Assessing Potential Circadian, Diurnal, and Ultradian Variations in Skin Biophysical Properties.

A variety of skin measurements are routinely made in various clinical and research settings to evaluate the skin's biophysical properties for diagnostic and research purposes. Such measurements include transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin pH, sebum, skin blood flow (SBF), and tissue dielectric constant (TDC) as a measure of skin water. Given the various reported circadian, diurnal, and possible ultradian and other temporal variations in skin physiological processes, it is of value to have clarity as to possible temporal variations in skin's biophysical properties associated with such processes. It was thus the purpose of this investigation to review and detail key elements of what is currently known regarding such variations and to provide a characterization that will permit informed judgments as to the sensitivity of the timing of measurements to optimize measurement reproducibility. Understanding these variations and their possible oscillatory effects on skin biophysical properties may aid physicians in providing optimal treatment timing for dermatological conditions and offer researchers insight into optimal measurement timing. The major findings of the present investigation that systematically searched multiple databases and critically examined pertinent findings, revealed that of the several skin parameters reviewed, which included TEWL, pH, sebum, SBF, TDC, and thickness, each had at least one study describing a statistically significant within-a-day temporal change. The magnitude of these changes varied and may be large enough to be seriously considered when assessing these parameters in clinical and research settings. However, inconsistencies in reported temporal variations suggest that further systematic research is well warranted especially with respect to temporal within-a-day and day-to-day variabilities of TEWL, TDC, and mechanical properties. At present, the impact of this type of confounding variability on reported values for skin biophysical parameters is unclear and worthy of further clarification.