Fruit acids and sodium hydroxide in the food industry and their combined effect with sodium lauryl sulphate: Controlled in vivo tandem irritation study

British Journal of Dermatology

Volumn 151, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 1039-1048

  Fluhr, Joachim W ^a   Bankova, L ^a   Fuchs, S ^a   Kelterer, D ^a   Schliemann Willers, S ^a   Norgauer, J ^a   Kleesz, P ^b   Grieshaber, R ^b   Elsner, P ^a  

^a FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

^b BGN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Acetic acid; Ascorbic acid; Chromametry; Sodium hydroxide; Sodium lauryl sulphate; Transepidermal water loss

Indexed keywords

ACETIC ACID; ASCORBIC ACID; DETERGENT; DODECYL SULFATE SODIUM; FRUIT ACID; PLANT EXTRACT; SODIUM HYDROXIDE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOENGINEERING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; DERMATITIS; DOSE RESPONSE; FEMALE; FOOD INDUSTRY; FOOD PROCESSING; HUMAN; IN VIVO STUDY; INFLAMMATION; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; REFLECTOMETRY; SCORING SYSTEM; SKIN COLOR; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN PROTECTION; SKIN WATER LOSS;

ACETIC ACID; ADULT; ASCORBIC ACID; DERMATITIS, IRRITANT; DRUG INTERACTIONS; ERYTHEMA; FEMALE; FOOD-PROCESSING INDUSTRY; FRUIT; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES; PATCH TESTS; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; SODIUM DODECYL SULFATE; SODIUM HYDROXIDE; SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS; WATER LOSS, INSENSIBLE;

EID: 9644283050     PISSN: 00070963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2004.06169.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Mathias CG, Maibach HI. Dermatotoxicology monographs I. Cutaneous irritation: factors influencing the response to irritants. Clin Toxicol 1978; 13: 333-46.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Dickel H, Bruckner T, Bernhard-Klimt C et al. Surveillance scheme for occupational skin disease in the Saarland, FRG. First report from BKH-S. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46: 197-206.
5. 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.
6. Wigger-Alberti W, Rougier A, Richard A et al. Efficacy of protective creams in a modified repeated irritation test. Methodological aspects. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1998; 78: 270-3.
7. 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.
8. Schliemann-Willers S, Fuchs S, Kleesz P et al. Fruit acids do not enhance sodium lauryl sulphate-induced cumulative irritant contact dermatitis. In Vivo in press.
9. Frosch PJ, Kurte A. Efficacy of skin barrier creams (IV). The repetitive irritation test (RIT) with a set of 4 standard irritants. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 31: 161-8.
10. Schliemann-Willers S, Wigger-Alberti W, Elsner P. Efficacy of a new class of perfluoropolyethers in the prevention of irritant contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 2001; 81: 392-4.
11. Berndt U, Hinnen U, Iliev D et al. Is occupational irritant contact dermatitis predictable by cutaneous bioengineering methods? Results of the Swiss Metalworkers' Eczema Study (PROMETES). Dermatology 1999; 198: 351-4.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Patil S, Singh P, Sarasour K et al. Quantification of sodium lauryl sulfate penetration into the skin and underlying tissue after topical application-pharmacological and toxicological implications. J Pharm Sci 1995; 84: 1240-4.
15. Schnetz E, Diepgen TL, Elsner P et al. Multicentre study for the development of an in vivo model to evaluate the influence of topical formulations on irritation. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42: 336-43.
16. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Summary of Evaluations Performed by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), 1956-1993 (first through forty-first meetings). Washington, DC: International Life Sciences Press. 1994.
17. Wilhelm KP, Pasche F, Surber C et al. Sodium hydroxide-induced subclinical irritation. A test for evaluating stratum corneum barrier function. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1990; 70: 463-7.
18. Iliev D, Hinnen U, Elsner P. Reproducibility of a non-invasive skin irritancy test in a cohort of metalworker trainees. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 36: 101-3.
19. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The soap chamber test. A new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol 1979; 1: 35-41.
20. Serup J, Jemec GBE. Handbook of Non-invasive Methods and the Skin. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1995.
21. Rogiers V. EEMCO guidance for the assessment of transepidermal water loss in cosmetic sciences. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 2001; 14: 117-28.
22. 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.
23. Elsner P. Chromametry. Hardware, Measuring Principles and Standardization of Measurements. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1994.
24. Pierard GE. EEMCO guidance for the assessment of skin colour. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 1998; 10: 1-11.
25. 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.
26. Dickel H, Kuss O, Schmidt A et al. Importance of irritant contact dermatitis in occupational skin disease. Am J Clin Dermatol 2002; 3: 283-9.
27. Dickel H, Kuss O, Blesius CR et al. Occupational skin diseases in Northern Bavaria between 1990 and 1999 a population-based study. Br J Dermatol 2001; 145: 453-62.
28. Wilkinson JD, Rycroft RJ. Contact dermatitis. In: Textbook of Dermatology (Ebling FJG, ed.). 4th edn. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1986.
29. Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Factors predisposing to cutaneous irritation. Dermatol Clin 1990; 8: 17-22.
30. Paul S, Maibach HI. Effect of age and sex on the elicitation of irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30: 257-64.
31. Robinson MK. Population differences in acute skin irritation responses. Race, sex, age, sensitive skin and repeat subject comparisons. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46: 86-93.
32. Dahl MV. Chronic, irritant contact dermatitis: mechanisms, variables, and differentiation from other forms of contact dermatitis. Adv Dermatol 1988; 3: 261-75.
33. Aramaki J, Kawana S, Effendy I et al. Differences of skin irritation between Japanese and European women. Br J Dermatol 2002; 146: 1052-6.
34. Lee CH, Maibach HI. Study of cumulative irritant contact dermatitis in man utilizing open application on subclinically irritated skin. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30: 271-5.
35. Aramaki J, Loffler C, Kawana S et al. Irritant patch testing with sodium lauryl sulphate: interrelation between concentration and exposure time. Br J Dermatol 2001; 145: 704-8.
36. Lee CH, Kawasaki Y, Maibach HI. Effect of surfactant mixtures on irritant contact dermatitis potential in man: sodium lauroyl glutamate and sodium lauryl sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30: 205-9.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Widmer J, Elsner P, Burg G. Skin irritant reactivity following experimental cumulative irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30: 35-9.
41. Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Cutaneous sodium lauryl sulphate irritation potential: age and regional variability. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123: 607-13.
42. Robinson MK, Perkins MA, Basketter DA. Application of a 4-h human patch test method for comparative and investigative assessment of skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 38: 194-202.
43. Schluter-Wigger W, Elsner P. Efficacy of 4 commercially available protective creams in the repetitive irritation test (RIT). Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34: 278-83.
44. Kolbe L, Kligman AM, Stoudemayer T. The sodium hydroxide erosion assay: a revision of the alkali resistance test. Arch Dermatol Res 1998; 290: 382-7.
45. Holleran WM, Takagi Y, Menon GK et al. Permeability barrier requirements regulate epidermal beta-glucocerebrosidase. J Lipid Res 1994; 35: 905-12.
46. Hachem JP, Crumrine D, Fluhr J et al. pH directly regulates epidermal permeability barrier homeostasis, and stratum corneum integrity/cohesion. J Invest Dermatol 2003; 121: 345-53.
47. Fluhr JW, Behne MJ, Brown B et al. Stratum corneum acidification in neonatal skin: secretory phospholipase A2 and the NHE1 antiporter acidify neonatal rat stratum corneum. J Invest Dermatol 2004; 122: 320-9.
48. Elias PM, Feingold KR. Coordinate regulation of epidermal differentiation and barrier homeostasis. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 2001; 14: 28-34.
49. Elias PM, McNutt NS, Friend DS. Membrane alterations during cornification of mammalian squamous epithelia: a freeze-fracture, tracer, and thin-section study. Anat Rec 1977; 189: 577-94.
50. Behne M, Barry N, Hanson K et al. Neonatal development of the stratum corneum pH gradient: localization and mechanisms leading to emergence of optimal barrier function. J Invest Dermatol 2003; 120: 998-1006.