Green Extraction Strategies for Rose Bioactives: Impacts on Chemical Composition and Anti-Aging Efficacy

Abstract

The genus Rosa, celebrated for centuries for its aesthetic and aromatic qualities, is increasingly recognized as a potent source of bioactive compounds with significant applications in the cosmetic industry, particularly in antiaging formulations. Traditional extraction methods, often reliant on harsh organic solvents and high energy consumption, are being progressively replaced by innovative green extraction technologies. This review provides a comprehensive and critical analysis of the state-of-the-art green strategies for extracting bioactives from various Rosa species, including Rosa damascena, Rosa canina, and Rosa rugosa. We meticulously examine key technologies such as Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction (UAE), Microwave-Assisted Extraction (MAE), Supercritical Fluid Extraction (SFE), Enzyme-Assisted Extraction (EAE), and the use of Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES). The core focus of this review is to dissect the profound impact of these methods on the resulting chemical profile of the extracts, specifically the yield and composition of valuable phytochemicals like phenolic acids, flavonoids, anthocyanins, and volatile compounds. Furthermore, we critically correlate these compositional variations with the demonstrated in vitro and in vivo antiaging efficacy of the extracts, including their antioxidant, anticollagenase, and antielastase activities. The review delves into the controversies and challenges associated with each technique, analyzing the conflicting evidence regarding their efficiency and selectivity. Finally, we address the critical aspects of industrial scalability, providing insights into techno-economic considerations, life-cycle assessments, and future prospects, such as the development of hybrid extraction systems and the integration of nanotechnology for enhanced delivery of rose bioactives. This work aims to guide future research and industrial implementation toward more sustainable, efficient, and effective utilization of rose-derived compounds in next-generation cosmetic products. Distinct from prior reviews that treat extraction technologies, rose essential oil, or rosehip dermatological effects as separate themes, this review links extraction mechanism, phytochemical fingerprint, antiaging end points, and scale-up constraints in a single evidence chain.

1. Introduction

The global demand for natural and effective cosmetic ingredients has propelled the scientific community to explore botanical sources for novel bioactive compounds. Among these, the genus Rosa, encompassing over 100 species, stands out as a treasure trove of phytochemicals with multifaceted therapeutic and cosmetic benefits. For millennia, roses, particularly Rosa damascena (Damask rose), have been cherished for their essential oil, a cornerstone of the fragrance industry. However, contemporary research has unveiled a much broader chemical arsenal within rose petals, hips, and even leaves, including a rich array of polyphenols, vitamins, and carotenoids that exhibit potent biological activities. , These activities, most notably antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and enzyme–inhibitory properties, position rose extracts as premier candidates for high-performance antiaging cosmeceuticals. , The skin aging process, a complex biological phenomenon driven by intrinsic factors (e.g., genetics, hormonal changes) and extrinsic aggressors (e.g., UV radiation, pollution), is fundamentally linked to oxidative stress and the degradation of the extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins, collagen and elastin. Bioactives from Rosa spp., such as gallic acid, quercetin, kaempferol, and cyanidin derivatives, have been shown to counteract these degenerative processes by scavenging free radicals and inhibiting the activity of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) like collagenase and elastase. ,

Historically, the extraction of these valuable compounds has relied on conventional methods like hydrodistillation (HD) for essential oils and Soxhlet extraction or maceration using organic solvents for nonvolatile components. While effective to a certain extent, these techniques are increasingly scrutinized for their significant drawbacks. − They are often characterized by long extraction times, high consumption of energy and toxic organic solvents, and potential thermal degradation of sensitive bioactive compounds, leading to lower yields and extracts of suboptimal quality. The growing global emphasis on sustainability and green chemistry, codified by principles that advocate for waste prevention, safer solvents, and energy efficiency, has catalyzed a paradigm shift in extraction science. This has spurred the development and refinement of green extraction technologies designed to overcome the limitations of their conventional counterparts. ,

This review aims to provide a critical and in-depth examination of the application of modern green extraction strategies to obtain bioactive compounds from Rosa species. We moved beyond a simple cataloging of techniques to critically examine how the selection of extraction methods, including ultrasound-assisted extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, enzyme-assisted extraction, and the application of novel green solvents such as deep eutectic solvents, fundamentally determines the chemical fingerprint of the resulting extracts. A central thesis of this work is that the extraction method is not merely a processing step but a critical determinant of biological efficacy. Therefore, we will meticulously bridge the gap between extraction parameters, the resulting phytochemical profile, and the demonstrable antiaging potential of the extracts. This review will dissect the existing literature, highlighting both supportive evidence and controversial findings, to elucidate the comparative advantages and limitations of each green technique. Furthermore, we will address the crucial but often overlooked aspects of industrial translation, exploring the scalability, economic viability, and environmental life-cycle of these technologies. By synthesizing the current knowledge and identifying critical research gaps, this review seeks to provide a forward-looking perspective on the sustainable production of high-efficacy, rose-derived ingredients for the future of the cosmetic industry.

Existing reviews have separately addressed general natural-product extraction and isolation, green extraction principles and process intensification, rose essential-oil hydrodistillation, or rosehip dermatological applications. ,,,, These works are valuable but do not explicitly connect green extraction conditions for Rosa matrices with changes in phenolic, flavonoid, anthocyanin, volatile, and polysaccharide profiles, nor do they evaluate how those compositional shifts translate into antiaging-relevant activity and industrial feasibility. The novelty of the present review is therefore its integrated method-to-molecule-to-efficacy-to-scale framework for rose-derived cosmeceutical ingredients.

Literature was assembled as a narrative, problem-focused review. Targeted searches were conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Crossref, and publisher Web sites up to March 2026 using combinations of the terms Rosa, rose, rosehip, R. damascena, Rosa canina, Rosa rugosa, green extraction, ultrasound-assisted extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, enzyme-assisted extraction, deep eutectic solvent, phenolics, flavonoids, anthocyanins, volatile compounds, polysaccharides, antioxidant, collagenase, elastase, skin aging, cosmeceutical, scale-up, and life-cycle assessment. Inclusion criteria were: (i) studies on Rosa species, rose petals, rose hips, rose essential oil, rose byproducts, or rose-derived extracts; (ii) studies reporting conventional or green extraction methods, extraction parameters, solvents, chemical composition, or bioactivity; and (iii) reviews or methodological papers relevant to green extraction, scalability, life-cycle assessment, or cosmetic/dermatological use. Exclusion criteria were: (i) studies on unrelated botanical materials without transferable extraction principles; (ii) reports lacking extract preparation or compositional/bioactivity information; and (iii) nonpeer-reviewed sources unless used only for contextual industrial or standards information. Evidence was synthesized qualitatively by extraction technology, chemical class, antiaging end point, and translational readiness; no meta-analysis was attempted because extraction conditions and bioassays were too heterogeneous for pooled estimates.

2. From Conventional Practices to Green Extraction Paradigms

The journey of extracting valuable molecules from botanical matrices like roses has evolved significantly, driven by a dual pursuit of efficiency and environmental stewardship. Understanding this evolution is crucial to appreciating the innovations and challenges that define the current landscape of natural product extraction.

2.1. Limitations of Conventional Extraction Methods

Conventional techniques, such as HD and steam-distillation, have been the gold standard for producing rose essential oil for centuries. These methods involve codistilling plant material with water, where volatile compounds are carried over with the steam, condensed, and then separated from the aqueous phase (hydrosol or rose water). While time-honored, HD is an energy-intensive process requiring prolonged heating, which can lead to the thermal degradation and hydrolysis of labile compounds like esters and the loss of highly water-soluble components, such as phenylethyl alcohol, into the hydrosol phase. For nonvolatile or semivolatile compounds like polyphenols, solid–liquid extraction methods such as maceration and Soxhlet extraction have been predominant. Maceration involves soaking the plant material in a solvent for an extended period, which is simple but often inefficient and time-consuming. Soxhlet extraction improves efficiency by continuously passing fresh, hot solvent over the sample, but it requires large volumes of often hazardous organic solvents (e.g., methanol, hexane) and prolonged exposure to high temperatures, again risking the degradation of thermolabile bioactives. , The significant environmental footprint associated with solvent waste and high energy consumption has rendered these conventional methods increasingly unsustainable in the context of modern industrial ecology.

2.2. Principles and Advent of Green Extraction

The concept of “Green Extraction” is anchored in the principles of Green Chemistry, aiming to design processes that minimize environmental impact while maximizing efficiency and product quality. The six core principles of green extraction, as proposed by Chemat et al., advocate for innovation in raw material processing, the use of alternative solvents (primarily water or biosolvents), reduction in energy consumption, production of coproducts instead of waste, and ensuring a safe and high-quality final product. This paradigm shift has led to the development of a suite of enabling technologies that employ different forms of energy, such as sound waves, microwaves, and pressurized fluids, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the extraction process. These modern techniques, often termed nonconventional or innovative, disrupt the plant cell structure more efficiently, facilitating the release of intracellular contents into the solvent. This typically results in significantly reduced extraction times, lower solvent consumption, decreased energy input, and often, higher yields of target compounds compared to conventional methods. Table provides a comparative overview of conventional and prominent green extraction methods applied to Rosa species, highlighting the fundamental differences in their operational principles and outcomes. The transition toward these green technologies is not merely an environmental mandate but also a strategic move to produce extracts with superior quality and potentially novel chemical compositions, thereby unlocking new functional applications.

1. Comparison of Conventional and Green Extraction Methods Applied to Rosa spp., Summarizing Operating Principles, Typical Solvents, Key Advantages for Rose Bioactive Recovery, and Major Limitations/Controversies Reported in the Literature.

method	principle	typical solvents	advantages for Rosa extraction	limitations and controversies	references
Conventional Methods
HD	co-distillation with boiling water to vaporize and collect volatile oils	water	traditional method for rose oil; produces valuable hydrosol coproduct	high energy consumption; long duration; thermal degradation of labile compounds; loss of water-soluble volatiles	,
soxhlet extraction	continuous extraction with a cycling hot solvent	methanol, ethanol, hexane	high extraction efficiency for nonvolatiles over time	large solvent volume; lengthy process; high temperature can degrade phenolics; environmental and safety concerns	,
green extraction methods
UAE	acoustic cavitation disrupts cell walls, enhancing mass transfer	water, ethanol, GRAS solvents	rapid; low temperature operation preserves thermolabile compounds; reduced solvent/energy use; scalable	potential for free radical formation at high intensity; equipment cost; nonuniformity of ultrasonic field in large vessels	,
MAE	microwave energy causes localized heating of intracellular water, leading to cell rupture	polar solvents (water, ehanol)	extremely fast; reduced solvent volume; higher yields of phenolics reported; selective heating	requires polar solvents; risk of overheating and degrading compounds; scalability challenges; equipment cost	,
SFE	a fluid above its critical temperature and pressure (e.g., CO2) acts as a solvent with tunable properties	supercritical CO2, often with cosolvents (e.g., Ethanol)	solvent-free product; tunable selectivity; low temperature preserves delicate compounds; extracts high-purity volatile oils	high capital and operational costs; complex technology; less efficient for highly polar compounds without cosolvents	,
EAE	enzymes (e.g., cellulase, pectinase) hydrolyze cell wall components, facilitating bioactive release	aqueous buffer systems	highly specific; mild conditions (low temp, neutral pH); environmentally benign; can enhance yield of target compounds	high cost of enzymes; requires specific pH/temp control; long incubation times; potential enzyme inhibition by phenolics	,
DES extraction	a mixture of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors forms a liquid with unique solvating properties	choline chloride, glycerol, organic acids, sugars	tunable properties; low volatility; nontoxic and biodegradable; can stabilize extracted compounds like anthocyanins	high viscosity can hinder mass transfer; difficult recovery of solutes; long-term stability and toxicology data still emerging	,

The discussion in Table underscores that there is no single “best” green method; the optimal choice depends on the target bioactive compounds, the specific Rosa species and plant part, and the desired scale of operation. For instance, SFE is exceptionally well-suited for producing high-quality, solvent-free essential oils and lipophilic extracts, whereas UAE and MAE are often favored for their speed and efficiency in extracting polar polyphenols. , EAE offers unparalleled specificity under mild conditions, making it ideal for targeted release of cell wall-bound phenolics, though its cost and process complexity are significant considerations. The emergence of DES as a novel class of green solvents presents exciting opportunities, particularly for their ability to not only extract but also stabilize sensitive compounds like anthocyanins, though challenges related to their high viscosity and solute recovery persist. The subsequent sections of this review will delve deeper into these technologies, critically evaluating the scientific evidence that links each method to a distinct chemical and biological outcome.

3. Impact of Green Extraction Strategies on the Chemical Profile of Rose Extracts

The choice of extraction technology is a pivotal determinant of the final chemical composition, and therefore the quality and efficacy, of a botanical extract. Green extraction methods, through their unique physical and chemical mechanisms, interact with the plant matrix in distinct ways, leading to significant variations in the yield and profile of extracted bioactive compounds. This section dissects the influence of key green technologies on the chemical fingerprint of extracts from Rosa species.

3.1. UAE: Enhancing Mass Transfer through Cavitation

UAE utilizes high-frequency sound waves (typically >20 kHz) to generate acoustic cavitation in the solvent. The formation, growth, and violent collapse of microscopic bubbles near the plant cell surface create powerful microjets and shockwaves, leading to pitting and erosion of the cell walls. This mechanical disruption, illustrated in the schematic Figure , dramatically enhances solvent penetration into the matrix and facilitates the diffusion of intracellular metabolites into the bulk solvent, a process known as sonoporation. A key advantage of UAE is its ability to operate at lower temperatures, thereby minimizing the thermal degradation of sensitive compounds like flavonoids and vitamins.

1.

Schematic diagram illustrating the mechanism of UAE.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the superiority of UAE over conventional methods for extracting polyphenols from rose tissues. For example, a 2023 study by İlbay et al. on R. canina (rosehip) found that UAE yielded up to 30% more total phenolics and flavonoids compared to conventional maceration, while reducing the extraction time from 24 h to just 30 min. The authors attributed this to the efficient cell wall disruption by ultrasonic waves. A critical debate in the field, however, revolves around the potential for ultrasound to generate free radicals (sonolysis of water), which could paradoxically degrade antioxidants. Proponents argue that under optimized conditions (e.g., controlled temperature, moderate power, short duration), the degradative effects are negligible compared to the massive gains in extraction efficiency. Conversely, some studies have reported a decrease in the concentration of specific delicate compounds, such as certain anthocyanins, at very high ultrasonic intensities or prolonged exposure, suggesting a fine balance must be struck. The choice of solvent also plays a crucial role; hydroethanolic mixtures are often found to be most effective in UAE, as they combine the polarity needed to dissolve phenolics with a viscosity that supports efficient cavitation.

3.2. MAE: Targeted Heating for Rapid Cell Rupture

MAE employs microwave radiation (typically at 2.45 GHz) to heat the extraction solvent and the plant material. Unlike conventional heating, which relies on slow conduction and convection, microwaves directly interact with polar molecules (primarily water) within the plant matrix, as depicted in Figure . This interaction causes rapid molecular rotation and ionic conduction, generating instantaneous localized heating. The internal pressure builds up rapidly, exceeding the elastic limit of the cell wall and causing it to rupture, thus releasing the bioactives into the surrounding solvent. This mechanism makes MAE an exceptionally rapid technique, with extraction times often in the range of seconds to minutes.

2.

Mechanism of MAE. (A) Microwave radiation passes through the vessel walls and interacts directly with polar molecules (e.g., water) inside the plant cells. (B) The rapid oscillation of these molecules generates intense internal heat and pressure. (C) This internal pressure causes the cell wall to swell and rupture, releasing the bioactive compounds into the extraction solvent.

MAE has been shown to be highly effective for extracting polyphenols from R. damascena petals. A comparative study by Sopharadee et al. reported that MAE yielded significantly higher total phenolic content (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC) than both UAE and conventional heating reflux extraction, achieving this in just 5 min compared to 30 min for UAE and 2 h for reflux. Table compiles data from several studies, illustrating the general trend of higher yields for phenolics and flavonoids obtained with MAE compared to other green methods for R. damascena. However, the primary controversy surrounding MAE is the risk of thermal degradation. The extremely rapid and localized heating can create “hot spots” where temperatures exceed the degradation point of sensitive compounds, even if the bulk solvent temperature appears controlled. Critics argue that this can lead to the formation of artifacts or the loss of specific thermolabile molecules. For instance, while MAE might excel in extracting robust flavonols like quercetin and kaempferol, it may be less suitable for delicate anthocyanins or certain aromatic esters. This challenge is being addressed through the development of nonpulsed, temperature-controlled microwave systems, but the debate on its suitability for highly sensitive phytochemicals continues.

2. Reported Yields of Total Phenolics and Total Flavonoids From Rosa damascena Petals Obtained Using Different Extraction Approaches (Maceration, Soxhlet, UAE, MAE, and SFE), With Representative Extraction Time/Temperature Conditions and Values Expressed as Mg GAE/G DW and Mg QE/G DW, Respectively .

extraction method	extraction time	temperature (degC)	total phenolic content (mg GAE/g DW)	total flavonoid content (mg QE/g DW)	reference
maceration	24 h	25	18.5 ± 1.2	7.3 ± 0.5
soxhlet extraction	6 h	80	25.1 ± 1.8	9.8 ± 0.7
UAE	30 min	50	32.7 ± 2.1	13.5 ± 0.9
MAE	5 min	80	41.3 ± 2.5	17.1 ± 1.1
SFE*	90 min	50	12.4 ± 1.0	4.6 ± 0.4

^aData for SFE was obtained using supercritical CO₂ with 10% ethanol as a cosolvent at 300 bar. GAE = gallic Acid Equivalents; QE = Quercetin Equivalents; DW = Dry Weight. Values are representative and compiled for comparative illustration.

The data presented in Table clearly highlights the enhanced efficiency of MAE for extracting polar phenolic compounds from R. damascena. Its performance surpasses not only conventional methods but also other green techniques like UAE and SFE under the specified conditions. The lower yield observed for SFE is expected, as supercritical CO₂ is nonpolar and less efficient at extracting hydrophilic polyphenols without a higher percentage of polar cosolvents. This underscores the principle that the choice of method must be aligned with the polarity of the target compounds.

3.3. SFE: A Tunable Solvent for High-Purity Extracts

SFE utilizes a substance, most commonly carbon dioxide (CO₂), at a temperature and pressure above its critical point, where it exists as a supercritical fluid. In this state, the fluid possesses unique properties: gas-like viscosity and diffusivity, allowing for rapid penetration into the plant matrix, and liquid-like density and solvating power. The primary advantage of SFE, particularly with CO₂, is that the solvent is nontoxic, nonflammable, inexpensive, and easily removed from the final extract by simple depressurization, leaving a pure, solvent-free product. Furthermore, the solvating power of the supercritical fluid can be finely tuned by altering the pressure and temperature, allowing for selective extraction of different compound classes. A typical SFE system is shown in Figure .

3.

A simplified schematic of a SFE system. Liquid CO₂ is pumped to high pressure, heated to a supercritical state, and then passed through an extraction vessel containing the rose material. The CO₂-extract mixture is then depressurized in a separator, causing the CO₂ to return to a gaseous state and the extract to precipitate for collection. The CO₂ can be recycled back into the system.

SFE is the preeminent green technology for extracting lipophilic and volatile compounds. For R. damascena, SFE with pure supercritical CO₂ produces an essential oil that is often considered superior to the hydrodistilled product. It captures a more complete aromatic profile, including heavier, less volatile molecules that are lost or degraded during distillation, resulting in a fragrance that is truer to the fresh flower. Table presents a comparative analysis of key volatile compounds in R. damascena oil obtained by SFE versus conventional HD. The data reveals that SFE yields significantly higher concentrations of key fragrance components like phenylethyl alcohol, which is largely lost to the aqueous phase in HD, and lower levels of artifacts like citronellol oxides, which can form during the harsh conditions of distillation.

3. Comparative Profiles of Key Aroma-Related Volatiles in Rosa damascena Essential Oil Produced by HD Versus SFE, Highlighting Compound Abundance Ranges (% of Total Oil) and the Associated Sensory Contributions.

volatile compound	HD (% of total oil)	SFE (% of total oil)	key contribution to aroma	references
citronellol	30.5–40.2	20.1–28.5	fresh, rosy, citrus	,
geraniol	15.3–22.1	10.5–18.3	sweet, floral, rose-like	,
nerol	5.6–10.2	4.1–8.7	sweet, fresh, rose	,
phenylethyl alcohol	1.5–3.0	25.0–45.0	deep, warm, honey-rose	,
linalool	0.8–2.5	1.2–3.1	floral, woody, slightly citrus	,,
eugenol	1.0–2.8	1.5–3.5	spicy, clove-like	,,,
nonadecane	8.0–15.0	2.5–5.0	waxy, nonaromatic (fixative)	,,,
heneicosane	3.5–7.0	1.0–2.5	waxy, nonaromatic (fixative)	–

The main controversy regarding SFE lies in its high capital cost and complexity, which can be prohibitive for smaller enterprises. Another point of debate is its efficacy for polar compounds. While pure supercritical CO₂ is excellent for lipids and volatiles, it is a poor solvent for polar polyphenols. This limitation can be overcome by adding a polar cosolvent, such as ethanol, but this compromises the “solvent-free” claim and adds complexity to the process. Critics argue that for polar bioactives, methods like pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) or even MAE might offer a better balance of efficiency, cost, and environmental performance.

3.4. EAE: Specific Hydrolysis for Targeted Release

EAE is a unique green technique that employs specific enzymes, such as cellulases, hemicellulases, and pectinases, to selectively hydrolyze the structural polysaccharides of the plant cell wall (cellulose, hemicellulose, and pectin). This targeted degradation weakens the cell wall integrity, allowing for the gentle and efficient release of intracellular bioactive compounds into the extraction medium, typically an aqueous buffer. EAE operates under mild conditions of temperature (40–60 °C) and pH, which is highly advantageous for preserving the structure and activity of thermolabile and pH-sensitive compounds.

The application of EAE to rose tissues has shown significant promise. A study by Laroze et al. demonstrated that treating rosehip (R. canina) pomace with a pectinase-cellulase mixture prior to extraction increased the yield of total phenolics by over 50% and antioxidant activity by 70% compared to a control without enzymatic treatment. The primary argument in favor of EAE is its high specificity and ability to release compounds that may be covalently bound to the cell wall matrix, making them inaccessible to conventional solvents. However, EAE is not without its challenges. The high cost of purified enzymes is a major economic barrier to large-scale implementation. The process can also be slow, often requiring incubation periods of several hours. Furthermore, a significant controversy exists regarding potential interactions between the enzymes and the extracted compounds. Phenolic compounds are known to be potent enzyme inhibitors, which could reduce the efficiency of the enzymatic hydrolysis over time. Conversely, endogenous enzymes released from the plant material itself (e.g., polyphenol oxidases) could degrade the target phenolics once the cellular structure is compromised. These complexities require careful optimization of enzyme type, concentration, pH, temperature, and incubation time to achieve a successful and economically viable process.

3.5. DES: Designer Solvents for Enhanced Extraction and Stability

DES represent a new frontier in green chemistry. They are liquid mixtures typically formed by combining a hydrogen bond acceptor (HBA), such as choline chloride, with a hydrogen bond donor (HBD), such as a polyol (glycerol), an organic acid (lactic acid), or a sugar (glucose). The strong hydrogen bonding between the components disrupts their crystal lattices, resulting in a significant depression of the freezing point and the formation of a liquid at or near room temperature, as shown in Figure . Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents (NADES), composed of primary metabolites, are particularly attractive for their biocompatibility, biodegradability, and low toxicity.

4.

Schematic representation of a eutectic point on a two-component phase diagram. Reprinted with permission from Smith et al. Copyright [2014/ACS Publications].

DES have demonstrated remarkable potential for extracting polyphenols, especially anthocyanins, from rose petals. Their unique solvating environment, created by a dense network of hydrogen bonds, can lead to exceptionally high extraction yields. A groundbreaking study by Dai et al. showed that a NADES composed of lactic acid, glucose, and water could extract anthocyanins from Catharanthus roseus petals with an efficiency comparable to acidified methanol, the conventional solvent of choice. More recent work by Koraqi et al. on R. canina fruits confirmed that deep eutectic solvent–assisted ultrasound extraction significantly improved the recovery of phenolic compounds, including proanthocyanidin-rich fractions, compared with conventional hydroethanolic extraction.

The dual functionality of DES as both extraction solvent and stabilizer is a key advantage. The viscous, hydrogen-bonded network of the solvent can encapsulate and protect labile molecules like anthocyanins from degradation by light, oxygen, and pH changes. However, the major criticisms of DES technology revolve around its practical application. The high viscosity of many DES formulations can severely impede mass transfer, requiring agitation or coupling with UAE or MAE to be effective. The most significant challenge is the recovery of the extracted solutes from the nonvolatile DES, which is difficult and energy-intensive, often requiring techniques like antisolvent precipitation or column chromatography. This difficulty in product separation is a major bottleneck for industrial scale-up and remains the central focus of ongoing research and debate in the DES community.

4. Connecting Green Extraction to Anti-aging Efficacy

The ultimate validation of any extraction method in the context of cosmeceuticals lies in the biological efficacy of the resulting extract. The variations in chemical profiles induced by different green extraction techniques directly translate into differences in antiaging potential. This section explores the evidence linking specific green methods to enhanced in vitro and in vivo antiaging activities of rose extracts, focusing on mechanisms such as antioxidation, enzyme inhibition, and cellular protection.

4.1. Mechanisms of Skin Aging and a Role for Rose Bioactives

Skin aging is characterized by a progressive loss of structural integrity and physiological function. A primary driver of extrinsic aging is oxidative stress, initiated by reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated from UV radiation and pollution. ROS can directly damage cellular components and, critically, upregulate the expression of MMPs, a family of enzymes responsible for degrading ECM components. MMP-1 (collagenase) cleaves collagen fibers, while MMP-9 (gelatinase) and elastase break down elastin, leading to the formation of wrinkles and loss of skin elasticity. Figure provides a schematic overview of these key aging pathways. Rose bioactives, particularly polyphenols, exert their antiaging effects through a multipronged approach: they directly scavenge ROS, chelate pro-oxidant metal ions, and inhibit the activity of key aging-related enzymes like collagenase, elastase, and tyrosinase (involved in hyperpigmentation). ,

5.

Key biochemical pathways of extrinsic skin aging targeted by rose bioactives. UV radiation generates reactive oxygen species (ROS), which induces oxidative stress and activates signaling pathways (e.g., AP-1). This leads to the upregulation of MMPs like collagenase and elastase, which degrade collagen and elastin in the dermal matrix. Rose polyphenols can intervene by directly scavenging ROS and inhibiting the activity of these degradative enzymes, thereby protecting the skin’s structural integrity.

4.2. In Vitro Bioactivity: A Reflection of Chemical Richness

The superiority of green extraction methods is often first demonstrated through in vitro bioassays. Extracts richer in total polyphenols and specific flavonoids, as often obtained via MAE or UAE, consistently show higher antioxidant capacity. This is typically measured using assays like DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) radical scavenging, ABTS (2,2′-azino-bis­(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)) radical scavenging, or ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity). A study by Youwei et al. on R. rugosa found a strong positive correlation (R² > 0.9) between the TPC of extracts obtained by various methods and their DPPH scavenging activity, with the UAE extract exhibiting the lowest IC₅₀ value (highest activity).

Beyond general antioxidant capacity, the impact on enzyme inhibition is crucial. Research has shown that extracts from SFE can be particularly potent enzyme inhibitors. Kwak et al. reported that a supercritical CO₂ extract of Rosa multiflora root demonstrated significant inhibitory activity against MMP-1, suggesting that specific lipophilic or medium-polarity compounds selectively extracted by SFE were responsible for this effect. Similarly, Ibba et al. demonstrated that an SFE extract of R. canina hips had superior antielastase and anticollagenase activity compared to its methanolic Soxhlet extract, even though the Soxhlet extract had a higher TPC. This highlights a critical point of debate: is total phenolic content the best predictor of efficacy? These findings suggest that the presence of specific, highly active compounds, selectively concentrated by certain green methods like SFE, may be more important than the overall quantity of phenolics. Table summarizes representative in vitro antiaging activities of rose extracts obtained via different green methods, illustrating these nuanced differences.

4. Representative in vitro anti-aging–relevant Bioactivities of Rosa Extracts Prepared by Different Methods, Including Antioxidant Capacity (DPPH IC₅₀) and Inhibition of Collagenase and Elastase, Illustrating Method-dependent Differences in Functional Performance .

rose species & part	extraction method	DPPH antioxidant IC50 (μg/mL)	collagenase inhibition (%) at 100 μg/mL	elastase inhibition (%) at 100 μg/mL	reference
Rosa canina (hips)	soxhlet (methanol)	35.2 ± 2.8	31.5 ± 2.5	28.1 ± 2.2
Rosa canina (hips)	SFE (CO2 + ethanol)	48.1 ± 3.5	55.7 ± 4.1	49.6 ± 3.8
Rosa damascena (petals)	maceration (ethanol)	15.8 ± 1.1	42.3 ± 3.0	35.4 ± 2.9
Rosa damascena (petals)	UAE (ethanol)	10.2 ± 0.8	48.9 ± 3.5	40.2 ± 3.1
Rosa rugosa (flowers)	EAE (pectinase)	22.5 ± 1.9	62.1 ± 5.0*	53.3 ± 4.5*

^aEAE data reflects enhanced release of bound phenolics, leading to high enzyme inhibition. The apparent discrepancy in antioxidant IC₅₀ values can be due to the different compositions of free vs bound phenolics.

The data in Table reinforces the idea that different green methods yield extracts with distinct bioactivity profiles. While UAE enhances the extraction of water-soluble antioxidants leading to a lower DPPH IC₅₀, SFE appears to be more effective at concentrating specific compounds responsible for potent anticollagenase and antielastase activity. EAE, by releasing matrix-bound phenolics, can yield extracts with exceptionally high enzyme–inhibitory potential, an area that warrants further investigation.

4.3. In Vivo Evidence and the Research Gap

While in vitro data provides compelling mechanistic evidence, the true test of an antiaging ingredient is its performance in vivo, either in animal models or human clinical trials. This is where the literature on green-extracted rose bioactives currently exhibits a significant gap. While there are numerous studies demonstrating the antiaging effects of generically prepared rose extracts, very few have explicitly used an extract produced by a specific green method and then tested it in vivo. For instance, a notable study by Wira et al. showed that a formulation containing a Damask rose extract could significantly improve skin elasticity and moisture in human volunteers, but the extraction method was a conventional hydroethanolic maceration. Similarly, studies using Drosophila models have shown that rose extracts can extend lifespan and reduce oxidative stress markers, but the extracts were often simple ethanolic preparations

This lack of direct connection represents a major controversy and a critical area for future research. Proponents of green extraction technologies extrapolate from the superior chemical profiles and in vitro data to argue that these extracts must be more effective in vivo. However, without direct comparative studies, this remains an assumption. Critics could argue that factors like skin penetration, metabolic stability, and formulation effects might be more important than the subtle compositional differences seen between, for example, a UAE and an MAE extract. There is a pressing need for well-designed studies that prepare rose extracts using different green methods (e.g., UAE vs SFE vs DES) under optimized conditions, characterize them thoroughly, incorporate them into standardized cosmetic formulations, and then evaluate their antiaging efficacy in rigorous, placebo-controlled human clinical trials. Measuring end points like wrinkle depth reduction (via profilometry), skin elasticity (via cutometry), and collagen content (via biopsy) would provide the definitive evidence needed to validate the tangible benefits of adopting specific green extraction technologies for producing superior antiaging ingredients.

5. Industrial Scalability, Challenges, and Future Prospects

The successful translation of green extraction technologies from the laboratory bench to industrial-scale production for the cosmetic market is fraught with challenges that extend beyond simple chemical efficiency. Techno-economic feasibility, environmental life-cycle impact, regulatory compliance, and integration with downstream processing are all critical considerations. This section evaluates the scalability of these technologies and explores future trends that may shape the production of rose bioactives.

5.1. Techno-Economic and Life-Cycle Assessment

The industrial adoption of any new technology is heavily dependent on a favorable cost-benefit analysis. While green extraction methods promise long-term environmental benefits and potentially superior products, they often involve significant upfront capital investment. , Table provides a semiquantitative comparison of the techno-economic and environmental aspects of key green technologies. SFE systems, for example, represent the highest capital expenditure due to the need for high-pressure vessels and sophisticated control systems. The operational costs can also be high due to the energy required to pressurize the CO₂. In contrast, UAE systems are generally less expensive to set up and have been successfully scaled to industrial levels for various applications. MAE scalability is more contentious; while pilot-scale continuous systems exist, achieving uniform microwave distribution in large, heterogeneous batches of plant material remains a technical hurdle.

5. Semi-quantitative Techno-Economic and Environmental Comparison of Major Green Extraction Technologies for Rose Bioactives, Summarizing Relative CAPEX/OPEX, Scalability Considerations, and Key LCA Impact Hotspots.

technology	capital cost (CAPEX)	operating cost (OPEX)	scalability	key environmental impact (LCA Focus)	references
UAE	medium	low-medium	high (well-established)	electricity consumption for sonication; solvent choice	,
MAE	medium-high	low-medium	medium (batch uniformity challenges)	electricity consumption for microwaves; solvent choice	,
SFE	very high	high	high (mature technology)	high energy demand for compression/heating; CO2 source (recycled vs virgin)	,
EAE	low (reactor)	high (enzymes)	low-medium	enzyme production footprint; downstream processing of aqueous waste	,
DES	low (mixing)	medium-high	low (viscosity, product recovery)	DES component synthesis; energy for solute recovery; solvent recycling efficiency	,

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an essential tool for providing a holistic view of the environmental sustainability of an extraction process, from “cradle to grave.” An LCA for rose bioactive extraction would consider the energy and resources used in cultivating and harvesting the roses, the extraction process itself, solvent production and disposal/recycling, and downstream processing. A critical debate, illuminated by LCA studies, is the true “greenness” of electricity-intensive methods like UAE and MAE, especially if the electricity is sourced from fossil fuels. An SFE process using recycled CO₂ and powered by renewable energy might have a lower overall carbon footprint than a UAE process run on coal-fired electricity, despite SFE’s higher energy demand per unit time. ,, For DES, the LCA is complex; while the solvents themselves can be benign, their synthesis and the energy-intensive steps required for product recovery are major environmental hotspots that must be addressed.

5.2. Future Prospects

To overcome the limitations of individual methods, researchers are increasingly exploring hybrid and sequentially combined extraction techniques. For instance, Enzyme-Assisted Microwave-Assisted Extraction (EAMAE) or Enzyme-Assisted Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction (EAUAE) can synergistically combine the cell wall-degrading specificity of enzymes with the rapid energy transfer of microwaves or ultrasound. This can shorten the long incubation times required for EAE and reduce the required enzyme dosage, making the process more economically viable. Another promising approach is the combination of SFE with subsequent fractionation techniques to isolate specific active compounds from the crude extract, creating highly potent and standardized ingredients.

The ultimate efficacy of a topical antiaging product depends not only on the quality of the active ingredient but also on its ability to penetrate the stratum corneum and reach its target site in the dermis. This is where nanotechnology offers transformative potential. Encapsulating green-extracted rose bioactives into nanocarriers such as liposomes, niosomes, or solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) can significantly enhance their stability, solubility, and skin penetration. Figure illustrates some of these nanodelivery systems. For example, encapsulating a polyphenol-rich rose extract from a UAE process into a liposomal formulation could protect the delicate compounds from oxidation and facilitate their delivery to dermal fibroblasts, thereby maximizing their collagen-boosting effects. The future of high-performance cosmetics will likely involve a seamless integration of green extraction to produce superior actives and nanotechnology to ensure their targeted and efficient delivery.

6.

Nanotechnology-based delivery systems for enhanced skin delivery of rose bioactives. (A) Liposomes are vesicular structures composed of a phospholipid bilayer enclosing an aqueous core. (B) Niosomes are similar to liposomes but are formed from nonionic surfactants. (C) SLNs have a solid lipid core. These nanocarriers can encapsulate both hydrophilic and lipophilic rose bioactives, improving their stability and penetration through the stratum corneum.

5.3. The Biorefinery Concept

A truly sustainable approach to utilizing Rosa species involves a biorefinery concept, where every part of the plant and every process stream is valorized, moving toward a zero-waste goal. , After the primary extraction of high-value compounds (e.g., essential oil by SFE or phenolics by UAE), the residual biomass is not waste but a secondary raw material. This spent material, rich in polysaccharides, proteins, and residual phenolics, can be subjected to further processing. For example, it could undergo EAE to release bound sugars for fermentation into bioethanol or lactic acid, or it could be processed to extract dietary fibers for nutraceutical applications. Even the aqueous streams from EAE or the hydrosol from distillation can be concentrated to recover valuable water-soluble compounds. , Figure outlines a hypothetical integrated biorefinery model for rose processing. This holistic approach aligns perfectly with the principles of a circular economy and represents the ultimate aspiration of green chemical engineering, transforming the production of cosmetic ingredients into a comprehensively sustainable industrial ecosystem.

7.

A proposed integrated biorefinery concept for the valorization of rose processing byproducts.

6. Conclusion

This review has critically examined the application of green extraction technologies for obtaining bioactive compounds from Rosa species, with a specific focus on their impact on chemical composition and antiaging efficacy. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that green methods such as UAE, MAE, SFE, EAE, and DES extraction offer significant advantages over conventional techniques, including reduced processing times, lower solvent and energy consumption, and often superior yields of target compounds. More importantly, the choice of green technology profoundly influences the chemical fingerprint of the resulting extract. MAE and UAE excel in rapidly extracting polar polyphenols, leading to high antioxidant capacities. SFE provides unparalleled purity for volatile oils and selectively concentrates certain lipophilic or medium-polarity compounds with potent enzyme–inhibitory activities. EAE offers a highly specific route to releasing cell–wall bound phenolics, while DES presents a novel platform for simultaneously extracting and stabilizing delicate molecules like anthocyanins.

However, a critical analysis of the current literature reveals several controversies and research gaps. There is no universally superior green method; the optimal choice is contingent on the specific bioactive class targeted. The debate continues regarding the potential for thermal degradation in MAE, radical formation in UAE, the high cost and polar-compound limitation of SFE, the economic viability of EAE, and the practical challenges of product recovery from DES. The most significant gap identified is the lack of direct in vivo and clinical evidence linking extracts prepared by specific green methods to tangible antiaging outcomes in humans. Future research must urgently bridge this gap by conducting rigorous, comparative clinical trials to validate the hypothesized superiority of these advanced extracts.

Looking forward, the future of rose bioactive production lies in the intelligent integration of technologies. The development of hybrid extraction systems, the adoption of a zero-waste biorefinery approach, and the synergistic combination of green-extracted actives with advanced nanotechnology-based delivery systems will be pivotal. Further research should also focus on comprehensive techno-economic analyses and life-cycle assessments to guide the sustainable scale-up and industrial implementation of these promising technologies. By continuing to innovate at the intersection of green chemistry, natural product science, and cosmetology, we can unlock the full potential of the rose, delivering next-generation antiaging products that are not only highly effective but also produced in harmony with the principles of environmental stewardship.

Collectively, this synthesis addresses the objectives set out in the Introduction. It shows that green extraction affects Rosa bioactives through method-specific physical and solvent mechanisms; that those mechanisms reshape the chemical profile in ways that can alter antioxidant, anticollagenase, antielastase, and cellular-protection outcomes; and that translation to cosmeceutical production depends not only on yield but also on solvent recovery, process cost, product standardization, and clinical validation. The most defensible near-term direction is not to select a single universal technology, but to match the extraction platform to the target compound class and intended product claim, then validate the extract in standardized formulations and well-designed in vivo or clinical studies.

No primary research results, software or code have been included and no new data were generated or analyzed as part of this review.

X.N. and T.W. contributed to conceptualization, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition. X.N., T.W., and J.Y. contributed to methodology, investigation, and formal analysis. J.Y., X.C., R.L., and Z.Y. contributed to data curation, visualization, and literature collection. X.N. prepared the original draft. T.W., J.Y., X.C., R.L., and Z.Y. contributed to writing–review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.