Mechanisms of ultraviolet erythema: what's new under the sun?

J. Leun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1982.tb00346.x

IF: 11.113

1982-08-01

British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract:SIR, In a recent Comment article {British Journal of Dermatology, 1982,106, 235), Shuster challenges the investigators who have been studying ultravioJet erythema. Whereas they have been discussing various mechanisms for almost a century, Shuster gives a single observational fact which 'dictates what must be the mechanism of ultraviolet erythema'. The observation is that ultraviolet erythema corresponds with absolute precision to the exposed skin area, without a zone of transition, and this excludes any mechanism based on diffusion. Interest in skin photobioJogy has increased considerably during the past decade. This of course has brought many newcomers into the field, some already well-established in other areas of dermatological research. Longer-term skin photobiologists have enjoyed this development. Newcomers increase our joint capacity, and may bring in fresh ideas. At times it appears necessary, however, to remind a newcomer that he might benefit from some reading before he sets out to explain how simple the problems and their solutions are. The sharp restriction of ultraviolet erythema to the exposed skin area has not escaped notice in the past (Finsen, 1899J Lewis, 1927) but the observation did not pass unchallenged either. Some investigators observed more closely. Muller (1922) published careful drawings of what he saw through a capillary microscope directed at the edge of an ultraviolet erythema. His fine drawings show a zone of gradual transition of the redness. Lewis (1927), although speaking of exact correspondence of the reddened and exposed skin areas, gave in the same context measurements showing that a particular UV erythema was 08-10 mm wider than the exposed area. Meyer (1957a, b) irradiated circular areas of skin and measured the diameters of the resulting erythemas. He noticed that larger doses of UV radiation produced erythemas of larger diameter. He defined the 'erythemal accretion index' as the increase of diameter with increasing dose. The index did not come into widespread use, but it can easily be confirmed, even with the unaided eye, that the underlying phenomenon is real. The misunderstanding with regard to the interpretation of the observations, repeated so many times and now again, is that a quantitative problem is treated as if it were a qualitative one. Conclusions on the mechanism cannot be achieved on a yes-or-no basis. Even if it is accepted thafUV erythemas do extend beyond the boundaries of the exposed skin area, this is not sufficient to justify a diffusion concept. The extensions have to be measured, and the measurements have to be compared to quantitative expectations derived on the basis of diffusion. Even if there is agreement, it should still be kept in mind that extensions of the erythema beyond the boundaries of the exposed skin area are also to be expected in the alternative concept, of direct action of the radiation at the level of the blood vessels; in that case the transition zone will be caused by scattering of the ultraviolet radiation. A valid conclusion is only possible if the two concepts lead to different theoretical expectations, and if the measurements can be performed with sufficient accuracy to distinguish between the two possibilities. This has all been done Jong ago (van der Leun, i965aj b, 1966). The theoretical expectations on the basis of the two mechanisms were different indeed, the diffusion mechanism leading to larger extensions of the erythema beyond the exposed skin area than those of the direct action mechanism. The measurement of the extension of the erythema beyond the boundary of the exposed skin area could be performed with sufficient accuracy, the standard error in the measured extensions being less than o-1 mm. In this way the extension of the UV erythema could be measured as a function of time. The erythema was usually initially smaller than the exposed skin area, gradually extended to a maximal width at about 10 h after the irradiation, and then retreated again. For erythemas elicited with 300 nm radiation, the maximal extensions achieved corresponded well with the expectations derived on the basis of Fick's diffusion equation. For 250-nm erythemas, the extensions measured fell short of that expectation, but were in the order of magnitude of the extensions estimated on the basis of light scattering. The fact that erythemas elicited with two wavelengths in the ultraviolet region behave differently in this respect is one of many good reasons not to look for Uhe mechanism' of ultraviolet erythema, but at least two.