When formulating a skin product, from a performance standpoint, glycerin can do everything that Hyaluronic acid can do but at a much lower cost.
Are there any scientific studies that would show I am wrong?
*Of course, HA has marketing benefits over glycerin but I want to focus on product performance.
Comments
Speaking from an experience point of view, I've found hyaluronic acid to be much less non-greasy and much more skin-hydrating in comparison to glycerin. Hyaluronic acid is a natural component of the skin so it blends in better. I think it all comes back to experience. Sure you can use milk all over your face, but using an AHA product seems more convenient. I'm not sure if it's the right analogy to make here but I hope you get the simple point. People just prefer one over the other based on how the ingredient makes them feel when applied topically. And God knows best.
HA is the major component of the extracellular matrix, part of the skin's NMF and it performs more than the one function in the body of simply being a humectant which is the only function of glycerin. So, I think the assumption that glycerin "can do everything that Hyaluronic Acid can do" is a bit off the mark to begin with.
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
But when delivered topically from a skin care product, what specifically does Hyaluronic acid do that glycerin doesn't do? Consider whatever grade would do the most different thing.
No raw material maker would want to get into the glycerin making business because glycerin is a commodity with razor thin profit margins. Conversely, lots of raw material makers would get into the HA business because you can make more money.
Whether topically-applied HA that is absorbed into the epidermis functions in a similar fashion to native HA in the extracellular matrix, I don't see any reason why it would not perform the same functions as native HA.
It's like comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Mazeratti ... they're both cars, but they're not the same.
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
I don't say that glycerin is the way to go, but I think the point Perry is trying to make is that you can achieve the same result with cheaper materials. And I would actually say it's not glycerin on its own but a mix of butylene glycol, sodium lactate, betaine and maybe a drop of glycerin too. Regarding TEWL reduction, I don't think you should rely on HAs film-forming properties for this. There is good old petrolatum and dimethicone for that.
If you are taking a very simplistic definition of "do the same thing" such as they are both humectants, but you fail to take into account that one is a much more powerful humectant than the other ... then, yes, they "do the same thing", but that by no means implies they are equivalent.
Same with the cars ... yes, a Toyota Corolla can get you from here to there, but it can't go 0 to 60 in 2.3 seconds.
By being limited in the definition of "do the same thing" you are setting up a false equivalence as it ignores relative degrees of performance and the duration of performance.
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
@ngarayeva001 - I overlooked the gel possibilities, so congratulations, you've changed my view...a little bit.
I appreciate the car analogy, but that is more of an emotional argument than a scientific one. Also, the way the analogy breaks down is, as you point out, there are measurable things a consumer would notice as different between a Mazeratti and a Corolla.
Beyond feel differences of the raw materials (which can be formulated around) a consumer would not notice any obvious differences between a formula with HA vs Glycerin.
But you have made some claims which could be measured.
1. "will form a film and reduce TEWL" - Ideally, to support this you could show a study comparing TEWL readings of Glycerin vs HA. I found this study which concluded repeated used of a high level of Glycerin does not impact TEWL.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1467-2494.2001.00060.x
I searched Google Scholar but couldn't find a study to demonstrate an increase in TEWL using Hyaluronic acid.
2. "HA that is absorbed into the epidermis functions in a similar fashion to native HA in the extracellular matrix" - What are these functions and how is it different than what glycerin is doing in the epidermis?
3. "...much more powerful humectant." - Perhaps it's true that it absorbs more water per molecule of HA but then you just increase the amount of glycerin (at a much lower cost) to compensate. There isn't a humectancy rate that you can achieve with HA that you can't achieve with Glycerin. At least, not that I could find.
I opened this discussion as a "Change my view" so I don't want it to seem like my opinion is unchangeable. It is changeable, but no one has presented any science-based studies to support the use of HA over glycerin as a performance ingredient in a topical skin care product.
Unless you are a manufacturer of Hyaluronic Acid, I don't know who would dedicate resources to such a comparative study unless someone in academia has looked at it, but I have never seen a study comparing these two ingredients.
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
http://www.e-ajbc.org/m/journal/view.php?number=640
1. Glycerin was more moisturizing than HA - "the cream including both glycerin and silicone oil showed the highest moisturizing value and the longest holding time of hydration. The second on the result was the cream containing both hyaluronic acid and silicone oil, followed by the glycerin cream, hyaluronic acid cream and silicone oil cream."
2. Glycerin was superior for TEWL - "the cream including both glycerin and silicone oil showed the most decreased value of TEWL and the longest holding time. The second on the result was the cream with both hyaluronic acid and silicone oil, followed by the silicone oil cream, the glycerin cream and the hyaluronic acid cream."
Now, this is only one study and I've only seen the abstract, but without evidence to the contrary, I don't know how hold the belief that HA is superior to glycerin. This study shows glycerin is superior to HA and there are no competing studies to show the opposite.
A belief in the superiority of HA over glycerin is not supported by science (at least that I could find).
In the study, you don't know how much Glycerin was used and you don't know how much Hyaluronic Acid was used ... was it a 1:1 comparison? ... we don't know. If you can get the entire study, it would be interesting to see the composition of the various mixtures they were evaluating as that would provide the proof or evidence that 5% Glycerin + Dimethicone is more moisturizing that 0.5% HA + Dimethicone, for instance.
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
Glycerin = $2.6 / pound
HA = $177 / pound
(from https://www.makingcosmetics.com/) Although at the company I worked for we could get glycerin for $0.60 a pound.
What I would like to see is if they compared a SLMW or micro HA that penetrates the epidermis which would be a head-to-head comparision. If they used a higher mw HA, then the results are not particularly surprising, although there is no indication of the degree of difference ... was it 2% better or was it 40% better. Again, you need the whole study to understand the facts on which you can better draw a conclusion.
But, the complete the analysis, let's now consider the differential in selling price point of a moisturizer that contains HA + Glycerin to one that contains Glycerin only ...
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
Jonah Ray | Owner & Founder
build (skincare) | buildskincare.ca
It's funny that in private I use it for its viscosity and work-related I only deal with an enzyme that breaks it down (a hyaluronidase) which causes i.a. loss of viscosity of HA. (This increases tissue permeability and has so many pharmaceutical uses from preventing necrosis of skin (when extravasation happens with some chemos) to the possibility to inject higher volumes subcutaneous, as there isn't much space between the dermis and hypodermis).
Correct! That as well.
Tangentially related, are we comparing glycerin to true Hyaluronic Acid? We exclusively buy Sodium hyaluronate. I know there's some kind of equilibrium in solution, just wondering if companies are really buying as HA.
Correct, something is not right with this study if they are claiming to have used 5% Hyaluronic Acid ... perhaps what they actually mean is 5% of a 1% Hyaluronic Acid solution.
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
Please have a look at the "Fig. 4. Representation of the permeation and localization of various hyaluronic acid (HA) after fitting by their reference spectra and by comparison to the (a) positive (glycerin treated skin) and (b) negative (water treated skin) controls, (c) Cristalhyal (1000–1400 kDa HA), (d) Bashyal (100–300 kDa HA), and (e) Renovhyal (20–50 kDa HA)."
Seams like 1000–1400 kDa HA stays better at skin surface than glycerine and 20–50 kDa HA goes deeper, but thisis from my unprofessional point of view.
BTW my father had a Maserati and later on my mother had a Corolla, the only common thing was they were both gray.
In reading the study, a few things occurred to me.
1. The study just looked at the migration of HA through human skin samples. While it provides an interesting model, it says little about how the ingredient behaves on living skin. Things like moisture levels, NMF, blood circulation, etc may all have an impact on the migration of these materials.
2. Glycerin goes everywhere any grade of HA goes. There is glycerin distributed throughout the skin both at the top and 100 micrometers down. In this way, Glycerin can be anywhere that any grade of HA can be.
3. This study doesn't look at any end result of the treatment (e.g. moisturization). My initial contention that Glycerin works every bit as good as HA is gotten to by considering the end result of applying the two materials to the skin and taking measurements like skin moisturization, feel or any other property that a consumer would notice about their skin.
The only use study we have was the one posted above that showed glycerin outperformed HA.
Firstly, they boast God-given power to absorb water 500 to 1000 times their weight. Most thickeners and suspending agents can do it. Carbomer can do it and do it much better than HA/SH.
Secondly, it claims to 'hold' water due to the water-sucking power. Like Urea which everyone seems to say it is a humectant and very hygroscopic, I wet it and let it dry, it turns back to crystal/powder/solid.
Only after learning about a peculiar phenomenon called 'deep eutectic solvent' (credit goes to @Pharma ) did I see through the trick. I presume it is identical to layman's term "impurity". Only a little Citric Acid in Urea solution renders Urea liquid/syrup for ever. I thought it was low pH, so I tried with a little Propylene Glycol and a little other stuff, I obtained the exact same result--Urea just won't recrystallise. It was a WTF moment for me!
True enough, those so-called "tests" are a mixture of other things such as base cream as showed by @EVchem. The claim/marketing is a guaranteed failure if they tested it (any substance) as it is (single it out).
No different to Grapefruit Seed Extract as preservative-free natural-organic preservative, manufacturer never tells that it is laden with parabens, Benzethonium Chloride, Triclosan.
I am not very sure about the "500 Dalton Rule".