1. Anatomical Site Differences of Sodium Laurylsulphate Induced Irritation: Randomised controlled trial
D Leskur1, J Bukić1, A Petrić1,2, L Zekan1,2, D Rušić1, A Šešelja Perišin1, I Petrić1,2, M Stipić1, N Puizina-Ivić3, D Modun1
1Department of Pharmacy, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, Split, Croatia
2Split-Dalmatia County Pharmacy, Kneza Ljudevita Posavskog 12 b, Split, Croatia
3Department of Dermatovenerology, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, Split, Croatia
British Journal of Dermatology. DOI: /bjd.17633

2. Lead researcher

3. Introduction (1) What’s already known?
Sodium laurylsulphate (SLS) is commonly used to induce skin irritation.
The skin’s susceptibility to irritation could be dependent on anatomical location.

4. Introduction (2) What’s already known?
Anatomical differences in skin response to irritation has been observed in other irritation models such as tape stripping and benzalkonium chloride models.
Such differences are also possible in an SLS irritation model, as some studies with limited sample sizes suggested.

5. Objective
The primary aim of the study was to investigate anatomical variations in skin response to irritation and its effects on treatment in an SLS-induced irritant contact dermatitis.
The secondary aim of the study was to test the effectiveness of an emollient in the SLS-induced irritation model.

6. Methods (1)
25 young and healthy participants with written consent recruited
Median age: 22.0 years (Interquartile range: years)
14 females
Baseline skin parameters measured
Instrumental (transepidermal water loss, erythema, hydration); and
Clinical scoring
Instrumentation used
– Tewameter, Corneometer, Mexameter (Courage+Khazaka, Cologne, Germany)

7. Methods (2) Irritation induction: Forearms and upper back
Exact sites where irritation was induced were decided randomly for each participant.
60 μL 2% w/v SLS solution under occlusion (12 mm Finn chambers) for 24 hours AND sham irritation: 60 μL water.
Irritation and recovery assessment: Instrumentation and clinical scoring
Fig.1. Test sites

8. Methods (3) Treatment: Commercially available emollient cream.
Chosen as a treatment based on its ingredients with previously shown positive effects.
One forearm and one side of the back treated with the emollient, while the other side was left untreated.
Second randomization to determine effects on the treated and untreated sites.
Fig.2. Trial timeline

9. Results (1)
Significantly stronger reaction on the upper back in comparison to the forearms.
Skin recovery rates (calculated from TEWL change over time) were also influenced by anatomical location with the upper back showing faster recovery.
Tested emollient did not lead to improvement of measured parameters in used model or intact skin.

10. Results (2) Fig.3. TEWL and (b) were irritated with SLS;
(b) and (d) were treated with emollient;
All data given as mean and SD, unless stated otherwise

11. Results (3) Fig.4. Erythema – difference from baseline
and (b) were irritated with SLS;
(b) and (d) were treated with emollient;
All data given as mean and SD, unless stated otherwise

12. Results (4) Fig.5. Hydration – difference from baseline
and (b) were irritated with SLS;
(b) and (d) were treated with emollient

13. Results (5) Fig. 6. Barrier recovery rates and derived parameters
(a) AUC
(b) AUC/TEWL(irritation)#
(c) AUC/(TEWL(9th day)/TEWL(baseline))
* Significant difference between barrier recovery rates.Results are given as median± interquartile range.
# Data multiplied by 100 to be up-to-scale and shown on the
same chart for more clarity.

14. Discussion (1)
Proposed reasons for differences in skin reactivity and recovery
Morphological differences of the skin on different anatomical locations.
Variations in stratum corneum ceramides and natural moisturizing factor (NMF) constituents.
Differences in SLS skin permeability.
Baseline skin values of cytokines IL-1RA and IL-8.

15. Discussion (2)
Baseline erythema and hydration values were significantly different between forearms and upper back.
TEWL values between anatomical locations were comparable.
TEWL was suggested as an irritation predictor
Higher baseline TEWL means stronger reaction to the irritant.

16. Discussion (3)
TEWL did not accurately predict a reaction in the present study.
Skin properties and susceptibility to irritation dependent on anatomical location.
Different skin sites - varied responses to treatment.

17. Discussion (4) Most conducted studies tested the efficacy on forearms
Possible that the achieved effects could not be replicated on other locations.
Moreover, this could explain why treatments tested across different studies could not be directly compared to each other.
Importance of accurate reporting of the test site locations.

18. Conclusions What does this study add?
This study tested the anatomical differences of SLS-induced irritation in a trial with a larger sample size compared to previously conducted research.
Baseline TWE, commonly used as an indicator of susceptibility to irritation, showed contrary results in this trial.
This trial investigated anatomical differences in recovery
To our knowledge, this is the first trial investigating anatomical difference in recovery under treatment.

19. The research team

20. Call for correspondence
Why not join the debate on this article through our correspondence section?
Rapid responses should not exceed 350 words, four references and one figure
Further details can be found here