Is the product designed for sensitive skin?

Cosmetic Dermatology

Volumn 15, Issue 8, 2002, Pages

  Draelos, Zoe Diana ^a  

^a WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COSMETIC;

DRUG DESIGN; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG SCREENING; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; NOTE; SKIN MANIFESTATION; SKIN SENSITIVITY;

EID: 14644413337     PISSN: 10413766     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (49)

1. Jackson EM. The science of cosmetics. Am J Contact Derm. 1993;4:108-110.
2. Simion FA, Rau AH. Sensitive skin. Cosmet Toilet. 1994;109:43-50.
3. Amin S, Maibach HI. Cosmetic intolerance syndrome: pathophysiology and management. Cosmet Dermatol. 1996;9:34-42.
4. Jackson EM. Hypoallergenic claims. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1993;4(2):108-110.
5. Facial Sting Task Group, ASTM Committee; E-18.03.01.
6. Grove G, Soschin D, Kligman AM. Guidelines for performing facial stinging tests. Proceedings of the 12th Congress Internat Fed Soc of Cosmet Chem; September 13-17, 1982; Paris, France.
7. Laden K. Studies on irritancy and stinging potential. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1973;24:385-393.
8. Basketter DA, Griffiths HA. A study of the relationship between susceptibility to skin stinging and skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;29:185-188.
9. Christensen M, Kligman AM. An improved procedure for conducting lactic acid stinging tests on facial skin. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1996;47:1-11.
10. Leyden JJ. Risk assessment of products used on skin. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1993;4(3):158-162.
11. Frosch P, Kligman AM. A method for appraising the stinging capacity of topically applied substances. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1981;28:197.
12. Grove GL, Soshin DM, Kligman AM. Adverse subjective reactions to topical agents. In: Drill VA, Lazar P (eds). Cutaneous Toxicology. New York: Raven Press; 1984.
13. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. Recognition of chemically vulnerable and delicate skin. In: P Frost, SN Horwitz (eds). Principles of Cosmetics for the Dermatologist. St. Louis: CV Mosby: 1982.
14. Ethel Tur, Aviram G, Zeltser D, et al. Regional variations of human skin blood flow response to histamine. Curr Prob Dermatol. 1995;22:59-66.
15. Maibach HI, Lammintausta K, Berardesca E, et al. Tendency to irritation: sensitive skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21:833-835.
16. Mills OH, Berger RS. Defining the susceptibility of acne-prone and sensitive skin populations to extrinsic factors. Dermatol Clinics. 1991;9(1):93-98.
17. Frosch P, Duncan S, Kligman AM. Cutaneous biometrics I. The response of human skin to dimethyl sulfoxide. Br J Dermatol. 1980;102:263-274.
18. Agner T, Serup J. Quantification of the DMSO-response: A test for assessment of sensitive skin. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1989;14:214-217.
19. Guy RH, Maibach HI. Rapid radial transport of methyl nicotinate in the dermis. Arch Dermatol Res. 1982;273:91-95.
20. Agner T, Serup J. Skin reactions to irritants assessed by non-invasive bioengineering methods. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20:352-359.
21. Green BG. Measuring the chemosensory irritability of the skin. Proceedings from The First International Symposium on Cosmetic Efficacy; April 28-29, 1996; New York, NY.
22. Agner T, Serup J. Individual and instrumental variations in irritant patch-test reactions. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1990;15(1):29-33.
23. Idson B. In vivo measurement of transdermal water loss. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1976;29:573-580.
24. Rietschel RL, Spencer TS. Correlation between mosquito repellent protection time and insensible water loss from the skin. J Invest Dermatol. 1975;65:385-387.
25. Grove GL, Grove MJ. Objective methods for assessing skin surface topography noninvasively. In: Leveque JL (ed). Cutaneous Investigation in Health and Disease. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 1988:1-32.
26. Grove GL. Dermatological applications of the Magiscan image analysing computer. In: Marks R, Payne PA, (eds). Bioengineering and the Skin. Lancaster, England: MTP Press; 1981:173-182.
27. Babulak SW, Rhein LD, Scala DD, et al. Quantification of erythema in a soap chamber test using the Minolta Chroma (Reflectance) Meter. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1986;37:475-479.
28. Pierard GE, Nikkels AF. Rating sensitive skin by colorimetry of the skin and of D-squame collections. Presented at: The International Symposium on Irritant Contact Dermatitis. October 1991; Groningen, Holland.
29. Nilsson GE, Otto U, Wahlberg JE. Assessment of skin irritancy in man by laser Doppler flowmetry. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:401-406.
30. Willis CM, Stephens CJM, Wilkinson JD. Assessment of erythema in irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;18:138-142.
31. Andreassi L. Bioengineering in dermatology: general aspects and perspectives. Clin Dermatol. 1995;13(4):289-292.
32. Marks JG, DeLeo VA. Contact and Occupational Dermatology. St. Louis: Mosby Yearbook; 1992:30-49.
33. Shelanski HV, Shelanski HV. A new technique of human patch tests. Proceedings of the Scientific Section of the Toilet Goods Assocation. 1953;19:46.
34. Partick E, Maibach HI. Predictive skin irritation tests in animals and humans in dermatotoxicology. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (eds). Dermatotoxicology, 4th edition. New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1991:211-212.
35. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The chamber-scarification test for assessing irritancy of topically applied substances. In: Drill VA, Lazar P (eds). Cutaneous Toxicity. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1977:127-154.
36. Simion FA, Rhein LD, Grove GL, et al. Sequential order of skin responses to surfactants during a soap chamber test. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;25:242-249.
37. Ertel KD, Keswick BH, Bryant PB. A forearm controlled application technique for estimating the relative mildness of personal cleansing products. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1995;46:67-76.
38. Paye M, Morrison BM, Wilhelm KP. Skin irritancy classification of body cleansing products. Skin Research and Technology. 1995;1:30-35.
39. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D. Human cutaneous irritation: induced hyporeactivity. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;17:193-198.
40. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The soap chamber test: A new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1979;1:35-41.
41. Daskaleros TA, Hilgers G, Rottiers M, et al. Subjective (self assessed) and objective (biophysiological) characteristics to identify persons with sensitive skin. Poster presented at: The Second Congress of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. October 6-8, 1994; Barcelona.
42. Blake-Haskins J, Scala D, Rhein LD, et al. Predicting surfactant irritation from the swelling response of a collagen film. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1986;37:199-210.
43. Tavss EA, Eigen E, Kligman AM. Anionic detergent-induced skin irritation and anionic detergent-induced pH rise of bovine serum albumin. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1988;39:267-272.
44. Gotte E, et al. Synthetische Tenside in medizinisch-kosmetischen Baden, Aest Medizin. 1966;15:313-320.
45. Morrison BM, Paye M. A comparison of three in vitro screening tests with an in vivo clinical test to evaluate the irritation potential of antibacterial liquid soaps. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1995;46:291-299.
46. Paye M, Simion FA, Babulak SW, Rhein LD. Ability of four in vitro assays to predict surfactant induced erythema. Presented at: The First International Symposium on Irritant Contact Dermatitis; 1991: Groningen, The Netherlands.
47. Soschin D, Kligman AM. Adverse subjective responses. In: Kligman AM, Leyden JJ (eds). Safety & Efficacy of Topical Drugs and Cosmetics. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton; 1982.
48. Beradesca E, Cespa M, Farinelli N, et al. In vivo transcutaneous penetration of nicotinates and sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;25:35-38.
49. Agner T, Serup J. Skin reactions to irritants assessed by polysulfide rubber replica. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;17:205-211.