Skin Pharmacology

  • Thais H. Sakuma
  • Hongbo Zhai
  • Howard Maibach
Reference work entry



Percutaneous absorption, also known as dermal or skin absorption, is a term that refers to the transport of a chemical from the outermost layer of the skin (stratum corneum) to the systemic circulation. Percutaneous absorption assays are essential for the safety assessment of chemicals making contact with the skin surface, such as pesticides, topically applied pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and cosmetics, as well as in the development of drugs for dermal or transdermal application.


Stratum Corneum Test Substance Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Skin Irritation Intradermal Injection 
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.

References and Further Reading

  1. Ackermann K, Borgia SL, Korting HC, Mewes KR, Schäfer-Korting M (2010) The Phenion full-thickness skin model for percutaneous absorption testing. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 23(2):105–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Addicks WJ, Flynn GL, Weiner N (1987) Validation of a flow-through diffusion cell for use in transdermal research. Pharm Res 4(4):337–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aeby P, Wyss C, Beck H, Griem P, Scheffler H, Goebel C (2004) Characterization of the sensitizing potential of chemicals by in vitro analysis of dendritic cell activation and skin penetration. J Invest Dermatol 122(5):1154–1164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen KE, Maibach HI (1985) Guinea pig sensitization assays: an overview. In: Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs, vol 14, Current problems in dermatology. Karger, New York, pp 59–106Google Scholar
  5. Andersen KE, Volund A, Frankild S (1995) The guinea pig maximization test—with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol 75(6):463–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson C, Sundberg K, Groth O (1986) Animal model for assessment of skin irritancy. Contact Dermatitis 15:143–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartek MJ, LaBudde JA (1975) Percutaneous absorption in vitro. In: Maibach HI (ed) Animal models in dermatology. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 103–120Google Scholar
  8. Bartek MJ, LaBudde JA, Maibach HI (1972) Skin permeability in vivo: comparison in rat, rabbit, pig and man. J Invest Dermatol 58(3):114–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Basketter DA, Whittle E, Griffiths HA, York M (1994) The identification and classification of skin irritation hazard by a human patch test. Food Chem Toxicol 32:769–775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bosshard E (1985) Review on skin and mucous-membrane irritation tests and their application. Food Chem Toxicol 23:149–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Botham PA, Basketter DA, Maurer T, Mueller D, Potokar M, Bontinck WJ (1991) Skin sensitization—a critical review of predictive test methods in animals and man. Food Chem Toxicol 29(4):275–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown VKH (1971) A comparison of predictive irritation tests with surfactants on human and animal skin. J Soc Cosmet Chem 22:411–420Google Scholar
  13. Buehler EV (1985) A rationale for the selection of occlusion to induce and elicit delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig: a prospective test. In: Andersen KE, Maibach HI (eds) Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Karger, Basel, pp 38–58Google Scholar
  14. Center for Devices and Health (1999) Guidance for industry and FDA reviewers/stuff: premarket notification [510(K)] submission for testing for skin sensitization to chemicals in natural rubber production. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, FDA, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  15. Chew A, Maibach HI (2006) Irritant dermatitis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cnubben NH, Elliott GR, Hakkert BC, Meuling WJ, van de Sandt JJ (2002) Comparative in vitro-in vivo percutaneous penetration of the fungicide ortho-phenylphenol. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 35(2 Pt 1):198–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Code of Federal Regulations (1997) Office of the Federal Registrar, National Archives of Records Service. General Services Administration Title 16, part 1500.40, part 1500.41Google Scholar
  18. Coe RA (2000) Quantitative whole-body autoradiography. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 31(2 Pt 2):S1–S3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cornacoff JB, House RV, Dean JH (1988) Comparison of a radioisotopic incorporation method and the mouse ear swelling test MEST) for contact sensitivity to weak sensitizers. Fundam Appl Toxicol 10:40–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Draize JH (1955) Procedure for the appraisal of the toxicity of chemicals in food, drugs, and cosmetics. VIII: dermal toxicity. Food Drug Cosmet Law J 10:722–731Google Scholar
  21. Draize JH (1959) Dermal toxicity. In: The Association of Food and Drug Officials (ed) United States appraisal of the safety of chemicals in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. Texas State Department of Health, Austin, pp 46–59Google Scholar
  22. Draize JH, Woodard G, Calvery HO (1944) Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membrane. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 82:377–390Google Scholar
  23. Dunn BJ, Rusch GM, Siglin JC, Blaszcak DL (1990) Variability of a mouse ear swelling test (MEST) in prediction of weak and moderate contact sensitizers. Fundam Appl Toxicol 5:242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ECETOC (2000) Skin sensitization testing for the purpose of hazard identification and risk assessment, vol 29, Monograph. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. EPA (1998) Acute dermal irritation. In: EPA health effects test guidelines. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Finkelstein P, Laden K, Meichowski W (1965) Laboratory methods for evaluating skin irritancy. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 7:74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frankild S, Volund A, Wahlberg JE, Andersen KE (2000) Comparison of the sensitivities of the Buehler test and the guinea pig maximization test for predictive testing of contact allergy. Acta Derm Venereol 80(4):256–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Franz TJ (1975) Percutaneous absorption on the relevance of in vitro data. J Invest Dermatol 64(3):190–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1976) The chamber-scarification test for irritancy. Contact Dermatitis 2:314–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1979) The soap chamber test. A new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol 1:35–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gad SC (1994) The mouse ear swelling test (MEST) in the 1990s. Toxicology 93(1):33–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gad SC, Dunn BJ, Dobbs DW et al (1986) Development and validation of an alternative dermal sensitization test: the mouse ear swelling test (MEST). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 84:93–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gerberick GF, Robinson MK, Ryan CA, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Basketter DA, Wright Z, Marks JG (2001) Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermat 12(3):156–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, Bailey RE, Chaney JG, Morrall SW, Lepoittevin JP (2004) Development of a peptide reactivity assay for screening contact allergens. Toxicol Sci 81(2):332–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, Foertsch LM, Price BB, Chaney JG, Lepoittevin JP (2007) Quantification of chemical peptide reactivity for screening contact allergens: a classification tree model approach. Toxicol Sci 97(2):417–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gfeller W, Kobel W, Seifert G (1985) Overview of animal test methods for skin irritation. Food Chem Toxicol 23:165–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Griffith JF (1969) Predictive and diagnostic test for contact sensitization. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 3:90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Griffith JF, Buehler E (1976) Prediction of skin irritancy and sensitization potential by testing with animals and man. In: Drill V, Lazer P (eds) Cutaneous toxicity. Academic, New York, pp 155–173Google Scholar
  39. Griffiths HA, Wilhelm KP, Robinson MK, Wang XM, Mcfadden J, York M, Basketter DA (1997) Interlaboratory evaluation of a human patch test for the identification of skin irritation potential/hazard. Food Chem Toxicol 35:255–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guy RH, Wester RC, Tur E, Maibach HI (1983) Noninvasive assessments of the percutaneous absorption of methyl nicotinate in humans. J Pharm Sci 72(9):1077–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Guy RH, Tur E, Bugatto B et al (1984) Pharmaco-dynamic measurements of methyl nicotinate percutaneous absorption. Pharm Res 1:76–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Herkenne C, Alberti I, Naik A, Kalia YN, Mathy FX, Préat V, Guy RH (2008) In vivo methods for the assessment of topical drug bioavailability. Pharm Res 25(1):87–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI (2004) Thresholds of elicitation depend on induction conditions. Could low level exposure induce sub-clinical allergic states that are only elicited under the severe conditions of clinical diagnosis? Food Chem Toxicol 42(11):1859–1865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Humphrey DM (1993) Measurement of cutaneous microvascular exudates using Evans blue. Biotech Histochem 68:342–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Huong SP, Bun H, Fourneron JD, Reynier JP, Andrieu V (2009) Use of various models for in vitro percutaneous absorption studies of ultraviolet filters. Skin Res Technol 15(3):253–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ICCVAM (2009) The reduced murine local lymph node assay. The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, Research Triangle Park.
  47. Johnson AW, Goodwin BFJ (1985) The Draize test and modifications. Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. In: Andersen KE, Maibach HI (eds) Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Karger, Basel, pp 31–38Google Scholar
  48. Jordan WP, King SE (1977) Delayed hypersensitivity in females during the comparison of two predictive patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 3:19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Justice JD, Travers JJ, Vinson LJ (1961) The correlation between animal tests and human tests in assessing product mildness. Proc Sci Sect Toilet Goods Assoc 35:12–17Google Scholar
  50. Kero M, Hannuksela M (1980) Guinea pig maximization test, open epicutaneous test and chamber test in induction of delayed contact hypersensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 6:341–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kimber I, Basketter DA, Berthold K, Butler M, Garrigue JL, Lea L, Newsome C, Roggeband R, Steiling W, Stropp G, Waterman S, Wiemann C (2001) Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 59(2):198–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF (2002) The local lymph node assay: past, present and future. Contact Dermatitis 47(6):315–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klecak G (1985) The Freund’s complete adjuvant test and the open epicutaneous test. A complementary test procedure for realistic assessment of allergenic potential. Curr Probl Dermatol 14:152–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Klecak G (2008) Test methods for allergic contact dermatitis in animals. In: Zhai H, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI (eds) Marzulli and Maibach’s dermatotoxicology, 7th edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 443–461Google Scholar
  55. Kligman AM (1966) The identification of contact allergens. J Invest Dermatol 47:369–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Kligman AM, Wooding WM (1967) A method for the measurement and evaluation of irritants on human skin. J Invest Dermatol 49:78–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kooyman D, Snyder F (1942) Tests for the mildness of soaps. Arch Dermatol Syphilol 46:846–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI (2003) Patch testing and prick testing. A practical guide. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Lanman BM, Elvers WB, Howard CS (1968) The role of human patch testing in a product development program. In: Proceedings of the joint conference on cosmetic sciences. The Toilet Goods Association, Washington, DC, pp 135–145Google Scholar
  60. Lee JK, Park JH, Kim HS, Chung ST, Eom JH, Nam KT, Oh HY (2003) Evaluation of cell proliferation in ear and lymph node using BrdU immunohistochemistry for mouse ear swelling test. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 14(1):61–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Levin C, Maibach HI (2004) Animal, human and in vitro test methods for predicting skin irritation. In: Zhai H, Maibach HI (eds) Dermatotoxicology, 6th edn. Routledge, New York, pp 678–693 (Chap 36)Google Scholar
  62. MacMillan FSK, Raft RR, Elvers WB (1975) A comparison of the skin irritation produced by cosmetic ingredients and formulations in the rabbit, guinea pig, beagle dog to that observed in the human. In: Maibach HI (ed) Animal models in dermatology. Churchill-Livingston, Edinburgh, pp 12–22Google Scholar
  63. Magnusson B, Kligman AM (1969) The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J Invest Dermatol 52:268–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Maguire HC (1973) Mechanism of intensification by Freunds complete adjuvant of the acquisition of delayed hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Imuunol Commun 1:239–246Google Scholar
  65. Maguire HC (1974) Alteration in the acquisition of delayed hypersensitivity with adjuvant in the guinea pig. Monogr Allergy 8:13–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Maisey J, Miller K (1986) Assessment of the ability of mice fed on vitamin A supplemented diet to respond to a variety of potential contact sensitizers. Contact Dermatitis 15(1):17–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Malkinson FD (1958) Studies on the percutaneous absorption of C14 labeled steroids by use of the gas-flow cell. J Invest Dermatol 31(1):19–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Marzulli F, Maguire HC Jr (1982) Usefulness and limitations of various guinea-pig test methods in detecting human skin sensitizers-validation of guinea-pig tests for skin hypersensitivity. Food Chem Toxicol 20(1):67–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (1973) Antimicrobials: experimental contact sensitization in man. J Soc Cosmet Chem 24:399–421Google Scholar
  70. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (1974) The use of graded concentrations in studying skin sensitizers: experimental contact sensitization in man. Food Cosmet Toxicol 12(2):219–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (1975) The rabbit as a model for evaluating skin irritants: a comparison of results obtained on animals and man using repeated skin exposures. Food Cosmet Toxicol 13:533–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Maurer T (2007) Guinea pigs in hypersensitivity testing. Methods 41(1):48–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Maurer T, Thomann P, Weirich EG, Hess R (1975) The optimization test in the guinea-pig. A method for the predictive evaluation of the contact allergenicity of chemicals. Agents Actions 5(2):174–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. McKenzie AW, Staoughton RM (1962) Method for comparing the percutaneous absorption of steroids. Arch Dermatol 86:608–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. McNamee PM, Api AM, Basketter DA, Frank Gerberick G, Gilpin DA, Hall BM, Jowsey I, Robinson MK (2008) A review of critical factors in the conduct and interpretation of the human repeat insult patch test. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 52(1):24–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Miller K, Maisey J, Malkovský M (1984) Enhancement of contact sensitization in mice fed a diet enriched in vitamin A acetate. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 75(2):120–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. National Academy of Sciences, Committee for the Revision of NAS Publication 1138 (1977) Principles and procedures for evaluating the toxicity of household substances. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp 23–59Google Scholar
  78. Netzlaff F, Lehr CM, Wertz PW, Schaefer UF (2005) The human epidermis models EpiSkin, SkinEthic and EpiDerm: an evaluation of morphology and their suitability for testing phototoxicity, irritancy, corrosivity, and substance transport. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 60(2):167–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ng KM, Chu I, Bronaugh RL, Franklin CA, Somers DA (1992) Percutaneous absorption and metabolism of pyrene, benzo[a]pyrene, and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate: comparison of in vitro and in vivo results in the hairless guinea pig. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 115(2):216–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ngo MA, O’Malley M, Maibach HI (2010) Percutaneous absorption and exposure assessment of pesticides. J Appl Toxicol 30(2):91–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Nixon GA, Tyson CA, Wertz WC (1975) Interspecies comparisons of skin irritancy. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 31:481–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. OECD (1981) Test No. 406: skin sensitization. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  83. OECD (1992) Test No. 406: skin sensitization. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  84. OECD (2002) Test No. 404: acute dermal irritation/corrosion. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. OECD (2004a) Test No. 427: skin absorption: in vivo method. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  86. OECD (2004b) Guidance document for the conduct of skin absorption studies. In: OECD environmental health and safety publications, vol 28, Series on testing and assessment. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  87. OECD (2004c) Test No. 428: skin absorption: in vitro method. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  88. OECD (2004d) Test No. 430: in vitro skin corrosion: transcutaneous electrical resistance test (TER). In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  89. OECD (2004e) Test No. 431: in vitro skin corrosion: human skin model test. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  90. OECD (2006) Test No. 435: in vitro membrane barrier test method for skin corrosion. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  91. OECD (2008) Draft guidance notes for the estimation of dermal absorption values. In: OECD environment, health and safety publications, vol XX, Series on testing and assessment and series on pesticides. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  92. OECD (2010a) Test No. 429: skin sensitization: local lymph node assay. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  93. OECD (2010b) Test No. 442 B: skin sensitization: local lymph node assay: BrdU-ELISA. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  94. OECD (2010c) Test No. 442 A: skin sensitization: local lymph node assay: DA. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  95. OECD (2010d) Test No. 439: in vitro skin irritation: reconstructed human epidermis test method. In: OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  96. Phillips L, Steinberg M, Maibach HI, Akers WA (1972) A comparison of rabbit and human skin response to certain irritants. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 21(3):369–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Robert L et al (eds) (1999) Percutaneous absorption, 3rd edn. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  98. Robinson MK, Nusair TL, Fletcher ER, Ritz HL (1990) A review of the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization test and its use in a risk assessment process for human skin sensitization. Toxicology 61(2):91–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Robinson MK, McFadden JP, Basketter DA (2001) Validity and ethics of the human 4-h patch test as an alternative method to assess acute skin irritation potential. Contact Dermatitis 45:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rothman S (1954) Physiology and biochemistry of the skin. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  101. Rougier A, Lotte C, Maibach HI (1987) In vivo percutaneous penetration of some organic compounds related to anatomic site in humans: predictive assessment by the stripping method. J Pharm Sci 76(6):451–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rougier A, Maibach HI, Goldberg AM (1994) In vitro skin toxicology. Mary Ann Liebert, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  103. Sailstad DM, Tepper JS, Doerfler DL, Selgrade MK (1993) Evaluation of several variations of the mouse Ear swelling test (MEST) for detection of weak and moderate contact sensitizers. Toxicol Mech Methods 3(3):169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. SCCP (2006) Basic criteria for the in vitro assessment of dermal absorption of cosmetic ingredients – updated March 2006. Adopted by the SCCP during the 7th plenary of 28 March 2006Google Scholar
  105. Schäfer-Korting M, Bock U, Diembeck W, Düsing HJ, Gamer A, Haltner-Ukomadu E, Hoffmann C, Kaca M, Kamp H, Kersen S, Kietzmann M, Korting HC, Krächter HU, Lehr CM, Liebsch M, Mehling A, Müller-Goymann C, Netzlaff F, Niedorf F, Rübbelke MK, Schäfer U, Schmidt E, Schreiber S, Spielmann H, Vuia A, Weimer M (2008) The use of reconstructed human epidermis for skin absorption testing: results of the validation study. Altern Lab Anim 36(2):161–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Scheuplein RJ (1978) Permeability of the skin: a review of major concepts. Curr Probl Dermatol 7:172–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Shah VP, Flynn GL, Guy RH, Maibach HI, Schaefer H, Skelly JP, Wester RC, Yacobi A (1991) In vivo percutaneous penetration/absorption, Washington, D.C., May 1989. Pharm Res 8(8):1071–1075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Sharpe R (1985) The Draize test–motivations for change. Food Chem Toxicol 23(2):139–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Shelanski HA (1951) Experience with and considerations of the human patch test method. J Soc Cosmet Chem 2:324–331Google Scholar
  110. Shelanski HA, Shelanski MV (1953) A new technique of human patch tests. Proc Sci Sect Toilet Goods Assoc 19:46–49Google Scholar
  111. Solon EG, Kraus L (2001) Quantitative whole-body autoradiography in the pharmaceutical industry. Survey results on study design, methods, and regulatory compliance. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 46(2):73–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Stotts J (1980) Planning, conduct, and interpretation of human predictive sensitization patch tests. In: Current concepts in cutaneous toxicology. Academic, Orlando, pp 41–53Google Scholar
  113. Thorne PS, Hawk C, Kaliszewski SD, Guiney PD (1991) The noninvasive mouse ear swelling assay. I. Refinements for detecting weak contact sensitizers. Fundam Appl Toxicol 17(4):790–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Trush MA, Egner PA, Kensler TW (1994) Myeloperoxidase as a biomarker of skin irritation and inflammation. Food Chem Toxicol 32:143–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Uchino T, Takezawa T, Ikarashi Y (2009) Reconstruction of three-dimensional human skin model composed of dendritic cells, keratinocytes and fibroblasts utilizing a handy scaffold of collagen vitrigel membrane. Toxicol In Vitro 23(2):333–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Uttley M, Van Abbe NJ (1973) Primary irritation of the skin: mouse ear test and human patch test procedures. J Soc Cosmet Chem 24:217–227Google Scholar
  117. van de Sandt JJ, Meuling WJ, Elliott GR, Cnubben NH, Hakkert BC (2000) Comparative in vitro-in vivo percutaneous absorption of the pesticide propoxur. Toxicol Sci 58(1):15–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. van de Sandt JJ, van Burgsteden JA, Cage S, Carmichael PL, Dick I, Kenyon S, Korinth G, Larese F, Limasset JC, Maas WJ, Montomoli L, Nielsen JB, Payan JP, Robinson E, Sartorelli P, Schaller KH, Wilkinson SC, Williams FM (2004) In vitro predictions of skin absorption of caffeine, testosterone, and benzoic acid: a multi-centre comparison study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 39(3):271–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Van Loveren H, Kato K, Ratzlaff RE et al (1984) Use of micrometers and calipers to measure various components of delayed-type hypersensitivity ear swelling reactions in mice. J Immunol Methods 67:311–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. van Loveren H, Cockshott A, Gebel T, Gundert-Remy U, de Jong WH, Matheson J, McGarry H, Musset L, Selgrade MK, Vickers C (2008) Skin sensitization in chemical risk assessment: report of a WHO/IPCS international workshop focusing on dose-response assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 50(2):155–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Voss JG (1958) Skin sensitization by mercaptans of low molecular weight. J Invest Dermatol 31(5):273–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Lea LJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I (1999) Local lymph node assay responses to paraphenylenediamine: intra- and inter-laboratory evaluations. J Appl Toxicol 19(4):255–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wester RC, Maibach HI (1975) Rhesus monkey as an animal model for percutaneous absorption. Animal models. In: Maibach HI (ed) Dermatology. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 133–139Google Scholar
  124. Wester RC, Maibach HI (2004) In vivo methods for percutaneous absorption measurement. In: Zhai H, Maibach HI (eds) Dermatotoxicology, 6th edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  125. WHO (2006) Environmental health criteria 235: dermal absorption. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  126. Zhai H, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI (eds) (2008a) Marzulli and Maibach’s dermatotoxicology, 7th edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  127. Zhai H, Wilhelm K, Maibach HI (2008b) Dermatotoxicology, 7th edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyUC San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations