A closed unventilated chamber for the measurement of transepidermal water loss

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background/aimsOpen chamber systems for measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL) have limitations related to ambient and body‐induced airflows near the probe, probe size, measurement sites and angles, and measurement range. The aim of the present investigation was to develop a closed chamber system for the TEWL measurement without significant blocking of normal evaporation through the skin. Additionally, in order to use the evaporimeter to measure evaporation rates through other biological and non‐biological specimens and in the field applications, a small portable, battery‐operated device was a design criteria.MethodsA closed unventilated chamber (inner volume 2.0 cm3) was constructed. For the skin measurement, the chamber with one side open (open surface area 1.0 cm2) is placed on the skin. The skin application time was investigated at low and high evaporation rates in order to assess the blocking effect of the chamber on normal evaporation. From the rising linear part of the relative humidity (RH) in the chamber the slope was registered. The slope was calibrated into a TEWL value by evaporating water at different temperatures and measuring the water loss of heated samples with a laboratory scale. The closed chamber evaporation technique was compared with a conventional evaporimeter based on an open chamber method (DermaLab®, Cortex Technology, Hadsund, Denmark). The reproducibility of the closed chamber method was measured with the water samples and with volar forearm and palm of the hand in 10 healthy volunteers.ResultsThe skin application time varied between 7 and 9 s and the linear slope region between 3 and 5 s at the evaporation rates of 3–220 g/m2 h. A correlation coefficient between the TEWL value from the closed chamber measurements and the readings of the laboratory scale was 0.99 (P < 0.001). The reproducibility of the evaporation measurements with the water samples was 4.0% at the evaporation rate of 40 g/m2 h. A correlation coefficient of the TEWL values between the closed chamber and open chamber measurements was 0.99 (P < 0.001) in the range where the response of a conventional evaporimeter was linear (until 120 g/m2 h). With volar forearm and palm of the hand of 10 healthy volunteers the reproducibility of the measurements was 8.0 and 10.1%.ConclusionThe closed chamber technique solves the drawbacks related to open chamber evaporimeters. Especially, it extends the measurement range to high evaporation rates and TEWL measurements can be performed practically at any anatomical sites and measurement angle. By the use of a closed chamber the disturbance related to external or body‐induced air flows on the measurement can be avoided.