Skip to main content
Log in

The Tritiated Water Skin Barrier Integrity Test: Considerations for Acceptance Criteria with and Without 14C-Octanol

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A study was designed to assess barrier integrity simultaneously using separate compounds (probes) for polar and non-polar pathways through the skin, 3H2O and 14C-octanol, respectively; and to determine whether the two probe approach could better define barrier integrity.

Methods

A 5-min dose of water containing 3H2O and 14C -octanol was applied to ex vivo human skin mounted in Franz diffusion cells. The receptor solution was sampled at 30 min, analyzed for 3H and 14C content, and the correlation between water and octanol absorption was determined by statistical tests suitable for non-normally distributed data. This study was conducted on skin from 37 donors with from 3 to 30 replicate skin sections per donor (a total of 426 sections).

Results

The correlation between 3H2O and 14C-octanol absorption was low (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.3485). The 3H2O absorption cutoff used in this study to select for a normal skin barrier rejected some sections in which 14C-octanol absorption was within normal limits and accepted others in which 14C-octanol absorption was abnormally high. The converse was true for 3H2O absorption when the 14C-octanol-based cutoff was used.

Conclusions

The results of the 3H2O test or of similar tests that primarily assess the permeability of polar pathways through the skin may not necessarily provide information relevant to the absorption of highly lipophilic compounds. Octanol, or another molecule that more closely matches the physicochemical attributes of the test compound, may characterize properties of the skin barrier that are more relevant to compounds of low water solubility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CV:

Coefficient of variation

DDT:

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

HPLC:

High performance liquid chromatography

IVPT:

In vitro permeation test

Kp:

Permeability coefficient

MAD:

Absolute deviation of the median

Oleth-20:

Polyethylene glycol 20 oleyl ether

TEWL:

Transepidermal water loss

References

  1. Franz TJ. Percutaneous absorption on the relevance of in vitro data. J Invest Dermatol. 1975;64(3):190–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Franz TJ. The finite dose technique as a valid in vitro model for the study of percutaneous absorption in man. Curr Probl Dermatol. 1978;7:58–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Franz TJ, Lehman PA, Raney SG. The cadaver skin absorption model and the drug development process. Pharm Forum. 2008;34(5):1349–56.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bronaugh RL, Stewart RF, Simon M. Methods for in vitro percutaneous absorption studies. VII: use of excised human skin. J Pharm Sci. 1986;75(11):1094–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nangia A, Patil S, Berner B, Boman A, Maibach H. In vitro measurement of tramsepidermal water loss: a rapid alternative to tritiated water permeation for assessing skin barrier functions. Int J Pharm. 1998;170:33–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Davies DJ, Ward RJ, Heylings JR. Multi-species assessment of electrical resistance as a skin integrity marker for in vitro percutaneous absorption studies. Toxicol In Vitro. 2004;18(3):351–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Buist HE, van de Sandt JJ, van Burgsteden JA, de Heer C. Effects of single and repeated exposure to biocidal active substances on the barrier function of the skin in vitro. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005;43(1):76–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Meidan VM, Roper CS. Inter- and intra-individual variability in human skin barrier function: a large scale retrospective study. Toxicol In Vitro. 2008;22(4):1062–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Franz TJ, Lehman PA. Utility of the water permeability test for skin integrity as used for in vitro permeability studies: Technical Report No. 6583, National Center for Toxicology Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1989.

  10. Franz TJ, Lehman PA. In vitro percutaneous absorption : a validation procedure for human skin. J Invest Dermatol [Abstract]. 1990;94:525.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kasting GB, Filloon TG, Francis WR, Meredith MP. Improving the sensitivity of in vitro skin penetration experiments. Pharm Res. 1994;11(12):1747–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scheuplein RJ. Mechanism of percutaneous absorption. II. Transient diffusion and the relative importance of various routes of skin penetration. J Invest Dermatol. 1967;48(1):79–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. White EA, Horne A, Runciman J, Orazem ME, Navidi WC, Roper CS, et al. On the correlation between single-frequency impedance measurements and human skin permeability to water. Toxicol In Vitro. 2011;25(8):2095–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Handbook of chemistry and physics. 94th ed. In: Lide DR, editor. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2013–2014.

  15. Seo S. A review and comparison of methods for detecting outliers in univariate data sets. Master of Science Thesis, University of Pittsburgh 2006; Available from: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/7948/1/Seo.pdf.

  16. Razali N, Wah Y. Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lillifors and Anderson-Darling tests. J Stat Model Anal. 2011;2:21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Burke S. Missing values, ouliers, and robust statistics LC. GC Europe Online Statistics and Data Analysis, 19–24. Available from: https://www.webdepot.umontreal.ca/Usagers/sauves/MonDepotPublic/CHM%203103/LCGC%20Eur%20Burke%202001%20-%204%20de%204.pdf.

  18. Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jain MK, Gleeson J, Upreti A, Upreti GC. Intrinsic perturbing ability of alkanols in lipid bilayers. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1978;509(1):1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chien YW, Xu HL, Chiang CC, Huang YC. Transdermal controlled administration of indomethacin. I. Enhancement of skin permeability. Pharm Res. 1988;5(2):103–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Raut SV, Nemade LS, Desai MT, Bonde SD, Dongare SU. Chemical penetration enhancers: for transdermal drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm Rev Res. 2014;4:33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Skelly JP, Shah VP, Maibach HI, Guy RH, Wester RC, Flynn G, et al. FDA and AAPS report of the workshop on principles and practices of in vitro percutaneous penetration studies: relevance to bioavailability and bioequivalence. Pharm Res. 1987;4(3):265–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Howes D, Guy R, Hadgraft J, Heylings J, Hoeck U, Kemper F, et al. Methods for assessing percutaneous absorption, report and recommendation of ECVAM workshop report 13. Altern Lab Anim. 1996;24:81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  24. OECD. Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals No. 428. Skin Absorption: In Vitro Methods. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris; 2004.

  25. SCCS. Basic criteria for the in vitro assessment of dermal absorption of cosmetic ingredients. European Commission, Directorate-General, Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety; 2010.

  26. Rougier A, Lotte C, Maibach HI. In vivo relationship between percutaneous absorption and transepidermal water loss. In: Bronaugh RL, Maibach HI, editors. Percutaneous absorption: drugs, cosmetics, mechanisms, methodology. 4th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2005. p. 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chilcott RP, Dalton CH, Emmanuel AJ, Allen CE, Bradley ST. Transepidermal water loss does not correlate with skin barrier function in vitro. J Invest Dermatol. 2002;118(5):871–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmook FP, Meingassner JG, Billich A. Comparison of human skin or epidermis models with human and animal skin in in-vitro percutaneous absorption. Int J Pharm [Comp Stud]. 2001;215(1–2):51–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Brain KR, James VJ, Walters KA. Validation of the integrity of epidermal membranes during assessment of percutaneous penetration. In: Brain KR, James VJ, Walters KA, editors. Perspectives in percutaneous penetration. Cardiff: STS Publishing; 1995. p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  30. The Merck Index. 14th ed. O’Neil M, editor: Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck Research Laboratories; 2006.

  31. Guth K, Schafer-Korting M, Fabian E, Landsiedel R, van Ravenzwaay B. Suitability of skin integrity tests for dermal absorption studies in vitro. Toxicol In Vitro. 2015;29(1):113–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas J. Franz.

Additional information

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the official policies of the Food and Drug Administration, or the Department of Health and Human Services; nor does any mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organization imply endorsement by the United States Government.

All work done by Sam G. Raney prior to joining the FDA

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lehman, P.A., Beatch, K., Raney, S.G. et al. The Tritiated Water Skin Barrier Integrity Test: Considerations for Acceptance Criteria with and Without 14C-Octanol. Pharm Res 34, 217–228 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-2057-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-2057-3

KEY WORDS

Navigation