No description available.

Aims and objectives: The research aims and objectives of this study were: Firstly to determine the positive effects and possible disadvantages of three types of barrier creams on skin barrier function by determining skin barrier function by measuring stratum corneum hydration transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin surface pH. Secondly to compare different racial skin types (African skin to Caucasian skin) by determining the effects of barrier cream on skin barrier function. Finally to compare the effect of the three different barrier creams on four different anatomical areas. Methods: Thirty eight non-smoking male test subjects took part in this study where three different types of barrier creams were tested on their arms and hands in a controlled laboratory environment. The thirty eight test subjects consisted of nineteen African and nineteen Caucasian test subjects. Three parameters were measured namely TEWL, stratum corneum hydration and pH condition of the skin. TEWL was measured using a Vapometer (Delfin Technology Ltd. Finland). The Multi probe Adapter system (MPA) (Courage and Khazaka, Germany) was used with a temperature and humidity sensor and with the following probes all from Courage and Khazaka, Germany: a Corneometer measuring skin hydration and a pH-Meter measuring skin surface pH. The measurements were repeated on each of the four sampling areas (forearm, wrist, back of hand and palm) with a reasonable time interval between each measurement. After the baseline measurement the barrier cream was applied by the researcher on the test subjects’ dominant arm. The long term effects were determined after the baseline measurement in intervals of 2 hours. Directly after each measurement the barrier cream was reapplied. Results: Gloves In A Bottle™ increased stratum corneum hydration, had no effect on TEWL and increased skin surface pH, whereas Reinol™ increased stratum corneum hydration and decreased TEWL and had no effect on pH values. Travabon™ decreased stratum corneum hydration and TEWL and had no effect on skin surface pH. The results indicated that there were significant differences between Caucasian and African test subjects with the use of barrier creams, because of the baseline differences and the reaction to barrier creams showed different results. There were also statistically significant differences in the four different anatomical areas where the barrier creams were applied. Conclusion: Barrier creams are beneficial in the workplace, although it should be taken into consideration that different ethnicities react differently to barrier creams under different workplace situations and therefore this should be taken into account when selecting a barrier cream. / Thesis (MSc (Occupational Hygiene))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

Aims and objectives: The research aims and objectives of this study were: Firstly to determine the positive effects and possible disadvantages of three types of barrier creams on skin barrier function by determining skin barrier function by measuring stratum corneum hydration transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin surface pH. Secondly to compare different racial skin types (African skin to Caucasian skin) by determining the effects of barrier cream on skin barrier function. Finally to compare the effect of the three different barrier creams on four different anatomical areas. Methods: Thirty eight non-smoking male test subjects took part in this study where three different types of barrier creams were tested on their arms and hands in a controlled laboratory environment. The thirty eight test subjects consisted of nineteen African and nineteen Caucasian test subjects. Three parameters were measured namely TEWL, stratum corneum hydration and pH condition of the skin. TEWL was measured using a Vapometer (Delfin Technology Ltd. Finland). The Multi probe Adapter system (MPA) (Courage and Khazaka, Germany) was used with a temperature and humidity sensor and with the following probes all from Courage and Khazaka, Germany: a Corneometer measuring skin hydration and a pH-Meter measuring skin surface pH. The measurements were repeated on each of the four sampling areas (forearm, wrist, back of hand and palm) with a reasonable time interval between each measurement. After the baseline measurement the barrier cream was applied by the researcher on the test subjects’ dominant arm. The long term effects were determined after the baseline measurement in intervals of 2 hours. Directly after each measurement the barrier cream was reapplied. Results: Gloves In A Bottle™ increased stratum corneum hydration, had no effect on TEWL and increased skin surface pH, whereas Reinol™ increased stratum corneum hydration and decreased TEWL and had no effect on pH values. Travabon™ decreased stratum corneum hydration and TEWL and had no effect on skin surface pH. The results indicated that there were significant differences between Caucasian and African test subjects with the use of barrier creams, because of the baseline differences and the reaction to barrier creams showed different results. There were also statistically significant differences in the four different anatomical areas where the barrier creams were applied. Conclusion: Barrier creams are beneficial in the workplace, although it should be taken into consideration that different ethnicities react differently to barrier creams under different workplace situations and therefore this should be taken into account when selecting a barrier cream. / Thesis (MSc (Occupational Hygiene))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

Background: Barrier creams are applied to the surface of the skin to form a barrier that aims to prevent the penetration of irritants and allergens through the skin surface. Several inconsistencies and controversies exist in literature regarding the effect that barrier creams may have on skin barrier function. Various skin surface parameters are used to evaluate the effect that the barrier creams have on skin barrier function. These parameters include transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration and skin surface pH. Total skin thickness may be assessed as a variable on its own. Differences may exist in skin surface parameters when comparing African participants with Caucasian participants. Aim: The specific aim of this research was to evaluate the short-term1 effects of selected barrier creams on skin barrier function. Note 1: The words short-term are used in this study as each barrier cream is only tested over a period of 8 hours and not tested over a long term period of months or years. Method: Forty two non-smoking participants were included and tested in this study, of which 21 were African and the rest Caucasian. TEWL, skin hydration and skin surface pH were used to evaluate the differences in the effect of two different barrier creams (Reinol Solvgard and Momar Chex) on skin barrier function. TEWL was measured by making use of a closed chamber Vapometer (Deflin Technology Ltd., Kuopio, Finland), skin hydration using a Corneometer® CM 825 and skin surface pH using a pH meter probe (Courage and Khazaka Electronic Kӧln, Germany). A micro-pipette was used to drip a standard volume of 20 μl of ultrapure water on the skin surface before the researcher placed the pH meter probe onto the skin surface. Total skin thickness was measured by making use of ultrasound (Ultrascan 22 - TBS0061B) (Courage and Khazaka Electronic Kӧln, Germany). Three consecutive measurements were taken on the mid-forearm and the palm of the experimental arm. After baseline values were measured, 5 ml of the selected barrier cream was applied to the experimental arm. The barrier cream (selected for the day) was reapplied after 2, 4 and 6 hours and measurements were taken every 2, 4, 6 and 8 hours. The total skin thickness was measured at time zero and at 8 hours. Results: TEWL: For both barrier creams, statistical significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found between TEWL on the palms of African participants and Caucasian participants. Skin hydration: Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were obtained with regard to mid-forearm skin hydration when comparing Reinol Solvgard with Momar Chex (this was applicable to both racial groups). A statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was obtained with regard to mid-forearm skin hydration when comparing African participants with Caucasian participants (this was only applicable to Reinol Solvgard). Statistical significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were obtained with regard to skin hydration palm when comparing Reinol Solvgard with Momar Chex (this was applicable to both racial groups). Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were obtained with regards to skin hydration palm when comparing African participants with Caucasian participants (this was applicable to both barrier creams). Skin surface pH: A statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was obtained with regard to pH of the mid-forearm when comparing Reinol Solvgard with Momar Chex (this was applicable to only the African participants). A statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) was obtained with regards to skin surface pH mid-forearm when comparing African participants with Caucasian participants (this was applicable to Momar Chex barrier cream only). A statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was obtained with regards to the pH of the palm when comparing Reinol Solvgard with Momar Chex (this was only applicable to the African racial group). Conclusion: Using skin surface parameters, it can be concluded that Momar Chex barrier cream elicited more positive effects on skin barrier function than Reinol Solvgard barrier cream. This may be ascribed to the fact that both barrier creams lowered TEWL (positive effect), Reinol Solvgard lowered skin hydration (negative effect) whereas, Momar Chex increased the skin hydration (positive effect) and both barrier creams increased skin surface pH (negative effect). Furthermore, the objectives of this study were reached as (a) short-term effects on skin surface parameters were identified between African versus Caucasian participants, (b) significances were observed between the two barrier creams (Momar Chex and Reinol Solvgard) by making use of skin surface parameters and (c) general increases and or decreases were observed in skin surface parameters over a short term period of 8 hours. / MSc (Occupational Hygiene), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Background: Barrier creams are applied to the surface of the skin to form a barrier that aims to prevent the penetration of irritants and allergens through the skin surface. Several inconsistencies and controversies exist in literature regarding the effect that barrier creams may have on skin barrier function. Various skin surface parameters are used to evaluate the effect that the barrier creams have on skin barrier function. These parameters include transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration and skin surface pH. Total skin thickness may be assessed as a variable on its own. Differences may exist in skin surface parameters when comparing African participants with Caucasian participants. Aim: The specific aim of this research was to evaluate the short-term1 effects of selected barrier creams on skin barrier function. Note 1: The words short-term are used in this study as each barrier cream is only tested over a period of 8 hours and not tested over a long term period of months or years. Method: Forty two non-smoking participants were included and tested in this study, of which 21 were African and the rest Caucasian. TEWL, skin hydration and skin surface pH were used to evaluate the differences in the effect of two different barrier creams (Reinol Solvgard and Momar Chex) on skin barrier function. TEWL was measured by making use of a closed chamber Vapometer (Deflin Technology Ltd., Kuopio, Finland), skin hydration using a Corneometer® CM 825 and skin surface pH using a pH meter probe (Courage and Khazaka Electronic Kӧln, Germany). A micro-pipette was used to drip a standard volume of 20 μl of ultrapure water on the skin surface before the researcher placed the pH meter probe onto the skin surface. Total skin thickness was measured by making use of ultrasound (Ultrascan 22 - TBS0061B) (Courage and Khazaka Electronic Kӧln, Germany). Three consecutive measurements were taken on the mid-forearm and the palm of the experimental arm. After baseline values were measured, 5 ml of the selected barrier cream was applied to the experimental arm. The barrier cream (selected for the day) was reapplied after 2, 4 and 6 hours and measurements were taken every 2, 4, 6 and 8 hours. The total skin thickness was measured at time zero and at 8 hours. Results: TEWL: For both barrier creams, statistical significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found between TEWL on the palms of African participants and Caucasian participants. Skin hydration: Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were obtained with regard to mid-forearm skin hydration when comparing Reinol Solvgard with Momar Chex (this was applicable to both racial groups). A statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was obtained with regard to mid-forearm skin hydration when comparing African participants with Caucasian participants (this was only applicable to Reinol Solvgard). Statistical significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were obtained with regard to skin hydration palm when comparing Reinol Solvgard with Momar Chex (this was applicable to both racial groups). Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were obtained with regards to skin hydration palm when comparing African participants with Caucasian participants (this was applicable to both barrier creams). Skin surface pH: A statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was obtained with regard to pH of the mid-forearm when comparing Reinol Solvgard with Momar Chex (this was applicable to only the African participants). A statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) was obtained with regards to skin surface pH mid-forearm when comparing African participants with Caucasian participants (this was applicable to Momar Chex barrier cream only). A statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was obtained with regards to the pH of the palm when comparing Reinol Solvgard with Momar Chex (this was only applicable to the African racial group). Conclusion: Using skin surface parameters, it can be concluded that Momar Chex barrier cream elicited more positive effects on skin barrier function than Reinol Solvgard barrier cream. This may be ascribed to the fact that both barrier creams lowered TEWL (positive effect), Reinol Solvgard lowered skin hydration (negative effect) whereas, Momar Chex increased the skin hydration (positive effect) and both barrier creams increased skin surface pH (negative effect). Furthermore, the objectives of this study were reached as (a) short-term effects on skin surface parameters were identified between African versus Caucasian participants, (b) significances were observed between the two barrier creams (Momar Chex and Reinol Solvgard) by making use of skin surface parameters and (c) general increases and or decreases were observed in skin surface parameters over a short term period of 8 hours. / MSc (Occupational Hygiene), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Les neurotoxiques organophosphorés (NOP) sont extrêmement toxiques et peu volatils. Dans des conditions normales de température et de pression, ils peuvent pénétrer rapidement la peau sous forme liquide et exercer leurs effets délétères. En milieu civil ou militaire, leur utilisation potentielle est toujours redoutée. Le développement de dispositifs de protection cutanée vis-à-vis de ces agents est donc d’un intérêt majeur pour les armées et la sécurité civile. Dans ce contexte, les objectifs de ce travail ont été de formuler et évaluer la stabilité et l’efficacité de topiques protecteurs cutanés (TP) vis-à-vis des NOP. Le premier objectif a consisté à mettre au point des TP de compositions et de formes galéniques différentes (émulsions, gels) puis à valider leurs stabilités physicochimiques. Cent trente TP ont été formulés et 30 ont montré une stabilité physicochimique satisfaisante. Le second objectif a été d’évaluer l’efficacité des TP les plus prometteurs vis-à-vis des composés organophosphorés. Actuellement il n’existe pas de standardisation de ce type d’étude. Par conséquent, l’utilisation de plusieurs tests in vitro et in vivo (membranes biologiques ou synthétiques, NOP ou simili), dont la pertinence et la fiabilité ont été déterminées, nous a permis d’établir une logique de criblage pour l’évaluation de l’efficacité des TP. Parmi les 13 formulations testées, les résultats ont montré qu’un gel hydro-alcoolique apporte une protection cutanée significative et supérieure aux produits de référence testés vis-à-vis du VX, un NOP d’intérêt / Prevention of exposure to the neurotoxic organophosphorus compounds (OP) that are quickly absorbed in the skin is a major concern both for pesticide users and soldiers. Skin barrier creams are being developed to complement or replace uncomfortable chemical protective suits. The objectives of this work were to formulate and assess physicochemical stability and protective efficacy of topical skin protectant (TSP) against OP compounds. The first objective was to formulate several different TSP (emulsions, gel) and validate their physicochemical stability.The second objective was to determine the consistency of results from in vitro tests and the importance of the formulation composition in the skin protective efficacy. Quick evaluation of formulations efficacy mainly relies on in vitro tests which lead to consistent, complementary and relevant results. Our results indicated that the least effective formulations could be quickly identified by performing in vitro permeation tests with silicone membrane and by evaluating interfacial interactions between formulations and OP. We showed that a hydrogel containing specific hydrophilic polymers was by far the most effective of the formulations evaluated against VX, OP compounds, skin permeation in vitro