Free postage for Australian orders over $250

The Downside of Dropper Bottles in Active Skincare Formulations

When you’re searching for the perfect skincare product, ingredients aren’t the only consideration; the packaging plays an equally pivotal role.  While dropper bottles have become synonymous with high-end skincare (and look very cool on social media posts), their practicality for formulas laden with unique and expensive active ingredients is under scrutiny. Here’s an insight into why skincare enthusiasts might want to think twice before opting for dropper-dispensed active skincare solutions.

Air Exposure: The Enemy of Active Ingredients

Active ingredients like vitamin C, ferulic acid, retinoids, and niacinamide are in a constant battle against oxidation, losing their potency when exposed to things like air and light. Skincare packaging must, therefore, be designed to minimise this exposure. Air-tight packaging is critical for maintaining the stability of such volatile compounds. Each time a dropper bottle is opened, it introduces air, which can diminish the product’s efficacy.

Contamination Risks: Compromising Skincare Safety

Every application could be a potential contamination event with dropper bottles. This contact between the dropper and skin surfaces can introduce microbes back into the product, posing a risk to skin health. These contaminants can cause unwanted effects, including a change in the consistency and appearance of the product; separation of the ingredients, alteration or loss of important anti-oxidant or vitamin activity, and possible toxicity in the contaminated items.

Dosage Control: The Precision Problem

Accurate application of high-efficacy actives is key to both safety and results and droppers have fallen short in delivering consistent, controlled dosages, even when they are used for medication, let alone non-pharmaceutical products like skincare. Skincare regimes benefit from more precise dispensing methods to ensure the proper use of active ingredients. This avoids skin reactions from overuse as well as reducing the cost of skincare by reducing wastage.

UV Light Degradation: A Clear Issue

Dropper bottles, often clear or tinted, can’t always protect sensitive botanicals and enzymes from the harmful effects of UV light. The integrity of these ingredients could be compromised and underscores the need for UV-protective packaging in skincare.

The Takeaway

In the world of cosmeceuticals, where active ingredients are the stars, dropper bottles are not be the best packaging choice. They can affect the product’s performance, longevity, and even the safety profile. Consumers seeking effective skincare solutions should be aware of the potential downsides of dropper dispensing, especially for products claiming to offer the best results for problem skin conditions like acne, rosacea, or eczema.

Opaque, airless packaging with dispensers that have a metered dosage is fast becoming the gold standard and is what we use at Science Skincare.

The skincare industry is evolving, and with it, innovation in packaging solutions. For the results-driven consumer, understanding these facets could be the key to selecting not just the right active ingredients, but also the best packaging that preserves the efficacy and purity of their skincare investments.

References

Balıkçı, B.B., Güneş, Ü. Accuracy of liquid drug dose measurements using different tools by caregivers: a prospective observational study. Eur J Pediatr (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-023-05293-6

Michels, A. (2011). Vitamin C and Skin Health. https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/health-disease/skin-health/vitamin-C

Pueknang J, Saewan N. Stability and Anti-Aging of Encapsulated Ferulic Acid in Phosphorylated Rice Starch. Molecules. 2022 May 27;27(11):3463. doi: 10.3390/molecules27113463. PMID: 35684401; PMCID: PMC9182070.

Roy, S., Majumder, S., Deb, A., & Choudhury, L. (2023). Microbial contamination of cosmetics and pharmaceutical products, and their preservation strategies: A comprehensive review. Novel Research in Microbiology Journal, 7(5): 2116-2137