3.8 Article

Percutaneous absorption of sunscreens in vitro: Interspecies comparison, skin models and reproducibility aspects

Journal

SKIN PHARMACOLOGY AND APPLIED SKIN PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages 324-335

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000029940

Keywords

percutaneous absorption; sunscreens; pig skin; human skin; interlaboratory comparison

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Appropriate evaluation of sunscreens is required to provide better knowledge of their safety and efficacy. One of the most important elements of this evaluation is the assessment of percutaneous absorption. In vitro methods are largely used for such assessments, and the accuracy of the measurements generated with these methods depends on the use of a proper methodology. This study was designed to evaluate an in vitro protocol for investigating the percutaneous absorption of two sunscreens under standardized experimental conditions. Octyl methoxycinnamate and benzophenone 4 were each incorporated in a typical oil-in-water emulsion and tested separately. Salicylic acid was tested as a reference compound. In vitro percutaneous absorption was evaluated using two species, the pig and human, and two models, full-thickness and split-thickness skin. The reproducibility of study results was evaluated by comparing the data generated by two industrial laboratories, L'Oreal and Hoffmann-La Roche. The correlation of quantitative data between pig skin and human skin was very good, and the split-thickness skin model seemed to be more appropriate for measuring the absorption of sunscreens. Results obtained for salicylic acid demonstrated the relevance of the protocol in terms of prediction of in vivo percutaneous absorption. Finally, the comparison of pig skin data between the two laboratories demonstrated a good correlation and underlined the need for a standardized in vitro procedure. Copyright (C) 2000 S, Karger AG, Basel.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available