International Journal of Advances in Science Engineering and Technology, ISSN: 2321-9009 Volume-5, Issue-3, Jul.

-2017
http://iraj.in
IN VITRO STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT ABSORBENT
WOUND DRESSINGS ON PH ENVIRONMENT
1
SUKHONTHA HASATSRI, 2SUWIT SWANGWIT, 3CHADAPORN BOOCHAKUL,
4
CHAMAIPOND TRAGOONSUPACHAI
1
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Rangsit University, Thailand
Email: sukhontha.h@rsu.ac.th, suwit.s54@rsu.ac.th, chadaporn.b54@rsu.ac.th, chamaiporn.t54@rsu.ac.th

Abstract—Anacidic environment can promote wound healing. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effect of
commercially available absorbent wound dressings on pH environment using an in vitro assay. Two hydrocolloids, two
alginates, and two foams were evaluated with the standard test method. We concluded that the hydrocolloids and alginates
had lower pH value compared to the foams.

Keywords—Alginates, Foams, Hydrocolloids, pH, Wound dressing

INTRODUCTION
The most important properties of ideal wound dressing
are the ability to absorb wound exudate and providing
the optimal environment for skin wound healing.
Creating or maintaining a moist environment can
promote angiogenesis, cell migration, a formation of
granulation tissue and autolytic debridement [1]. In
addition to the effects of moist environment, pH
environment should also be considered. The alkaline
environment (7.2 – 8.9) has been found in chronic
wound [2, 3]. The study of the pH of pressure ulcers
found that the pH of stage I has similar to normal skin
(~5.5), whereas the pH of stage II and III were
increased to 6.9 – 7.6 [2]. In addition, several studies
showed that the wounds with weakly acidic wound
environment performed faster rates of wound healing
[4-6]. Therefore, a reduction in the pH environment by
absorbent wound dressings is an influential factor for
wound dressing selection.
Wound dressings can be categorized into 6 types: tulle
gras, films, hydrogels hydrocolloids, alginates, and
foams. Tulle gras and films are a non-absorbent
dressing, and absorptive capacity of hydrogels are
limited. Whereas, hydrocolloids, alginates, and foams
are an absorbent dressing and can provide the moist
environment [1]. In this paper, 6 different commercial
wound dressings (2 hydrocolloids, 2 alginates, and 2
foams) were evaluated. Some of them are a multi-layer
dressing (a combination of 2 or more materials) that
can provide different characteristics. Therefore, the
aim of the present study is to evaluate for a comparison
of the effect of different commercial absorbent wound
dressings on pH environment using an in vitro assay.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Materials
NexcareTM (thickness = 0.55 mm) which is an
adhesive hydrocolloid dressing was manufactured by
3M (Minnesota, United States of America).
DuoDERM® CGFTM (thickness = 2.56 mm) which is
an adhesive dressing composed of a hydrocolloid and
foam layer was manufactured by ConvaTec Inc.
(New Jersey, United States of America). Algisite®M
(thickness = 2.46 mm) which is a nonadhesive
calcium alginate dressing was manufactured by Smith
& Nephew Healthcare Limited (London, United
Kingdom). Kaltostat® (thickness = 2.20 mm) which
is a nonadhesive calcium sodium alginate dressing
was manufactured by ConvaTec Inc. (Deeside,
United Kingdom). Allevyn® (thickness = 5.52 mm)
which is a nonadhesive dressing composed of a foam
and polyurethane film layer was manufactured by
Smith & Nephew Healthcare Limited (London,
United Kingdom). Askina® Transorbent® (thickness
= 3.46 mm) which is an adhesive dressing composed
of a foam, polyurethane film, and hydrogel layer was
manufactured by B. Braun Hospicare Ltd. Collooney
(Co. Sligo Ireland).
B. pH determination
A dressing (2 cm  2 cm) was suspended in deionized
water at a ratio of 1:100 (w/v) [7]. The pH of water
was determined by pH meter after 2, 12, 24, and 48
hours of incubation at room temperature. The pH
meter was calibrated at pH 4 and pH 7. The
experiments were performed in triplicate. The graph
was prepared using mean ± standard deviation.
RESULTS
The pH of water submerged with NexcareTM for 2
hours was increased to 6.5, after that, it seemed not
much changed, compared with the 0 hour time point.
Whereas, the pH of water submerged with
DuoDERM® CGFTM was slightly decreased to 5.6.
The pH of water submerged with alginates for 48
hours was decreased to 5.5 – 5.8 while the pH of water
submerged with Allevyn® and Askina®
Transorbent® was increased to 6.3 and 7.6,
respectively (see Fig. I).

In Vitro Study of The Effect of Different Absorbent Wound Dressings on Ph Environment

56
International Journal of Advances in Science Engineering and Technology, ISSN: 2321-9009
http://iraj.in
Fig. I pH of water submerged with wound dressings for 2, 12, 24 and 48 hours
DISCUSSION
The pH values of DuoDERM® CGFTM were found
more acidic than NexcareTM. It may be caused by
degradation of NexcareTM after 5 minutes because of
too thin. The pH values of Algisite®M and
Kaltostat® were found to be greatly lower than other
dressings. It may be because the alginates are
composed of alginic acid and its salts (calcium or
calcium/sodium salts) that could release into the
water [1, 8]. On the other hand, we found that the pH
values of foams were increased, especially Askina®
Transorbent®. Askina® Transorbent® create the
slightly alkaline environment. In previous studies,
increasing the pH wound environment can delay
wound healing due to the effects on protease activity
and oxygen release [9]. Moreover, most common
bacteria that cause skin infection grow well at pH > 6,
however, their growth is inhibited by an acidic
environment [10, 11].
CONCLUSION
The study showed a reduction in pH environment in
DuoDERM® CGFTM, Algisite®M and Kaltostat®. It
can be suggested that the alginates facilitate acidic
environment while hydrocolloids depend on a
structural stability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from
the Faculty of Pharmacy, Rangsit University.

In Vitro Study of The Effect of Different Absorbent Wound Dressings on Ph Environment
57
Volume-5, Issue-3, Jul.-2017
REFERENCES
[1] K. C. Broussard, and J. G. Powers, “Wound Dressings:
Selecting the Most Appropriate Type,” Am J ClinDermatol,
vol. 14, pp. 449-459, 2013.
[2] K. Tsukada, K. Tokunaga, T. Iwama et al., “The pH changes
of pressure ulcers related to the healing process of wounds,”
Wounds, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 16-20, 1992.
[3] M. Wilson, M. Henry, R. Quill et al., “The pH of varicose
ulcer surfaces and its relationship to healing,” VASA, vol. 8,
pp. 339-342, 1979.
[4] H. H. Leveen, G. Falk, B. Borek et al., “Chemical acidification
of wounds: an adjuvant to healing and the unfavorable action
of alkalinity and ammonia,” Ann Surg, vol. 178, pp. 745-753,
1973.
[5] L. A. Schneider, A. Korber, S. Grabbe et al., “Influence of pH
on wound-healing: a new perspective for wound-therapy?,”
Arch Dermatol Res, vol. 298, pp. 413-420, 2007.
[6] S. L. Percival, S. McCarry, J. A. Hunt et al., “The effects of pH
on wound healing, biofilms and antimicrobial efficacy,”
Wound Repair Regen, vol. 22, pp. 174-186, 2014.
[7] D. Parsons, P. G. Bowler, V. Myles et al., “Silver
antimicrobial dressings in wound management: a comparison
of antibacterial, physical, and chemical characteristics,”
Wounds, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 222-232, 2005.
[8] D. Weir, “Top tips for wound dressing selection,” Wounds
International, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 18-22, 2012.
[9] G. Gethin, “The significance of surface pH in chronic
wounds,” Wounds, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 52-56, 2007.
[10] S. O'Meara, N. Cullum, M. Majid et al., “Systematic reviews
of wound care management: (3) antimicrobial agents for
chronic wounds; (4) diabetic foot ulceration,” Health Technol
Assess, vol. 4, no. 21, pp. 1-237, 2000.
[11] L. V. Thomas, J. W. Wimpenny, and J. G. Davis, “Effect of
three preservatives on the growth of Bacillus cereus, Vero
cytotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, on
plates with gradients of pH and sodium chloride
concentration,” Int J Food Microbiol, vol. 17, pp. 289-301,
1993.