Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15230/SCSK.2012.38.1.043

Instrumental Assessments of Sub-clinical Skin Reactions induced by Cosmetic Ingredients  

An, Sang-Mi (Dermapro Skin Research Center, Dermapro Co., LTD.)
Lee, Mi-Young (Dermapro Skin Research Center, Dermapro Co., LTD.)
Baek, Ji-Hwoon (Dermapro Skin Research Center, Dermapro Co., LTD.)
Ham, Hye-In (Dermapro Skin Research Center, Dermapro Co., LTD.)
Boo, Yong-Chool (Department of molecular Medicine and Cell and Matrix Research Institute, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine)
Koh, Jae-Sook (Dermapro Skin Research Center, Dermapro Co., LTD.)
Publication Information
Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Scientists of Korea / v.38, no.1, 2012 , pp. 43-50 More about this Journal
Abstract
The safety of cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients on human skin is generally evaluated by visual assessment but some early subtle skin changes may not be noticed by the naked eyes. Thus, the present study was conducted to detect skin reactions induced by mildly irritating cosmetic ingredients by using a laser Doppler perfusion imager (LDPI) method that measures blood flow, a $Vapometer^{(R)}$ that measure strans epidermal water loss (TEWL), and a spectrophotometer that measures the skin color as the erythema values ($a^*$). Visual assessment showed that all tested oils and humectants except propylene glycol belong to the low skin irritation ranges (grades 0+ to 2.9+) while all tested surfactants and propylene glycol belong to the moderate-to strong-skin irritation ranges (grades 3+ to 5+). Among three instrumental methods, TEWL assessment appeared to be more sensitive than spectrophotometric or LDPI method and suitable for the detection of subtle skin response invisible to the naked eye (grades 0+ to 2.9+). Skin reactions of grade 3+ to 5+ could be detected by all three instrumental methods. In conclusion, the current study suggested that the sub-clinical skin reactions due to mild irritants contained in cosmetics can be best assessed by TEWL measurements.
Keywords
sub-clinical skin reaction; mild irritants; transepidermal water loss;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 N. I. Denig, A. W. Hoke, and H. I. Maibach, Irritant contact dermatitis. Clues to causes, clinical characteristics, and control, Postgrad. Med., 103(5), 199 (1998).
2 T. Agner and J. Serup, Contact thermography for assessment of skin damage due to experimental irritants, Acta. Derm. Venereol., 68(3), 192 (1988).
3 C. Blichmann and J. Serup, Assessment of skin moisture. Measurement of electrical conductance, capacitance and transepidermal water loss, Acta. Derm. Venereol., 68(4), 284 (1988).
4 C. M. De Jongh, M. M. Verberk, C. E. Withagen, J. J. Jacobs, T. Rustemeyer, and S. Kezic, Stratum corneum cytokines and skin irritation response to sodium lauryl sulfate, Contact dermatitis, 54(6), 325 (2006).   DOI   ScienceOn
5 A. T. J. Goon, Y. H. Leow, Y. H. Chan, and C. L. Goh, Correlation between laser Doppler perfusion imaging and visual scoring of patch test sites in subjects with experimentally induced allergic and irritant contact reactions, Skin Res. Technol., 10(1), 64 (2004).   DOI   ScienceOn
6 J. Moskovitz, M. B. Yim, and P. B. chock, Free radicals and disease, Arch. Biochem. Biophys., 397(2), 354 (2002).   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Y. Ishihara, M. Oka, M. Tsunakawa, K. Tomita, M. Hatori, H. Yamamoto, H. Kamei, T. Miyaki, M. Konishi, and T. Oki, Melanostatin, a new melanin synthesis inhibitor. Production, isolation, chemical properties, structure and biological activity, J. Antibiot., 44(1), 25 (1991).   DOI
8 C. H. Lee and H. I. Maibach, The sodium lauryl sulfate model: an overview, Contact dermatitis, 33(1), 1 (1995).   DOI   ScienceOn
9 C. W. Blichmann and J. Serup, Assessment of skin moisture. Measurement of electrical conductance, capacitance and transepidermal water loss, Acta. Derm. Venereol., 68(4), 284 (1988).
10 J. Serup and T. Agner, Colorimetric quantification of erythema--a comparison of two colorimeters (Lange Micro Color and Minolta Chroma Meter CR-200) with a clinical scoring scheme and laser- Doppler flowmetry, Clin. Exp. Dermatol., 15(4), 267 (1990).   DOI
11 B. Staberg and J. Serup, Allergic and irritant skin reactions evaluated by laser Doppler flowmetry, Contact dermatitis, 18(1), 40 (1988).   DOI   ScienceOn
12 J. Serup and B. Staberg, Ultrasound for assessment of allergic and irritant patch test reactions, Contact dermatitis, 17(2), 80 (1987).   DOI   ScienceOn
13 J. Aramaki, C. Loffler, S. Kawana, I. Effendy, R. Happle, and H. Loffler, Irritant patch testing with sodium lauryl sulphate: interrelation between concentration and exposure time, Br. J. Dermatol., 145(5), 704 (2001).   DOI   ScienceOn
14 P. Elsner, A. Barel, and E. Berardesca, Skin bioengineering: techniques and applications in dermatology and cosmetology, 26, S Karger Pub, (1998).
15 A. J. Baillie, P. A. Biagioni, A. Forsyth, J. J. Garioch and D. McPherson, Thermographic assessment of patch-test responses, Br. J. Dermatol., 122(3), 351 (1990).   DOI   ScienceOn
16 E. Gottschalk and G. McEwen, International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook, The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, 1216, Washington D.C. (2006).
17 M. Berdick, The role of fats and oils in cosmetics, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 49(7), 406 (1972).   DOI   ScienceOn
18 M. M. Rieger and L. D. Rhein, Surfactants in cosmetics, 68, CRC press, Washington D.C. (1997).
19 L. Osipow, A Buffering Humectant for Cosmetics, Drug Cosmetic. Ind., 88(4), 438 (1961).
20 R. G. D. Clinical Research, Declaration of Helsinki, (1991).
21 M. A. Farage, S. Meyer, and D. Walter, Evaluation of modifications of the traditional patch test in assessing the chemical irritation potential of feminine hygiene products, Skin Res. Technol., 10(2), 73 (2004).   DOI   ScienceOn
22 J. Schanda, Colorimetry: Understanding the CIE system, Wiley-interscience, (2007).
23 G. W. Mack, Assessment of cutaneous blood flow by using topographical perfusion mapping techniques, J. Appl. Physiol., 85(1), 353 (1998).   DOI
24 M. York, H. A. Griffiths, E. Whittle, and D. A. Basketter, Evaluation of a human patch test for the identification and classification of skin irritation potential, Contact dermatitis, 34(3), 204 (1996).   DOI   ScienceOn
25 P. J. Frosch and A. M. Kligman, The soap chamber test. A new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps, J. Am. Acad. Dermatol., 1(1), 35 (1979).
26 A. Curry, S. Getting, and G. McEwen, CTFA technical guidelines: safety testing guidelines, The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, Washington D.C. 2002, 3 (1991).
27 M. P. Vinardell and M. Mitjans, Alternative methods for eye and skin irritation tests: an overview, J. Pharm. Sci., 97(1), 46 (2008).   DOI   ScienceOn
28 M. Loden, I. Buraczewska, and F. Edlund, Irritation potential of bath and shower oils before and after use: a double-blind randomized study, Br. J. Dermatol., 150(6), 1142 (2004).   DOI   ScienceOn