| Literature DB >> 30666144 |
Katsuyuki Yuki1, Sawako Kawano1, Shinobu Mori1, Takatoshi Murase1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The transdermal application of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas dissolved in a solution and bathing in carbonated springs have been known to improve circulatory disorders. We aimed to elucidate and profile the effects of CO2 application on local skin function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A liquid formulation that included high-concentration CO2 or a control formulation was applied to the face of healthy men for 8 weeks. Quantitative analysis was performed during the dry winter months.Entities:
Keywords: barrier; desquamation; stratum corneum; transepidermal water loss
Year: 2019 PMID: 30666144 PMCID: PMC6330978 DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S183764
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol ISSN: 1178-7015
Parameters of epidermal function at each time point
| 0 week | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEWL (μg/m2/h) | Control | 27.6±1.0 | 35.1±1.6 | 34.4±1.4 |
| CO2 | 30.6±1.4 | 34.8±1.6 | 35.6±1.6 | |
| Conductance (μS) | Control | 89.6±8.7 | 58.9±7.7 | 59.6±6.2 |
| CO2 | 83.4±9.8 | 67.0±8.8 | 72.1±7.4 |
Notes: Values are mean±SE (n=19).
P<0.05 vs control at 8 weeks via paired t-test. Conductance, water content in the stratum corneum.
Abbreviation: TEWL, transepidermal water loss.
Figure 1Changes in epidermal function with CO2 application.
Notes: Each parameter is shown as the amount of change (Δ) from 0 week to 4 or 8 weeks for TEWL (A) and conductance (B). Values are mean±SE (n=19). #P<0.05, ##P<0.01 vs 0 week by Dunnett’s test. *P<0.05 vs control at 8 weeks via paired t-test. Difference in ΔConductance between the two conditions was statistically significant via two-way repeated measures ANOVA.
Abbreviation: TEWL, transepidermal water loss.
Parameters of the skin surface profile and property at each time point
| 0 week | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SESM | Control | 114.5±5.8 | 121.1±7.7 | 120.4±6.2 |
| CO2 | 114.2±7.8 | 118.2±8.8 | 110.6±7.4 | |
| SER | Control | 2.9±0.2 | 3.3±1.6 | 3.3±1.4 |
| CO2 | 3.0±0.2 | 3.2±1.6 | 2.9±1.6 | |
| SESC | Control | 0.5±0.0 | 0.9±1.7 | 0.8±1.7 |
| CO2 | 0.6±0.1 | 0.8±2.2 | 0.6±2.2 | |
| SEW | Control | 95.6±5.2 | 99.5±7.7 | 104.5±6.2 |
| CO2 | 102.9±6.5 | 97.1±8.8 | 94.3±7.4 | |
| pH | Control | 5.9±0.1 | 5.8±0.1 | 6.0±0.1 |
| CO2 | 5.8±0.1 | 5.8±2.2 | 6.0±0.1 | |
| L | Control | 62.3±5.8 | 62.2±0.5 | 62.3±0.6 |
| CO2 | 62.4±7.8 | 62.3±0.4 | 62.5±0.6 | |
| a | Control | 13.2±5.2 | 13.7±0.3 | 13.5±0.3 |
| CO2 | 13.1±6.5 | 13.9±0.3 | 13.7±0.3 | |
| b | Control | 17.8±0.0 | 17.3±0.4 | 17.0±0.4 |
| CO2 | 18.0±0.1 | 17.1±0.4 | 17.0±0.4 |
Notes: Values are mean±SE (n=19).
P<0.05 vs control at 8 weeks via paired t-test. L*, color property related to brightness; a*, color property related to redness; b*, color property related to yellowness; pH, skin surface pH.
Abbreviations: SER, roughness; SESC, scaliness; SESM, skin smoothness; SEW, wrinkles.
Figure 2Changes in skin surface profile with CO2 application.
Notes: Each parameter is shown as the amount of change (Δ) from 0 week to 4 or 8 weeks for SESC. Values are mean±SE (n=19). #P<0.05, ##P<0.01 vs 0 week by Dunnett’s test. *P<0.05 vs control at 8 weeks via paired t-test. Difference in ΔSESC between two conditions was statistically significant via two-way repeated measures ANOVA.
Abbreviation: SESC, skin scaliness.
Figure 3Changes in skin surface appearance.
Notes: Microscopic skin surface images from 0, 4, and 8 weeks obtained with the dry skin microscope are shown. The magnification rate was 30 times. The length of the long side was 6 mm.