This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (18)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

II. Cumulative Effects

MARK ALLEN EVERETT, M.D.; JAMES V. MILLER

Arch Dermatol. 1961;84(6):937-940.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Fleischhauer¹ reported in 1930 that Liantral, an extract of anthracite coal tar, sensitized human skin to both artificial and natural ultraviolet light. Later studies, however, carried out at the University of Oklahoma² using Liquor Carbonis Detergens (hereafter called LCD) and ultraviolet light, indicated that the LCD acted as a screen and failed to sensitize normal human skin to ultraviolet light.

It was our desire to examine, first, whether coal tar sensitization was produced by sunlight and not by hot quartz radiation, and, second, to determine whether Liantral and LCD, which are by-products of anthracite coal and bituminous coal respectively, have different effects on human skin. The latter seemed plausible since coal is a highly complex material containing hundreds of discrete compounds or combinations of compounds, many of which have not as yet been isolated.³ According to Duke Laboratories,⁴ analysis of raw anthracite coal tar has indicated . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
OKLAHOMA CITY

Department of Dermatology, University of Oklahoma School of Medicine.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication July 26, 1961.

Supported by the Florence L. Fenton Memorial Grant for Cancer Research from the American Cancer Society.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?