Advertisement

Skin Reactivity and Proneness to Irritation

  • Pierre Agache
Reference work entry

Abstract

Cosmetology (tests of tolerance, selection of subjects for tolerance tests), Regulation acts fulfilment (identification of primary irritants), Occupational medicine (detection of subjects at risk and health-hazard products, measurement of skin alterations of occupational origin), Allergology (identification of irritants and orthoergic reactions).

Keywords

Burning test Corneosurfametry Dansyl chloride test Histamine itching test Irritants Irritating effect Kligman and Wooding test Oclusive tests Skin hypersensitivity reactions Skin irritability testing Skin irritation Skin irritation proneness Soap chamber test Sting test 

References

  1. Agache P. Metrology of the stratum corneum. In: Handbook of Measuring the skin. 1st edn. Berlin: Springer; 2004. p. 101–10.Google Scholar
  2. Agner T, Fullerton A, Brohy-Johansen U, Batsberg W. Irritant patch testing: penetration of SLS into human skin. Skin Pharmacol. 1990;3:213–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Annexe à la Directive 92/69 CEE du 31 juillet 1992: dixseptième adaptation au progrès technique de la Directive 67/548 CEE. Journal Officiel de l’Union Européenne L841992:36: 1Google Scholar
  4. Bahmer FA, Feldmann U. Objective and reproducible assessment of irritants in vivo. A reappraisal of the IT50 in honour of Kligman and Wooding. In: Elsner P, Maibach HI, editors. Irritant dermatitis: new clinical and experimental aspects. Basel: Karger; 1995. p. 288–95.Google Scholar
  5. Basketter PA, Whittle E, Griffiths HA, York M. The identification and classification of skin irritation hazard by a human patch test. Fd Chem Toxicol. 1994;32:769–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basketter DA, Griffiths HA, Wang XM, Wilhelm KP, McFadden J. Individual, ethnic and seasonal variability in irritant susceptibility of skin: the implications for a predictive human patch test. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:208–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Burckhardt W. Praktische und theoretische Bedeutung der Alkalineutralisations- und Alkaliresistenzproben. Arch Klin Exp Dermatol. 1964;219:600–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarys P, Manou I, Barel AO. Influence of temperature on irritation in the hand/forearm immersion test. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36:240–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. De Lacharrière O. Contribution à l’étude des peaux sensibles et réactives. Aspects épidémiologiques,cliniques et physiopathologiques. Thesis, University of Besançon; Dec 9th; 2002.Google Scholar
  10. De Lacharrière O, Reiche L, Montastier C, Nicholson M, Courbière C, Willis C, Wilkinson JD, Leclaire J. Skin reaction to capsaicin: a new way for the understanding of sensitive skin. Australas J Dermatol. 1997;38(S2):3–313.Google Scholar
  11. De Lacharrière O, Jourdain R, Bastien P, Garrigue JL. Sensitive skin is not a subclinical expression of contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44:131–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Finkey J. Evaluation of subjective irritation induced by soap materials. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1987;82:153–61.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher AA. “Status cosmeticus”: a cosmetic intolerance syndrome. Cutis. 1990;46:109–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Frosch PJ. Cutaneous irritation. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, Benezra C, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; 1992. p. 28–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The chamber-scarification test: a new method for assessing the irritancy of soap. Contact Dermatitis. 1976;2:314–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. A method for appraising the stinging capacity of topically applied substances. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1977;28:197–209.Google Scholar
  17. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The soap chamber test: a new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1979;1:35–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Frosch PJ, Kurte A. Efficacy of skin barrier creams: (lV) The repetitive irritation test (RIT) with a set of 4 standard irritants. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:161–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Frosch PJ, Pilz B. Irritant patch test techniques. In: Serup J, Jemec GBE, editors. Handbook of non-invasive methods and the skin. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995. p. 587–91.Google Scholar
  20. Goffin V, Paye M, Piérard GE. Comparison of in vitro predictive tests for irritation induced by anionic surfactants. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;33:38–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Grove GL, Soschin DM, Kligman AM. Adverse subjective reactions to topical agents. In: Drill VA, Lazar P, editors. Cutaneous toxicity. New York: Raven; 1984. p. 203–11.Google Scholar
  22. Henry F, Goffin V, Maibach HI, Piérard GE. Regional differences in stratum corneum reactivity to surfactants. Quantitative assessment using the corneosurfametry bioassay. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:271–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Issachar N, Gall Y, Borrel MT, Poelman MC. pH measurements during lactic acid stinging test in normal and sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36:152–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jourdain R, de Lacharrière O, Bastien P, Maibach HI. Ethnic variations in self- perceived sensitive skin: epidemiological survey. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:162–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kawai K, Nakagawa M, Kawai J, Kawai K. Evaluation of skin irritancy of sodium lauryl sulphate: a comparative study between the replica method and visual evaluation. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:174–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Klaschka F, Mengel G, Nörenberg M. Quantitative und qualitative Hornschicht-Diagnostik. Arch Dermatol Forsch. 1972;244:69–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kligman AM, Wooding WM. A method for the measurement and evaluation of irritants on human skin. J Invest Dermatol. 1967;49:78–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lammintausta K, cité par Frosch in Rycroft et al, 1992. (Ref 22).Google Scholar
  29. Leder M. Die Benzintoleranz der Haut. Dermatologica. 1943;88:316–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Locher G. Permeabilitätsprüfung der Haut Ekzemkranker und Hautgesunder für der neuen Indikator Nitrazingelb “Geigy,” Modifizierung der Alkalieresistenzprobe, pH Verlauf in der Tiefe des Stratum corneum. Dermatologica. 1962;124:159–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Loden W, Andersson AC. Effect of topically applied lipids on surfactant-irritated skin. Br J Dermatol. 1996;134:215–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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;8:225–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nangia A, Andersen PH, Berner B, Maibach HI. High dissociation constants (pKa) of basic permeants are associated with in vivo skin irritation in man. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:237–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ollmar S, Emtestam L. Electrical impedance applied to non-invasive detection of irritation in skin. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:37–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Paye M, Simion FA, Piérard GE. Dansyl chloride labelling of stratum corneum: its rapid extraction from skin can predict skin irritation due to surfactants and cleansing products. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;30:91–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Piérard GE, Goffin V, Piérard-Franchimont C. Corneosurfametry: a predictive assessment of the interaction of personal care cleansing products with human stratum corneum. Dermatology. 1994;189:152–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Piérard GE, Goffin V, Hermanns-Lê T, Arrese JE, Piérard-Franchimont C. Surfactant induced dermatitis. A comparison of corneosurfametry with predictive testing on human and reconstructed skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;33:462–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Querleux B, Jourdain R, Dauchot K, Burnod Y, Bittoun J, Bastien P, de Lacharrière O. Sensitive skin: specific brain activation revealed by functional MRI. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2002;129:1S11–77 (ICOl99) (abstract).Google Scholar
  39. Perkins MA, Osterhues MA, Robinson MK (1999) Noninvasive method for assessing inflammatory changes in chemically treated skin. J Invest Dermatol 112:601.Google Scholar
  40. 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 using simple tape adsorption of molecular markers of inflammation. Skin Res Technol 7:227–237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Reiche L, Willis C, Wilkinson J, Shaw S, de Lacharrière O. Clinical morphology of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and nonanoic acid (NAA) irritant patch test reactions at 48h and 96h in 152 subjects. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:240–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rougier A, Goldberg AM, Maibach HI, editors. In vitro skin toxicology. Irritation, phototoxicity, sensitization. New York: Mary Ann Liebert; 1994.Google Scholar
  43. Sato A, Obata K, Ikeda Y, et al. Evaluation of human skin irritation by carboxylic acids, alcohols, esters and aldehydes, with nitrocellulose-replica method and closed patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:12–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Simion FA, Rhein LD, Grove GL, et al. Sequential order of skin responses to surfactants during a soap chamber test. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;25:242–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Thiers H. Peau sensible. In: Thiers H, editor. Les Cosmétiques. 2nd ed. Paris: Masson; 1986. p. 266–8.Google Scholar
  46. Treffel P, Gabard B. Measurement of sodium lauryl sulfate-induced skin irritation. Acta Derm Venereol. 1996;76:341–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Tupker RA, Willis C, Berardesca E, Lee CH, Fartasch M, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines on sodîum lauryl sulfate (SLS) exposure tests. A report from the standardization group* of the European Society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:53–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Uter W, Gefeller O, Schwanitz HJ. An epidemiological study of the influence of season (cold and dry air) on the occurrence of irritant skin changes of the hands. Br J Dermatol. 1998;138:266–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI. Nonanoic acid irritation: a positive control at routine patch testing? Contact Dermatitis. 1980;6:128–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Whittle E, Basketter D. The in vitro skin corrosivity test. Development of method using human skin. Toxicol In Vitro. 1993;7:265–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Willis CM, Stephens CJM, Wilkinson JD. Experimentally-induced irritant contact dermatitis. Determination of optimum irritant concentrations. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;18:20–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Willis CM, Shaw S, de Lacharrière O, Baverel M, Reiche L, Jourdain R, Bastien P, Wilkinson JD. Sensitive skin: an epidemiological study. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145:258–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang FZ, de Lacharrière O, Lian S, Yang ZL, LI L, Zhou W, Nouveau S, Qian BY, Bouillon C, Ran YP. Sensitive skin: specific features in Chinese skin. A clinical study on 2000 Chinese women. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2002;129:1S11–77 (IC0355) (abstract).Google Scholar
  54. York M, Griffiths HA, Whittle E, Basketter DA. Eval ati on of a human patch test for the identification and classification of skin irritation potential. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:204–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyUniversity Hospital of BesançonBesançonFrance

Personalised recommendations