Microtopography and Barrier Function in Healthy Skin: Differences between Forearm, Cheek and Palm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I write you in regard to your manuscript "Microtopography and Barrier Function in a Healthy Skin: Differences between Forearm, Cheek and Palm".

- please, add to the Abstract the SD of the mean age of the participants.

- to add strategy to the objectives, please, try to add some of the parameters of the investigation, for example.

- this research could also consider providing a new point of view on how to be more ascertain to select participants for in vivo assays for cosmetic attributes, please consult https://doi.org/10.1111/ics.12874. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We send you the revised version of our manuscript entitled ‘‘Microtopography and Barrier Function in Healthy Skin: Differences between Forearm, Cheek and Palm’’ with manuscript ID cosmetics-2720073.

Attached to this comment you can find the pdf response sheet to your suggestions.

The new version of the revised manuscript includes all suggestions made by the reviewers highlighting the changes using the track-changes mode in the manuscript.

If there is any question concerning our submission, do not hesitate to contact with the corresponding author.

We hope it will be suitable for publication in Cosmetics.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Raquel Sanabria.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Raquel Sanabria-de la Torre and colleagues submitted the manuscript „Microtopography and Barrier Function in a Healthy Skin: Differences between Forearm, Cheek and Palm“ to cosmetics. In this cross sectional study a range of biophysical properties of three different anatomical sides of skin were assessed and correlated with age, sex and the use of alcohol and tabacco. 15 different parameters were recorded in 44 healthy volunteers.

Since the authors investigated more than one person, the title should be revised and „a“ should be removed („…barrier function in healthy skin…“).

Introduction: The authors write that there is little information on less widespread parameters (line 60-62). Why is it relevant to measure these data and what impact do they have on healthy skin physiology? Please point this out in more detail to motivate the study.

The two sentences starting in line 44 and 45 are not opposing each other as both indicate an impaired skin barrier function. Please rephrase.

The study was conducted on healthy volunteers as is pointed out in materials and methods. In the result section the term patient was used. This would indicate a medical condition. Since this is not the case, please avoid the word patient and use proband, volunteer etc instead.

The methods are written in great detail, statistical analysis and ethics are included. Only there are some spelling mistakes and the use term for statistical test should be checked for correct names (i.e. t-test). Further in line 115 some words are missing.

Presentation of the results is clear and comprehensible. The usage of tables and graphs creates a vivid presentation of the different findings. However, there are some flaws that require your attention. The numbers in 3.1 and in table 1 (maritial status) are not correct. If you add them the result is more than 100% and only 70%, respectively. Please revise.

Please add a detailed legend text to figures 2 and 3. Explain the colour assigment/intensity scale of images. What is shown in the images (left, middle, right)? What do the red lines indicate?

Further explain in the text which image stands for the finding you state. For a reader that is not very familiar with the technology it is difficult to appreciate the findings by means of those images without further explaination.

Chapter 3.5: It should be mention in the methods, that Pearson ´s correlation coefficient is expressed as r=....

Chapter 3.6: Please clearly name which groups were compared to which.

With respect to smoking habits, the authors assessed the current number of cigarettes smoked per day. Have the authors any data for how long somebody has been smoking (how many years)? That would be an interesting question how this affect skin parameters in a long-term.

The authors could refer more often to the concrete results of their study. For example: (line 293-295) „On the other side, sociodemographic characteristics including exposome factors such as lifestyle habits (smoking and alcohol use, sun exposure, moisturizers or sunscreen use) may also have contributed to these distinctions.“ …which are higher smoothness, lower contrast etc in non-smokers.

In line 319 the authors state „In line with our results, barrier function as assessed by TEWL was found to increase with age [12].“ Please add the parameters that relate to this statement.

Please check: line 224 and 249: Differences in skin microphotography… it should read microtopography

In most parts English language is fine. There are some spelling mistakes and  uncomplete sentences.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We send you the revised version of our manuscript entitled ‘‘Microtopography and Barrier Function in Healthy Skin: Differences between Forearm, Cheek and Palm’’ with manuscript ID cosmetics-2720073.

Attached to this comment you can find the pdf response sheet to your suggestions.

The new version of the revised manuscript includes all suggestions made by the reviewers highlighting the changes using the track-changes mode in the manuscript.

If there is any question concerning our submission, do not hesitate to contact with the corresponding author.

We hope it will be suitable for publication in Cosmetics.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Raquel Sanabria.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I don't think this paper adds any new insight into the field. Moreover, the number of considered patients is too small to draw any significant conclusion

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We send you the revised version of our manuscript entitled ‘‘Microtopography and Barrier Function in Healthy Skin: Differences between Forearm, Cheek and Palm’’ with manuscript ID cosmetics-2720073.

Attached to this comment you can find the pdf response sheet to your suggestions.

The new version of the revised manuscript includes all suggestions made by the reviewers highlighting the changes using the track-changes mode in the manuscript.

If there is any question concerning our submission, do not hesitate to contact with the corresponding author.

We hope it will be suitable for publication in Cosmetics.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Raquel Sanabria.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf