There has been some confusion about the difference between Ascorbyl Tretaisopalmitate and Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate.

There is no difference!

Ascorbyl Tretaisopalmitate and Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate are the same product with a different name.

Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate is a colorless to pale yellow liquid.  Its CAS number is 183476-82-6 (CAS# 183476-82-6). Its INCI name is Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate (INCI: Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate) and its chemical name is Ascorbyl Tetraisopalmitate (Chem. Name: Ascorbyl Tetraisopalmitate).

What is Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate?

Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate is a very stable, oil-soluble Vitamin C ester which has anti-oxidant activity, inhibiting lipid peroxidation. Topical use can mitigate the damaging effects of UV exposure. Studies have shown it to stimulate collagen production as well as clarifying and brightening the skin by inhibiting melanogenesis (the production of pigment) thereby promoting a more even skin tone. Unlike ascorbic acid, it will not exfoliate or irritate skin.

How do I use Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate?

Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate is one of the easiest skin care actives to use in DIY skin care.  It can be added to any cream or lotion, and it is also the key ingredient in an Anhydrous C product.  I wrote a previous post about Anhydrous C  ( l-ascorbic acid and Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate in a silicone base) here: http://bulkactives.com/blog/index.php/2009/11/anhydrous-c-for-skin-care-absorption-of-l-ascorbic-in-a-silicone-base/

Recent posts on various DIY skin care forums have discussed the issue of the penetration of L-ascorbic acid suspended in a silicone base into the skin.

More precisely, a few posters have started promoting the idea that L-ascorbic acid cannot penetrate into the skin, because silicone forms a barrier on the skin.

I would like to address this issue in more detail.

Background: Stable L-ascorbic acid products for skin care

The DIY skin care community has long struggled with the formulation of a stable L-ascorbic acid skin care product. In fact, professional skin care companies and formulators have also struggled with the same problem.

Some attempts have been made by professionals to develop a stable vitamin C skin care product.  The best example of this is the Skinceuticals C+E+Ferulic product.  This is based on the 2006 study “Ferulic acid stabilizes a solution of vitamins C and E and doubles its photoprotection of skin” by Pinnel and others.

This study claimed that

“Ferulic acid is a potent ubiquitous plant antioxidant. Its incorporation into a topical solution of 15% L-ascorbic acid and 1% tocopherol improved chemical stability of the vitamins (C+E) and doubled photoprotection to solar-simulated irradiation of skin from 4-fold to approximately 8-fold as measured by both erythema and sunburn cell formation.” http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v125/n4/full/5603565a.html

However, consumers have found that skinceuticals C E ferulic product is often orange tinted.  This color usually indicates that the L ascorbic acid has oxidized, thus making it pro-oxidant.  So, even though Ferulic acid may stabilize l ascorbic acid in the lab, in practicality there appear to be some serious issues that have not been addressed.

DIY skin care formulators are able to work around this.  By making a CE Ferulic product at home, it is possible to have a fresh supply every week, thus reducing (but not eliminating) the amount of vitamin C oxidization.

Solution: The Fitzpatrick study

Another study of interest is the 2002 “Double-blind, half-face study comparing topical vitamin C and vehicle for rejuvenation of photodamage” by Fitzpatrick.

Even though this study predates the CE+Ferulic study, it did not start getting discussed on the DIY skin care forums until quite recently.

Fitzpatrick’s method was as follows:

“Ten patients having facial photodamage were recruited for a double-blind pilot study of a newly formulated vitamin C complex having 10% ascorbic acid, a water soluble acid, and 7% tetrahexyldecyl ascorbate, a lipid soluble analog.

Both of these are combined in an anhydrous polysilicone gel base, which acts as a ‘dermal patch,’ releasing the water soluble acid slowly and the lipid soluble analog rapidly. The active vitamin C complex was applied to one side of the face and the inactive placebo base was applied to the opposite side of the face once a day.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11896774&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_ExternalLink

Now, this is where a very few posters start having some issues.  The base used is an anhydrous silicone gel, and the doubt seems to be in the fact that a very few posters believe that silicone forms a barrier and therefore hinders the absorption of active ingredients.

However, let’s look at the next part of Fitzpatrick’s study:

“Biopsies showed increased Grenz zone collagen, as well as increased staining for mRNA for type I collagen. This formulation of vitamin C results in clinically visible and statistically significant improvement in wrinkling when used topically for 12 weeks. This clinical improvement correlates with biopsy evidence of new collagen formation.”

Now, if silicone prevents the absorption of active ingredients, than there would not have been an increase collagen.

So, this should put to rest the claims that using silicone as a base prevents the absorption of active ingredients.

Flawed study

There is one troubling aspect about the Fitzpatrick study.  The study did not test the use of each key ingredient separately.

The two key ingredients in the anhydrous C product are L-ascorbic acid (which is water soluble), and Ascorbyl Tetraisopalmitate (also known as Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate ) which is oil soluble.

So, even though the study shows that the combination the two active ingredients in a silicone base led to an increase of collagen, we do not know if this was caused by the Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate, the Vitamin C, or the combination of the two.

This brings us back full circle to the original problem! We do not know which active is responsible for the increase in collagen. So it is possible to claim that the L-ascorbic acid is in fact not absorbed by the skin, and that the increase of collagen is cause by the Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate.

The blame for this confusion can be put purely with Fitzpatrick. It seems a simple matter to have tested the activity of both l-ascorbic and Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate in anhydrous silicone, separately. However, he chose not to do this.

So, we remain with his original statement.

“Both of these are combined in an anhydrous polysilicone gel base, which acts as a ‘dermal patch,’ releasing the water soluble acid slowly and the lipid soluble analog rapidly.”

To me the dermal patch idea makes sense, and I personally put more trust in this than the doubt caused by a very few (but very ‘vocal’) posters on skin care forums.

In the end the choice is yours.

I will continue to use the anhydrous C product as my number one weapon in anti aging skin care.  Why? Because no matter which active did the job, somehow this product has improved my skin and that is ultimately what I want.

http://www.bulkactives.com/siliconegel.htm

http://www.bulkactives.com/ascorbicacid.htm

http://www.bulkactives.com/ascorbyltetraisopalmitate.htm