Advertisement

Skin Bioengineering

  • Berardesca Enzo
  • Cameli Norma
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Noninvasive techniques provide useful and objective information on skin barrier efficiency, skin color, and skin structure in general; therefore, these techniques can be of support in investigating contact dermatitis and irritation in particular. However, their use can be sometimes cumbersome and complex especially in terms of standardization of measures and interpretation of results.

Keywords

Trans Epidermal Water Loss (TEWL) Capacitance Colorimetry Stratum corneum 

References

  1. Barel AO et al (1991) Non-invasive electrical measurements for evaluating the water content of the horny layer: comparison between capacitance and conductance measurements. In: Scott RC et al (eds) Prediction of percutaneous penetration: methods, measurements, modelling. IBC Technical Services Ltd., London, p 46Google Scholar
  2. Berardesca E (1997) EEMCO guidance for the assessment of stratum corneum hydration: electrical methods. Skin Res Technol 3:126–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berardesca E, Borroni G (1995) Instrumental evaluation of cutaneous hydration. Clin Dermatol 13(4):323–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berardesca E, Maibach HI (1988) Bioengineering and the patch test. Contact Dermatitis 18(1):3–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Berardesca E et al (1998) Differences in stratum corneum pH gradient when comparing white Caucasian and black African-American skin. Br J Dermatol 139(5):855–857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Berardesca E, Leveque JL, Masson P (2002) EEMCO guidance for the measurement of skin microcirculation. Skin Pharmacol Appl Ski Physiol 15(6):442–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berardesca E, Loden M, Serup J, Masson P, Rodrigues L (2018) The revised EEMCO guidance for the in vivo measurement of water in the skin. Skin Res Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.12599 in press
  8. Berndt U, Hinnen U, Iliev D, Elsner P (1999) Is occupational irritant contact dermatitis predictable by cutaneous bioengineering methods? Results of the Swiss metalworkers’ eczema study (PROMETES). Dermatology 198(4):351–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bircher A et al (1994) Guidelines for measurement of cutaneous blood flow by laser Doppler flowmetry. A report from the standardization Group of the European Society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 30(2):65–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornkessel A et al (2005) Investigation of a washing emulsion for sensitive skin-an application test. Skin Res Technol 11(1):53–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Distante F et al (2002) Intra- and inter- individual differences in sensitive skin. Cosmetic Toilet Mag 117(7):39–46Google Scholar
  12. EEC note for guidance: good clinical practice for trials on medicinal products in the European Community (1990) CPMP working party on efficacy of medicinal products. Pharmacol Toxicol 67(4):361–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehlers C et al (2001) Comparison of two pH meters used for skin surface pH measurement: the pH meter “pH900” from Courage & Khazaka versus the pH meter “1140” from Mettler Toledo. Skin Res Technol 7(2):84–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fluhr JW, Elias PM (2002) Stratum corneum pH: formation and function of the “Acid Mantle”. Exog Dermatol 1:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fluhr JW, Darlenski R, Angelova-Fischer I et al (2008) Skin irritation and sensitization: mechanisms and new approaches for risk assessment 1. Skin irritation. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 21:124–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fullerton A et al (1996) Guidelines for measurement of skin colour and erythema. A report from the standardization Group of the European Society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 35(1):1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Issachar N et al (1997) pH measurements during lactic acid stinging test in normal and sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 36(3):152–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Issachar N et al (1998) Correlation between percutaneous penetration of methyl nicotinate and sensitive skin, using laser Doppler imaging. Contact Dermatitis 39(4):182–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. John SM, Uter W, Schwanitz H (2000) Relevance of multiparametric skin bioengineering in a prospectively followed cohort of junior hairdressers. Contact Dermatitis 43:161–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kütting B, Uter W, Baumeister T, Schaller B, Weistenhöfer W, Drexler H (2010) Non-invasive bioengineering methods in an intervention study in 1020 male metal workers: results and implications for occupational dermatology. Contact Dermatitis 62(5):272–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Nilsson GE (1977) Measurement of water exchange through skin. Med Biol Eng Comput 15(3):209–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Parra JL, Paye M (2003) EEMCO guidance for the in vivo assessment of skin surface pH. Skin Pharmacol Appl Ski Physiol 16(3):188–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pinnagoda J et al (1989) Transepidermal water loss with and without sweat gland inactivation. Contact Dermatitis 21(1):16–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinnagoda J et al (1990) Guidelines for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement. A report from the standardization Group of the European Society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 22(3):164–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Robinson S, Robinsonc AH (1954) Chemical composition of sweat. Physiol Rev 34(2):202–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rogiers V (2001) EEMCO guidance for the assessment of transepidermal water loss in cosmetic sciences. Skin Pharmacol Appl Ski Physiol 14(2):117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Villarama CD, Maibach H (2004) Sensitive skin and transepidermal water loss. In: Fluhr JW et al (eds) Bioengeneering of the skin: water and stratum corneum, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. Wahlberg JE, Nilsson G (1984) Skin irritancy from propylene glycol. Acta Derm Venereol 64(4):286–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilhelm KP, Cua A, Maibach H (1991) Skin aging. Effect on transepidermal water loss, stratum corneum hydration, skin surface pH, and casual sebum content. Arch Dermatol 127(12):1806–1809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wu Y et al (2003) Correlation between stinging, TEWL and capacitance. Skin Res Technol 9(2):90–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Yosipovitch G et al (1993) Skin surface pH in intertriginous areas in NIDDM patients. Possible correlation to candidal intertrigo. Diabetes Care 16(4):560–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Yosipovitch G et al (2004) Circadian and ultradian (12 h) variations of skin blood flow and barrier function in non-irritated and irritated skin-effect of topical corticosteroids. J Invest Dermatol 122(3):824–829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San Gallicano Dermatological InstituteRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations