International guidelines for the in vivo assessment of skin properties in non-clinical settings: Part 2. transepidermal water loss and skin hydration
Background There is an emerging perspective that it is not sufficient to just assess skin exposure to physical and chemical stressors in workplaces, but that it is also important to assess the condition, i.e. skin barrier function of the exposed skin at the time of exposure. The workplace environmen...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Skin research and technology Vol. 19; no. 3; pp. 265 - 278 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
England
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.08.2013
John Wiley & Sons, Inc |
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 0909-752X, 1600-0846, 1600-0846 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background
There is an emerging perspective that it is not sufficient to just assess skin exposure to physical and chemical stressors in workplaces, but that it is also important to assess the condition, i.e. skin barrier function of the exposed skin at the time of exposure. The workplace environment, representing a non‐clinical environment, can be highly variable and difficult to control, thereby presenting unique measurement challenges not typically encountered in clinical settings.
Methods
An expert working group convened a workshop as part of the 5th International Conference on Occupational and Environmental Exposure of Skin to Chemicals (OEESC) to develop basic guidelines and best practices (based on existing clinical guidelines, published data, and own experiences) for the in vivo measurement of transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin hydration in non‐clinical settings with specific reference to the workplace as a worst‐case scenario.
Results
Key elements of these guidelines are: (i) to minimize or recognize, to the extent feasible, the influences of relevant endogenous‐, exogenous‐, environmental‐ and measurement/instrumentation‐related factors; (ii) to measure TEWL with a closed‐chamber type instrument; (iii) report results as a difference or percent change (rather than absolute values); and (iv) accurately report any notable deviations from this guidelines.
Conclusion
It is anticipated that these guidelines will promote consistent data reporting, which will facilitate inter‐comparison of study results. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ark:/67375/WNG-S9THXC4T-H istex:54BC4E0F8D3097473C25CD3AE51E9FECD5D66EA0 ArticleID:SRT12037 NIOSH ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 0909-752X 1600-0846 1600-0846 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/srt.12037 |