The effect of population diversity on skin irritation

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 55, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 357-363

  Peters, Lisa ^a   Marriott, Marie ^a   Mukerji, Bhashkar ^a   Indra, Pinky ^a   Iyer, Janardhana Vaidyanathan ^a   Roy, Adip ^a   Rowson, Matt ^a   Ahmed, Sharmin ^a   Cooper, Karen ^a   Basketter, David ^a  

^a UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ethnic differences; Indian; Patch test; Skin irritation; Sodium lauryl sulfate; Visual assessment

Indexed keywords

DODECYL SULFATE SODIUM;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERYTHEMA; ETHNIC DIFFERENCE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDIA; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; POPULATION RESEARCH; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN MANIFESTATION;

ADULT; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIA; IRRITANTS; MALE; PATCH TESTS; SODIUM DODECYL SULFATE; SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS; VARIATION (GENETICS);

EID: 33750897384     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00975.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Basketter D A, Griffiths H A, Wang Z M, Wilhelm K-P, 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.
2. Judge M R, Griffiths H A, Basketter D A, White I R, Rycroft R J G, McFadden J P. Variation in response of human skin to irritant challenge. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 115-117.
3. Modjtahedi S P, Maibach H I. Ethnicity as a possible endogenous factor in irritant contact dermatitis: comparing the irritant response among Caucasians, blacks and Asians. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 272-278.
4. Walker A P, Basketter D A, Baverel M et al. Test guidelines for assessment of skin compatibility of cosmetic finished products in man. Food Chem Toxicol 1996: 34: 651-660.
5. Berardesca E, Maibach H I. Sensitive and ethnic skin: a need for special care agents? Dermatol Clin 1991: 9: 89-92.
6. Manning J. The assessment of dark skin and dermatological disorders. Nurs Times 2004: 100: 48.
7. Kompaore F, Marty J-P, Dupont Ch. In vivo evaluation of the stratum corneum barrier function in Blacks, Caucasians and Asians with two noninvasive methods. Skin Pharmacol 1993: 6: 200-207.
8. Berardesca E, Maibach H I. Racial difference in sodium lauryl sulphate induced cutaneous irritation: black and white. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 65-70.
9. Goh C L, Chia S E. Skin irritability to sodium lauryl sulphate - as measured by skin water vapour loss - by sex and race. Clin Exp Dermatol 1988: 13: 16-19.
10. Yosipovitch G, Theng C T S. Asian skin: its architecture, function and differences from Caucasian skin. The Cosmetic Site.Com September 2002 (retrieved from http://www.thecosmeticsite.com/formulating/skincare/959721.html).
11. Basketter D A, Reynolds F, Rowson M, Talbot C, Whittle E. Visual assessment of human skin irritation: a sensitive reproducible tool. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 218-220.
12. Basketter D A, Gerberick F, Kimber I, Willis C. Toxicology of Contact Dermatitis: Allergy, Irritancy and Urticaria. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 1999.
13. Robinson M K. Population differences in skin structure and physiology and the susceptibility to irritant and allergic contact dermatitis: implications for skin safety testing and risk assessment. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 65-79.
14. Wesley N, Maibach H I. Racial (ethnic) differences in skin properties. Am J Clin Dermatol 2003: 4: 843-860.
15. Foy V, Weinkauf R, Whittle E, Basketter D A. Ethnic variation in the skin irritation response. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 45: 346-349.
16. Robinson M. Population differences in acute skin irritation responses. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 2: 86-93.
17. Reed J T, Ghadially R, Elias P M. Skin type, but neither race nor gender, influence epidermal permeability barrier function. Arch Dermatol 1995: 131: 1134-1138.
18. Modjtahedi S P, Maibach H I. Ethnicity. In: Irritant Dermatitis, Chew A-L, Maibach H I (eds): Berlin, Springer, 2006: 177-183.