Friction Foot Blisters: The Effect of Hydration on the Risk of Blister Creation

Living reference work entry


Foot skin is susceptible to developing a range of mechanical dermatoses as a consequence of the repetitive loads generated during walking and running. Friction blisters are included in this class of conditions and should not be underestimated as they can be painful, become infected, and under certain occupations cause disability. The primary influencing factor that contributes to the changes in friction is that of the accumulation of moisture at the interface between the textile and the skin. This concept is even more pertinent to foot skin due to the added influence of the enclosure of the foot within the shoe. A combination of a humid inshoe environment and factors intrinsic to the structure of foot skin places the skin at increased risk of blister. This chapter brings together research outcomes from the fields of tribology, tissue mechanics, and textile design in order to better understand how changes in hydration may contribute to the creation of friction foot blisters.


Foot Skin Blister Hydration Tissue mechanics Friction Compression Textiles 


  1. Akers WA. Sulzberger on friction blistering. Int J Dermatol. 1977;16(5):369–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Akers WA, Sulzberger MB. The friction blister. Mil Med. 1972;137(1):1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Asserin J, Zahouani H, Humbert PH, Couturaud V, Mougin D. Measurement of the friction coefficient of the human skin in vivo: quantification of the cutaneous smoothness. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2000;19(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogerd CP, Rechsteiner I, Wüst B, Rossi RM, Brühwiler PA. The effect of two sock fabrics on physiological parameters associated with blister incidence: a laboratory study. Ann Occup Hyg. 2011;55(5):510–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogerd CP, Niedermann R, Brühwiler PA, Rossi RM. The effect of two sock fabrics on perception and physiological parameters associated with blister incidence: a field study. Ann Occup Hyg. 2012;56(4):481–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan Jr FH. Managing blisters in competitive athletes. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2002;1(6):319–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bush RA, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA. The association of blisters with musculoskeletal injuries in male and marine recruits. JAMA. 2000;90(4):194–8.Google Scholar
  8. Comaish S, Bottoms E. The skin and friction: deviations from Amonton’s laws, and the effects of hydration and lubrication. Br J Dermatol. 1971;84(1):37–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Frictional properties of human skin: relation to age, sex and anatomical region, stratum corneum hydration and transepidermal water loss. Br J Dermatol. 1990;123(4):473–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dai XQ, Li Y, Zhang M, Cheung JT. Effect of sock on biomechanical responses of foot during walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006;21(3):314–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elsner P, Wilhelm D, Maibach HI. Frictional properties of human forearm and vulvar skin: influence of age and correlation with transepidermal water loss and capacitance. Dermatologica. 1990;181(2):88–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hashmi F, Richards BS, Forghany S, Hatton AL, Nester CJ. The formation of friction blisters on the foot: the development of a laboratory-based blister creation model. Skin Res Technol. 2013;19(1):e479–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hennig E, et al. The influence of sock construction on foot climate in running shoes. Cleveland: Footwear Biomechanics Symposium, Footwear Biomechanics Group (International Society of Biomechanics); 2005.Google Scholar
  14. Herring KM, Richie Jr DH. Comparison of cotton and acrylic socks using a generic cushion sole design for runners. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1993;83(9):515–22. Erratum in: J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1993 Nov;83(11):624.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Highley KR, Coomey M, DenBeste M, Wolfram LJ. Frictional properties of skin. J Invest Dermatol. 1977;69(3):303–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoeffler DF. Friction blisters and cellulitis in a navy recruit population. Mil Med. 1975;140(5):333–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Institute for Preventative Foot Health [Internet]. National foot health assessment; [cited 2014 May 9]. Available from
  18. Kirkham S, Lam S, Nester CJ, Hashmi F. The effect of hydration on the risk of friction blister formation on the heel of the foot. Skin Res Technol. 2014;20(2):246–53.Google Scholar
  19. Knapik JJ, Reynolds KL, Duplantis KL, Jones BH. Friction blisters: pathophysiology, prevention and treatment. Sports Med. 1995;20(3):136–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Knapik JJ, Hamlet MP, Thompson KJ, Jones BH. Influence of boot-sock systems on frequency and severity of foot blisters. Mil Med. 1996;161(10):594–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Knapik JJ, Reynolds K, Barson J. Influence of an antiperspirant on foot blister incidence during cross-country hiking. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998;39(2):202–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kogut KT, Rodewald LE. A field survey of the emergency preparedness of wilderness hikers. J Wilderness Med. 1994;5(2):171–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koudine AA, Barquins M, Anthoine PH, Aubert L, Lévêque JL. Frictional properties of skin: proposal of a new approach. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2000;22(1):11–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lodén M, Olsson H, Axéll T, Linde YW. Friction, capacitance and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in dry atopic and normal skin. Br J Dermatol. 1992;126(2):137–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mailler-Savage EA, Adams BB. Skin manifestations of running. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;55(2):290–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Manna I, Pradhan D, Ghosh S, Kar SK, Dhara P. A comparative study of foot dimension between adult male and female and evaluation of foot hazards due to using of footwear. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci. 2001;20(4):241–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Nacht S, Close J, Yeung D, Gans EH. Skin friction coefficient: changes induced by skin hydration and emollient application and correlation with perceived skin feel. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1981;32:55–65.Google Scholar
  28. Naylor P. The measurement of epidermal strength. Trans St John Hosp Dermatol Soc. 1952;31:29–33.Google Scholar
  29. Naylor PFD. Experimental friction blisters. Br J Dermatol. 1955;67(10):327–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Patterson HS, Woolley TW, Lednar WM. Foot blister risk factors in an ROTC summer camp population. Mil Med. 1994;159(2):130–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Prall JK. Instrumental evaluation of the effects of cosmetic products on skin surfaces with particular reference to smoothness. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1973;24:693–707.Google Scholar
  32. Reynolds K, Darrigrand A, Roberts D, Knapik J, Pollard J, Duplantis K, Jones B. Effects of an antiperspirant with emollients on foot-sweat accumulation and blister formation while walking in the heat. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;33(4):626–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Reynolds K, Williams J, Miller C, Mathis A, Dettori J. Injuries and risk factors in an 18-day Marine winter mountain training exercise. Mil Med. 2000;165(12):905–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanders JE, Daly CH. Normal and shear stresses on a residual limb in a prosthetic socket during ambulation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1993;30:191–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sanders JE, Daly CH, Burgess EM. Interface shear stresses during ambulation with a below-knee prosthetic limb. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1992;29(4):1–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanders JE, Daly CH, Burgess EM. Clinical measurement of normal and shear stresses on a trans-tibial stump: characteristics of waveform shapes during walking. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1993;17:38–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sanders JE, Lam D, Dralle A, Okumura R. Interface pressures and shear stresses at 13 socket sites on two persons with transtibial amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1997;34:19–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sanders JE, Greve JM, Mitchell SB, Zachariah SG. Material properties of commonly-used interface materials and their static coefficients of friction with skin and socks. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1998;35(2):161–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sanders JE, Nicholson BS, Zachariah SG, et al. Testing of elastomeric liners used in limb prosthetics: classification of 15 products by mechanical performance. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(2):175–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Shimi AF E –. In vivo skin friction measurements. J Soc Cosmet. 1977;28:37–51.Google Scholar
  41. Sian-Wei Tan S, Kok SK, Lim JK. Efficacy of a new blister prevention plaster under tropical conditions. Wilderness Environ Med. 2008;19(2):77–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sivamani RK, Goodman J, Gitis NV, Maibach HI. Friction coefficient of skin in real-time. Skin Res Technol. 2003a;9(3):235–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Sivamani RK, Wu GC, Gitis NV, Maibach HI. Tribological testing of skin products: gender, age, and ethnicity on the volar forearm. Skin Res Technol. 2003b;9(4):299–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sulzberger MB, Cortese TA, Fishman L, Wiley HS. Studies on blisters produced by friction. I. Results of linear rubbing and twisting techniques. J Invest Dermatol. 1966;47(5):456–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Tiggelen D, Wickes S, Coorevits P, Dumalin M, Witvrouv E. Sock systems to prevent foot blisters and the impact on overuse injuries of the knee joint. Mil Med. 2009;174(2):183–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhong W, Xing MM, Pan N, Maibach HI. Textiles and human skin, microclimate, cutaneous reactions: an overview. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2006;25(1):23–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health Sciences ResearchUniversity of SalfordManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations