High and low levels of matrix isotope were used
(3H: 242 and 12667 Bq, 14C: 587 and 1288 Bq, on average). selleck inhibitor Linear regressions were calculated to evaluate a possible influence. Additionally, the independence of test compound absorption from the presence of an internal reference standard was investigated: The absorption characteristics of 14C-MCPA and 14C-caffeine in presence and absence of 3H-testosterone as well as 14C-testosterone in presence and absence of 3H-caffeine were examined in the identical experimental set-up. Mean and SDs were calculated for each group. Student’s t-test was performed with Microsoft Office Excel 2003. Significance (∗) was set at p ⩽ 0.05, high significance (∗∗) at p ⩽ 0.01 is indicated, too. Evaluation of binary differentiation of human skin samples by the standard integrity tests TEER, TEWL and TWF is based on the results given in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. Shown are mean, min and max values for the absorption of four test compounds through excised or reconstructed human skin samples separately for valid and invalid skin samples. The integrity or validity of the skin preparations were judged by the standard limit values for human skin of TEER, TEWL and TWF. TEWL and
TWF lead to more skin preparations selleck chemicals classified as ‘invalid’ than TEER. In fact, there was almost no need for exclusion with the cut-off level set 1 kΩ. Even the reconstructed human skin samples providing generally a minor barrier function (Schäfer-Korting et al., 2008) and showing apparent higher absorption values for the test compounds, were Pregnenolone classified as valid. In general, based on TEWL and TWF the mean absorption values (Kp and AD) for 14C-caffeine, 14C-testosterone and 14C-MCPA were higher in invalid skin preparations compared to the valid skin samples. However, the min–max ranges of absorption values in valid and invalid skin preparations overlapped; this is when high max values for valid and low min values for invalid skin samples were present. The individual maxKp values for the single human skin preparations are visualized
in Fig. 1. In this example, classification in valid (open symbols) and invalid (filled symbols) skin samples is based on TEWL, cut-off 10 g m−2 h−1. As to be expected from the well-known higher permeability of reconstructed epidermis or reconstructed full-thickness skin compared to human skin (Ackermann et al., 2010 and Schäfer-Korting et al., 2008), invalid data are predominantly obtained when testing in the constructs (shown as triangles in Fig. 1). If the constructs were analogously classified as principally invalid by TWF could not be investigated in this study. Due to the observed fragility of the tissue, including the sensitivity to washing steps being part of this pre-test, TWF was waived for the constructs. Next we tested more liberal cut-off levels.