Advertisement

Skin protection and percutaneous absorption of chemical hazards

  • H. DrexlerEmail author
Review

Abstract

Hazardous substances that penetrate the skin barrier may induce dermal irritation, inflammation or sensitisation, as well as systemically toxic effects. Air threshold limits are insufficient to prevent adverse health effects in the case of contact with substances with a high dermal absorption potential. Biological monitoring is a useful tool to quantify internal exposure of an individual and allows an assessment to be made of the dermal absorption pathway. Additionally, the efficacy of protective equipment can be proved. Standard gloves are ineffective to decrease dermal uptake. Various skin-care products include emulgators, which are used as penetration enhancers in transdermal therapeutic drugs. Hence, specific skin-care products potentially enhance dermal absorption of certain chemicals. On the other hand, the best protection from dermal absorption is the physiological skin barrier—the stratum corneum. Skin-care products that accelerate regeneration of the stratum corneum are obliged to have positive effects to prevent dermal absorption. With regard to the increasing number of occupational skin diseases and the large quantity of skin-care products that are used at workplaces it is essential that the mechanism of protection and efficacy be assessed. In the future, we require evidence-based prevention or evidence-based medicine that includes evidence-based prevention.

Keywords

Dermal absorption Biological monitoring Penetration enhancement Protective creams 

References

  1. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) (2000) Threshold limit values and biological exposure indices 1997–1998. CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (1999) List of MAK and BAT values; report no. 35. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  3. Dost AA (1995) Meeting report—a European meeting held to discuss dermal exposure monitoring and related issues. Ann Occup Hyg 39:241–255Google Scholar
  4. Drexler H (1998) Assignment of the skin notation for MAK values and its legal consequences in Germany. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 71:503–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Drexler H, Göen T, Angerer J (1995) Carbon disulphide. II. Investigations on the uptake of CS2 and the excretion of its metabolite 2-thiothiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid after occupational exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 67:5–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fiserova-Bergerova V, Pierce JT, Droz PO (1990) Dermal absorption potential of industrial chemicals: criteria for skin notation. Am J Ind Med 17:617–635PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Grandjean P (1990) Skin penetration—hazardous chemicals at work. Taylor and Francis, London pp 171–173Google Scholar
  8. Kennedy GL, Brock JW Jr, Banerjee AK (1993) Assignment of skin notation for threshold limit values chemicals based on acute dermal toxicity. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 8:26–30Google Scholar
  9. Korinth G, Göen T, Kruse C, Freudlsperger F, Drexler H (2000) Die Effektivität des persönlichen Körperschutzes zur Reduktion der inneren Belastung durch Schwefelkohlenstoff in der Viskoseindustrie. Zentralbl Arbeitsmed [Suppl 31]Google Scholar
  10. Larese F, Fiorito A, Dobetti L, Furlan G, Fernetich E, Bussani R (1994) Skin absorption of solvents: evaluation in experimental conditions. Occup Hyg 1:191–198Google Scholar
  11. Walters KA, Bialik W, Brain KR (1993) The effects of surfactants on penetration across the skin. Int J Cosmet Sci15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental MedicineFriedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen–NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations