4.4 Article

The effect of the moisture content of a local heat source on the blood flow response of the skin

Journal

ARCHIVES OF DERMATOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 301, Issue 8, Pages 581-585

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-009-0957-3

Keywords

Endothelial; Blood flow; Heat; Circulation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Numerous studies have examined the effect of local and global heating of the body on skin blood flow. However, the effect of the moisture content of the heat source on the skin blood flow response has not been examined. Thirty-three subjects, without diabetes or cardiovascular disease, between the ages of 22 and 32 were examined to determine the relationship between the effects of dry vs. moist heat applied for the same length of time and with the skin clamped at the same skin temperature on the blood flow response of the skin. The skin, heated with an infrared heat lamp (skin temperature monitored with a thermocouple) to 40A degrees C for 15 min, was either kept moist with wet towels or, in a separate experiment, kept dry with Drierite (a desiccant) between the towels to remove any moisture. Before and after heat exposure of the forearm, blood pressure, heart rate, skin moisture content, skin temperature, and skin blood flow were recorded. The results of the experiment showed that there was no change in skin moisture after 15 min exposure to dry heat at 40A degrees C. However, with moist heat, skin moisture increased by 43.7%, a significant increase (P < 0.05). With dry heat, blood flow increased from the resting value by 282.3% whereas with moist heat, blood flow increased by 386% over rest, a significant increase over dry heat (P < 0.05). Thus, with a set increase in skin temperature, moist heat was a better heating modality than dry heat. The reason may be linked to moisture sensitivity in calcium channels in the vascular endothelial cell.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available