanisms and delivery. J Control Release. 2020; 324:365–80.
  16. OECD. Guidelines for the Testing of Nanomaterials. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2020.
  17. Pardeike J, Hommoss A, Müller RH. Lipid nanoparticles (SLN, NLC) in cosmetic and pharmaceutical dermal products. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2009;61(6):419-27.
  18. Muller RH, Radtke M, Wissing SA. Solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers for dermal application. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;54: S131-55.
  19. Jenning V, Schafer-Korting M, Gohla S. Vitamin A-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles for topical use: Drug release properties. J Control Release. 2000;66(2-3):115-26.
  20. Fang JY, Fang CL, Liu CH, Su YH. Lipid nanoparticles as vehicles for topical psoralen delivery: Solid lipid nanoparticles, nanostructured lipid carriers and nanoemulsions. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2008;70(2):633-40.
  21. Torchilin VP. Recent advances with liposomes as pharmaceutical carriers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4(2):145-60.
  22. Elsayed MM, Abdallah OY, Naggar VF, Khalafallah NM. Deformable liposomes and ethosomes: Mechanism of enhanced skin delivery. Int J Pharm. 2006;322(1-2):60-6.
  23. Honeywell-Nguyen PL, Bouwstra JA. Vesicles as drug delivery systems to the skin: Against the mainstream. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005;57(3):603-5.
  24. Touitou E, Dayan N, Bergelson L, Godin B, Eliaz M. Ethosomes—A novel vesicular carriers for enhanced delivery. J Control Release. 2000;65(3):403-18.
  25. Cevc G, Mazgareanu S. Skin penetration and effects of cosmetic liposomes. Clin Dermatol. 2008;26(4):363-9.
  26. Wissing SA, Müller RH. The influence of the crystallinity of lipid nanoparticles on their occlusive properties. Int J Pharm. 2002;242(1-2):377-9.
  27. Lai F, Wissing SA, Muller RH, Fadda AM. Artemisia arborescens L. essential oil-loaded SLN. Int J Pharm. 2006;36(1-2):61-71.
  28. Verma DD, Verma S, Blume G, Fahr A. Liposomes for dermal application. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2003;55(3):271-7.
  29. Duffy L, Weiszhar Z, Szoka FC. Mechanisms of vesicle penetration into the skin. J Control Release. 2010;147(2):237-44.
  30. Dragicevic N, Maibach H. Nanodermatology: Safety and efficacy of nanocarriers. Springer; 2014.
  31. Shakeel F, Baboota S, Ahuja A, Shafiq S. Nanoemulsions as vehicles for transdermal delivery. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011;3(3):223-4.
  32. Prow TW, Grice JE, Lin LL. Nanoparticles and microparticles for skin drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63(6):470-97.
  33. Kwon GS. Polymeric micelles for dermal delivery. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2003;20(5):357-403.
  34. Raza K, Singh B, Lohan S, Negi P, Yachha Y, Katare OP. Nanoencapsulation for retinoid stabilization. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:1-14.
  35. Nair RS, Morris A, Billa N, Singh L. Chitosan nanoparticles for dermal delivery. Carbohydr Polym. 2019; 222:114-21.
  36. Dykman LA, Khlebtsov NG. Gold nanoparticles in biomedical applications. Chem Soc Rev. 2012;41(6):2256-82.
  37. Osmond MJ, McCall MJ. Zinc oxide nanoparticles: UV protection and dermal safety. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2010;102(2):113-20.
  38. Jiang J, Oberdörster G, Biswas P. Characterization of TiO? nanoparticles in cosmetics. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3(1):33-42.
  39. Zhang L, Gu FX, Chan JM, Wang AZ, Langer RS, Farokhzad OC. Nanoparticle–lipid hybrid systems. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83(5):761-9.
  40. Gordillo-Gastelum E et al. Lipid–polymer hybrid nanoparticles: A new generation of topical carriers. J Pharm Sci. 2017;106(9):2904-14.
  41. Pardeike J et al. NLCs for dermal penetration. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;79(1):152-63.
  42. Souto EB, Müller RH. Cosmetic uses of lipid–polymer hybrid nanocarriers. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2005;27:135-41.
  43. Alvarez-Román R, Naik A, Kalia YN, Guy RH, Fessi H. Skin penetration of SLNs. J Control Release. 2004;99(1):53-62.
  44. Doktorovova S, Kovacevic AB, Garcia ML, Souto EB. The role of lipid nanoparticles in hydration enhancement. Colloids Surf B. 2016; 141:146-53.
  45. Lunder T, Govc Z, Štrukelj B. Hydration-mediated enhancement of dermal penetration. Int J Pharm. 2012; 435:30-7.
  46. Cevc G. Transfersomes for transdermal delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;45(1):15-33.
  47. Benson HAE. Elastic vesicles and lipid fluidization. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2012;25(2):57-65.
  48. Honeywell-Nguyen PL, Bouwstra JA. Vesicular transport mechanisms. J Pharm Sci. 2003;92(6):1232-44.
  49. Lademann J et al. Follicular penetration of nanoparticles. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2007;20(2):75-80.
  50. Toll R, Jacobi U, Richter H, Lademann J. Follicular drug targeting. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2004;17:252-8.
  51. Alvarez-Román R et al. Follicular reservoir effect of polymeric nanoparticles. J Control Release. 2004; 98:67-74.
  52. Contado C. Surface charge impact on NP penetration. J Chrom A. 2015; 1426:1-20.
  53. Verma A, Stellacci F. Effect of surface charge on NP interactions. Small. 2010;6(1):12-21.
  54. Bhattacharjee S. DLS measurement issues for NP safety. J Control Release. 2016; 235:337-51.
  55. Jain S, Jain P, Umamaheshwari RB, Jain NK. Elastic liposomes in dermal delivery. J Control Release. 2003; 82:49-58.
  56. Ascenso A et al. Invasomes for enhanced dermal transport. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015; 93:243-53.
  57. Dragicevic N, Maibach HI. Enhanced delivery by elastic carriers. Skin Pharmacology. 2013; 26:221-32.
  58. Touitou E. Ethosomal technology. J Control Release. 2000; 65:403-8.
  59. Gopinath D et al. Stabilization of vitamin C via nanoencapsulation. Int J Pharm. 2014; 478:753-9.
  60. Karthikeyan K, Motlagh S, D’Souza PL. Encapsulation for antioxidant stability. J Cosmet Sci. 2013; 64:45-58.
  61. Aulton ME. Retinoid instability solutions. Pharmaceutics. 2018;10(3):112-20.
  62. Li N, Zeng X, Sun H. UV protection of flavonoids via nanocarriers. Photochem Photobiol. 2016; 92:618-28.
  63. Wang S et al. Photostability of vitamin E via SLNs. J Nanobiotechnology. 2019; 17:1-11.
  64. Martin A, Wilson C. Hydrolytic stabilization of hydrophilic actives. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2012; 38:673-83.
  65. Ribeiro L et al. α-Arbutin stabilization using polymer nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2010; 381:56-63.
  66. Jain AK et al. Kojic acid stabilization using NLCs. J Pharm Sci. 2011; 100:3149-59.
  67. Zhai YH, Teng Y, Hu XQ. Nanoemulsions preventing hydrolysis of cosmetic acids. Colloids Surf A. 2016; 497:122-9.
  68. Kang L, Fang L, Li L. Controlled release from polymeric nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2011; 420:171-7.
  69. Alvarez-Román R. Slow-release systems for dermal antioxidants. J Pharm Sci. 2005; 94:1006-15.
  70. Goindi S, Arora P. Controlled delivery of retinoids via liposomes. Int J Pharm. 2011; 412:86-94.
  71. Murthy SN et al. Controlled release from NLCs. J Pharm Sci. 2004; 93:908-16.
  72. Shah K, Patel M. Minimizing irritation via sustained release nanoparticles. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020; 19:1152-61.
  73. Lee SY, Kim HJ. Thermal stability of peptides using NLCs. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2014; 88:138-47.
  74. Choi MJ, Buzney CD. Botanical extract stability through liposomal encapsulation. Fitoterapia. 2015; 104:7-17.
  75. Tiwari S, Ghosh T. Thermal stabilization of essential oils. J Appl Polym Sci. 2017; 134:446-57.
  76. Fathi M, Donsi F, McClements DJ. Protein-based nanoencapsulation of sensitive actives. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2018; 71:34-44.
  77. Prow TW. Comparison of dermal penetration across nanocarriers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011; 63:470-97.
  78. Joshi MD, Muller RH. SLNs vs NLCs comparative performance. Int J Pharm. 2009; 377:129-38.
  79. Wang Y, Gao S. Penetration depth comparison of lipid vs polymer NP. J Control Release. 2016; 223:177-85.
  80. Hao J, Fang X. Comparative dermal delivery of vitamin E nanocarriers. Int J Pharm. 2019; 569:118-29.
  81. Baki G, Alexander K. Cosmeceutical Nanotechnology Handbook. CRC Press; 2015.
  82. Maestrelli F et al. NLC efficiency in dermal delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2018; 128:170-82.
  83. Sivaramakrishnan R, Nakamura C. Commercial readiness of SLNs/NLCs. Nanomedicine. 2020; 15:1871-84.
  84. Vogt A, Wischke C, Neumann D. Safety of lipid nanocarriers for skin. Nanotoxicology. 2014;8(1):1-10.
  85. Santos H, Shahiwala A. Polymeric nanoparticle safety. Int J Pharm. 2015; 491:59-68.
  86. Crosera M et al. Metallic NP dermal toxicity. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3:119-27.
  87. SCCS. Opinion on titanium dioxide nanoparticles in cosmetics. European Commission; 2014.
  88. FDA. Nanotechnology considerations for cosmetics. US Food and Drug Administration; 2020.
  89. EU Regulation 1223/2009 on cosmetic products—Nanomaterial requirements. EUR-Lex.
  90. López-García J, Lehocký M. Regulatory challenges in cosmetic nanotechnology. Nanomaterials. 2021;11(3):750.
  91. Shrotriya S et al. Dermal penetration enhancement via nanocarriers. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2019; 52:651–60.
  92. Barry BW. Breaching the skin barrier: The role of nanocarriers. Drug Discov Today. 2001; 6:967–78.
  93. Wissing SA, Müller RH. Hydration effects of lipid nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2003; 254:65–9.
  94. Lauer AC et al. Occlusion-driven enhancement of dermal delivery. Pharm Res. 1996; 13:1550–5.
  95. Maestrelli F et al. Hydration-induced transport mechanisms. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2019; 132:20–9.
  96. Cevc G. Lipid fluidization in transfersomal delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004;56:675–711.
  97. Touitou E. Ethanol effects on skin lipid structure. J Control Release. 2002;65:403–8.
  98. Godin B, Touitou E. Transdermal penetration of ethosomes. J Control Release. 2004;94:365–79.
  99. El Maghraby GM et al. Mechanisms of ethosomal penetration. Int J Pharm. 2008;357:222–30.
  100. Patzelt A et al. Follicular targeting of nanoparticles. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131:1139–41.
  101. Lademann J. Dermal reservoirs via hair follicles. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2010;23:331–6.
  102. Zvyagin AV et al. Size-dependent follicular penetration. J Biomed Opt. 2008;13:064031.
  103. Toll R et al. Hair follicle drug reservoirs. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2004;17:252–8.
  104. Verma A, Stellacci F. Surface charge influences on transport. Small. 2010;6:12–21.
  105. Rizeq BR et al. Chitosan NP adhesion. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;123:219–31.
  106. Riva E et al. Positive-charge enhanced dermal delivery. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12:123.
  107. Jain S et al. Elastic vesicles in transdermal transport. J Control Release. 2003;82:49–58.
  108. Ascenso A et al. Invasomes’ elastic delivery properties. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015;93:243–53.
  109. Dragicevic-Curic N et al. Elastic nanocarriers for deep skin delivery. Exp Dermatol. 2011;20:692–8.
  110. Raza K et al. Vitamin C stabilization via nanocarriers. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017;16:495–503.
  111. Kou L et al. Retinoid stabilization in nanocarriers. Int J Pharm. 2018;552:337–52.
  112. Gatti R et al. Phenolic stability via encapsulation. J Pharm Sci. 2015;104:291–302.
  113. Lee J et al. Heat protection for peptides using nanocarriers. J Control Release. 2014;194:209–18.
  114. Li J et al. Preservation of botanical extracts. Fitoterapia. 2016;115:16–25.
  115. Maria DN et al. Nanocarrier protection against thermal degradation. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2019;138:1009–18.
  116. Sanna V et al. Controlled release via polymeric nanoparticles. Colloids Surf B. 2015;133:116–22.
  117. Kang L et al. Controlled release in dermal therapy. Int J Pharm. 2011;420:171–7.
  118. Murthy SN et al. Sustained delivery from NLCs. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93:908–16.
  119. Shakeel F et al. Solubility enhancement through nanoemulsions. Colloids Surf A. 2019;577:645–58.
  120. Okonogi S, Riangjanapatee P. Mixed micelle solubilization of antioxidants. J Pharm Sci. 2015;104:1104–12.
  121. Prow TW et al. Comparative penetration of nanocarriers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63:470–97.
  122. Joshi M, Müller RH. Lipid NP vs polymer NP performance. Int J Pharm. 2009;377:129–38.
  123. Wang Y et al. Penetration efficiency comparison. J Control Release. 2016;223:177–85.
  124. Crosera M et al. Toxicity of metallic nanoparticles on skin. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3:119–27.
  125. Zhang X et al. ROS generation by silver nanoparticles. Toxicol Lett. 2016;257:140–51.
  126. Osmond MJ, McCall MJ. TiO? NP toxicity review. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2010;102:113–20.
  127. Larese FF et al. Dermal absorption of NPs. Toxicol Lett. 2009;185:211–5.
  128. SCCS. Guidance on safety evaluation of nanomaterials in cosmetics. EU Commission; 2021.
  129. OECD. Nanomaterial regulatory standards. OECD Publishing; 2020.
  130. Baki G, Alexander K. Cosmeceuticals and nanotechnology. CRC Press; 2015.
  131. Chaudhri M et al. Market adaptation of nano-enabled skincare. Nanomedicine. 2021;16:1149–65.
  132. Müller RH et al. Industrial production challenges of nanocarriers. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;79:152–63.
  133. Goel S et al. AI in nanocosmetics formulation. Comput Mater Sci. 2022;204:111–9.
  134. Aljuhani A et al. Machine learning in nanoparticle prediction. Nano Today. 2021;37:101–14.
  135. Jang J et al. Nanocarrier interaction modeling. J Mol Liq. 2020;315:113–24.
  136. Park H et al. Personalized nanocosmeceuticals. J Dermatol Sci. 2020;98(2):67–76.
  137. Zhang Y et al. Role of pH-responsive nanocarriers. Acta Biomater. 2019;100:200–12.
  138. Liu K et al. Temperature-responsive nanomaterials. Chem Mater. 2020;32:5675–88.
  139. Bhattacharya D et al. Oxidative-triggered release systems. J Control Release. 2019;306:37–48.
  140. Singh S et al. Nanocarriers for sensitive skin types. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:e14121.
  141. Durán N et al. Hybrid nanoparticles in dermatology. Biotechnol Adv. 2020;40:107–19.
  142. Zhao P et al. Nanocarrier adaptability across skin types. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21:104–15.
  143. Shrestha N et al. Multifunctional nanocarriers. Nanoscale. 2019;11:349–64.
  144. Nguyen T et al. Interdisciplinary advances in nanocosmetics. Adv Mater. 2021;33:210–22.
  145. Ahsan SM et al. Biodegradable nanoparticles for topical use. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2021;176:113–35.
  146. Silva D et al. Ethical considerations in nanocosmetics. Nanotoxicology. 2022;16:890–9.
  147. Shah V et al. Consumer safety perceptions of nanoparticles. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2020;42:387–96.
  148. Lalloz A et al. Scaling nanocarrier manufacturing. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13:114.
  149. Gupta R et al. Economic implications of nanocosmetics. J Clean Prod. 2022;331:129–40.
  150. Marino A et al. Nano-bio interactions in dermal delivery. Biomaterials. 2020;242:119–212.
  151. Mahapatra A et al. Long-term assessment of nanoenabled formulations. J Control Release. 2022;349:765–83.   

Reference

  1. Lintner K. Cosmetic peptides for skincare: Functions, formulations, and clinical effectiveness. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2021; 43:1–12.
  2. Elias PM. Stratum corneum defensive functions: An integrated view. J Invest Dermatol. 2012; 132:2131–43.
  3. Prow TW et al. Nanoparticles and microparticles for skin drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011; 63:470–9.
  4. Souto EB, Muller RH. Cosmetic applications of lipid nanoparticles. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2008; 30:157–65.
  5. Cevc G, Blume G. Lipid vesicles penetrate into intact skin. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992; 1104:226–32.
  6. Wissing SA, Müller RH. Solid lipid nanoparticles as carriers for sunscreens. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2002; 28:149–55.
  7. Shakeel F et al. Nanoemulsions as enhanced topical delivery systems. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011; 3:223–3.
  8. Wang L et al. Stability issues of skincare actives and nanoencapsulation solutions. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2019; 18:1850–7.
  9. Patel R et al. Advances in nanotechnology for cosmeceutical applications. Drug Dev Res. 2020; 81:377–85.
  10. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Guidance on the Safety Assessment of Nanomaterials in Cosmetics. European Commission; 2021.
  11. Moher D et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PLoS Med. 2009;6: e1000097.
  12. Khan KS et al. Systematic reviews: Literature searching strategies. Health Info Libr J. 2003; 20:3–9.
  13. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley; 2011.
  14. Liberati A et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009;339: b2700.
  15. Tran N, Park J. Nanomaterial-based cosmeceuticals: Mechanisms and delivery. J Control Release. 2020; 324:365–80.
  16. OECD. Guidelines for the Testing of Nanomaterials. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2020.
  17. Pardeike J, Hommoss A, Müller RH. Lipid nanoparticles (SLN, NLC) in cosmetic and pharmaceutical dermal products. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2009;61(6):419-27.
  18. Muller RH, Radtke M, Wissing SA. Solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers for dermal application. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;54: S131-55.
  19. Jenning V, Schafer-Korting M, Gohla S. Vitamin A-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles for topical use: Drug release properties. J Control Release. 2000;66(2-3):115-26.
  20. Fang JY, Fang CL, Liu CH, Su YH. Lipid nanoparticles as vehicles for topical psoralen delivery: Solid lipid nanoparticles, nanostructured lipid carriers and nanoemulsions. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2008;70(2):633-40.
  21. Torchilin VP. Recent advances with liposomes as pharmaceutical carriers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4(2):145-60.
  22. Elsayed MM, Abdallah OY, Naggar VF, Khalafallah NM. Deformable liposomes and ethosomes: Mechanism of enhanced skin delivery. Int J Pharm. 2006;322(1-2):60-6.
  23. Honeywell-Nguyen PL, Bouwstra JA. Vesicles as drug delivery systems to the skin: Against the mainstream. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005;57(3):603-5.
  24. Touitou E, Dayan N, Bergelson L, Godin B, Eliaz M. Ethosomes—A novel vesicular carriers for enhanced delivery. J Control Release. 2000;65(3):403-18.
  25. Cevc G, Mazgareanu S. Skin penetration and effects of cosmetic liposomes. Clin Dermatol. 2008;26(4):363-9.
  26. Wissing SA, Müller RH. The influence of the crystallinity of lipid nanoparticles on their occlusive properties. Int J Pharm. 2002;242(1-2):377-9.
  27. Lai F, Wissing SA, Muller RH, Fadda AM. Artemisia arborescens L. essential oil-loaded SLN. Int J Pharm. 2006;36(1-2):61-71.
  28. Verma DD, Verma S, Blume G, Fahr A. Liposomes for dermal application. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2003;55(3):271-7.
  29. Duffy L, Weiszhar Z, Szoka FC. Mechanisms of vesicle penetration into the skin. J Control Release. 2010;147(2):237-44.
  30. Dragicevic N, Maibach H. Nanodermatology: Safety and efficacy of nanocarriers. Springer; 2014.
  31. Shakeel F, Baboota S, Ahuja A, Shafiq S. Nanoemulsions as vehicles for transdermal delivery. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011;3(3):223-4.
  32. Prow TW, Grice JE, Lin LL. Nanoparticles and microparticles for skin drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63(6):470-97.
  33. Kwon GS. Polymeric micelles for dermal delivery. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2003;20(5):357-403.
  34. Raza K, Singh B, Lohan S, Negi P, Yachha Y, Katare OP. Nanoencapsulation for retinoid stabilization. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:1-14.
  35. Nair RS, Morris A, Billa N, Singh L. Chitosan nanoparticles for dermal delivery. Carbohydr Polym. 2019; 222:114-21.
  36. Dykman LA, Khlebtsov NG. Gold nanoparticles in biomedical applications. Chem Soc Rev. 2012;41(6):2256-82.
  37. Osmond MJ, McCall MJ. Zinc oxide nanoparticles: UV protection and dermal safety. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2010;102(2):113-20.
  38. Jiang J, Oberdörster G, Biswas P. Characterization of TiO? nanoparticles in cosmetics. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3(1):33-42.
  39. Zhang L, Gu FX, Chan JM, Wang AZ, Langer RS, Farokhzad OC. Nanoparticle–lipid hybrid systems. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83(5):761-9.
  40. Gordillo-Gastelum E et al. Lipid–polymer hybrid nanoparticles: A new generation of topical carriers. J Pharm Sci. 2017;106(9):2904-14.
  41. Pardeike J et al. NLCs for dermal penetration. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;79(1):152-63.
  42. Souto EB, Müller RH. Cosmetic uses of lipid–polymer hybrid nanocarriers. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2005;27:135-41.
  43. Alvarez-Román R, Naik A, Kalia YN, Guy RH, Fessi H. Skin penetration of SLNs. J Control Release. 2004;99(1):53-62.
  44. Doktorovova S, Kovacevic AB, Garcia ML, Souto EB. The role of lipid nanoparticles in hydration enhancement. Colloids Surf B. 2016; 141:146-53.
  45. Lunder T, Govc Z, Štrukelj B. Hydration-mediated enhancement of dermal penetration. Int J Pharm. 2012; 435:30-7.
  46. Cevc G. Transfersomes for transdermal delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;45(1):15-33.
  47. Benson HAE. Elastic vesicles and lipid fluidization. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2012;25(2):57-65.
  48. Honeywell-Nguyen PL, Bouwstra JA. Vesicular transport mechanisms. J Pharm Sci. 2003;92(6):1232-44.
  49. Lademann J et al. Follicular penetration of nanoparticles. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2007;20(2):75-80.
  50. Toll R, Jacobi U, Richter H, Lademann J. Follicular drug targeting. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2004;17:252-8.
  51. Alvarez-Román R et al. Follicular reservoir effect of polymeric nanoparticles. J Control Release. 2004; 98:67-74.
  52. Contado C. Surface charge impact on NP penetration. J Chrom A. 2015; 1426:1-20.
  53. Verma A, Stellacci F. Effect of surface charge on NP interactions. Small. 2010;6(1):12-21.
  54. Bhattacharjee S. DLS measurement issues for NP safety. J Control Release. 2016; 235:337-51.
  55. Jain S, Jain P, Umamaheshwari RB, Jain NK. Elastic liposomes in dermal delivery. J Control Release. 2003; 82:49-58.
  56. Ascenso A et al. Invasomes for enhanced dermal transport. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015; 93:243-53.
  57. Dragicevic N, Maibach HI. Enhanced delivery by elastic carriers. Skin Pharmacology. 2013; 26:221-32.
  58. Touitou E. Ethosomal technology. J Control Release. 2000; 65:403-8.
  59. Gopinath D et al. Stabilization of vitamin C via nanoencapsulation. Int J Pharm. 2014; 478:753-9.
  60. Karthikeyan K, Motlagh S, D’Souza PL. Encapsulation for antioxidant stability. J Cosmet Sci. 2013; 64:45-58.
  61. Aulton ME. Retinoid instability solutions. Pharmaceutics. 2018;10(3):112-20.
  62. Li N, Zeng X, Sun H. UV protection of flavonoids via nanocarriers. Photochem Photobiol. 2016; 92:618-28.
  63. Wang S et al. Photostability of vitamin E via SLNs. J Nanobiotechnology. 2019; 17:1-11.
  64. Martin A, Wilson C. Hydrolytic stabilization of hydrophilic actives. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2012; 38:673-83.
  65. Ribeiro L et al. α-Arbutin stabilization using polymer nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2010; 381:56-63.
  66. Jain AK et al. Kojic acid stabilization using NLCs. J Pharm Sci. 2011; 100:3149-59.
  67. Zhai YH, Teng Y, Hu XQ. Nanoemulsions preventing hydrolysis of cosmetic acids. Colloids Surf A. 2016; 497:122-9.
  68. Kang L, Fang L, Li L. Controlled release from polymeric nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2011; 420:171-7.
  69. Alvarez-Román R. Slow-release systems for dermal antioxidants. J Pharm Sci. 2005; 94:1006-15.
  70. Goindi S, Arora P. Controlled delivery of retinoids via liposomes. Int J Pharm. 2011; 412:86-94.
  71. Murthy SN et al. Controlled release from NLCs. J Pharm Sci. 2004; 93:908-16.
  72. Shah K, Patel M. Minimizing irritation via sustained release nanoparticles. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020; 19:1152-61.
  73. Lee SY, Kim HJ. Thermal stability of peptides using NLCs. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2014; 88:138-47.
  74. Choi MJ, Buzney CD. Botanical extract stability through liposomal encapsulation. Fitoterapia. 2015; 104:7-17.
  75. Tiwari S, Ghosh T. Thermal stabilization of essential oils. J Appl Polym Sci. 2017; 134:446-57.
  76. Fathi M, Donsi F, McClements DJ. Protein-based nanoencapsulation of sensitive actives. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2018; 71:34-44.
  77. Prow TW. Comparison of dermal penetration across nanocarriers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011; 63:470-97.
  78. Joshi MD, Muller RH. SLNs vs NLCs comparative performance. Int J Pharm. 2009; 377:129-38.
  79. Wang Y, Gao S. Penetration depth comparison of lipid vs polymer NP. J Control Release. 2016; 223:177-85.
  80. Hao J, Fang X. Comparative dermal delivery of vitamin E nanocarriers. Int J Pharm. 2019; 569:118-29.
  81. Baki G, Alexander K. Cosmeceutical Nanotechnology Handbook. CRC Press; 2015.
  82. Maestrelli F et al. NLC efficiency in dermal delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2018; 128:170-82.
  83. Sivaramakrishnan R, Nakamura C. Commercial readiness of SLNs/NLCs. Nanomedicine. 2020; 15:1871-84.
  84. Vogt A, Wischke C, Neumann D. Safety of lipid nanocarriers for skin. Nanotoxicology. 2014;8(1):1-10.
  85. Santos H, Shahiwala A. Polymeric nanoparticle safety. Int J Pharm. 2015; 491:59-68.
  86. Crosera M et al. Metallic NP dermal toxicity. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3:119-27.
  87. SCCS. Opinion on titanium dioxide nanoparticles in cosmetics. European Commission; 2014.
  88. FDA. Nanotechnology considerations for cosmetics. US Food and Drug Administration; 2020.
  89. EU Regulation 1223/2009 on cosmetic products—Nanomaterial requirements. EUR-Lex.
  90. López-García J, Lehocký M. Regulatory challenges in cosmetic nanotechnology. Nanomaterials. 2021;11(3):750.
  91. Shrotriya S et al. Dermal penetration enhancement via nanocarriers. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2019; 52:651–60.
  92. Barry BW. Breaching the skin barrier: The role of nanocarriers. Drug Discov Today. 2001; 6:967–78.
  93. Wissing SA, Müller RH. Hydration effects of lipid nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2003; 254:65–9.
  94. Lauer AC et al. Occlusion-driven enhancement of dermal delivery. Pharm Res. 1996; 13:1550–5.
  95. Maestrelli F et al. Hydration-induced transport mechanisms. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2019; 132:20–9.
  96. Cevc G. Lipid fluidization in transfersomal delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004;56:675–711.
  97. Touitou E. Ethanol effects on skin lipid structure. J Control Release. 2002;65:403–8.
  98. Godin B, Touitou E. Transdermal penetration of ethosomes. J Control Release. 2004;94:365–79.
  99. El Maghraby GM et al. Mechanisms of ethosomal penetration. Int J Pharm. 2008;357:222–30.
  100. Patzelt A et al. Follicular targeting of nanoparticles. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131:1139–41.
  101. Lademann J. Dermal reservoirs via hair follicles. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2010;23:331–6.
  102. Zvyagin AV et al. Size-dependent follicular penetration. J Biomed Opt. 2008;13:064031.
  103. Toll R et al. Hair follicle drug reservoirs. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2004;17:252–8.
  104. Verma A, Stellacci F. Surface charge influences on transport. Small. 2010;6:12–21.
  105. Rizeq BR et al. Chitosan NP adhesion. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;123:219–31.
  106. Riva E et al. Positive-charge enhanced dermal delivery. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12:123.
  107. Jain S et al. Elastic vesicles in transdermal transport. J Control Release. 2003;82:49–58.
  108. Ascenso A et al. Invasomes’ elastic delivery properties. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015;93:243–53.
  109. Dragicevic-Curic N et al. Elastic nanocarriers for deep skin delivery. Exp Dermatol. 2011;20:692–8.
  110. Raza K et al. Vitamin C stabilization via nanocarriers. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017;16:495–503.
  111. Kou L et al. Retinoid stabilization in nanocarriers. Int J Pharm. 2018;552:337–52.
  112. Gatti R et al. Phenolic stability via encapsulation. J Pharm Sci. 2015;104:291–302.
  113. Lee J et al. Heat protection for peptides using nanocarriers. J Control Release. 2014;194:209–18.
  114. Li J et al. Preservation of botanical extracts. Fitoterapia. 2016;115:16–25.
  115. Maria DN et al. Nanocarrier protection against thermal degradation. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2019;138:1009–18.
  116. Sanna V et al. Controlled release via polymeric nanoparticles. Colloids Surf B. 2015;133:116–22.
  117. Kang L et al. Controlled release in dermal therapy. Int J Pharm. 2011;420:171–7.
  118. Murthy SN et al. Sustained delivery from NLCs. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93:908–16.
  119. Shakeel F et al. Solubility enhancement through nanoemulsions. Colloids Surf A. 2019;577:645–58.
  120. Okonogi S, Riangjanapatee P. Mixed micelle solubilization of antioxidants. J Pharm Sci. 2015;104:1104–12.
  121. Prow TW et al. Comparative penetration of nanocarriers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63:470–97.
  122. Joshi M, Müller RH. Lipid NP vs polymer NP performance. Int J Pharm. 2009;377:129–38.
  123. Wang Y et al. Penetration efficiency comparison. J Control Release. 2016;223:177–85.
  124. Crosera M et al. Toxicity of metallic nanoparticles on skin. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3:119–27.
  125. Zhang X et al. ROS generation by silver nanoparticles. Toxicol Lett. 2016;257:140–51.
  126. Osmond MJ, McCall MJ. TiO? NP toxicity review. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2010;102:113–20.
  127. Larese FF et al. Dermal absorption of NPs. Toxicol Lett. 2009;185:211–5.
  128. SCCS. Guidance on safety evaluation of nanomaterials in cosmetics. EU Commission; 2021.
  129. OECD. Nanomaterial regulatory standards. OECD Publishing; 2020.
  130. Baki G, Alexander K. Cosmeceuticals and nanotechnology. CRC Press; 2015.
  131. Chaudhri M et al. Market adaptation of nano-enabled skincare. Nanomedicine. 2021;16:1149–65.
  132. Müller RH et al. Industrial production challenges of nanocarriers. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;79:152–63.
  133. Goel S et al. AI in nanocosmetics formulation. Comput Mater Sci. 2022;204:111–9.
  134. Aljuhani A et al. Machine learning in nanoparticle prediction. Nano Today. 2021;37:101–14.
  135. Jang J et al. Nanocarrier interaction modeling. J Mol Liq. 2020;315:113–24.
  136. Park H et al. Personalized nanocosmeceuticals. J Dermatol Sci. 2020;98(2):67–76.
  137. Zhang Y et al. Role of pH-responsive nanocarriers. Acta Biomater. 2019;100:200–12.
  138. Liu K et al. Temperature-responsive nanomaterials. Chem Mater. 2020;32:5675–88.
  139. Bhattacharya D et al. Oxidative-triggered release systems. J Control Release. 2019;306:37–48.
  140. Singh S et al. Nanocarriers for sensitive skin types. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:e14121.
  141. Durán N et al. Hybrid nanoparticles in dermatology. Biotechnol Adv. 2020;40:107–19.
  142. Zhao P et al. Nanocarrier adaptability across skin types. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21:104–15.
  143. Shrestha N et al. Multifunctional nanocarriers. Nanoscale. 2019;11:349–64.
  144. Nguyen T et al. Interdisciplinary advances in nanocosmetics. Adv Mater. 2021;33:210–22.
  145. Ahsan SM et al. Biodegradable nanoparticles for topical use. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2021;176:113–35.
  146. Silva D et al. Ethical considerations in nanocosmetics. Nanotoxicology. 2022;16:890–9.
  147. Shah V et al. Consumer safety perceptions of nanoparticles. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2020;42:387–96.
  148. Lalloz A et al. Scaling nanocarrier manufacturing. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13:114.
  149. Gupta R et al. Economic implications of nanocosmetics. J Clean Prod. 2022;331:129–40.
  150. Marino A et al. Nano-bio interactions in dermal delivery. Biomaterials. 2020;242:119–212.
  151. Mahapatra A et al. Long-term assessment of nanoenabled formulations. J Control Release. 2022;349:765–83.  

Photo
Dr. Kaushal Kumar
Corresponding author

Department of Pharmacy, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University Bareilly 243006, Uttar Pradesh, India

Photo
Utkarsh Yadav
Co-author

Department of Pharmacy, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University Bareilly 243006, Uttar Pradesh, India

Photo
Deepshikha
Co-author

Department of Pharmacy, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University Bareilly 243006, Uttar Pradesh, India

Utkarsh Yadav, Dr. Kaushal Kumar, Deepshikha, Role of Functional Nanoparticles in Improving Skin Penetration and Stability of Cosmeceuticals, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2026, Vol 4, Issue 5, 2924-2942. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20153996

More related articles
Paxlovid: The Protease Inhibitor Revolution in Hig...
Hebha Amreen, Patel Sanjeetha Reddy, ...
A Review Of Phytopharmacological Aspects Of Sphaer...
M. Anitha, G. Deepika , K. Sandhiya , G. Sneha , M. Soniya, ...
Nanoemulsions: A Promising Technology For The Deve...
Ronakkumar Rabadiya , Divya Gupta, Chainesh Shah , Umesh Upadhyay...
Formulation and Evaluation of Herbal Anti-Aging Cream From Blue Pea Flower ...
Renuka Damodhar , Swati Kanoje, Dr. Swati Deshmukh , ...
A Literature Review On Silk Maize Health Benefits And It’s Pharmacological Eff...
Patel umangkumar Rajeshbhai, Paswan Praveenkumar, Patel Priya , Patel Nidhi , Sinha Neeta, ...
Related Articles
Advanced Polymeric Platforms for Oromucosal Drug Delivery: Innovations, Design a...
Uday S. H., Moumita Banerjee, Chetan Savukar, Umaymah Iqbal Syed, Prithwiraj Jana, Sonali Behera, ...
Artificial Intelligence in Nanomedicine: Current Advances and Future Perspective...
Krushna Dandade, Shilpa Borkar, Ketki Bhatt, Jagdish Baheti, ...
Development and Evaluation of a Transdermal Patch of Acorus calamus for the Mana...
A. V. Manche, Omkar Pataskar, Sahil Oza, Dipali Parate, Akanksha Pathak, ...
Formulation And Assessment of Oral Gel for The Treatment of Mouth Ulcer Using Ex...
Aarati Shedage, Saloni Palve, Santoshi Mehetre, Jyoti Salgar, ...
More related articles
A Review Of Phytopharmacological Aspects Of Sphaeranthus Indicus Linn...
M. Anitha, G. Deepika , K. Sandhiya , G. Sneha , M. Soniya, ...
Nanoemulsions: A Promising Technology For The Development Of Innovative Products...
Ronakkumar Rabadiya , Divya Gupta, Chainesh Shah , Umesh Upadhyay , ...
A Review Of Phytopharmacological Aspects Of Sphaeranthus Indicus Linn...
M. Anitha, G. Deepika , K. Sandhiya , G. Sneha , M. Soniya, ...
Nanoemulsions: A Promising Technology For The Development Of Innovative Products...
Ronakkumar Rabadiya , Divya Gupta, Chainesh Shah , Umesh Upadhyay , ...