Influence of Climatic Conditions on the Irritant Patch Test with Sodium Lauryl Sulphate

Acta Dermato-Venereologica

Volumn 83, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 338-341

  Löffler, Harald ^a   Happle, Rudolf ^a  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Epidermal barrier; Humidity; Irritant contact dermatitis; Seasonal variation; Skin irritation; Temperature; Transepidermal water loss

Indexed keywords

DODECYL SULFATE SODIUM;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLIMATE CHANGE; COLD AIR; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL TEMPERATURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMIDITY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PATCH TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEASONAL VARIATION; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN WATER LOSS; SPRING; TOXICITY TESTING; VAPOR PRESSURE; WATER VAPOR; WINTER;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CLIMATE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IRRITANTS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATCH TESTS; SKIN; SKIN PHYSIOLOGY; SODIUM DODECYL SULFATE; WEATHER;

EID: 10744223152     PISSN: 00015555     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00015550310012584     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Uter W, Gefeller O, Schwanitz HJ. An epidemiological study of the influence of season (cold and dry air) on the occurrence of irritant skin changes of the hands. Br J Dermatol 1998; 138: 266-272.
2. Agner T, Serup J. Seasonal variation of skin resistance to irritants. Br J Dermatol 1989; 121: 323-328.
3. Tupker RA, Coenraads PJ, Fidler V, De Jong MC, van der Meer JB, De Monchy JG. Irritant susceptibility and weal and flare reactions to bioactive agents in atopic dermatitis. II. Influence of season. Br J Dermatol 1995; 133: 365-370.
4. Denda M. Epidermal proliferative response induced by sodium dodecyl sulphate varies with environmental humidity. Br J Dermatol 2001; 145: 252-257.
5. Diepgen TL, Fartasch M, Hornstein OP. Evaluation and relevance of atopic basic and minor features in patients with atopic dermatitis and in the general population. Acta Derm Venereol 1989; Suppl. 144: 50-54.
6. Tupker RA, Willis C, Berardesca E, Lee SH, Fartasch M, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines on sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) exposure testing. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37: 53-69.
7. Pinnagoda J, Tupker RA, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement: a report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1990; 22: 164-178.
8. Deutscher-Wetterdienst: Aspirations-Psychrometer-Tafeln (ed. 6.). Braunschweig: Vieweg Verlag, 1979.
9. Löffler H, Pirker C, Aramaki J, Frosch PJ, Happle R, Effendy I. Evaluation of skin susceptibility to irritancy by routine patch testing with sodium lauryl sulfate. Eur J Dermatol 2001; 11: 416-419.
10. Zöfel P. Statistik in der Praxis, vol. 3. Auflage. Stuttgart, Jena: G. Fischer Verlag, 1992.
11. Basketter DA, Miettinen J, Lahti A. Acute irritant reactivity to sodium lauryl sulfate in atopics and non-atopics. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 38: 253-257.
12. Agner T. Noninvasive measuring methods for the investigation of irritant patch test reactions: a study of patients with hand eczema, atopic dermatitis and controls. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl 1992; 173: 1-26.
13. Lee CH, Maibach HI. The sodium lauryl sulfate model: an overview. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 1-7.
14. Effendy I, Maibach HI. Surfactants and experimental irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 217-225.
15. Löffler H, Effendy I, Happle R. Epikutane Testung mit Natriumlaurylsulfat: Nutzen und Grenzen in Forschung und Praxis. Hautarzt 1999; 50: 769-778.
16. Aramaki J, Löffler C, Kawana S, Effendy I, Happle R, Löffler H. Irritant patch testing with sodium lauryl sulfate: interrelation between concentration and exposure time. Br J Dermatol 2001; 145: 704-708.
17. Agner T, Serup J, Handlos V, Batsberg W. Different skin irritation abilities of different qualities of sodium lauryl sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 21: 184-188.
18. Aramaki J, Effendy I, Happle R, Kawana S, Löffler C, Löffler H. Which bioengineering assay is appropriate for irritant patch testing with sodium lauryl sulfate? Contact Dermatitis 2001; 45: 286-290.
19. Wilhelm KP, Cua AB, Wolff HH, Maibach HI. Surfactant-induced stratum corneum hydration in vivo: prediction of the irritation potential of anionic surfactants. J Invest Dermatol 1993; 101: 310-315.
20. Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Cutaneous sodium lauryl sulphate irritation potential: age and regional variability. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123: 607-613.
21. Elsner P, Wilhelm D, Maibach HI. Sodium lauryl sulfate-induced irritant contact dermatitis in vulvar and forearm skin of premenopausal and postmenopausal women. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990; 23: 648-652.
22. Lévêque JL, Corcuff P, de Rigal J, Agache P. In vivo studies of the evolution of physical properties of the human skin with age. Int J Dermatol 1984; 23: 322-329.
23. Löffler H, Effendy I, Happle R. The sodium lauryl sulfate test. A noninvasive functional evaluation of skin hypersensitivity. Hautarzt 1996; 47: 832-838.
24. Tupker RA, Coenraads PJ, Fidler V, De Jong MC, van der Meer JB, De Monchy JG. Irritant susceptibility and weal and flare reactions to bioactive agents in atopic dermatitis. I. Influence of disease severity. Br J Dermatol 1995; 133: 358-364.
25. Agner T. Skin susceptibility in uninvolved skin of hand eczema patients and healthy controls. Br J Dermatol 1991; 125: 140-146.
26. Kikuchi K, Kobayashi H, Le Fur I, Tschachler E, Tagami H. The winter season affects more severely the facial skin than the forearm skin: comparative biophysical studies conducted in the same Japanese female in later summer and winter. Exog Dermatol 2002; 1: 32-38.
27. Basketter DA, Griffiths HA, Wang XM, Wilhelm KP, McFadden J. Individual, ethnic and seasonal variability in irritant susceptibility of skin: the implications for a predictive human patch test. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35: 208-213.
28. Geier J, Uter W, Pirker C, Frosch PJ. Patch testing with the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is useful in interpreting weak reactions to contact allergens as allergic or irritant. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48: 99-107.
29. Mathias CG, Wilson DM, Maibach HI. Transepidermal water loss as a function of skin surface temperature. J Invest Dermatol 1981; 77: 219-220.
30. John SM, Uter W, Schwanitz HJ. Relevance of multi-parametric skin bioengineering in a prospectively followed cohort of junior hairdressers. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 43: 161-168.
31. Bruze M. Seasonal influence on routine patch test results. Contact Dermatitis 1986; 14: 184.
32. Edman B. Seasonal influence on patch test results. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 20: 226.
33. Ingber A, Sasson A, David M. The seasonal influence on patch test reactions is significant in Israel. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 39: 318-319.
34. Kränke B, Aberer W. Seasonal influence on patch test results in central Europe. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34: 215-216.
35. Hjorth N. Jahreszeitliche Schwankungen der Kontaktekzeme. Hautarzt 1975; 26: 75-76.
36. Uter W, Geier J, Land M, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O, Schnuch A. Another look at seasonal variation in patch test results. A multifactorial analysis of surveillance data of the IVDK. Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 44: 146-152.