88 TESTING
Original Figure 14: Filters applied with Mountains.
The size of the cutoff filter was tried on various 3D KP images, between 1 mm and 3mm. The 2mm was chosen because it was the most appropriate balance between too much details and too much information removed (Fig 11). Moreover, the threshold parameter was evaluated between 10% and 20%. In the example (Fig 12) it appears that threshold 10% is too low to select an accurate number of KP whereas threshold 15% and 20% are more appropriate. We finally chose 15% because some KP can merge in the 20% selection (see yellow circle). Regarding the parameter “minimum size” , 0.2mm² and 0.3mm2
of KP, we tried 0.1mm2 as it is a balanced selection. .
The differences were quite low between the 3 “minimum size” tested, we finally selected the 0.2mm2
Mountains software set up We applied the same principle and parameters than for AEVA system. An illustration of original acquisition and final filtered picture is given in Figure 14, these schematic illustrations show that it could be possible to extract the same parameters as with the AEVA software.
KP Density/cm2
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
5 10 15 20 Correlation AEVA vs. Mountains
Mean Sd
Min Max
Table 2: Quantification with AEVA. Surface Surface (mm2 1.1
0.9 0.2 5.8
AEVA and Mountains results The quantification of KP with fringes projection and AEVA software has allowed the analysis of 1736 KP lesions with an average density of 6.6 ± 1.5 KP/cm2
. In
order to give a better understandable result, the number of KP contained in a 1€ coin would be on average 26. The average results obtained from 1736 KP lesions are reported in Table 2. Our data indicated that the amplitude of values could be important from one KP to another one. However, we observed that most of the KP have the same features and this could be explained by the preliminary selection of volunteers with similar features. The quantification of KP with Mountains software led to similar results. The average
R2 = 0.8863
6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50
25 30 35 40 45 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
) Perimeter (mm) 4.5
1.7 1.9
14.6
Volume (mm3 0.021
0.033 0.001 0.328
)
Thickness (µm) 32
28 2
226
density for the 63 sites is 6.5 KP/cm2 average surface is 1.3 mm2
, average
perimeter is 4.2 mm, average volume is 0.022 mm3
, average maximum thickness is
27 µm. A correlation between two methods is given in Figures 15 (density) and 16 (perimeter). The calculation of R2 correlation coefficient shows a very high correlation between both methods with R2 = 0.89 for density and R2 = 0.78 for perimeter.
Product evaluation Using the AEVA system for calculation and the Mountains system for illustration, we performed the evaluation of a cream containing a Salinicoccus hispanicus lysate filtrate versus a placebo. The lysate
KP perimeter (mm) Correlation AEVA vs. Mountains ,
Roughness
Waviness
Filtered objects
R2
= 0.7825
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Figure 15 and 16: Correlation AEVA vs. Mountains. PERSONAL CARE EUROPE April 2020
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196
