Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Photocontact Dermatitis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Contact Dermatitis

  • 478 Accesses

Abstract

This adverse reaction is due to chemical substances coming in contact with the skin, that elicit an inflammatory response after exposure to ultraviolet rays and/or visible light. The most common substances responsible for phototoxic contact dermatitis are furocoumarins in plants, coaltar derivatives and some dyes. Clinical features are those of an exacerbation of the normal skin response to exposure to the sun, with intense erythema and edema, and sometimes bullae strictly confined to photoexposed skin sites that have come in contact with the causal agent. The causes of photoallergic contact dermatitis are antimicrobials (halogenated salicylanilides, some antimycotics, sulfanilamide and some its derivatives), furocoumarins, frangrances, sunscreens, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and phenothiazine derivatives. The predominant clinical aspect is eczematous; the sites affected are photoexposed areas, although even covered sites can be involved. Mainly men aged 40 to 80 years may be affected by chronic actinic dermatitis, a contact dermatitis-like reaction with a pathogenic mechanism not yet entirely known. It can manifest on normal skin but is more often observed in subjects with previous allergic or photoallergic contact dermatitis. Its clinical picture is characterized by eczematous lesions, often with scaly lichenification and infiltrate plaques, in exposed areas (face, neck, scalp, upper chest, dorsal aspects of forearms and hands).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. White IR. Phototoxic and photoallergic reactions. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, et al editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2001. p. 367.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr. Photocontact dermatitis. In: Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr, editors. Fisher’s contact dermatitis. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 397.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Grandolfo M. Fotodermatite da contatto. In: Angelini G, Vena GA, editors. Dermatologia professionale e ambientale, vol. II. Brescia: ISED; 1999. p. 523.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gonçalo M. Photoreactions and testing. In: Johansen JD, Lepoittevin J-P, Thyssen TP, editors. Quick guide to contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; 2016. p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  5. DeLeo VA. Photocontact dermatitis. Dermatol Therapy. 2004; 17:279.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Snyder M, Turrentine JE, Cruz PD Jr. Photocontact dermatitis and its clinical mimics: an overview for the allergist. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-018-8696-x.

  7. Kutlubay Z, Sevim A, Engin B, et al. Photodermatoses, including phototoxic and photoallergic reactions (internal and external). Clin Dermatol. 2014; 32:73.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Honary G. Photoallergy. Rev Environ Health. 2014; 29:233.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kerr A, Ferguson J. Photoallergic contact dermatitis. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2010; 26:56.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Coffin SL, Turrentine JE, Cruz PD Jr. Photodermatitis for the allergist. Curr Allergy Asthma. 2017; 17:36.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Coohill TP. Action spectra again? Photochem Photobiol. 1991; 54:859.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Freeman RG, Knox JM. The action spectrum of photocontact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 1968; 97:130.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Emmet EA. Diphenhydramine photoallergy. Arch Dermatol. 1974; 110:249.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Toback AC, Anders JE. Phototoxicity from systemic agents. Clin Dermatol. 1986; 4:223.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Emmet EA, Phototoxicity from exogenous agents. Photochem Photobiol. 1979; 30:429.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Owens DW, Knox JM. Influence of heat, wind, and humidity on ultraviolet radiation injury. In: Kripke ML, Sass ER, editors. Ultraviolet carcinogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1978; 50:161.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harber LC, Baer RL. Pathogenic mechanisms of drug-induced photosensitivity. J Invest Dermatol. 1972; 58:327.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kornhauser A, Wamer W, Giles A. Light-induced dermal toxicity: effects on the cellular and molecular level. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI, editors. Dermatotoxicology, Hemisphere, 3rd ed. Washington; 1987. p. 377.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gould JW, Mercurio MG, Elmets CA. Cutaneous photosensitivity diseases induced by exogenous agents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995; 33:551.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Song PS, Tapley KJ. Photochemistry and photobiology of psoralens. Photochem Photobiol. 1979; 29:1177.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Epstein JH. Chlorpromazine photosensitivity: phototoxic and photoallergic reactions. Arch Dermatol. 1986; 98:354.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kochevar IE, Lamola AA. Chlorpromazine and protriptyline phototoxicity: photosensitized oxygen-independent red cell hemolysis. Photochem Photobiol. 1979; 29:791.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Spikes JD. Photosensitized reactions in mammals. In: Daynes Ra, Spikes JD, editors. Experimental and clinical photoimmunology. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1983. p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Lionetti N, et al. Photoallergic contact dermatitis to 8-methoxypsoralen in Ficus carica. Contact Dermatitis. 2010; 62:343.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Takashima A, Yamamoto K, Kimura S, et al. Allergic contact and photocontact dermatitis due to psoralens in patients with psoriasis treated with topical PUVA. Br J Dermatol. 1991; 124:37.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Elmets CA. Cutaneous phototoxicity. In: Lim HW, Soter NA, editors. Clinical photomedicine. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1993. p. 207.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Epling GA, Wells JL, Ung Chan Yoon. Photochemical transformations in salicylanilide photoallergy. Photochem Photobiol. 1988; 47:167.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Li ASW, Chignell CF. Spectroscopic studies of cutaneous photo-sensitizing agents. XII. Spin-trapping study of the free radicals generated during the photolysis of photo allergens bithionol and fentichlor. Photochem Photobiol. 1987; 46:445.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bergtresser PR. Immune mechanism in contact allergic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 1990; 8:3.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Von Barger EC, et al. Examination of tetrachlorsalicylanilide (TCSA) photoallergy using in vitro photohapten-modified Langerhans-cell enriched epidermal cells. J Invest Dermatol. 1991; 97:210.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Fletcher ER, et al. Increased number of dendritic cells in draining lymph nodes accompanies the generation of contact photosensitivity. J Invest Dermatol. 1991; 96:355.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tokura Y, Takigawa M. Immunological mechanisms of contact photosensitivity. Eur J Dermatol. 1993; 3:87.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kochevar IE. Mechanisms of drug photosensitization. Photochem Photobiol. 1987; 45:891.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cronin E. Contact dermatitis. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. 1980; 414.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nater JP, De Groot AC. Phototoxic and photoallergic contact dermatitis. In: Nater JP, De Groot AC, editors. Unwanted effects of cosmetics and drugs used in dermatology, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1985. p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Angelini G, Vena GA. Airborne contact dermatitis. Clin Dermatol. 1992; 10:123.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Burry JN, Hunter GA. Photocontact dermatitis from Jadit. Br J Dermatol. 1970; 82:224.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Burry JN. Photoallergies to fentichlor and multifungin. Arch Dermatol. 1967; 95:287.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Burry JN. Cross sensitivity between fentichlor and bithionol. Arch Dermatol. 1968; 97:497.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Angelini G, Meneghini CL. Oral tests in contact allergy to para-amino compounds. Contact Dermatitis. 1981; 7:311.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Harber LC, Lashinsky AM, Baer RL. Photosensitivity due to chlorothiazide and hydroxychlorothiazide. N Engl J Med. 1959; 261:1378.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Angelini G, Vena GA, Meneghini CL. Contact dermatitis from Ficus carica. In Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle JM, et al, editors. Current topics in contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1985. p. 163.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fischer T, Alsins J. Treatment of psoriasis with trioxalen baths and dysprosium lamps. Acta Derm Venereol. 1976; 56:383.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fulton JE, Willis I. Photoallergy to methoxalen. Arch Dermatol. 1968; 98:445.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Plewing G, Hofmann C, Braun-Falco O. Photoallergic dermatitis from 8-methoxypsoralen. Arch Dermatol Res. 1978; 262:201.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sidi E, Bourgeois-Gavardin A. Mise en point du traitement de vitiligo par l’ Amni majus. Press Med. 1953; 61:436.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Saihan EM. Contact allergy to methoxalen. Br Med J. 1979; 2:20.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Weissmann J, Wagner G, Plewing G. Contact allergy to methoxypsoralen. Br J Dermatol. 1980; 102:113.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Takashima A, Yamamoto K, Kimura S, et al. Allergic contact and photocontact dermatitis to psoralens in patients with psoriasis treated with topical PUVA. Br J Dermatol. 1980; 124:37.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kavli G, Volden G. Phytophotodermatitis. Photodermatology. 1984; 1:65.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Giovinazzo VJ, Harber LC, Bickers DR, et al. Photoallergic contact dermatitis to musk ambrette: histopathologic features of photobiologic reactions observed in a persistent light reactor. Arch Dermatol. 1981; 117:344.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Burry JN. Persistent light reaction associated with a sensitivity to musk ambrette. Contact Dermatitis. 1981; 7:46.

    Google Scholar 

  53. De Groot AC, Frosh PJ. Adverse reactions to fragrances. A clinical review. Contact Dermatitis. 1997; 36:57.

    Google Scholar 

  54. DeLeo VA, Suarez SM, Maso MJ. Photoallergic contact dermatitis. Results of photopatch testing in New York, 1985 to 1990. Arch Dermatol. 1992; 128:1513.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Thune P, Jansen C, Wennersten C, et al. The Scandinavian multicenter photopatch study 1980–85: final report. Photodermatol. 1988; 5:261.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schauder S, Ippen H. Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens. Review of a 15-year experience and of the literature. Contact Dermatitis. 1997; 37:221.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pigatto PD, Legori A, Bigardi AS, et al GIRDCA. Italian multicenter study of allergic contact photodermatitis; epidemiological aspects. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1996; 7:158.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Szczurko C, Dompmartin A, Michel M, et al. Photocontact allergy to oxybenzone: ten years of experience. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 1994; 10:144.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Sommer S, Wilkinson SM, English JSC, et al. Photoallergic contact dermatitis from the sunscreen octyltriazone. Contact Dermatitis. 2002; 46:304.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Large-Asschenfeldt B, Huegel R, Brasch J. Anaphylactic reaction caused by the UVA absorber disodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate. Acta Derm Venereol. 2005; 85:280.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gonzalez-Pérez R, Trébol I, Garcia-Rio I, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from methylene-bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutyl-phenol (Tinosorb M). Contact Dermatitis. 2007; 56:121.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hughes TM, Martin JA, Lewis VJ, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to drometrizole trisiloxane in a sunscreen with concomitant sensitivities to other sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 52:226.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cardoso JC, Canelas MM, Gonçalo M, et al. Photopatch testing with an extended series of photoallergens: a 5-year study. Contact Dermatitis. 2009; 60:325.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Bryden AM, Moseley H, Ibbotson SH, et al. Photopatach testing of 1115 patients: results of the U.K. multicenter photopatch study group. Br J Dermatol. 2006; 155:737.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Pigatto PD, Guzzi G, Schena D, et al. Photopatch tests: an Italian multicentre study from 2004 to 2006. Contact Dermatitis. 2008; 59:103.

    Google Scholar 

  66. EMCPPTS Taskforce, Kerr A, Ferguson J, Haylett A, et al. A European multicentre photopatch test study. Br J Dermatol. 2012; 166:1002.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Uter W, Gonçalo M, Yazar K, et al. Coupled exposure to ingredients of cosmetic products, III, Ultraviolet filters. Contact Dermatitis. 2014; 71:162.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Haylett A, Chiang YZ, Nie Z, et al. Sunscreen photopatch testing: a series of 157 children. Br J Dermatol. 2014; 171:370.

    Google Scholar 

  69. De Groot AC, Roberts DW. Contact and photocontact allergy to octocrylene: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2014; 70:193.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Andersen KE, Goossens A. Decyl glucoside contact allergy from a sunscreen product. Contact Dermatitis. 2006; 54:349.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Andrade P, Gonçalo M, Figueiredo A. Allergic contact dermatitis to decyl glucoside in Tinosorb M®. Contact Dermatitis. 2010; 62:119.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Pigatto PD, Mozzanica N, Bigardi AS, et al. Topical NSAID allergic contact dermatitis. Italian experience. Contact Dermatitis. 1993; 29:39.

    Google Scholar 

  73. De la Cuadra-Oyanguren J, Perez-Ferriols A, Lecha-Correlero M, et al. Results and assessment of photopatch testing in Spain: towards a new standard set of photoallergens. Actas Dermosifilolograficas. 2007; 98:96.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Montoro J, Rodriguez M, Diaz M, et al. Photoallergic contact dermatitis due to diclofenac. Contact Dermatitis. 2003; 48:115.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Fernanez de Corres L. Photodermatitis from benzydamine. Contact Dermatitis. 1980; 6:285.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Guy RH, Kuma H, Nakanishi M. Serious photocontact dermatitis induced by topical ketoprofen depends on the formulation. Eur J Dermatol. 2014; 24:365.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sugiura M, Hayakawa R, Kato Y, et al. 4 Cases of photocontact dermatitis due to ketoprofen. Contact Dermatitis. 2000; 43:16.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Hindsen M, Isaksson M, Persson L, et al. Photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen induced by drug contaminated personal objects. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004; 50:215.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Devleeschouwer V, Roelandts R, Garmyn M, et al. Allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen: results of (photo)patch testing and follow-up of 42 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2008; 58:159.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Izu K, Hino R, Isoda H, et al. Photocontact dermatitis to ketoprofen presenting with erythema multiforme. Eur J Dermatol. 2008; 18:710.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Béani J. Les photosensibilisations graves. Ann Dermatol Vénéreol. 2009; 136:76.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Le Coz CJ, Bottlaender A, Scrivener J-N, et al. Photocontact dermatitis from ketoprofen and tiaprofenic acid: cross-reactivity study in 12 consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1998; 38:245.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Pigatto PD, Bigardi A, Legori A, et al. Cross reactions in patch testing and photopatch testing with ketoprofen, thiaprophenic acid and cinnamic aldehyde. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1996; 7:220.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Girardin P, Vigan M, Humbert P, et al. Cross reactions in patch testing with ketoprofen, fragrance mix and cinnamic derivatives. Contact Dermatitis. 2006; 55:126.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Avenel-Audran M, Dutartre H, Goossens A, et al. Octocrylene, an emerging photoallergen. Arch Dermatol. 2010; 146:753.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Karlsson I, Vanden Broecke K, Martensson J, et al. Clinical and experimental studies of octocrylene’s allergic potency. Contact Dermatitis. 2011; 64:343.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Infante Hermando L, Serra-Baldrich E, Dordal T, et al. Photoallergic contact dermatitis caused by benzophenones in magazine inks. Contact Dermatitis. 2013; 69:124.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Foti C, Bonamonte D, Conserva A, et al. Allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen: evaluation of cross-reactivities by a combination of photopatch testing and computerized conformational analysis. Curr Pharm Des. 2008; 14:2883.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Wolverton JE, Soter NA, Cohen DE. Fentichlor photocontact dermatitis: a persistent enigma. Dermatitis. 2013; 24:77.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Gonçalo M, Figueiredo A, Tavares P, et al. Photosensitivity to piroxicam: absence of cross-reaction with tenoxicam. Contact Dermatitis. 1992; 27:287.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Lasa Elgezua O, Gorrotxategi P, Gardeazabal Gracia J, et al. Photoallergic hand eczema due to benzydamine. Eur J Dermatol. 2004; 14:69.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Epstein S. Chlorpromazine photosensitivity: phototoxic and photoallergic reactions. Arch Dermatol. 1968; 98:354.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Angelini G. Topical drugs. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, et al, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1995. p. 477.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Angelini G, Vena GA, Grandolfo M, et al. Iatrogenic contact dermatitis and eczematous reactions. Clin Dermatol. 1993; 11: 467.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Angelini G, Vena GA, Meneghini CL. Allergic contact dermatitis to some medicaments. Contact Dermatitis. 1985; 12:263.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Barbaud A, Collet E, Martin S, et al. Contact sensitization to chlorpromethazine can induce persistent light reaction and cross-photoreactions to other phenothiazines. Contact Dermatitis. 2001; 44:373.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Kerr A, Woods J, Ferguson J. Photocontact allergic and phototoxic studies of chlorpromethazine. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2008; 24:11.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Birbas N, Sartor V, Bulai Livideanu C, et al. Contact photoallergy to isothipendyl chlorhydrate. Dermatology. 2012; 214:289.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Monteagudo-Paz A, Salvador JS, Martinez NL, et al. Pulpitis as clinical presentation of photoallergic contact dermatitis due to chlorpromazine. Allergy. 2011; 66:1503.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Monteiro AF, Rato M, Martins C. Drug-induced photosensitivity: photoallergic and phototoxic reactions. Clin Dermatol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2016.05.006.

  101. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Romita P, et al. Colors and contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2014; 25:155.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Meneghini Cl, Angelini G. Le dermatiti da contatto. Lombardo Ed., Roma; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Trakatelli M, Charalampidis S, Novakovic LB, et al. Photodermatoses with onset in the elderly. Br J Dermatol. 2009; 161(Suppl.3):69.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Santoro FA, Lim HW. Update on photodermatoses. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2011; 30:229.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Hawk JLM, Magnus IA, Chronic actinic dermatitis: an idiopathic photosensitivity syndrome including actinic reticuloid and photosensitive eczema. Br J Dermatol. 1979; 101(Suppl.17):24.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Hawk JLM, Lim HW. Chronic actinic dermatitis. In: Lim HW, Hönigsmann H, Hawk JLM, editors. Photodermatology. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Dawe RS, Ferguson J. Diagnosis and treatment of chronic actinic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther. 2003; 16:45.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Hawk JLM. Chronic actinic dermatitis. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2004; 20:312.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Meola T, Sanchez M, Lim HW, et al. Chronic actinic dermatitis associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection. Br J Dermatol. 1997; 137:431.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Russel SC, Dawe RS, Collins P, et al. The photosensitivity dermatitis and actinic reticuloid syndrome (chronic actinic dermatitis) occurring in seven young atopic dermatitis patients. Br J Dermatol. 1998; 138:496.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Millard TP, Hawk JLM. Photodermatoses in the elderly. Clin Geriatr Med. 2001; 17:691.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Lim HW, Morison WL, Kamide R, et al. Chronic actinic dermatitis: an analysis of 51 patients evaluated in the United States and Japan. Arch Dermatol. 1994; 130:1284.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Dawe RS, Crombie IK, Ferguson J. The natural history of chronic actinic dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 2000; 136:1215.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Bilsland D, Crombie IK, Ferguson J. The photosensitivity dermatitis and actinic reticuloid syndrome: no association with lymphoreticular malignancy. Br J Dermatol. 1994; 131:209.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Thestrup-Pedersen K, Zachariae C, Kaltoft K, et al. Development of cutaneous pseudolymphoma following cyclosporin therapy of actinic reticuloid. Dermatologica. 1988; 177:376.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Ferguson J. Chronic actinic dermatitis. In: Ferguson J, Dover JS, editors. Photodermatology. London: Manson Publishing; 2006. p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Angelini G, Bonamonte D, Cristaudo A, et al. Linee guida SIDAPA su dermatite da contatto. Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol. 2009; 63:43.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Gonçalo M, Ferguson J, Bonevalle A, et al. Photopatch testing: recommendations for a European photopatch test baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2013; 68:239.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Stingeni L, Bianchi L, Hansel K, et al. Italian guidelines in patch testing adapted from the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD). Giorn Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2019; 154:227.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Bruynzeel D, Ferguson J, Andersen K, et al. Photopatch testing: a consensus methodology for Europe. JEADV. 2004; 18:679.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Domenico Bonamonte, Caterina Foti & Francesca Ambrogio

  2. Professor of Dermatology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Gianni Angelini

Authors
  1. Domenico Bonamonte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caterina Foti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesca Ambrogio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gianni Angelini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Domenico Bonamonte .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Dermatology, Bari, Italy

    Gianni Angelini

  2. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Domenico Bonamonte

  3. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Caterina Foti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bonamonte, D., Foti, C., Ambrogio, F., Angelini, G. (2021). Photocontact Dermatitis. In: Angelini, G., Bonamonte, D., Foti, C. (eds) Clinical Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49331-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49332-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation