4.5 Article

Dermal penetration of propylene glycols: Measured absorption across human abdominal skin in vitro and comparison with a QSAR model

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 1664-1670

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.07.003

关键词

Monopropylene glycol; Dipropylene glycol; Tripropylene glycol; Skin absorption; SKINPERM; In vitro

资金

  1. Propylene Oxide and Glycols Sector Group of Cefic
  2. European chemical industry association
  3. trade association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dermal penetration of undiluted monopropylene glycol (MPG) and dipropylene glycol (DPG) has been measured in vitro using human abdominal skin under conditions of infinite dose application, and the results compared with predictions from the SKINPERM QSAR model (ten Berge, 2009). The measured steady-state penetration rates (J(ss)) for MPG and DPG were 97.6 and 39.3 mu g/cm(2)/h, respectively, and the permeability coefficients (K(p)) were 9.48 x 10(-5) cm/h for MPG and 3.85 x 10(-5) cm/h for DPG. In comparison, the SKINPERM model slightly over-predicted J(ss) and K(p) for MPG and DPG by between 2.6- and 5.1-fold, respectively. The model predictions of 254 mu g/cm(2)/h and 24.6 x 10(-5) cm/h for MPG, and 202 mu g/cm(2)/h and 19.8 x 10(-5) cm/h for DPG were in fairly good agreement with the measured values. Further, the model predicted a J(ss) of 101 mu g/cm(2)/h and a Kp of 9.9 x 10(-5) cm/h for the homologue tripropylene glycol. Assuming that the measured J(ss) was the same under conditions of finite dose application (taken to be 10 mu L/cm(2)) and was maintained over a 24-h period (both conservative assumptions), the relative dermal absorption of the applied dose was estimated to be 23% (0.96%/h) for MPG and 9% (0.39%/h) for DPG. However, the extrapolation for MPG may be further overestimated due to possible residence in the stratum corneum under infinite conditions of exposure that would not be applicable to a finite loading dose. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据