Minimal erythema dose, minimal persistent pigment dose which model for whitening products evaluation is better?

Background/Aims How to select a suitable method in whitening products evaluation is still under discussion. Here, we compared two different artificial pigmentation models and explored an ideal UV dosage for skin whitening products evaluation model establishment. Methods Thirty five healthy volunteer...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Skin research and technology 2019-03, Vol.25 (2), p.204-210
Hauptverfasser: Li, Xiangzi, Zheng, Yue, Ye, Congxiu, Theng, Angelie Tengguna, Diana, Yin, Songchao, Lai, Wei
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 210
container_issue 2
container_start_page 204
container_title Skin research and technology
container_volume 25
creator Li, Xiangzi
Zheng, Yue
Ye, Congxiu
Theng, Angelie Tengguna
Diana
Yin, Songchao
Lai, Wei
description Background/Aims How to select a suitable method in whitening products evaluation is still under discussion. Here, we compared two different artificial pigmentation models and explored an ideal UV dosage for skin whitening products evaluation model establishment. Methods Thirty five healthy volunteers with type IV human skin were recruited and the skin minimal erythema dose (MEDs) and minimal persistent pigment dose (MPPDs) were measured. All volunteers were simultaneously exposed to six increasing doses of radiations from different ultraviolet sources on lower back bilateral flattening area: 95% UVA/5% UVB with the radiating doses of 0.75, 0.94, 1.17, 1.46, 1.83, 2.29 MEDs was used on the left side; meanwhile 99% UVA/1% UVB with radiating doses of 6.0, 7.5, 9.4, 11.7, 14.6, 18.3 MPPDs were used on the right side. Observations and pigmentation measurements were carried out before and after UV radiation for 24 weeks. Result 1.83 MED and 2.29 MED induced medium depth pigmentation by 95% UVA/5% UVB irradiation. 1.83 MED dose causing minimal photo‐damage on skin was selected as the most suitable dose. With 99% UVA/1% UVB irradiation, 9.4 MPPD and 11.7 MPPD induced medium depth pigmentation. 9.4 MPPD dose causing minimal photo‐damage on skin was selected. Conclusion These findings potentiate advanced understanding of UV model establishment and selection for skin whitening products evaluation as related to dermatopharmacology and dermatotoxicology.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/srt.12639
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2125295258</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2194010495</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-8506367940e68115fcc6b02431bb68a29f0b364a35dcc9da9fea5475e1ad64543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10d9LwzAQB_AgipvTB_8BCfiiYDVpmqx5EhF_gSLoBN9Kml5dRtvMJFX235u56YNgXo4cH74cdwjtU3JK4zvzLpzSVDC5gYZUEJKQPBObaEgkkcmYp68DtOP9jBDCJWXbaMAI42NJ5RDZB9OZVjUY3CJMoVW4sh5OcLtuz8F54wN0Ac_NW7usS4A_p0ZPcWsraHBt3fIfkene8NzZqtfBY_hQTa-CsR02HpcQArjzXbRVq8bD3rqO0Mv11eTyNrl_vLm7vLhPNONMJjkngomxzAiInFJeay1KkmaMlqXIVSprUjKRKcYrrWWlZA2KZ2MOVFUi4xkboaNVbhznvQcfitZ4DU2jOrC9L1Ka8lTylOeRHv6hM9u7Lk4XVZyAkkzyqI5XSjvrvYO6mLu4IbcoKCmWVyjiFYrvK0R7sE7syxaqX_mz9gjOVuDTNLD4P6l4fpqsIr8Ae4KR_w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2194010495</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Minimal erythema dose, minimal persistent pigment dose which model for whitening products evaluation is better?</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><creator>Li, Xiangzi ; Zheng, Yue ; Ye, Congxiu ; Theng, Angelie Tengguna ; Diana ; Yin, Songchao ; Lai, Wei</creator><creatorcontrib>Li, Xiangzi ; Zheng, Yue ; Ye, Congxiu ; Theng, Angelie Tengguna ; Diana ; Yin, Songchao ; Lai, Wei</creatorcontrib><description>Background/Aims How to select a suitable method in whitening products evaluation is still under discussion. Here, we compared two different artificial pigmentation models and explored an ideal UV dosage for skin whitening products evaluation model establishment. Methods Thirty five healthy volunteers with type IV human skin were recruited and the skin minimal erythema dose (MEDs) and minimal persistent pigment dose (MPPDs) were measured. All volunteers were simultaneously exposed to six increasing doses of radiations from different ultraviolet sources on lower back bilateral flattening area: 95% UVA/5% UVB with the radiating doses of 0.75, 0.94, 1.17, 1.46, 1.83, 2.29 MEDs was used on the left side; meanwhile 99% UVA/1% UVB with radiating doses of 6.0, 7.5, 9.4, 11.7, 14.6, 18.3 MPPDs were used on the right side. Observations and pigmentation measurements were carried out before and after UV radiation for 24 weeks. Result 1.83 MED and 2.29 MED induced medium depth pigmentation by 95% UVA/5% UVB irradiation. 1.83 MED dose causing minimal photo‐damage on skin was selected as the most suitable dose. With 99% UVA/1% UVB irradiation, 9.4 MPPD and 11.7 MPPD induced medium depth pigmentation. 9.4 MPPD dose causing minimal photo‐damage on skin was selected. Conclusion These findings potentiate advanced understanding of UV model establishment and selection for skin whitening products evaluation as related to dermatopharmacology and dermatotoxicology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0909-752X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0846</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/srt.12639</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30357919</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Animal models ; Dosage ; Erythema ; Evaluation ; Irradiation ; minimal erythema dose ; minimal persistent pigment dose ; Pigmentation ; Radiation damage ; Radiation dosage ; Skin ; ultraviolet ; Ultraviolet radiation</subject><ispartof>Skin research and technology, 2019-03, Vol.25 (2), p.204-210</ispartof><rights>2018 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2018 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-8506367940e68115fcc6b02431bb68a29f0b364a35dcc9da9fea5475e1ad64543</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-8506367940e68115fcc6b02431bb68a29f0b364a35dcc9da9fea5475e1ad64543</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1847-2375</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fsrt.12639$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fsrt.12639$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,11543,27905,27906,45555,45556,46033,46457</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fsrt.12639$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30357919$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Li, Xiangzi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Yue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ye, Congxiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Theng, Angelie Tengguna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yin, Songchao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lai, Wei</creatorcontrib><title>Minimal erythema dose, minimal persistent pigment dose which model for whitening products evaluation is better?</title><title>Skin research and technology</title><addtitle>Skin Res Technol</addtitle><description>Background/Aims How to select a suitable method in whitening products evaluation is still under discussion. Here, we compared two different artificial pigmentation models and explored an ideal UV dosage for skin whitening products evaluation model establishment. Methods Thirty five healthy volunteers with type IV human skin were recruited and the skin minimal erythema dose (MEDs) and minimal persistent pigment dose (MPPDs) were measured. All volunteers were simultaneously exposed to six increasing doses of radiations from different ultraviolet sources on lower back bilateral flattening area: 95% UVA/5% UVB with the radiating doses of 0.75, 0.94, 1.17, 1.46, 1.83, 2.29 MEDs was used on the left side; meanwhile 99% UVA/1% UVB with radiating doses of 6.0, 7.5, 9.4, 11.7, 14.6, 18.3 MPPDs were used on the right side. Observations and pigmentation measurements were carried out before and after UV radiation for 24 weeks. Result 1.83 MED and 2.29 MED induced medium depth pigmentation by 95% UVA/5% UVB irradiation. 1.83 MED dose causing minimal photo‐damage on skin was selected as the most suitable dose. With 99% UVA/1% UVB irradiation, 9.4 MPPD and 11.7 MPPD induced medium depth pigmentation. 9.4 MPPD dose causing minimal photo‐damage on skin was selected. Conclusion These findings potentiate advanced understanding of UV model establishment and selection for skin whitening products evaluation as related to dermatopharmacology and dermatotoxicology.</description><subject>Animal models</subject><subject>Dosage</subject><subject>Erythema</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Irradiation</subject><subject>minimal erythema dose</subject><subject>minimal persistent pigment dose</subject><subject>Pigmentation</subject><subject>Radiation damage</subject><subject>Radiation dosage</subject><subject>Skin</subject><subject>ultraviolet</subject><subject>Ultraviolet radiation</subject><issn>0909-752X</issn><issn>1600-0846</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10d9LwzAQB_AgipvTB_8BCfiiYDVpmqx5EhF_gSLoBN9Kml5dRtvMJFX235u56YNgXo4cH74cdwjtU3JK4zvzLpzSVDC5gYZUEJKQPBObaEgkkcmYp68DtOP9jBDCJWXbaMAI42NJ5RDZB9OZVjUY3CJMoVW4sh5OcLtuz8F54wN0Ac_NW7usS4A_p0ZPcWsraHBt3fIfkene8NzZqtfBY_hQTa-CsR02HpcQArjzXbRVq8bD3rqO0Mv11eTyNrl_vLm7vLhPNONMJjkngomxzAiInFJeay1KkmaMlqXIVSprUjKRKcYrrWWlZA2KZ2MOVFUi4xkboaNVbhznvQcfitZ4DU2jOrC9L1Ka8lTylOeRHv6hM9u7Lk4XVZyAkkzyqI5XSjvrvYO6mLu4IbcoKCmWVyjiFYrvK0R7sE7syxaqX_mz9gjOVuDTNLD4P6l4fpqsIr8Ae4KR_w</recordid><startdate>201903</startdate><enddate>201903</enddate><creator>Li, Xiangzi</creator><creator>Zheng, Yue</creator><creator>Ye, Congxiu</creator><creator>Theng, Angelie Tengguna</creator><creator>Diana</creator><creator>Yin, Songchao</creator><creator>Lai, Wei</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1847-2375</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201903</creationdate><title>Minimal erythema dose, minimal persistent pigment dose which model for whitening products evaluation is better?