Cited by 89Dermatology and Skin DiseasesContact Dermatitis and AllergiesAdvancements in Transdermal Drug Delivery

Transepidermal water loss (TEWL): Environment and pollution—A systematic review

Open access
Green, Maxwell, Kashetsky, Nadia, Feschuk, Aileen, Maibach, Howard I.·2022·Skin Health and Disease

Abstract

Introduction: Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) is an objective measurement of skin integrity measured as the amount of water lost across the stratum corneum. TEWL varies greatly across variables such as age and anatomic location, and disruptions in the skin barrier have been linked to inflammatory dermatoses such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Impact of environmental conditions and pollution on TEWL has yet to be determined. Accordingly, this review summarizes effects of environmental conditions and pollution on TEWL. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science to find human studies that provided data on environmental conditions and/or pollution and TEWL. Results: In total, 15 studies were included, with 11 studies examining environmental and seasonal conditions on TEWL and four examining pollution. All studies examining pollution showed increased TEWL in people exposed to particulate matter or NO2. Contradictory results were found on the effects of season and climate across the 11 studies, with no consensus reached. Conclusion: Exposure to pollution is reported to cause increases in TEWL, likely through free radical damage. Significant discrepancies exist among current literature as to the effects of season and climate on TEWL. There is a need to continue examining environmental variables other than temperature and relative humidity, such as atmospheric and steam pressure, that may impact TEWL.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ski2.104

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Exposure to airborne pollutants can lead to transepidermal water loss and impair water retention, resulting in dryness, flaking, and heightened skin sensitivity.

    “Moreover, exposure to airborne pollutants can lead to transepidermal water loss and impair water retention, resulting in dryness, flaking, and heightened skin sensitivity [61].”

    From The Environmental Determinants of Skin Health: Linking Climate Change, Air Pollution, and the Dermatologic Disease Burden (2025) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Conclusion (page not provided) says particulate matter and NO2 increase transepidermal water loss through epithelial damage, supporting the pollution–water-loss link. The paper does not establish that this leads to impaired water retention, dryness, flaking, or heightened skin sensitivity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]Honari G, Maibach H. Chapter 1 ‐ Skin Structure and Function. 2014.
  2. [14]Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2021; 74(9): 790– 99. 34446261

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Green, M., Kashetsky, N., Feschuk, A., & Maibach, H. I.
Affiliations
  • Tulane University (US)
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
  • Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco , San Francisco, California ,
Corresponding author
Green, Maxwell
Venue
Skin Health and Disease
Published
2022-02-25
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
e104-e104
ISSN
2690-442X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214600812
Cited by
86
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Skin Health and Disease (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
UCSF Open Access Fund
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Advancements in Transdermal Drug Delivery
Keywords
transepidermal water loss, skin barrier integrity, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, air pollution, seasonal variation, oxidative damage, stratum corneum, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review