Spotlight on Pet Grooming: An Integrated Approach Towards Pet-Centric Products

The global pet-grooming market was valued at approximately $14.7 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $24.8 billion by 2033 (CAGR ~6%)¹. This market includes shampoos, conditioners, grooming tools, dryers and associated consumables. The broader pet-care sector, encompassing nutrition, veterinary services and accessories, was valued at approximately $273 billion in 2025 and is forecast to approach $497 billion by 2034 (CAGR ~8%)². This sustained expansion reflects increasing humanization of companion animals and growing demand for premium grooming solutions, particularly within Western markets such as the United States and the European Union.

A central question for this market concerns legal classification. Under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009³ and the United States Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA)⁴, cosmetics are defined by intended application to the human body. Human use is therefore determinative, and products formulated exclusively for animals fall outside cosmetic legislation despite functional similarity.

This regulatory distinction has substantive scientific implications. Although not legally considered cosmetics, pet-grooming formulations rely on cosmetic science principles, including surfactant chemistry, rheological optimization, conditioning polymer technology, microbiological preservation and claim substantiation. However, interspecies differences in integumentary structure, coat architecture, metabolic processing and behavioral exposure preclude direct translation from human paradigms. In the absence of harmonized, species-specific frameworks, manufacturers bear heightened responsibility to implement scientifically robust, welfare-oriented standards for safety and efficacy.

A Global Regulatory Overview

Despite functional parallels with human cosmetic products, pet-grooming formulations are not legally classified as cosmetics. Under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009³ and MoCRA⁴, a cosmetic product is defined by its intended application to the human body. Human use therefore constitutes the decisive legal criterion, and animal-specific grooming products fall outside cosmetic regulatory scope irrespective of compositional similarity.

A clear distinction must also be drawn between grooming products, veterinary medicinal products and biocidal products. Grooming formulations may not claim therapeutic, disinfectant or pest-control properties without triggering alternative regulatory pathways. Absent such claims, they are generally classified as chemical mixtures intended for general consumer use and regulated primarily under chemical safety legislation rather than sector-specific cosmetic frameworks.

Within the European Union, the principal regulatory instruments applicable to pet-grooming products include Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on General Product Safety⁵ Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP)⁶, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) and relevant provisions of biocidal legislation governing preservative substances. Although classification under the Detergents Regulation remains unresolved, Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1870 provides interpretative guidance through EU Ecolabel criteria, defining pet-care products as substances or mixtures intended to clean or improve an animal’s coat, explicitly excluding disinfectant and antibacterial products⁸. The European Parliament further confirmed, through Petition No 0911/2015, that such products fall outside cosmetic legislation and are instead subject to general product safety requirements⁹.

In the United States, oversight derives from the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200⁾⁷, Proposition 65 and Federal Trade Commission supervision of marketing claims. The US Food and Drug Administration does not regulate pet-grooming products unless therapeutic claims are made^10,11. Comparable regulatory approaches are observed internationally. In China, GB/T 43839:2024 establishes chemical safety and labelling requirements for such products¹², while in France, Proposition de loi No. 1711 (2025) seeks to introduce a safety-oriented framework modelled on human cosmetics regulation¹³.

Compliance with chemical safety legislation entails preparation of safety data sheets, hazard classification and labelling in accordance with the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) and adherence to REACH obligations. Preservatives must be selected in conformity with applicable biocidal legislation. Although use of an International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) list is not mandatory, voluntary ingredient disclosure may enhance transparency and consumer confidence.

Table 1 - Legal classification and regulatory framework of pet-care productsCourtesy of authors
Table 2 - Technical and compliance requirements of pet-care productsCoutesy of authors

The exclusion of pet-grooming products from cosmetic legislation establishes a regulatory domain characterized by structural ambiguity and elevated scientific responsibility. The absence of harmonized, species-specific frameworks necessitates rigorous toxicological assessment, transparent labelling and robust claim substantiation under general chemical safety legislation. 

As market expansion continues, regulatory convergence and clearer interpretative guidance will be essential to reduce fragmentation and ensure consistent standards of animal safety and consumer protection. Until such harmonization emerges, scientifically grounded self-governance informed by veterinary expertise remains the primary safeguard.

Veterinary Dermatology: Anatomical & Physiological Foundations for Pet-Care Formulation

The skin of dogs and cats differs fundamentally from that of humans in structure, physiology, microbiology, and behavior. These differences have direct implications for the safety, performance and risk profile of topical and grooming formulations. Epidermal architecture, surface pH, lipid composition, microbial ecology and grooming behavior collectively generate a more permeable and dynamically modulated barrier in companion animals. Heightened olfactory sensitivity and predictable licking behavior further necessitate low-odor formulations and ingredients demonstrating oral safety.

Structural Characteristics and Barrier Function

Mammalian skin consists of the epidermis, dermis and hypodermis; however, pronounced interspecies variation exists. In humans, the epidermis typically measures 90–100 μm in thickness, with regional variation¹⁴. In contrast, dogs exhibit epidermal thickness ranging approximately from 20 to 90 μm, and cats from 25 to 60 μm, with fewer nucleated keratinocyte layers^14-16. The reduced thickness of canine and feline epidermis, combined with a faster turnover rate of approximately 20 days (compared with approximately 28 days in humans), increases susceptibility to mechanical stress and environmental insult^15-17.

Canine and feline skin is highly follicle-centric. Each hair unit is associated with prominent sebaceous and apocrine glands, while eccrine glands are largely confined to paw pads. Consequently, absorption of topical products occurs predominantly via follicular pathways rather than through interfollicular epidermis. High hair density restricts direct skin contact and favors low-viscosity, highly spreadable and rinseable formulations over occlusive creams and pastes.

Surface pH and Lipid Composition

Human skin maintains a stable acidic pH between approximately 4.1 and 5.8^18,19, supported by eccrine secretion and filaggrin-derived natural moisturizing factors. This “acid mantle” regulates enzymatic activity, microbial balance and barrier integrity. In contrast, canine skin exhibits a neutral-to-alkaline pH (approximately 7.0–8.5), and feline skin approximately 6.4, with significant inter- and intra-individual variability^14,20. These differences influence preservative efficacy, surfactant performance, active ingredient ionization and microbial colonization.

The surface lipid film also differs substantially. Human sebum is rich in triglycerides, free fatty acids and squalene, whereas canine and feline surface lipids are predominantly epidermal in origin, composed primarily of ceramides, cholesterol, fatty acids and wax esters, with minimal squalene content. Reduced ceramide levels and increased waxiness diminish water-retention capacity and heighten vulnerability to aggressive surfactant systems.

Hydration and Transepidermal Water Loss

Natural moisturizing factor composition and lipid lamellar organization in dogs and cats are associated with elevated and more variable transepidermal water loss (TEWL) compared with humans^16,17. TEWL increases markedly in allergic or inflamed conditions, contributing to dryness and irritation. Accordingly, veterinary formulations should prioritize lipid replenishment and barrier modulation rather than relying predominantly on water-soluble humectants.

Repeated washing may further influence this balance. In humans, frequent cleansing is often socially-driven and generally integrated into daily hygiene practices; in companion animals, however, washing frequency is usually determined by owner preference, odor perception, coat appearance or lifestyle rather than by a clear biological requirement. Excessive or poorly justified bathing may remove surface lipids, increase TEWL, alter microbial equilibrium and exacerbate dryness or irritation, particularly when surfactant systems are not sufficiently mild or when rinsing is incomplete. Therefore, pet-grooming products should be designed and evaluated not only for single-use tolerance, but also for repeated-use scenarios that reflect real-world grooming habits.