</title><author>Li, Xiangzi ; Zheng, Yue ; Ye, Congxiu ; Theng, Angelie Tengguna ; Diana ; Yin, Songchao ; Lai, Wei</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-8506367940e68115fcc6b02431bb68a29f0b364a35dcc9da9fea5475e1ad64543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Animal models</topic><topic>Dosage</topic><topic>Erythema</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Irradiation</topic><topic>minimal erythema dose</topic><topic>minimal persistent pigment dose</topic><topic>Pigmentation</topic><topic>Radiation damage</topic><topic>Radiation dosage</topic><topic>Skin</topic><topic>ultraviolet</topic><topic>Ultraviolet radiation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Xiangzi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Yue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ye, Congxiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Theng, Angelie Tengguna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yin, Songchao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lai, Wei</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Skin research and technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Xiangzi</au><au>Zheng, Yue</au><au>Ye, Congxiu</au><au>Theng, Angelie Tengguna</au><au>Diana</au><au>Yin, Songchao</au><au>Lai, Wei</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Minimal erythema dose, minimal persistent pigment dose which model for whitening products evaluation is better?</atitle><jtitle>Skin research and technology</jtitle><addtitle>Skin Res Technol</addtitle><date>2019-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>204</spage><epage>210</epage><pages>204-210</pages><issn>0909-752X</issn><eissn>1600-0846</eissn><abstract>Background/Aims How to select a suitable method in whitening products evaluation is still under discussion. Here, we compared two different artificial pigmentation models and explored an ideal UV dosage for skin whitening products evaluation model establishment. Methods Thirty five healthy volunteers with type IV human skin were recruited and the skin minimal erythema dose (MEDs) and minimal persistent pigment dose (MPPDs) were measured. All volunteers were simultaneously exposed to six increasing doses of radiations from different ultraviolet sources on lower back bilateral flattening area: 95% UVA/5% UVB with the radiating doses of 0.75, 0.94, 1.17, 1.46, 1.83, 2.29 MEDs was used on the left side; meanwhile 99% UVA/1% UVB with radiating doses of 6.0, 7.5, 9.4, 11.7, 14.6, 18.3 MPPDs were used on the right side. Observations and pigmentation measurements were carried out before and after UV radiation for 24 weeks. Result 1.83 MED and 2.29 MED induced medium depth pigmentation by 95% UVA/5% UVB irradiation. 1.83 MED dose causing minimal photo‐damage on skin was selected as the most suitable dose. With 99% UVA/1% UVB irradiation, 9.4 MPPD and 11.7 MPPD induced medium depth pigmentation. 9.4 MPPD dose causing minimal photo‐damage on skin was selected. Conclusion These findings potentiate advanced understanding of UV model establishment and selection for skin whitening products evaluation as related to dermatopharmacology and dermatotoxicology.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>30357919</pmid><doi>10.1111/srt.12639</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1847-2375</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 0909-752X
ispartof Skin research and technology, 2019-03, Vol.25 (2), p.204-210
issn 0909-752X
1600-0846
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2125295258
source Wiley Online Library Open Access
subjects Animal models
Dosage
Erythema
Evaluation
Irradiation
minimal erythema dose
minimal persistent pigment dose
Pigmentation
Radiation damage
Radiation dosage
Skin
ultraviolet
Ultraviolet radiation
title Minimal erythema dose, minimal persistent pigment dose which model for whitening products evaluation is better?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T05%3A56%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Minimal%20erythema%20dose,%20minimal%20persistent%20pigment%20dose%20which%20model%20for%20whitening%20products%20evaluation%20is%20better?&rft.jtitle=Skin%20research%20and%20technology&rft.au=Li,%20Xiangzi&rft.date=2019-03&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=204&rft.epage=210&rft.pages=204-210&rft.issn=0909-752X&rft.eissn=1600-0846&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/srt.12639&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_24P%3E2194010495%3C/proquest_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2194010495&rft_id=info:pmid/30357919&rfr_iscdi=true