Development and characterization of a novel antiacne niosomal gel of rosmarinic acid

Figures & data

Table 1. Optimization of surfactant:cholesterol ratio at 1%, 2% drug ratio.

S.No.	Ratio of span 85:cholesterol	Size (in nm)	Zeta potential	PDI	Entrapment efficiency
1% Drug ratio
1	9:1	250 ± 5.28	−24	0.256 ± 0.012	33% ± 3.18
2	8:2	307 ± 5.45	−45	0.287 ± 0.010	45% ± 3.22
3	7:3	352 ± 5.27	−44	0.222 ± 0.011	50% ± 3.45
4	6:4	495 ± 5.12	−28	0.203 ± 0.015	60% ± 3.10
2% Drug ratio
1	9:1	275 ± 5.12	−61	0.321 ± 0.014	35% ± 3.25
2	8:2	309 ± 5.22	−60	0.341 ± 0.013	43% ± 3.67
3	7:3	346 ± 5.14	−56	0.378 ± 0.014	48% ± 3.87
4	6:4	491 ± 5.01	−29	0.312 ± 0.012	63% ± 3.19

Figure 1. TEM image of niosome.

Figure 2. Size and size distribution of optimized niosomes.

Figure 3. Zeta potential of optimized niosomes.

Figure 4. In vitro drug release of the niosomal preparation.

Figure 5. In vitro drug release of niosomal gel.

Figure 6. In vitro skin permeation of niosomal gel and the plain gel.

Table 2. Optimization of drug ratio at optimized surfactant: cholesterol ratio: drug.

S.No.	Span 85:Cholestrol	Drug ratio	Size (n = 3)	PDI (n = 3)	Zeta potential	Entrapment efficiency
1	06:04	0.5%	500 ± 4.58	0.287 ± 0.016	−16.8	50% ± 3.88
2	06:04	3%	814 ± 4.34	0.369 ± 0.015	−27	65% ± 3.99
3	06:04	4%	700 ± 4.12	0.312 ± 0.010	−20	59% ± 3.54

Table 3. Animal groups for in vivo studies.

Group no.	Group name	No. of animals
1	Control group	6
2	Plain gel	6
3	Drug-loaded niosomal gel	6
4	Marketed preparation	6

Table 4. Skin permeation and skin retention studies.

Name of the formulation	% Drug permeated	% Drug retained
Niosomal gel of ROA	48	35
Plain gel of ROA	21	15

Table 5. Zone of inhibition (in mm) of different formulations.

Bacterial strain	Niosomalgel of ROA	Plain gel of ROA	Marketed formulation
P. acne	19 ± 0.32	17 ± 0.21	18 ± 0.43
S. aureus	20 ± 0.59	18 ± 0.42	19 ± 0.67

Table 6. Minimum inhibitory concentration.

Compound	P. acne (µg/ml)	S. aureus (µg/ml)
Rosmarinic acid	62.5	31.25
Niosomes	31.25	31.25

Figure 7. Percentage inhibition of inflammation by different test formulations.

Figure 8. Log CFU count of P. acne after application of test formulations.