Martindale test

The Martindale abrader is usually seen as a four station machine which uses cloth as the abradant, but coarser and faster acting materials can be substituted. The principal feature of this machine is that the test pieces are rubbed successively in different directions as the motion takes the form of a Lissajous figure. It is mostly used with coated fabrics62. 

In researching resistance on rubber abrasion, a Martindale tester is used for com-parasions of various rubber samples. Five types of rubbers have been tested in five cycles on four tester positions. Design of experiment for five rubber types and five test cycles is the Youdens square shown in Table 2.85... 

Timothy J. Gardner, Exec. VP-Global Consumer Packaging Bus. Steven L. Martindale, Exec. VP/Head-Test Measurement Bus. David B. Speer, Chmn. 

Table 11.2 shows a comparison of common pill test methods. The best correlation between test method and actnal wear is fonnd when a variety of mechanical forces act npon the fabric dnring testing. For anti-pilling tests of a new article with strange pilling behavionr, the combination of at least two different methods is recommended. They shonld be based on different principles, for example a friction test (e.g. Martindale) and a shock or impact dominated test as RTPT or the shake box test."... 

Pilling test Martindale pilling tester Random tumble pilling tester (RTPT, Du Pont) Shake box (Pillbox ICI/Hoechst)... 

Anonymous, Random tumble pilling test beats Martindale method , Melliand International, 1999, 5(1), 88. 

Martindale J G, Method of Test for Abrasion Resistance of Fabrics , BS 5690, 1979. 

Here, we will concentrate on the pharmaceutical components responsible for occupation-related contact allergic reactions. Because little attention has been given in the literature to cosmetic ingredients, we will mention them briefly first. The test concentrations and vehicles for the allergenic substances and chemical intermediates (listed alphabetically along with their CAS numbers, whenever possible) as reported in the literature are given in Table 1. The pharmaceutical products described are classified as is in Martindale (1993). 

A woman who came into contact with several cephalosporins developed contact dermatitis lesions on the eyelids as well as pruritus and dryness of the nasal and oral mucosal membranes. Patch testing revealed positive reactions to cephalothin, cefamandole, and cefazolin (Conde-Salazar et al. 1986). Cephradine has also been described as a cause of occupational dermatitis in the pharmaceutical industry by Rudzki et al. (1989). Although cross-sensitivity with penicillins is possible (Martindale 1993), this was not reported in these cases. 

Questions concerning disinfectant activity of essential oils, for example, the minimum time needed to kill a given microbial species or the determination of microbial survivors after short time contact, are not answered by agar diffusion or DILs. In older literature, the killing concentration relative to phenol was determined after 15 or 30 min exposure of the respective microbials species to the compound to be tested. The so-called carboxylic acid coef cient or phenol coef cient was introduced in 1903 (Rideal and Walker, 1903) and was also taken for the characterization of the killing activity of essential oils toward microorganism (Martindale, 1910). 

Cetylpyridinium chloride is the l-hexadecylpyridiniuin chloride (USP/NF-. Eur.Ph.-. BP-. and Martindale-compliant). Lin ei al. (33) compared the primaiy ocular und dermal irritations of several quaternary monium compounds They concluded ihat the irritancy of these compounds is likely to be related to their solubility in addition to their cationic characteri.sttcs. Only cctylpyridinium chloride is very soluble in both lipids and water. It appears that not all of the quaternary ammonium compounds studied are irriianl. but cctylpyridinium chloride was sev erely irritating to the skin of the test animal. In a recent work. Green et al. (34) confirmed that ophthalmic medications containing ceiylpyridinium chloride are potentially hazardous to the comeal endothelium. 

Circular abrasion is based on the same concept as linear abrasion and it uses the same experimental apparatus with the only difference being the type of movement that the abradant material performs. In this case the abradant material has the shape of a disk and it performs a rotational motion. The only disadvantage in this case, compared to the linear abrasion, is that different parts of the abradant material move with different speeds. Even if in most of the cases this is not very crucial, we cannot exclude the possibility that this technique can produce diverse surface characteristics in the abraded surfaces. The Martindale method is a common circular abrasion test that is used mainly for evaluating textiles (see also Section 9.5.1). 

The testing methods are distinguished into line-shaped, area-shaped, and random methods. Most often, line-shaped contact between specimen and counter-surface is used because it is easy to realize and close to reality. The most commonly known procedure is the abrasion test according to Martindale. It is one of only a few that is standardized (DIN 53 863). 

The Martindale device consists of up to nine testing positions, which are electrically driven. The guiding plate moves the specimen in its holder across the abrasive agent as shown in Fig. 12.16 in a Lissajous movement. The abrasive agent consists of a standardized woolen fabric. A counter keeps track of the number of abrasive cycles. The pressure on the specimen can be adjusted by weights put on top of the holder. The measured value either represents the number of cycles to cause a hole in the fabric, or it is preset to a certain value and the surface is assessed visually after this number of cycles was completed. 

Pill formation can also be tested using the Martindale device. After a preset number of cycles, the specimen is visually assessed by comparing it with photographic standards. 

---