[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.153.39.7. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Correspondence
April 1962

COMMENTS ON PHOTOSENSITIZATION

Author Affiliations

The London Hospital Whitechapel, E, 1 London, England

Arch Dermatol. 1962;85(4):542-543. doi:10.1001/archderm.1962.01590040106025

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor:  Everett, Daffer, and Coffey's experiments on coal tar and ultraviolet light (Archives of Dermatology 84:473 [Sept.] 1961) finding that tar actually screened ultraviolet light from the skin are interesting but not unexpected. If a photosensitizing substance is placed on the skin and ultraviolet light given immediately the photochemical reaction will take place outside the body and will produce no biological effect; it will, moreover, screen the body from the activating light. If, however, the photosensitizing substance is applied some time before, e.g., the previous day, and the residue wiped off with a translucent substance, then light of the active wavelength can be expected to penetrate into the skin and the photochemical reaction will take place inside the body, resulting in a biological effect.This paradoxical screening/activating effect probably holds good for most photosensitizing substances, and it explains why sulfonamide ointments were used with success in Spain as

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×