FAQ - Answer 2 (C)
|
| AquaFlux vs VapoMeter - In-Vivo Measurement
Repeatability |
The protocol used was as described in the ISBS
conference poster.
Its aim was to assess measurement uncertainties associated with
rapid TEWL measurement. To this end, skin-related uncertainties
were reduced by confining the study to a single test area of
a single volunteer in a single session. The measurements were
performed on seven test sites marked on the left volar forearm
of an elderly volunteer, as illustrated in the photo below
|
 |
The TEWL of each site was measured in rapid
sequence, with 12 repeats for each instrument. With the
AquaFlux, the probe was moved from site to site without any recovery
delays (site hopping). Site hopping is not possible with the VapoMeter.
In this case, the next measurement was initiated immediately the instrument
beep indicated its readiness. The results are shown below.
|
 |
Note that the two instruments were not tested in the same session. Therefore,
neither the skin properties nor the exact location of each site are
directly comparable. What is at issue here is repeatability, ie the
ability of each instrument to come up with the same reading when
the same reading is expected. This repeatability property is measured
by the error bars (±1
standard deviation) in the above figure.
|
|
