A hand immersion test under laboratory-controlled usage conditions: The need for sensitive and controlled assessment methods

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 133-138

  Paye, M ^a   Gomes, G ^b   Zerweck, C R ^c   Pierard G E ^d   Grove, G L ^c  

^a Advanced Technology Department   (Belgium)

^b Oral Care Research and Development   (United States)

^c KGL's Skin Study Center   (United States)

^d Colgote Palmolive R and D ^*

Author keywords

Biometry; Conductance; Detergent; Hand dominance; Hand immersion test; Irritation; Mildness; Stratum corneum stripping

Indexed keywords

DETERGENT;

ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; CONDUCTANCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DILUTION; DRY SKIN; ERYTHEMA; HAND; HANDEDNESS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMMERSION; LABORATORY; MUSCLE MASS; NORMAL HUMAN; SCORING SYSTEM; STRATUM CORNEUM; TOPICAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 0032993110     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1999.tb06010.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Frosch P J, Kligman A M. The soap chamber test. A new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol 1979: 1: 35-41.
2. Simion F A, Rhein L D, Grove G L, Wojtkowski J M, Cagan R H, Scala D D. Sequential order of skin responses to surfactants during a soap chamber test. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 25: 242-249.
3. Vilaplana J, Mascaro J M, Trullas C, Coll J, Romaguera C, Zemba C, Pelejero C. Human irritant response to different qualities and concentrations of cocoamidopropylbetaines. A possible model of paradoxical irritant response. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 26: 289-294.
4. Lanman B M, Elvers E B, Howard C J. The rôle of human patch testing in a product development program. Joint Conf on Cosmetic science. The Toilet Goods Assoc. (currently CTFA), Washington DC, 1968: 21-23.
5. Dillarstone A, Paye M. Classification of surfactant-containing products as 'skin irritants'. Contact Dermatitis 1994: 30: 314.
6. York M, Griffiths H A, Whittle E, Basketter D A. Evaluation of a human patch test for the identification of skin irritation potential. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 204-212.
7. Dillarstone A, Paye M. Antagonism in concentrated surfactant systems. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 28: 198.
8. Sharko P T, Murahata R I, Leyden J J, Grove G L. Arm wash evaluation with instrumental evaluation. A sensitive technique for differentiating the irritation potential of personal washing products. J Dermal Clin Eval Soc 1992: 43: 187-192.
9. Strube D D, Koontz S W, Murahata R I, Theiler R F. The flex wash test: a method for evaluating the mildness of personal washing products. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1989: 40: 297-306.
10. Charbonnier V, Morrison Jr B M, Paye M, Maibach H I. Open application assay in investigation of subclinical irritant dermatitis induced by sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) in man: advantage of squamometry. Skin Res Technol 1998: 4: 244-250.
11. Clarys P, Manou I, Barel A O. Influence of temperature on irritation in the hand/forearm immersion test. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 240-245.
12. Piérard G E, Piérard-Franchimont C, Saint-Léger D, Kligman A M. Squamometry: the assessment of xerosis by colorimetry of D-squame adhesive discs. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1992: 40: 297-305.
13. Paye M, Morrison Jr B M. Non visible skin irritation. Proceedings of the CESIO, Barcelona, Spain, 1996: 3: 42-51.
14. Morrison Jr B M, Paye M, Charbonnier V, Maibach H I. Demonstrating invisible (subclinical) sodium lauryl sulfate irritation with squamometry. Am. Acad Dermatol Meeting, Orlando, 27 Feb-4 Mar, 1998: P098.
15. Piérard G E, Masson P, Rodrigues L, Berardesca E, Lévêque J L, Loden M, Rogiers V, Sauermann G, Serup J. EEMCO guidance to the assessment of dry skin (xerosis) and ichtyosis: evaluation by stratum corneum strippings. Skin Res Technol 1996: 2: 3-11.
16. Piérard G E, Goffin V, Piérard-Franchimont C. Squamometry and corneosurfametry for rating interactions of cleansing products with stratum corneum. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1994: 45: 269-277.
17. Paye M, Cartiaux Y. Squamometry: a tool to move from exaggerated to more and more realistic application conditions for comparing the skin compatibility of surfactant-based products, Intl J Cosmet Sci 1998: in press.
18. Barel A O, Clarys P. In vitro calibration of the capacitance method (Corneometer CM825) and conductance method (Skicon-200) for the evaluation of the hydration state of the skin. Skin Res Technol 1997: 3: 107-113.
19. Wilhelm K-P. Possible pitfalls in hydration measurements. In: Measuring hydration of the skin. A practical workshop. 11th Intl Symp Bioeng Skin, 2-5 Oct, 1996, Zurich, Switzerland.
20. Morrison Jr B M, Scala D D. Comparison of instrumental measurements of skin hydration. J Toxicol-Cut & Ocular Toxicol 1996: 15: 305-314.
21. Paye M, Dalimier Ch, Cartiaux Y, Chabassol C. Consumer perception of sensitive hands: what is behind? Skin Res Technol 1998: in press.
22. Walker A, Basketter D A, Baverel M, Diembeck W, Matthies W, Mougin D, Paye M, Rothlisberger R, Dupuis J. Test guidelines for assessment of skin compatibility of cosmetic finished products in man. Food Chem Toxicol 1996: 34: 651-660.