Sensitive Skin: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Contributors

  • Miranda A. Farage
  • Michael K. Robinson


A majority of consumers in industrialized countries today, when surveyed, report unpleasant sensations related to the use of consumer products, despite extensive premarket testing confirming a lack of irritant effect. Called “sensitive skin,” this phenomenon’s understanding has been hampered by the diversity of sensory perceptions and signs reported and by a lack of correlation between the two. Once thought to be a “princess and the pea” cultural complaint, sensitive skin is now known to be a genuine irritant response, although cultural factors do appear to play a role in consumer perceptions. Improved testing methods are now revealing the underlying physiological mechanisms of sensitive skin, which may ultimately prove to be comprised of subgroups of exaggerated sensitivity stemming from different physiological mechanisms.


Atopic Dermatitis Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Sensory Effect Atopic Dermatitis Patient Sensitive Skin 
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.


  1. 1.
    Jourdain R, de Lacharrière O, Bastien P, Maibach HI (2002) Ethnic variations in self-perceived sensitive skin: epidemiological survey. Contact Dermatitis 46(3):162–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farage MA, Katsarou A, Maibach HI (2006) Sensory, clinical and physiological factors in sensitive skin: a review. Contact Dermatitis 55(1):1–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pons-Guiraud A (2004) Sensitive skin: a complex and multifactorial syndrome. J Cosmet Dermatol 3(3):145–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marriott M, Holmes J, Peters L, Cooper K, Rowson M, Basketter DA (2005) The complex problem of sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 53(2):93–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farage MA (2005) Are we reaching the limits or our ability to detect skin effects with our current testing and measuring methods for consumer products? Contact Dermatitis 52(6):297–303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farage MA, Maibach HI (2008) Sensitive skin syndrome: sensory response and classification. Cosmet Toil 123(7):26–30Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farage MA, Maibach HI (2010) Sensitive skin: closing in on a physiological cause. Contact Dermatitis 62(3):137–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson A, Page D (1992) Making sense of sensitive skin. Congress of the International Federation of Society of Cosmetic Chemists, Yokohama, Poster 700Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morizot F, Guinot C, Lopez S, Le Fur I, Tschachler E, Wood C (2000) Sensitive skin: analysis of symptoms, perceived causes and possible mechanisms. Cosmet Toil 115:83–89Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Willis CM, Shaw S, De Lacharrière O, Baverel M, Reiche L, Jourdain R, Bastien P, Wilkinson JD (2001) Sensitive skin: an epidemiological study. Br J Dermatol 145(2):258–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farage MA (2009) How do perceptions of sensitive skin differ at different anatomical sites? An epidemiological study. Clin Exp Dermatol 38(8):e521–e530Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Querleux B, Dauchot K, Jourdain R, Bastien P, Bittoun J, Anton J, Burnod Y, de Lacharrière O (2008) Neural basis of sensitive skin: an fMRI study. Skin Res Technol 14(4):454–461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saint-Martory C, Roguedas-Contios AM, Sibaud V, Degouy A, Schmitt AM, Misery L (2008) Sensitive skin is not limited to the face. Br J Dermatol 158(1):130–133PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Misery L, Myon E, Martin N, Verrière F, Nocera T, Taieb C (2005) Sensitive skin in France: an epidemiological approach. Ann Dermatol Venereol 132(5):425–429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guinot C, Malvy D, Mauger E, Ezzedine K, Latreille J, Ambroisine L, Tenenhaus M, Préziosi P, Morizot F, Galan P et al (2006) Self-reported skin sensitivity in a general adult population in France: data of the SU.VI.MAX cohort. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 20(4):380–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Farage MA, Bowtell P, Katsarou A (2008) Self-diagnosed sensitive skin in women with clinically diagnosed atopic dermatitis. Cli Med Dermatol 2:21–28Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farage MA (2010) Does sensitive skin differ between men and women? Cutan Ocul Toxicol 29(3):153–163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farage MA (2008) Perceptions of sensitive skin: changes in perceived severity and associations with environmental causes. Contact Dermatitis 59(4):226–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farage MA, Maibach HI (2008) Sensitive skin syn-drome: methodological approaches. Cosmet Toil 123(9):28–33Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berardesca E, Cespa M, Farinelli N, Rabbiosi G, Maibach H (1991) In vivo transcutaneous penetration of nicotinates and sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 25(1):35–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robinson MK, Perkins MA (2001) Evaluation of a quantitative clinical method for assessment of sensory skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis 45(4):205–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farage MA (2005) Assessing the skin irritation potential of facial tissues. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 24(2):125–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee CH, Maibach HI (1995) The sodium lauryl sulfate model: an overview. Contact Dermatitis 33(1):1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Basketter DA, York M, McFadden JP, Robinson MK (2004) Determination of skin irritation potential in the human 4-h patch test. Contact Dermatitis 51(1):1–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robinson MK (2002) Population differences in acute skin irritation responses. Race, sex, age, sensitive skin and repeat subject comparisons. Contact Dermatitis 46(2):86–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Farage MA, Maibach HI (2008) Sensitive skin syndrome: relationships among factors. Cosmet Toil 123(11):28–31Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Farage M, Maibach HI (2004) The vulvar epithelium differs from the skin: implications for cutaneous testing to address topical vulvar exposures. Contact Dermatitis 51(4):201–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Basketter DA, Wilhelm KP (1996) Studies on non-immune immediate contact reactions in an unselected population. Contact Dermatitis 35(4):237–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robinson MK (2001) Intra-individual variations in acute and cumulative skin irritation responses. Contact Dermatitis 45(2):75–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI (1990) Cutaneous sodium lauryl sulphate irritation potential: age and regional variability. Br J Dermatol 123(5):607–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aramaki J, Kawana S, Effendy I, Happle R, Löffler H (2002) Differences of skin irritation between Japanese and European women. Br J Dermatol 146(6):1052–1056PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI (1988) Racial differences in sodium lauryl sulphate induced cutaneous irritation: black and white. Contact Dermatitis 18(2):65–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kalogeromitros D, Katsarou A, Armenaka M, Rigopoulos D, Zapanti M, Stratigos I (1995) Influence of the menstrual cycle on skin-prick test reactions to histamine, morphine and allergen. Clin Exp Allergy 25(5):461–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Farage MA, Osborn TW, Maclean AB (2008) Cognitive, sensory, and emotional changes associated with the menstrual cycle: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 278(4):299–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Britz MB, Maibach HI, Anjo DM (1980) Human percutaneous penetration of hydrocortisone: the vulva. Arch Dermatol Res 267(3):313–316PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thomson ML (1955) Relative efficiency of pigment and horny layer thickness in protecting the skin of Europeans and Africans against solar ultraviolet radiation. J Physiol 127(2):236–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnson LC, Corah NL (1963) Racial differences in skin resistance. Science 139(3556):766–767PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Corcuff P, Lotte C, Rougier A, Maibach HI (1991) Racial differences in corneocytes. A comparison between black, white and oriental skin. Acta Derm Venereol 71(2):146–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marriott M, Whittle E, Basketter DA (2003) Facial variations in sensory responses. Contact Dermatitis 49(5):227–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lampe MA, Burlingame AL, Whitney J, Williams ML, Brown BE, Roitman E, Elias PM (1983) Human stratum corneum lipids: characterization and regional variations. J Lipid Res 24(2):120–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seidenari S, Francomano M, Mantovani L (1998) Baseline biophysical parameters in subjects with sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis 38(6):311–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Loffler H (2006) Contact allergy and sensitive skin. In: Berardesca E, Fluhr J, Maibach H (eds) Sensitive skin syndrome. Taylor and Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Löffler H, Dickel H, Kuss O, Diepgen TL, Effendy I (2001) Characteristics of self-estimated enhanced skin susceptibility. Acta Derm Venereol 81(5):343–346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Effendy I, Loeffler H, Maibach HI (1995) Baseline transepidermal water loss in patients with acute and healed irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 33(6):371–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lonne-Rahm S, Berg M, Mårin P, Nordlind K (2004) Atopic dermatitis, stinging, and effects of chronic stress: a pathocausal study. J Am Acad Dermatol 51(6):899–905PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Farage MA (2010) Perceptions of sensitive skin with age. In: Farage MA, Miller KW, Maibach HI (eds) Textbook of aging skin. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Misery L, Myon E, Martin N, Consoli S, Nocera T, Taieb C (2006) Sensitive skin: epidemiological approach and impact on quality of life in France. In: Berardesca E, Fluhr JW, Maibach HI (eds) Sensitive skin syndrome. Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Misery L, Boussetta S, Nocera T, Perez-Cullell N, Taieb C (2009) Sensitive skin in Europe. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 23(4):376–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Giacomoni PU, Mammone T, Teri M (2009) Gender-linked differences in human skin. J Dermatol Sci 55(3):144–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wines N, Willsteed E (2001) Menopause and the skin. Australas J Dermatol 42(3):149–8; quiz 159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Leong PL (2008) Aging changes in the male face. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 16(3):277–279, vPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mowlavi A, Cooney D, Febus L, Khosraviani A, Wilhelmi BJ, Akers G (2005) Increased cutaneous nerve fibers in female specimens. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(5):1407–1410PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Reed JT, Ghadially R, Elias PM (1995) Skin type, but neither race nor gender, influence epidermal permeability barrier function. Arch Dermatol 131(10): 1134–1138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Farage MA, Neill S, MacLean AB (2009) Physiological changes associated with the menstrual cycle: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 64(1):58–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Farage MA, Berardesca E, Maibach H (2010) The possible relevance of sex hormones on irritant and allergic responses: their importance for skin testing. Contact Dermatitis 62(2):67–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Agner T, Damm P, Skouby SO (1991) Menstrual cycle and skin reactivity. J Am Acad Dermatol 24(4):566–570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Agner T (1992) 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 Suppl (Stockh) 173:1–26Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rohold AE, Halkier-Sørensen L, Andersen KE, Thestrup-Pedersen K (1994) Nickel patch test reactivity and the menstrual cycle. Acta Derm Venereol 74(5):383–385PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Farage MA, Berardesca E, Maibach HI (2009) The effect of sex hormones on irritant and allergic response: possible relevance for skin testing. Br J Dermatol 160(2):450–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Robinson MK (2006) Age and gender as influencing factors in skin sensitivity. In: Berardesca E, Fluhr J, Maibach H (eds) Sensitive skin syndrome. Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Weigand DA, Haygood C, Gaylor JR (1974) Cell layers and density of Negro and Caucasian stratum corneum. J Invest Dermatol 62(6):563–568PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Reinertson RP, Wheatley VR (1959) Studies on the chemical composition of human epidermal lipids. J Invest Dermatol 32(1):49–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kaidbey KH, Agin PP, Sayre RM, Kligman AM (1979) Photoprotection by melanin – a comparison of black and Caucasian skin. J Am Acad Dermatol 1(3):249–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kompaore F, Marty JP, Dupont C (1993) In vivo evaluation of the stratum corneum barrier function in blacks, Caucasians and Asians with two noninvasive methods. Skin Pharmacol 6(3):200–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wilson D, Berardesca E, Maibach HI (1988) In vitro transepidermal water loss: differences between black and white human skin. Br J Dermatol 119(5):647–652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sugino K, Imokawa G, Maibach H (1993) Ethnic difference of stratum corneum lipid in relation to stratum corneum function. J Invest Dermatol 100:587 [Abstract 594]Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Anderson RR, Parrish JA (1981) The optics of human skin. J Invest Dermatol 77(1):13–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hymes J, Spraker M (1986) Racial differences in the effectiveness of a topically applied mixture of local anesthetics. Reg Anesth 11:11–13Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wedig JH, Maibach HI (1981) Percutaneous penetration of dipyrithione in man: effect of skin color (race). J Am Acad Dermatol 5(4):433–438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Guy RH, Tur E, Bjerke S, Maibach HI (1985) Are there age and racial differences to methyl nicotinate-induced vasodilatation in human skin? J Am Acad Dermatol 12(6):1001–1006PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI (1990) Racial differences in pharmacodynamic response to nicotinates in vivo in human skin: black and white. Acta Derm Venereol 70(1):63–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Marshall E, Lynch V, Smith H (1919) Variation in susceptibility of the skin to dichlorethylsulfide. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 12:291–301Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Weigand D, Mershon M (1970) The cutaneous irritant reaction to agent O-chlorobenzylidene malonitrile (CS); quantitation and racial influence in human subjects. Edgewood Arsenal 4332Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Weigand DA, Gaylor JR (1974) Irritant reaction in Negro and Caucasian skin. South Med J 67(5):548–551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Frosch P, Kligman A (1981) A method for appraising the stinging capacity of topically applied substances. J Soc Cosmet Chem 28:197–209Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Freeman R, Cockerell E, Armstrong J et al (1962) Sunlight as a factor influencing the thickness of epidermis. J Invest Dermatol 39:295–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Berardesca E, Maibach H (1996) Racial differences in skin pathophysiology. J Am Acad Dermatol 34(4):667–672PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bronaugh RL, Stewart RF, Simon M (1986) Methods for in vitro percutaneous absorption studies. VII: use of excised human skin. J Pharm Sci 75(11):1094–1097PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sandby-Møller J, Poulsen T, Wulf HC (2003) Epidermal thickness at different body sites: relationship to age, gender, pigmentation, blood content, skin type and smoking habits. Acta Derm Venereol 83(6):410–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Robinson MK (1999) Population differences in skin structure and physiology and the susceptibility to irritant and allergic contact dermatitis: implications for skin safety testing and risk assessment. Contact Dermatitis 41(2):65–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Rapaport MJ (1984) Patch testing in Japanese subjects. Contact Dermatitis 11(2):93–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Robinson MK (2000) Racial differences in acute and cumulative skin irritation responses between Caucasian and Asian populations. Contact Dermatitis 42(3):134–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Farage MA, Miller KW, Elsner P, Maibach HI (2008) Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in skin ageing: a review. Int J Cosmet Sci 30(2):87–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Sparavigna A, Di Pietro A, Setaro M (2005) ‘Healthy skin’: significance and results of an Italian study on healthy population with particular regard to ‘sensitive’ skin. Int J Cosmet Sci 27(6):327–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Besné I, Descombes C, Breton L (2002) Effect of age and anatomical site on density of sensory innervation in human epidermis. Arch Dermatol 138(11):1445–1450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Misery L, Sibaud V, Ambronati M, Macy G, Boussetta S, Taieb C (2008) Sensitive scalp: does this condition exist? An epidemiological study. Contact Dermatitis 58(4):234–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Tagami H (2002) Racial differences on skin barrier function. Cutis 70(6 Suppl):6–7; discussion 21–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Green B (1996) Regional and individual differences in cutaneous sensitivity to chemical irritants: capsaicin and menthol. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 15:277–295Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Farage M, Bowtell P, Katsarou A (2006) The relationship among objectively assessed vulvar erythema, skin sensitivity, genital sensitivity, and self-reported facial skin redness. J Appl Res 6:272–281Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Farage MA (2009) Perceptions of sensitive skin: women with urinary incontinence. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280:49–57, Epub 2008 Dec 14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Farage MA (2008) Self-reported immunological and familial links in individuals who perceive they have sensitive skin. Br J Dermatol 159(1):237–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Farage MA, Bowtell P, Katsarou A (2010) Identifying patients likely to have atopic dermatitis: development of a pilot algorithm. Am J Clin Dermatol 11(3):211–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Farage MA, Miller KW, Berardesca E, Maibach HI (2008) Psychosocial and societal burden of incontinence in the aged population: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 277(4):285–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Farage MA, Miller KW, Ledger WJ (2008) Determining the cause of vulvovaginal symptoms. Obstet Gynecol Surv 63(7):445–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Farage MA, Katsarou A, Tsagroni E, Bowtell P, Meyer S, Deliveliotou A, Creatsas G (2005) Cutaneous and sensory effects of two sanitary pads with distinct surface materials: a randomized prospective trial. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 24:227–241Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Farage MA, Stadler A, Chassard D, Pelisse M (2008) A randomized prospective trial of the cutaneous and sensory effects of feminine hygiene wet wipes. J Reprod Med 53(10):765–773PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Farage MA, Stadler A (2005) Cumulative irritation patch test of sanitary pads on sensitive skin. J Cosmet Dermatol 4(3):179–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Farage MA, Santana M, Henley E (2005) Correlating sensory effects with irritation. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 24(1):45–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Farage MA (2009) Detecting skin irritation using enhanced visual scoring: a sensitive new clinical method. In: Barel AO, Paye M, Maibach HI (eds) Handbook of cosmetic science and technology, 3rd edn. Informa Healthcare, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Farage MA (2009) Sensory effects and irritation: a strong relationship. In: Barel A, Paye M, Maibach H (eds) Handbook of cosmetic science and technology. Informa Healthcare USA, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Misery L, Myon E, Martin N, Consoli S, Boussetta S, Nocera T, Taieb C (2007) Sensitive skin: psychological effects and seasonal changes. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 21(5):620–628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Muizzuddin N, Marenus KD, Maes DH (1998) Factors defining sensitive skin and its treatment. Am J Contact Dermat 9(3):170–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Perkins MA, Osterhues MA, Farage MA, Robinson MK (2001) A noninvasive method to assess skin irritation and compromised skin conditions using simple tape adsorption of molecular markers of inflammation. Skin Res Technol 7(4):227–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Perkins MA, Osterhues MA, Vogelpohl S, Robinson MK (2000) A clinical skin sampling approach to assess sensory skin irritation. Toxicological Sciences 54:146Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Sciences, The Procter & Gamble Company, Winton Hill Business CenterCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Global Biotechnology DivisionMiami Valley Innovation CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations