Why Two ‘Liposome’ INCI Lines Can Behave Like Totally Different Ingredients

Stop Treating Liposomes as Commodities: Design Carriers that Match Your Claims

Cosmetic chemists already know this from experience: two “liposomal” ingredients can share the same INCI line, be used at the same level, in almost identical bases—and still deliver very different stability, penetration, and in vivo performance.

One prototype sails through stability with margin to spare. Another shows phase separation, oxidation, or lackluster clinical results. The labels look the same. The behavior does not. The difference lies in the design of the vesicles themselves, not the fact that they are called “liposomes”.

Liposomes are engineered structures, not generic commodities. Their behavior is governed by phospholipid purity, hydrophilic–lipophilic balance (HLB), critical packing parameter (CPP), surface charge, fatty-acid tail length, lamellarity, and the presence of stabilizers, penetration enhancers, and other co-lipids. Change those variables and you change the way the carrier behaves in a real cosmetic formulation. Reviews of phospholipid vesicles for dermal delivery all point in the same direction: structure–property relationships are what decide penetration, stability, and efficacy, not the word “liposome” on a datasheet. Deveraux Specialties+1

This article unpacks that difference and shows how INdermal’s engineered delivery systems solve the very pain points formulators encounter when “standard liposomes” fall short.

When the Same INCI Delivers Very Different Results

On paper, many cosmetic liposomal ingredients look similar: water, glycerin, some grade of “lecithin,” actives, preservatives. For a busy formulator, it is tempting to treat them as interchangeable. If they all claim “liposomal delivery,” why not simply choose based on cost, lead time, or familiarity?

The issue is that INCI language compresses a lot of chemistry. “Lecithin” usually refers to a mixture of multiple phospholipids (such as phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylserine) together with triglycerides and other minor components. The exact ratio depends on botanical source, extraction, and refining. Studies on cosmetic-grade lecithin show that phospholipid content and fatty-acid profile can vary significantly, and that this variability impacts membrane packing, oxidative stability, and vesicle formation.

By contrast, systems built from high-purity, well-defined phospholipids have a much tighter specification: known headgroups, chain lengths, and degrees of saturation. Those characteristics directly influence the CPP and the preferred aggregate structure—stable bilayer vesicles, leaky structures, micelles, or inverted morphologies. That is why two ingredients with the same INCI can show very different size distributions, zeta potentials, and ultimately different performance in the same base.

Why Liposome Design, Not Just Name, Drives Performance

From a distance, all liposomes look similar: spherical vesicles with a phospholipid bilayer enclosing an aqueous core. Zoom in, and important differences appear.

▶ Phospholipid purity and type. Using defined phospholipids with a specific headgroup and fatty-acid pattern allows tighter control of HLB, transition temperature, and membrane rigidity. Mixed lecithin blends make those parameters fuzzier and more batch-dependent.

▶ CPP and tail architecture. The ratio of headgroup area to tail volume influences whether lipids prefer flat bilayers, curved structures, or non-bilayer phases. Tail length and saturation state affect both packing and permeability, which in turn govern how readily actives diffuse out of the vesicle.

▶ Surface charge. Positively or negatively charged vesicles interact differently with skin components and with each other. Zeta potential has a direct effect on aggregation, long-term stability, and interaction with target structures.

▶ Lamellarity and size. Small unilamellar vesicles behave differently from multilamellar or larger vesicles in terms of skin penetration route, release kinetics, and visual impact in the formula.

Modern reviews of lipid nanocarriers emphasize that this set of parameters—not just “liposomal or not”—determines whether a system improves penetration, stabilizes sensitive actives, and achieves the desired skin-layer targeting. That is precisely where generic lecithin systems and engineered systems diverge.

Generic Lecithin Liposomes vs Engineered Systems: A Practical Comparison

For many projects, the starting point is a generic lecithin-based liposome. The appeal is clear: it is familiar, broadly “natural,” and fits into clean-beauty narratives. The trade-offs show up in the lab.

Because lecithin is a mixture, its composition—and therefore its behavior—changes with each lot of raw material. This translates into shifts in vesicle formation, oxidative stability, and tolerance to formulation stress.

In practice, that can mean one batch passes accelerated stability while another shows separation or loss of active.

Engineered systems, like those developed by INdermal, take a different path. They start from high-purity phospholipids and build a multi-factor composition around them: penetration enhancers, charge modulators, membrane stabilizers (such as vegan cholesterol alternatives), target lipids, and edge activators. Each component exists for a defined functional reason: to tune penetration depth, interaction with skin structures, or resistance to pH, ethanol, surfactants, and shear.

To make that distinction easy to communicate inside your team, you can summarize it in a simple comparison table:

Formulation and Scale-Up: Where Fragile Liposomes Fail

Many liposomal concepts look acceptable at bench scale, only to show weaknesses in pilot or production. A liposomal concentrate that is stable in buffer can still fail when exposed to a real base with surfactants, humectants, salts, and fragrance under industrial mixing.

The literature is clear on why this happens. Lipid vesicles have tolerance windows for temperature, shear, pH, and co-solvents. When those limits are exceeded, vesicles can fuse, leak, or break apart into mixed micelles. INdermal’s Vegan DDS and V3DS brochures, for example, specify pH ranges between 3 and 11 and show that ethanol levels above about 15% and excessive detergent can damage vesicles. Those numbers are not arbitrary; they reflect controlled stress-testing under cosmetic-relevant conditions.

Engineered liposomes that are designed with these realities in mind can tolerate typical manufacturing conditions when handled correctly: added in the aqueous phase or in a cool-down step, within defined pH and ethanol limits, and kept out of pure oil phases. In practice, that means fewer surprises when you move from lab to plant, and fewer reformulation cycles caused by a fragile carrier that could not withstand real-world processing.

How INdermal’s Multi-Factor Composition Addresses Real Pain Points

INdermal’s technology is built on the idea that every structural variable in a liposome is a design lever. Rather than relying on a single lecithin, the systems combine:

• Pure phospholipids, chosen for specific headgroups and chain lengths.
• Penetration enhancers, to temporarily reduce barrier resistance without permanently damaging the stratum corneum.
• Charge modulators, to control zeta potential and interaction with skin targets.
• Membrane stabilizers, to increase resistance to temperature, shear, and formulation stress.
• Target lipids, which bias vesicles toward particular skin structures.
• Edge activators, which increase membrane elasticity and deformability.

This is consistent with broader trends in vesicular system design. Ethosomes, transfersomes, and other flexible vesicles all integrate co-solvents or surfactant-like “edge activators” to enhance deformability and penetration. Reviews of these systems consistently show that combining phospholipids with penetration enhancers and modifiers yields higher loading, deeper penetration, and more robust performance than classical liposomes alone.

For a formulator, the advantage is practical: you get a carrier that has been engineered and tested for the conditions you actually use, rather than a generic system that may or may not tolerate your base, process, or claim targets.

Encapsulation Efficiency: Turning Active Percent into Real-World Performance

Encapsulation efficiency is one of the hidden drivers of return on your active spend. If only a fraction of the declared active is truly encapsulated in a stable carrier, the rest behaves like a free ingredient: more exposed to oxidation, more likely to interact with other components, and more likely to cause irritation.

In practice, once the concentration of active exceeds roughly half the concentration of liposomes in a system, encapsulation efficiency falls and additional active mostly stays unencapsulated. That means simply “adding more active” does not necessarily equate to better, safer results; it often just increases the free fraction.

INdermal’s DDS and V3DS lines are formulated with high liposome concentrations and high encapsulation efficiencies. In ex vivo human skin models, encapsulated retinoids delivered in these systems have shown dramatic increases in collagen markers and penetration compared with non-encapsulated controls, while allowing for controlled release and reduced irritation risk. Independent cosmetic liposome reviews report similar outcomes: when actives are stably encapsulated in optimized vesicles, penetration and efficacy improve at equal or even lower nominal doses.

To make this clear for stakeholders, a simple comparative table is useful:

Evaluating a “Liposomal” Ingredient Before You Commit

Given how much variability is hidden behind a shared INCI line, it is reasonable to treat liposomal ingredients like any other critical technology in your formula: ask for evidence.

Several dermal-delivery reviews aimed at formulators recommend evaluating vesicles not only on composition, but also on characterization and performance data: size distribution, polydispersity, zeta potential, encapsulation efficiency, stability in representative formulas, and penetration or release profiles.

As a practical checklist, request:

• Phospholipid source and purity (beyond the word “lecithin”).
• Vesicle size distribution and PDI in both concentrate and a model base.
• Zeta potential and the pH range over which it is stable.
• Morphology and lamellarity (e.g., TEM images).
• Encapsulation efficiency at the recommended active loading.
• Defined pH, ethanol, and surfactant tolerance windows.
• Stability data in real cosmetic formats (not just in buffer).
• Penetration data versus free active, using human or reconstructed skin models.
• Ex vivo or in vivo efficacy data where available.

A system like INdermal’s, supported by that level of data, allows you to treat “liposomal delivery” not as a marketing story, but as a quantifiable tool you can defend with both internal and external stakeholders.

Turn “Liposomal” from Buzzword to Performance Lever

Formulators and product-development teams are under pressure to deliver more: higher-performing actives, cleaner labels, tighter stability, and credible claims that survive regulatory review. In that environment, “liposomal” cannot remain a loose label.

By understanding why two liposomal ingredients with the same INCI behave like different materials, you can choose systems that truly match your formulation constraints and claim ambitions. The payoff is tangible: fewer surprises at scale-up, more predictable stability, better “effect per percent active,” and clearer differentiation for your brand partners.

To move from theory to practice, the most effective next step is a controlled comparison: put your current liposomal system side-by-side with an engineered, multi-factor system such as INdermal’s Vegan DDS or V3DS in your own bases and processes. The differences in stability, penetration markers, or sensory impact become obvious very quickly.

That is where Deveraux comes in: to help you set up that evaluation, interpret the data, and translate it into a formulation and claims strategy that matches your market.

References:

1. Ashtiani, H. R. A., & co-authors. (2016). Liposomes in cosmetics. Journal of Skin and Stem Cell, 3(3), e65815. https://brieflands.com/journals/jssc/articles/65815
2. Lens, M., et al. (2025). Phospholipid-based vesicular systems as carriers for the delivery of active cosmeceutical ingredients. Pharmaceutics, 17(x), Article 42248. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11942248/
3. Guillot, A. J., Martínez-Navarrete, M., Garrigues, T. M., & Melero, A. (2023). Skin drug delivery using lipid vesicles: A starting guideline for their development. Journal of Controlled Release, 355, 624–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2023.02.013
4. Chaves, M. A., et al. (2023). Current applications of liposomes for the delivery of cosmetic ingredients. Nanomaterials, 13(9), 1557. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/13/9/1557
5. Pasarin, D., et al. (2023). Coating materials to increase the stability of liposomes. Polymers, 15(3), 782. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/3/782
6. Thy, L. T. M., et al. (2025). Applications of lecithin in emulsion stabilization and advanced delivery systems in cosmetics: A mini-review. Results in Surfaces and Interfaces, 15, 101123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsurf.2024.101123

Note: Peer-reviewed, open-access or broadly accessible articles were selected because they provide independent, high-quality evidence on liposomal and related vesicular systems for dermal delivery. They complement INdermal’s technical documentation by explaining how phospholipid composition, structure, and processing influence stability and skin penetration in a way that is directly relevant to cosmetic formulation.