Next Article in Journal
Alpha-Bisabolol-Loaded Cosmetic Micellar Solution with Cleansing and Antimicrobial Action for Facial Skin Hygiene
Next Article in Special Issue
Scalp Microbiome and Dandruff—Exploring Novel Biobased Esters
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Galloyl–RGD, Derived from a Fusion of Phytochemicals and RGD Peptides, Regulates Photoaging via the MAPK/AP-1 Mechanism in Human Dermal Fibroblasts
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Alternative Approach to Validate the Cleaning Efficiency of a Skin Cleansing Wipe

by
Arnold Marisa
1,
Wisdom Shadrach
1,
Kerrie Holohan
1,
Abed Alkarem Abu Alhaija
2,
Emer Gilligan
3,
Jill Sommerville
3,
Niall Burke
1,* and
Tim Yeomans
1
1
Shannon Applied Biotechnology Centre, Munster Technological University, V92 CX88 Tralee, Ireland
2
Division of Oral Bioscience, Dublin Dental Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, D02 F859 Dublin, Ireland
3
WaterWipes UC., Donore Road Industrial Estate, Donore Road, Rathmullan, A92 VX00 Drogheda, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cosmetics 2024, 11(5), 172; https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11050172
Submission received: 31 July 2024 / Revised: 13 September 2024 / Accepted: 26 September 2024 / Published: 1 October 2024

Abstract

A key functionality for cleansing wipes is their efficiency in removing dirt and microbial contamination from the skin to safe or non-detectable levels, traditionally determined using the gravimetric method, which has been reported to be prone to experimental errors. This study evaluates the efficiency of a water-based cleansing wipe, WaterWipes® (WaterWipes, UC, Drogheda, Ireland), for removing synthetic faecal matter (FecloneTM, SiliClone Creations LLC, Havertown, PA, United States) and Escherichia coli (NCTC 10538) from volunteers’ skin, the former using a dermal analytical device called the Antera 3DTM camera (Miravex Ltd., Dublin, Ireland), and the latter using standard microbiological methods. FecloneTM was applied to participants’ forearms and the Antera 3DTM camera captured detailed images of the skin surface before and after wiping. The Antera 3DTM camera approach was found to be effective in measuring cleaning efficiency, with the wipe removing all detectable traces of the FecloneTM applied. The total pore area (mm2), pore count, and total pore volume (mm3) in test participants post-wiping were observed to be reduced on average by 39.05%, 34.39%, and 39.98%, respectively. The wipe removed 99.99% of E. coli (NCTC 10538) applied, as measured using the microbial plate count method. In conclusion, the Antera 3DTM camera method was observed to be effective in evaluating removal of topically applied FecloneTM.
Keywords: cleansing wipes; Antera 3DTM camera; FecloneTM; WaterWipes®; bacterial removal cleansing wipes; Antera 3DTM camera; FecloneTM; WaterWipes®; bacterial removal

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marisa, A.; Shadrach, W.; Holohan, K.; Abu Alhaija, A.A.; Gilligan, E.; Sommerville, J.; Burke, N.; Yeomans, T. An Alternative Approach to Validate the Cleaning Efficiency of a Skin Cleansing Wipe. Cosmetics 2024, 11, 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11050172

AMA Style

Marisa A, Shadrach W, Holohan K, Abu Alhaija AA, Gilligan E, Sommerville J, Burke N, Yeomans T. An Alternative Approach to Validate the Cleaning Efficiency of a Skin Cleansing Wipe. Cosmetics. 2024; 11(5):172. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11050172

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marisa, Arnold, Wisdom Shadrach, Kerrie Holohan, Abed Alkarem Abu Alhaija, Emer Gilligan, Jill Sommerville, Niall Burke, and Tim Yeomans. 2024. "An Alternative Approach to Validate the Cleaning Efficiency of a Skin Cleansing Wipe" Cosmetics 11, no. 5: 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11050172

APA Style

Marisa, A., Shadrach, W., Holohan, K., Abu Alhaija, A. A., Gilligan, E., Sommerville, J., Burke, N., & Yeomans, T. (2024). An Alternative Approach to Validate the Cleaning Efficiency of a Skin Cleansing Wipe. Cosmetics, 11(5), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11050172

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop