Scientists have developed a machine to study the biomechanics of hair splitting, offering new insights into hair damage, potentially paving the way for improved hair care strategies.
For many patients, split ends and unruly hair are familiar annoyances. But what causes hair to split and fray? Why were some patients more prone to this problem than others? A team of researchers at Trinity College Dublin have made strides in understanding the biomechanics of hair damage.
The study, published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface Focus, involved the development of a novel testing device called the "Moving Loop Fatigue machine." The machine was designed to simulate the mechanical stresses that hair experiences during everyday grooming, particularly when tangled hair was combed or brushed.
Using the device, researchers tested hair samples from two individuals: one with a history of frequent split ends and a control subject with no such history. They found the hair prone to splitting failed more quickly under the machine's stresses and developed longer splits compared to the control hair.
Lead investigator, Professor David Taylor saw this work as a starting point for a more rigorous, scientific approach to hair care. "Hair is a complex material, and it is surprising how little we know about it. In time our work may change that, with implications for the cosmetics industry and the millions of people across the globe that want to take first-rate care of their hair," he said.
The researchers planned to expand on this initial study by testing a larger variety of hair types from more individuals, including curly hair which might respond differently to mechanical stress. They also aimed to investigate the role of environmental factors such as humidity and temperature in hair damage.
"This work constituted a first step in developing a scientific approach to better understanding the biomechanics of hair-splitting. It paved the way for future studies, including a more comprehensive experimental program," noted Professor Taylor in a separate editorial.
Study authors declared no competing interests.