Influence of usage practices, ethnicity and climate on the skin compatibility of sanitary pads



Modern disposable sanitary pads are becoming available worldwide. Regional differences in usage practices, ethnicity, and climate may influence their skin compatibility. Pad usage practices depend on culture, economics, and menstrual physiology. Daily usage is higher in Japan and but lower in Nigeria compared to North America or Western Europe. Evidence for ethnic differences in skin irritant susceptibility is not compelling. Dark skin may be less susceptible to certain irritants than fair skin; the Japanese may experience a higher degree of sensory irritation than Caucasians. Ambient conditions such as high temperature and humidity increase the skin temperature and skin surface moisture under sanitary pads by small but measurable amounts, causing no discernible skin irritation; vapor-permeable pad backings reduce these effects. Cold dry conditions, which can irritate exposed skin, may not affect vulvar skin to the same degree due to its elevated hydration and occlusion. To address the practical significance of these variables, results of prospective clinical trials of sanitary pads performed by industry and academic scientists in North America (Indiana), Mexico, Western Europe (Munich, Athens, Goteborg, Sweden), Eastern Europe (Kiev) and Africa (Abuja, Nigeria) were reviewed. Despite the diverse range of conditions, no significant adverse skin effects were observed with modern pads compared to traditional pad designs. Study participants generally preferred modern pads for performance and comfort.


Sanitary pads Clinical trials Geographic locations Climate Ethnic groups Irritation Sensory Feminine hygiene products 



The authors thank Drs. Kenneth Miller and Bruce E. Jones for their technical review and Dr. Deborah Hutchins, of Hutchins & Associates, LLC, Cincinnati, OH, for technical input and assistance.


  1. 1.
    Adams Hillard PJ (2002) Menstruation in young girls: a clinical perspective. Obstet Gynecol 99:655–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aramaki J, Kawana S, Effendy I, Happle R, Loffler H (2002) Differences of skin irritation between Japanese and European women. Br J Dermatol 146:1052–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arey LB (1939) The degree of normal menstrual irregularity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 37:12–29Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Astner S, Burnett N, Rius-Diaz F, Doukas AG, Gonzalez S, Gonzalez E (2006) Irritant contact dermatitis induced by a common household irritant: a non-invasive evaluation of ethnic variability in skin response. J Am Acad Dermatol 54:458–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basketter DA, Griffiths HA, Wang XM, Wilhelm KP, McFadden J (1996) Individual, ethnic and seasonal variability in irritant susceptibility of skin: the implications for a predictive human patch test. Contact Dermatitis 35:208–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belsey EM, Pinol AP (1997) Menstrual bleeding patterns in untreated women. Task force on long-acting systemic agents for fertility regulation. Contraception 55:57–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI (1988a) Racial differences in sodium lauryl sulphate induced cutaneous irritation: black and white. Contact Dermatitis 18:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI (1988b) Contact dermatitis in blacks. Dermatol Clin 6:363–368Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berardesca E, Maibach H (2003) Ethnic skin: overview of structure and function. J Am Acad Dermatol 48:S139–S142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Booth G, Strang JM (1936) Changes in temperature of the skin following ingestion of food. Arch Intern Med 57Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Britz MB, Maibach HI (1979) Human labia majora skin: transepidermal water loss in vivo. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 59:23–25Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Britz MB, Maibach HI, Anjo DM (1980) Human percutaneous penetration of hydrocortisone: the vulva. Arch Dermatol Res 267:313–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buckley CE III, Lee KL, Burdick DS (1982) Methacholine-induced cutaneous flare response: bivariate analysis of responsiveness and sensitivity. J Allergy Clin Immunol 69:25–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Callender VD (2004) Acne in ethnic skin: special considerations for therapy. Dermatol Ther 17:184–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corcuff P, Lotte C, Rougier A, Maibach HI (1991) Racial differences in corneocytes. A comparison between black, white and oriental skin. Acta Derm Venereol 71:146–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elias PM, Cooper ER, Korc A, Brown BE (1981) Percutaneous transport in relation to stratum corneum structure and lipid composition. J Invest Dermatol 76:297–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elsner P, Maibach HI (1990) The effect of prolonged drying on transepidermal water loss, capacitance and pH of human vulvar and forearm skin. Acta Derm Venereol 70:105–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elsner P, Wilhelm D, Maibach HI (1990) Physiological skin surface water loss dynamics of human vulvar and forearm skin. Acta Derm Venereol 70:141–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farage MA (2006) The behind-the-knee test: an efficient model for evaluating mechanical and chemical irritation. Skin Res Technol 12:73–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farage MA, Stadler A (2005) Cumulative irritation patch test of sanitary pads on sensitive skin. J Cosmet Dermatol 4:179–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farage MA, Bjerke DL, Mahony C, Blackburn KL, Gerberick GF (2003a) Quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis: uncertainty factors for mucosal exposures. Contact Dermatitis 49:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farage MA, Bjerke DL, Mahony C, Blackburn KL, Gerberick GF (2003b) A modified human repeat insult patch test for extended mucosal tissue exposure. Contact Dermatitis 49:214–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Farage MA, Stadler A, Elsner P, Maibach HI (2004) Safety evaluation of modern feminine hygiene pads: two decades of use. Female Patient 29:23–30Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farage MA, Stadler A, Elsner P, Creatsas G, Maibach H (2005a) New surface covering for feminine hygiene pads: dermatological testing. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 24:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farage MA, Katsarou A, Tsagroni E, Bowtell P, Meyer S, Deliveliotou A, Creatsas G (2005b) Cutaneous and sensory effects of two sanitary pads with distinct surface materials: a randomized prospective trial. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 24:227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Farage MA, Katsarou A, Maibach HI (2006) Sensory, clinical and physiological factors in sensitive skin: a review. Contact Dermatitis 55:1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Felter SP, Robinson MK, Basketter DA, Gerberick GF (2002) A review of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 47:257–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Foy V, Weinkauf R, Whittle E, Basketter DA (2001) Ethnic variation in the skin irritation response. Contact Dermatitis 45:346–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gean CJ, Tur E, Maibach HI, Guy RH (1989) Cutaneous responses to topical methyl nicotinate in black, oriental, and caucasian subjects. Arch Dermatol Res 281:95–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grimes P, Edison BL, Green BA, Wildnauer RH (2004) Evaluation of inherent differences between African-American and white skin surface properties using subjective and objective measures. Cutis 73:392–396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guy RH, Tur E, Bjerke S, Maibach HI (1985) Are there age and racial differences to methyl nicotinate-induced vasodilatation in human skin? J Am Acad Dermatol 12:1001–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hanke-Baier P, Johannigmann J, Levin RJ, Wagner G (1994) Evaluation of vaginal and perineal area during the use of external sanitary protection throughout the menstrual cycle. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 73:486–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hardy JD, DuBois EF (1938) Basal metabolism, radiation, convection and vaporization at temperatures of 22–35°C. J Nutr 15:477–497Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hardy JD, DuBois EF (1940) Differences between men and women in their response to heat and cold. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 256:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hicks SP, Swindells KJ, Middelkamp-Hup MA, Sifakis MA, Gonzalez E, Gonzalez S (2003) Confocal histopathology of irritant contact dermatitis in vivo and the impact of skin color (black vs white). J Am Acad Dermatol 48:727–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hopper LD, Oehme FW (1989) Chemical risk assessment: a review. Vet Hum Toxicol 31:543–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jimbow K, Fitzpatrick TB, Wick MW (1991) Biochemistry and physiology of melanin pigmentation. In: Goldsmith LA (ed) Physiology, biochemistry and molecular biology of the skin, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, p 895Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jourdain R, Lacharriere O, Bastien P, Maibach HI (2002) Ethnic variations in self-perceived sensitive skin: epidemiological survey. Contact Dermatitis 46:162–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kompaore F, Tsuruta H (1993) In vivo differences between Asian, black and white in the stratum corneum barrier function. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 65:S223–S225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kompaore F, Marty JP, Dupont C (1993) In vivo evaluation of the stratum corneum barrier function in blacks, Caucasians and Asians with two non-invasive methods. Skin Pharmacol 6:200–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Launay JC, Besnard Y, Sendowski I, Guinet A, Hanniquet AM, Savourey G (2002) Anthropological and thermoregulatory changes induced by a survival sojourn in a tropical climate. Wilderness Environ Med 13:5–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Law S, Wertz PW, Swartzendruber DC, Squier CA (1995) Regional variation in content, composition and organization of porcine epithelial barrier lipids revealed by thin-layer chromatography and transmission electron microscopy. Arch Oral Biol 40:1085–1091PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Modjtahedi SP, Maibach HI (2002) Ethnicity as a possible endogenous factor in irritant contact dermatitis: comparing the irritant response among Caucasians, blacks, and Asians. Contact Dermatitis 47:272–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Oriba HA, Bucks DA, Maibach HI (1996) Percutaneous absorption of hydrocortisone and testosterone on the vulva and forearm: effect of the menopause and site. Br J Dermatol 134:229–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Phillips L II, Steinberg M, Maibach HI, Akers WA (1972) A comparison of rabbit and human skin response to certain irritants. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 21:369–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rapaport MJ (1984) Patch testing in Japanese subjects. Contact Dermatitis 11:93–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Reed JT, Ghadially R, Elias PM (1995) Skin type, but neither race nor gender, influence epidermal permeability barrier function. Arch Dermatol 131:1134–1138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Reinertson RP, Wheatley VR (1959) Studies on the chemical composition of human epidermal lipids. J Invest Dermatol 32:49–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Richards GM, Oresajo CO, Halder RM (2003) Structure and function of ethnic skin and hair. Dermatol Clin 21:595–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Robinson MK (2000) Racial differences in acute and cumulative skin irritation responses between Caucasian and Asian populations. Contact Dermatitis 42:134–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Robinson MK (2001) Intra-individual variations in acute and cumulative skin irritation responses. Contact Dermatitis 45:75–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Runeman B, Rybo G, Larko O, Faergemann J (2003) The vulva skin microclimate: influence of panty liners on temperature, humidity and pH. Acta Derm Venereol 83:88–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Runeman B, Rybo G, Forsgren-Brusk U, Larko O, Larsson P, Faergemann J (2004) The vulvar skin microenvironment: influence of different panty liners on temperature, pH and microflora. Acta Derm Venereol 84:277–284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schafer P, Bewick-Sonntag C, Capri MG, Berardesca E (2002) Physiological changes in skin barrier function in relation to occlusion level, exposure time and climatic conditions. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 15:7–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stadler M, Tischler H, Wambebe C, Osisanya T, Farage MA (2006) An investigator-blind, single-center, controlled, parallel group study to confirm the suitability of sanitary pads for menstrual protection in an ethnic Nigerian population. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 26(1):1–7Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sugino K, Imokawa G, Maibach HI (1993) Ethnic difference of stratum corneum lipid in relation to stratum corneum function. J Invest Dermatol 100:597Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Treloar AE, Boynton RE, Behn BG, Brown BW (1967) Variation of the human menstrual cycle through reproductive life. Int J Fertil 12:77–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Weigand DA, Merchon MM (1970) The cutaneous irritant reaction to agent o-chlorobenzylidene (cs). Eddewood Arsenal Techincal Report, MD, EB-TR-4332Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Weigand DA, Gaylor JR (1974) Irritant reaction in Negro and Caucasian skin. South Med J 67:548–551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Weigand DA, Haygood C, Gaylor JR (1974) Cell layers and density of Negro and Caucasian stratum corneum. J Invest Dermatol 62:563–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Weydahl A, Halberg F (1987) Daily spot-checking versus chronobiologic monitoring of human differential surface (rib vs breast) temperature. Prog Clin Biol Res 227A:483–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    World health organization multicenter study on menstrual and ovulatory patterns in adolescent girls (1986) II. Longitudinal study of menstrual patterns in the early post-menarcheal period, duration of bleeding episodes and menstrual cycles. World health organization task force on adolescent reproductive health. J Adolesc Health Care 7:236–244Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Procter & Gamble Company, Winton Hill Business CenterFeminine Care Clinical SciencesCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Klinik Fur Dermatologie, Friedrich-Schiller-UniversitatJenaGermany
  3. 3.Department of DermatologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations