Hello Only Natural,
You asked:
Is what is said in some citation from some poster on some forum, stating that liposomes and emulsifiers are the same, true?
My answer:
In principle yes, but:
And here we go to the famous Radio-Yerevan (an Armenian radio station) which during the high season of the Soviet Union was popular because of the special Question and Answer joking style they used to make fun of Moscow (and got away with it). The following is an example of the joke style which earned them their world-wide reputation and you will immediately see the relevancy to our subject. You can look up Radio-Yerevan in Wikipedia or elsewhere and enjoy some good humor at the same time.
Q: Is it true that Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov from Moscow stole a car?
A: In principle yes, but:
1. It wasn't Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov but Alexander Alexandrovich Alexandrov;
2. He is not from Moscow but from Odessa;
3. It was not a car but a bicycle;
4. He did not steal it, but it was stolen from him.
So, now that we got that straight, I will take the very difficult burden of explaining why a statement such as that person posted is of similar quality to that used as great entertainment material by Radio-Yerevan.
Emulsifiers operate like (and, in many cases, are) detergents. In terms of nomenclature, many products are named “emulsifiers” when they are actually co-emulsifiers.
First, it’s important to get some general understanding of detergents. For that, read our article on detergents in the
Journal of Topical Formulations at
http://www.topical-formulations.com/topical/200504/detergent.htm.
Now let’s see why a statement equating liposomes with emulsifiers is erroneous (and irony-ious).
A cucumber and an elephant share most of their genetic material and therefore could be said to be the same. A cucumber and an elephant may be more similar to each other than are liposomes and detergents. The only common ground between liposomes and detergents is that they are both chemicals and that they both have surface-active properties. In fact, one of the components of snake-venom (phospholipase A) breaks down phosphatidylcholine in the red blood cells into lyso-phosphatidylcholine (chopping off one of its fatty acids). Lyso-phosphatidylcholine is a detergent (can be used in shampoo) and destroys blood cells (hemolyzes) as well as capillaries and cells from the lining of larger blood vessels. Cell membranes are organized structures which are similar to liposomes and are structures which support life. Detergents (and functional emulsifiers are detergents) dissolve cell membranes and liposomes and destroy them. This is also why we do not make a shampoo containing liposomes. It is not just that detergents are “stronger” than phospholipids and liposomes; they act by completely different mechanisms and have different characteristics and functions.
As far as their properties as vehicles, detergents are not true vehicles in that they cannot be used for long exposure on skin (like in shampoo, they may destroy the skin barrier if they stay too long). The use of nano-spheres which are emulsifier-free nano-emulsion based droplets (like our Dispersicles™ and Dispersosomes™) is a very sophisticated and difficult scientific and technological endeavor and only the uninformed (with just enough knowledge to mutter a few many-syllabled words, sounding knowledgeable to the easily-impressed) will declare this technology to be in the same category as emulsifiers. Indeed, there is ground to compare between spheres and liposomes (or nano-spheres and Nanosomes™) on the basis of the target to be achieved. However, detergents and emulsifiers are out of the equation; they have valid uses, but those uses are not the same as the uses of liposomes or spheres.
Selection of nano-spheres or Nanosomes™ can be made by a thought-process similar to that of selecting an automobile (indeed, they are all vehicles). You can select a Yugo or a Lamborghini. The difference is in luxury and reliability but they both will more or less bring you to your target on paved roads. However, neither of them is suited to running on a dirt road with bumps on it. The Lamborghini is too low and will scrape the ground and the Yugo may not have enough power to go through the effort; though on a paved road they don’t expose differences other than comfort, power, and speed, they differ in their limitations. A Jeep can run well on a dirt road but cannot carry much luggage and the ride is not smooth. A 4x4 utility truck is a compromise on comfort, strength, load-size, speed, and can ride well on dirt roads. If there are water obstacles, you would need an amphibious vehicle, and if there is very rough terrain you may need a vehicle which runs on tracks and if there are falling boulders you would need something like a tank to pass through and protect itself and its contents and not suffer much damage. Nanosomes™ can be compared to that futuristic “James Bond” vehicle. It can take off into the air and bypass crowded roads, it can dive under water, and it can go on different terrains (maybe into space as well in the next movie). Nano-spheres can be compared to a 4x4 utility vehicle.
Both spheres and liposomes are made so that they can be adapted to specific “terrain”. The composition, size, charge, and other physical and chemical characteristics of the liposomes and spheres are usually tailored to the task intended for them. A good formulator will choose the right vehicle for the right purpose. To extend the vehicles metaphor just a bit more: emulsifiers and detergents are like bulldozers, or explosive charges, damaging with their impact and changing the terrain rather than delivering a cargo into the existing terrain and instead of adapting themselves to the terrain. In bio-systems such drastic changes are not acceptable. If a bulldozer is not the right vehicle or an explosive is not the right tool, choose something else.
As for the statement that liposomes are bul… wel, the bul-stuff is definitely not nano-technology but it is at least a good fertilizer. However, the statements of that person you cited are leading to a place where grass will not grow…
So back to the answer to your question: in principle yes, but!
Author