Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Pitfalls of irritant patch testing using different test chamber sizes.

H Löffler1, P Freyschmidt-Paul, I Effendy

  • 1Department of Dermatology, University of Marburg, Germany.

American Journal of Contact Dermatitis : Official Journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society
|March 13, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The sodium lauryl sulfate model: an overview.

Contact dermatitis·1995
Same author

A local lymph-node assay validation study of a structure-activity relationship model for contact allergens.

Archives of dermatological research·1995
Same author

Horizons in pharmacologic intervention in allergic contact dermatitis.

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology·1994
Same author

Topical FK506--clinical potential or laboratory curiosity?

Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland)·1994
Same author

Topical FK506: suppression of allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in the guinea pig.

Archives of dermatological research·1994
Same author

In vivo and in vitro percutaneous absorption and skin evaporation of isofenphos in man.

Fundamental and applied toxicology : official journal of the Society of Toxicology·1992
Same journal

ACDS President's message. An important period in the history of our Society.

American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society·2004
Same journal

Label dermatitis.

American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society·2004
Same journal

Considerations for testing irritancy, allergy, and photoreactivity in fragrance safety evaluations.

American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society·2004
Same journal

Barrier creams: fact or fiction.

American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society·2004
Same journal

Common shoe allergens undetected by commercial patch-testing kits: dithiodimorpholine and isocyanates.

American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society·2004
Same journal

Dermatitis artefacta?

American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society·2004
See all related articles

Larger patch test chambers show higher irritant reactions than smaller ones. This difference in skin irritation testing is practically relevant and can be accounted for using a formula.

Area of Science:

  • Dermatology
  • Toxicology
  • Skin physiology

Background:

  • Irritant patch testing chambers are typically larger than those for allergic patch testing.
  • Larger skin surface areas generally exhibit more pronounced reactions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the practical significance of chamber size in irritant patch testing.
  • To evaluate the impact of small and large Finn chambers on skin reactions using transepidermal water loss (TEWL).

Main Methods:

  • Healthy volunteers underwent patch testing with sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) at 0.25% and 0.5% concentrations.
  • Both large (12 mm) and small (8 mm) inner diameter Finn chambers were utilized.
  • Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) was measured to assess skin reactions.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Skin reactions, measured by TEWL, were significantly influenced by SLS concentration and chamber size.
  • Larger chambers yielded approximately 30% to 50% higher TEWL values compared to smaller chambers.
  • A strong dependence of test outcome on both irritant concentration and chamber dimensions was observed.

Conclusions:

  • The larger surface area of the large chambers may lead to more accurate TEWL measurements.
  • Smaller chambers might include adjacent non-tested skin, potentially biasing TEWL results.
  • A formula was developed to estimate TEWL values from large chambers based on measurements from small chambers.