Advertisement

Urea-containing moisturizers influence barrier properties of normal skin

  • Marie Lodén
Original Paper

Abstract

Moisturizers are used in the treatment of dry skin, both clinically and in cosmetic products. In the present study the influence of different moisturizers on the normal skin barrier properties was evaluated by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin capacitance. In addition, the skin reactivity to a topically applied surfactant, sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS), following the use of the moisturizers was examined. The skin reaction was assessed visually and by measuring TEWL and superficial blood flow. Treatment with two urea-containing moisturizers for 10 and 20 days decreased TEWL. The irritant reactions after exposure to SLS were also significantly decreased after prior treatment for 20 days with the urea-containing moisturizers. In a double-blind vehicle-controlled part of the study, urea was found to decrease the skin susceptibility to SLS after only three applications. However, this decrease in skin reactivity was not preceded by a reduction in TEWL. Skin capacitance increased after three applications of urea-containing moisturizers and was still increased after 10 days, but not after 20 days of this treatment. Treatment for 20 days with two moisturizers without urea did not influence either TEWL or the susceptibility to irritation from SLS, but it increased the skin capacitance significantly. The mechanism underlying these changes is not known. The lower degree of SLS-induced irritation in the skin treated previously with urea-containing moisturizers may be of clinical relevance in reducing contact dermatitis from irritant stimuli.

Key words

Sodium lauryl sulphate TEWL LDV Corneometer Skin hydration 

References

  1. 1.
    Agner T, Serup J (1989) Seasonal variation of skin resistance to irritants. Br J Dermatol 121:323–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agner T, Damm P, Skouby SO (1991) Menstrual cycle and skin reactivity. J Am Acad Dermatol 24:566–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allenby AC, Creasey NH, Edginton AG, Fletcher JA, Schock C (1969) Mechanism of action of accelerants on skin penetration. Br J Dermatol 81 [Suppl 4]:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beastall J, Guy RH, Hadgraft J, Wilding, I (1986) The influence of urea on percutaneous absorption. Pharm Res 3:294–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blank IH, Moloney J, Emslie AG, Simon I, Apt C (1984) The diffusion of water across the stratum corneum as a function of its water content. J Invest Dermatol 82:188–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis SS (1971) Hydrophobic bonding in soap-stabilized emulsions. J Pharm Pharmacol [Suppl] 23:161S-169SGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denda M, Koyama J, Namba R, Horii I (1994) Stratum corneum lipid morphology and transepidermal water loss in normal skin and surfactant- induced scaly skin. Arch Dermatol Res 286: 41–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frödin T, Helander P, Molin L, Skogh M (1988) Hydration of human stratum corneum studied in vivo by optothermal infrared spectrometry, electrical capacitance measurement, and evaporimetry. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 68:461–467Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fullerton A, Broby-Johansen U, Agner T (1994) Sodium lauryl sulphate penetration in an in vitro model using human skin. Contact Dermatitis 30:222–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grice K, Sattar H, Baker H (1973) Urea and retinoic acid in ichthyosis and their effect on transepidermal water loss and water holding capacity of stratum corneum. Acta Derm Venereol (Stock) 53:114–118Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grove GL, Kligman AM (1983) Corneocytes size as an indirect measure of epidermal proliferative activity. In: Marks R, Plewig G (eds) Stratum corneum. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 191–194Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hannuksela A, Kinnunen T (1992) Moisturizers prevent irritant dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 72:42–44Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hellgren L, Larsson K (1974) On the effect of urea on human epidermis. Dermatologica 149:289–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim CK, Kim J-J, Chi S-C, Schim C-K (1993) Effect of fatty acids and urea on the penetration of ketoprofen through rat skin. Int J Pharm 99:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lieb LM, Nash RA, Matias JR, Orentreich N (1988) A new in vitro method for transepidermal water loss: a possible method for moisturizer evaluation. J Soc Cosmet Chem 39:107–119Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lippold BC, Hackemüller D (1990) The influence of skin, moisturizers on drug penetration in vivo. Int J Pharm 61:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lodén M, Bengtsson A (1990) Mechanical removal of the superficial portion of the stratum corneum by a scrub cream: methods for the objective assessment of the effects. J Soc Cosmet Chem 41:111–121Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lodén M, Lindberg M (1991) The influence of a single application of different moisturizers on the skin capacitance. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 71:79–82Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lodén M, Olsson H, Axéll T, Linde YW (1992) Friction, capacitance and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in dry atopic and normal skin. Br J Dermatol 126:137–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nilsson GE (1977) On the measurement of evaporative water loss. Methods and clinical applications. Linköping Universität Medical Dissertations, no. 48. Linköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Potts RO (1986) Stratum corneum hydration: experimental techniques and interpretation of results. J Soc Cosmet Chem 37: 9–33Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Potts RO, Francoeur ML (1991) The influence of stratum corneum morphology on water permeability. J Invest Dermatol 96:495–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rieger MM, Deem DE (1974) Skin moisturizers. II. The effects of cosmetic ingredients on human stratum corneum. J Soc Cosmet Chem 25:253–262Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ryatt KS, Mobayen M, Stevenson JM, Maibach HI, Guy RH (1988) Methodology to measure the transient effect of occlusion on skin penetration and stratum corneum hydration in vivo. Br J Dermatol 119:307–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Serup J (1992) A double-blind comparison of two creams containing urea as the active ingredient. Assessment of efficacy and side-effects by non-invasive techniques and a clinical scoring scheme. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 177:34–38Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stüttgen G (1989) Penetrationsförderung lokal applizierter Wirkstoffe durch Harnstoff. Hautarzt 40 [Suppl 9]:27–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Swanbeck G (1968) A new treatment of ichthyosis and other hyperkeratotic conditions. Acta Derm Venereol, (Stockh) 48: 123–127Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tenland T (1982) On laser Doppler flowmetry. Methods and microvascular applications. Linköping University Medical Dissertations, no. 136. Linköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wahlberg JE, Swanbeck G (1973) The effect of urea and lactic acid on the percutaneous absorption of hydrocortisone. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 53:207–210Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wohlrab W (1984) The influence of urea on the penetration kinetics of topically applied corticosteroids. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 64:233–238Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wohlrab W (1989) Bedeutung von Harnstoff in der externen Therapia. Hautarzt 40:35–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wohlrab W (1990) The influence of urea on the penetration kinetics of vitamin-A-acid into human skin. Z Hautkr 65:803–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wohlrab W, Böhm W (1975) Epidermisreaktion nach Langzeiteinwirkung von Harnstoff. Dermatologica 151:149–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Lodén
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of DermatologyUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations