Air flow at different temperatures increases sodium lauryl sulphate-induced barrier disruption and irritation in vivo

British Journal of Dermatology

Volumn 152, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1228-1234

  Fluhr, Joachim W ^a   Praessler, J ^a   Akengin, A ^a   Fuchs, S M ^a   Kleesz, P ^b   Grieshaber, R ^b   Elsner, P ^a  

^a FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

^b BGN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Air flow velocity; Barrier function; Heat; Sodium lauryl sulphate; Stratum corneum; Tandem repeated irritation test

Indexed keywords

DETERGENT; DODECYL SULFATE SODIUM; EMOLLIENT AGENT; IRRITANT AGENT;

ACCURACY; ADULT; AIR TEMPERATURE; AIRFLOW; ARTICLE; CLIMATE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; FEMALE; FLOW RATE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IN VIVO STUDY; IRRITANT DERMATITIS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PARAMETER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFLECTOMETRY; SCORING SYSTEM; SKIN FUNCTION; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN PERMEABILITY; SKIN TEMPERATURE; SKIN WATER LOSS; WORKPLACE;

ADULT; AIR CONDITIONING; AIR MOVEMENTS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DERMATITIS, IRRITANT; DERMATITIS, OCCUPATIONAL; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; SKIN PHYSIOLOGY; SKIN TEMPERATURE; SKIN TESTS; SODIUM DODECYL SULFATE; SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS; WATER LOSS, INSENSIBLE;

EID: 21644484187     PISSN: 00070963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06531.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Denda M, Sato J, Tsuchiya T et al. Low humidity stimulates epidermal DNA synthesis and amplifies the hyperproliferative response to barrier disruption: implication for seasonal exacerbations of inflammatory dermatoses. J Invest Dermatol 1998; 111:873-8.
2. Denda M. Influence of dry environment on epidermal function. J Dermatol Sci 2000; 24 (Suppl. 1): S22-8.
3. Rycroft RJ. Occupational dermatoses from warm dry air. Br J Dermatol 1981; 105 (Suppl. 21): 29-34.
4. Veien NK, Hattel T, Laurberg G. Low-humidity dermatosis from car heaters. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37:138.
5. Morris-Jones R, Robertson SJ, Ross JS et al. Dermatitis caused by physical irritants. Br J Dermatol 2002; 147:270-5.
6. Costa MF, Brickus LS. Effect of ventilation systems on prevalence of symptoms associated with 'sick buildings' in Brazilian commercial establishments. Arch Environ Health 2000; 55:279-83.
7. Bauer A, Kelterer D, Stadeler M et al. The prevention of occupational hand dermatitis in bakers, confectioners and employees in the catering trades. Preliminary results of a skin prevention program. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 44:85-8.
8. Tacke J, Schmidt A, Fartasch M et al. Occupational contact dermatitis in bakers, confectioners and cooks. A population-based study. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33:112-17.
9. 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 (Stockh) 1992; 173 (Suppl.): 1-26.
10. Fluhr JW, Bornkessel A, Akengin A et al. Sequential application of cold and sodium lauryl sulphate decreases irritation and barrier disruption in vivo in humans. Br J Dermatol 2005; 152:702-8.
11. Agner T, Serup J. Sodium lauryl sulphate for irritant patch testing: a dose-response study using bioengineering methods for determination of skin irritation. J Invest Dermatol 1990; 95:543-7.
12. Tupker RA, Willis C, Berardesca E et al. Guidelines on sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) exposure tests. A report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37:53-69.
13. Nicholson M, Willis CM. The influence of patch test size and design on the distribution of erythema induced by sodium lauryl sulfate. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41:264-7.
14. Barany E, Lindberg M, Loden M. Biophysical characterization of skin damage and recovery after exposure to different surfactants. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40:98-103.
15. Fartasch M, Schnetz E, Diepgen TL. Characterization of detergent-induced barrier alterations-effect of barrier cream on irritation. J Invest Dermatol Symp Proc 1998; 3:121-7.
16. Wigger-Alberti W, Krebs A, Elsner P. Experimental irritant contact dermatitis due to cumulative epicutaneous exposure to sodium lauryl sulphate and toluene: single and concurrent application. Br J Dermatol 2000; 143:551-6.
17. Wigger-Alberti W, Spoo J, Schliemann-Willers S et al. The tandem repeated irritation test: a new method to assess prevention of irritant combination damage to the skin. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 2002; 82:94-7.
18. Clarys P, Manou I, Barel AO. Influence of temperature on irritation in the hand/forearm immersion test. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 36:240-3.
19. Berardesca E, Vignoli GP, Distante F et al. Effects of water temperature on surfactant-induced skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 32:83-7.
20. Ohlenschlaeger J, Friberg J, Ramsing D et al. Temperature dependency of skin susceptibility to water and detergents. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1996; 76:274-6.
21. Emilson A, Lindberg M, Forslind B. The temperature effect on in vitro penetration of sodium lauryl sulfate and nickel chloride through human skin. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1993; 73:203-7.
22. Rothenborg HW, Menné T, Sjolin KE. Temperature dependent primary irritant dermatitis from lemon perfume. Contact Dermatitis 1977; 3:37-48.
23. Loffler H, Aramaki J, Effendy I. Response to thermal stimuli in skin pretreated with sodium lauryl sulfate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 2001; 81:395-7.
24. Fluhr JW, Kuss O, Diepgen T et al. Testing for irritation with a multifactorial approach: comparison of eight non-invasive measuring techniques on five different irritation types. Br J Dermatol 2001; 145:696-703.
25. 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 (Stockh) 1989; 144 (Suppl.): 50-4.
26. Pinnagoda J, Tupker RA, Agner T et al. Guidelines for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement. A report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1990; 22:164-78.
27. Rogiers V. EEMCO guidance for the assessment of transepidermal water loss in cosmetic sciences. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 2001; 14:117-28.
28. Wilhelm KP, Freitag G, Wolff HH. Surfactant-induced skin irritation and skin repair: evaluation of a cumulative human irritation model by noninvasive techniques. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994; 31:981-7.
29. Fullerton A, Fischer T, Lahti A et al. Guidelines for measurement of skin colour and erythema. A report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35:1-10.
30. Elsner P. Chromametry Hardware Measuring Principles and Standardization Measurements. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1994.
31. Mayfield SR, Bhatia J, Nakamura KT et al. Temperature measurement in term and preterm neonates. J Pediatr 1984; 104:271-5.
32. Johansson A, Kopp S, Haraldson T. Reproducibility and variation of skin surface temperature over the temporomandibular joint and masseter muscle in normal individuals. Acta Odontol Scand 1985; 43:309-13.
33. Camel E, O'Connell M, Sage B et al. The effect of saline iontophoresis on skin integrity in human volunteers. I. Methodology and reproducibility. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1996; 32:168-78.
34. Ribaud C, Garson JC, Doucet J et al. Organization of stratum corneum lipids in relation to permeability: influence of sodium lauryl sulfate and preheating. Pharm Res 1994; 11:1414-18.
35. Al-Saidan SM, Winfield AJ, Selkirk AB. Effect of preheating on the permeability of neonatal rat stratum corneum to alkanols. J Invest Dermatol 1987; 89:430-3.
36. Behl CR, Flynn GL, Kurihara T et al. Permeability of thermally damaged skin: I. Immediate influences of 60 degrees C scalding on hairless mouse skin. J Invest Dermatol 1980; 75:340-5.
37. Nagda NL, Hodgson M. Low relative humidity and aircraft cabin air quality. Indoor Air 2001; 11:200-14.
38. Hosoi J, Hariya T, Denda M et al. Regulation of the cutaneous allergic reaction by humidity. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42:81-4.
39. Vocks E, Busch R, Frohlich C et al. Influence of weather and climate on subjective symptom intensity in atopic eczema. Int J Biometeorol 2001; 45:27-33.
40. Eberlein-Konig B, Spiegl A, Przybilla B. Change of skin roughness due to lowering air humidity in climate chamber. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1996; 76:447-9.
41. 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; 138:266-72.
42. Sato J, Denda M, Nakanishi J et al. Dry condition affects desquamation of stratum corneum in vivo. J Dermatol Sci 1998; 18:163-9.
43. Ashida Y, Ogo M, Denda M. Epidermal interleukin-1α generation is amplified at low humidity: implications for the pathogenesis of inflammatory dermatoses. Br J Dermatol 2001; 144:238-43.
44. Katagiri C, Sato J, Nomura J et al. Changes in environmental humidity affect the water-holding property of the stratum corneum and its free amino acid content, and the expression of filaggrin in the epidermis of hairless mice. J Dermatol Sci 2003; 31:29-35.
45. Sato J, Denda M, Chang S et al. Abrupt decreases in environmental humidity induce abnormalities in permeability barrier homeostasis. J Invest Dermatol 2002; 119:900-4.
46. Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Monitoring the water-holding capacity in visually non-irritated skin by plastic occlusion stress test (POST). Clin Exp Dermatol 1990; 15:107-10.