Microemulsions and nanoemulsions are lipid-based pharmaceutical systems with a high potential to increase the permeation of drugs through the skin. Although being isotropic dispersions of two nonmiscible liquids (oil and water), significant differences are encountered between microemulsions and nanoemulsions. Microemulsions are thermodynamically stable o/w emulsions of mean droplet size approximately 100–400 nm, whereas nanoemulsions are thermodynamically unstable o/w emulsions of mean droplet size approximately 1 to 100 nm. Their inner oil phase allows the solubilization of lipophilic drugs, achieving high encapsulation rates, which are instrumental for drug delivery. In this review, the importance of these systems, the key differences regarding their composition and production processes are discussed. While most of the micro/nanoemulsions on the market are held by the cosmetic industry to enhance the activity of drugs used in skincare products, the development of novel pharmaceutical formulations designed for the topical, dermal and transdermal administration of therapeutic drugs is being considered. The delivery of poorly water-soluble molecules through the skin has shown some advantages over the oral route, since drugs escape from first-pass metabolism; particularly for the treatment of cutaneous diseases, topical delivery should be the preferential route in order to reduce the number of drugs used and potential side-effects, while directing the drugs to the site of action. Thus, nanoemulsions and microemulsions represent versatile options for the delivery of drugs through lipophilic barriers, and many synthetic and natural compounds have been formulated using these delivery systems, aiming to improve stability, delivery and bioactivity. Detailed information is provided concerning the most relevant recent scientific publications reporting the potential of these delivery systems to increase the skin permeability of drugs with anti-inflammatory, sun-protection, anticarcinogenic and/or wound-healing activities. The main marketed skincare products using emulsion-based systems are also presented and discussed.

Skin aging is described as dermatologic changes either naturally occurring over the course of years or as the result of the exposure to environmental factors (e.g., chemical products, pollution, infrared and ultraviolet radiations). The production of collagen and elastin, the main structural proteins responsible for skin strength and elasticity, is reduced during aging, while their role in skin rejuvenation can trigger a wrinkle reversing effect. Elasticity loss, wrinkles, dry skin, and thinning are some of the signs that can be associated with skin aging. To overcome skin aging, many strategies using natural and synthetic ingredients are being developed aiming to reduce the signs of aging and/or to treat age-related skin problems (e.g., spots, hyper- or hypopigmentation). Among the different approaches in tissue regeneration, the use of nanomaterials loaded with cosmeceuticals (e.g., phytochemicals, vitamins, hyaluronic acid, and growth factors) has become an interesting alternative. Based on their bioactivities and using different nanoformulations as efficient delivery systems, several cosmeceutical and pharmaceutical products are now available on the market aiming to mitigate the signs of aged skin. This manuscript discusses the state of the art of nanomaterials commonly used for topical administration of active ingredients formulated in nanopharmaceuticals and nanocosmeceuticals for skin anti-aging.

The surface properties of nanoparticles have decisive influence on their interaction with biological barriers (i.e., living cells), being the concentration and type of surfactant factors to have into account. As a result of different molecular structure, charge, and degree of lipophilicity, different surfactants may interact differently with the cell membrane exhibiting different degrees of cytotoxicity. In this work, the cytotoxicity of two cationic solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs), differing in the cationic lipids used as surfactants CTAB (cetyltrimethylammonium bromide) or DDAB (dimethyldioctadecylammonium bromide), referred as CTAB-SLNs and DDAB-SLNs, respectively, was assessed against five different human cell lines (Caco-2, HepG2, MCF-7, SV-80, and Y-79). Results showed that the cationic lipids used in SLN production highly influenced the cytotoxic profile of the particles, with CTAB-SLNs being highly cytotoxic even at low concentrations (IC50 < 10 µg/mL, expressed as CTAB amount). DDAB-SLNs produced much lower cytotoxicity, even at longer exposure time (IC50 from 284.06 ± 17.01 µg/mL (SV-80) to 869.88 ± 62.45 µg/mL (MCF-7), at 48 h). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report that compares the cytotoxic profile of CTAB-SLNs and DDAB-SLNs based on the concentration and time of exposure, using different cell lines. In conclusion, the choice of the right surfactant for biological applications influences the biocompatibility of the nanoparticles. Regardless the type of drug delivery system, not only the cytotoxicity of the drug-loaded nanoparticles should be assessed, but also the blank (non-loaded) nanoparticles as their surface properties play a decisive role both in vitro and in vivo.

In this work, three pesticides of different physicochemical properties, namely, glyphosate (herbicide), imidacloprid (insecticide) and imazalil (fungicide), were selected to assess their cytotoxicity against distinct cell models (Caco-2, HepG2, A431, HaCaT, SK-MEL-5 and RAW 264.7 cells) to mimic gastrointestinal and skin exposure with potential systemic effect. Cells were subjected to different concentrations of selected pesticides for 24 h or 48 h. Cell viability was assessed by Alamar Blue assay, morphological changes by bright-field microscopy and the IC50 values were calculated. Cytotoxic profiles were analysed using the physico-chemical parameters of the pesticides, namely: molecular weight, water solubility, the partition coefficient in the n-octanol/water (Log Pow) system, the topological polar surface area (TPSA), and number of hydrogen-bonds (donor/acceptor) and rotatable bonds. Results showed that glyphosate did not reduce cell viability (up to 1 mM), imidacloprid induced moderate toxicity (IC50 > 1 mM for Caco-2 cells while IC50 = 305.9 ± 22.4 μM for RAW 264.7 cells) and imazalil was highly cytotoxic (IC50 > 253.5 ± 3.37 for Caco-2 cells while IC50 = 31.3 ± 2.7 μM for RAW 264.7 cells) after 24 h exposure. Toxicity was time-dependent as IC50 values at 48 h exposure were lower, and decrease in cell viability was accompanied by changes in cell morphology. Pesticides toxicity was found to be directly proportional with their Log Pow, indicating that the affinity to a lipophilic environment such as the cell membranes governs their toxicity. Toxicity is inverse to pesticides TPSA, but lower TPSA favours membrane permeation. The lower toxicity against Caco-2 cells was attributed to the physiology and metabolism of cell barriers equipped with various ABC transporters. In conclusion, physicochemical factors such as Log Pow, TPSA and H-bond are likely to be directly correlated with pesticide-induced toxicity, thus being key factors to potentially predict the toxicity of other compounds.

Pesticides affect different organs and tissues according to their bioavailability, chemical properties and further molecular interactions. In animal models exposed to several classes of pesticides, neurotoxic effects have been described, including the reduction of acetylcholinesterase activity in tissue homogenates. However, in homogenates, the reduction in enzymatic activity may also result from lower enzymatic expression and not only from enzymatic inhibition. Thus, in this work, we aimed to investigate the neurotoxic potential of four distinct pesticides: glyphosate (herbicide), imazalil (fungicide), imidacloprid (neonicotinoid insecticide) and lambda-cyhalothrin (pyrethroid insecticide), by assessing their inhibitory effect on the activity of acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) and tyrosinase, by using direct in vitro enzymatic inhibition methods. All pesticides dose-dependently inhibited AChE activity, with an inhibition of 11 ± 2% for glyphosate, 48 ± 2% for imidacloprid, 49 ± 3% for imazalil and 50 ± 3% for lambda-cyhalothrin, at 1 mM. Only imazalil inhibited BChE. Imazalil induced dose-dependent inhibition of BChE with identical pattern as that observed for AChE; however, for lower concentrations (up to 500 μM), imazalil showed higher specificity for AChE, and for higher concentrations, the same specificity was found. Imazalil, at 1 mM, inhibited the activity of BChE by 49 ± 1%. None of the pesticides, up to 1 mM, inhibited tyrosinase activity. In conclusion, the herbicide glyphosate shows specificity for AChE but low inhibitory capacity, the insecticides imidacloprid and λ-cyhalothrin present selective AChE inhibition, while the fungicide IMZ is a broad-spectrum cholinesterase inhibitor capable of inhibiting AChE and BChE in an equal manner. Among these pesticides, the insecticides and the fungicide are the ones with higher neurotoxic potential.