Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens: Review of a 15‐year experience and of the literature
Abstract
This review summarizes published and unpublished data of our 15‐year experience with sunscreen allergy and photoallergy. From 1981–1996. 402 patients with suspected clinical photosensitivity were patch and photopatch tested with the commercial sunscreens and facial cosmetics (hat they had used and with chemical UV absorbers, fragrance materials, preservatives, and emollients. Mi patients (20%) (28 men, 52 women) demonstrated allergic and/or photoallergic contact dermatitis to 1 or more UV absorber(s). In 47 patients with photodermatoses or photo‐aggravated dermatoses and in 33 subjects with normal photosensitivity, 91 allergic and 84 photoallergic reactions to UV filters were observed. Over the years sunscreens were added lo the test series, which since 1989 comprised the following 10 UV absorbers and which induced allergic (a) and photoallergic (pa) reactions (number, type of reaction); 4 UVA absorbers – isopropyldibenzoylmethane (30a/32pa); butyl methoxydibenzoyl‐methane (15a/13pa); henzophenone‐3 (3a/9pa): benzophenone‐4 (0a/0pa); and 6 UVB absorbers – PABA (2a/2pa); octyl dimethyl PABA (1a/2pa); methylbenzylidene camphor (32a/5pa); octyl methoxycinnamate (3a/4pa); isoamyl p‐methoxycinnamate (4a/10pa); and phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid (1a/7pa). The frequent (photo)sensitization to isopropyldibenzoylmethane was the reason that its production was discontinued in 1993. 47 patients reacted to fragrance materials, 11 to preservatives and 2 to lanolin alcohol. These constituents were contained in the commercial sunscreens and cosmetics that they had used. Continuous revision of the UV absorber photopatch test series was necessary to be closer to the real frequency of exposure and of reported I photo (allergy to newer sunscreens. Clinicians should consider contact and photocontact allergy, especially in patients with photodermatoses and photo‐aggravated dermatoses and they should perform photopatch testing. Once the culprit has been identified, its INCI (International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredients) designation should be given to the patient, who must be warned to avoid products containing the (photo)allergen.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Oxybenzone has been regarded as the most allergic agent and has been implicated in many contact and photoallergic dermatitis cases.
“First, this active has been regarded as the most allergic agent and has been implicated for many contact and photoallergic dermatitis (82,83).”
From Photoprotection: a Review of the Current and Future Technologies (2010) · cites this paper as [82]
Cites
The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI
Fitzpatrick, T. B. (1988) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.1988.01670060015008 · Cited by 4,339 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kullavanijaya, P., & Lim, H. W. (2005) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2004.07.063 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
Photoprotection: a Review of the Current and Future Technologies
Wang, S. Q., Balagula, Y., & Osterwalder, U. (2010) · Dermatologic Therapy · doi:10.1111/j.1529-8019.2009.01289.x · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Human safety and efficacy of ultraviolet filters and sunscreen products
Nash, J. (2006) · Dermatologic Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.det.2005.09.006 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Fivenson, D., Sabzevari, N., Qiblawi, S., Blitz, J., Norton, B. B., & Norton, S. A. (2021) · International Journal of Women's Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.08.008 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Heurung, A. R., Raju, S. I., & Warshaw, E. M. (2014) · Dermatitis® · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000079 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Sunscreen Allergy: A Review of Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Responsible Allergens
Scheuer, E., & Warshaw, E. (2006) · Dermatitis · doi:10.2310/6620.2006.05017 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Sabzevari, N., Qiblawi, S., Norton, S. A., & Fivenson, D. (2021) · International Journal of Women's Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.05.017 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Modern approaches to photoprotection
DeBuys, H. V., Levy, S. B., Murray, J. C., Madey, D. L., & Pinnell, S. R. (2000) · Dermatologic Clinics · doi:10.1016/s0733-8635(05)70208-4 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Sunscreen allergy and its investigation
Wong, T., & Orton, D. (2011) · Clinics in Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2010.11.002 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Photostability of Topical Agents Applied to the Skin: A Review
Kryczyk-Poprawa, A., Kwiecień, A., & Opoka, W. (2019) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics12010010 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Zhao, Z., Zhao, J., Liang, N., & Zhao, L. (2020) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127004 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Agin, P. P., Ruble, K., Hermansky, S. J., & McCarthy, T. J. (2008) · Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0781.2008.00363.x · Cited by 21 · see citing works
L’Alloret, F., Candau, D., Seité, S., Pygmalion, M.-J., Ruiz, L., Josso, M., Meaudre, H., Gauchet, L., Pena, A.-M., & Colonna, A. (2012) · Dermatology and Therapy · doi:10.1007/s13555-012-0004-8 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Cheong, S. H., Choi, Y. W., Myung, K. B., & Choi, H. Y. (2010) · Annals of Dermatology · doi:10.5021/ad.2010.22.3.262 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schauder, S., & Ippen, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Göttingen (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Schauder, Silvia
- Venue
- Contact Dermatitis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-11
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 221-232
- ISSN
- 0105-1873 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0536
- OpenAlex
- W2122147892
- Cited by
- 248
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Contact Dermatitis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Protection and Aging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Adverse Reactions
- Keywords
- sunscreen allergy, photoallergic contact dermatitis, UV absorbers, photopatch testing, benzophenone-3, benzophenone-4, p-aminobenzoic acid, octyl methoxycinnamate, fragrance allergy, preservative allergy, photodermatosis
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Europe, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Patch Tests, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sunscreening Agents, United States, Incidence, Dermatitis, Allergic Contact, Dermatitis, Photoallergic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review