Premium
Standard photopatch testing with Waxtar®, para‐aminobenzoic acid, potassium dichromate and balsam of Peru
Author(s) -
Kroon Susanne
Publication year - 1983
Publication title -
contact dermatitis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1600-0536
pISSN - 0105-1873
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1983.tb04619.x
Subject(s) - potassium dichromate , dermatology , phototoxicity , chemistry , medicine , organic chemistry , biochemistry , in vitro
194 patients were standard photopatch tested with Wastar® as is (coal tar 5%) and 161 patients were photopatched tested with para‐aminobenzoic acid (PABA) 5% in alcohol, potassium dichromate 0.5 in petrolatum, and a mixture of balsams of Peru as is. The photopatches were irradiated with UVA. 40 patients (25%) had phototoxic reactions to Waxtar® and 4 of them showed pigmentation after 7 days. Only a few patients had photocontact urticaria. I patient had a late‐reaction to PABA and showed a cross‐reaction to glyceryl PABA but a negative reaction to paraphenylenediamine (PPD) and benzociane 5% in the standard test. No patients had positive photopatch reactions to potassium dichromate when irradiated with UVA.2 patients had phototoxic reactions to balsam of Peru. None had photoallergic reactions. Standard photopatch testing is a time consuming procedure which creates problems both for the staff and for the patients. The yield of unexpected, relevant positive reactions is insignificant. From a cost‐benefit view, photopatch testing is only warranted in cases giving rise to a clinical suspiction of photodermatitis.