A Topical Formulation Containing Macrocystis Pyrifera Ferment for Managing Barrier Damage After Mild-Moderate Skin Disruption from Cosmetic Dermatologic Procedures

J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2025;18(1):40–45.

by Uma Santhanam, PhD; Jaime Emmetsberger, PhD; Gregory Nole, BSChE, MBA; Arisa Ortiz, MD, FAAD, ACMS; Michael Gold, MD; and Claude Saliou, PharmD, PhD

Drs. Santhanam and Emmetsberger are with La Mer, Max Huber Research Labs in Melville, New York and The Estée Lauder Companies in Melville, New York. Mr. Nole is with Greg Nole Consulting and Technical Service LCC in Cheshire, Connecticut. Dr. Ortiz is with the Department of Dermatology at the University of California in San Diego, California. Dr. Gold is with Gold Skin Care Center, Tennessee Clinical Research Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Saliou is with The Estée Lauder Companies in Melville, New York.

FUNDING: This research was funded by The Estée Lauder Companies Inc.

DISCLOSURES: Dr. Nole has served as a consultant and an advisor for the Estée Lauder Companies. Drs. Santhanam, Emmetsberger, and Saliou are employees of the Estée Lauder Companies. Drs. Gold and Ortiz have served as consultants for the Estée Lauder Companies.

ABSTRACT: Objective: The primary objective of these studies was to evaluate the potential of a serum containing Macrocystis pyrifera ferment (MPF-Serum) to both strengthen the barrier of intact skin and enhance barrier recovery after a non-ablative laser procedure or glycolic acid chemical peel.

Methods: Two whole-face clinical trials and three split-face, randomized, controlled clinical trials were conducted in women aged 31 to 65 years. The effect of MPF-Serum on barrier integrity and strength was assessed by transepidermal water loss measurement before and after controlled tape-stripping experiments and in-clinic 70% glycolic acid peel and non-ablative laser procedures.

Results: Application of MPF-Serum twice daily for eight weeks on intact skin significantly increased mean moisturization by 16 percent and improved barrier integrity by 11 percent (p≤0.05 for both). Likewise, barrier strength across 8x tape-stripped skin showed a 30-percent improvement after eight weeks of treatment. In studies involving non-ablative laser procedures, MPF-Serum pre-treatment or post-treatment improved post-procedure barrier recovery to a greater extent than standard moisturizer. Likewise, in a study involving 70% glycolic peel, MPF-Serum pre-treatment improved post-procedure barrier recovery to a greater extent than no pre-treatment.

Limitations: These clinical studies were conducted at a limited number of sites, with limited sample sizes and populations.

Conclusion: This topical MPF-Serum effectively improves barrier integrity and strength and helps to reduce recovery time from dermatologic procedures such as glycolic acid peel and laser treatments.

Keywords: Skin barrier, glycolic acid, non-ablative laser, Macrocystis pyrifera, Macrocystis pyrifera ferment, transepidermal water loss, topical serum 

Introduction

The use of non-surgical dermatologic treatments that offer satisfying results with little downtime is escalating.¹ The Aesthetic Society reported a 44-percent increase in non-surgical procedures between 2020 and 2021, with a 55-percent increase in facial procedures alone.² The use of chemical peels and lasers for skin rejuvenation has risen in popularity in the United States, with over 3.3 million skin resurfacing procedures performed in 2022 according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.³ Additionally, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery reported that 53 percent and 44 percent of consumers consider using laser procedures for skin tightening/wrinkles and skin tone/facial redness/scars, respectively, with chemical peels receiving at least 95 percent or greater satisfaction rating among consumers in 2023.⁴ Although non-surgical dermatologic cosmetic treatments may be considered minimally invasive to the skin,⁵ its barrier, which protects it from external stimuli,⁶ is nevertheless temporarily disrupted during and after treatments.⁵ Use of a topical treatment designed to help maintain the stratum corneum integrity and restore barrier function before and after dermatologic treatments may help fortify the skin barrier, minimize discomfort, and reduce downtime.⁷

The stratum corneum, or skin barrier, is a compacted layer of corneocytes embedded in a lipid matrix. It forms a semipermeable barrier on the surface of the skin⁸ that plays a vital role as the first line of defense against external environmental stressors.⁶ Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin hydration have been widely used as measures of skin barrier function.^9,10 TEWL is a measure of the diffusion of condensed water through the stratum corneum, which, when elevated, is indicative of disturbed skin barrier function.⁹ Furthermore, a disrupted skin barrier and elevated TEWL are correlated with reduced stratum corneum hydration and the development of dry skin.¹¹ Dermatologic cosmetic procedures, such as glycolic acid chemical peels and laser treatments, can severely disrupt the skin barrier,^7,12 leading to irritation issues and patient discomfort.^6,13

Current standard of care after a chemical peel or laser treatment includes application of a moisturizer or petrolatum ointment, respectively, and avoidance of sun exposure.^14,15 These post-treatment standards are intended to optimize moisture balance and protect the redeveloping skin barrier; however, occlusive petrolatum-based post-treatments can be both acnegenic in acne-prone skin and have unpleasant aesthetics.^16–18 Newer topical formulas, sensorially more pleasing than petrolatum ointments, aim to protect, moisturize, and restore the skin barrier while providing an opportunity to enhance the healing process after cosmetic procedures. 

To help the stratum corneum maintain and restore barrier function, a topical serum was developed containing Macrocystis pyrifera ferment (MPF). The ferment of giant sea kelp M. pyrifera is rich in cosmetically active compounds shown to have antioxidant activity and anti-inflammatory effects; these effects have the potential to promote stratum corneum healing and restore barrier function after cosmetic procedures.¹⁹ Additionally, brown algae such as M. pyrifera have attracted attention in the food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries owing to their ability to produce a wide variety of chemicals with diverse biological activities.^20,21

Here, we report the results of clinical investigations in which we evaluated the potential of this topical MPF–containing serum (MPF-Serum) to moisturize and strengthen the barrier of intact skin and enhance barrier recovery after dermatologic treatments such as glycolic acid peel and a non-ablative laser procedure.

Methods

Human subjects research. All studies were conducted in adherence with the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) as contained in the International Council on Harmonisation Guidelines for GCP: Consolidated Guidance (E6[R2] GCP: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6[R1]) and the US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, CFR parts 50 and 312.

Ex vivo glycolic acid treatment. Human skin ex vivo biopsies were treated once a day for three days in a humidified chamber at 37°C and 95%/5% O₂/CO₂. On the fourth day, 70% glycolic acid was topically applied to the skin surface for five minutes, followed by neutralization by washing the skin with water. Neutralization was confirmed by pH testing. After a 24-hour resting period, the skins were processed for immunohistochemical evaluation. Briefly, skins were fixed overnight in 10% formalin, cryoprotected with 30% sucrose, embedded in optimal cutting temperature medium, and snap-frozen. Skins were sectioned (8µm) and were probed with anti-claudin-1 (1:500; Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and anti-filaggrin (1:100; Abcam) antibodies overnight at 4°C. Subsequently, sections were incubated with Alexa Fluor 594 (1:1000; Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), and mounted with Fluoromount-G™ containing 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI; Invitrogen).

Moisturization and barrier integrity and strength. MPF-Serum was applied twice daily to the intact facial skin of 34 female participants ages 31 to 59 years in China for eight weeks. Moisturization was measured with the Nova Meter DPM 9003 (NOVA Technology Corporation, Portsmouth, NH), and TEWL was measured with the Tewameter® TM 300 (Courage + Khazaka, Köln, Germany). Data were collected on the cheek at Weeks 4 and 8 to assess moisturization and barrier integrity.

Concomitantly on a separate site along the jawline, TEWL was measured after eight successive tape strips using D-Squame discs (CuDerm Corporation, Dallas, TX). Data were collected at Weeks 4 and 8.

Pre-treatment before glycolic acid peel. A randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness of MPF-Serum pre-treatment to promote faster barrier healing after a glycolic acid peel. Prior to the start of this study, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained. In a split-face design, MPF-Serum was applied to one side of the face of 21 female participants ages 33 to 65 years twice daily for three weeks, while the opposing side of the face remained untreated. After this pre-treatment period, a glycolic peel containing 70% glycolic acid was applied by a licensed aesthetician to the entire face and allowed to set for two to five minutes before being neutralized for 30 to 60 seconds and rinsed off. Immediately after the procedure, a standard moisturizer was applied to the entire face one time in the clinic and once again at home in the evening. Barrier integrity measurements were taken with the Tewameter Triple TM 330T (Courage + Khazaka) before the peel procedure as well as at 15 minutes and two, four, six, and 24 hours after the peel procedure.

Pre-treatment before non-ablative laser procedure. A similar randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness of MPF-Serum pre-treatment to promote faster barrier healing after a laser procedure. Prior to the start of this study, IRB approval was obtained. Using a split-face study design, 28 female participants between the ages of 37 and 65 years old applied MPF-Serum to one side of the face twice daily for three weeks, leaving the opposing side untreated. After the pre-treatment period, a non-ablative laser procedure was performed using HALO™ (1470nm, 15mm scan line, 450μm depth, 20% density coverage; Sciton, Palo Alto, CA) by a certified laser specialist. A standard-of-care treatment was applied uniformly to the entire face immediately after the procedure and on the evening of laser treatment. A standard moisturizer (oil in water low glycerin white emulsion) was applied twice daily to the entire face from Day 2 to day 7. Barrier integrity measurements were collected with the Tewameter TM 300 (Courage + Khazaka) at baseline (before laser treatment); after the procedure; and on Days 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. 

Treatment after a non-ablative fractional laser procedure. A randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness of MPF-Serum to reduce post-laser irritation in 29 female participants between the ages of 39 and 63 years old after a non-ablative laser procedure. Prior to the start of this study, IRB approval was obtained. The laser procedure using HALO™ tuned for non-ablative fractional resurfacing (1470nm, 15mm scan line, 450μm depth, 30% density coverage; Sciton) was performed by a certified laser specialist. A standard-of-care ointment was applied to the entire face of participants immediately after the procedure and on the evening of laser treatment. Participants then applied MPF-Serum to one side of the face with a simple moisturizer applied to the opposing side twice daily for 14 days. Barrier integrity measurements were collected with the Tewameter TM 330 (Courage + Khazaka) at baseline (before and after laser treatment) and on Days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14.

Statistical analysis. Data were analyzed by a paired t-test. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS statistical software version 18.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) or SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Statistical Institute, Cary, NC). A p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Effect of MPF-Serum on glycolic acid–treated skin—ex vivo studies.Immunofluorescent staining of claudin-1 and filaggrin in ex vivo skin samples shows that MPF-Serum exhibits a protective effect on barrier proteins (Figure 1) disrupted by glycolic acid. Cross-sectional microphotography under UV light revealed that both claudin-1 and filaggrin levels are reduced when exposed to a 70% glycolic acid solution (Figure 1A). However, pre-treatment with MPF-Serum attenuated claudin-1 and filaggrin loss (Figure 1B), suggesting a direct protective benefit against skin barrier disruption. 

Effect of MPF-Serum on barrier integrity and strength. MPF-Serum enhances skin moisturization and barrier integrity. In this assessment of skin moisture and barrier integrity, twice daily MPF-Serum application significantly increased moisturization and decreased TEWL over time (p≤0.05; Figure 2). Long-term MPF-Serum use resulted in statistically significant increases in moisturization by 14 percent after Week 4 and 16 percent at Week 8 (p≤0.05). Concurrently, barrier integrity improved, with statistically significant decrease in TEWL by 11 percent at week 8 (p≤0.05).

MPF-Serum enhances skin barrier strength.In this trial, we evaluated the change in TEWL (ΔTEWL) between the surface (intact) skin and skin that is 8x tape stripped (Figure 3). A reduction in the ΔTEWL between surface and lower layers indicates improved underlying barrier quality, demonstrated by a higher resilience of the stratum corneum to a physical disruption. Twice daily application of MPF-Serum significantly reduced ΔTEWL compared with baseline after eight tape strips by 19 percent in four weeks and 30 percent in eight weeks (p<0.05). 

Effects of MPF-Serum on skin barrier recovery after glycolic acid peel. MPF-Serum pre-treatment enhances barrier recovery after a 70% glycolic acid peel. In this split-face clinical trial, we evaluated the effect of MPF-Serum pre-treatment before a 70% glycolic acid peel by directly comparing the MPF-Serum–treated to the untreated side. Results of this trial indicated that skin that was pre-treated for three weeks with twice daily MPF-Serum exhibited a statistically significant improvement in post-peel barrier recovery over 24 hours after the peel (Figure 4).

Application of a 70% glycolic acid peel induced an immediate 4.1mg/cm²/h increase in mean TEWL in untreated facial skin compared with 3.5mg/cm²/h in MPF-Serum pre-treated facial skin. Two hours after the peel, TEWL had significantly recovered by 71 percent on pre-treated side compared with 23 percent for untreated skin. The improvement in recovery for MPF-Serum versus no pre-treatment was statistically significant at two hours, and a trend of greater recovery in MPF-Serum pre-treatment remained consistent over the 24-hour period. Over the first six hours after the peel procedure, mean TEWL was better recovered (ie, not significantly different from that baseline; p>0.05) due to MPF-Serum pre-treatment, whereas skin that had no pre-treatment showed no significant recovery (ie, it remained statistically different from baseline at all time points). Moreover, within two hours of the peel, 90 percent of participants showed improvement in barrier recovery on the MPF-Serum pre-treated side.

Effects of MPF-Serum on skin barrier recovery after a non-ablative fractional laser procedure. MPF-Serum pre-treatment enhances barrier recovery after a non-ablative laser procedure. In a similar split-face clinical trial, participating women pre-treated one side of their face with MPF-Serum twice daily for three weeks before a non-ablative laser procedure (Figure 5). The laser procedure induced an immediate increase in barrier damage on both sides, with an increase in mean TEWL of 10.2 and 10.5mg/cm²/h for MPF-Serum pre-treated and untreated skin, respectively. This barrier disruption persisted several days after the procedure despite steady recovery. While individual data points are not significantly different between pre-treated and untreated sides over the first few days, there was a trend for greater recovery with pre-treatment. Immediately after treatment and through Day 7, the mean TEWL was numerically lower in MPF-Serum–pre-treated skin than in skin that was not pre-treated. By Day 7, comparative analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of pre-treatment (p<0.05; AUC data normalized to the −3-week time point).

MPF-Serum post-treatment enhances barrier recovery after a non-ablative laser procedure.In a third split-face clinical trial, we evaluated the efficacy of MPF-Serum when used during the post-laser treatment recovery period. The laser procedure itself induced immediate barrier disruption, evidenced by an over 54 percent increase in mean TEWL (Figure 6). Over the 14 days after the laser procedure, comparative analysis of the AUC revealed that twice daily application of MPF-Serum significantly enhanced barrier recovery on Days 5 through 14 (p<0.05) compared with standard moisturizer. 

Discussion

Laser and chemical peels are popular procedures in dermatologic clinics;³ however, they are disruptive to the skin barrier and often require effective post-procedural care.^5,7 Current standard of care includes heavy, petrolatum-based ointments that are designed to prevent water loss through occlusion.^15,22 These products are generally aesthetically unpleasant, particularly for facial usage, and some occlusive products can be acnegenic, all of which can affect patient compliance during recovery.^5,17,18,23 Moreover, products are needed that not only prevent water loss but also protect the skin and repair the damage caused by dermatologic procedures. Because maintaining a moist environment is important for healing after dermatologic procedures,²³ the use of a serum that can moisturize and protect skin barrier proteins may expedite the healing process. Even some over-the-counter products can lead to irritation, which is why a product designed and tested for post-procedure use is essential.²³

Initial studies suggested that MPF-Serum was providing a protective benefit against stratum corneum barrier disruption. First, MPF-Serum was shown in ex vivo studies to protect against glycolic acid–induced filaggrin and claudin-1 disruption in human skin biopsies. Then, in controlled in vivo clinical trials, MPF-Serum was shown to moisturize skin and enhance both barrier integrity and resilience. With regular use, MPF-Serum significantly reduced TEWL in intact and tape-stripped skin, indicating a substantially stronger underlying barrier. Altogether, these data established MPF-Serum’s potential to strengthen the skin barrier, indicating that it could be an effective treatment for protecting the skin in preparation for and after procedures that induce barrier disruption.

The practical benefit of MPF-Serum was then confirmed in a series of clinical trials conducted in the dermatology clinic. These randomized controlled clinical trials conducted in participants undergoing either 70% glycolic acid peel or a fractional non-ablative laser treatment consistently showed the induction of sharp increases in barrier disruption. The studies, designed for direct split-face comparison, demonstrated an enhanced recovery with both pre-treatment and post-treatment with the MPF-Serum. 

Faster recovery time is an important issue for both physicians and cosmetic patients looking to return to work and social activities as soon as possible. The results of these clinical trials show that MPF-Serum effectively afforded faster recovery after barrier disruption associated with glycolic acid and non-ablative laser dermatologic procedures than a standard moisturizer. These results may be attributed, in part, to the cosmetically active compounds present in M. pyrifera. 

Cosmetically active compounds such as phlorotannin and hyaluronic acid derived from M. pyrifera have shown antioxidant activity,²⁴ and fucoidan from M. pyrifera has been shown to exhibit anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activities.^25,26 Additionally, fucoidan has been shown to penetrate the skin barrier for use in certain skin conditions.²⁷ Hyaluronic acid, also derived from M. pyrifera,²⁴ plays an important role in maintaining skin moisture and skin repair metabolism;²⁷ thus, MPF-Serum may be an ideal formulation to maintain skin moisture and accelerate barrier healing after dermatologic treatments compared with standard of care. M. pyrifera ferment has been shown to help with the repair of skin barrier after its disruption.^19,28

Repairing the barrier and maintaining skin moisture are critical aspects of dermatologic post-procedure care, but many standard-of-care products are not aesthetically pleasing for everyday use on facial skin.^5,16 Therefore, a well-tolerated efficacious serum that has a lighter feel and utilizes naturally derived, cosmetically active compounds, such as those found in MPF, can deliver the necessary barrier benefits with a superior patient experience and reduced downtime. 

Limitations. While studies were carried out in line with good clinical practices to evaluate the effects of MPF-Serum on the skin barrier, limitations exist. Each study presented was conducted on the indicated population at a single site under conditions extant at the time of the study. While the overall correlation of results across studies is high, the sample sizes may be viewed as small. Further work to ensure reproducibility and consistency across larger, more diverse, and geographically dispersed populations employing a variety of dermatological procedures warrants consideration. Investigation into the mechanisms of MPF-Serum interaction with the stratum corneum is of interest.

Conclusion

M. pyrifera ferment is a naturally derived cosmetic ingredient that was demonstrated to have protective benefits for skin barrier proteins in ex vivo assessment. Through a series of randomized controlled clinical evaluations, MPF-Serum was shown to be a significantly effective defense to physically or chemically induced barrier disruption.

MPF-Serum was shown to strengthen the barrier of intact skin and enhance its resilience to disruption, whether caused by tape stripping, a chemical peel, or a non-ablative laser procedure. When applied after a non-ablative laser procedure, MPF-Serum improved the barrier recovery. Moreover, it did so in an aesthetically and sensorially acceptable format that provides a better patient experience for facial usage than heavy ointments. 

These results suggest that MPF-Serum could be used in preparation for a chemical peel or a laser procedure and can be an acceptable alternative to conventional ointments, providing a new standard of care during post-procedure recovery.

Acknowledgements

Funding for these studies was provided by Estée Lauder Companies. Writing and editorial assistance was provided under the direction of the authors by Jenny Johnson, PhD, ELS, Jessica Gower, PhD, and Polina Novichenok, PhD, MedThink SciCom, and was funded by Estee Lauder Companies. 

References  

1. Dayan E, Burns AJ, Rohrich RJ, et al. The use of radiofrequency in aesthetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(8):e2861.
2. Aesthetic plastic surgery national databank statistics 2020-2021. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(Suppl 1):1–18.
3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2022 ASPS procedural statistics release. Accessed 29 May 2024. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2022/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2022.pdf
4. American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS). Consumer survey on cosmetic dermatologic procedures. Accessed 29 May 2024. https://www.asds.net/medical-professionals/practice-resources/consumer-survey-on-cosmetic-dermatologic-procedures
5. Addor FA, de Souza MC, Trapp S, et al. Efficacy and safety of topical dexpanthenol-containing spray and cream in the recovery of the skin integrity compared with petroleum jelly after dermatologic aesthetic procedures. Cosmetics. 2021;8(3):87.
6. Lee H-J, Kim M. Skin barrier function and the microbiome. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(21):13071.
7. Park SJ, Han HS. Effects of a facial mask containing zinc oxide-based cream on improving post-laser skin care. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22(11):3181–3184.
8. Murphrey MB, Miao JH, Zito PM. Histology, stratum corneum. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
9. du Plessis J, Stefaniak A, Eloff F, et al. International guidelines for the in vivo assessment of skin properties in non-clinical settings: Part 2. Transepidermal water loss and skin hydration. Skin Res Technol. 2013;19(3):265–278.
10. Berardesca E, Loden M, Serup J, et al. The revised EEMCO guidance for the in vivo measurement of water in the skin. Skin Res Technol. 2018;24(3):351–358.
11. Yosipovitch G, Misery L, Proksch E, et al. Skin barrier damage and itch: review of mechanisms, topical management and future directions. Acta Derm Venereol. 2019;99(13):1201–1209.
12. Song JY, Kang HA, Kim MY, et al. Damage and recovery of skin barrier function after glycolic acid chemical peeling and crystal microdermabrasion. Dermatol Surg. 2004;30(3):390–394.
13. Passeron T, Zouboulis CC, Tan J, et al. Adult skin acute stress responses to short-term environmental and internal aggression from exposome factors. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35(10):1963–1975.
14. Samargandy S, Raggio BS. Chemical peels for skin resurfacing. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
15. Verma N, Yumeen S, Raggio BS. Ablative laser resurfacing. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
16. Angra K, Lipp MB, Sekhon S, et al. Review of post-laser-resurfacing topical agents for improved healing and cosmesis. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2021;14(8):24–32.
17. Mehta Ambalal SR. Holistic approach to management of acne: exploring the evidence. Clin Derm Review. 2023;7(3):209–214.
18. Chularojanamontri L, Tuchinda P, Kulthanan K, Pongparit K. Moisturizers for acne: what are their constituents? J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2014;7(5):36–44.
19. Gold M, Bae YC, Goldberg DJ, et al. Macrocystis pyrifera ferment-containing creams for optimizing facial skin rejuvenation. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22(12):3313–3319.
20. Biparva P, Mirzapour-Kouhdasht A, Valizadeh S, Garcia-Vaquero M. Advanced processing of giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) for protein extraction and generation of hydrolysates with anti-hypertensive and antioxidant activities in vitro and the thermal/ionic stability of these compounds. Antioxidants (Basel). 2023;12(3)775.
21. Jesumani V, Du H, Aslam M, et al. Potential use of seaweed bioactive compounds in skincare—a review. Mar Drugs. 2019;17(12):688.
22. Czarnowicki T, Malajian D, Khattri S, et al. Petrolatum: barrier repair and antimicrobial responses underlying this “inert” moisturizer. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(4):1091–1102e7.
23. Morales-Burgos A, Loosemore MP, Goldberg LH. Postoperative wound care after dermatologic procedures: a comparison of 2 commonly used petrolatum-based ointments. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12(2):163–164.
24. Thiyagarasaiyar K, Goh BH, Jeon YJ, et al. Algae metabolites in cosmeceutical: an overview of current applications and challenges. Mar Drugs. 2020;18(6):323.
25. Wang Y, Xing M, Cao Q, et al. Biological activities of fucoidan and the factors mediating its therapeutic effects: a review of recent studies. Mar Drugs. 2019;17(3):183.
26. Zhang W, Oda T, Yu Q, et al. Fucoidan from Macrocystis pyrifera has powerful immune-modulatory effects compared to three other fucoidans. Mar Drugs. 2015;13(3):1084–1104.
27. Freitas R, Martins A, Silva J, et al. Highlighting the biological potential of the brown seaweed Fucus spiralis for skin applications. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020;9(7):611.
28. Santhanam U, Emmetsberger J, Saliou C. An efficacious cosmetic formulation for managing barrier damage following mild-moderate skin disruption. J Invest Dermatol. 2022;142(8):S74.