Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

  • Cheol Heon Lee
  • Howard I. Maibach

30. Conclusion

It is clear that SLS data does not provide a unanimous opinion on all points. Yet, the preponderance of the observations suggest that we are beginning to understand some of the parameters, such as purity, dose, patch, anatomic site, single versus multiple application, and occluded versus open application, that influence diverse response of the skin irritation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nikitakis JM, McEwen GN, Wenninger JA. CTFA International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary, 4th edn. The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association Inc., Washington DC, 1991Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI. Nonanoic acid irritation—a positive control at routine patch testing? Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6:128–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kligman AM. The SLS provocative patch test in allergic contact sensitization. J Invest Dermatol 1966; 36:573–583Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sams WM, Smith G. Contact dermatitis due to hydrocortisone ointment. Report of a case of sensitivity to emulsifying agents in a hydrophilic ointment base. JAMA 1957; 164:1212–1213Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prater E, Goring HD, Schubert H. Sodium lauryl sulphate—a contact allergen. Contact Dermatitis 1978; 4:242–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee AY, Yoo SH, Oh JG, Kim YG. 2 cases of allergic contact cheilitis from sodium lauryl sulfate in toothpaste. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42:111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tupker RA, Willis C, Berardesca E, Lee CH, Fartasch M, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines on sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) exposure tests. A report from the standardization group of the European society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37:53–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loden M, Andersson AC. Effect of topically applied lipids on surfactant irritated skin. Br J Dermatol 1996; 134:215–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basketter DA, Griffiths HA, Wang XM, Wilhelm KP, Mc-Fadden J. Individual, ethnic and seasonal variability in irritant susceptibility of skin: the implications for a predictive human patch test. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35:208–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pinnagoda J, Tupker RA, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP. Prediction of susceptibility to an irritant response by transepidermal water loss. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 20:341–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D. Susceptibility to cumulative and acute irritant dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 19:84–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The soap chamber test: a new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol 1979; 1:35–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tupker RA, Pinnagoda J, Coenraads PJ., Kerstholt H, Nater JP. Evaluation of hand cleansers: assessment of composition, skin compatibility by transepidermal water loss measurements, and cleansing power. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1989; 40:33–39Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tupker RA, Pinnagoda J, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP. The influence of repeated exposure to surfactants on human skin as determined by transepidermal water loss and visual scoring. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 20:108–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D. Human cutaneous irritation: induced hyporeactivity. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17:193–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Algood GS, Altringer LA, Kraus AL. Development of 14 day axillary irritation test. J Toxicol Cut Ocular Toxicol 1990; 9:67–75Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilhelm KP, Saunders JC, Maibach HI. Increased stratum corneum turnover induced by subclinical irritant dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1990; 122:793–798PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee CH, Maibach HI. Study of cumulative irritant contact dermatitis in man utilizing open application on subclinically irritated skin. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30:271–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Valk PGM, Maibach HI. Post-application occlusion substantially increases the irritant response of the skin to repeated short-term sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) exposure. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 21:335–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Monitoring the water-holding capacity in visually non-irritated skin by plastic occlusion stress test (POST). Clin Exp Dermatol 1990; 15:107–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lukacovic MF, Dunlap FE, Michaels SE, Visscher MO, Watson DD. Forearm wash test to evaluate the clinical mildness of cleansing products. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1988; 39:355–366Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klein G, Grubauer G, Fritsch P. The influence of daily dish-washing with synthetic detergent on human skin. Br J Dermatol 1992; 127:131–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agner T, Serup J, Handlos V, Batsberg W. Different skin irritation abilities of different qualities of sodium lauryl sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 21:184–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kligman AM, Wooding WM. A method for the measurement and evaluation of irritants on human skin. J Invest Dermatol 1967; 49:78–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stillman MA, Maibach HI, Shalita AR. Relative irritancy of free fatty acids of different chain length. Contact Dermatitis 1975; 1:65–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilhelm KP, Cua AB, Wolf HH, Maibach HI. Surfactant-induced stratum corneum hydration in vivo: prediction of the irritation potential of anionic surfactants. J Invest Dermatol 1993; 101:310–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Serup J, Staberg B. Ultrasound for assessment of allergic and irritant patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17:80–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Staberg B, Serup J. Allergic and irritant skin reactions evaluated by laser Doppler flowmetry. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 18:40–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Agner T, Fullerton A, Broby-Johansen U, Batsberg W. Irritant patch testing: penetration of SLS into human skin. Skin Pharmacol 1990; 3:213–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Magnusson B, Hersle K. Patch test methods. I. A comparative study of six different types of patch tests. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1965; 45:123–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The Duhring chamber test. Contact Dermatitis 1979; 5:73–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Agner T. Noninvasive measuring methods for the investigation of irritant patch test reactions. A study of patients with hand eczema, atopic dermatitis and controls. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) (Suppl) 1992; 173:1–26Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mikulowska A, Andersson A. Sodium lauryl sulfate effect on the density of epidermal Langerhans cells: evaluation of different test models. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34:397–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee KY, Park CW, Lee CH. The Effect of chamber size and volume of test solution on cutaneous irritation. Kor J Dermatol 1997; 35:424–430Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brasch J, Becker D, Effendy I. Reproducibility of irritant patch test reactions to sodium lauryl sulfate in a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized study using clinical scoring. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41:150–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Berardesca E, Vignoli GP, Distante F, Brizzi P, Rabbiosi G. Effect of water temperature on surfactant-induced skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 32:83–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fischer T, Maibach HI. Finn chamber patch test technique. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 11:137–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dahl MV, Roering MJ. Sodium lauryl sulphate irritant patch tests. III. Evaporation of aqueous vehicle influences inflammatory response. J Am Acad Dermatol 1984; 11:477–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sugar M, Schnetz E, Fartasch M. Does sodium lauryl sulfate concentration vary with time? Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40:146–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Racial differences in sodium lauryl sulphate induced cutaneous irritation: black and white. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 18:65–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Freeman S, Maibach HI. Study of irritant contact dermatitis produced by repeat patch testing with sodium lauryl sulphate and assessed by visual methods, transepidermal water loss and laser Doppler velocimetry. J Am Acad Dermatol 1988; 19:496–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goh CL, Chia SE. Skin irritability to sodium lauryl sulphate as measured by skin vapour loss by sex and race. Clin Exp Dermatol 1988; 13:16–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Agner T, Serup J. Time course of occlusive effects on skin evaluated by measurement of transepidermal water loss (TEWL): including patch tests with sodium lauryl sulphate and water. Contact Dermatitis 1993; 28:6–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stender IM, Blichmann C, Serup J Effects of oil and water baths on the hydration state of the epidermis. Clin Exp Dermatol 1990; 15:206–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Baker H, Kligman AM. Measurement of transepidermal water loss by electrical hygrometry. Arch Dermatol 1967; 96:441–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gisslen H, Magnusson B. Effects of detergents on guinea pig skin. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1966; 46:269–274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tovell PWA, Weaver AC, Hope J, Sprott WE. The action of sodium lauryl sulphateon rat skin: an ultrastructural study. Br J Dermatol 1974; 90:501–506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mahmoud G, Lachapelle JM, van Neste D. Histological assessment of skin damage by irritants: its possible use in the evaluation of a barrier cream. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 11:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Willis CM, Stephens CJM, Wilkinson JD. Epidermal damage induced by irritants in man: a light and electronmicroscopic study. J Invest Dermatol 1989; 93:695–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Moon SH, Seo KI, Han WS, Suh DH, Cho KH, Kim JJ, Eun HC. Pathological findings in cumulative irritation induced by SLS and croton oil in hairless mice. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 44:240–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Scheynius A, Fischer T, Forsum U, Klareskog L. Phenotypic characterization in situ of inflammatory cells in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in man. Clin Exp Immunol 1984; 55:81–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ferguson J, Gibbs JH, Swanson Beck J. Lymphocyte subsets and Langerhans cells in allergic and irritant patch test reactions: histometric studies. Contact Dermatitis 1985; 13:166–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Avnstorp C, Ralfkiaer E, Jorgensen J, Lange Wantzin G. Sequential immunophenotypic study of lymphoid infiltrate in allergic and irritant reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 16:239–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brasch J, Burgand J, Sterry W. Common pathogenetic pathways in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 1992; 98:364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Willis CM, Stephens CJM, Wilkinson JD. Differential patterns of epidermal leukocyte infiltration in patch tests reactions to structurally unrelated chemical irritants. J Invest Dermatol 1993; 101:364–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Scheuplein RJ, Ross L. Effects of surfactants and solvents on the permeability of epidermis. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1970; 21:853–873Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Elias PM. Epidermal lipids, barrier function, and desquamation. J Invest Dermatol 1983; 80:44S–49SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    van der Valk PGM, Nater JP, Bleumink E. Skin irritancy of surfactants as assessed by water vapor loss measurements. J Invest Dermatol 1984; 82:291–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Leveque JL, de Rigal J, Saint-Leger D, Billy D. How does sodium lauryl sulfate alter the skin barrier function in man ? A multiparametric approach. Skin Pharmacol 1993; 6:111–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Froebe CL, Simion FA, Rhein LD, Cagan LH, Kligman A. Stratum corneum lipid removal by surfactants: relation to in vivo irritation. Dermatologica 1990; 181:277–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Forslind B. A domain mosaic model of the skin barrier. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1994; 74:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lee CH, Maibach HI. The sodium lauryl sulfate model: an overview. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Bioengineering and the patch test. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 18:3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wilhelm KP, Saunders JC, Maibach HI. Quantification of sodium lauryl sulphate dermatitis in man: comparison of four techniques: skin color reflectance, transepidermal water loss, laser Doppler flow measurement and visual scores. Arch Dermatol Res 1989; 281:293–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    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; 95:543–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Agner T, Serup J. Individual and instrumental variations in irritant patch-test reactions—clinical evaluation and quantification by bioengineering methods. Clin Exp Dermatol 1990; 15:29–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Nilsson GE, Otto U, Wahlberg JE. Assessment of skin irritancy in man by laser Doppler flowmetry. Contact Dermatitis 1982; 8:401–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Robertson AR. The CIE 1976 color difference formulas. Color Res Appl 1977; 2:7–11Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Babulak SW, Rhein LD, Scala DD, Simion FA, Grove GL. Quantification of erythema in a soap chamber test using the Minolta Chroma (reflectance) Meter: comparison of instrumental results with visual assessment. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1986; 37:475–479Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Serup J, Agner T. Colorimetric quantification of erythema—a comparison of two colorimeters (Lange Micro Color and Minolta Chroma Meter CR-200) with a clinical scoring scheme and laser Doppler flowmetry. Clin Exp Dermatol 1990; 15:267–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Serup J, Staberg B, Klemp P. Quantification of cutaneous edema in patch test reactions by measurement of skin thickness with high-frequency pulsed ultrasound. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 10:88–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Seidenari S, di Nardo A. B-scanning evaluation of irritant reactions with binary transformation and image analysis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) (Suppl) 1992; 175:9–13Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lee KY, Shin KY, Park CW, Lee CH. Cutaneous irritation to sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium lauroyl glutamate. Kor J Dermatol 1997; 35:491–498Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Serup J (1995) The spectrum of irritancy and application of bioengineering techniques. In: Elsner P, Maibach HI (eds) Irritant dermatitis. New clinical and experimental aspects, Karger, Basel, pp 131–143Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tupker RA, Pinnagoda J, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP. Susceptibility to irritants: role of barrier function, skin dryness and history of atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123:199–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Dahl MV, Trancik RJ. Sodium lauryl sulphate irritant patch tests: degree of inflammation at various times. Contact Dermatitis 1977; 3:263–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wilhelm KP, Freitag G, Wolff HH. Surfactant-induced skin irritation and skin repair. Evaluation of the acute human irritation model by noninvasive techniques. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994; 30:944–949PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Shin KY, Park CW, Lee CH. Perturbation and recovery of the skin barrier function after tape stripping and sodium lauryl sulfate irritation. Kor J Dermatol 2000; 38:183–190Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Cutaneous sodium lauryl sulphate irritation potential: age and regional variability. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123:607–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Elsner P, Wilhelm D, Maibach HI. Sodium lauryl sulfate-induced irritant contact dermatitis in vulvar and forearm skin of premenopausal and postmenopausal women. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990; 23:648–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Agner T. Basal transepidermal water loss, skin thickness, skin blood flow and skin colour in relation to sodium-lauryl-sulphate-induced irritation in normal skin. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25:108–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bjornberg A. Skin reactions to primary irritants in men and women. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1975; 55:191–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D. Irritant reactivity in males and females. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17:276–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Tupker RA, Coenraads PJ, Pinnagoda J, Nater JP. Baseline transepidermal water loss (TEWL) as a prediction of susceptibility to sodium lauryl sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 20:265–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Agner T, Damm P, Skouby SO. Menstrual cycle and skin reactivity. J Am Acad Dermatol 1991; 24:566–570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    van der Valk PGM, Maibach HI. Potential for irritation increases from the wrist to the cubital fossa. Br J Dermatol 1989; 121:709–712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Panisset F, Treffel P, Faivre B, Lecomte PB, Agache P. Transepidermal water loss related to volar forearm sites in humans. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1992; 72:4–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Dahl MV, Pass F, Trancik RJ. Sodium lauryl sulphate irritant patch tests. II. Variation of test responses among subjects and comparison to variations of allergic responses elicited by Toxicodendron extract. J Am Acad Dermatol 1984; 11:474–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Rogiers V. Transepidermal water loss measurements in patch test assessment: the need for standardization, In: Elsner P, Maibach HI (eds) Irritant dermatitis. New clinical and experimental aspects, Karger, Basel, 1995; pp 152–158Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Bjornberg A, Lowhagen G, Tengberg J. Relationship between intensities of skin test reactions to glass-fibres and chemical irritants. Contact Dermatitis 1979; 5:171–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Frosch PJ, Wissing C. Cutaneous sensitivity to ultraviolet light and chemical irritants. Arch Dermatol Res 1982; 272:269–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Sodium-lauryl-sulphate-induced cutaneous irritation. Comparison of white and Hispanic subjects. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 19:136–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Larmi E, Lahti A, Hannuksela M. Effect of ultraviolet B on nonimmunologic contact reactions induced by dimethyl sulfoxide, phenol and sodium lauryl sulphate. Photodermatol 1989; 6:258–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Agner T, Serup J. Seasonal variation of skin resistance to irritants. Br J Dermatol 1989; 121:323–328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Spencer TS, Linamen CE, Akers WA, Jones HE. Temperature dependence of water content of the stratum corneum. Br J Dermatol 1975; 93:159–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. Rapid blister formation in human skin with ammonium hydroxide. Br J Dermatol 1977; 96:461–473PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Murahata R, Crove DM, Roheim JR. The use of transepidermal water loss to measure and predict the irritation response to surfactants. Int J Cosmet Sci 1986; 8:225–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Susceptibility to irritant dermatitis induced by sodium lauryl sulphate. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990; 23:122–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mitchell JC. Multiple concomitant positive patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1977; 3:315–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Andersen KE, Maibach HI. Cumulative irritancy in the guinea pig from low grade irritant vehicles and the angry skin syndrome. Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6:430–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Agner T. Skin susceptibility in uninvolved skin of hand eczema patients and healthy controls. Br J Dermatol 1991; 125:140–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Bruynzeel DP, van Ketel WG, von Blomberg-van der Flier M, Scheper RJ. Angry back or the excited skin syndrome. J Am Acad Dermatol 1983; 8:392–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Shahidullah M, Raffle EJ, Rimmer AR, Frain-Bell W. Transepidermal water loss in patients with dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1969; 81:722–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    van der Valk PGM, Nater JP, Bleumink E. Vulnerability of the skin to surfactants in different groups of eczema patients and controls as measured by water vapour loss. Clin Exp Dermatol 1985; 10:98–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Agner T. Susceptibility of atopic dermatitis patients to irritant dermatitis caused by sodium lauryl sulphate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1990; 71:296–300Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Cowley NC, Farr PM. A dose-response study of irritant reactions to sodium lauryl sulphate in patients with seborrheic dermatitis and atopic eczema. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1992; 72:432–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Lamintausta K, Maibach HI. Exogenous and endogenous factors in skin irritation. Int J Dermatol 1988; 27:213–222Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Tollesson A, Frithz A. Transepidermal water loss and water content in stratum corneum in infantile seborrheic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1993; 73:18–20PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheol Heon Lee
    • 1
  • Howard I. Maibach
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Dermatology, Kangnam Sacred Heart HospitalHallym UniversutySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations