Not all marketed skin cleansers' pH is optimal for atopic dermatitis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Allergy and asthma proceedings Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.2500/aap.2024.45.240026
Adil Khan, Juanita Valdes Camacho, Hannah Cummins, Hamana Tahir, Runhua Shi, David Kaufman, Sami L Bahna
{"title":"Not all marketed skin cleansers' pH is optimal for atopic dermatitis.","authors":"Adil Khan, Juanita Valdes Camacho, Hannah Cummins, Hamana Tahir, Runhua Shi, David Kaufman, Sami L Bahna","doi":"10.2500/aap.2024.45.240026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The normally acidic skin pH changes in atopic dermatitis (AD) to alkaline, which contributes to the associated skin-barrier dysfunction. Hence, acidic cleansers would be preferred, but such information is scarce. <b>Objective:</b> Guiding health-care providers and patients on selecting skin cleansers with a pH optimal for AD. <b>Methods:</b> A total of 250 products were tested: 37 soaps (32 bars, 5 liquid) and 213 syndets (14 bars, 199 liquid); 10% solutions were tested for pH by using a pH meter; pH values 6.65-7.35 were considered neutral. <b>Results:</b> The pH of the tested skin cleansers varied widely (3.59-10.83). All 37 soaps were highly alkaline. In the 14 syndet bars, the pH was neutral in 6, alkaline in 8, and acidic in none. In the 199 syndet liquids, the pH was acidic in 84.9%, neutral in 11.1%, and alkaline in 4.0%. The product's pH was disclosed in none of the 37 soaps and in only 32 syndets (15%) , of which 9 bars were labeled \"balanced,\" whose measured pH was neutral in 6 and alkaline in 3. Of the other 23 syndets, the labeled pH was referred to as \"balanced\" in 20 whose measured pH was neutral in 2 (6.80, 6.88) and acidic in 18 (3.59-6.59). The pH in the other three syndets was 4.25-6.00. <b>Conclusion:</b> All tested soaps had undesirable pH, whereas 84.9% of the liquid syndets were acidic (which is desirable) and 11.1% were neutral (which could be acceptable). Only 12.8% of the products disclosed the pH, an issue in need of improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":7646,"journal":{"name":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","volume":"45 4","pages":"284-287"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2024.45.240026","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The normally acidic skin pH changes in atopic dermatitis (AD) to alkaline, which contributes to the associated skin-barrier dysfunction. Hence, acidic cleansers would be preferred, but such information is scarce. Objective: Guiding health-care providers and patients on selecting skin cleansers with a pH optimal for AD. Methods: A total of 250 products were tested: 37 soaps (32 bars, 5 liquid) and 213 syndets (14 bars, 199 liquid); 10% solutions were tested for pH by using a pH meter; pH values 6.65-7.35 were considered neutral. Results: The pH of the tested skin cleansers varied widely (3.59-10.83). All 37 soaps were highly alkaline. In the 14 syndet bars, the pH was neutral in 6, alkaline in 8, and acidic in none. In the 199 syndet liquids, the pH was acidic in 84.9%, neutral in 11.1%, and alkaline in 4.0%. The product's pH was disclosed in none of the 37 soaps and in only 32 syndets (15%) , of which 9 bars were labeled "balanced," whose measured pH was neutral in 6 and alkaline in 3. Of the other 23 syndets, the labeled pH was referred to as "balanced" in 20 whose measured pH was neutral in 2 (6.80, 6.88) and acidic in 18 (3.59-6.59). The pH in the other three syndets was 4.25-6.00. Conclusion: All tested soaps had undesirable pH, whereas 84.9% of the liquid syndets were acidic (which is desirable) and 11.1% were neutral (which could be acceptable). Only 12.8% of the products disclosed the pH, an issue in need of improvement.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
并非所有市场上销售的洁肤产品的 pH 值都适合特应性皮炎。
背景:特应性皮炎(AD)患者的皮肤 pH 值由正常的酸性变为碱性,这导致了相关的皮肤屏障功能障碍。因此,酸性清洁剂是首选,但这方面的信息却很少。目标:指导医护人员和患者选择 pH 值最适合 AD 的洁肤产品。方法:共测试了 250 种产品:37 种肥皂(32 种皂条,5 种液体)和 213 种清洁剂(14 种皂条,199 种液体);使用 pH 计测试了 10%溶液的 pH 值;pH 值为 6.65-7.35 的产品被视为中性产品。测试结果受测洁肤产品的 pH 值差异很大(3.59-10.83)。所有 37 种肥皂都呈高碱性。在 14 种辛迪肤洁面皂中,6 种的 pH 值为中性,8 种为碱性,没有一种为酸性。在 199 种辛迪特液体中,pH 值呈酸性的占 84.9%,呈中性的占 11.1%,呈碱性的占 4.0%。在 37 块肥皂中,没有一块公开了产品的 pH 值,只有 32 块(15%)综合液公开了产品的 pH 值,其中有 9 块标有 "平衡 "字样,经测量 pH 值呈中性的有 6 块,呈碱性的有 3 块。在其他 23 个系列中,标注 pH 值为 "平衡 "的有 20 个,其测量 pH 值为中性的有 2 个(6.80,6.88),酸性的有 18 个(3.59-6.59)。其他三个综合征的 pH 值为 4.25-6.00。结论所有受测肥皂的 pH 值都不理想,而 84.9% 的液体合成物呈酸性(理想),11.1% 呈中性(可以接受)。只有 12.8% 的产品公布了 pH 值,这是一个需要改进的问题。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
35.70%
发文量
106
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Allergy & Asthma Proceedings is a peer reviewed publication dedicated to distributing timely scientific research regarding advancements in the knowledge and practice of allergy, asthma and immunology. Its primary readership consists of allergists and pulmonologists. The goal of the Proceedings is to publish articles with a predominantly clinical focus which directly impact quality of care for patients with allergic disease and asthma. Featured topics include asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, food allergies, allergic skin diseases, diagnostic techniques, allergens, and treatment modalities. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials and review articles.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of a disease-state education program in asthma: Application of the Knowledge-to-Action Framework. Management of hereditary angioedema attacks by patients on long-term prophylaxis versus on-demand therapy only. Appraisal of the evidence linking hereditary α-tryptasemia with mast cell disorders, hypermobility and dysautonomia. Exploring mast cell disorders: Tryptases, hereditary alpha-tryptasemia, and MCAS treatment approaches. Health disparities investigated in a primary care penicillin allergy removal pathway.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1