経皮毒性試験市場- 世界の産業規模、シェア、動向、機会、予測、試験タイプ別、試験方法タイプ別（生体内試験と生体外試験）、エンドユーザー別、地域別、競合別、2020-2030F

経皮毒性試験の世界市場規模は2024年に21億米ドルとなり、2030年までのCAGRは8.15%で、予測期間中に目覚ましい成長を遂げると予測されています。

経皮毒性試験の世界市場は、規制の義務化、動物実験に対する倫理的懸念、技術の進歩、研究開発（R&D）への投資の増加などにより、着実な成長を遂げています。この市場は、製薬、化粧品、化学、バイオテクノロジー産業にとって不可欠であり、市場参入前に製品の安全性と規制への適合を確保します。

FDA（米国）、EMA（欧州）、OECDなどの規制機関は、経皮毒性評価に関する厳格な安全性プロトコルを制定しており、企業は先進的な試験手法の採用を余儀なくされています。規制の変更、最先端の技術革新、安全で倫理的、無残な製品を求める消費者の需要の高まりに後押しされ、業界は大きな変革期を迎えています。

初期コストの高さや規制の標準化といった課題は残るもの、研究開発への継続的な取り組み、新興国における市場機会の拡大、戦略的な業界提携が新たな成長の道を切り開こうとしています。非動物実験法の採用が進むにつれ、市場は継続的に拡大する態勢にあり、医薬品、化粧品、化学品全般にわたる安全性試験の未来を世界規模で形成する上で重要な役割を担っています。

主な市場促進要因

動物実験禁止の高まりと代替法へのシフト

主な市場課題

代替法の検証

主な市場動向

高度な体外モデル

目次

第1章 概要

第2章 調査手法

第3章 エグゼクティブサマリー

第4章 顧客の声

第5章 世界の経皮毒性試験市場展望

• 市場規模・予測
  • 金額別
• 市場シェア・予測
  • 試験の種類別（皮膚刺激性試験、皮膚感作性試験）
  • 試験方法の種類別（in vivo試験（動物ベースの試験）、in vitro試験（細胞ベースまたは組織ベースの試験））
  • エンドユーザー別（製薬業界、化粧品・パーソナルケア製品業界、化学業界、その他）
  • 地域別
  • 企業別（2024）
• 市場マップ

第6章 北米の経皮毒性試験市場展望

• 市場規模・予測
• 市場シェア・予測
• 北米：国別分析
  • 米国
  • カナダ
  • メキシコ

第7章 欧州の経皮毒性試験市場展望

• 市場規模・予測
• 市場シェア・予測
• 欧州：国別分析
  • フランス
  • ドイツ
  • 英国
  • イタリア
  • スペイン

第8章 アジア太平洋地域の経皮毒性試験市場展望

• 市場規模・予測
• 市場シェア・予測
• アジア太平洋地域：国別分析
  • 中国
  • インド
  • 日本
  • 韓国
  • オーストラリア

第9章 南米の経皮毒性試験市場展望

• 市場規模・予測
• 市場シェア・予測
• 南米：国別分析
  • ブラジル
  • アルゼンチン
  • コロンビア

第10章 中東・アフリカの経皮毒性試験市場展望

• 市場規模・予測
• 市場シェア・予測
• 中東・アフリカ：国別分析
  • 南アフリカ
  • サウジアラビア
  • アラブ首長国連邦

第11章 市場力学

• 促進要因
• 課題

第12章 市場動向と発展

• 最近の動向
• 合併と買収
• 製品上市

第13章 世界の経皮毒性試験市場：SWOT分析

第14章 ポーターのファイブフォース分析

• 業界内の競合
• 新規参入の可能性
• サプライヤーの力
• 顧客の力
• 代替品の脅威

第15章 競合情勢

• SGS S.A.
• Covance, Inc
• Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.
• Qiagen N.V.
• GE Healthcare
• Eurofins Scientific Inc
• Merck KgaA
• Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
• Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
• Catalent, Inc

第16章 戦略的提言

第17章 調査会社について・免責事項

Global Dermal Toxicity Testing Market was valued at USD 2.10 Billion in 2024 and is anticipated to project impressive growth in the forecast period with a CAGR of 8.15% through 2030. The Global Dermal Toxicity Testing Market is witnessing steady growth, driven by regulatory mandates, ethical concerns over animal testing, technological advancements, and increased investments in research and development (R&D). This market is essential to the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, chemical, and biotechnology industries, ensuring product safety and regulatory compliance before market entry.

Regulatory bodies such as the FDA (U.S.), EMA (Europe), and OECD have established stringent safety protocols for dermal toxicity assessment, compelling companies to adopt advanced testing methodologies. The industry is undergoing a significant transformation, fueled by regulatory changes, cutting-edge innovations, and growing consumer demand for safe, ethical, and cruelty-free products.

While challenges such as high initial costs and regulatory standardization remain, ongoing R&D efforts, expanding market opportunities in emerging economies, and strategic industry collaborations are unlocking new avenues for growth. With the increasing adoption of non-animal testing methods, the market is poised for continued expansion, reinforcing its critical role in shaping the future of safety testing across pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and chemicals on a global scale.

Key Market Drivers

Growing Ban on Animal Testing and Shift Toward Alternative Methods

The increasing global restrictions on animal testing have become a significant catalyst for the growth of the Global Dermal Toxicity Testing Market. As ethical concerns, regulatory pressures, and technological advancements converge, industries are rapidly transitioning toward alternative testing methods that are more reliable, cost-effective, and aligned with modern scientific standards. Over the past two decades, several governments and regulatory bodies have implemented strict prohibitions on animal testing, particularly in the cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and chemical industries. The Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 introduced: A testing ban: Animal testing on finished cosmetic products has been banned since September 2004, and testing on ingredients has been banned since March 2009. These nations have followed suit with similar bans on animal-tested cosmetics. While the FDA does not outright ban animal testing, states like California, Illinois, and New Jersey have imposed restrictions, leading to increased adoption of alternative testing approaches. Historically a proponent of animal testing, China has relaxed its regulations, now allowing non-animal methods for certain imported and domestically manufactured cosmetics. As regulatory compliance becomes non-negotiable, companies worldwide are investing heavily in alternative toxicity testing solutions, thus fueling market growth.

Key Market Challenges

Validation of Alternative Methods

The validation of alternative methods can pose challenges and potentially hinder the growth of the global dermal toxicity testing market. While alternative methods are sought after due to their ethical considerations and scientific advancements, their validation process can be complex and time-consuming. The validation of alternative methods requires extensive research, data collection, and comparison to established reference methods, often including animal testing benchmarks. This process can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, slowing down the adoption of these methods. As a result, market growth might be hindered, especially in the short term. Regulatory bodies typically require validation data to demonstrate the reliability and predictability of alternative methods. The acceptance of these methods in regulatory frameworks may take time, as agencies need to be convinced of their equivalence to existing methods. This delay can slow down the market growth, as companies hesitate to fully adopt alternative methods until they receive regulatory approval. The validation process aims to establish consistent and reproducible results across different laboratories and testing conditions. Variability in results can arise due to differences in protocols, equipment, or expertise. This lack of consistency can lead to skepticism about the reliability of alternative methods, causing some companies to hesitate in adopting them until these issues are resolved.

Key Market Trends

Advanced In Vitro Models

Advanced in vitro models better replicate human skin physiology, allowing for more accurate predictions of dermal toxicity. These models can mimic skin barrier function, cellular interactions, and complex biological processes, providing more reliable insights into how substances interact with human skin. As accuracy improves, industries can confidently assess potential hazards and make informed decisions about product safety. The use of animals for testing raises ethical concerns, and industries are increasingly turning to non-animal methods. Advanced in vitro models offer an ethical alternative by eliminating the need for animal testing while still providing scientifically meaningful results. Brands that prioritize ethical testing practices can enhance their reputation and appeal to consumers who value cruelty-free products. Regulatory bodies are recognizing the value of advanced in vitro models for safety assessment. As these methods become more validated and established, regulatory acceptance is increasing. Industries can use these methods to fulfill regulatory requirements, which accelerates their adoption and drives market growth. In vitro models offer quicker results compared to animal testing, allowing industries to streamline their testing processes and reduce time-to-market. Additionally, the ability to test multiple substances simultaneously enhances efficiency. While initial setup costs might be involved, the long-term cost-effectiveness of in vitro models can drive their adoption and market growth. Advanced in vitro models can be customized to mimic specific skin types, conditions, and populations. This flexibility enables industries to tailor testing to their products' target audiences, improving the relevance and accuracy of toxicity assessments. This customization can attract industries seeking personalized and precise testing solutions.

Key Market Players

• SGS S.A.
• Covance, Inc
• Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.
• Qiagen N.V.
• GE Healthcare
• Eurofins Scientific Inc
• Merck KgaA
• Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
• Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
• Catalent, Inc.

Report Scope:

In this report, the Global Dermal Toxicity Testing Market has been segmented into the following categories, in addition to the industry trends which have also been detailed below:

Dermal Toxicity Testing Market, By Test Type:

• Skin Irritation Tests
• Skin Sensitization Tests

Dermal Toxicity Testing Market, By Testing Method Type:

• In Vivo Testing (Animal-Based Tests)
• In Vitro Testing (Cell-Based or Tissue-Based Tests)

Dermal Toxicity Testing Market, By End User:

• Pharmaceuticals industries
• Cosmetics and personal care products industry
• Chemical Industry
• Other

Dermal Toxicity Testing Market, By Region:

• North America
  • United States
  • Canada
  • Mexico
• Europe
  • France
  • United Kingdom
  • Italy
  • Germany
  • Spain
• Asia-Pacific
  • China
  • India
  • Japan
  • Australia
  • South Korea
• South America
  • Brazil
  • Argentina
  • Colombia
• Middle East & Africa
  • South Africa
  • Saudi Arabia
  • UAE

Competitive Landscape

Company Profiles: Detailed analysis of the major companies present in the Global Dermal Toxicity Testing Market.

Available Customizations:

Global Dermal Toxicity Testing market report with the given market data, TechSci Research offers customizations according to a company's specific needs. The following customization options are available for the report:

Company Information

• Detailed analysis and profiling of additional market players (up to five).

Table of Contents

1. Product Overview

• 1.1. Market Definition
• 1.2. Scope of the Market
  • 1.2.1. Markets Covered
  • 1.2.2. Years Considered for Study
  • 1.2.3. Key Market Segmentations

2. Research Methodology

• 2.1. Objective of the Study
• 2.2. Baseline Methodology
• 2.3. Key Industry Partners
• 2.4. Major Association and Secondary Sources
• 2.5. Forecasting Methodology
• 2.6. Data Triangulation & Validation
• 2.7. Assumptions and Limitations

3. Executive Summary

• 3.1. Overview of the Market
• 3.2. Overview of Key Market Segmentations
• 3.3. Overview of Key Market Players
• 3.4. Overview of Key Regions/Countries
• 3.5. Overview of Market Drivers, Challenges, Trends

4. Voice of Customer

5. Global Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook

• 5.1. Market Size & Forecast
  • 5.1.1. By Value
• 5.2. Market Share & Forecast
  • 5.2.1. By Test Type (Skin Irritation Tests, Skin Sensitization Tests)
  • 5.2.2. By Testing Method Type (In Vivo Testing (Animal-Based Tests), In Vitro Testing (Cell-Based or Tissue-Based Tests))
  • 5.2.3. By End User (Pharmaceuticals industries, Cosmetics and personal care products industry, Chemical Industry, Other)
  • 5.2.4. By Region
  • 5.2.5. By Company (2024)
• 5.3. Market Map

6. North America Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook

• 6.1. Market Size & Forecast
  • 6.1.1. By Value
• 6.2. Market Share & Forecast
  • 6.2.1. By Test Type
  • 6.2.2. By Testing Method Type
  • 6.2.3. By End User
  • 6.2.4. By Country
• 6.3. North America: Country Analysis
  • 6.3.1. United States Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 6.3.1.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 6.3.1.1.1. By Value
    • 6.3.1.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 6.3.1.2.1. By Test Type
      • 6.3.1.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 6.3.1.2.3. By End User
  • 6.3.2. Canada Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 6.3.2.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 6.3.2.1.1. By Value
    • 6.3.2.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 6.3.2.2.1. By Test Type
      • 6.3.2.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 6.3.2.2.3. By End User
  • 6.3.3. Mexico Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 6.3.3.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 6.3.3.1.1. By Value
    • 6.3.3.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 6.3.3.2.1. By Test Type
      • 6.3.3.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 6.3.3.2.3. By End User

7. Europe Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook

• 7.1. Market Size & Forecast
  • 7.1.1. By Value
• 7.2. Market Share & Forecast
  • 7.2.1. By Test Type
  • 7.2.2. By Testing Method Type
  • 7.2.3. By End User
  • 7.2.4. By Country
• 7.3. Europe: Country Analysis
  • 7.3.1. France Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 7.3.1.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 7.3.1.1.1. By Value
    • 7.3.1.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 7.3.1.2.1. By Test Type
      • 7.3.1.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 7.3.1.2.3. By End User
  • 7.3.2. Germany Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 7.3.2.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 7.3.2.1.1. By Value
    • 7.3.2.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 7.3.2.2.1. By Test Type
      • 7.3.2.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 7.3.2.2.3. By End User
  • 7.3.3. United Kingdom Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 7.3.3.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 7.3.3.1.1. By Value
    • 7.3.3.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 7.3.3.2.1. By Test Type
      • 7.3.3.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 7.3.3.2.3. By End User
  • 7.3.4. Italy Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 7.3.4.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 7.3.4.1.1. By Value
    • 7.3.4.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 7.3.4.2.1. By Test Type
      • 7.3.4.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 7.3.4.2.3. By End User
  • 7.3.5. Spain Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 7.3.5.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 7.3.5.1.1. By Value
    • 7.3.5.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 7.3.5.2.1. By Test Type
      • 7.3.5.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 7.3.5.2.3. By End User

8. Asia-Pacific Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook

• 8.1. Market Size & Forecast
  • 8.1.1. By Value
• 8.2. Market Share & Forecast
  • 8.2.1. By Test Type
  • 8.2.2. By Testing Method Type
  • 8.2.3. By End User
  • 8.2.4. By Country
• 8.3. Asia-Pacific: Country Analysis
  • 8.3.1. China Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 8.3.1.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 8.3.1.1.1. By Value
    • 8.3.1.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 8.3.1.2.1. By Test Type
      • 8.3.1.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 8.3.1.2.3. By End User
  • 8.3.2. India Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 8.3.2.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 8.3.2.1.1. By Value
    • 8.3.2.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 8.3.2.2.1. By Test Type
      • 8.3.2.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 8.3.2.2.3. By End User
  • 8.3.3. Japan Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 8.3.3.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 8.3.3.1.1. By Value
    • 8.3.3.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 8.3.3.2.1. By Test Type
      • 8.3.3.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 8.3.3.2.3. By End User
  • 8.3.4. South Korea Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 8.3.4.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 8.3.4.1.1. By Value
    • 8.3.4.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 8.3.4.2.1. By Test Type
      • 8.3.4.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 8.3.4.2.3. By End User
  • 8.3.5. Australia Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 8.3.5.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 8.3.5.1.1. By Value
    • 8.3.5.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 8.3.5.2.1. By Test Type
      • 8.3.5.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 8.3.5.2.3. By End User

9. South America Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook

• 9.1. Market Size & Forecast
  • 9.1.1. By Value
• 9.2. Market Share & Forecast
  • 9.2.1. By Test Type
  • 9.2.2. By Testing Method Type
  • 9.2.3. By End User
  • 9.2.4. By Country
• 9.3. South America: Country Analysis
  • 9.3.1. Brazil Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 9.3.1.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 9.3.1.1.1. By Value
    • 9.3.1.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 9.3.1.2.1. By Test Type
      • 9.3.1.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 9.3.1.2.3. By End User
  • 9.3.2. Argentina Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 9.3.2.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 9.3.2.1.1. By Value
    • 9.3.2.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 9.3.2.2.1. By Test Type
      • 9.3.2.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 9.3.2.2.3. By End User
  • 9.3.3. Colombia Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 9.3.3.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 9.3.3.1.1. By Value
    • 9.3.3.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 9.3.3.2.1. By Test Type
      • 9.3.3.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 9.3.3.2.3. By End User

10. Middle East and Africa Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook

• 10.1. Market Size & Forecast
  • 10.1.1. By Value
• 10.2. Market Share & Forecast
  • 10.2.1. By Test Type
  • 10.2.2. By Testing Method Type
  • 10.2.3. By End User
  • 10.2.4. By Country
• 10.3. MEA: Country Analysis
  • 10.3.1. South Africa Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 10.3.1.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 10.3.1.1.1. By Value
    • 10.3.1.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 10.3.1.2.1. By Test Type
      • 10.3.1.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 10.3.1.2.3. By End User
  • 10.3.2. Saudi Arabia Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 10.3.2.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 10.3.2.1.1. By Value
    • 10.3.2.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 10.3.2.2.1. By Test Type
      • 10.3.2.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 10.3.2.2.3. By End User
  • 10.3.3. UAE Dermal Toxicity Testing Market Outlook
    • 10.3.3.1. Market Size & Forecast
      • 10.3.3.1.1. By Value
    • 10.3.3.2. Market Share & Forecast
      • 10.3.3.2.1. By Test Type
      • 10.3.3.2.2. By Testing Method Type
      • 10.3.3.2.3. By End User

11. Market Dynamics

• 11.1. Drivers
• 11.2. Challenges

12. Market Trends & Developments

• 12.1. Recent Development
• 12.2. Mergers & Acquisitions
• 12.3. Product Launches

13. Global Dermal Toxicity Testing Market: SWOT Analysis

14. Porter's Five Forces Analysis

• 14.1. Competition in the Industry
• 14.2. Potential of New Entrants
• 14.3. Power of Suppliers
• 14.4. Power of Customers
• 14.5. Threat of Substitute Products

15. Competitive Landscape

• 15.1. SGS S.A.
  • 15.1.1. Business Overview
  • 15.1.2. Product & Service Offerings
  • 15.1.3. Recent Developments
  • 15.1.4. Financials (If Listed)
  • 15.1.5. Key Personnel
  • 15.1.6. SWOT Analysis
• 15.2. Covance, Inc
• 15.3. Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.
• 15.4. Qiagen N.V.
• 15.5. GE Healthcare
• 15.6. Eurofins Scientific Inc
• 15.7. Merck KgaA
• 15.8. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
• 15.9. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
• 15.10. Catalent, Inc

16. Strategic Recommendations

17. About Us & Disclaimer