4.2 Article

The examination of biophysical parameters of skin (transepidermal water loss, skin hydration and pH value) in different body regions of normal cats of both sexes

Journal

JOURNAL OF FELINE MEDICINE AND SURGERY
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 224-230

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfms.2010.11.003

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to evaluate transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration and skin pH in normal cats. Twenty shorthaired European cats of both sexes were examined in the study. Measurements were taken from five different sites: the lumbar region, the axillary fossa, the inguinal region, the ventral abdominal region and the left thoracic region. In each of the regions, TEWL, skin hydration and skin pH were measured. The highest TEWL value was observed in the axillary fossa (18.22 g/h/m(2)) and the lowest in the lumbar region (10.53 g/h/m(2)). The highest skin hydration was found in the inguinal region (18.29 CU) and the lowest in the lumbar region (4.62 CU). The highest skin pH was observed in the inguinal region (6.64) and the lowest in the lumbar region (6.39). Statistically significant differences in TEWL were observed between the lumbar region and the left side of the thorax region (P = 0.016), the axillary fossa (P = 0.0004), the ventral region (P = 0.005), and the inguinal region (P = 0.009). There were significant differences in skin hydration between the lumbar region and the left thorax (P = 0.000003), the axillary fossa (P = 0.002), the ventral abdomen (P = 0.03), and the inguinal region (P = 0.0003) as well as between the thorax and the ventral abdomen (P = 0.005). TEWL was higher in females (15 g/h/m(2)) than in males (4.57 g/h/m(2)). Skin hydration was higher in females (13.89 CU) than in males (12.28 CU). Significant differences were not found between males and females for TEWL and skin hydration. Skin pH was higher in males (6.94) than in females (6.54), which was significant (P = 0.004). Crown Copyright (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of ISFM and AAFP. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available