Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

  • Chapter
Irritant Dermatitis

30. Conclusion

It is clear that SLS data does not provide a unanimous opinion on all points. Yet, the preponderance of the observations suggest that we are beginning to understand some of the parameters, such as purity, dose, patch, anatomic site, single versus multiple application, and occluded versus open application, that influence diverse response of the skin irritation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 289.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Nikitakis JM, McEwen GN, Wenninger JA. CTFA International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary, 4th edn. The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association Inc., Washington DC, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI. Nonanoic acid irritation—a positive control at routine patch testing? Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6:128–130

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kligman AM. The SLS provocative patch test in allergic contact sensitization. J Invest Dermatol 1966; 36:573–583

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sams WM, Smith G. Contact dermatitis due to hydrocortisone ointment. Report of a case of sensitivity to emulsifying agents in a hydrophilic ointment base. JAMA 1957; 164:1212–1213

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Prater E, Goring HD, Schubert H. Sodium lauryl sulphate—a contact allergen. Contact Dermatitis 1978; 4:242–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee AY, Yoo SH, Oh JG, Kim YG. 2 cases of allergic contact cheilitis from sodium lauryl sulfate in toothpaste. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42:111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tupker RA, Willis C, Berardesca E, Lee CH, Fartasch M, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines on sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) exposure tests. A report from the standardization group of the European society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37:53–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Loden M, Andersson AC. Effect of topically applied lipids on surfactant irritated skin. Br J Dermatol 1996; 134:215–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Basketter DA, Griffiths HA, Wang XM, Wilhelm KP, Mc-Fadden J. Individual, ethnic and seasonal variability in irritant susceptibility of skin: the implications for a predictive human patch test. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35:208–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pinnagoda J, Tupker RA, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP. Prediction of susceptibility to an irritant response by transepidermal water loss. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 20:341–346

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D. Susceptibility to cumulative and acute irritant dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 19:84–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The soap chamber test: a new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol 1979; 1:35–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tupker RA, Pinnagoda J, Coenraads PJ., Kerstholt H, Nater JP. Evaluation of hand cleansers: assessment of composition, skin compatibility by transepidermal water loss measurements, and cleansing power. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1989; 40:33–39

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tupker RA, Pinnagoda J, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP. The influence of repeated exposure to surfactants on human skin as determined by transepidermal water loss and visual scoring. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 20:108–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D. Human cutaneous irritation: induced hyporeactivity. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17:193–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Algood GS, Altringer LA, Kraus AL. Development of 14 day axillary irritation test. J Toxicol Cut Ocular Toxicol 1990; 9:67–75

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wilhelm KP, Saunders JC, Maibach HI. Increased stratum corneum turnover induced by subclinical irritant dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1990; 122:793–798

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee CH, Maibach HI. Study of cumulative irritant contact dermatitis in man utilizing open application on subclinically irritated skin. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30:271–275

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. van der Valk PGM, Maibach HI. Post-application occlusion substantially increases the irritant response of the skin to repeated short-term sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) exposure. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 21:335–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Monitoring the water-holding capacity in visually non-irritated skin by plastic occlusion stress test (POST). Clin Exp Dermatol 1990; 15:107–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lukacovic MF, Dunlap FE, Michaels SE, Visscher MO, Watson DD. Forearm wash test to evaluate the clinical mildness of cleansing products. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1988; 39:355–366

    Google Scholar 

  22. Klein G, Grubauer G, Fritsch P. The influence of daily dish-washing with synthetic detergent on human skin. Br J Dermatol 1992; 127:131–137

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Agner T, Serup J, Handlos V, Batsberg W. Different skin irritation abilities of different qualities of sodium lauryl sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 21:184–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kligman AM, Wooding WM. A method for the measurement and evaluation of irritants on human skin. J Invest Dermatol 1967; 49:78–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stillman MA, Maibach HI, Shalita AR. Relative irritancy of free fatty acids of different chain length. Contact Dermatitis 1975; 1:65–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilhelm KP, Cua AB, Wolf HH, Maibach HI. Surfactant-induced stratum corneum hydration in vivo: prediction of the irritation potential of anionic surfactants. J Invest Dermatol 1993; 101:310–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Serup J, Staberg B. Ultrasound for assessment of allergic and irritant patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17:80–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Staberg B, Serup J. Allergic and irritant skin reactions evaluated by laser Doppler flowmetry. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 18:40–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Agner T, Fullerton A, Broby-Johansen U, Batsberg W. Irritant patch testing: penetration of SLS into human skin. Skin Pharmacol 1990; 3:213–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Magnusson B, Hersle K. Patch test methods. I. A comparative study of six different types of patch tests. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1965; 45:123–128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. The Duhring chamber test. Contact Dermatitis 1979; 5:73–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Agner T. Noninvasive measuring methods for the investigation of irritant patch test reactions. A study of patients with hand eczema, atopic dermatitis and controls. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) (Suppl) 1992; 173:1–26

