A Comparative Analysis of 8 Facial Cleansers Using Corneosurfametry Reveals Differentiated Irritation Potential.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 DERMATOLOGY
Sindhu Garimella, Thu Q Nguyen, Christine Emesiani, Matthew Meckfessel
{"title":"A Comparative Analysis of 8 Facial Cleansers Using Corneosurfametry Reveals Differentiated Irritation Potential.","authors":"Sindhu Garimella, Thu Q Nguyen, Christine Emesiani, Matthew Meckfessel","doi":"10.36849/JDD.10028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Facial cleansers can disrupt the stratum corneum and cause irritation. Selecting a cleanser that is both effective and gentle is foundational to a tailored skincare routine, particularly for individuals with sensitive skin. This project assessed the relative mildness of Cetaphil&reg; Gentle Skin Cleanser (GSC; Galderma Laboratories, LP, Fort Worth, TX) vs 7 other commercially available gentle cleansers using corneosurfametry.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Surface skin cells were collected from the volar forearms of 18 volunteer participants using D‑Squame&reg; standard sampling discs. Discs were then incubated for 10 minutes in a 10% aqueous solution of one of the 8 cleansers, 5% sodium lauryl sulfate (positive control), or water (negative control). Samples were stained with toluidine blue&ndash;basic fuchsin and measured by chromameter. Colorimetric index of mildness (CIM) least-squares means were compared pairwise versus GSC, and photographs provided qualitative corroboration. A higher CIM indicated a milder cleanser, while a lower CIM indicated a harsher cleanser.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean CIM for GSC was 63.87; pairwise comparisons indicated statistically significant differences between GSC and the mean CIM of the 7 comparators, which ranged from 46.95 to 53.32. Photographic tape appearance was concordant with CIM rankings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GSC was significantly milder than the comparator cleansers as assessed by CIM and photographic analysis of the tape strips. These data suggest that there are differences in irritation potential among commercially available facial cleansers, which may help ensure patients and providers select a sufficiently mild cleanser for those with sensitive skin.</p>","PeriodicalId":15566,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drugs in Dermatology","volume":"25 7","pages":"655-658"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Drugs in Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36849/JDD.10028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Facial cleansers can disrupt the stratum corneum and cause irritation. Selecting a cleanser that is both effective and gentle is foundational to a tailored skincare routine, particularly for individuals with sensitive skin. This project assessed the relative mildness of Cetaphil® Gentle Skin Cleanser (GSC; Galderma Laboratories, LP, Fort Worth, TX) vs 7 other commercially available gentle cleansers using corneosurfametry.

Methods: Surface skin cells were collected from the volar forearms of 18 volunteer participants using D‑Squame® standard sampling discs. Discs were then incubated for 10 minutes in a 10% aqueous solution of one of the 8 cleansers, 5% sodium lauryl sulfate (positive control), or water (negative control). Samples were stained with toluidine blue–basic fuchsin and measured by chromameter. Colorimetric index of mildness (CIM) least-squares means were compared pairwise versus GSC, and photographs provided qualitative corroboration. A higher CIM indicated a milder cleanser, while a lower CIM indicated a harsher cleanser.

Results: The mean CIM for GSC was 63.87; pairwise comparisons indicated statistically significant differences between GSC and the mean CIM of the 7 comparators, which ranged from 46.95 to 53.32. Photographic tape appearance was concordant with CIM rankings.

Conclusion: GSC was significantly milder than the comparator cleansers as assessed by CIM and photographic analysis of the tape strips. These data suggest that there are differences in irritation potential among commercially available facial cleansers, which may help ensure patients and providers select a sufficiently mild cleanser for those with sensitive skin.

角膜表面测定法对8种洗面奶进行对比分析,揭示不同的刺激潜能。
背景:洗面奶会破坏角质层,引起刺激。选择一款既有效又温和的洗面奶是定制护肤程序的基础,特别是对于敏感皮肤的人。本项目使用角质层测量法评估了cetaphil®g;温和洁面乳(GSC; Galderma Laboratories, LP, Fort Worth, TX)与其他7种市售温和洁面乳的相对温和度。方法:使用D - squame®g;标准取样盘从18名志愿者的前臂掌侧收集皮肤细胞。然后将圆盘在8种清洁剂中的一种的10%水溶液、5%十二烷基硫酸钠(阳性对照)或水(阴性对照)中孵育10分钟。样品用甲苯胺蓝和碱性品红染色,并用色度仪测定。比色温和指数(CIM)最小二乘均值与GSC两两比较,照片提供了定性佐证。较高的CIM表示较温和的清洁剂,而较低的CIM表示较苛刻的清洁剂。结果:GSC的平均CIM为63.87;两两比较显示,7个比较国的GSC与CIM均值的差异有统计学意义(46.95 ~ 53.32)。摄影磁带的外观与CIM排名一致。结论:通过CIM和胶带的照相分析评估,GSC明显比比较洗面奶温和。这些数据表明,市售的洗面奶在刺激潜力方面存在差异,这可能有助于确保患者和供应商为敏感皮肤选择足够温和的洗面奶。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
289
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Drugs in Dermatology (JDD) is a peer-reviewed publication indexed with MEDLINE®/PubMed® that was founded by the renowned Dr. Perry Robins MD. Founded in 2002, it offers one of the fastest routes to disseminate dermatologic information and is considered the fastest growing publication in dermatology. We present original articles, award-winning case reports, and timely features pertaining to new methods, techniques, drug therapy, and devices in dermatology that provide readers with peer reviewed content of the utmost quality. Our high standards of content are maintained through a balanced, peer-review process. Articles are reviewed by an International Editorial Board of over 160 renowned experts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书