Assessing the Skin Irritation Potential of Facial Tissues

Farage, Miranda A.

doi:10.1081/cus-200059587

Cited by 13 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, panelists were also interviewed about specific aspects of product preferences. Statistical analysis revealed that the panelists' subjective product preferences were more consistent in distinguishing between the test product than were either erythema or dryness (92).…”

Section: Exaggeration Of Test Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sensitive skin: new findings yield new insights

Farage¹,

Maibach²

2010

Textbook of Cosmetic Dermatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Exaggeration Of Test Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Irritant reactions to feminine-care products have been reported (81) with a few feminine products that contain chemicals known to be irritants in certain doses (92). However, the potential for heightened vulvar susceptibility to topical agents is not widely reported in literature (22).…”

Section: Anatomic Sitementioning

confidence: 98%

Sensitive skin: new findings yield new insights

Farage¹,

Maibach²

2010

Textbook of Cosmetic Dermatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nevertheless, consumers develop product preferences on the basis of perceived skin effects that are not always predictable based on results of the skin effect testing programs such as the ones described above. Sensory data collected from panelists participating in skin effect testing indicate that panelists can sometimes discriminate between products on the basis of how they feel during use, even when clinically evaluated skin effects (erythema and dryness) show no differences [36][37][38]. Additionally, an important subgroup of consumers for products intended for the genital area is constituted by the elderly.…”

Section: Future Challengesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Sensory data are collected using simple questionnaires to determine the frequency of unpleasant sensations such as dryness, burning and itching. We have incorporated measures of sensory effects in clinical studies on feminine hygiene pads and wipes [33,45,46], nasal irritation studies [37] and BTK studies [36].…”

Section: Add Additional Endpointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, washing cycles may be increased to 6-8 consecutive days. A nasal irritation model was developed to study potential skin effects of facial tissues [37]. In this system, panelists wipe the facial tissues (one on each side) from the nasal bridge to the upper lip for 10 wipes every 20 min for a total of 170 wipes (17 series) daily from Monday through Thursday.…”

Section: Further Exaggerate Exposure Conditions In Testing Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the Dermal Safety of Products Intended for Genital Mucosal Exposure

Farage

Scheffler²

2011

Topical Applications and the Mucosa

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manufacturers employ a stepwise approach to ensure the skin safety and compatibility of consumer products that are intended for contact with mucosal skin. The properties of the ingredients are evaluated fully, along with any available safety and skin compatibility information, to eliminate any chemicals that may be strong contact sensitizers or irritants. Contact sensitization potential is evaluated by applying a quantitative exposure assessment to each ingredient or component to determine if the extent of the expected exposure is likely to pose any risk of contact sensitization. Likely exposures are calculated using the manufacturer's unique knowledge of the intended product matrix, consumer usage patterns and measurements of particular exposure variables. If adequate safety assurance cannot be provided, further testing may be conducted. The skin compatibility and irritation potential of each ingredient is evaluated using existing test data, and experience from other products containing the same or a structurally similar ingredient. Once a finished product or formulation is developed, another round of assessments is conducted to ensure that no unexpected matrix effects negatively impact the skin compatibility profile. This may include clinical testing protocols involving single and multiple patch tests, and extended use testing, with visual and/or instrumental assessments. This approach to ensuring the skin safety of products has been used successfully for many decades, and adverse skin reactions to modern products are rare. The challenge for the future is to develop test protocols that will discriminate between products that are very similar in their favorable skin compatibility profile. Options to meet this challenge include testing protocols that will: (1) further exaggerate exposure conditions, such as the behind-the-knee protocol, (2) increase the sensitivity of scoring for irritant effects, such as with the use of instrumentation, and (3) quantitatively measuring additional endpoints, such as subjective sensory effects.

show abstract