DOI: 10.15415/jptrm.2015.

32009

Development, physicochemical characterization

and in-vitro evaluation of herbal sunscreen lotion
SANDEEP ARORA*, NEELAM SHARMA, AKANKSHA MAHAJAN,
JASPREET KAUR, SUKHBIR SINGH

Chitkara College of Pharmacy, Chitkara University, Punjab, India

Email: [email protected]

Received: July 20, 2015| Revised: September 25, 2015| Accepted: October 24, 2015
Published online: November 17, 2015
The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at www.chitkara.edu.in/publications

Abstract: Ultraviolet radiations have shorter wavelengths and can

reach earth’s surface through penetrating clouds. UV-A rays leads to aging
while UV-B rays causes burning of skin. Sunscreens protect the skin from
harmful effects of sun including appearance of erythema, premature photo-
ageing and facilitate to diminish the manifestation of facial red veins and
blotchiness. In this investigation, herbal sunscreen was prepared using Shea
butter, almond oil, raspberry oil, jojoba oil, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide
as active ingredients. Fabricated lotions were evaluated for physicochemical
parameters i.e. color, pH, viscosity and spreadability. Sun protection efficacy
of lotion was determined in term of sun protection factor (SPF) by in-vitro
spectrophotometric method. Total 10 formulations were made with different
compositions F1-F10. The pH of formulations ranges from 6.10 (F6) to 8.34
(F5). The viscosity of formulations ranges from 1500 (F1) to 3586 (F10). The
spreadability of formulations ranges from 10.56±0.8 (F1) to 30.65±0.7 (F10).
The physicochemical parameters of formulation F6 and F10 were found to be
in controlled range justifying its compatibility with skin and confirming good
cosmetological property. Stability study of optimized lotion was performed
after storage of formulation at 25°C and 60 % RH as well as 40°C and 75 %
RH for three months. Stability of lotion was evaluated on the basis of changes
in physicochemical parameters i.e. color, pH, viscosity and spreadability and
SPF. F10 has SPF value of 15.71±0.07 (medium protection sunscreen). The
optimized formulations might provide good moisturizer, emollient, anti-ageing Journal of Pharmaceutical
and anti-wrinkle effect with good sun protection. Technology, Research and
Management
Keywords: Sun protection factor, Cosmetological, Spreadability, Vol-3, No-2
Stability study November 2015
pp. 113–125

113
Arora, S 1. INTRODUCTION
Sharma, N
Mahajan, A About 80 percent of sun’s UV rays can pass through visible mass of liquid
Kaur, J droplets in atmosphere. Therefore, regardless of weather, the sun can cause
Singh, S damage to our skin. Here’s another daunting fact that UV rays from sun can
come in through windows. Therefore, it has been essential to apply sunscreen
on everyday and by everybody nevertheless one has fair, dark or oily skin.
All types of skin are susceptible to sun damage which can lead to dark spots,
wrinkles and skin cancer (Sayre et al., 1979).
There are several types of rays which are not visible i.e. ultraviolet radiation
(UV-A, UV-B and UV-C) because they have shorter wavelengths than visible
light. UV-C rays are absorbed by earth’s ozone before reaching our skin, so we
don’t need to concern ourselves with these when conferring about sunscreen.
UV-A rays leads to aging while UV-B rays causes burning of skin. UV-A rays
are always able to reach the earth’s surface through penetrating clouds and
glass. Therefore, skin needs protection even on cloudy environment and days
spent indoors. The environmental protection agency believes that 90 percent of
skin changes associated with aging such as wrinkle is consequences of UV-A
exposure. UV-B rays cause the reddening and burning of skin. They vary in
intensity depending on time of day and season.
Since, ozone layer is depleting, therefore, body needs shielding from
harmful rays. Nowadays, skin cancer rates are on the rise and sunscreen has
been proven to decrease the development of skin cancer. Broad spectrum
sunscreens provide protection against each of ultraviolet radiation. Therefore,
it has been essential to lather up broad spectrum sunscreen for UVA/UVB
protection to prevent skin diseases (https://www.solrx.com/blog/). Sunscreens
protect the skin from harmful effects of sun, including appearance of erythema
i.e. sunburn in short term, premature photo-ageing and skin cancers in long term.
Sunscreen prevents facial brown spots and skin discolorations. It also facilitates
to diminish the manifestation of facial red veins and blotchiness (http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/sunscreenbenefits) The efficacy and protective
value of sunscreen is usually expressed by sun protection factor (SPF).
Various herbal sunscreen ingredients used in present investigation includes
Shea butter, raspberry seed oil, almond oil and jojoba oil. Shea butter is the
plant fat obtained from nuts of African Karite tree and contains allantoin,
vitamin A & E. It has potent moisturizing, emollient and anti-ageing effect.
It provides skin care protection against UV radiations (SPF 4-6) and has anti-
inflammatory & soothing properties to heal minor wound & irritated skin.
Almond oil is rich in β-sitosterol, squalene and vitamin E. It provides skin care
protection against UV radiations (SPF 4). It is an excellent emollient which
leaves skin soft, smooth and conditioned, good nourishing & revitalizing effect,

114
moisturizer & lubricant, heals injured & chapped skin. Raspberry seed oil is Development,
excellent light & nourishing oil with valuable emollient for skin. It provides physicochemical
ultimate skin care protection against UV radiations (SPF 25-50). Jojoba oil is characterization
an excellent moisturizer & emollient which prevents transdermal water loss, and in-vitro
anti-wrinkle-agent through providing smoothness & softness, good lubricant evaluation of herbal
sunscreen lotion
and protects partly from UV radiation (SPF 4). Zinc oxide provides physical
barrier by reflecting or absorbing or blocking radiations from sun (SPF 4-6).
In this investigation, herbal sunscreen was prepared using Shea butter,
almond oil, raspberry oil, jojoba oil, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as
active ingredients. Fabricated lotions were evaluated for physicochemical
parameters i.e. color, pH, viscosity and spreadability. Sun protection efficacy
of lotion was determined in term of sun protection factor (SPF) by in-vitro
spectrophotometric method.

2. MATERIALS AND METHOD

2.1 Materials
Shea butter (CAS NO-91080-23-8), almond oil (CAS NO-8007-69-0),
raspberry oil and jojoba oil (CAS NO-61789-91-1) were purchased from
Making Cosmetics, USA. Zinc oxide (CAS NO-1314-13-2), stearic acid (CAS
NO-57-11-4), glycerin, lactic acid, HPMC and glyceryl monostearate were
purchased from Loba Chemicals Private Limited, Mumbai, India. All other
chemicals used were of analytical grade

2.2 Methods

2.2.1 Preparation of sunscreen lotion

Ten formulations F1 to F10 were prepared as per Table 1. Accurate quantities
of ingredients were weighed. Phase I [oil phase] ingredients (i.e. shea butter,
almond oil, raspberry oil, jojoba oil, lavender oil, cetyl alcohol and tocopherol
acetate) were heated to melt in a 100 ml beaker using hot plate. Dry powder
(i.e. zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, calamine and hydroxy propyl methyl
cellulose) were added to heated mixture followed by continuous heating
till complete solubilization of powder in oil phase succeeded by addition of
emulsifier’s combination (i.e. glyceryl monostearate, stearic acid, sorbitan
stearate, sorbitan monooleate, PEG-20 sorbitan monolaurate and tween 80)
with required HLB. Phase II [aqueous phase] (glycerin, propylene glycol and
small amount of rose water) was heated in separate 100 ml beaker to the same
temperature as that of oil phase. Phase II was slowly poured into phase 1, a

115
Arora, S little at a time with constant stirring succeeded by addition of fragrance (i.e.
Sharma, N mangosteen and mandarin berry) and color (i.e. carmoisine and erythrosine)
Mahajan, A in quantity sufficient amount. Stirring was continued in a glass mortar until a
Kaur, J smooth and uniform paste was obtained. Rose water was added to make up the
Singh, S required volume.

2.2.2 Determination of physicochemical parameters

Determination of organoleptic acceptability

The color and odour of prepared lotions were visibly observed for their
organoleptic acceptability.

2.2.3 Determination of viscosity

Viscosity is the degree of fluid friction which can be contemplated as the
internal friction resulting when a layer of fluid is made to move in connection
to another layer. Viscosity (in cps) of lotion was measured by Brookfield
rotational digital viscometer model LVDV-II+P, USA using LV-spindle 64.
The spindle was rotated at 6 rpm. Approximately 250 ml lotion was used
for measurement which was maintained at temperature of 25°C during the
measurements (Patel et al., 2009). All measurements were taken in triplicate
and represented as mean ± SD.

2.2.4 Determination of Spreadability

Spreadability is an important characteristic of lotions. It refers to the ease with
which product can be spread without losing its firmness. Spreadability was
determined by apparatus recommended by Mutimer et al., which was suitably
modified in the laboratory and employed for research (Multimer, 1956).
It consists of a wooden block, which was provided by a pulley at one end.
Spreadability was determined on the basis of ‘Slip’ and ‘Drag’ characteristics
of lotion (Biradar et al., 2011). A ground glass slide was fixed on this block.
An excess of lotion (approximately 2 g) under investigation was positioned on
fixed slide and sandwiched using another glass slides provided with hook. 1
Kg weight was placed on the top of two slides for 5 minutes to expel air and to
impart uniform film of lotion between slides. Excess of lotion was scrapped off
from edges. With the help of string attached to hook, top slide was subjected to
pull of 80 g. The time (in seconds) required by top slide to cover a distance of
7.5 cm was noted. A shorter time interval indicated better Spreadability which
was calculated using following formula (Chakole et al., 2009):
S = M X L/T (1)

116
Table 1: Composition of various sunscreen formulations. Development,
physicochemical
Ingredients F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 characterization
(%w/v or %v/r) and in-vitro
Shea butter* 5 10 10 5 4 25 10 10 10 12.5 evaluation of herbal
Almond oil* 10 10 10 5 2 4 2 3 3 3 sunscreen lotion
Raspberry oil* 5 10 10 5 3 - - 2 2 2
Jojoba oil* - 10 10 3 1 3 1.5 2 2 2
Zinc oxide* 1.25 4 4 5 10 25 7.5 12.5 5 2.5
Titanium oxide* 1.25 4 1 1 1 1 0.5 - - -
Stearic Acid - - - - 4 4 - 3 3 3
Glyceryl - - - - - - 2.5 4 9 5
monostearate
Lavender oil - - - 2 2 1 - 1 1 1
Sorbitan stearate 60 - - - - - - - 5 5 5
Sorbitan - - - - - - - 5 5 5
monooleate 80
Propylene glycol - - - - 2.5 2.5 - 2 2 2
Tocopherol acetate 2.5 5 5 5 5 0.5 0.25 - 1.5 1.5
PEG-20 sorbitan 0.1 0.1 0.2 - - 5 0.25 5 - 5
monolaurate
Glycerine - - 1 1 10 5 2.5 2 3 -
Cetyl alcohol - - 2 2 10 15 2 - 2 -
Carbopol - - - - - 1 - - - -
Tween 80 - - - 5 5 5 - - - -
Triethanolamine - - - - 0.6 0.6 - - - -
Lactic acid - - - - - 0.5 - - - -
Methyl paraben - - - - - 0.5 - - - -
HPMC - - - - - - 5 - - -
Calamine - - - - - 0.2 - - - -
Mandarin berry - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.2
Mangosteen 0.1 - - - - - - - - -
Carmoisine q.s. - - - q.s. q.s. - - - -
Erythrosine - - q.s. q.s. - - q.s. q.s. q.s. q.s.
Rose water q.s. 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
(in ml)
*Active ingredients

117
Arora, S Where, S = Spreadability, M = Weight in pan (tied to upper slide), L = Length
Sharma, N moved by glass slide and T = Time taken to separate the slide completely
Mahajan, A from each other. All measurements were taken in triplicate and represented as
Kaur, J mean ± SD.
Singh, S
2.2.5 Determination of pH by pH meter and litmus paper
1gm of lotion was dissolved in 100 ml of distilled water and pH of formulations
was measured using digital pH meter (361, Systronics, India) (Panda, 2011).
All measurements were taken in triplicate and represented as mean ± SD.
Lotion was placed at the end of glass rod and a drop of lotion was dropped
on litmus paper. Note the colour change of litmus paper and compare with
standard shades of pH strip.

2.2.6 Determination of sun protection factor (SPF)

SPF was determined by in-vitro method using double beam UV
spectrophotometer (Systronics AU2701, India). SPF was calculated using the
Eq. 2 and Normalized product function (Table 2) derived by Mansaur et al.,
(Mansaur et al., 1986; Sayre et al., 1979; More et al., 2013)
320
SPFspectrophotometric = CF ∑EE (λ)× I (λ)× A (λ) (2)
290

Where, correction factor, CF=10, EE (λ) = erythemogenic effect of radiation

of wavelength, I (λ) = intensity of solar light of wavelength, A (λ) =
spectrophotometric absorbance values at wavelength. All measurements were
taken in triplicate and represented as mean ± SD.

Table 2: Normalized product function used in calculation of SPF

Wavelength EE (erythemal factor)

(nm) * I (Solar Intensity)
290 0.0150
295 0.0817
300 0.2874
305 0.3278
310 0.1864
315 0.0839
320 0.0180
Total 1

118
2.2.7 Selection of optimized formulation Development,
physicochemical
The optimized formulation was selected on the basis of physicochemical characterization
parameters such as color, pH, spreadability, viscosity and residual whiteness. and in-vitro
evaluation of herbal
2.2.8 Stability study sunscreen lotion
Optimized formulation was stored at room temperature (25°C and 60 %±5%
RH) and under accelerated conditions (40°±2ºC & 75 %±5% RH) for 6 months.
Physicochemical parameters and SPF of lotion was investigated after storage
for specified period. Stability of optimized formulation was also determined
by centrifugation method (Butler, 2000). The centrifugation was performed at
8000 rpm for 10 minutes and observed for phase separation.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Physicochemical studies

The results of physicochemical properties such as color, pH, spreadability
and viscosity are summarized in Table 3. The pH of formulations ranges from
6.10 (F6) to 8.34 (F5). The lotion with pH around 6.5 was considered good
because it complies with skin pH. The color of formulations was acceptable
pink. The viscosity of formulations ranges from 1500 (F1) to 3586 (F10).

Table 3: Physicochemical evaluation parameters

Viscosity Spreadability
Sunscreens Color pH
(cps) (g.cm/sec)
F1 Dark pink 6.58 ± 0.03 1500 ± 12 10.56 ± 0.8
F2 Pink 6.63 ± 0.02 3467 ± 13 29.75 ± 0.9
F3 Pink 6.66 ± 0.04 3475 ± 15 29.65 ± 0.7
F4 Dark Pink 6.47 ± 0.03 1787 ± 16 12.76 ± 0.9
F5 Dark pink 8.34 ± 0.04 3397 ± 17 28.65 ± 0.8
F6 Dark pink 6.10 ± 0.05 2436 ± 15 19.47 ± 0.7
F7 Pink 6.49 ± 0.03 2654 ± 18 21.57 ± 0.6
F8 Pink 6.61 ± 0.04 2166 ± 16 16.75 ± 0.8
F9 Pink 6.56 ± 0.03 2677 ± 15 21.67 ± 0.9
F10 Pink 6.53 ± 0.02 3586 ± 14 30.65 ± 0.7
All values are represented as mean ± SD (n=3)

119
Arora, S The spreadability of formulations ranges from 10.56 (F1) to 30.65 (F10). The
Sharma, N important physicochemical parameters of formulation F6 and F10 were found
Mahajan, A to be in controlled range justifying its compatibility with skin and confirming
Kaur, J good cosmetological property.
Singh, S

3.2 Sun protection factor

The absorbance values of formulations F1 to F10 and two marketed sunscreens
(Lakme Sunexpert SPF 30 and Lakme Sunexpert SPF 24+) MS 1 and MS 2
were measured using UV spectrophotometer and SPF was calculated (Table
4 and Table 5). The results showed that F6 has highest SPF of 46.06±0.06
which may be attributed to the presence of higher concentration of zinc oxide
but had residual slight whiteness left after application over skin, which could
be adjusted with further formulation studies for optimization of ZnO amount
F10 has an SPF value of 15.71±0.07 (medium protection sunscreen) which is
sufficient for protection against sun burn for a period of about 3 h and shows
better formulation characteristics. SPF determination of marketed sunscreens
by in-vitro method and comparison with its claimed SPF indicated that the
method is highly suitable and reliable.

3.3 Selection of optimized formulation

Formulation F1 was having less viscosity and it was interpreted that it needs
addition of rheological modifier. F2 produced residual whiteness for more than
15 minutes and needs substantial reduction of concentration of zinc oxide.
F3 was unstable indicated by foaming which may be due to addition of cetyl
alcohol. F4 was sticky formulation and needs increased amount of emulsifier’s
addition. The pH of formulation F5 was basic (pH 8) which may be due to
addition of triethanolamine (TEA). F6 was satisfactory in most aspects except
optimization of ZnO and dark pink color. F7, F8, F9 and F10 were considered
good formulation but due to higher viscosity and good pourability F10 was
selected as optimized formulation than them.

3.4 Stability
The results of stability tests of optimized formulations F6 and F10 carried out
by evaluation of physicochemical parameters and centrifugation method after
storage period of 3 months under room temperature and accelerated conditions
are given in Table 6 and 7. No significant changes in physicochemical parameters
were observed which illustrated stability of formulation. Moreover, no phase

120
 Table 4: Absorbance values of the formulated and marketed sunscreen
S.No. Wavelength 290 295 300 305 310 315 320
(nm)
F1 A 1.358±0.003 1.466±0.002 1.489±0.001 1.486±0.012 1.496±0.003 1.486±0.023 1.596±0.013
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.020 0.119 0.428 0.487 0.279 0.125 0.029
F2 A 1.685±0.014 1.785±0.002 1.894±0.004 1.883±0.013 1.874±0.012 1.863±0.003 1.968±0.002
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.025 0.146 0.544 0.617 0.349 0.156 0.035
F3 A 1.484±0.013 1.573±0.003 1.638±0.002 1.648±0.001 1.638±0.011 1.684±0.012 1.748±0.003
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.022 0.128 0.471 0.540 0.305 0.141 0.031
F4 A 1.604±0.021 1.726±0.005 1.842±0.015 1.875±0.002 1.846±0.014 1.804±0.003 1.945±0.002
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.024 0.141 0.529 0.615 0.344 0.151 0.035
F5 A 2.054±0.002 2.174±0.001 2.274±0.004 2.284±0.003 2.264±0.012 2.256±0.023 2.367±0.004
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.031 0.178 0.654 0.749 0.422 0.189 0.042
F6 A 4.176±0.003 4.496±0.002 4.547±0.001 4.632±0.011 4.685±0.022 4.677±0.001 4.748±0.002

121
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.063 0.367 1.307 1.519 0.873 0.392 0.085
F7 A 1.654±0.001 1.774±0.003 1.874±0.001 1.884±0.013 1.864±0.021 1.856±0.003 1.967±0.004
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.025 0.145 0.538 0.618 0.347 0.156 0.035
F8 A 2.338±0.001 2.498±0.002 2.52±0.011 2.566±0.001 2.59±0.003 2.55±0.002 2.62±0.023
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.035 0.204 0.724 0.841 0.482 0.214 0.047
F9 A 1.404±0.003 1.524±0.002 1.624±0.004 1.634±0.013 1.614±0.002 1.606±0.004 1.717±0.005
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.021 0.124 0.467 0.536 0.301 0.135 0.031
F10 A 1.369±0.002 1.449±0.033 1.460±0.023 1.483±0.043 1.495±0.035 1.475±0.023 1.510±0.043
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.020 0.118 0.419 0.486 0.278 0.123 0.027
MS1 A 3.01±0.043 3.01±0.053 3.02±0.024 3.03±0.053 3.04±0.053 3.05±0.061 3.05±0.053
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.045 0.245 0.867 0.993 0.566 0.255 0.054
MS2 A 2.40±0.062 2.01±0.013 2.51±0.043 2.62±0.041 2.72±0.027 2.73±0.051 2.84±0.037
EE (λ)*I(λ)*A 0.036 0.164 0.663 0.760 0.441 0.203 0.047
MS- Marketed sunscreen, all values are represented as mean ± SD (n=3)
sunscreen lotion
evaluation of herbal
and in-vitro
characterization
physicochemical
Development,
Arora, S Table 5: SPF of the formulated and marketed sunscreen.
Sharma, N
Mahajan, A Sunscreens SPF
Kaur, J F1 14.73±0.07
Singh, S F2 18.72±0.06
F3 16.38±0.15
F4 18.39±0.07
F5 22.65±0.11
F6 46.06±0.06
F7 18.64±0.12
F8 25.47±0.07
F9 16.15±0.07
F10 15.71±0.04
MS1- Marketed sunscreen 30.02±0.07
(Lakme Sunexpert SPF 30)
MS2- Marketed sunscreen 23.17±0.07
(Lakme Sunexpert SPF 24+)

Table 6A: Stability evaluation by physicochemical parameters (F6)

Day Color pH Viscosity Spreadability Centrifugation
(cps) (g.cm/sec) at 8000 rpm
0 Dark 6.10 ± 0.05 2436 ± 15 19.47 ± 0.7 Stable
Pink
3 Months Dark 6.60 ± 0.02 2103 ± 12 17.67 ± 0.8 Stable
(25oC & 60 %RH) Pink
3 Months Dark 6.61 ± 0.04 2095 ± 12 16.68 ± 0.8 Stable
(40 oC& 75 %RH) Pink

Table 6B: Stability evaluation by physicochemical parameters (F10)

Viscosity Spreadability Centrifugation

Day Color pH
(cps) (g.cm/sec) at 8000 rpm
0 Pink 6.58 ± 0.03 3586 ± 14 30.65 ± 0.7 Stable
3 Months
Pink 6.60 ± 0.02 3203 ± 12 28.67 ± 0.8 Stable
(25oC & 60 %RH)
3 Months
Pink 6.61 ± 0.04 3105 ± 12 27.68 ± 0.8 Stable
(40 oC & 75 %RH)

122
 Table 7A: Stability evaluation by SPF parameter (F6)
Absorbance SPF= (10 * ∑
Day
290 295 300 305 310 315 320 EE(λ) * I(λ)*A)

0 4.176±0.003 4.496±0.002 4.547±0.001 4.632±0.011 4.685±0.022 4.677±0.001 4.748±0.002 42.73±0.07

123
3 Months
(At 25oC & 4.176±0.003 4.496±0.002 4.547±0.001 4.632±0.011 4.685±0.022 4.677±0.001 4.748±0.002 39.66±0.06
60 %RH)
3 Months
(At 40 oC & 4.176±0.003 4.496±0.002 4.547±0.001 4.632±0.011 4.685±0.022 4.677±0.001 4.748±0.002 36.18±0.09
75 %RH)
sunscreen lotion
evaluation of herbal
and in-vitro
characterization
physicochemical
Development,
Arora, S Table 7B: Stability evaluation by SPF parameter (F10).
Sharma, N
Mahajan, A Day Absorbance SPF= (10*∑
Kaur, J 290 295 300 305 310 315 320 EE(λ)*I(λ)*A)
Singh, S 0 1.369 1.449 1.460 1.483 1.495 1.475 1.510 15.73±0.07
±0.002 ±0.033 ±0.023 ±0.043 ±0.035 ±0.023 ±0.043
3 Months 1.368 1.447 1.458 1.481 1.495 1.474 1.509 15.66±0.06
(At 25oC& ±0.003 ±0.035 ±0.024 ±0.041 ±0.038 ±0.026 ±0.036
60 %RH)
3 Months 1.368 1.358 1.307 1.327 1.301 1.316 1.289 14.18±0.09
(At 40 oC& ±0.014 ±0.051 ±0.003 ±0.014 ±0.010 ±0.006 ±0.014
75 %RH)

separation at 8000 rpm was observed indicating the stability of F6 and F10 at
high stress conditions and revealed that it may bear different environmental
changes during product transport.

CONCLUSIONS
The herbal sunscreens prepared using proposed formulae were found to have
non-granular consistency with optimum viscosity and uniform spreadibility.
They appear translucent with an acceptable pink color & acceptable aroma.
They were found to have good moisturizing effect without leaving much residual
whiteness. This composition showed acceptable adherence to primary packing
surface, which may be glass as well as plastic bottle and further pourability.
The pH of lotion was found 6.5 which comply with skin pH. Viscosity profile
of lotion indicated good rheology during handling. No phase separation was
observed after centrifugation which indicated stability of formulations. The
optimized formulation might provide good moisturizer, emollient, anti-ageing
and anti-wrinkle effect with SPF 15.73.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Chitkara University for infrastructural support to
carry out this work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have reported no conflicts of interest in this work.

124
REFERENCES Development,
physicochemical
[1] Biradar, S. Paradkari, A. and Mahadik, K. (2011) In vitro evaluation of topical gel prepared
using silk fibroin at different concentration of gel accelerating agent-glycerol Int. J Pharma Bio characterization
Sci, 2, 646-660. and in-vitro
[2] Butler, H. (2000) ‘Poucher’s perfumes, cosmetics and soap. Quality, stability and safety evaluation of herbal
assurance’. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 507–621. sunscreen lotion
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2734-1
[3] Chakole, C.M, Shende, M.A, and Khadatkar, S.N. (2009) Formulation and development
of novel combined halobetasol propionate and fusidic acid ointment Int. J Chem Tech Res,
1, 103–116.
[4] Jain, B.D. Padsalg, A. Patel, K. and Mokale, V. (2007) Formulation, development and evaluation
of Fluconazole gel in various polymer bases Asian J Pharma, 1, 63 – 68.
[5] Mansur, J.S. Breder, M.N.R. Manusur, M.C.A. and Azulay, R.D. (1986) Determinacao do fato
de potecao sola po espectrofotometrica. An. Bras. Dermatol, 61, 121-124.
[6] More, B.H. Sakharwade, S.N. Tembhurne, S.V. and Sakarkar, D.M. (2013) Evaluation of
Sunscreen activity of Cream containing Leaves Extract of Butea monosperma for Topical
application’. Int. J Res Cosmetic Sci., 3, 1-6.
[7] Multimer, M. (1956) Spreadability determination by an apparatus. J American Pharm Ass, 45,
212–214.
[8] Panda, P. (2011) Formulation and evaluation of topical dosage form of Alangium salvifolium
Linn. and their wound healing activity Asian J Pharm Sci and Res, 1, 10-23.
[9] Patel, N. A. Patel, N.J. and Patel, R.P. (2009) Comparative development and evaluation of
topical gel and cream formulations of psoralen. Drug Discovery and Therapeutics, 3, 234-242.
[10] Sayre, R.M. Agin, P.P. Levee, G.J. and Marlowe, E. (1979) A Comparison of in-vivo and in-
vitro testing of sun screening formulas. Photochem and Photobio, 29, 559-566.
https://www.solrx.com/blog/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1979.tb07090.x

125