metabolized on the surface of the skin and the metabolite were absorbed in addition to the parent drug, this method would overestimate absorption of the parent drug by ignoring the metabolite. Although this approach has its obvious shortcomings for those with pharmacologie inter¬ ests, it does satisfactorily serve the toxicologie objective of my study.To calculate total absorption from total urinary excre¬ tion, one must know what percentage of the applied radioactive drug is excreted in the urine. This fraction can be determined by administering a "known" dose of the parent drug by another route and assuming that its excretion pattern is not different from that seen following percutaneous absorption. Although this second assump¬ tion is potentially problematic, with regard to minoxidil, the issue is quite clear and the assumption justified. In both monkey and human,34 urinary excretion of orally administered minoxidil is 94% to 97% of the dose, with no more than 3% being found in the feces. It can be concluded, therefore, that no other route of excretion (eg, breath, sweat) can represent a significant pathway of loss unless the skin metabolizes the drug to species totally different than those found following oral administration.Although the skin is certainly capable of metabolizing drugs and may indeed metabolize minoxidil, it is unlikely that this had any effect on the calculation of total minox¬ idil absorption. Metabolism in the skin would have to lead to (1) a metabolite not excreted via the urine or feces or (2) a metabolite bound in the skin or elsewhere and excreted so slowly that it falls below detectable limits.The first possibility seems quite remote since oral administration in both human and monkey leads to metab¬ olites that are virtually all excreted in the urine. Why should the skin metabolize drugs differently? (The possi¬ bility of a switch to fecal excretion following percutaneous administration has been ruled out in my study by the finding of no detectable radioactivity in the feces.)The second possibility, at least that of skin binding, has been ruled out as a significant factor through skin biopsy.Less than 3% of the administered dose could be accounted for in the skin following the surface wash at 24 hours.Thus, although the metabolism and distribution of minoxidil following topical application has not been deter¬ mined, it is highly unlikely that either of these two factors could have significantly altered the values previously determined for total absorption. 1. Feldmann RJ, Maibach HI: Percutaneous penetration of steroids in man. J Invest Dermatol 1969;52:89-94. 2. Feldmann RJ, Maibach HI: Absorption of some organic compounds through the skin in man. J Invest Dermatol 1970;54:399-404 3. Thomas RC, Hsi RS, Harpootlian H, et al: Metabolism of minoxidil, a new hypotensive agent: I. Absorption, distribution, and excretion following administration to rats, dogs, and monkeys. J Pharm Sci 1975;64:1360\x=req-\ 1366. 4. Gottlieb TB, Thomas RC, Chidsey CA: Pharmacokinetic studies of minoxidil. Cli...