Wester R C, Melendres J, Sedik L, Maibach H, Riviere J E
Department of Dermatology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1998 Jul;151(1):159-65. doi: 10.1006/taap.1998.8434.
Human risk assessment for topical exposure requires percutaneous absorption data to link environmental contamination to potential systemic dose. Human absorption data are not readily available, so absorption models are used. In vitro diffusion systems are easy to use but have proved to be somewhat unreliable and are not validated to man. This study compares percutaneous absorption in the isolated perfused porcine skin flap (IPPSF) system with that in man in vivo. The study design utilized the same compounds and the same dose concentration and vehicle in both systems. Methodology for each system was that which is routinely used ineach system. The skin surface was not protected during the absorption dosing period. Percutaneous absorption values were, for man and the IPPSF system, respectively: salicylic acid (6.5 +/- 5.0%; 7.5 +/- 2.6%), theophylline (16.9 +/- 11.3%; 11.8 +/- 3.8%), 2,4-dimethylamine (1.1 +/- 0.3%; 3.8 +/- 0.6%), diethyl hexyl phthalic acid (1.8 +/- 0.5%; 3.9 +/- 2.4%), and p-aminobenzoic acid (11.5 +/- 6.3%; 5.9 +/- 3.7%) (correlation coefficient was 0.78; p < 0.04). The skin surface wash recovery postapplication was similar for salicylic acid in man (53.4 +/- 6.3%) and the IPPSF system (48.2 +/- 4.9%). With the other compounds the majority of surface chemical was recovered in the surface wash and skin tape strip in the IPPSF system. With man, other than salicylic acid, only a few percent applied dose was recovered with surface washing and tape stripping. Since the wash procedure was effective with pig skin, we can assume that these chemicals in man were lost to adsorption to any clothing or bedding with the volunteers. The absorption in man was not less than that in the IPPSF. Assuming the dose was lost in man, it seems plausible that whatever compound was to penetrate human skin in solvent vehicle did so in the period of time before the chemical was removed. The IPPSF system appears to be a good model for predicting percutaneous absorption relative to man. This study design should be used to validate other systems to humans in vivo.
局部暴露的人体风险评估需要经皮吸收数据,以便将环境污染与潜在的全身剂量联系起来。人体吸收数据不易获取,因此使用吸收模型。体外扩散系统易于使用,但已证明有些不可靠,且未在人体上得到验证。本研究比较了离体灌注猪皮瓣(IPPSF)系统与人活体的经皮吸收情况。研究设计在两个系统中使用相同的化合物、相同的剂量浓度和赋形剂。每个系统的方法均为各系统常规使用的方法。在吸收给药期间,皮肤表面未进行保护。人及IPPSF系统的经皮吸收值分别为:水杨酸(6.5±5.0%;7.5±2.6%)、茶碱(16.9±11.3%;11.8±3.8%)、2,4-二甲胺(1.1±0.3%;3.8±0.6%)、邻苯二甲酸二(2-乙基己基)酯(1.8±0.5%;3.9±2.4%)和对氨基苯甲酸(11.5±6.3%;5.9±3.7%)(相关系数为0.78;p<0.04)。人(53.4±6.3%)和IPPSF系统(48.2±4.9%)中水杨酸施用后的皮肤表面清洗回收率相似。对于其他化合物,IPPSF系统中大部分表面化学物质在表面清洗和皮肤胶带剥离中被回收。对于人,除水杨酸外,表面清洗和胶带剥离回收的施用剂量仅为百分之几。由于清洗程序对猪皮有效,我们可以假设人体中的这些化学物质因吸附到志愿者的任何衣物或床上用品上而损失。人体的吸收不低于IPPSF系统中的吸收。假设剂量在人体中损失,似乎合理的是,任何以溶剂载体穿透人体皮肤的化合物都是在化学物质被去除之前的时间段内这样做的。相对于人体,IPPSF系统似乎是预测经皮吸收的良好模型。本研究设计应用于在人体活体中验证其他系统。