Is there any barrier impairment in sensitive skin?: A quantitative analysis of sensitive skin by mathematical modeling of transepidermal water loss desorption curves

Skin Research and Technology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 181-185

  Pinto, Pedro ^a   Rosado, Catarina ^a   Parreirão, Catarina ^a   Rodrigues, Luis Monteiro ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDADE LUSÓFONA DE HUMANIDADES E TECNOLOGIAS   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Barrier impairment; POST; Sensitive skin; TEWL

Indexed keywords

BARRIER FUNCTIONS; BARRIER IMPAIRMENT; CONTROL GROUPS; COSMETIC INDUSTRY; COSMETIC PRODUCTS; DATA POINTS; HALF-LIFE PERIOD; IMMUNE SYSTEM CELLS; LARGE PARTS; MATHEMATICAL MODELING; POST; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVE SKIN; SKIN CONDITIONS; STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE; STRESS TEST; TEWL; TRANSEPIDERMAL WATER LOSS; TWO PARAMETER; WATER MASS;

MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

DESORPTION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NORMAL HUMAN; PLASTIC OCCLUSION STRESS TEST; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SKIN EXAMINATION; SKIN FUNCTION; SKIN SENSITIVITY; SKIN WATER LOSS;

ADULT; COSMETICS; DERMATITIS, CONTACT; DERMATOLOGY; EPIDERMIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SKIN CARE; SKIN PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES; SKIN TESTS; WATER; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79953093113     PISSN: 0909752X     EISSN: 16000846     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0846.2010.00478.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Kligman AM, Sadiq I, Zhen Y, Crosby M. Experimental studies on the nature of sensitive skin. Skin Res Technol 2006; 12: 217-222.
2. Willis CM, Lacharrière S, Shaw O, Bavarel M, Reiche R, Jourdain P, Bastien JD. Sensitive skin: an epidemiological study. Br J Dermatol 2001; 145: 258-263.
3. Pons-Guiraud A. Sensitive skin: a complex and multifactorial syndrome. J Cosm Dermatol 2004; 3: 145-148.
4. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. Recognition of chemically vulnerable and delicate skin. In: Frost P, Horwitz SN, eds. Principles of cosmetics for the dermatologist. St. Louis: Mosby, 1982: 287-296.
5. Farage A, Katsarou A, Maibach HI. Sensory, clinical and physiological factors in sensitive skin: a review. Contact Dermatitis 2006; 55: 1-14.
6. Querleux B, de Lacharriére O. Neurophysiology of self-perceived sensitive skin subjects by magnetic resonance imaging. In: Barel AO, Paye M, Maibach HI, eds. Handbook of cosmetic science and technology. New York: Informa Healthcare, 2009: 75-81.
7. Paquet F, Piérard-Franchimont C, Fumal I, Goffin V, Paye M, Pierard GE. Sensitive skin at menopause; dew point and electrometric proprieties of the stratum corneum. Maturitas 1998; 28: 221-227.
8. Goffin VC, Piérard-Franchimont G, Piérard GE. Sensitive skin and stratum corneum reactivity to household cleaning products. Contact Dermatitis 2006; 34: 81-8.
9. Pelosi A, Berardesca E. Tests for sensitive skin. In Barel AO, Paye M, Maibach HI, eds. Handbook of cosmetic science and technology. New York: Informa Healthcare, 2009: 83-89.
10. Lee CH, Maibach HI. The sodium lauryl sulfate model: an overview. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 331: 1-7.
11. Marriot M, Holmes J, Peters L, Cooper K, Rowson M, Basketter DA. The complex problem of sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 53: 93-99.
12. Gean CJ, Tur E, Maibach HI, Guy RH. Cutaneous responses to topical methyl nicotinate in black, oriental, and caucasian subjects. Arch Dermatol Res 1989; 281: 95-98.
13. Primavera G, Berardesca E. Sensitive skin: mechanisms and diagnosis. Int J Cosmet Sci 2005; 27: 1-10.
14. Issachar N, Gall Y, Borell MT, Poelman MC. pH measurements during lactic acid stinging test in normal and sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 36: 152-155.
15. Yosipovitch G, Maibach HI. Thermal sensory analyser: boon to the study of c and a fibers. Curr Probl Dermatol 1998; 26: 84-89.
16. Seidenari S, Francomano M, Mantovani L. Baseline biophysical parameters in subjects with sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 38: 311-315.
17. Bornkessel A, Flach M, Arens-Corell M, Elsner P, Fluhr JW. Functional assessment of a washing emulsion for sensitive skin: mild impairment of stratum corneum hydration, pH, barrier function, lipid content, integrity and cohesion in a controlled washing test. Skin Res Technol 2005; 11: 53-60.
18. Loffler H, Dickel H, Kuss O, Diepgen TL, Effendy I. Characteristics of self-estimated enhanced skin susceptibility. Acta Dermato-Venereol 2001; 81: 343-346.
19. Lotte C, Rougier A, Wilson DR, Maibach HI. In vivo relationship between transepidermal water loss and percutaneous penetration of some organic compounds in man: effect of anatomic site. Arch Dermatol Res 1987; 279: 351-356.
20. Chilcott RP, Dalton CH, Emanuel AJ, Allen CE, Bradley ST. The effects of physical damage on TEWL. In: Marks R, Leveque JL, Voegeli R, eds. The essential stratum corneum. London: Martin Dunitz Ltd, 2002: 287-302.
21. Chilcott RP, Dalton CH, Emmanuel AJ, Allen CE, Bradley ST. Transepidermal water loss does not correlate with skin barrier function in vitro. J Invest Dermatol 2002; 118: 871-875.
22. Pinto PC, Pereira LM, Minhós R, Rodrigues LM. Testing the discriminative capacity of compartmental modelling for the analysis of the in vivo epidermal water content changes following topical application under occlusion. IFSCC Mag 2002; 5: 1-6.
23. Rosado, Catarina, Pinto P, Rodrigues LM Modeling TEWL-desorption curves: a new practical approach for the quantitative in vivo assessment of skin barrier. Exp Dermatol 2005; 14: 386-390.
24. Rosado C, Pinto P, Rodrigues LM. Assessment of moisturizers and barrier function restoration using dynamic methods. Skin Res Technol 2009; 15: 77-83.
25. Goodyear MD, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T. The Declaration of Helsinki. Br Med J 2007; 335: 624-625.
26. Rogiers VEEMCO Group. EEMCO Guidance for the assessment of transepidermal water loss in cosmetic sciences. Skin Pharmacol Apll Skin Physiol 2001; 14: 117-128.
27. Rodrigues L, Pinto P, Galego N, Silva P, Pereira LM. Transepidermal water loss kinetic modelling approach for the parameterization of skin water dynamics. Skin Res Technol 1999; 5: 72-82.
28. Pinto P, Rodrigues LM Influence of the time of occlusion on the quantitative parameters obtained by modelling trans-epidermal water loss curves to describe the human cutaneous barrier function in vivo. Med Biol Eng Comput 2005; 43: 771-775.
29. Rodrigues LM, Pinto PC, Pereira LM. Quantitative description of human skin water dynamics by a disposition-decomposition analysis (DDA) of trans-epidermal water loss and epidermal capacitance. Skin Res Technol 2003; 9: 24-30.
30. Nilsson J. Measurement of water exchange through skin. Med Biol Eng Comput 1997; 15: 209-218.
31. Distante F, Rigano L, Dapos&;Agostino R, Bonfigli A, Berardesca E. Intra- and inter-individual differences in sensitive skin. Cosmet Toiletr 2002; 117: 39-46.
32. Berardesca E, Fideli D, Gabba P, Cespa M, Rabbiosi G, Maibach HI. Ranking of surfactant skin irritancy in vivo in man using the plastic occlusion stress test (POST). Contact Dermatitis 1990; 23: 1-5.
33. Berardesca E, Herbst R, Maibach H. Plastic occlusion stress test as a model to investigate the effects of skin delipidization on the stratum corneum water holding capacity in vivo. Dermatology 1993; 187: 91-94.