Comparison of wiping methods for the removal of cleaning agent residue from hair follicles

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed to clarify the influence of different wiping methods on cleaning agent residue in hair follicles when using skin cleaning agents that are “removable‐by‐wiping.” Methods A total of 18 male volunteers were recruited and a cleaning agent containing 10% fluorescein sodium salt (cleaning agent) was used in this study. After gentle washing, the cleaning agent was removed via the washing method (control) or three distinct wiping methods (experiment). Hairs were obtained from the measurement area. The fluorescence intensities of the residual cleaning agent on the hair root and hair bulb were then evaluated after normalizing for autofluorescence from the hair. Fluorescence intensity was used to estimate the amount of cleaning agent residue. Results No significant differences were found among cleaning agent removal methods (hair root: P = 0.67, hair bulb: P = 0.62) with respect to the amount of residual cleaning agent on hair. Conclusion Cleaning agent residual index did not differ according to removal method. Cleaning agent remained in the hair follicle (hair roots, hair bulbs) despite removal from the skin by washing or wiping. Further studies are required to apply “removable‐by‐wiping” cleaning agents for people with vulnerable skin.

Effectiveness of bed bath methods for skin integrity, skin cleanliness and comfort enhancement in adults: A systematic review

“…Four studies performed interventions regarding differences in wiping (Aoki et al., 2019 ; Konya et al., 2020 ; Konya, Yamaguchi, et al., 2020 ; Matsumoto et al., 2018 ).…”

“…A wiping method for dirt removal that used circular motions by shifting outward from the centre was more effective than methods that wiped from the periphery to the centre, or vice versa (Matsumoto et al., 2018 ). However, there were no significant differences for cleaning agent removal among these wiping directions (Aoki et al., 2019 ).…”

“…Regarding skin cleanliness, most of the studies evaluated the increase and decrease in the number of microorganisms. Furthermore, to precisely evaluate the “degree of dirt removal” based on different bed bath methods, the method of purposely adding dirt to the skin and evaluating the removal rate is considered more effective, as found in three studies (Aoki et al., 2019 ; Konya et al., 2020 ; Matsumoto et al., 2018 ). Regarding the subjective evaluation (e.g.…”

Efficacy of water skin decontamination in vivo in humans: A systematic review

“…After title and abstract screening of 3017 studies and full‐text review of 51 studies, 10 met eligibility criteria and were included, representing 18 chemical contaminants, and 199 participants (Figure 1, Table 1) (Aoki et al, 2019; Curwin et al, 2003; Fenske et al, 1998; Fenske & Lu, 1994; Lin et al, 2012; Marquart et al, 2002; Moffett et al, 2010; Maibach & Feldmann, 1975; Stahlman et al, 2012; Southworthet al, 2020). Several studies used multiple decontamination protocols leading to 351 total decontamination outcomes.…”

“…Aoki et al (2019) decontaminated a cleaning agent residue, a cream cleaning agent (0.6 g) containing 10% fluorescent sodium salt, from hair follicles (sample size: 18; age: 21–22 years; sex: male [ n = 18/18]; occupation: NR; total decontamination outcomes: 18), applied to hairy lower legs (radius: 3.5 cm) for 30 s by a researcher using two fingers. Decontamination was completed with water (temperature: 40°C; volume: 1 L) for 20 s, followed by gentle tapping (not wiping) five times with gauze.…”