Gibson Daniel J
Daniel J. Gibson, PhD, Institute for Wound Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2018 Jan/Feb;45(1):31-36. doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000391.
The purpose of these experiments was to compare 2 commercially available skin protectants with different chemical compositions.
Two materially different skin protectants were applied to ex vivo pig skin, subjected to stresses, and the resulting skin was observed and analyzed.
Using ex vivo pig skin, we sought to better understand the physical differences between a cyanoacrylate-based and a mixed cyanoacrylate/acrylic polymer-based skin protectant. A combination of imaging techniques and microscopic analyses was used to observe and quantify differences in layer thickness and the degree of steadfastness of the layers to liquid stresses.
The experiments revealed that the solely cyanoacrylate-based protectant created a layer that was, on average, 5.1 times thicker than the mixed polymer product (p= 1.8 × 10). Observation via electron microscopy also revealed that the extent of coverage varied between the 2 products. In a final experiment, we observed that the mixed polymer product maintained a high degree of adhesiveness, which led to the removal of sheets of epithelium upon gentle blotting.
The experiments revealed that while the 2 skin protectants share a common ingredient, both the quantity of that ingredient and the inclusion of other materials in one of them lead to substantially different properties when tested in the research setting.
这些实验的目的是比较两种化学成分不同的市售皮肤保护剂。
将两种材质不同的皮肤保护剂应用于离体猪皮,使其承受压力,然后对所得皮肤进行观察和分析。
利用离体猪皮,我们试图更好地了解基于氰基丙烯酸酯的皮肤保护剂和基于氰基丙烯酸酯/丙烯酸混合聚合物的皮肤保护剂之间的物理差异。采用成像技术和显微镜分析相结合的方法来观察和量化层厚度的差异以及各层对液体压力的稳固程度。
实验表明,仅基于氰基丙烯酸酯的保护剂形成的层平均比混合聚合物产品厚5.1倍(p = 1.8×10)。通过电子显微镜观察还发现,两种产品的覆盖程度有所不同。在最后一项实验中,我们观察到混合聚合物产品保持了高度的粘性,轻轻 blotting 时会导致上皮片脱落。
实验表明,虽然这两种皮肤保护剂有一种共同成分,但在研究环境中进行测试时,该成分的含量以及其中一种保护剂中其他材料的加入都会导致性质上的显著差异。