Search

Objective: While there are a wide range of approaches for the assessment of skin hydration, it is not always clear how data from them relate to one another or to the skin itself. With the development of in vivo Confocal Raman Spectroscopy (ICRS), it has become possible to measure water concentration as a function of protein/depth within the stratum corneum (SC). This article reports a comparison between electrical skin hydration measures/visual/optical grading and water concentration profiles measured using ICRS, to better understand the relationship between these approaches. Methods: SC hydration of lower‐leg skin with varying degrees of dryness was assessed using visual grading (live and from digital images), Corneometer®, Visioscan and ICRS. In addition, a custom fingerprint sensor was used to image surface capacitance (as a surrogate of SC hydration), and SC barrier function was assessed using evaporimetry (to measure trans‐epidermal water loss; TEWL). Results: Significant correlations were observed between a number of different skin grading/measurement approaches and ICRS data. ICRS hydration profiles also revealed a region near the SC surface with a relatively flat water profile in dry skin subjects. Conclusions: The advent of quantitative in vivo analytical techniques such as ICRS, which can be used in a clinical setting, has enabled greater insight into more conventional approaches for assessing skin dryness. While traditional skin grading and biophysical methods for measuring skin hydration have varying degrees of correlation with one another, they also provide comparatively unique information about different regions within the SC. This should enable a more informed approach to product development in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Skin cancer continues to increase in incidence year‐on‐year and represents the most common form of cancer across the globe. Every human undergoes premature ageing, particularly on the face, neck and hands. Both phenomena are driven primarily by chronic, daily exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR). While sunscreen products play a primary role in the prevention of UVR skin damage, the active ingredients, i.e., UVR filters, are facing unprecedented challenges in the coming 10 years and their future is by no means certain. This article, therefore, reviews afresh the facts around photoprotection and the role of sunscreen products in the prevention of acute (sunburn) and chronic (cancer, photoageing) skin damage and compares/contrasts these with various emerging questions and opinions around UVR filter technology. We present a passionate defence of this remarkable technology, but also attempt to imagine a world without it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]