Evaluation of Potential Skin Sensitization of Humans Receiving Proteoglycan Facial Mask

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Feb 20, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31524/bkkmedj.2019.02.002
Keywords:
proteoglycan, potential skin sensitization, human repeated insult patch test

Main Article Content

Wannara Chuenwattana, Ed.D
Sitthiphon Bunman, MSc
Jonghyun Kim, BSc

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate potential skin sensitization of the proteoglycan (PG) facial mask.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: 140 volunteers were recruited. The human repeated insult patch test (HRIPT) was used to assess skin sensitization and the potential of the proteoglycan (PG) facial mask. The test article material was 0.3 ml and the size was 1x1 cm2 per patch test. The placebo patch tests were applied on normal skin at left scapula area and applied PG facial mask patch tests on the right scapula area. In the induction phase, healthy volunteers applied patch tests on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for three consecutive weeks. All of the patch tests were removed 24 hours (h) after having been applied and HRIPT scoring was evaluated. After the induction phase, a single challenge patch was applied to a naïve site of normal skin. The challenge phase is scored 24, 48, and 72 h after having been applied and the experiment monitor presented at the 72 h reading of the HRIPT score.

RESULTS: All 140 volunteers completed the study. Age of subjects ranged from 19 to 26 years old (mean age 21.59 ± 1.90 years). The HRIPT scoring scale of induction phase and challenge phase, edema, papules, vesicles, and bullae of healthy volunteers applied with the PG facial mask were not significantly different when compared to the placebo patch test group.

CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that PG facial mask has low skin sensitization potential among healthy volunteers.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Chuenwattana W, Bunman S, Kim J. Evaluation of Potential Skin Sensitization of Humans Receiving Proteoglycan Facial Mask. BKK Med J [Internet]. 2019 Feb. 20 [cited 2024 Nov. 22];15(1):7. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/bkkmedj/article/view/222607
Issue
Vol. 15 No. 1 (2019): February
Section
Original Article

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

1. Chuenwattana W, Chatthanawaree W, Bunman S, et al. The Evaluation of Potential Skin Sensitization and Collagen Synthesis of Rats Receiving Proteoglycan Serum. BKK Med J 2018;14(1):1-4.
2. Hardingham TE, Fosang AJ. Proteoglycans: many forms and many functions. FASEB J. 1992;6(3):861-70.
3. Perrimon N, Bernfield M. Cellular functions of proteoglycans an overview. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2001;12(2):65-7.
4. Knudson CB, Knudson W. Cartilage proteoglycans. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2001;12(2):69-78.
5. Bunman S, Aramwit P, Larbcharoensub N, et al. Application of proteoglycans from fish cartilage for the acceleration of burn wound healing. TJPS 2015;39(3):64-9. 6.
6. Politano VT, Api AM. The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials’ human repeated insult patch test protocol. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008;52(1):35-8. 7.
7. Boonchai W, Sathaworawong A, Wongpraparut C, et al. The sensitization potential of sunscreen after ablative fractional skin resurfacing using modified human repeated insult patch test. J Dermatolog Treat 2015;26(5):485-8.
8. Henderson CR, Riley EC. Certain Statistical Considerations in Patch Testing1. J Invest Dermatol 1945;6(3):227-30.