Schuster, 1992 James Schuster is a Wisconsin dermatologist who has prepared
several videos and slide presentations on hair removal. Dr. Schuster
performed several controlled tests of electric tweezers to demonstrate
that the devices cannot perform as claimed.
The slide above demonstrates the chemical reaction that takes
place with an electrified probe using direct (galvanic) current.
The analog medium turns purple in the presence of sodium hydroxide
(NaOH). This chemical, also known as lye, is corrosive and can
permanently damage a hair follicle in galvanic and blend electrolysis.
Note that the chemical reaction only takes place in a uniform
pattern around the needle. The electricity does not travel through
the medium and is too dissipated past a certain point to cause
the chemical reaction.
Comparison of galvanic needle epilation to galvanic tweezer
epilation.
Dr. Schuster prepared several hair follicles by leaving the surrounding
skin intact. He then slid an electrolysis probe into the follicle
and immersed the specimen in an analog solution that turns purple
in the presence of lye.
 Results of galvanic needle
reaction
Dr. Schuster repeated the galvanic needle experiment with galvanic
tweezers.
Note in the photos below that there is no change in the analog
in the first two photos, indicating the the current is not traveling
down the hair as claimed by electric tweezer makers. To prove
the tweezers themselves conducted galvanic current, he dipped
the second hair deeper so the tweezers came in contact with the
analog solution. This caused a bright burst of purple, indicating
the presence of lye. Note that the lye is only at the top of the
hair follicle near the tweezer. This indicates that even with
direct tweezer contact to the skin, energy will not travel down
a hair as claimed by tweezer manufacturers.
Schuster concluded:
"My experiments with electrolyte treated hairs demonstrated
that a very small current can be conducted over the hair surface
through the electrolyte coating, not the hair fiber itself.
In addition, such current would readily diffuse upon contact
with the follicle walls past the infundibulum and little, if
any, would reach the papilla."
These findings echo other unpublished clinical data ( van Orden 1998)
and commonly accepted observations on hair properties (Ruggera, 1991 and Feughelman, 1982). As Dr.
Feughelman confirmed in his third-party review of the van Orden
study, the application of a gel or conductive solution would form
a coating on the hair surface through which current might flow,
not through the hair fiber itself.
In other words, controlled clinical data and experts in the field
of hair conductivity indicate that electric tweezers cannot work
as claimed. The gel some electric tweezers use does not appear
to make it possible for the hair to conduct electricity to the
bottom of a hair.
| specimen #1
galvanic tweezer
|
specimen #2
galvanic tweezer
|
specimen #2
galvanic tweezers immersed in analog
|
 |
 |
 |
(slides courtesy of James Schuster, M.D. Reprinted with permission.)
|