Microbiota and Barrier Immunity

Human skin hosts a relatively stable microbiome, dominated by Cutibacterium, Staphylococcus and Corynebacterium species that are organized according to well-defined sebaceous, moist and dry niches²¹. In contrast, canine skin microbiota is more individualized and frequently enriched in Proteobacteria, including the Ralstonia species²². Inflammatory skin disease is associated with reduced microbial diversity and increased Staphylococcus abundance²³. In dogs, individual identity is the main determinant of microbial composition, whereas anatomical site has less influence than in humans, likely because dense hair coverage creates a more homogeneous cutaneous microenvironment.

Feline microbial communities are even more dynamic, shaped by frequent grooming and reduced bacterial adhesion to corneocytes. Allergic cats show altered staphylococcal profiles²⁴. Furthermore, unlike the Malassezia-dominated human mycobiome, the skin of dogs and cats harbors a more diverse fungal community, often dominated by environmental fungi, particularly Dothideomycetes^25,26. Together, these features indicate that companion animal skin differs from human skin not only in microbial composition, but also in barrier ecology and microbiome stability, making it more vulnerable to inappropriate pH, surfactant exposure and lipid residues from human topical or cosmetic products.

Behavioral Influences and Interspecific Exposure

Grooming behavior constitutes a defining biological variable. Licking reduces product persistence and creates predictable oral exposure pathways. In cats, keratinized lingual papillae facilitate retention and ingestion of lipid particles. Compounds considered dermally safe in humans, including certain terpenes, phenolics and solvents, may demonstrate neurotoxic or hepatotoxic effects when ingested. 

Pruritus represents an additional and clinically relevant behavioral driver. In dogs and cats, itch commonly leads to licking, scratching, rubbing, chewing and overgrooming, all of which may mechanically damage the skin barrier and modify the residence time, distribution and ingestion of topical products. This is particularly relevant because many grooming products are marketed with soothing, calming, sensitive-skin or anti-itch positioning, even when they are not intended to treat disease. Formulations used in itchy animals should therefore be assessed with particular caution, as barrier impairment, self-trauma and increased licking may amplify both dermal and oral exposure.

Further, heightened olfactory sensitivity renders fragrances and volatile compounds potential sources of aversion or stress. Lipophilic molecules may accumulate within sebaceous secretions and hair follicles, prolonging exposure and modulating microbial balance.

Animal welfare should therefore be considered an integral endpoint of pet-care formulation, not merely an ethical add-on. Products should minimize odor-related aversion, excessive residue, prolonged drying time, ocular or respiratory irritation and unpleasant tactile sensations that may increase stress or avoidance behavior. In cats, in particular, residue minimization is critical because self-grooming is frequent and ingestion is predictable. In dogs, coat type, bathing tolerance, drying time and brushing-related friction may substantially influence comfort. A welfare-oriented formulation should therefore combine dermatological compatibility, mechanical comfort, ease of rinsing, low sensory burden and realistic safety margins under repeated-use conditions.

Indirect exposure pathways also merit consideration. The skin functions as a bidirectional interface within domestic environments. Indirect exposure to topical hormone therapies in humans has been associated with alopecia and endocrine disturbances in dogs²⁷. Manual application of veterinary shampoos and creams necessitates consideration of human dermal safety, particularly with respect to sensitizing agents such as chlorhexidine²⁸.

Canine and feline integument differs fundamentally from that of humans in epidermal thickness, lipid organization, surface pH, microbiota ecology and grooming-mediated exposure. These interspecies distinctions redefine barrier function, percutaneous absorption and systemic risk. Simplistic translational application of human cosmetic paradigms is therefore scientifically untenable. Species-specific formulation strategies, preservative systems and exposure assessments must be anchored in veterinary dermatology, which provides the biological foundation for subsequent physicochemical optimization.

Flow, Friction and Foam Sciences for Pet-Centric Formulation Design

Animal coats are hierarchically organized, fibrous assemblies of insulating undercoat and protective guard hairs, exhibiting species- and breed-specific variability in fiber diameter, curvature, cuticle morphology, chemistry and spatial organization. Functionally, coats behave as anisotropic, multiscale porous media regulating fluid transport, capillary retention and mechanical stress during grooming. Unlike the relatively planar human skin surface, fur presents tortuous pathways and dynamic fiber rearrangement under shear. Formulation performance must therefore be evaluated within this structural and mechanical context.

Pet-centric formulation requires integrated rheology, tribology and foam dynamics to optimize flow, lubrication, friction and exposure kinetics under realistic grooming conditions, prioritizing welfare over anthropocentric sensory criteria.

Rheology, Tribology, and Foam Dynamics in Pet-Centric Formulation

Rheology governs the transport, penetration and residence of grooming formulations within heterogeneous coat architectures. Interdigitated guard hairs and undercoat fibers generate variable shear fields and capillary gradients that influence deposition, drainage and overall coating uniformity. Shear-thinning behavior is particularly advantageous, allowing viscosity reduction under brushing or manual agitation to facilitate penetration into dense undercoats, while viscosity recovery at rest limits run-off and prolongs product retention. 

Thixotropy further enhances performance during repetitive grooming cycles by enabling structural breakdown under shear and rebuilding at rest, promoting uniform wetting and stabilized surfactant and polymer adsorption, especially in dense or curly coats. Oscillatory viscoelasticity modulates film integrity under cyclic deformation: elastic-dominant systems (G′ > G″) maintain cohesion and uniform deposition, whereas viscous-dominant systems favor spreading but may increase drainage risk. 

Extensional rheology is critical in curved or mat-prone coats, as increased extensional resistance supports filament continuity and coating homogeneity along fibres. Environmental factors, including water hardness, ionic strength, pH, and temperature, alter polymer conformation and surfactant aggregation, further influencing rheological behavior^29-37.

Table 3 - Impact of rheological behavior on functional properties of pet-care product formatsCourtesy of authors

Tribology determines friction, adhesion, and wear within the fiber–tool–skin interface, directly affecting grooming comfort. Animal fur exhibits greater heterogeneity in diameter, curvature and surface chemistry than human hair, generating complex frictional responses^29,30. Elevated fiber–fiber friction increases grooming force and mechanical loading, particularly in dense or long-haired coats where entanglement and cuticular interlocking occur, potentially eliciting behavioral resistance or overgrooming. Formulation-mediated lubrication mitigates these effects via deposition of conditioning polymers, lipids and structured surfactant assemblies, smoothing asperities and redistributing shear stresses³². Optimization relies on quantitative measures such as static and dynamic friction coefficients and shear-induced fiber deformation. Rheology and tribology must be coordinated: overly viscous systems may hinder penetration, whereas excessively fluid formulations may fail to maintain lubricating interfaces. 

Table 4 - Tribological descriptors and their impact on pet grooming. Courtesy of authors

Foam contributes mechanical and transport functions beyond aesthetic perception. Surfactant-mediated air entrainment forms gas–liquid dispersions stabilized by interfacial viscoelasticity and polymers. Within fur, foam stability and drainage are determined by coat architecture, fiber hydrophobicity and packing density, influencing liquid retention, bubble persistence, stress redistribution and exposure kinetics. Species-specific tailoring is essential: coarse canine coats tolerate moderately stable foams supporting detangling, whereas fine feline coats benefit from rapidly draining, low-residue foams that minimize mechanical stress and cumulative exposure^25,36.

Table 5 - Foam descriptors and their impact of pet grooming. Courtesy of authors

Integrated Pet-Centric Design

Optimal performance arises from coordinated optimization of rheology, tribology and foam within species-specific anatomical and behavioral contexts. Rheology regulates flow and retention; tribology governs friction; foam modulates lubrication and exposure. Their interdependence necessitates systems-level design rather than isolated parameter adjustment³⁵.

Human-derived formulations often disregard differences in undercoat density, fiber curvature and skin physiology. High-viscosity systems may inadequately penetrate dense canine coats, while low-viscosity systems may drain rapidly from fine feline coats, increasing exposure and aversion^32,36. Species-specific optimization aligns viscosity, lubrication and foam stability with coat architecture and behavioral tolerance. Ingredient selection must complement mechanical optimization, with mild surfactants, conditioning polymers and pH adjustment consistent with species-specific barrier properties.

Table 6 - Integrating rheology, tribology, foam dynamics and ingredient selection for the optimization of pet-centric products.Courtesy of authors

Gaps and Future Directions

Species- and breed-specific characterization of coat rheology, tribology and foam dynamics remains limited. Reliance on human hair analogues constrains translational validity. Rheological assessment under realistic grooming conditions, particularly extensional and thixotropic behavior within intact coats, remains sparse, as do comparative tribological measurements. Foam behavior has largely been evaluated in simplified models^30,35,36.

Mechanistic parameters are rarely correlated with behavioral or welfare indicators, including grooming tolerance and stress responses. Future research should integrate multiscale rheological and tribological analyses of intact coats, advanced imaging and computational modelling, including predictive AI using multiple supervised machine learning algorithms, alongside behavioral and toxicological assessment. Such approaches will enable transition from empirically adapted human formulations to rigorously engineered, pet-centric systems achieving controlled flow, uniform coating, optimized lubrication and regulated foam behavior while minimizing mechanical trauma and chemical exposure³⁷.

The behavior of grooming formulations within fibrous coat systems constitutes a distinct domain of fluid and surface mechanics. Veterinary dermatology defines biological constraints, whereas rheology, tribology and foam science determine functional performance within those parameters. Effective pet-centric formulation, therefore, requires integrated systems-level optimization supported by species-specific empirical evidence rather than anthropocentric analogy.

Safety & Efficacy Testing: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects
 

Building upon the regulatory context and the species-specific dermatological foundations previously established, safety and efficacy assessment in pet-grooming product development requires translation of biological determinants into structured toxicological and performance evaluation frameworks. 

Whereas the preceding sections defined anatomical, biochemical and behavioral particularities of canine and feline integument, the present section operationalizes those determinants into measurable safety margins, exposure modelling strategies, and substantiated performance criteria. The objective is not to restate dermatological principles, but to define how those principles govern risk assessment, preservative strategy, compatibility testing and welfare-oriented validation. 

Toxicological and Exposure Assessment

Safety and efficacy evaluation in pet-grooming product development requires translation of species-specific dermatological determinants into structured toxicological and exposure frameworks. Rather than reiterating anatomical distinctions, this section operationalizes those determinants into measurable safety margins and performance criteria.

Safety substantiation must integrate dermal tolerance, sensitization potential, ocular compatibility, systemic toxicity and predictable oral exposure resulting from grooming-mediated ingestion. Owing to interspecies differences in epidermal thickness, lipid organization and TEWL, percutaneous absorption cannot be extrapolated from human cosmetic data. 

Species-adjusted toxicokinetic modelling is therefore required to estimate systemic availability following repeated topical application. Studies on canine barrier dysfunction demonstrate that altered lipid composition and microbiome perturbations may significantly influence percutaneous penetration and inflammatory responsiveness, particularly in predisposed individuals^33,35. Accordingly, safety assessments should incorporate barrier integrity status rather than assume uniform physiology.

Behavioral ingestion introduces an exposure route absent in human cosmetic use. Margin-of-safety calculations must account for estimated oral intake, frequency of application, and species-specific metabolic capacity. Substances undergoing glucuronidation require particular attention due to limited conjugation capacity in felines and interspecies variability in phase II metabolism. Preservative selection must balance antimicrobial efficacy with toxicological acceptability. Concentration limits derived from human frameworks may not ensure adequate safety margins in animals with distinct absorption and metabolic characteristics; thus, preservative efficacy testing and safety modelling should be co-optimized.

Dermatological Compatibility and Barrier Preservation

The focus shifts to functional resilience under repeated exposure. Surfactant systems must be evaluated for cumulative barrier perturbation at realistic grooming frequencies. Quantitative assessment of protein denaturation, lipid extraction, and residual deposition is necessary to identify subclinical irritation risk.

Methodologies may include in vitro corneocyte cohesion assays, ex vivo barrier integrity models, and TEWL measurements. Advances in three-dimensional skin models for domestic species provide relevant platforms for barrier evaluation³⁶. Non-animal in vitro methodologies developed for dermal safety testing support irritation, sensitization and phototoxicity screening within ethically aligned frameworks³⁷. pH optimization should reflect species-appropriate cutaneous ranges and prioritize maintenance of enzymatic and microbiological equilibrium. The objective is sustained barrier preservation under routine use.

Microbiological Stability and Ecological Balance

The dynamic cutaneous microbiota of dogs and cats necessitates dual objectives: preservation of product integrity during storage and maintenance of ecological stability following application. Challenge testing confirms preservative efficacy within the formulation matrix; however, evaluation of residual antimicrobial activity on skin may be required to assess dysbiosis risk.

Persistent antimicrobial systems may disrupt commensal equilibrium despite acceptable short-term tolerance. Sequencing-based analyses demonstrate that subtle barrier alterations correspond with measurable microbial shifts in canine skin³⁵, underscoring the importance of longitudinal ecological monitoring in frequently applied formulations.

Efficacy Substantiation and Welfare-Linked Performance

Efficacy evaluation must extend beyond cleansing capability to measurable mechanical and behavioural endpoints. Tribological reduction of combing force, gloss enhancement, controlled sebum removal and odor mitigation should be quantified using validated instrumental methods and correlated with behavioral indicators such as grooming tolerance and post-application overgrooming.

Owner-reported assessments provide contextual information; however, interpretation must consider documented anthropomorphic bias influencing perceived responses³⁸. Structured efficacy studies should integrate objective veterinary clinical scoring, instrumental analysis, and standardized behavioral assessment. Repeated-use designs are essential, as cumulative barrier alteration and microbiota modulation may emerge longitudinally. Efficacy is defined not solely by aesthetic improvement but by maintenance of integumentary health and grooming acceptability.

Safety and efficacy evaluation represents the applied integration of regulatory positioning, veterinary dermatology and formulation science. Biological determinants must be translated into quantifiable toxicological margins, exposure models and welfare-oriented performance metrics. Scientifically defensible and ethically aligned product development depends upon structured, species-adjusted risk assessment and longitudinal validation under realistic grooming conditions.

Conclusion

The rapid expansion of the pet-grooming sector has outpaced development of harmonized regulatory and scientific frameworks tailored to companion animals. Although excluded from cosmetic legislation under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and MoCRA, these products rely extensively on cosmetic science methodologies. Direct extrapolation from human models is scientifically unsound owing to interspecies differences in epidermal architecture, lipid organization, surface pH, microbiota ecology, coat morphology, grooming behavior and metabolic capacity.

This manuscript has articulated a unified pet-centric paradigm integrating regulatory analysis, veterinary dermatology, rheology, tribology, foam science and structured safety–efficacy evaluation. Within anisotropic coat systems, flow, friction and foam behavior are mechanistically interdependent and must be optimized collectively. Barrier integrity, microbial equilibrium and grooming-mediated ingestion reshape toxicological assessment.

Multidisciplinary integration remains indispensable for the progression from anthropocentric adaptation to scientifically engineered, pet-centric formulation design, to ultimately deliver products that are safe and efficacious to suit our little companions’ very needs. 

References

1. Grand View Research. Pet Grooming Products Market (2024–2033): Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report. San Francisco, CA: Grand View Research; 2024. Report.
2. Fortune Business Insights. Pet Care Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis (2025–2032). Pune, India: Fortune Business Insights; 2025. Report.
3. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on Cosmetic Products. Off J Eur Union 2009;L342:59–209.
4. United States Congress. Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), H.R.2617, 117th Cong.
5. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on General Product Safety. Off J Eur Union 2023;L135:1–51.
6. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP). Off J Eur Union 2008;L353:1–1355.
7. U.S. Department of Labor. Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. Washington, DC: OSHA.
8. European Commission. Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1870. Off J Eur Union 2021;L379:8–37.
9. European Parliament. Petition No. 0911/2015. Brussels; 2015.
10. US Food and Drug Administration. Got a Question About Your Pet’s Health? (link)
11. US Food and Drug Administration. Compliance Policy Guide: Regulation of Animal Grooming Aids. (link)
12. Standardization Administration of China. GB/T 43839:2024 — Chemical Safety and Labelling Requirements for Pet Grooming Products. Beijing; 2024.
13. French National Assembly. Proposition de loi No. 1711 (2025). Paris; 2025
14. Scott DW, Miller WH, Griffin CE. Muller and Kirk’s Small Animal Dermatology. 8th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2013.
15. Sumena M, et al. Histomorphological variations of skin in different breeds of dog. J Vet Anat. 2025;14(2):112–121.
16. Shimada K, Yoon JS, Yoshihara T, Iwasaki T, Nishifuji K. Transepidermal water loss reflects skin barrier function of dogs. J Vet Med Sci. 2008;70(8):841–846.
17. Szczepanik MP, Wilkołek P, Taszkun I, Adamek Ł. Biophysical parameters of healthy cat skin. J Feline Med Surg. 2011;13(11):903–907.
18. Segger D, Aßmus U, Brock M, Erasmy J, Finkel P. Measurement of skin surface pH. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2008;30:75.
19. Lambers H, Piessens S, Bloem A, Pronk H, Finkel P. Natural skin surface pH is on average below 5, which is beneficial for its resident flora. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2006;28:359–370.
20. Kwon JS, et al. Variations in canine skin parameters. Vet Dermatol. 2025.
21. Cuscó A, et al. Individual signatures define canine skin microbiota composition and variability. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1852.
22. Kong HH, et al. Temporal shifts in the skin microbiome associated with disease flares and treatment in atopic dermatitis. Genome Res. 2012;22:850–859.
23. Meason-Smith C, et al. What is living on your dog? Characterization of the canine cutaneous mycobiota. Vet Dermatol. 2017;28:71–e17.
24. Berger DJ, et al. Canine alopecia associated with indirect exposure to topical estrogen. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2015;51(2):136–142.
25. Chiewchalermsri C, et al. Chlorhexidine allergy: current challenges and future prospects. J Asthma Allergy. 2020;13:127–133.
26. Bhushan B. Biophysics of Human Hair: Structural, Nanomechanical, and Nanotribological Studies. Berlin: Springer; 2010.
27. Robbins CR. Chemical and Physical Behavior of Human Hair. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer; 2012.
28. Krsmanovic M, Ghosh R, Dickerson AK. Fur flutter in fluid flow fends off foulers. J R Soc Interface. 2023;20:20230485.
29. Davies E. Hair mechanics and rheology: implications for hair care formulations. Cosmetics. 2020;7:26.
30. Barnes HA. Rheology of fluids with fibrous particles. J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 1989;32:17–33.
31. Bremond N, Thiebaud P, Bibette J. Filament stability and extensional viscosity in surfactant systems. Langmuir. 2006;22:2350–2354.
32. Peña Corona SI, et al. Foam rheology and stability in commercial pet shampoos. Pol J Vet Sci. 2022;25(2):223–232.
33. Berkowitz R. How fur frustrates fouling. Physics. 2025;17:5.
34. Santoro D, et al. Update on the skin barrier, cutaneous microbiome and host defence peptides in canine atopic dermatitis. Vet Dermatol. 2024;35(1):5–14.
35. Souci L, Denesvre C. 3D skin models in domestic animals. Vet Res. 2021;52(1):21.
36. Štempelová L, et al. The skin microbiome on healthy and inflammatory altered canine skin determined by next generation sequencing. Front Microbiol. 2025;16:1528747.
37. Costa Gagosian VS, et al. In vitro skin models as non-animal methods for dermal drug development and safety assessment. Pharmaceutics. 2025;17(10):1342.
38. Bouma EMC, et al. Owner’s anthropomorphic perceptions of cats’ and dogs’ abilities are related to social role and relationship behaviours. Animals. 2023;13(23):3644.