Sensory effects and irritation: A strong relationship

Handbook of Cosmetic Science and Technology, Third Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 381-390

  Farage, Miranda A ^a  

^a PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865343779     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (23)

1. Simion FA, Rhein LD, Morrison BM, et al. Self-perceived sensory responses to soap and synthetic detergent bars correlate with clinical signs of irritation. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 32:205-211.
2. Bannan EA, Griffith JF, Nusair TL, et al. Skin testing of laundered fabrics in the dermal safety assessment of enzyme-containing detergents. J Toxicol Cutan Ocular Toxicol 1992; 11:327-339.
3. Barel AO, Lambrecht R, Clarys P, et al. A comparative study of the effects on the skin of a classical bar soap and a syndet cleansing bar in normal use conditions and in the soap chamber test. Skin Res Technol 2001; 7:98-104.
4. Christensen M, Kligman AM. An improved procedure for conducting lactic acid stinging tests on facial skin. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1996; 4:1-11.
5. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. A method for appraising the stinging capacity of topically applied substances. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1977; 28:197-209.
6. Farage MA, Gilpin DA, Enane NA, et al. Development of a new test for mechanical irritation: behind the knee as a test site. Skin Res Technol 2001; 7:193-203.
7. 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.
8. Farage MA. The Behind-the-Knee test: an efficient model for evaluating mechanical and chemical irritation. Skin Res Technol 2006; 12:73-82.
9. Griffiths HA, Wilhelm KP, Robinson MK, et al. Interlaboratory evaluation of a human patch test for the identification of skin irritation potential/hazard. Food Chem Toxicol 1997; 35:255-260.
10. Magnusson BM, Koskinen LD. Effects of topical application of capsaicin to human skin: a comparison of effects evaluated by visual assessment, sensation registration, skin blood flow and cutaneous impedance measurements. Acta Derm Venereol 1996; 76:129-132.
11. Ollmar S, Nyrén M, Nicander I, et al. Electrical impedance compared with other non-invasive bioengineering techniques and visual scoring for detection of irritation in human skin. Brit J Dermatol 1994; 130:29-36.
12. Fullerton A, Rode B, Serup J. Skin irritation typing and grading based on laser Doppler perfusion imaging. Skin Res Technol 2002; 8:23-31.
13. Spoo J, Wigger-Alberti W, Berndt U, et al. Skin cleansers: three test protocols for the assessment of irritancy ranking. Acta Derm Venereol 2002; 82:13-17.
14. Wigger-Alberti W, Hinnen U, Elsner P. Predictive testing of metalworking fluids: a comparison of 2 cumulative human irritation models and correlation with epidemiological data. Con Derm 1997; 36:14-20.
15. Anderson RR. Polarized light examination and photography of the skin. Arch Dermatol 1991; 127:1000-1005.
16. Kollias N. Polarized light photography of human skin. In: Wilhelm KP, Elsner P, Berardesca E, Maibach HI, eds. Bioengineering of the Skin: Skin Surface Imaging and Analysis. Boca Raton, Florida:CRC Press, 1997:95-104.
17. Kollias N, Gillies R, Muccini JA, et al. A single parameter, oxygenated hemoglobin, can be used to quantify experimental irritant-induced inflammation. J Invest Dermatol 1995; 104:421-424.
18. Muccini JA, Kollias N, Phillips SB, et al. Polarized light photography in the evaluation of photoaging. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 33:765-769.
19. McFall K. Photography of dermatological conditions using polarized light. J Audiov Media Med 1996; 19:5-9.
20. Phillips SB, Kollias N, Gillies R, et al. Polarized light photography enhances visualization of inflammatory lesions of acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997; 37:948-952.
21. Farage MA. Enhancement of visual scoring of skin irritant reactions using cross-polarized and parallel-polarized light. 2007 Contact Dermatitis; 57:1-9.
22. Farage MA, Meyer SJ, Walter D. Evaluation of modifications of the traditional patch test in assessing the chemical irritation potential of feminine hygiene products. Skin Res Technol 2004; 10:73-84.
23. Farage MA, Santana MV, Henley E. Correlating sensory effects with irritation. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 2005; 24:45-52.