본 연구는 닭 진드기 구제를 목적으로 개발된 살비제인 와구잡이 II® (WGJB, 편백정유 : 계피정유 = 20 : 56)에 대하여 토끼와 기니픽을 이용하여 피부 자극성 및 감작성 평가를 각각 수행하였다. 일차피부자극시험에서 토끼의 피부에 WGJB를 24시간 동안 처리한 후 피부 자극성을 확인한 결과, WGJB는 비찰과 부위에서 홍반과 부종과 같은 어떠한 부작용도 일으키지 않았으나, 몇몇 토끼의 찰과 부위에서 매우 약한 홍반과 부종을 나타내어 WGJB의 1차 피부자극 지수는 0.625이었다. 따라서 WGJB는 약한 자극성이 있는 물질로 분류되었다. 피부감작성 시험에서 기니픽에 0.1 mL의 WGJB을 피내주사한 후 24시간 동안 감작시켰다. 감작 1주일 후 WGJB를 함유한 패취를 주사 부위에 부착하여 48시간 동안 처리한 다음, 2주 후에 WGJB 를 함유한 패취를 부착하여 감작을 야기시켰다. WGJB는 어떠한 알러지 반응도 나타내지 않았다. 따라서, 본 연구를 통하여 WGJB는 약한 피부 자극성을 가지며 감작성을 야기하지 않는 물질로 평가되었다.

This study was to evaluate the skin sensitization of potassium hydroxide (KOH) by the guinea pig maximization test. In the preliminary test, the induction and challenge dose of KOH were determined as 1.0 and 0.2%, respectively. Guinea pigs were sensitized with intradermal injection of 0.1ml KOH for 24 h. After 1 week, 1.0% of KOH was treated on the site of injection and 0.2% of KOH was challenged 2 weeks later. The average skin reaction evaluated by erythema and edema on the challenge sites and sensitization rate in the KOH-treatment group at 24 h were 0.0 and 0%, respectively, which are substantially low compared with in the 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene-treatment group (positive control group) (average skin reaction: 3.0, sensitization rate: 100%) and identical with in the distilled water-treatment group (negative control group), representing a weak sensitizing potential. The average skin reaction and sensitization rate observed at 48 h were 0.0 and 0% in the KOH-treatment group, respectively, and 2.0 and 100% in the positive control group, respectively. It was concluded that 1.0% of KOH classified to Grade I, induced no sensitization when tested in guinea pigs.

Despite the various effects on the health of Chamaecyparis obtusa essential oil (COEO), an adverse effect on the skin has recently been reported. Therefore, in this study, the skin sensitization test of COEO was conducted to confirm the skin safety of the essential oil by the guinea pig maximization test. Guinea pigs were sensitized with intradermal injection of 0.1ml COEO for 24 h. After 1 week, 5% of COEO was treated on the site of injection and 2% of the essential oil was challenged 2 weeks later. The average skin reaction evaluated by erythema and edema on the challenge sites and sensitization rate in the COEO-treatment group at 24 h were 0.0 and 0%, respectively, which are substantially low compared with in the 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene-treatment group (positive control group) (average skin reaction: 3.0, sensitization rate: 100%) and identical with in the olive oil-treatment group (negative control group), representing a weak sensitizing potential. The average skin reaction and sensitization rate observed at 48 h were 0.0 and 0% in the COEO-treatment group, respectively, and 2.0 and 100% in the positive control group, respectively. It was concluded that 5% of COEO classified to Grade I, induced no sensitization when tested in guinea pigs.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate differences in the sensitizing potential of Rhus Veniciflua(Rhus-II), when tested by the guinea pig maximization test(GPMT) and Freund's complete adjuvant test(FCAT) with an identical, intradermal induction concentration. A new grading. classification of the sensitization potential is proposed. The GPMT was conducted according to OECD guideline #406, using a multiple-dose design and test results were analysed with logistic regression analysis. During the induction stage, we injected intradermally each three site 0.1 ml( 1mg/animal) test material. 0.1ml complete Freund's adjuvant and 0.1ml the test agent emulsified in the adjuvant. 7 days later, we induced weak sensitization with 10% sodium lauryl sulfate(SLS) and applide 1ml(10mg/animal) test agent topically on the same site and made a tight occlusion. 14 days later we challenged with 1ml(10mg/animal) of test material on the flank and observed ant 24 hours and 48 hours later. The results were also observed 0% at 24 hours challenge. The results observed 48 hours after challenge were the identical. These data indicated that. although Rhus-II is a no contact allergen. It was reported that the skin sensitization by Rhus-II was not detected the skin sensitization in the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). Consequently, it was confirmed that Rhus-Il had no contact allergic sensitization in guinea pig maximization test.