Cited by 72Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicalsContact Dermatitis and AllergiesPesticide Exposure and Toxicity

Dermal toxicity elicited by phthalates: Evaluation of skin absorption, immunohistology, and functional proteomics

Pan, Tai-Long, Wang, Pei-Wen, Aljuffali, Ibrahim A., Hung, Yi-Yun, Lin, Chwan-Fwu, Fang, Jia-You·2014·Food and Chemical Toxicology

Abstract

The toxicity of phthalates is an important concern in the fields of environmental health and toxicology. Dermal exposure via skin care products, soil, and dust is a main route for phthalate delivery. We had explored the effect of topically-applied phthalates on skin absorption and toxicity. Immunohistology, functional proteomics, and Western blotting were employed as methodologies for validating phthalate toxicity. Among 5 phthalates tested, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) showed the highest skin reservoir. Only diethyl phthalate (DEP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) could penetrate across skin. Strat-M(®) membrane could be used as permeation barrier for predicting phthalate penetration through skin. The accumulation of DEHP in hair follicles was ∼15nmol/cm(2), which was significantly greater than DBP and DEP. DBP induced apoptosis of keratinocytes and fibroblasts via caspase-3 activation. This result was confirmed by downregulation of 14-3-3 and immunohistology of TUNEL. On the other hand, the HSP60 overexpression and immunostaining of COX-2 suggested inflammatory response induced by DEP and DEHP. The proteomic profiling verified the role of calcium homeostasis on skin inflammation. Some proteins investigated in this study can be sensitive biomarkers for dermal toxicity of phthalates. These included HSPs, 14-3-3, and cytokeratin. This work provided novel platforms for examining phthalate toxicity on skin.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fct.2013.12.033

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Others have observed a phthalate accumulation in skin.

    “Others have observed a phthalate accumula­ tion in skin (e.g., Ng et al., 1992 used mice and pig full thickness skin with a receptor medium of 40 % ethanol and determined the parent compounds; Pan et al., 2014 used hairless guinea pigs and quantified both parent compounds and metabolites).”

    From Human skin absorption of three phthalates (2024) · cites this paper as Pan et al., 2014

  • Phthalates are widespread contaminants in both indoor and outdoor environments.

    “It is known that phthalates are widespread contaminants in both indoor and outdoor environments, but the plastic industry continues to generate phthalates every year on a considerable scale.[4]”

    From Bad air gets under your skin (2017) · cites this paper as [4]

  • In daily life, exposure to phthalates can occur from building material, household furnishing, soil and dust.

    “In our daily lives, we can be exposed to this compound from building material, household furnishing, soil and dust.[4]”

    From Bad air gets under your skin (2017) · cites this paper as [4]

  • Phthalate exposure has potential for tumorigenesis.

    “A further concern of phthalate exposure is potential for tumorigenesis.”

    From Bad air gets under your skin (2017) · cites this paper as [4]

  • HSP27 was overexpressed with cutaneous phthalate exposure, suggesting tumorigenesis of squamous cell carcinoma.

    “HSP27 was overexpressed with cutaneous phthalate exposure, suggesting tumorigenesis of squamous cell carcinoma.[4]”

    From Bad air gets under your skin (2017) · cites this paper as [4]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pan, T.-L., Wang, P.-W., Aljuffali, I. A., Hung, Y.-Y., Lin, C.-F., & Fang, J.-Y.
Affiliations
  • Chang Gung University (TW)
  • Chang Gung University of Science and Technology (TW)
  • King Saud University (SA)
Corresponding author
  • Lin, Chwan-Fwu
  • Fang, Jia-You
Venue
Food and Chemical Toxicology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
65
Pages
105-114
ISSN
0278-6915 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972416559
Cited by
72
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Food and Chemical Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Pesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Keywords
phthalates, skin toxicity, percutaneous absorption, DEHP, diethyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, keratinocyte apoptosis, caspase-3, HSP60, cyclooxygenase-2, skin inflammation, calcium homeostasis, biomarkers, functional proteomics
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Mice, Nude, Phthalic Acids, Skin, Skin Absorption, Blotting, Western, Electrophoresis, Gel, Two-Dimensional, Biomarkers, Proteomics, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review