In Vitro Skin Irritation Assays: Relevance to Human Skin

  • Sunita Patil
  • Jeff Harvell
  • Howard I. Maibach
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 93)

Abstract

The events occurring in primary skin irritation in vivo represent a complex series of chemical and physiological changes. Animals have been used to assess dermal irritation by observation of visible changes ranging from erythema and edema to corrosion and ulceration in the in vivo Draize rabbit skin test accepted by many regulatory agencies [Draize et al., 1944]. These responses, easily observed, are produced by diverse mechanisms.

Keywords

Surfactant Toxicity Phenol Sodium Hydroxide Glucocorticoid 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bagley DM, Rizva PY, Kong BM, et al. (1988) An improved CAM assay for predicting ocular irritation potential. In: Alterna~ive Methods in Toxicology, Vol 6, Goldberg AM, ed., New York: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc, 131–138.Google Scholar
  2. Bason MM, Harvell J, Realica B, Gordon V, Maibach HI (1992) Comparison of In vitro and In vivo derrmal irritancy data forr four primary irritants. Toxic, in vitro. 521–526.Google Scholar
  3. Bell E, Gay R, Swiderek M, et al. Use of fabricated living tissue and organ equivalents as defined higher order systems for the study of pharmacologic responses to test substances. Manuscript presented at the NATO advanced research workshop, Pharmaceutical Application of Cell and Tissue Culture to Drug Transport, 9/4/89–9/9/89.Google Scholar
  4. Blake-Haskins JC, Scala D, Rhein LD, et al. (1986) Predicting surfactant irritation from the swelling response of a collagen film. J Soc Cosmet Chem 37: 199–210.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom E, Maibach HI, Tammi R (1989) In vitro models for cutaneous effects of glucocorticoids using human skin organ and cell culture. In: Models Dermatology, Vol 4, Maibach HI, Lowe NJ, eds., New York: Karger 12–19.Google Scholar
  6. Borenfreund E, Puerner JA (1985) Toxicity determined in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red absorption. Toxicol Lett 124: 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borenfreund E, Puerner JA (1984) A simple quantitative procedure using monolayer cultures for cytotoxicity assays. J Tissue Culture Methods 9: 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choman BR(1963) Determination of the response of skin to chemical agents by an in vitro procedure. J Inv Dermatol 44: 177–182.Google Scholar
  9. Draize JH, Woodard G, Calvery HO (1944) Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. Division of Pharmacology, Food and Drug Administration.Google Scholar
  10. Gfeller W, Kobel W, Seifert G (1985) Overview of animal test methods for skin irritation. Food Chem Toxicol 23: 165–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson WT, Teall MR (1983) Interactions of C12 surfactants with the skin: Changes in enzymes and visible and histological features of rat skin treated with sodium laurel sulfate. Food Chem Toxicol 21: 587–593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon VC, Kelly CP, Bergman HC. Evaluation of “Skintex”, an in vitro method for determining dermal irritation. Toxicologist. 1990; 10: 78.Google Scholar
  13. Helman RG, Hall JW, Kao JY (1986) Acute dermal toxicity: In vivo and in vitro comparisons in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol 7: 94–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Imokawa G (1980) Comparative study on the mechanism of irritation by sulfate and phosphate type of anionic surfactants. J Soc Cosmet Chem 31: 45–66.Google Scholar
  15. Kanerva L, Lauharanta J (1986) Variable effects of irritants (Methylmethacrylate, Terphenyls, Dithranol, and Methylglyoxalbis-Guanylhydrazone) on the fine structure of the epidermis. Arch Toxicol 9 Suppl: 455.Google Scholar
  16. Kastner D (1977) Irritancy potential of cosmetic ingredients. J Soc Cosmet Chem 28: 741–754.Google Scholar
  17. Luepke NP, Kemper FH (1984) The HET-CAM test: An alternative to the Draize eye test. Food Chem Toxicol 24: 495–496.Google Scholar
  18. Maibach HI, Lammintausta K, Berardesca E, Freeman S (1989) Tendency to irritation. Sensitive skin. J Am Acad Dermatol 21: 833–835.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malten KE (1981) Thoughts on irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 7: 238–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nagao S, Stroud JD, Hamada T, et al (1972) The effect of sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid on human epidermis: an EM study. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 52: 11–23.Google Scholar
  21. Oliver GJ, Pemberton MA (1988) An in vitro model for identifying skin- corrosive chemicats. I. Initiat vatidation. Toxicol in Vitro. 2: 7–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parce JW, Owicki JC, Kercso KM, et al. (1989) Detection of cell-affecting agents with silicon biosensor. Science 246: 243–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Patrick E, Maibach HI (1989) Comparison of the time course, dose response, and mediators of chemically induced skin irritation in three species. In: Current Topics in Contact Dermatitis. Frosch PJ, et al, eds., New York: Springer- Verlag, 399–403.Google Scholar
  24. Serban GP, Henry SM, Cotty VF, et al. (1981) In vivo evaluation of skin lotions by electrical capacitance: I. The effect of several lotions on the progression of damage and healing after repeated insult with sodium laurel sulfate. J Soc Cosmet Chem 32: 407–419.Google Scholar
  25. Silverman J (1983) Preliminary findings on the use of protozoa (Tetrahymena thermophila) as models for ocular irritation testing rabbits. Lab Anim Sci 33: 56–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Silverman J, Pennist S (1987) Evaluation of Tetrahymena thermophilia as an in vitro alternative to ocular irritation studies in rabbits. J Toxicol Cut Ocular Toxicol. 6: 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. SOT Position paper, Comments on the LD50 and acute eye and skin irritation tests. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1989; 13: 621–623.Google Scholar
  28. Stephens TJ, Silber PM, Recce B, et al. (1990) “Testskin”: An in vitro model for detecting cytoxicity and inflammation. Toxicologist 10: 78.Google Scholar
  29. Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI (1990) Factors predisposing to cutaneous irritation. Contact Dermatitis 8: 17–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sunita Patil
    • 1
  • Jeff Harvell
    • 1
  • Howard I. Maibach
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Dermatolgy, Surge 110University of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations