Search

The dermatotoxicologist today is faced with a dilemma. Protection of workers and consumers from skin toxicities (irritation and allergy) associated with exposure to products, and the ingredients they contain, requires toxicological skin testing prior to manufacture, transport, or marketing. Testing for skin corrosion or irritation has traditionally been conducted in animals, particularly in rabbits via the long established Draize test method. However, this procedure, among others, has been subject to criticism, both for its limited predictive capacity for human toxicity, as well as for its use of animals. In fact, legislation is pending in the European Union which would ban the sale of cosmetic products, the ingredients of which have been tested in animals. These considerations, and advancements in both in vitro skin biology and clinical testing, have helped drive an intensive effort among skin scientists to develop alternative test methods based either on in vitro test systems (e.g. using rat, pig or human skin ex vivo, or reconstructed human skin models) or ethical clinical approaches (human volunteer studies). Tools are now in place today to enable a thorough skin corrosion and irritation assessment of new ingredients and products without the need to test in animals. Herein, we describe general testing strategies and new test methods for the assessment of skin corrosion and irritation. The methods described, and utilized within industry today, provide a framework for the practicing toxicologist to support new product development initiatives through the use of reliable skin safety testing and risk assessment tools and strategies.

Adverse skin reactions cover many types of response: toxic, irritant, allergic, urticarial, sensory, etc. The relationships between an individual's tendency to develop different types of skin response are not well-described. We examined whether those who perceive stinging might be more likely to experience urticarial, sensory and irritation reactions in skin. A panel of 86 volunteers was tested with 10% lactic acid in the nasolabial fold to assess their ability to perceive stinging. At the same time, their capacity to develop non-immunologic contact urticaria was evaluated using chemicals of different structural type and urticant ability: methyl nicotinate, benzoic acid, cinnamic acid, cinnamaldehyde and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). DMSO was also used to assess sensory effects and skin irritation. 44 were classes as "stingers" and 42 as "non-stingers". The pattern of urticant reactivity in the stingers and non-stingers was essentially the same, with neat DMSO generating the strongest reactions in both groups. Sensory reactions to DMSO (stinging, itching, tingling or burning) were similar in stingers and non-stingers; although the former may have reacted more quickly, a smaller proportion reacted (64% versus 76%). The skin irritation response to DMSO was also identical in stingers and non-stingers and the intensity of the urticant response in an individual did not correlate with the intensity of their subsequent irritant reaction. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that an individual's ability to perceive skin stinging does not give a general indication of their susceptibility to other types of non-immunologic skin response. Indeed, there appeared to be little evidence of correlations between any of the skin effects studied.

There is a widespread, but largely unsubstantiated, view that certain skin types may be more susceptible to the effect of skin irritants than others. One expression of this would be that certain ethnic groups may also be more likely to experience skin irritation. As a consequence, when evaluating the skin compatibility of substances/preparations, these differences may need to be taken into account. However, other evidence indicates that, within any particular group, inter-individual variation is likely to be much larger than the differences between means for distinct groups. In this study, we have investigated 2 carefully matched panels of Caucasian and Japanese women volunteers to determine their topical irritant reaction, both acute and cumulative, to a range of materials. The results indicated that the acute irritant response tended to be greater in the Japanese panel and this reached statistical significance with the stronger irritants. Cumulative irritation was investigated only with the weaker irritants and, although again the trend was to a higher response in Japanese compared to Caucasian panelists, this rarely reached significance. Nevertheless, where risk assessment for skin irritation was critical, then at the population level, these differences might be relevant, both for safety in use of substances and products and for skin acceptability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When benzalkonium chloride (BKC), a cationic surfactant, is added to sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), an anionic surfactant, and used in patch testing, on the basis of their known physicochemical interaction, it is possible to predict that there will be a tendency towards a reduction in the expected irritant response when compared to SDS alone. The aim of this study was to investigate whether BKC could reduce the irritant response to SDS when applied after the SDS exposure. 54 non-atopic adult volunteers were recruited for the study. 20% SDS was applied for 2 h under occlusion. 1% BKC was then applied to the same site. Various controls, including SDS application followed by water for 2 h, were included. The irritant reaction was assessed at 24 h and 48 h. 40 of the 54 subjects had some reaction when SDS was applied for 2 h followed by either benzalkonium chloride or water control under occlusion. In comparison to water control, where BKC was applied after SDS, 20 of the 40 responders had a weaker reaction but only 4 had a stronger response. This study shows that BKC applied to skin exposed to SDS attenuates the resulting irritant reaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]