The vulvar skin microenvironment: impact of tight-fitting underwear on microclimate, pH and microflora.

The aim of the present study was to investigate if tight-fitting underwear (string panties) equipped with string panty liners affected the vulvar skin microenvironment differently to regular panties with standard panty liners. Thirty-two healthy women participated in a crossover study where temperature, humidity, surface pH and aerobic microflora were measured on vulvar skin. Vulvar skin temperature was 35.2 +/- 0.19 (mean +/- SEM) and 35.3 +/- 0.17 degrees C, respectively, for the two underwear systems. Mean humidity and mean skin surface pH at vulvar skin did not differ between the two systems. Barely noticeable differences were found for the aerobic microflora both at labium majus and at perineum. The mean total number of microorganisms in the two different panty liners was the same, 6.0 +/- 0.15 and 6.0 +/- 0.16, respectively (log CFU per panty liner). The differences in panty and panty liner design studied seem to have negligible impact on the vulvar skin microclimate, skin surface pH and aerobic microflora. No support was found for the assumption that a string panty system would result in higher contamination of vulvar skin by anorectal microflora.

The vulvar skin microenvironment: influence of different panty liners on temperature, pH and microflora.

The aim of this study was to confirm findings that vapour-impermeable panty liners might impair skin climate, and to assess their impact on the skin microflora. Temperature, surface pH and aerobic microflora were measured on vulvar skin of 102 women. The mean skin temperature was 1.1 degrees C higher when using a vapour-impermeable panty liner compared with not using one. Use of panty liners with vapour-permeable back sheets and acidic cores resulted in skin temperature, pH and microflora levels that were very close to those observed in persons not using liners. The temperature, pH and total number of microorganisms were significantly lower for users of vapour-permeable panty liners than for users of vapour-impermeable ones (p <0.05, p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). The microorganism densities were usually higher when using the vapour-impermeable panty liner, but mean differences were minor. The use of panty liners seems not to imply a microbial risk for normal, healthy women.

The vulva skin microclimate: influence of panty liners on temperature, humidity and pH.

Many women use panty liners between menstrual periods. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of such products might influence the vulva skin. Twelve healthy women were studied on four occasions with three different product constructions and on one occasion without products. Temperature, surface wetness and surface pH were measured on vulva skin. Mean skin temperature when the women were wearing a conventional panty liner (with a non-breathable back sheet) was 35.9 degrees C, compared to 34.4 degrees C when wearing no panty liner at all (p < 0.01) and 34.5 degrees C when using a panty liner with a breathable (i.e. vapour permeable) back sheet (p < 0.01). Skin humidity was significantly higher when the conventional panty liner was used compared to no panty liner or to the breathable panty liner (both cases p < 0.01). The mean pH value at the exterior aspect of the labium majus was 5.8 with the conventional panty liner, 5.2 with no panty liner and 5.3 with the breathable panty liner (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). The results indicate that the conventional panty liner changes the vulva skin microclimate, but that the breathable panty liner to a substantial degree keeps the microclimate at an undisturbed level. The actual effect of these differences on microbiological flora will be addressed in a subsequent study.