Skin Models pp 147-154 | Cite as

In-Vivo-UVA-Tests: Erythema, Pigmentation, Phototoxicity

  • R. Rüger
  • E. Hölzle
  • G. Plewig
  • A. Galosi
Conference paper

Abstract

The time course and dose requirements for the effects of UV-B-irradiation on human skin are well characterized. Since 1931, when Wucherpfennig [13] introduced the “Lichttreppe”, this classical test has been used to determine sensitivity to UV-Berythema. Skin responses to UV-A, however, are less well and only qualitatively defined. Studies aiming at quantification of UV-A-effects are few [2, 4, 6, 8, 11]. They have been hampered by lack of suitable light sources. In 1977 a new apparatus with high radiation energy between 320–460 nm was introduced; a description of the appatus and its dermatological applications was published in 1981 [7]. Advantages of the device are high intensity in the UV-A-range with virtually no additional UV-B and the possibility or irradiation of large areas of the skin surface.

Keywords

Titration Dermatol Protec Methylbenzylidene Meladinine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Akin FJ, Rose AP, Chamness TW, Marlowe E (1979) Sunscreen protection against drug-induced phototoxicity in animal models. Toxicol Applied Pharmacol 49: 219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachem A (1955) Time factors of erythema and pigmentation, produced by ultraviolet rays of different wavelength. J Invest Dermatol 25: 215–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Folsom KG, Gange RW, Mendelson IR (1981) The ability of UVA to induce ODC in topical 8-MOP treated mouse epidermis: Use of this effect to measure UVA sunscreen potency ( Abstract ). J Invest Dermatol 76: 330Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hausser I (1938) Über spezifische Wirkungen des langwelligen ultravioletten Lichts auf die menschliche Haut. Strahlentherapie 62: 315–322Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ippen H, Kölmel K (1980) Lichtschutz gegen Ultraviolett A. Ärztliche Kosmetologie 10:219226Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaidbey KH, Kligman AM (1978) The acute effects of long-wave ultraviolet radiation on human skin. J Invest Dermatol 72: 253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mutzhas MF, Hölzle E, Hofmann C, Plewig G (1981) A new apparatus with high radiation energy between 320–460 nm: Physical description and dermatological applications. J Invest Dermatol 76: 42–47Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parrish JH, Ying CY, Pathak MA, Fitzpatrick TB (1974) Erythemogenic properties of long wave ultraviolet light. In: Pathak MA, Harber LC, Seiji M, Kukita A, Fitzpatrick TB (eds) Sunlight and man. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp 131–141Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pathak MA (1982) Sunscreens: Topical and systemic approaches for protection of human skin against harmful effects of solar radiation. J Am Acad Dermatol 7: 285–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pathak MA (1984) Pigmentary responses to solar UVA. In: Urbach F, Gange W (eds) The biologic effects of UVA. Proceedings of a workshop (in press)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pathak MA, Fanselow DL (1983) Photobiology of melanin pigmentation: Dose/response of skin to sunlight and its contents. J Am Acad Dermatol 9: 724–733Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryckmanns F, Schmoeckel C, Plewig G, Braun-Falco 0 (1983) UVA-Pigmentation: Ultra-structural and morphometric analysis. J Cut Pathol 10: 399Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wucherpfennig V (1931) Biologie und praktische Verwendbarkeit der Erythemschwelle des UV. Strahlentherapie 40: 201–244Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Rüger
  • E. Hölzle
  • G. Plewig
  • A. Galosi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations