The Evaluation of Cutaneous Toxicity: Past and Future

  • G. J. A. Oliver
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 181)


It is clear from a variety of statistics (1, 2) that cutaneous toxicity due to chemical exposure is of some significance. Most of the collected data relates to occupational incidence but it is reasonable to suppose that misuse of household products in the home produces similar problems. Against this background, public concern and more encompassing legislation (3) has reinforced the need to evaluate chemicals and formulations for their potential to damage the skin. The skin may be affected by chemicals in a variety of different ways but the evaluation of primary irritation is specifically discussed in this paper. Overviews on other acute forms of skin disorder (eg. phototoxicity, chloracne, paraesthesia, contact allergy) can be found elsewhere (4, 5, 6,).


Stratum Corneum Contact Period Corrosive Agent Cutaneous Toxicity Irritant Potential 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Department of Health & Social Security Statistics (1976). Government Statistical Services, HMSO.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health Notice — 4FR 7004 (1980). Chem. Reg. Reporter, 3, 1666.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    EEC (1983), Council Directive 67/5 48/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (83–467/EEC). Off. J. Commun. 26 (L257), 1Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marzulli, FN and Maibach, H I (1987). Dermato-toxicology, 3rd Ed., Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maurer, T (1983). Contact and Photocontact Allergens. Marcell Dekker Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKillop, C M, Brock, J A C, Oliver, G J A and Rhodes, C (1987). A quantitative assessment of pyrethroid-induced paraesthesia in the guinea pig flank model. Tox. Letts. 36, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parish, W E (1986). Inflammation. In Text Book of Dermatology, Ed. by A Rook, D S Wilkinson and F J G Ebbling, 4th Ed., p. 285, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prottey, C (1978). No chapter In Cosmetic Science. Ed. by Breuer, M M, p. 275, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berman, M B (1987). Mechanisms of inflammation in skin and eyes — similarities and differences. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology, No. 5, Ed. by Goldberg, A M, p. 95, Mary Ann Leibert Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Draize, J H, Woodward, G and Calvery, H O (1944). Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J. Pharmac. Exp. Ther., 82, 377.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OECD, (1987). Acute dermal irritancy/ corrosion. In OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals. Ssection 4, No. 404 OECD Paris.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Draize, J H (1959). The appraisal of chemicals in foods, drugs and cosmetics, p. 46. Association of Food & Drug Officials of the United States, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    FDA (1972), Hazardous substances. Proposed revision of tests for primary skin irritants. Fed. Reg., 37, 27635.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    United Nations Economic & Social Council, (1977). Transport of dangerous goods. Special recommendations relating to class 8, p. 173Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Philips, L, Steinberg, M, Maibach, H and Akers, W A (1972). A comparison of rabbit and human skin responses to certain irritants. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 21, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nixon, G A, Tyson, C A and Wertz, W C (1975). Interspecies comparisons of skin irritancy. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 31, 481.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marzulli, F N and Maibach, H I (1975). The rabbit as a model for evaluating skin irritants; a comparison of results obtained on animals and man using repeated skin exposures. J. Cosmet. Toxicol., 13, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davies, R E, Harper, A H and Kynoch, S R (1972). Interspecies variation in dermal reactivity. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., 23, 371.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Motoyoshi, K, Toyoshima, Y, Saito, M and Yoshimura, M (1979). Comparative studies on the irritancy of oils and synthetic perfumes to the skin of rabbit, guinea-pig, miniature swine and man. Cosmetics & Toiletries, 94, 41.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCreesh, A H and Steinberg, M (1987). Skin irritation testing in animals. In Dermato-Toxicology, 3rd Ed., p. 153, Ed. by F N Marzulli and H I Maibach, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weil, C S and Scala, R A (1972). Study of intra- and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. Tox. Appl. Pharmac, 19, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Balls, M, Rydell, R J, Warden, A N (1983). Animals and Alternatives to Toxicity Testing. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fielder, R J, Grant, I F, Rhodes, C, Sullivan, F M and Sawnson, D W (1987). A hierarchical approach to the assessment of dermal and occular irritancy; a report by the British Toxicology Society Working Party on Irritancy. Human Toxicol., 6, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mathias, C G E (1987). Clinical and experimental aspects of cutaneous irritation. In Dermato-Toxicology, 3rd Edition, Ed. by F N Marzulli and H I Maibach, p. 173. Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Willis, C M, Stevens, C J M and Wilkinson, J D (1988). Experimentally reduced irritant contact dermatitis; determination of optimum irritant concentrations. Contact Dermatitis, 18, 20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berardesca, E and Maibach, H I (1988). Bioengineering and the patch test. Contact Dermatitis, 18, 3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Middleton, M C (1981). New approaches to problems of dermatotoxicity. In Testing for Toxicity, Ed. by Gorrod, J W, p. 275, Taylor & Francis Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marks, R and Kingston, T (1985). Acute skin toxicity reactions in man -tests and mechanisms. Food. Chem. Tox., 23, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parish, W E (1985). Relevance of in vitro tests to in vivo acute skin inflammation; potential in vitro applications of skin keratotome slices, neutrophils, fibroblasts, mast cells and macrophages. Food, Chem. Tox. 23 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parish, W E (1986). The evaluation of in vitro predictive tests for irritation and allergic sensitisation. Food Chem. Tox., 24, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scott, R C, Oliver, G J A, Dugard, P H and Singh, H J (1982). A comparison of techniques for the measurement of transepidermal water loss. Arch. Dermatol. Res., 274, 57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sakamoto, K (1985). Hydrophobicity of n-lauryl amino acid as a parameter to determine primary skin and eye irritation. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., 36, (5), 379.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blake-Haskins, J (1985). Determination of surfactant irritancy from the swelling behaviour of collogen membranes. J. Soc. Cosmet., 36, (5), 379.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reinhardt, Ch. A, Bosshardt, E and Schlatter, C H (1985). Irritation testing of skin and mucous membranes. Food. Tox., 23, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Purchase, I F H and Conning, D M (1986). International conference on practical in vitro toxicology. 24, 447.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pemberton, M A and Oliver, G J A, Unpublished observations.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Young, J R, Howe, M J, Walker, A P and Worht, W M H (1988). Classification of corrosive or irritant to skin of preparations containing acidic or alkaline substances, without testing on animals. Toxic. In Vitro, 2, (1), 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oliver, G J A and Pemberton, M A (1985). An in vitro epidermal slice technique identifying chemicals with a potential for severe cutaneous effects. Food. Chem. Toxic, 23, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oliver, G J A and Pemberton, M A (1986). An in vitro skin corrosivity test — modifications and validations. Food. Chem. Tox., 24, 5 07.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oliver, G Ja, Pemberton, M A and Rhodes, C (1988). An in vitro model for identifying skin corrosive chemicals. Initial Validation. Tox. In vitro, 2, 7.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cooper, J A, Saraachi, R and Cole, P (1979). Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests. Br. J. Cancer, 39, 87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barlow, A, Oliver, G J A, Botham, P A and Pemberton, M A (1989). Continued validation and in-use experience of an in vitro test for the skin corrosive potential of chemicals. Toxicologist. In press.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Oliver, G J A and Pemberton, M A (1986). The identification of corrosive agents to human skin in vitro. Food. Chem. Toxic. 24, 513.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Oliver, G J A, Pemberton, M A and Leeser, J E (1989). In vivo validation of an in vitro skin corrosivity test in human volunteers. Toxicologist.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kao, J, Hall, J and Holland J M (1983). Quantitation of cutaneous toxicity; an in vitro approach using skin organ culture. Toxic. Appl. Pharmac. 68, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Helman, R G, Hall, J W and Kao, J (1986). Acute dermal toxicity; in vivo and in vitro comparisons in mice. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., 7, 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pemberton, M A and Oliver, G J A (1986). The measurement of skin irritation in vitro using ex-vivo rabbit skin. Br. J. Dermatol. 115 (31), 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pemberton, M A, Oliver, G J A, Pate, I, Rhodes, C, Barlow, A, Doe, J E and Botham, P A (1989). Initial validation of an in vitro technique for the assessment of skin irritant chemicals. Toxicologist. In press.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Prunieras, M and Delescluse, C (1984). Epidermal cell culture systems in skin pharmacology. Br. J. Dermatol. 3, (27), 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Reichert, U (1986). Skin toxicity and cellular metabolism; in vitro models. Br. J. Dermatol. 115, (31), 108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Coulomb, B, Saiag, P, Bell, E, Breitburd, F, Lebreton, C, Hessian, M and Dubertret, L (1986). A new method for studying epidermalisation in vitro Br. J. Dermatol. 114, 91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. J. A. Oliver
    • 1
  1. 1.ICI Central Toxicology LaboratoryMacclesfield, CheshireUK

Personalised recommendations