天美传媒

Skin toxicology; Adverse effects; Skin barrier; Toxicity mechanisms; In vitro testing; Human health; Safety assessment

Introduction

Skin serves as the primary interface between the human body and the external environment, making it susceptible to various toxic insults. Skin toxicology encompasses the study of adverse effects on the skin resulting from exposure to chemicals, physical agents (e.g., radiation, heat), and biological agents (e.g., microorganisms, allergens) [1]. Understanding skin toxicology is essential for assessing the safety of consumer products, occupational exposures, environmental pollutants, and pharmaceuticals [2]. This review provides a comprehensive overview of skin toxicology, including its underlying mechanisms, methods of assessment, regulatory considerations, and implications for human health and safety [3,4].

Skin barrier function

The skin functions as a protective barrier, preventing the entry of harmful substances while retaining essential moisture and nutrients [5]. The stratum corneum, the outermost layer of the epidermis, plays a crucial role in barrier function by providing resistance to chemical penetration. Disruption of the skin barrier, whether due to physical damage or chemical exposure, can increase susceptibility to toxic insults [6]. Understanding the structure and function of the skin barrier is essential for assessing the potential toxicity of exogenous substances.

Mechanisms of skin toxicity

Skin toxicity can manifest through various mechanisms, including irritancy, allergic sensitization, phototoxicity, and systemic absorption [7]. Irritant contact dermatitis results from direct damage to the skin barrier, leading to inflammation and tissue injury [8]. Allergic contact dermatitis, on the other hand, involves an immune-mediated response to specific allergens, resulting in delayed hypersensitivity reactions [9]. Phototoxicity occurs when certain chemicals absorb UV radiation, leading to the generation of reactive oxygen species and subsequent skin damage. Additionally, some substances can penetrate the skin and enter systemic circulation, causing adverse effects in internal organs [10].

Assessment of skin toxicity

The assessment of skin toxicity involves a combination of in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo testing methods. In vitro models, such as reconstructed human epidermis and cell-based assays, offer valuable tools for evaluating the irritancy and sensitization potential of chemicals. Ex vivo models, utilizing human or animal skin samples, provide insights into percutaneous absorption and tissue responses. In vivo studies, conducted in animals or human volunteers, allow for the evaluation of acute and chronic effects following dermal exposure. Integrating multiple testing approaches enables a comprehensive assessment of skin toxicity, considering factors such as exposure duration, dose-response relationships, and interindividual variability.

Regulatory considerations

Regulatory agencies worldwide mandate the safety assessment of chemicals and products intended for dermal exposure. Guidelines for skin toxicology testing aim to ensure the protection of human health and the environment while facilitating innovation and product development. Regulatory frameworks encompass various endpoints, including acute toxicity, skin irritation, sensitization, and phototoxicity. Compliance with regulatory requirements necessitates the use of validated testing methods, adherence to good laboratory practices, and transparent reporting of study findings. Continued efforts to refine regulatory guidelines and promote alternative testing strategies are essential for advancing skin toxicology science and enhancing safety assessments.

Implications for human health and safety

Skin toxicity poses significant implications for human health and safety across diverse settings, including consumer product use, occupational exposures, and environmental contamination. Exposure to skin toxicants can result in a range of adverse effects, from mild irritation to severe dermatological disorders and systemic toxicity. Vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with preexisting skin conditions, may be particularly susceptible to the effects of skin toxicants. Understanding the risks associated with skin exposure enables informed decision-making regarding product formulation, workplace safety measures, and environmental management practices.

Emerging trends and future directions

Advancements in skin toxicology research continue to drive innovation in hazard assessment and risk mitigation strategies. Emerging trends include the development of alternative testing methods, such as organ-on-a-chip technology and computational modeling, to reduce reliance on animal testing and enhance predictive capabilities. Furthermore, there is growing interest in understanding the interactions between environmental factors, genetic susceptibility, and skin toxicity outcomes. Future research directions encompass the elucidation of underlying mechanisms, the identification of biomarkers for early detection of skin toxicity, and the integration of exposure science into risk assessment frameworks.

Conclusion

Skin toxicology is a dynamic field encompassing the study of adverse effects on the skin resulting from exposure to a wide range of toxicants. Understanding the mechanisms of skin toxicity, methods of assessment, regulatory considerations, and implications for human health and safety is essential for addressing current challenges and advancing the field. By integrating multidisciplinary approaches and embracing emerging technologies, researchers can enhance our understanding of skin toxicology and promote strategies for mitigating risks associated with skin exposure to hazardous substances.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support from [Funding Agency] and express gratitude to colleagues for valuable discussions and feedback.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

1. Burdick JA, Vunjak-Novakovic G (2009) . Tissue Eng Part A15: 205-219.

,

2. Engler AJ., Sen S, Sweeney HL, Discher DE (2006) . Cell 126: 677-689.

,

3. Mao AS, Shin J-W, Mooney DJ (2016) . Biomaterials 98: 184-191.

,

4. Almalki SG, Agrawal DK (2016) . Differentiation 92: 41-51.

,

5. Kristensen DM, Kalisz M, Nielsen JH (2005) . APMIS 113:756-772.

,

6. Sato Y, Bando H, Di Piazza M, Gowing G (2019) . Cytotherapy 21: 1095-1111.

,

7. Barkholt L, Flory E, Jekerle V (2013) . Cytotherapy 15: 753-759.

,

8. Kircher MF, Gambhir SS, Grimm J (2011) . Nat Rev Clin. Oncol 8: 677-688.

,

9. Nguyen PK, Riegler J, Wu JC (2014) . Cell Stem Cell 14: 431-444.

,

10. Martí M, Mulero L, Pardo C (2013) . Nat Protoc 8: 223-253.

,