發(fā)布時間：2018-06-04 11:35

  本文選題：辛辣食物 + 咪唑烷基脲　； 參考：《延邊大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的：化妝品中的防腐劑是導(dǎo)致化妝品皮炎產(chǎn)生的主要原因,化妝品皮炎是指人們在日常生活中由于使用化妝品而引起的皮膚及其附屬器的病變化。本課題通過動物實驗研究,在對小鼠進行辛辣食物持續(xù)灌胃后誘導(dǎo)出變態(tài)反應(yīng)模型,觀察二種最常用防腐劑即咪唑烷基脲、尼泊金乙酯對皮膚的反應(yīng),達到為相關(guān)疾病的預(yù)防和診治提供實驗依據(jù)的目的。 方法：將100只小鼠隨機分為5組,空白組,咪唑烷基脲對照組,辛辣咪唑烷基脲組,尼泊金乙酯對照組,辛辣尼泊金乙酯刺激組。用辛辣食物-10%辣椒煎液和56度酒精的混合液,分別采用同等劑量10ml/(kg.d)給小鼠灌食辣椒煎液和酒精混合液,對照組為生理鹽水給予小鼠灌胃,每日1次,7天之后觀察小鼠的體征情況并評分。辛辣造模完成后,在小鼠的腹部分別注射二種防腐劑的原液,此過程稱之為變態(tài)反應(yīng)的誘導(dǎo)過程。第7天誘導(dǎo)過程結(jié)束后,觀察小鼠體征并評分,然后進行變態(tài)反應(yīng)的激發(fā)過程,分別在小鼠背部涂抹0.6%咪唑烷基脲和尼泊金乙酯原液。之后分別觀察24h、48h、72h小鼠的皮膚反應(yīng),根據(jù)《化妝品衛(wèi)生規(guī)范》規(guī)定的皮膚變態(tài)反應(yīng)進行判斷評分,并取受試動物的皮膚進行組織病理學(xué)檢驗。 結(jié)果：辛辣組與對照組動物相比較,辛辣組出現(xiàn)明顯的刺激體征,在統(tǒng)計學(xué)上有顯著性差異(P0.01)；誘導(dǎo)激發(fā)以后,各組辛辣組與對照組都出現(xiàn)不同程度的紅斑及水腫,組織病理評分顯示：各組辛辣組與對照組在統(tǒng)計學(xué)上有顯著性差異(P0.01)；二種防腐劑相比,咪唑烷基脲組與尼泊金乙酯組對照組和辛辣組之間組織病理評分無統(tǒng)計學(xué)差異；空白組與兩種防腐劑的對照組及辛辣組的組織病理評分相比在統(tǒng)計學(xué)上有顯著性差異(P0.01)。 結(jié)論：本實驗中所使用辣椒、酒精的辛辣刺激混合物的劑量和濃度能夠在小鼠皮膚上誘導(dǎo)出辛辣刺激的體征；這種狀態(tài)能夠加重二種防腐劑的皮膚變應(yīng)性接觸性皮炎,皮膚反應(yīng)強度與防腐劑的種類也有關(guān)；辛辣物質(zhì)刺激狀態(tài)下防腐劑的致敏強度也發(fā)生變化,因此在日常相關(guān)疾病的診治時應(yīng)注意食用辛辣食物的影響。
[Abstract]:Objective: preservatives in cosmetics are the main causes of cosmetic dermatitis. Cosmetic dermatitis refers to the changes of skin and its appendages caused by the use of cosmetics in daily life. In this study, the allergic reaction model was induced in mice after continuous oral administration of spicy food, and the reaction of imidazolyl urea and ethyl nipogenide to skin was observed. To provide experimental basis for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of related diseases. Methods: 100 mice were randomly divided into 5 groups: blank group, imidazolyl urea control group, pungent imidazole alkylurea group, nipagin ethyl ester control group and pranipagin ethyl ester stimulation group. Mice were given pepper decoction and alcohol mixture with the same dose of 10 ml / kg 路d of pepper and 56 degrees alcohol with spicy food -10% pepper decoction. The control group was given normal saline by intragastric administration. The signs of the mice were observed and scored after 7 days once a day. After making the model, the mice were injected with the original solution of two kinds of preservatives separately, which was called the induction process of allergic reaction. After the induction on the 7th day, the physical signs of the mice were observed and scored, and then the allergic reaction was stimulated. 0.6% imidazolyl urea and ethyl nipogen were applied on the back of the mice, respectively. Then, the skin reaction of mice was observed for 24 h or 48 h or 72 h, and the skin hypersensitivity was evaluated according to the Standard of Cosmetic Hygiene, and the skin of the tested animals was examined by histopathology. Results: compared with the control group, the pungent group showed obvious irritation signs, there was significant difference in statistics (P 0.01), after induced stimulation, the pungent group and the control group had different degrees of erythema and edema. The histopathological score showed that there was significant statistical difference between the spicy group and the control group (P 0.01), the histopathological scores of the two preservatives were not significantly different between the imidazolyl urea group and the control group and the pungent group between the imidazolyl urea group and the nipagin ethyl ester group. The histopathological scores of the blank group were significantly different from those of the control group and the pungent group (P 0.01). Conclusion: the dose and concentration of the mixture of pungent stimuli of alcohol in this experiment can induce the signs of irritation on the skin of mice, which can aggravate allergic contact dermatitis of two kinds of preservatives. The skin reaction intensity was also related to the type of preservatives, and the sensitizing intensity of preservatives also changed under the irritation of spicy substances, so we should pay attention to the influence of eating spicy foods in the diagnosis and treatment of daily diseases.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：R758.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 錢青;袁玲玲;李月花;翟萍;;化妝品皮炎41例臨床分析[J];中國醫(yī)藥導(dǎo)刊;2008年07期

2 張群豪;鄭家鏗;魏德煜;許少鋒;王學(xué)章;;慢性胃病脾胃濕熱患者外周血T淋巴細胞亞群的觀察[J];福建中醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報;1993年01期

3 陳小峰,許少峰,楊鴻,劉建忠,張茂青,嚴文華;免疫靈合劑對腎虛患者T淋巴細胞免疫功能的作用[J];福建中醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報;1999年03期

4 張倩;霍本興;;化妝品不良反應(yīng)監(jiān)測與研究進展[J];國外醫(yī)學(xué)(衛(wèi)生學(xué)分冊);2007年05期

5 黎敬波,葛金文;胃潰瘍胃實寒、實熱證模型大鼠經(jīng)穴輻射熱、pH值、氧分壓的檢測研究[J];湖南中醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報;1998年03期

6 元穎,陳怡宏;中醫(yī)熱證動物模型造模方法概述[J];江蘇中醫(yī);2001年04期

7 劉瑋;;化妝品過敏及其診斷問題[J];臨床皮膚科雜志;2006年04期

8 秦鷗;王學(xué)民;;診斷性斑貼試驗的臨床應(yīng)用[J];臨床皮膚科雜志;2007年12期

9 季光,邢練軍,曹承樓,王育群,張瑋,王奕;乙肝肝膽濕熱證與血清HA等的相關(guān)性研究[J];遼寧中醫(yī)雜志;2000年10期

10 房軍;賴維;王學(xué)民;李虹;李德如;劉瑋;;2005年全國化妝品皮膚病1053例臨床調(diào)查及分析[J];中國美容醫(yī)學(xué);2007年03期

，

本文編號：1977217