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mikulowska A, Andersson A. Sodium lauryl sulfate effect on the density of epidermal Langerhans cells: evaluation of different test models. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34:397–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee KY, Park CW, Lee CH. The Effect of chamber size and volume of test solution on cutaneous irritation. Kor J Dermatol 1997; 35:424–430

    Google Scholar 

  35. Brasch J, Becker D, Effendy I. Reproducibility of irritant patch test reactions to sodium lauryl sulfate in a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized study using clinical scoring. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41:150–155

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Berardesca E, Vignoli GP, Distante F, Brizzi P, Rabbiosi G. Effect of water temperature on surfactant-induced skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 32:83–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Fischer T, Maibach HI. Finn chamber patch test technique. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 11:137–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Dahl MV, Roering MJ. Sodium lauryl sulphate irritant patch tests. III. Evaporation of aqueous vehicle influences inflammatory response. J Am Acad Dermatol 1984; 11:477–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sugar M, Schnetz E, Fartasch M. Does sodium lauryl sulfate concentration vary with time? Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40:146–149

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Racial differences in sodium lauryl sulphate induced cutaneous irritation: black and white. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 18:65–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Freeman S, Maibach HI. Study of irritant contact dermatitis produced by repeat patch testing with sodium lauryl sulphate and assessed by visual methods, transepidermal water loss and laser Doppler velocimetry. J Am Acad Dermatol 1988; 19:496–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Goh CL, Chia SE. Skin irritability to sodium lauryl sulphate as measured by skin vapour loss by sex and race. Clin Exp Dermatol 1988; 13:16–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Agner T, Serup J. Time course of occlusive effects on skin evaluated by measurement of transepidermal water loss (TEWL): including patch tests with sodium lauryl sulphate and water. Contact Dermatitis 1993; 28:6–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Stender IM, Blichmann C, Serup J Effects of oil and water baths on the hydration state of the epidermis. Clin Exp Dermatol 1990; 15:206–209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Baker H, Kligman AM. Measurement of transepidermal water loss by electrical hygrometry. Arch Dermatol 1967; 96:441–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Gisslen H, Magnusson B. Effects of detergents on guinea pig skin. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1966; 46:269–274

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Tovell PWA, Weaver AC, Hope J, Sprott WE. The action of sodium lauryl sulphateon rat skin: an ultrastructural study. Br J Dermatol 1974; 90:501–506

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Mahmoud G, Lachapelle JM, van Neste D. Histological assessment of skin damage by irritants: its possible use in the evaluation of a barrier cream. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 11:179–185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Willis CM, Stephens CJM, Wilkinson JD. Epidermal damage induced by irritants in man: a light and electronmicroscopic study. J Invest Dermatol 1989; 93:695–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Moon SH, Seo KI, Han WS, Suh DH, Cho KH, Kim JJ, Eun HC. Pathological findings in cumulative irritation induced by SLS and croton oil in hairless mice. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 44:240–245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Scheynius A, Fischer T, Forsum U, Klareskog L. Phenotypic characterization in situ of inflammatory cells in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in man. Clin Exp Immunol 1984; 55:81–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Ferguson J, Gibbs JH, Swanson Beck J. Lymphocyte subsets and Langerhans cells in allergic and irritant patch test reactions: histometric studies. Contact Dermatitis 1985; 13:166–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Avnstorp C, Ralfkiaer E, Jorgensen J, Lange Wantzin G. Sequential immunophenotypic study of lymphoid infiltrate in allergic and irritant reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 16:239–245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Brasch J, Burgand J, Sterry W. Common pathogenetic pathways in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 1992; 98:364–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Willis CM, Stephens CJM, Wilkinson JD. Differential patterns of epidermal leukocyte infiltration in patch tests reactions to structurally unrelated chemical irritants. J Invest Dermatol 1993; 101:364–370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Scheuplein RJ, Ross L. Effects of surfactants and solvents on the permeability of epidermis. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1970; 21:853–873

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Elias PM. Epidermal lipids, barrier function, and desquamation. J Invest Dermatol 1983; 80:44S–49S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. van der Valk PGM, Nater JP, Bleumink E. Skin irritancy of surfactants as assessed by water vapor loss measurements. J Invest Dermatol 1984; 82:291–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Leveque JL, de Rigal J, Saint-Leger D, Billy D. How does sodium lauryl sulfate alter the skin barrier function in man ? A multiparametric approach. Skin Pharmacol 1993; 6:111–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Froebe CL, Simion FA, Rhein LD, Cagan LH, Kligman A. Stratum corneum lipid removal by surfactants: relation to in vivo irritation. Dermatologica 1990; 181:277–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Forslind B. A domain mosaic model of the skin barrier. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1994; 74:1–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Lee CH, Maibach HI. The sodium lauryl sulfate model: an overview. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Bioengineering and the patch test. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 18:3–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Wilhelm KP, Saunders JC, Maibach HI. Quantification of sodium lauryl sulphate dermatitis in man: comparison of four techniques: skin color reflectance, transepidermal water loss, laser Doppler flow measurement and visual scores. Arch Dermatol Res 1989; 281:293–295

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Agner T, Serup J., Sodium lauryl sulphate for irritant patch testing—a dose-response study using bioengineering methods for determination of skin irritation. J Invest Dermatol 1990; 95:543–547

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Agner T, Serup J. Individual and instrumental variations in irritant patch-test reactions—clinical evaluation and quantification by bioengineering methods. Clin Exp Dermatol 1990; 15:29–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Nilsson GE, Otto U, Wahlberg JE. Assessment of skin irritancy in man by laser Doppler flowmetry. Contact Dermatitis 1982; 8:401–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Robertson AR. The CIE 1976 color difference formulas. Color Res Appl 1977; 2:7–11

    Google Scholar 

  69. Babulak SW, Rhein LD, Scala DD, Simion FA, Grove GL. Quantification of erythema in a soap chamber test using the Minolta Chroma (reflectance) Meter: comparison of instrumental results with visual assessment. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1986; 37:475–479

    Google Scholar 

  70. Serup J, Agner T. Colorimetric quantification of erythema—a comparison of two colorimeters (Lange Micro Color and Minolta Chroma Meter CR-200) with a clinical scoring scheme and laser Doppler flowmetry. Clin Exp Dermatol 1990; 15:267–272

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Serup J, Staberg B, Klemp P. Quantification of cutaneous edema in patch test reactions by measurement of skin thickness with high-frequency pulsed ultrasound. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 10:88–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Seidenari S, di Nardo A. B-scanning evaluation of irritant reactions with binary transformation and image analysis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) (Suppl) 1992; 175:9–13

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Lee KY, Shin KY, Park CW, Lee CH. Cutaneous irritation to sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium lauroyl glutamate. Kor J Dermatol 1997; 35:491–498

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Serup J (1995) The spectrum of irritancy and application of bioengineering techniques. In: Elsner P, Maibach HI (eds) Irritant dermatitis. New clinical and experimental aspects, Karger, Basel, pp 131–143

    Google Scholar 

  75. Tupker RA, Pinnagoda J, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP. Susceptibility to irritants: role of barrier function, skin dryness and history of atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123:199–205

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Dahl MV, Trancik RJ. Sodium lauryl sulphate irritant patch tests: degree of inflammation at various times. Contact Dermatitis 1977; 3:263–266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Wilhelm KP, Freitag G, Wolff HH. Surfactant-induced skin irritation and skin repair. Evaluation of the acute human irritation model by noninvasive techniques. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994; 30:944–949

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Shin KY, Park CW, Lee CH. Perturbation and recovery of the skin barrier function after tape stripping and sodium lauryl sulfate irritation. Kor J Dermatol 2000; 38:183–190

    Google Scholar 

  79. Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Cutaneous sodium lauryl sulphate irritation potential: age and regional variability. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123:607–613

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Elsner P, Wilhelm D, Maibach HI. Sodium lauryl sulfate-induced irritant contact dermatitis in vulvar and forearm skin of premenopausal and postmenopausal women. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990; 23:648–652

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Agner T. Basal transepidermal water loss, skin thickness, skin blood flow and skin colour in relation to sodium-lauryl-sulphate-induced irritation in normal skin. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25:108–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Bjornberg A. Skin reactions to primary irritants in men and women. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1975; 55:191–194

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D. Irritant reactivity in males and females. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17:276–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Tupker RA, Coenraads PJ, Pinnagoda J, Nater JP. Baseline transepidermal water loss (TEWL) as a prediction of susceptibility to sodium lauryl sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 20:265–269

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Agner T, Damm P, Skouby SO. Menstrual cycle and skin reactivity. J Am Acad Dermatol 1991; 24:566–570

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. van der Valk PGM, Maibach HI. Potential for irritation increases from the wrist to the cubital fossa. Br J Dermatol 1989; 121:709–712

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Panisset F, Treffel P, Faivre B, Lecomte PB, Agache P. Transepidermal water loss related to volar forearm sites in humans. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1992; 72:4–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Dahl MV, Pass F, Trancik RJ. Sodium lauryl sulphate irritant patch tests. II. Variation of test responses among subjects and comparison to variations of allergic responses elicited by Toxicodendron extract. J Am Acad Dermatol 1984; 11:474–477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Rogiers V. Transepidermal water loss measurements in patch test assessment: the need for standardization, In: Elsner P, Maibach HI (eds) Irritant dermatitis. New clinical and experimental aspects, Karger, Basel, 1995; pp 152–158

    Google Scholar 

  90. Bjornberg A, Lowhagen G, Tengberg J. Relationship between intensities of skin test reactions to glass-fibres and chemical irritants. Contact Dermatitis 1979; 5:171–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Frosch PJ, Wissing C. Cutaneous sensitivity to ultraviolet light and chemical irritants. Arch Dermatol Res 1982; 272:269–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Sodium-lauryl-sulphate-induced cutaneous irritation. Comparison of white and Hispanic subjects. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 19:136–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Larmi E, Lahti A, Hannuksela M. Effect of ultraviolet B on nonimmunologic contact reactions induced by dimethyl sulfoxide, phenol and sodium lauryl sulphate. Photodermatol 1989; 6:258–262

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Agner T, Serup J. Seasonal variation of skin resistance to irritants. Br J Dermatol 1989; 121:323–328

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Spencer TS, Linamen CE, Akers WA, Jones HE. Temperature dependence of water content of the stratum corneum. Br J Dermatol 1975; 93:159–164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Frosch PJ, Kligman AM. Rapid blister formation in human skin with ammonium hydroxide. Br J Dermatol 1977; 96:461–473

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Murahata R, Crove DM, Roheim JR. The use of transepidermal water loss to measure and predict the irritation response to surfactants. Int J Cosmet Sci 1986; 8:225–231

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Susceptibility to irritant dermatitis induced by sodium lauryl sulphate. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990; 23:122–124

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Mitchell JC. Multiple concomitant positive patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1977; 3:315–320

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Andersen KE, Maibach HI. Cumulative irritancy in the guinea pig from low grade irritant vehicles and the angry skin syndrome. Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6:430–434

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Agner T. Skin susceptibility in uninvolved skin of hand eczema patients and healthy controls. Br J Dermatol 1991; 125:140–146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Bruynzeel DP, van Ketel WG, von Blomberg-van der Flier M, Scheper RJ. Angry back or the excited skin syndrome. J Am Acad Dermatol 1983; 8:392–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Shahidullah M, Raffle EJ, Rimmer AR, Frain-Bell W. Transepidermal water loss in patients with dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1969; 81:722–730

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. van der Valk PGM, Nater JP, Bleumink E. Vulnerability of the skin to surfactants in different groups of eczema patients and controls as measured by water vapour loss. Clin Exp Dermatol 1985; 10:98–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Agner T. Susceptibility of atopic dermatitis patients to irritant dermatitis caused by sodium lauryl sulphate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1990; 71:296–300

    Google Scholar 

  106. Cowley NC, Farr PM. A dose-response study of irritant reactions to sodium lauryl sulphate in patients with seborrheic dermatitis and atopic eczema. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1992; 72:432–435

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Lamintausta K, Maibach HI. Exogenous and endogenous factors in skin irritation. Int J Dermatol 1988; 27:213–222

    Google Scholar 

  108. Tollesson A, Frithz A. Transepidermal water loss and water content in stratum corneum in infantile seborrheic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1993; 73:18–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym Universuty, 948-1, Daerim- 1-dong, Youngdeungpo-ku, Seoul, 150-071, Korea

    Cheol Heon Lee

  2. Department of Dermatology, University of California, Box 0989, SURGE 110, 90 Medical Center Way, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA

    Howard I. Maibach

Authors
  1. Cheol Heon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Howard I. Maibach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Apartment 34, Fourwestnine, 4 Maida Vale, London, W9 1SP, Great Britain

    Ai-Lean Chew

  2. School of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, University of California, Medical Center Way 90, 94143-0989, San Francisco, USA

    Howard I. Maibach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lee, C.H., Maibach, H.I. (2006). Sodium Lauryl Sulfate. In: Chew, AL., Maibach, H.I. (eds) Irritant Dermatitis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31294-3_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31294-3_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00903-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31294-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation