| Literature DB >> 31436337 |
Abstract
The relation between tinea pedis and the internal environment of footwear has not been scientifically proven. This study aimed to determine whether the internal environment of footwear affects the incidence of tinea pedis and tinea unguium. This cross-sectional, observatory study involved 420 outpatients who were categorized into non-tinea, tinea pedis or tinea unguium groups based on mycological analysis. External climatic conditions, and temperature, humidity and dew points inside the patients' footwear were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine independent risk factors for tinea pedis and tinea unguium. A significant correlation was found between high temperature/high humidity and dew point of the internal environment of the footwear and the season. Furthermore, those who wore footwear with internal environments characterized by high temperature, high humidity, high-temperature/high-humidity and high dew point values had a significantly higher incidence of tinea pedis. The internal dew point correlated with the incidence of tinea pedis, whereas the external temperature correlated with the incidence of tinea unguium. The internal humidity and dew point of footwear as well as the frequency with which footwear with a high-temperature/high-humidity internal environment were worn was significantly higher in men than in women. In conclusion, the internal environment of footwear is a risk factor for tinea pedis, and this environment is affected by the season. Moreover, the frequency of tinea pedis among men is related to the internal environment of footwear. The dew point is an appropriate index for evaluating temperature and humidity in relation to tinea pedis.Entities:
Keywords: footwear; humidity; shoes; temperature; tinea pedis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31436337 PMCID: PMC6900014 DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.15060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dermatol ISSN: 0385-2407 Impact factor: 4.005
Internal environment of different footwear types
| Temperature (°C) | Humidity (%) | Dew point (°C) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural leather ( | 31.1 ± 3.1 | 76.2 ± 10.6 | 26.2 ± 4.7 |
| Artificial leather ( | 31.1 ± 3.4 | 75.9 ± 10.3 | 26.2 ± 5.1 |
| Sneakers ( | 31.6 ± 2.9 | 75.6 ± 9.5 | 26.6 ± 4.2 |
| Cloth shoes ( | 32.2 ± 1.4 | 82.3 ± 8.0 | 28.7 ± 2.0 |
| Sandals ( | 30.3 ± 2.4 | 72.6 ± 9.3 | 24.7 ± 3.9 |
| Slippers ( | 29.4 ± 4.2 | 68.4 ± 8.1 | 22.8 ± 5.8 |
| Boots ( | 28.4 ± 4.3 | 69.0 ± 12.6 | 21.8 ± 6.0 |
| Closed (leather, artificial leather, | 31.8 ± 2.6 | 77.0 ± 9.4 | 27.1 ± 3.8 |
| Open (sandals, slippers; | 29.7 ± 3.5 | 68.4 ± 9.2 | 23.1 ± 5.3 |
The seven types of footwear (natural leather shoes, synthetic leather shoes, sneakers, cloth shoes, sandals, slippers and boots) showed significant differences in temperature, humidity and dew point (P < 0.001) values. Cloth shoes had the highest temperature, humidity and dew point values, whereas sandals and slippers had lower temperature, humidity and dew point values. Closed footwear, such as that made of natural and synthetic leather, are commonly worn by business people and had significantly higher temperature, humidity and dew point values than the open sandals and slippers (P < 0.01).
Figure 1Internal temperature, internal humidity and internal dew point values of the footwear. Welch's two‐tailed t‐test was used to assess the internal temperature, internal humidity and internal dew point values, expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The internal environment of the footwear in those with tinea pedis (TP) had a significantly higher temperature (31.8°C ± 2.7°C, P < 0.001), humidity (76.1% ± 9.3%, P = 0.007) and dew point (26.9°C ± 4.0°C, P < 0.001) values.
Tinea pedis risk factor analysis
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | 95% CI |
| Odds ratio | 95% CI |
| |
| Sex (men) | 1.80 | 1.19–2.71 | <0.01 | – | – | <0.01 |
| Age groups | ||||||
| Total | – | – | <0.001 | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | – |
| <30 years | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | – | 9.16 | 1.11–75.85 | <0.05 |
| ≥30 and <60 years | 2.18 | 1.21–3.91 | <0.01 | 20.26 | 2.48–165.76 | <0.01 |
| ≥60 years | 5.73 | 3.06–10.73 | <0.001 | |||
| Internal high temperature/high humidity | 1.93 | 1.20–3.12 | <0.01 | |||
| Internal dew point | 1.11 | 1.06–1.16 | <0.001 | 1.10 | 1.01–1.18 | <0.05 |
| Shoe types | ||||||
| Total | – | – | <0.01 | |||
| Sneakers | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | – | |||
| Natural leather | 0.68 | 0.34–1.36 | 0.275 | |||
| Synthetic leather | 0.60 | 0.36–0.99 | <0.05 | |||
| Sandals | 0.68 | 0.23–2.00 | 0.486 | |||
| Boots | 0.11 | 0.05–0.29 | <0.001 | |||
| Slippers | 0.52 | 0.08–3.22 | 0.482 | |||
| Cloth | 1.17 | 0.19–7.25 | 0.867 | |||
| Mean monthly temperature in local area | 1.09 | 1.06–1.12 | <0.001 | |||
| Mean monthly humidity in local area | 1.04 | 0.99–1.09 | 0.153 | |||
Analyzed using logistic regression. CI, confidence interval; TP, tinea pedis.