Dermatological testing of an emollient-treated menstrual pad with a novel foam absorbent core

Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 333-343

  Farage, Miranda A ^a   Segarra, Vanessa Silva ^a   Bramante, Mario ^a   Elsner, Peter ^b   Maibach, Howard I ^c  

^a PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^b FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Absorbent foam; Behind the knee test; Contact sensitization; Cumulative irritation; Emollient; Mechanical irritation; Menstrual pads; Patch test; Polyacrylate foam; Sanitary pads; Topsheet finish

Indexed keywords

ABSORBENT; EMOLLIENT AGENT; INSULIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERYTHEMA; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MENSTRUAL CYCLE; NORMAL HUMAN; PATCH TEST; SCORING SYSTEM; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN TEST;

ABSORBENT PADS; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIOCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; EMOLLIENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENSTRUAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS; MIDDLE AGED; PATCH TESTS; RISK;

EID: 57049150743     PISSN: 15569527     EISSN: 15569535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15569520802337749     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Farage MA, Stadler A, Elsner P, Maibach HI. Safety evaluation of modern feminine hygiene pads: two decades of use. Female Patient 2004; 29:23-30.
2. Berardesca E, Fluhr JW, Maibach HI. What is sensitive skin?. In: Berardesca E, Fluhr JW, Maibach HI, eds. Sensitive Skin Syndrome. Dermatology: Clinical & Basic Science. 1st ed; New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. 2006:1-5.
3. Farage MA. The behind-the-knee test: an efficient model for evaluating mechanical and chemical irritation. Skin Res Technol 2006; 12:73-82.
4. Farage M, Stadler A, Elsner P, Creatsas G, Maibach H. New surface covering for feminine hygiene pads: dermatological testing. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 2005; 24:137-146.
5. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki:. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2000; 284:3043-3045.
6. Berger RS, Bowman JP. A reappraisal of the 21-day cumulative irritation test in man. J Toxicol Cutan Ocul Toxicol 1982; 1:109-115.
7. Phillips L 2nd, Steinberg M, Maibach HI, Akers WA. A comparison of rabbit and human skin response to certain irritants. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1972; 21:369-382.
8. Draize JH. Appraisal of the Safety of Chemicals in Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics; Austin, TX: Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States. 1959:49.
9. Bonette KL, Rodabaugh DD, Wilson CW. Dermal irritation and sensitization. Section 5. Comparison of scoring systems. In: Derelanko MJ, Hollinger MA, eds. Handbook of Toxicology. 2nd ed; Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 1995:171.
10. Bonette KL, Rodabaugh BS, Wilson CW. Dermal irritation and sensitization. In: Derelanko MJ, Hollinger MA, eds. Handbook of Toxicology. 2nd ed; Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 2002: Chapter 3, Table 3.9, p. 171.
11. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Allergic contact dermatitis. In: Zhai H, Wilhelm K-P, Maibach HI, eds. Dermatotoxicology. 7th ed; Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 2008:155.
12. Gerberick GF, Sikorski EE. In vitro and in vivo testing techniques for allergic contact dermatitis. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1998; 9(2):111-118.
13. Farage MA, Meyer S, Walter D. Development of a sensitive test method to evaluate mechanical irritation potential on mucosal skin. Skin Res Technol 2004; 10:85-95.