In vivo models of skin irritation

Irritant Dermatitis

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 489-499

  Simion, F Anthony ^a  

^a Andrew Jergens Company   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745887265     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-31294-3_53     Document Type: Chapter

References (52)

1. Malten KE. Thoughts on irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1981; 7:238-247
2. Kligman AM. The invisible dermatoses. Arch Dermatol 1991; 127:1375-1382
3. Freeman S, Maibach HI. Study of irritant contact dermatitis produced by repeated patch testing with sodium lauryl sulfate and assessed by visual methods, transepidermal water loss and laser Doppler velocimtery. J Am Acad Dermatol 1988; 19:496
4. De Groot AC, Nater JP, van der Lende R, Ricken B. Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries - a retrospective study in a general population. Int J Cosmet Sci 1987; 9:255
5. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. A method for appraising the stinging capacity of topically applied substances. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1977; 28:197
6. Green BG, Bluth J. Measuring the chemosensory irritability of human skin. J Toxicol Cut Ocular Toxicol 1995; 14:23-48
7. Yosipovitch G, Maibach HI. Effect of topical pramoxine on experimentally induced pruritus in humans. J Am Acad. Dermatol 1997; 37:278-280
8. Leopold CS, Maibach HI. Percutaneous penetration of local anesthetic bases: Pharmacodynamic measurements. J Invest Dermatol 1999; 113:304-307
9. Simion FA, Rhein LD, Morrison BM Jr, Scala DD, Salko DM, Kligman AM, Grove GL. Self-perceived sensory responses to soap and synthetic detergent bars correlate with clinical signs of irritation. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 32:205-211
10. Paye M, Cartiaux Y. Squamometry: a tool to move from exaggerated to more realistic application conditions for comparing the skin compatibility of surfactant based products. Int J Cosmet. Sci 1999; 21:59-68
11. Pierard GE, Arrese JE, Rodriguez C, Daskaleros PA. Effects of softened and unsoftened fabrics on sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30:286-291
12. Wilhelm K-P, 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
13. Rhein LD, Robbins CR, Fernee K, Cantore R. Surfactant structure effects on swelling of isolated human stratum corneum. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1986; 37:125-139
14. Imokawa G, Mishima Y. Cumulative effect of surfactants on cutaneous horny layers: adsorption onto human keratin layers in vivo. Contact Dermatitis 1979; 5:357-366
15. Kawai M, Imokawa G. The induction of skin tightness by surfactants. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1984; 147-156
16. Cua A, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Cutaneous sodium lauryl sulfate irritation potential: age and regional variability. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123:607-613
17. Rougier A, Lotte C, Maibach HI. In vivo relationship between absorption and transepidermal water loss. In: Bronaugh RL, Maibch HI (eds) Topical absorption of dermatological products. Marcel Dekker, New York, p 115-128
18. Allenby CF, Basketter DA, Dickens A et al. An arm immersion model of compromised skin. (I) Influence on irritation reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1993; 28:84-88
19. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The chamber scarification test for irritancy. Contact Dermatitis 1976; 2:314-324
20. Berardesca E, Cespa M, Farinelli N, Rabbiosi G, Maibach H. In vivo transcutaneous penetration of nicotinates and sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25:35-38
21. Agner T, Serup J. Seasonal variation of skin resistance to irritants. Br J Dermatol 1989; 121:323-328
22. Agner T. Susceptibility of atopic dermatitis patients to irritant dermatitis caused by sodium lauryl sulfate. Atcta Derm Vernerol (Stockh) 1990; 71:296-300
23. Pinnagoda J, Tupker RA, Ceonraads PJ, Nater JP. Prediction of susceptibility to an irritant response by transepidermal water loss. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 20:341-346
24. Simion FA, Rhein LD, Grove GL, Wojtowski J, Cagan RH, Scala DD, Sequential order of skin responses to surfactants in a soap chamber test. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25:242-249
25. Phillips L, Steinberg M, Maibach HI, Akers WA. A comparison of rabbit and human skin response to certain irritants. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1972; 21:369-382
26. Robinson MK, McFadden JP, Basketter DA. Validity and ethics of the human 4-h patch test as an alternative method to assess acute skin irritation potential. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 45:1-12
27. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The soap chamber test: a new method for assessing irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol 1979; 1:35-41
28. Babulak SW, Rhein LD, Scala DD, Simion FA, Grove GL. Quantitation of erythema in a soap chamber test using a Minolta Chroma (Reflectance) meter: comparison of instrumental results with visual assessments. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1986; 37:475
29. Morrison BM, Babulak SW, Scala DD, Simion FA, Woo-Ming G, Gyening I, Kenney JA, Kligman AM. Evaluation of the response of African-American skin to facial cleansing products using a soap chamber test. Scientific exhibit at the 51st American Academy of Dermatology Annual Meeting San Francisco CA, 1992
30. Strube DD, Koontz SW, Murahata RI, Theiler RF. The flex wash test: a method for evaluating the clinical mildness of cleansing products. J Soc Cosm Chem 1988; 39:355
31. Lukacovic MF, Dunlap FE, Michaels SE, Visscher MO, Watson DD. Forearm wash test to evaluate the clinical mildness of cleansing products. J Soc Cosm. Chem 1988; 39:355
32. Keswick BH, Ertel KD, Visscher MO. Comparison of exaggerated and normal use techniques for assessing the mildness of personal cleansers. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1992; 43:187
33. Sharko PT, Murahata RI, Leyden JJ, Grove GL. Arm wash with instrumental evaluation - a sensitive technique for differentiating irritation potential of personal washing products. J Dermal Clin Eval Soc 1991; 2:19
34. Nicoll GA, Murahata RI, Grove GL Barrows J, Sharko PT. The relative sensitivity of two arm-wash methods for evaluating the mildness of personal washing products. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1995; 46:129-140
35. Ertel KD, Neumann PB, Hartwig PM, Rains GY, Keswick BH. Leg wash protocol to assess the skin moisturization potential of personal cleansing products. Int J Cosmet Sci 1999; 21:383-397
36. Neumann PB, Ertel KD, Keswick BH, Rains GY. Meta analysis is a cost effective tool for estimating mildness differences. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1997; 48:283-288
37. Halkier-Sorensen L. Notified occupational skin diseases in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35 [Suppl 1]:1
38. Wall LM, Gebauer KA. Occupation skin disease in Western Australia. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 24:101-109
39. Kooyman DJ, Snyder FH. Tests for mildness of soap. Arch Dermatol 1942; 46:846
40. Justice JD, Travers JJ, Vinson LJ. The correlation between animal tests and human tests in assessing product mildness. Toilet Goods Assoc Proced of the Scientific Section 1961; 35:12
41. Paye M, Gomes G, Zerwick CR, Pierard GE, Grove GL. A hand immersion test under laboratory controlled usage conditions: the need for sensitive and controlled assessment methods. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40:133-138
42. Grammer-West NY, Fitzpatrick JE, Jackson RL, Horton H, Daminano MA. Comparison of the irritancy of hand dishwashing liquids with modified patch testing methods. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996; 35:258-260
43. Clarys P, Manou I, Barel AO. Influence of temperature on irritation in the hand/forearm immersion test. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 36:240-245
44. Highley DR, Savoyka VO O'Neill JJ, Ward JB. A stereomicroscopic method for determination of moisturizing efficacy in humans. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1976; 27:351-363
45. Simion FA, Babulak SW, Morrison BM Jr, Rhein LD, Scala DD. Experimental method for soap-induced dryness in absence of erythema. Scientific Exhibit at the American Academy of Dermatology 50th Annual Meeting. December 1991
46. Hannuksela M, Salo H. The repeated open application test. Contact Dermatitis 1986; 14:221-227
47. Wigger-Alberti W, Krebs A, Elsner P. Experimental irritant contact dermatitis due to cumulative exposure to sodium lauryl sulphate and toluene: single and concurrent application. Br J Dermatol 2000; 143:551-556
48. Wilhelm KP, Freitag G, Wolff HH. Surfactant induced skin irritation and skin repair: evaluation of an acute human irritation model by non-invasive techniques. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994; 30:944-949
49. Wilhelm KP, Freitag G, Wolff HH. Surfactant induced skin irritation and skin repair: evaluation of a cumulative human irritation model by non-invasive techniques. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994; 31:981-987
50. Schatz. H, Kligman AM, Manning S, Stoudemayer T. Quantification of dry (xerotic) skin by image analysis of scales removed by adhesive discs (D-Squames). J Soc Cosmet Chem 1993; 44:53-63
51. Simion FA, Witt PS, Rau AH, Thueneman PJ, Peters HE. Stratum corneum damage produced by surfactants during dry skin induction. Scientific exhibit at the American Academy of Dermatology Meeting, 1995
52. Morrison BM Jr, Scala DD. Comparison of instrumental measurements of skin hydration J Toxicol Cut Ocular Toxicol 1996; 14:305-414