Background/Aims: To determine the roughness of the surface of human skin at highly sun-exposed anatomical sites in a wide age range in order to derive consequences for sunscreen application. Methods: The forehead, cheek, nose, shoulder, and dorsal hand of 4 age groups (0-9, 20-39, 40-59, and >60 years) were investigated by replica formation, and areal topography was determined by confocal chromatic imaging. The arithmetic mean height as a roughness parameter and the void volume of the surface profile were calculated. Results: Age and site had a significant effect on roughness. Both the dorsal hand and nose exhibited the greatest roughness over the age of 40, and the forehead of the youngest age group exhibited the smallest roughness. Differentiation between sites progressed with age, whereas roughness increased significantly with age for the dorsal hand and nose but not for the other sites. The void volume was smaller than the volume corresponding to the typically recommended amount of sunscreen application except for the cases of largest roughness. Conclusions: Different site-age combinations show significant variation of skin surface roughness. The application of sunscreen may in some instances need to be adjusted to take into account the increased roughness of highly sun-exposed anatomical sites.

Keywords:
Sunscreen application, Age, Skin surface topography, Skin texture, Roughness, Sun-exposed body sites
1.
Piérard GE, Uhoda I, Piérard-Franchimont C: From skin microrelief to wrinkles. An area ripe for investigation. J Cosmet Dermatol 2004;2:21-28.
2.
Quatresooz P, Thirion L, Piérard-Franchimont C, Piérard GE: The riddle of genuine skin microrelief and wrinkles. Int J Cosmet Sci 2006;28:389-395.
3.
Lagarde JM, Rouvrais C, Black D: Topography and anisotropy of the skin surface with ageing. Skin Res Technol 2005;11:110-119.
4.
Akazaki S, Nakagawa H, Kazama H, Osanai O, Kawai M, Takema Y, Imokawa G: Age-related changes in skin wrinkles assessed by a novel three-dimensional morphometric analysis. Br J Dermatol 2002;147:689-695.
5.
Li L, Mac-Mary S, Marsaut D, Sainthillier JM, Nouveau S, Gharbi T, de Lacharriere O, Humbert P: Age-related changes in skin topography and microcirculation. Arch Dermatol Res 2006;297:412-416.
6.
Jacobi U, Chen M, Frankowski G, Sinkgraven R, Hund M, Rzany B, Sterry W, Lademann J: In vivo determination of skin surface topography using an optical 3D device. Skin Res Technol 2004;10:207-214.
7.
Corcuff P, Leveque JL, Grove GL, Kligman AM: The impact of aging on the microrelief of peri-orbital and leg skin. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1987;82:145-152.
8.
Manuskiatti W, Schwindt DA, Maibach HI: Influence of age, anatomic site and race on skin roughness and scaliness. Dermatology 1998;196:401-407.
9.
Chinn HD, Dobson RL: The topographic anatomy of human skin. Arch Dermatol 1964;89:267-273.
10.
Fischer TW, Wigger-Alberti W, Elsner P: Assessment of ‘dry skin': current bioengineering methods and test designs. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 2001;14:183-195.
11.
Friedmann PM, Skover GR, Payonk G, Kauvar ANB, Geronemus RG: 3D in-vivo optical skin imaging for topographical quantitative assessment of non-ablative laser technology. Dermatol Surg 2002;28:199-204.
12.
Schwindt DA, Wilhelm KP, Miller DL, Maibach HI: Cumulative irritation in older and younger skin: a comparison. Acta Derm Venereol 1998;78:279-283.
13.
Griffiths CEM, Maddin S, Wiedow O, Marks R, Donald AE, Kahlon G: Treatment of photoaged skin with a cream containing 0.05% isotretinoin and sunscreens. J Dermatol Treat 2005;16:79-86.
14.
Tagami H: Functional characteristics of the stratum corneum in photoaged skin in comparison with those found in intrinsic aging. Arch Dermatol Res 2008;300:S1-S6.
15.
Weiler L, Knight JA, Vieth R, Barnett H, Wong A: Comparison of self-reported sun exposure with two methods of cutaneous microtopography. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:222-230.
16.
Corcuff P, Francois AM, Leveque JL, Porte G: Microrelief changes in chronically sun-exposed human skin. Photodermatol 1988;5:92-95.
17.
Mazzarello V, Cametti M, Leone G, Iacovelli P, Ena P, Leigheb G: Analysis of the microtopography of the skin by silicone replicas after repeated exposure to actinic radiation at high altitudes. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2001;15:224-228.
18.
Edwards C, Heggie R, Marks R: A study of differences in surface roughness between sun-exposed and unexposed skin with age. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2003;19:169-174.
19.
Sohn M, Heche A, Herzog B, Imanidis G: Film thickness frequency distribution of different vehicles determines sunscreen efficacy. J Biomed Optics 2014;19:115005.
20.
Sohn M, Herzog B, Osterwalder U, Imanidis G: Calculation of sun protection factor of sunscreens with different vehicles using measured film thickness distribution - comparison with the SPF in vitro. J Photochem Photobiol B 2016;159:74-81.
21.
Gebauer V, Weigmann H-J, Schanzer S, Meinke MC, Vergou T, Sterry W, Lademann J: Influence of skin aging effects on the skin surface profile and the correlated distribution of topically applied sunscreens. J Biophotonics 2012;5:274-282.
22.
Adlhart C, Baschong W: Surface distribution and depths profiling of particulate organic UV adsorbers by Raman imaging and tape stripping. Int J Cosmet Sci 2011;33:527-534.
23.
Miura Y, Hirao T, Hatao M: Influence of application amount on sunscreen photodegradation in in vitro sun protection factor evaluation: proposal of a skin-mimicking substrate. Photochem Photobiol 2012;88:475-482.
24.
Tchvialeva L, Zeng H, Markhvida I, McLean DI, Lui H, Lee TK: Skin roughness assessment; in Campolo D (ed): New Developments in Biomedical Engineering. Vukovar, In-Teh, 2010, pp 341-358.
25.
Rosén B.-G, Blunt L, Thomas TR: On in-vivo skin topography metrology and replication techniques. J Phys Conf Ser 2005;13:325-329.
26.
Bloemen MC, van Gerven MS, van der Wal MBA, Verhaegen PDHM, Middelkoop E: An objective device for measuring surface roughness of skin and scars. J Am Acad Dermatol 2011;64:706-715.
27.
Sparavigna A, Marazzato R: An image processing analysis of skin textures. Skin Res Technol 2010;16:161-167.
28.
Lagarde JM, Rouvrais C, Black D, Diridollou S, Gall Y: Skin topography measurements by interference fringe projection: a technical validation. Skin Res Technol 2001;7:112-121.
29.
Lévêque JL: EEMCO guidance for the assessment of skin topography. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 1999;12:103-114.
30.
Corcuff P, Piérard GE: Skin imaging: state of the art at the dawn of the year 2000; in Elsner P, et al (eds): Skin Bioengineering: Techniques and Applications in Dermatology and Cosmetology. Basel, Karger, 1998, vol 26, pp 1-11.
31.
Forslind B: Replication techniques for dry and wet biological surfaces. Scanning Microsc 1999;13:133-139.
32.
Browke MA, Akinyemi O, Boyde A: Confocal surface profiling utilizing chromatic aberration. Scanning 1992;14:145-153.
33.
Ferrero L, Pissavini M, Marguerie S, Zastrow L: Efficiency of a continuous height distribution model of sunscreen film geometry to predict a realistic sun protection factor. J Cosmet Sci 2003;54:463-481.
34.
Ferrero L, Pissavini M, Doucet O: How a calculated model of sunscreen film geometry can explain in vitro and in vivo SPF variation. Photochem Photobiol Sci 2010;9:540-551.
35.
Vollhardt J, Schoop R, Janssen A, Mendrok-Edinger C, Klock J, Baltussen M, Oosterlinck F: The future of sunscreens: what lies beyond SPF 50+? SOFW J 2015;141:42-48.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.