Predictive Assays: Animal and Man, and In Vitro and In Vivo

  • Esther Patrick
  • Howard I. Maibach


Assuming that data from predictive tests are interpreted prudently by dermatotoxicologists with extensive training in quantitative structure-activity relationships, animal and human predictive assays combined with broad clinical experience should aid rational risk-benefit decision making.


Stratum Corneum Contact Dermatitis Patch Test Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Percutaneous Absorption 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen AM (1978) Clinical trial design in dermatology: experimental design. I. Int J Dermatol 17: 42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen KE, Maibach HI (1983) Multiple-application delayed-onset contact urticaria: possible relation to certain unusual formalin and textile reactions. Contact Dermatitis 10: 227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asherson CL, Ptak W (1968) Contact and delayed hypersensitivity in the mouse. I. Active sensitization and passive transfer. Immunology 15: 405–416Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartek MJ, LaBudde JA (1975) Percutaneous absorption in vitro. In: Maibach HI (ed) Animal models in dermatology. Churchill-Linvingstone, New York, pp 103–120Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartek MJ, LaBudde JA, Maibach HI (1972) Skin permeability in vivo: comparision in rat, rabbit, pig and man. J Invest Dermatol 58: 114–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. a. Bazom M, Maibach H, Jorden V (1991) In Vitro Skin Irritation Assays, Int J Derm, in press.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    Battista CW, Rieger MM (1971) Some problems of predictive testing. J Soc Cosmet Chem 22: 349–359Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Berger RS, Bowman JP (1982) A reappraisal of the 21-day cumulative irritation test in man. J Toxicol Cutan Ocular Toxicol 1: 109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    Bergstressor PR, Paniser RJ, Taylor JR (1978) Counting and sizing of epidermal cells in human skin. J Invest Dermatol 70: 280–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 9.
    Bjornberg A (1975) Skin reactions to primary irritants in men and women. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 55: 191–194Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Blank HI (1953) Further observations on factors which influence the water content of the stratum corneum. J Invest Dermatol 21: 259–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    Blank I (1952) Water content of stratum corneum. J Invest Dermatol 18: 433–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 12.
    Bloch B, Steiner-Wourlisch A (1930) Die Sensibilisierung des Meerschweinchens gegen Primeln. Arch Dermatol Syph 162: 349–378Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Boutwell RK (1981) Chemical carcinogenesis. A. Biochemical role. In: Laerum DD, Iverson OH (eds) Biology of skin cancer (excluding melanomas). International Union against Cancer, Geneva, pp 134–150Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Boutwell RK, Urbach F, Carpenter G (1981) Chemical carcinogenesis. B. Experimental models. In: Laerum DD, Iverson OH (eds) Biology of skin cancer (excluding melanomas). International Union against Cancer, Geneva, pp 109–123Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Bronaugh RL, Congolon ER, Scheuplein RJ (1981) The effect of cosmetic vehicles on the penetration of N-nitro-diethanolamine through excised skin. J Invest Dermatol 76: 94–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 16.
    Brunner MJ, Smiljanic A (1952) Procedure for evaluation of skin sensitizing power of new materials. Arch Dermatol 66: 703–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    Buehler EV (1964) A new method for detecting potential sensitizers using the guinea pig. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 6: 341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    Buehler EV (1965) Experimental skin sensitization in the guinea pig and man. Arch Dermatol 91: 171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    Busse MJ, Hunt P, Lees KA, Maggs PND, McCarthy TM (1969) Release of betamethasone derivatives from ointments —in vivo and in vitro studies. Br J Dermatol 81: 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    Cagen SZ, Malloy LA, Parker CM, Gardiner TH, van Gelder CA, Jud VA (1984) Pyrethroid mediated skin sensory stimulation characterized by a new behavioral paradigm. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 76: 270–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    Calandra J (1971) Comments on the guinea pig immersion test. CTFA Cosmet J 3 (3): 47Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Carter RO, Griffith JF (1965) Experimental basis for the realistic assessment of safety of topical agents. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 7: 60–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 23.
    Christie GA, Moore-Robinson M (1970) Vehicle assessment — methodology and results. Br J Dermatol 82: 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 24.
    Code of Federal Regulations (1985) Office of the Federal Registrar, National Archives of Records Service. General Services Administration, title 16, parts 1500. 50–1500. 41Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Cunningham-Rundles S (1981) Cell-mediated immunity. In: Safai B, Good RA (eds) Immunodermatology. Plenum, New York, pp 1–33Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    Davies RE, Harper KH, Kynoch SR (1972) Interspecies variation in dermal reactivity. J Soc Cosmet Chem 23: 371–381Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    Draize JH (1955) Procedures for the appraisal of the toxicity of chemicals in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. VIII. Dermal toxicity. Food Drug Cosmet Law J 10: 722–731Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    Draize JH (1959) Dermal toxicity. US appraisal of the safety of chemicals in food, drugs and cosmetics. Association of Food and Drug Officials, Texas State Department of Health, Austin, pp 46–59Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    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
  31. 30.
    Drill VA, Lazar P (1983) Cutaneous toxicity. Raven, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 31.
    Dugard PJ (1983) Skin permeability theory in relation to measurements of percutaneous absorption. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (eds) Dermatotoxicology, 2nd edn. Hemisphere, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 32.
    Elias PM (1987) Lipids and the epidermal permeability barriers. Arch Dermatol Res 270: 95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 33.
    Elias PM, Cooper ER, Korc A, Brown BE (1981) Percutaneous transport in relation to stratum corneum structure and lipid composition. J Invest Dermatol 76: 297–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 34.
    Emery BE, Edwards LD (1940) The pharmacology of soaps. II. The irritant action of soaps on human skin. J Am Pharm Assoc 29: 251–254Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    Emmett EA (1975) Occupational skin cancer: a review. J Occup Med 17: 4’1 49 Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    Environmental Protection Agency (1982) Pesticides registrations: proposed data requirements, sect 158.135: toxicology data requirements. Fed Reg 47: 53192Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    Epstein WL, Kligman AM, Senecal IP (1963) Role of regional lymph nodes in contact sensitization. Arch Dermatol 88: 789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 38.
    Everall JD (1981) Chemical carcinogenesis. A. Environmental carcinogens. In: Laerum DD, Iverson OH (eds) Biology of skin cancer (excluding melanomas). International Union against Cancer, Geneva, pp 105–108Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    Everall JD, Dowd PM (1978) Influence of environmental factors excluding ultraviolet radiation on the incidence of skin cancer. Bull Cancer 65: 241–24840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.
    Fare G (1966) Rat skin carcinogenesis by topical applications of some azo dyes. Cancer Res 26: 2466–2468Google Scholar
  42. 41.
    Farrar JJ, Benjamin WR, Hilficker ML, Howard M, Farrar WL, Fuller-Farrar JF (1982) The biochemistry, biology, and role of interleukin in the induction of cytotoxic T-cell and antibody-forming B-cell responses. Immunol Rev 63: 129–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    Feldman RJ, Maibach HI (1967) Regional variation in percutaneous penetration of [14C]cortisone in man. J Invest Dermatol 48: 181–183Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    Finkelstein P, Laden K, Meichowski W (1963) New methods for evaluating cosmetic irritancy. J Invest Dermatol 40: 11–14Google Scholar
  45. 44.
    Finkelstein P, Laden K, Meichowski W (1965) Laboratory methods for evaluating skin irritancy. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 7: 74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 45.
    Flannigan SA, Tucker SB (1986) Variation in cutaneous sensation between synthetic pyrethroic insecticides. Contact Dermatitis 13: 140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 46.
    Franz TJ (1975) Percutaneous absorption. On the relevance of in vitro data. J Invest Dermatol 64: 190–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 47.
    Frey JR, Wenk P (1957) Experimental studies on the pathogenesis of contact eczema in the guinea pig. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 11: 81–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 48.
    Fritsch WC, Stoughton RB (1963) The effect of temperature and humidity on the penetration of [14C]acetyl-salicylic acid in excised human skin. J Invest Dermatol 41: 307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 49.
    Frosch PJ (1982) Irritancy of soap and detrgent bars. In: Frost P, Horwitz SN (eds) Principles of cosmetics for the dermatologist. Mosby, St Louis, pp 5–12Google Scholar
  51. 50.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1976) The chamber scarification test for irritancy. Contact Dermatitis 2: 314–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 51.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1977) The chamber scarification test for assessing irritancy of topically applied substances. In: Drill VA, Lazar P (eds) Cutaneous toxicity. Academic, New York, pp 127–144Google Scholar
  53. 52.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1977) A method for appraising the stinging capacity of topically applied substances. J Soc Cosmet Chem 28: 197–207Google Scholar
  54. 53.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1979) The soap chamber test. A new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol 1: 35–41Google Scholar
  55. 54.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1979) The Duhring chamber: an improved technique for epicutaneous testing for irritant and allergic reactions. Contact Dermatitis 5: 73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 55.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1982) Recognition of chemically vulnerable and delicate skin. In: Frost P, Horwitz SN (eds) Principles of cosmetics for the dermatologist. Mosby, St Louis, p 287Google Scholar
  57. 56.
    Gilman MR, Evans RA, DeSalva SJ (1978) The influence of concentration, exposure duration, and patch occlusivity upon rabbit primary dermal irritation indices. Drug Chem Toxicol 1 (4): 391–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 57.
    Griffith JF (1969) Predictive and diagnostic test for contact sensitization. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol [Suppl] 3: 90–102Google Scholar
  59. 58.
    Griffith JF, Buehler E (1976) Prediction of skin irritancy and sensitization potential by testing with animals and man. In: Drill V, Lazar P (eds) Cutaneous toxicity. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. 59.
    Griffith JF, Weaver JE, Whitehouse HS, Poole RL, Newman EA, Nixon CA (1969) Safety evaluation of enzyme detergents. Oral and cutaneous toxicity, irritancyi and skin sensitization studies. Food Cosmet Toxicol 7: 581–593Google Scholar
  61. 60.
    Guillot JP, Gopnnet JF, Clement C, Caillard L, Truhauf R (1982) Evaluation of the cutaneous-irritation potential of compounds. Food Chem Toxicol 20: 563–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 61.
    Guin JD, Meyer BN, Drake RD, Haffley P (1984) The effect of quenching agents on contact urticaria caused by cinnamic aldehyde. J Am Acad Dermatol 10: 45–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 62.
    Guy RH, Wester RC, Tur E, Maibach HI (1983) Noninvasive assessments of the percutaneous absorption of methyl nicotinate in humans. J Pharm Sci 72: 1077–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 63.
    Guy RH, Tur E, Bugatto B, Gaebel C, Sheiner L, Maibach HI (1984) Pharmacodynamic measurements of methyl nicotinate percutaneous absorption. Pharmacol Res 1: 76–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 64.
    Haley T, Hunziger J (1974) Instrument for producing standardized skin abrasions. J Pharm Sci 63: 106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 65.
    Henderson CR, Riley EC (1945) Certain statistical considerations in patch testing. Invest Dermatol 6: 227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 66.
    Higuchi T (1960) Physical chemical analysis of percutaneous absorption process from creams and ointments. J Soc Cosmet Chem 11: 85–97Google Scholar
  68. 67.
    Holbrook KA, Odland GF (1974) Regional differnces in the thickness (cell layers) of the human stratum corneum: an ultrastructural analysis. J Invest Dermatol 62: 415–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 68.
    Holbrook KA, Smith LT (1981) Ultrastructural aspects of human skin during the embryonic, fetal, premature, neonatal, and adult periods of life. In: Blandau RJ (ed) Morphogenesis and malforming of the skin. Liss, New York, pp 9–38Google Scholar
  70. 69.
    Hood DB, Neher RJ, Reinke RE, Zapp JA (1965) Experience with the guinea pig in screening primary irritants and sensitizers. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 7: 485–486Google Scholar
  71. 70.
    Ihle TN, Rebar K, Keller J, Lee JC, Hapel AJ (1982) Interleukin 3: possible roles in the regulation of lymphocyte differentiation and visual assessment. Br J Dermatol 92: 131–142Google Scholar
  72. 71.
    Iverson OH (1981) Chemical carcinogenesis. E. Short term tests for carcinogens. In: Laerum DD, Iverson OH (eds) Biology of skin cancer (excluding melanomas). International Union Against Cancer, Geneva, pp 151–163Google Scholar
  73. 72.
    Jackson R, Grainge JW (1975) Arsenic and cancer. Can Med Assoc J 113: 396–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 73.
    Jadassohn J (1896) Zur Kenntniss der medicamentösen Dermatosen. Verh Dtsch Dermatol Ges 5: 103–129Google Scholar
  75. 74.
    Jadassohn J (1896) A contribution to the study of dermatoses produced by drugs. Verh Dtsch Dermatol Ges 207–229Google Scholar
  76. 75.
    Jaffee BD, Maguire HC Jr (1981) Delayed-type hypersensitivity and immunological tolerance to contact allergens in the rat ( Abstr ). Fed Proc 40: 991Google Scholar
  77. 76.
    Johnson SAM, Kile RL„ Kooyman DJ, Whitehouse HS, Brod JS (1953) Comparison of effects of soaps and detergents on the hands of housewives. Arch Dermmatol Syph 68: 643–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 77.
    Jordan WP, King SE (1977) Delayed hypersensitivity in females during the comparison of two predictive patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 3: 19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 78.
    Justice JD, Travers JJ, Vinson LJ (1961) The correlation between animals tests and human tests in assessing product mildness. Proc Sci Sec Toilet Goods Assoc 35: 12–17Google Scholar
  80. 79.
    Kaminsky M, Szivos MM, Brown KR (1986) Application of the Hill Top patch test chamber to dermal irritancy testing in the albino rabbit. J Toxicol Cutan Ocular Toxicol 5 (2): 81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 80.
    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
  82. 81.
    Klecak G (1982) Identification of contact allergens: predictive tests in animals. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (eds) Dermatotoxicology, 2nd edn. Hemisphere, New York, pp 200–219Google Scholar
  83. 82.
    Klecak G (1985) The Freund’s complete adjuvant test and the open epicutaneous test. In: Maibach HI, Anderson KE (eds) Contact allergy, predictive tests in guinea pigs. Karger, Basel, pp 152–171Google Scholar
  84. 83.
    Kligman A (1964) Quantitative testing of chemical irritants. In: Steinberg M (ed) Evaluation of therapeutic agents and cosmetics. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 186–192Google Scholar
  85. 84.
    Kligman AM (1966) The identification of contact allergens by human assay. I. A critique of standard methods. J Invest Dermatol 47: 369–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 85.
    Kligman AM (1966) The identification of contact allergens by human assay. II. Factors influencing the induction and measurement of allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 47: 375–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 86.
    Kligman AM (1966) The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III. The maximization test. A procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 47: 393–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 87.
    Kligman AM (1983) A biological brief on percutaneous absorption. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 521–560Google Scholar
  89. 88.
    Kligman AM, Epstein W (1959) Some factors affecting contact sensitization in man. In: Shaffer JH, Lo Grippo GA, Chase WM (eds) Mechanism of hypersensitivity. Little, Brown, Boston, pp 713–722Google Scholar
  90. 89.
    Kligman AM, Epstein W (1975) Updating the maximization test for identifying contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1: 231–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 90.
    Kligman AM, Wooding WM (1967) A method for the measurement and evaluation of irritants on human skin. J Invest Dermatol 49: 78–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 91.
    Knox JM, Tucker SB, Flannigan SA (1984) Paresthesia from cutaneous exposure to synthetic pyrethroid insecticide. Arch Dermatol 120: 744–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 92.
    Kooyman DJ, Snyder FH (1942) Tests for the mildness of soaps. Arch Dermatol Syph 46: 846–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 93.
    Kral F, Schwartzman RM (1964) Veterinary and comparative dermatology. Lippincott, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  95. 94.
    Kuroki T, Nemoto N, Kitano Y (1980) Use of human epidermal keratinocytes in studies on chemical carcinogenesis. In: Pullman B, Ts’o POP, Gelboin H (eds) Carcinogenesis: fundamental mechanism and environmental effects. Redel, Boston, pp 417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 95.
    Lahti A (1980) Nonimmunologic contact urticaria. Acta Derm Venereol [Suppl] (Stockh) 60: 1–49Google Scholar
  97. 96.
    Lahti A, Maibach HI (1984) An animal model for nonimmunologic contact urticaria. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 76: 219–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 97.
    Lahti A, Maibach HI (1985) Species specificity of nonimmunologic contact urticaria: guinea pig, rat and mouse. J Am Acad Dermatol 13: 66–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 98.
    Lahti A, von Krogh G, Maibach HI (1985) Contact urticaria syndrome. An expanding phenomenon. In: Stone J (ed) Dermatologic immunology and allergy. Mosby, St Louis, pp 379–390Google Scholar
  100. 99.
    Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D (1988) Mechanisms of subjective (sensory) irritation: propensity of nonimmunologic contact urticaria and objective irritation in stingers. Derm Beruf Umwelt 36: 45–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 99a.
    Lammintausta K, Maibach H (1990) Irritation Insights: Epidemiology of Experimented Status. Ch. 13, pp 179–186, in: Menne T, Maibach H (eds) Exogenous Dermatoses: Environmentet Dermatitis, CRC Press, Baca Ratan, Fl.Google Scholar
  102. 100.
    Landsteiner K, Chase MW (1937) Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple chemical compounds. IV. Anaphylaxis induced by pictyl chloride and 2:4 dinitrochlorbenzene. J Exp Med 66: 337–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 101.
    Landsteiner K, Jacobs J (1935) Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple chemical compounds. J Exp Med 61: 643–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 102.
    Landsteiner K, Jacobs J (1936) Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple chemical compounds. II. J Exp Med 64: 625–629Google Scholar
  105. 103.
    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 Association, Washington, pp 135–145.Google Scholar
  106. 104.
    Lever WF, Schaumburg-Hevor’s (1983) Histopathology of the skin, 6th edn. Lippincott, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  107. 105.
    MacMillan FSK, Rafft 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. Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 12–22Google Scholar
  108. 106.
    Magee PN (1970) Tests for carcinogenic potential. In: Paget GE (ed) Methods in toxicology. Davis, Philadelphia, pp 158–196Google Scholar
  109. 107.
    Magnusson B, Hersle K (1965) Patch test methods. I. A comparative study of six different types of patch tests. Acta Dermatol 45: 123–128Google Scholar
  110. 108.
    Magnusson B, Hersle K (1965) Patch test methods. II. Regional variations of patch test responses. Acta Dermatol 45: 257–261Google Scholar
  111. 109.
    Magnusson B, Hersle K (1966) Patch test methods. III. Influence of adhesive tape on test response. Acta Dermatol 46: 275–278Google Scholar
  112. 110.
    Magnusson B, Kligman AM (1969) The identification of contact allergens by animals assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J Invest Dermatol 52: 268–276Google Scholar
  113. 111.
    Magnusson B, Kligman AM (1970) Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  114. 112.
    Maguire HC (1973) Mechanism of intensification by Freund’s complete adjuvant of the acquisition of delayed hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Immunol Comun 1: 239–246Google Scholar
  115. 113.
    Maguire HC (1974) Alteration in the acquisition of delayed hypersensitivity with adjuvant in the guinea pig. Monogr Allergy 8: 13–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 114.
    Maibach HI (1976) Immediate hypersensitivity in hand dermatitis: role of food contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 112: 1289–1291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 115.
    Maibach HI, Johnson HL (1975) Contact urticaria syndrome. Contact urticaria to diethyltoluamide (immediate-type hypersensitivity). Arch Dermatol 111: 726–730Google Scholar
  118. 116.
    Malkinson FD (1958) Studies on the percutaneous absorption of 14C labeled steroids by use of the gas-flow cell. J Invest Dermatol 31: 19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 117.
    Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (1973) Antimicrobials: experimental contact sensitization in man. J Soc Cosmet Chem 24: 399–421Google Scholar
  120. 118.
    Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (1974) The use of graded concentration in studying skin sensitizers: experimental contact sensitization in man. Food Cosmet Toxicol 12: 219–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 119.
    Mathias CGT, Maibach HI (1978) Dermatoxicology monogaphs. I. Cutaneous irritation: factors influencing the response to irritants. Clin Toxicol 13: 333–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 120.
    Mathias CGT, Chappler RR, Maibach HI (1980) Contact urticaria from cinnamic aldehyde. Arch Dermatol 116: 74–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 121.
    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: 174–179Google Scholar
  124. 122.
    McKenzie AW, Stoughton RM (1962) Method for comparing percutaneous absorption of steroids. Arch Dermatol 86: 608–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 123.
    McKillop CM, Brock JAC, Oliver CJA, Rhodes C (1987) A quantitative assessment of pyrethroid-induced paresthesia in the guinea pig flank model. Toxicol Lett 36: 1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 124.
    Mizel SB (1982) Interleukin 1 and T cell activation. Imunol Rev 63: 51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 125.
    Montagna W (1962) The structure and function of skin. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  128. 126.
    Montagna W (1962) The epidermis. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  129. 127.
    Motoyoshi K, Toyoshima Y, Sato M, Yoshimura M (1979) Comparative studies on the irritancy of oils and synthetic perfumes to the skin of rabbit, guinea pig, rat, miniature swine, and man. Cosmet Toiletries 94: 41–42Google Scholar
  130. 128.
    Najarian JS, Feldman JD (1963) Specificity of passive transfer or delayed hypersensitivity. J Exp Med 118: 341–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 129.
    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, pp 23–59Google Scholar
  132. 130.
    Nicolaides N (1963) Human skin surface lipids — origins, composition and possible function. In: Montagna W, Ellis RA, Silver AF (eds) The sebaceous glands. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 167–187 (Advances in biology of skin, vol 4 )Google Scholar
  133. 131.
    Nixon GA, Tyson CA, Wertz WC (1975) Interspecies comparisons of skin irritancy. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 31: 481–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 132.
    Noonan PK, Wester RC (1983) Cutaneous biotransformations and some pharmacological and toxicological implications. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (eds) Dermatotoxicology. Hemisphere, New York, pp 71–90Google Scholar
  135. 133.
    Odom RB, Maibach HI (1976) Contact urticaria: a different contact dermatitis. Cutis 18: 672–676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 134.
    Opdyke D (1971) The guinea pig immersion test — a 20 year appraisal. CTFA Cosmet J 3 (3): 46–47Google Scholar
  137. 135.
    Opdyke DL, Burnett CM (1965) Practical problems in the evaluation of the safety of cosmetics. Proc Sci Sect Toilet Goods Assoc 44: 3–4Google Scholar
  138. 136.
    Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1981) OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals, 4. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  139. 137.
    Ostrenga J, Steinmetz C, Poulsen B, Yett S (1971) Significance of vehicle composition. II. Prediction of optimal vehicle composition. J Pharm Sci 60: 1180–1183Google Scholar
  140. 138.
    Page NP (1977) Concepts of a bioassay program in environmental carcinogenesis. In: Kraybill HF, Mehlmann MA (eds) Advances in modern toxicology. Hemisphere, New York, pp 87–171 (Environmental Cancer, vol 3 )Google Scholar
  141. 139.
    Palotay JL, Adachi K, Dobson RL, Pinto JS (1986) Carcinogen-induced cutaneous neoplasms in non-human primate. JNCI 57: 1269–1272Google Scholar
  142. 140.
    Phillips L, Steinberg M, Maibach HI, Akers WA (1972) A comparison of rabbit and human skin response to certain irritants. Toxicol Appol Pharmacol 21: 369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 141.
    Polak L (1977) Immunological aspects of contact sensitivity. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (eds) Dermatotoxicology and pharmacology. Hemisphere, New York, pp 225–288Google Scholar
  144. 142.
    Polak L, Polak A, Frey JR (1974) The development of contact sensitivity to DNFB in guinea pigs genetically differing in their response to DNP-skin protein conjugate. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 46: 417–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 143.
    Potokar M (1985) Studies on the design of animal tests for the corrosiveness of industrial chemicals. Food Chem Toxicol 2: 615–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 144.
    Prottey C (1978) The molecular basis of skin irritation. In: Breuer MM (ed) Cosmetic science, vol 1. Academic, London, pp 275–349Google Scholar
  147. 145.
    Rapaport M, Anderson D, Pierce U (1978) Performance of the 21 day patch test in civilian populations. J Toxicol Cutan Ocular Toxicol 1: 109–115Google Scholar
  148. 146.
    Ritz HL, Buehler EV (1980) Planning conduct and interpretation of guinea pig sensitization patch tests. In: Drill VA, Lazar P (eds) Current concepts in cutaneous toxicity. Academic, New York, p 25Google Scholar
  149. 147.
    Rothman S (1954) Physiology and biochemistry of the skin. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  150. 148.
    Scheuplein RJ (1978) Permeability of skin: a review of major concepts. Curr Probl Dermatol 7: 58–68Google Scholar
  151. 149.
    Scheuplein RJ, Bronough RL (1983) Percutaneous absorption. In: Goldsmith LA (ed) Biochemistry and physiology of the skin: Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1255–1295Google Scholar
  152. 150.
    Schwartz L (1951) The skin testing of new cosmetics. J Soc Cosmet Chem 2: 321–324Google Scholar
  153. 151.
    Schwartz L (1969) Twenty-two years’ experience in the performanced of 200,000 prophetic patch tests. South Med J 53: 478–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 152.
    Schwartz L, Peck SM (1944) The patch test in contact dermatitis. Public Health Rep 59: 546–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 153.
    Shelanski HA (1951) Experience with and considerations of the human patch test method. J Soc Cosmet Chem 2: 324–331Google Scholar
  156. 154.
    Shelanski HA, Shelanski MV (1953) New technique of patch tests. Drug Cosmet Ind 73: 186Google Scholar
  157. 155.
    Shelanski HA, Shelanski MV (1953) A new technique of human patch tests. Proc Sci Sect Toilet Goods Assoc 19: 46–49Google Scholar
  158. 156.
    Shellow WVR, Rapaport MJ (1981) Comparison testing of soap irritancy using aluminum chamber and standard patch methods. Contact Dermatitis 7: 77–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 157.
    Simpson WL, Cramer W (1943) Fluorescnece studies: carcinogens in skin. Cancer Res 3: 362–369Google Scholar
  160. 158.
    Sokolov UE (1982) Mammal skin. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  161. 159.
    Steinberg M, Akers WA, Weeks M, McCreesh AH, Maibach HI (1975) I. A comparison of test techniques based on rabbit and human skin responses to irritants with recommendations regarding the evaluation of mildly or moderately irritating compounds. In: Maibach HI (ed) Animal models in dermatology. Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  162. 160.
    Stings G, Abever W (1983) The Langerhans’ cell. In: Goldsmith LA (ed) Biochemistry and physiology of the skin. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 907–921Google Scholar
  163. 161.
    Sting] G, Katz SI, Clement L, Green I, Shevach E (1978) Immunologic functions of la-bearing epidermal Langerhans’ cells. J Immunol 121: 2005–2013Google Scholar
  164. 162.
    Sweeney TM, Downing DT (1970) The role of lipids in the epidermal barrier to water diffusion. J Invest Dermatol 55: 135–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 163.
    Traub EF, Tusing TW, Spoor HJ (1954) Evaluation of dermal sensitivity; animal and human tests compared. Arch Dermatol 69: 399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 164.
    Tregear RT (1964) Relative penetrability of hair follicles and epidermis. J Physiol (Lond) 156: 303–313Google Scholar
  167. 165.
    Tregear RT (1966) Physical function of skin. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  168. 166.
    Unanue ER (1984) Antigen-presenting function of the macrophage. Annu Rev Immunol 2: 395–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 167.
    Uttley M, van Abbé NJ (1973) Primary irritation of the skin; mouse ear test and human patch test procedures. J Soc Cosmet Chem 24: 217–227Google Scholar
  170. 168.
    Vinegar MB (1979) Regional variation in primary skin irritation and corrosivity potentials in rabbits. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 49: 63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 169.
    Vivjeberg HP, VandenBercken J (1979) Frequency dependent effects of the pyrethroid insecticide decamethrin in frog myelinated nerve fibers. Eur J Pharmacol 58: 501–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 170.
    Von Krogh C, Maibach HI (1982) The contact urticaria syndrome. Semin Dermatol 1: 59–66Google Scholar
  173. 171.
    Voss JG (1958) Skin sensitization by mercaptans of low molecular weight. J Invest Dermatol 31: 273–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  174. 172.
    Wasserman SJ (1983) The mast cell and its mediators. In: Goldsmith LA (ed) Biochemistry and physiology of the skin. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 878–898Google Scholar
  175. 173.
    Weaver JE (1976) Dermatologie testing of household laundry products: a novel fabric softener. Int J Dermtol 15: 297–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 174.
    Weigand DA, Gaylor JR (1976) Irritant reaction in Negro and Caucasian skin. South Med J 67: 548–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 175.
    Weigand DA, Haygood C, Gaylor JR (1974) Cell layer and density of Negro and Causcasian stratum corneum. J Invest Dermatol 62: 563–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 176.
    Weil CS, Scala RA (1971) Study of intra-and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 19: 276–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 177.
    Wester RC, Maibach HI (1975) Rhesus monkey as an animal model for percutaneous absorption. In: Maibach HI (ed) Animal models in dermatology, Livingstone, New York, pp 133–137Google Scholar
  180. 178.
    Wester RC, Maibach HI (1983) Cutaneous pharmacokinetics: 10 steps to percutaneous absorption. Drug Metab Rev 14: 169–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 179.
    Whitton JT, Ewell JD (1973) The thickness of epidermis. Br J Dermatol 89: 467–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 180.
    Wooding WH, Opdyke DL (1967) A statistical approach to the evaluation of cutaneous responses to irritants. J Soc Cosmet Chem 18: 809–829Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esther Patrick
  • Howard I. Maibach

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations