Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Analysis of Biological and Synthetic Skin Models for Drug Transport Studies

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethical restrictions as well as practical or economic issues related to use of animal and human skin has been the main reason the growth in the number of investigations with alternative models. Reconstructed skin models, for example, have been useful to evaluate the in vitro toxicity of compounds; however, these models usually overestimate the amount of drug permeated due to impaired barrier properties. In this review, the performance of synthetic and biological skin models in transport studies was compared by considering two compounds with different physicochemical properties. The advantages and limitations of each skin model are discussed in detail. Although synthetic and reconstructed skin models have shown to be useful in the formulation optimization step, they present many limitations: (1) impaired barrier properties; (2) lack of follicular transport; (3) no metabolism in synthetic membranes; (4) differences in terms of lipid organization; (5) more affected by formulation constituents. Therefore, animal and human tissues should still be prioritized in drug transport studies until new advances in alternative models are achieved. Investigations of the impact of cell-culture conditions on skin formation, in turn, bring perspectives related to the development of unhealthy/injured skin models (an aspect that still deserves attention).

Graphical Abstract

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated were made available in the publication.

References

  1. Abd E, Yousef SA, Pastore MN, Telaprolu K, Mohammed YH, Namjoshi S, et al. Skin models for the testing of transdermal drugs. Clin Pharmacol Adv Appl. 2016;8:163–76. https://doi.org/10.2147/CPAA.S64788.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Haq A, Dorrani M, Goodyear B, Joshi V, Michniak-Kohn B. Membrane properties for permeability testing: skin versus synthetic membranes. Int J Pharm. 2018;539:58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.01.029.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roberts MS, Cheruvu HS, Mangion SE, Alinaghi A, Benson HAE, Mohammed Y, et al. Topical drug delivery: history, percutaneous absorption, and product development. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2021;177:113929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2021.113929.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yu Y-Q, Yang X, Wu X-F, Fan Y-B. Enhancing permeation of drug molecules across the skin via delivery in nanocarriers: novel strategies for effective transdermal applications. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.646554.

  5. Yun YE, Jung YJ, Choi YJ, Choi JS, Cho YW. Artificial skin models for animal-free testing. J Pharm Investig. 2018;48:215–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40005-018-0389-1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Planz V, Lehr CM, Windbergs M. In vitro models for evaluating safety and efficacy of novel technologies for skin drug delivery. J Control Release. 2016;242:89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.09.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Raney SG, Franz TJ, Lehman PA, Lionberger R, Chen M-L. Pharmacokinetics-based approaches for bioequivalence evaluation of topical dermatological drug products. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2015;54:1095–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-015-0292-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Küchler S, Strüver K, Friess W. Reconstructed skin models as emerging tools for drug absorption studies. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2013;9(10):1255–63. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2013.816284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. EspostoBiondo N, FretesArgenta D, Schneider Rauber G, Caon T. How to define the experimental conditions of skin permeation assays for drugs presenting biopharmaceutical limitations? The experience with testosterone. Int J Pharm. 2021;607:120987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120987.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Flaten GE, Palac Z, Engesland A, Filipović-Grčić J, Vanić Ž, Škalko-Basnet N. In vitro skin models as a tool in optimization of drug formulation. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2015;75:10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2015.02.018.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals, No. 431. In: OECD. In vitro skin corrosion: human skin model test. Paris, France: OECD; 2004. p. 8.

  12. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals, No. 432. In: OECD. In vitro 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. Paris, France: OECD; 2004. p. 15.

  13. Van Gele M, Geusens B, Brochez L, Speeckaert R, Lambert J. Three-dimensional skin models as tools for transdermal drug delivery: challenges and limitations. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2011;8:705–20. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425247.2011.568937.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schreiber S, Mahmoud A, Vuia A, Rübbelke MK, Schmidt E, Schaller M, et al. Reconstructed epidermis versus human and animal skin in skin absorption studies. Toxicol In Vitro. 2005;19:813–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2005.04.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Neupane R, Boddu SHS, Renukuntla J, Babu RJ, Tiwari AK. Alternatives to biological skin in permeation studies: current trends and possibilities. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12:152. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12020152.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Van de Sandt JJM, Van Burgsteden JA, Cage S, Carmichael PL, Dick I, Kenyon S, et al. In vitro predictions of skin absorption of caffeine, testosterone, and benzoic acid: a multi-centre comparison study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2004;39:271–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.02.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Im JE, Kim HY, Lee JD, Park JJ, Kang KS, Kim KB. Effect of application amounts on in vitro dermal absorption test using caffeine and testosterone. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13050641.

  18. Supe S, Takudage P. Methods for evaluating penetration of drug into the skin: a review. Ski Res Technol. 2021;27:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.12968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dominguez S, Mackert GA, Dobke M. Nanotechnology to enhance transdermal delivery of hydrophilic humectants for improved skin care: a model for therapeutic applications. In: Andronescu E, Grumezescu AM, editors. Nanostructures for Drug Delivery. Elsevier; 2017. p. 919–39.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. OECD. Guideline for the testing of chemicals. Skin absorption: in vivo method. 2000.

  21. OECD. Draft guidance document for the conduct of skin absorption studies. environment health and safety publications. 2000.

  22. OECD. Test guidelines program. Percutaneous absorption testing: is there a way to consensus? 2000.

  23. Sjövall P, Skedung L, Gregoire S, Biganska O, Clément F, Luengo GS. Imaging the distribution of skin lipids and topically applied compounds in human skin using mass spectrometry. Sci Rep. 2018;8:16683. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34286-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Évora AS, Adams MJ, Johnson SA, Zhang Z. Corneocytes: relationship between structural and biomechanical properties. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2021;34:146–61. https://doi.org/10.1159/000513054.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bouwstra J. Structure of the skin barrier and its modulation by vesicular formulations. Prog Lipid Res. 2003;42:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-7827(02)00028-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Prausnitz MR, Langer R. Transdermal drug delivery. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:1261–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Shin J-W, Kwon S-H, Choi J-Y, Na J-I, Huh C-H, Choi H-R, et al. Molecular mechanisms of dermal aging and antiaging approaches. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:2126. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20092126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Zimoch J, Zielinska D, Michalak-Micka K, Rütsche D, Böni R, Biedermann T, et al. Bio-engineering a prevascularized human tri-layered skin substitute containing a hypodermis. Acta Biomater. 2021;134:215–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2021.07.033.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Verma A, Jain SK, Jain A, Hurkat P. Transfollicular drug delivery: current perspectives. Res Reports Transdermal Drug Deliv. 2016;1. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRTD.S75809.

  30. Brain K, Walters K, Watkinson A. Methods for studying percutaneous absorption, drugs and the pharmaceutical sciences. In: Percutaneous Absorption Drugs, Cosmetics, Mechanisms, Methods. 2002. p. 197–269.

  31. Moser K, Kriwet K, Naik A, Kalia YN, Guy RH. Passive skin penetration enhancement and its quantification in vitro. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2001;52:103–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0939-6411(01)00166-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cross SE, Magnusson BM, Winckle G, Anissimov Y, Roberts MS. Determination of the effect of lipophilicity on the in vitro permeability and tissue reservoir characteristics of topically applied solutes in human skin layers. J Invest Dermatol. 2003;120:759–64. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12131.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Atrux-Tallau N, Pirot F, Falson F, Roberts MS, Maibach HI. Qualitative and quantitative comparison of heat separated epidermis and dermatomed skin in percutaneous absorption studies. Arch Dermatol Res. 2007;299:507–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-007-0789-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wilkinson SC, Maas WJM, Nielsen JB, Greaves LC, Van de Sandt JJM, Williams FM. Interactions of skin thickness and physicochemical properties of test compounds in percutaneous penetration studies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006;79:405–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-005-0056-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Barbero AM, Frasch HF. Pig and guinea pig skin as surrogates for human in vitro penetration studies: A quantitative review. Toxicol In Vitro. 2009;23:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2008.10.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Simon GA, Maibach HI. The pig as an experimental animal model of percutaneous permeation in man: qualitative and quantitative observations – an overview. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2000;13:229–34. https://doi.org/10.1159/000029928.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Jung EC, Maibach HI. Animal models for percutaneous absorption. J Appl Toxicol. 2015;35:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wei JCJ, Edwards GA, Martin DJ, Huang H, Crichton ML, Kendall MAF. Allometric scaling of skin thickness, elasticity, viscoelasticity to mass for micro-medical device translation: from mice, rats, rabbits, pigs to humans. Sci Rep. 2017;7:15885. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15830-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mangelsdorf S, Vergou T, Sterry W, Lademann J, Patzelt A. Comparative study of hair follicle morphology in eight mammalian species and humans. Ski Res Technol. 2014;20:147–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.12098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gray GM, Yardley HJ. Lipid compositions of cells isolated from pig, human, and rat epidermis. J Lipid Res. 1975;16:434–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stahl J, Niedorf F, Kietzmann M. Characterisation of epidermal lipid composition and skin morphology of animal skin ex vivo. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;72:310–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2008.09.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gray GM, White RJ. Glycosphingolipids and ceramides in human and pig epidermis. J Invest Dermatol. 1978;70:336–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1523-1747.ep12543527.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Carruthers C. Fatty acid composition of the phosphatide and triglyceride fractions of human epidermis. Exp Biol Med. 1964;115:215–8. https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-115-28873.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Caussin J, Gooris GS, Janssens M, Bouwstra JA. Lipid organization in human and porcine stratum corneum differs widely, while lipid mixtures with porcine ceramides model human stratum corneum lipid organization very closely. Biochim Biophys Acta - Biomembr. 2008;1778:1472–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2008.03.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Barber ED, Teetsel NM, Kolberg KF, Guest D. A comparative study of the rates of in vitro percutaneous absorption of eight chemicals using rat and human skin. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1992;19:493–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-0590(92)90086-W.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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. 2001;215:51–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5173(00)00665-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Van Ravenzwaay B, Leibold E. A comparison between in vitro rat and human and in vivo rat skin absorption studies. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2004;23:421–30. https://doi.org/10.1191/0960327104ht471oa.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Capt A, Luzy AP, Esdaile D, Blanck O. Comparison of the human skin grafted onto nude mouse model with in vivo and in vitro models in the prediction of percutaneous penetration of three lipophilic pesticides. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007;47:274–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.11.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Schlupp P, Weber M, Schmidts T, Geiger K, Runkel F. Development and validation of an alternative disturbed skin model by mechanical abrasion to study drug penetration. Results Pharma Sci. 2014;4:26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinphs.2014.09.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Netzlaff F, Schaefer UF, Lehr C-M, Meiers P, Stahl J, Kietzmann M, et al. Comparison of bovine udder skin with human and porcine skin in percutaneous permeation experiments. ATLA Altern to Lab Anim. 2006;34:499–513.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Lademann J, Richter H, Meinke M, Sterry W, Patzelt A. Which skin model is the most appropriate for the investigation of topically applied substances into the hair follicles? Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2010;23:47–52. https://doi.org/10.1159/000257263.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mitragotri S. Modeling skin permeability to hydrophilic and hydrophobic solutes based on four permeation pathways. J Control Release. 2003;86:69–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-3659(02)00321-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ogiso T, Shiraki T, Okajima K, Tanino T, Iwaki M, Wada T. Transfollicular drug delivery: penetration of drugs through human scalp skin and comparison of penetration between scalp and abdominal skins in vitro. J Drug Target. 2002;10:369–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1061186021000001814.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Stahl J, Niedorf F, Wohlert M, Kietzmann M. The in vitro use of the hair follicle closure technique to study the follicular and percutaneous permeation of topically applied drugs. ATLA Altern to Lab Anim. 2012;40:51–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Hadgraft J. Skin deep. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2004;58:291–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2004.03.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ottaviani G, Martel S, Carrupt P-A. Parallel artificial membrane permeability assay: a new membrane for the fast prediction of passive human skin permeability. J Med Chem. 2006;49:3948–54. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm060230+.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Janůšová B, Zbytovská J, Lorenc P, Vavrysová H, Palát K, Hrabálek A, et al. Effect of ceramide acyl chain length on skin permeability and thermotropic phase behavior of model stratum corneum lipid membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta - Mol Cell Biol Lipids. 2011;1811:129–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbalip.2010.12.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Jetzer WE, Huq AS, Ho NFH, Flynn GL, Duraiswamy N, Condie L. Permeation of mouse skin and silicone rubber membranes by phenols: relationship to in vitro partitioning. J Pharm Sci. 1986;75:1098–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600751116.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Houk J, Guy RH. Membrane models for skin penetration studies. Chem Rev. 1988;88:455–72. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr00085a001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Sinkó B, Garrigues TM, Balogh GT, Nagy ZK, Tsinman O, Avdeef A, et al. Skin-PAMPA: a new method for fast prediction of skin penetration. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2012;45:698–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2012.01.011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Karadzovska D, Riviere JE. Assessing vehicle effects on skin absorption using artificial membrane assays. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2013;50:569–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2013.02.020.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nakamura M, Haarmann-Stemmann T, Krutmann J, Morita A. Alternative test models for skin ageing research. Exp Dermatol. 2018;27:495–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/exd.13519.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Gysler A, Kleuser B, Sippl W, Lange K, Korting HC, Höltje HD, et al. Skin penetration and metabolism of topical glucocorticoids in reconstructed epidermis and in excised human skin. Pharm Res. 1999;16:1386–91. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018946924585.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Slivka SR. Testosterone metabolism in an in vitro skin model. Cell Biol Toxicol. 1992;8:267–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00156735.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ernesti AM, Swiderek M, Gay R. Absorption and metabolism of topically applied testosterone in an organotypic skin culture. Ski Pharmacol. 1992;5:146–53. https://doi.org/10.1159/000211031.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. OECD. Guidance Document for the conduct of skin absorption studies. OECD; 2004. (OECD Series on Testing and Assessment).

  67. Schäfer-Korting M, Bock U, Gamer A, Haberland A, Haltner-Ukomadu E, Kaca M, et al. Reconstructed human epidermis for skin absorption testing: results of the German prevalidation study. ATLA Altern to Lab Anim. 2006;34:283–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Schäfer-Korting M, Bock U, Diembeck W, Düsing H-J, Gamer A, Haltner-Ukomadu E, et al. The use of reconstructed human epidermis for skin absorption testing: results of the validation study. Altern Lab Anim. 2008;36:161–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290803600207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ackermann K, Lombardi Borgia S, Korting HC, Mewes KR, Schäfer-Korting M. The Phenion® full-thickness skin model for percutaneous absorption testing. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2010;23(2):105–12. https://doi.org/10.1159/000265681.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Ponec M, Boelsma E, Gibbs S, Mommaas M. Characterization of reconstructed skin models. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2002;15:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1159/000066682.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Ponec M, Boelsma E, Weerheim A, Mulder A, Bouwstra J, Mommaas M. Lipid and ultrastructural characterization of reconstructed skin models. Int J Pharm. 2000;203:211–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5173(00)00459-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ponec M, Gibbs S, Pilgram G, Boelsma E, Koerten H, Bouwstra J, et al. Barrier function in reconstructed epidermis and its resemblance to native human skin. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2001;14:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1159/000056392.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Otberg N, Patzelt A, Rasulev U, Hagemeister T, Linscheid M, Sinkgraven R, et al. The role of hair follicles in the percutaneous absorption of caffeine. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65:488–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2007.03065.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Hueber F, Schaefer H, Wepierre J. Role of transepidermal and transfollicular routes in percutaneous absorption of steroids: in vitro studies on human skin. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 1994;7:237–44. https://doi.org/10.1159/000211300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Girardeau-Hubert S, Deneuville C, Pageon H, Abed K, Tacheau C, Cavusoglu N, et al. Reconstructed skin models revealed unexpected differences in epidermal african and caucasian skin. Sci Rep. 2019;9:7456. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43128-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Rafaela E. B. Speroni for her help in preparing the figures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal University of Santa Catarina, Campus Reitor João David Ferreira Lima, S/N - Trindade, Florianópolis, SC, 88040-900, Brazil

    Nicole Esposto Biondo, Débora Fretes Argenta & Thiago Caon

Authors
  1. Nicole Esposto Biondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Débora Fretes Argenta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thiago Caon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thiago Caon.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Biondo, N.E., Argenta, D.F. & Caon, T. A Comparative Analysis of Biological and Synthetic Skin Models for Drug Transport Studies. Pharm Res 40, 1209–1221 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-023-03499-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-023-03499-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation