Photoprotective Efficacy of the Association of Rosmarinic Acid 0.1% with Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate and Avobenzone
, Cassiano Carlos Escudeiro 2, Renata Miliani Martinez 1, Claudinéia Aparecida Sales de Oliveira Pinto 1, Catarina Rosado 3, Maria Valéria Robles Velasco 1 and André Rolim Baby 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper by Maíra Bispo de Oliveira and co-workers investigates the effects of the association of a phenolic antioxidant, rosmarinic acid (RA), with conventional UV filters like ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate and avobenzone in sunscreen formulations. Experiments were led both in vitro and in vivo.
The introduction is interesting and exhaustive, with the appropriate references to the field literature.
The work is well written and clearly understandable. The research is conducted and described in a detailed and precise way, with the due references to the test methodologies that have been used.
The in vitro and in vivo tests showed that the use of RA has made it possible to have the same SPF in the sunscreen by reducing the amount of avobenzone in the formulation (with possible benefits for environmental concerns) or to increase the SPF in the sunscreen when maintaining the amount of avobenzone of the “traditional” formulation (with possible positive benefits for the sunscreens users).
The work is interesting, the topic Is of great current interest and it can be further developed.
According this referee, the paper should be accepted for publication in Cosmetics after a few minor revisions:
1) In Table 2, considering the table description, the samples identification by the letters (A, B, C) seems to be no perfectly compliant with what described in paragraph 3 “The in vitro efficacy test showed that samples F1 and F2 had equal SPF values, as well as F2 and F3. However, F1 and F3 were dissimilar for this parameter”. However, the samples are identified with A (F1) and B (F2 and F3) like F1 was different from F2. Can the authors clarify this point?
2) The figure at page 5 should be referred as figure 2 in the caption.
Author Response
Response: Dear Reviewer #1, we would like to register our immense thank you for your high quality peer review that was completely addressed along the text. We also revised the English.
The paper by Maíra Bispo de Oliveira and co-workers investigates the effects of the association of a phenolic antioxidant, rosmarinic acid (RA), with conventional UV filters like ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate and avobenzone in sunscreen formulations. Experiments were led both in vitro and in vivo.
The introduction is interesting and exhaustive, with the appropriate references to the field literature.
The work is well written and clearly understandable. The research is conducted and described in a detailed and precise way, with the due references to the test methodologies that have been used.
The in vitro and in vivo tests showed that the use of RA has made it possible to have the same SPF in the sunscreen by reducing the amount of avobenzone in the formulation (with possible benefits for environmental concerns) or to increase the SPF in the sunscreen when maintaining the amount of avobenzone of the “traditional” formulation (with possible positive benefits for the sunscreens users).
The work is interesting, the topic Is of great current interest and it can be further developed.
Response: We immensely thank you for your comments, suggestions and corrections. Certainly, all raised points were addressed and they enriched our research work.
According this referee, the paper should be accepted for publication in Cosmetics after a few minor revisions:
1) In Table 2, considering the table description, the samples identification by the letters (A, B, C) seems to be no perfectly compliant with what described in paragraph 3 “The in vitro efficacy test showed that samples F1 and F2 had equal SPF values, as well as F2 and F3. However, F1 and F3 were dissimilar for this parameter”. However, the samples are identified with A (F1) and B (F2 and F3) like F1 was different from F2. Can the authors clarify this point?
Response: Thank you immensely for your careful reading. I hugely apologize for this equivocated information in the Table and also in the Figure that was now corrected. We tried to improve this part of the text too.
2) The figure at page 5 should be referred as figure 2 in the caption.
Response: Thank again for your careful reading. We corrected it in the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript by Baby and coworkers describes in vitro and in vivo preliminary study on the effects of the addition of rosmarinic acid (RA) to the sunscreens containing avobenzone and ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate. There are a few points as indicated below that need to be addressed by the authors before publication in the journal.
1. What are the merits of RA compared to ubiquinone and vitamin E described in page 6 line 194 with ref. 47?
2. Please provide an urgency statement justifying the need for rapid publication as a communication.
3. Page 1, Abstract, line 18: All the readers don’t know avobenzone and ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate are generally used for sunscreens. Please explain it in the abstract.
4. Page 1, Abstract, line 20: Please explain F2 and F3 (and also F1) briefly.
5. What reactive oxygen species does RA scavenge? Singlet oxygen, superoxide anion, or hydroxyl radical?
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Response: Dear Reviewer #2, we would like to register our thank you for your high quality peer review that was completely addressed along the text. We also revised the English.
The manuscript by Baby and coworkers describes in vitro and in vivo preliminary study on the effects of the addition of rosmarinic acid (RA) to the sunscreens containing avobenzone and ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate. There are a few points as indicated below that need to be addressed by the authors before publication in the journal.
- What are the merits of RA compared to ubiquinone and vitamin E described in page 6 line 194 with ref. 47?
Response: Thank you for your interesting question that provided us another point of view regarding this study that described an efficacy response by an in vitro test, while ours was obtained in vivo. This reference was suppressed from the R&D and transferred to Introduction (ref 18). However, RA was interestingly effective in a very low concentration in comparison with ubiquinone and vitamin E.
- Please provide an urgency statement justifying the need for rapid publication as a communication.
Response: Thank you immensely for your pertinent comment. We have chosen the article type Communication in concern to the extension of our research work, number of experiments and volume of results. However, if the Reviewer #2 considers our material compatible with a full-length article, the estimated Reviewer has our agreement.
- Page 1, Abstract, line 18: All the readers don’t know avobenzone and ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate are generally used for sunscreens. Please explain it in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for your observation. Those compounds were briefly explained in the Abstract.
- Page 1, Abstract, line 20: Please explain F2 and F3 (and also F1) briefly.
Response: Thank you immensely for your careful reading. Samples were briefly presented in the Abstract.
- What reactive oxygen species does RA scavenge? Singlet oxygen, superoxide anion, or hydroxyl radical?
Response: Thank you again for another interesting question. Literature reported that RA inhibits superoxide and peroxide formation, also, RA can compete with unsaturated fatty acids for binding to lipid peroxyl groups to stop and limit lipid peroxidation.
