Biophysical Techniques for the Evaluation of Skin Protective Creams

  • P. J. Frosch
  • A. Kurte
  • B. Pilz

Abstract

Irritant contact dermatitis is a major problem in occupational dermatology. While acute severe irritant reactions due to caustic chemicals have become relatively rare, an equally serious danger arises from moderate and low level irritants producing a cumulative insult type contact dermatitis after weeks or months of exposure. Chronic irritant contact dermatitis is very frequent in hairdressers, health care personnel, food handlers, construction workers, and employees of the metal industry [7]. While gloves and other protective garments are regularly worn when severely irritating substances such as concentrated acids or alkalis are handled, this is usually not the case with low level irritants. In many professions it is impossible to wear gloves because of the loss of dexterity. Furthermore, many workers develop a dyshidrotic eczema due to the continuous occlusion when wearing gloves.

Keywords

Glycerol Foam Corticosteroid Toluene Sodium Hydroxide 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berardesca E, Maibach HI (1988) Bioengineering and the patch test. Contact Dermatitis 18: 3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boman A, Wahlberg JE, Johansson G (1982) A method for the study of the effect of barrier creams and protective gloves on the percutaneous absorption of solvents. Dermatologica 164: 157–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burckhardt W(1947) Neuere Untersuchungen iiber die Alkalieempfindlichkeit der Haut. Dermatologica 94: 73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carrié C (1955) Zur Wirksamkeit von Hautschutzsalben. Hautarzt 6: 363–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dicke W, Mehlem P (1987) Alles iiber Hautschutz, Hautreinigung, Hautpflege. Wirtschafts- verlag, BremerhavenGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    EstlanderT, Jolanki R (1988) How to protect the hands. Dermatol Clin 6: 105–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frosch PJ (1922) Cutaneous irritation. In: Textbook of contact dermatitis. Rycroft RJG, MenneT, Frosch PJ, Benezra C (eds), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York p. 28–61Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frosch PJ, Kurte A, Pilz B (1993) Evaluation of skin barrier creams: III. The repetitive irritation test (RIT) in humans. Contact Dermatitis (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frosch PJ, Schulze-Dirks A, Hoffmann M, Axthelm I (1993) Evaluation of skin barrier creams: II. Ineffectiveness of a popular “skin protector” against various irritants in the repetitive irritation test of the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis (in press)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frosch PJ, Schulze-Dirks A, Hoffmann M, Axthelm I, Kurte A (1922) Efficacy of skin barrier creams: I. The repetitive irritation test ( RIT) in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 28: 94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Komp B (1985) Hautschutzsalben. Dermatosen 33: 20–26Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahmoud G, Lachapelle JM (1985) Evaluation of the protective value of an antisolvent gel by laser Doppler flowmetry and histology. Contact Dermatitis 13: 14–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahmoud G, Lachapelle JM, Van Nesté D (1984) Histological assessment of the skin damage by irritants: its possible use in the evaluation of a “barrier Cream”. Contact Dermatitis 11: 179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maibach HI, Lowe NJ (eds) (1987) Models in dermatology, vol 3. Karger, BaselGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malten KE, den Arend JACJ (1985) Irritant contact dermatitis. Traumiterative and cumulative impairment by cosmetics, climate and other daily loads. Dermatosen 33: 125Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mellström GA, Boman A (1992) Comparative evaluation of Permeation testing of protective gloves to solvents. Contact Dermatitis 26: 120–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pinnagoda J, Tupker RA, Agner T, Serup J (1990) Guidelines for transepidermal water loss measurement ( TEWL ). Contact Dermatitis 22: 164–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savalides A, SchultzT, Salce L (1990) The evaluation of gloves for protection against cosmetic ingredients. J Soc Cosmet Chem 41: 267–273Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tronnier H, Kresken J, Jablonski K, Komp B (1989) Haut und Beruf. Grosse, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tupker RA, Pinnagoda J, Nater JP (1990) The transient and cumulative effect of sodium lauryl sulphate on the epidermal barrier assessed by transepidermal water loss: interindividual variation. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 70: 1–5Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ummenhofer B (1982) Beruflicher Hautschutz, Dermatologische Probleme und Möglichkei-ten. Zentrabl Haut Geschlechtskr 147: 287–297Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wahlberg JE (1971) Absorption-inhibiting effect of barrier creams. Berufsdermatosen 19: 37Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI (1989) Skin color reflectance measurement for objective quanti-fication of erythema in man. J Am Acad Dermatol 21: 574–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Frosch
  • A. Kurte
  • B. Pilz
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of DermatologyStädtische Kliniken DortmundDortmundGermany
  2. 2.University of Witten/HerdeckeDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations