Sunscreen: Difference between revisions
Reverted good faith edits by Bridgedragon (talk): Copy and pasted. (TW) |
updates, cleanup, started tightening organization of overlapping material |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{About | | suntan lotion that intensifies sun exposure | Indoor tanning lotion | the electronic music group | Sunblock (band) | the song | Wear Sunscreen}} |
{{About | | suntan lotion that intensifies sun exposure | Indoor tanning lotion | the electronic music group | Sunblock (band) | the song | Wear Sunscreen}} |
||
'''Sunscreen''' (also commonly known as '' |
'''Sunscreen''' (also commonly known as ''sun screen'', ''sunblock'', ''suntan lotion'', ''sunburn cream'', ''sun cream'' or ''block out'')<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3007 | title=Preventing melanoma | publisher=Cancer Research UK | accessdate=2009-09-22}}</ref> is a [[lotion]], spray, gel or other [[topical]] product that absorbs or reflects some of the [[sun]]'s [[ultraviolet]] (UV) radiation on the [[skin]] exposed to [[sunlight]] and thus helps protect against [[sunburn]]. [[Skin whitening|Skin-lightening products]] have sunscreen to protect lightened skin because light skin is more susceptible to sun damage than darker skin. A number of sunscreens have tanning powder to help the skin to darken or tan; however, tanning powder does not provide protection from UV rays. |
||
Depending on the mode of action sunscreens can be classified into physical sunscreens (i.e., those that reflect the sunlight) or chemical sunscreens (i.e., those that absorb the UV light).<ref name ="pharmax">[http://pharmaxchange.info/press/2011/03/the-ageing-skin-part-4a-sunscreens/ Sunscreens | The Ageing Skin]</ref> |
Depending on the mode of action, sunscreens can be classified into physical sunscreens (i.e., those that reflect the sunlight) or chemical sunscreens (i.e., those that absorb the UV light).<ref name ="pharmax">[http://pharmaxchange.info/press/2011/03/the-ageing-skin-part-4a-sunscreens/ Sunscreens | The Ageing Skin]</ref> |
||
Medical organizations such as the [[American Cancer Society]] recommend the use of sunscreen because it aids in the prevention of developing [[squamous cell carcinomas]] |
Medical organizations such as the [[American Cancer Society]] recommend the use of sunscreen because it aids in the prevention of developing [[squamous cell carcinomas]].<ref>[http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/ped_7_1_What_You_Need_To_Know_About_Skin_Cancer.asp What You Need To Know About Skin Cancer]</ref> Many sunscreens do not block [[ultraviolet A|UVA]] radiation, which does not cause sunburn but can increase the rate of [[melanoma]] and [[photodermatitis]], so people using sunscreens may be exposed to high UVA levels without realizing it.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Terence SC Poon, Ross StC Barnetson and Gary M Halliday | title= Prevention of Immunosuppression by Sunscreens in Humans Is Unrelated to Protection from Erythema and Dependent on Protection from Ultraviolet A in the Face of Constant Ultraviolet B Protection | journal= J Invest Dermatol | volume=121 | pages=184–90 | year=2003 | doi=10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12317.x}}</ref> The use of broad-spectrum (UVA/UVB) sunscreens can address this concern. Diligent use of sunscreen can also slow or temporarily prevent the development of wrinkles and sagging skin.<ref name=wrinkles>{{cite journal|url=http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1691732|title=Sunscreen and Prevention of Skin Aging|publisher=Annals of Internal Medicine|date=June 4, 2013|authors=M.C.B. Hughes; G.M. Williams; P. Baker; A.C. Green|volume=158|issue=11|pages=781–790}}</ref> |
||
== Health effects == |
== Health effects == |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{See also |Potential health risks of sunscreen}} |
{{See also |Potential health risks of sunscreen}} |
||
In |
In 2008 two studies by the [[Centers for Disease Control|CDC]] highlighted concerns about the sunscreen chemical [[oxybenzone]] (benzophenone-3). The first study detected the chemical in 97% of the 2,500 Americans tested, while the second found that mothers with high levels of oxybenzone in their bodies were more likely to give birth to underweight baby girls.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ewg.org/research/cdc-americans-carry-body-burden-toxic-sunscreen-chemical |title=CDC: Americans Carry Body Burden of Toxic Sunscreen Chemical |publisher=Environmental Working Group |date=March 25, 2008 |accessdate=July 23, 2014}}</ref> While surrounded by much controversy, it does provide broad-spectrum UV coverage, including UVB and short-wave UVA rays.<ref>Burnett, M. E. and Wang, S. Q. (2011), Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, 27: 58–67</ref> |
||
Concerns have been raised regarding the use of [[nanoparticle]]s in sunscreen. In February 2010 the [[Therapeutic Goods Administration]] of Australia said in a Sunscreen Fact Sheet that "Concerns relate to the theoretical possibility that if nanoparticles were to be absorbed into skin cells, they could possibly interact with sunlight to increase the risk of damage to these cells."<ref name="zotd">{{cite web |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20110422105411/http://www.tga.gov.au/npmeds/sunscreen-zotd.htm | title=Safety of sunscreens containing nanoparticles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide | date=February 2006 | accessdate=16 April 2014}}</ref> This had been removed by August 2011; later guidance summarised the review reported below.<ref>[http://www.tga.gov.au/consumers/sunscreens-2012.htm Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia, Sunscreens: information for consumers - Are there risks associated with sunscreens containing nanoparticles?, 29 January 2014]</ref> |
|||
In 2006 the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia carried out a review of |
In 2006 the [[Therapeutic Goods Administration]] of Australia carried out a review of sunscreen safety studies and concluded: "There is evidence from isolated cell experiments that [[zinc oxide]] and [[titanium dioxide]] can induce free radical formation in the presence of light and that this may damage these cells (photo-mutagenicity with zinc oxide). However, this would only be of concern in people using sunscreens if the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide penetrated into viable skin cells. The weight of current evidence is that they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin."<ref name="zotd">{{cite web |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20110422105411/http://www.tga.gov.au/npmeds/sunscreen-zotd.htm | title=Safety of sunscreens containing nanoparticles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide | date=February 2006 | accessdate=16 April 2014}}</ref> |
||
Concerns have also been raised about potential [[vitamin D deficiency]] arising from prolonged use of sunscreen. Typical use of sunscreen does not usually result in vitamin D deficiency however extensive usage may.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Norval|first1=M|last2=Wulf|first2=HC|title=Does chronic sunscreen use reduce vitamin D production to insufficient levels?|journal=The British journal of dermatology|date=October 2009|volume=161|issue=4|pages=732–6|pmid=19663879|doi=10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09332.x}}</ref> Sunscreen prevents ultraviolet light from reaching the skin and if properly applied will, under high [[UV |
Concerns have also been raised about potential [[vitamin D deficiency]] arising from prolonged use of sunscreen. Typical use of sunscreen does not usually result in vitamin D deficiency; however, extensive usage may.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Norval|first1=M|last2=Wulf|first2=HC|title=Does chronic sunscreen use reduce vitamin D production to insufficient levels?|journal=The British journal of dermatology|date=October 2009|volume=161|issue=4|pages=732–6|pmid=19663879|doi=10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09332.x}}</ref> Sunscreen prevents ultraviolet light from reaching the skin and if properly applied will, under high [[UV Index]] conditions, approximately halve vitamin D synthesis; whether the effect is exacerbated under low UV intensity is not yet proven.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2335478/Worried-suncream-blocks-vitamin-D-Heres-good-news-.html |author=Professor Young|accessdate=2013-07-05|date=2013-06-04|title=Worried suncream blocks vitamin D? Here's good news...|publisher= Daily Mail| work=Boots }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56078/ |title=Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D |publisher=National Academies Press |year=2011 |accessdate=July 23, 2014}}</ref> When the UV Index is greater than 3 (which occurs daily within the [[tropics]] and daily during the spring and summer seasons in [[temperate region]]s) adequate amounts of vitamin D<sub>3</sub> can be made in the skin after only ten to fifteen minutes of sun exposure at least two times per week to the face, arms, hands, or back without sunscreen. With longer exposure to UVB rays, an equilibrium is achieved in the skin, and the vitamin degrades as fast as it is generated.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp | title=Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D |publisher=National Institutes of Health | accessdate=2007-09-10 | archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5Rl5u0LB5 |archivedate=2007-09-10}}</ref> |
||
== History == |
== History == |
||
⚫ | The first effective sunscreen may have been developed by chemist Franz Greiter in 1946. The product, called ''Gletscher Crème'' (Glacier Cream), subsequently became the basis for the company [[Piz Buin (brand)|Piz Buin]] (named in honor of the place Greiter allegedly obtained the sunburn that inspired his concoction), which is still today a marketer of sunscreen products.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.pizbuin.com/v1/en/brand_story.html | title=Gletscher Crème | publisher=Piz Buin | work=2010-04-22 | accessdate=2013-06-29 | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20100512061324/http://www.pizbuin.com/v1/en/brand_story.html | archivedate=2010-05-12}}</ref> It has been estimated that ''Gletscher Crème'' had a sun protection factor of 2. |
||
Among widely used modern sunscreens, one of the earliest was produced by Benjamin Green, an airman and later a [[pharmacist]], in 1944.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Wang|first1=Steven Q|last2=Hu |first2=Judy Y. |title=Challenges in Making an Effective Sunscreen|url=http://www.skincancer.org/publications/the-melanoma-letter/summer-2012-vol-30-no-2/effective-sunscreen|publisher=The Skin Cancer Foundation|accessdate=2014-06-12}}</ref> The product, Red Vet Pet (for red veterinary petrolatum), had limited effectiveness, working as a physical blocker of ultraviolet radiation. It was a disagreeable red, sticky substance similar to petroleum jelly. This product was developed during the height of [[World War II]], when it was likely that the hazards of sun overexposure were becoming apparent to soldiers in the Pacific and to their families at home. Sales of this product boomed when [[Coppertone]] acquired the patent and marketed the substance under the [[Coppertone girl]] and [[Bain de Soleil]] branding in the early 1950s. |
|||
⚫ | The first effective modern sunscreen may have been developed by chemist Franz Greiter in 1946. The product, called ''Gletscher Crème'' (Glacier Cream), subsequently became the basis for the company [[Piz Buin (brand)|Piz Buin]] (named in honor of the place Greiter allegedly obtained the sunburn that inspired his concoction), which is still today a marketer of sunscreen products.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.pizbuin.com/v1/en/brand_story.html | title=Gletscher Crème | publisher=Piz Buin | work=2010-04-22 | accessdate=2013-06-29 | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20100512061324/http://www.pizbuin.com/v1/en/brand_story.html | archivedate=2010-05-12}}</ref> It has been estimated that ''Gletscher Crème'' had a sun protection factor of 2. |
||
In 1962 Franz Greiter introduced the concept of sun protection factor (SPF), which has become a worldwide standard for measuring the effectiveness of sunscreen when applied at an even rate of 2 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm<sup>2</sup>). Some controversy exists over the usefulness of SPF measurements, especially whether the 2 mg/cm<sup>2</sup> application rate is an accurate reflection of people’s actual use. |
In 1962 Franz Greiter introduced the concept of sun protection factor (SPF), which has become a worldwide standard for measuring the effectiveness of sunscreen when applied at an even rate of 2 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm<sup>2</sup>). Some controversy exists over the usefulness of SPF measurements, especially whether the 2 mg/cm<sup>2</sup> application rate is an accurate reflection of people’s actual use. |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
Newer sunscreens have been developed with the ability to better withstand contact with [[water]], [[heat]] and [[sweat]]. |
Newer sunscreens have been developed with the ability to better withstand contact with [[water]], [[heat]] and [[sweat]]. |
||
== |
== Measurements of sunscreen protection == |
||
[[File:Sunburn blisters.jpg|thumb | right | 267px | Sunscreen helps prevent [[sunburn]], such as this, which has blistered]] |
[[File:Sunburn blisters.jpg|thumb | right | 267px | Sunscreen helps prevent [[sunburn]], such as this, which has blistered]] |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
[[Image:UV and Vis Sunscreen.jpg|thumb | 300px | Two photographs showing the effect of applying sunscreens in visible light and in UVA. The photograph on the right was taken using [[ultraviolet photography]] shortly after application of sunscreen to half of the face.]] |
[[Image:UV and Vis Sunscreen.jpg|thumb | 300px | Two photographs showing the effect of applying sunscreens in visible light and in UVA. The photograph on the right was taken using [[ultraviolet photography]] shortly after application of sunscreen to half of the face.]] |
||
The SPF rating is a measure of the |
The SPF rating is a measure of the fraction of sunburn-producing UV rays blocked. For example, "SPF 15" means that 1/15th of the burning UV will reach the skin. The effectiveness of a sunscreen can be determined "by multiplying the SPF factor by the length of time it takes for him or her to suffer a burn without sunscreen."<ref>[http://www.dermatology.ucsf.edu/skincancer/General/prevention/Sunscreen.aspx ''Sunblock.''] UCSF. School of Medicine. Dept of Dermatology.</ref> Thus, if a person develops a sunburn in 10 minutes when not wearing a sunscreen, the same person will prevent sunburn for 150 minutes if he/she wears a sunscreen with an SPF of 15.<ref>[http://www.dermatology.ucsf.edu/skincancer/General/prevention/Sunscreen.aspx ''Sunblock.''] UCSF. School of Medicine. Dept of Dermatology.</ref> It is important to note that sunscreens with higher SPF do not last or remain effective on the skin any longer than lower SPF and must be continually reapplied as directed, usually every two hours.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.aad.org/media-resources/stats-and-facts/prevention-and-care/sunscreens |title=Sunscreen FAQs |publisher=American Academy of Dermatology |accessdate=July 22, 2014}}</ref> |
||
The SPF is an imperfect measure of skin damage because invisible damage and skin aging are also caused by [[ultraviolet]] type A (UVA, wavelength 320 to 400 [[nanometre|nm]]), which does not cause reddening or pain. Conventional sunscreen blocks very little UVA radiation relative to the nominal SPF; broad-spectrum sunscreens are designed to protect against both UVB and UVA.<ref>{{cite pmid | 12118426}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi | 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12498.x}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi | 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.04.035}}</ref> According to a 2004 study, UVA also causes [[DNA]] damage to cells deep within the skin, increasing the risk of [[malignant melanoma]]s.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Berneburg M, Plettenberg H, Medve-König K, Pfahlberg A, Gers-Barlag H, Gefeller O, Krutmann J | title=Induction of the photoaging-associated mitochondrial common deletion in vivo in normal human skin | journal=J Invest Dermatol | volume=122 | issue=5 | pages=1277–83 | year=2004 | pmid=15140232 | doi=10.1111/j.0022-202X.2004.22502.x}}</ref> Even some products labeled "broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection" do not provide good protection against UVA rays.<ref>[http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12081374/ MSNBC.com : Sunscreen — protection or 'snake oil?']</ref> [[Titanium dioxide]] probably gives good protection, but does not completely cover the |
The SPF is an imperfect measure of skin damage because invisible damage and skin aging are also caused by [[ultraviolet]] type A (UVA, wavelength 320 to 400 [[nanometre|nm]]), which does not cause reddening or pain. Conventional sunscreen blocks very little UVA radiation relative to the nominal SPF; broad-spectrum sunscreens are designed to protect against both UVB and UVA.<ref>{{cite pmid | 12118426}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi | 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12498.x}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi | 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.04.035}}</ref> According to a 2004 study, UVA also causes [[DNA]] damage to cells deep within the skin, increasing the risk of [[malignant melanoma]]s.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Berneburg M, Plettenberg H, Medve-König K, Pfahlberg A, Gers-Barlag H, Gefeller O, Krutmann J | title=Induction of the photoaging-associated mitochondrial common deletion in vivo in normal human skin | journal=J Invest Dermatol | volume=122 | issue=5 | pages=1277–83 | year=2004 | pmid=15140232 | doi=10.1111/j.0022-202X.2004.22502.x}}</ref> Even some products labeled "broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection" do not provide good protection against UVA rays.<ref>[http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12081374/ MSNBC.com : Sunscreen — protection or 'snake oil?']</ref> [[Titanium dioxide]] probably gives good protection, but does not completely cover the UVA spectrum, as early 2000s research suggests that zinc oxide is superior to titanium dioxide at wavelengths between 340 and 380 nm.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Pinnell SR, Fairhurst D, Gillies R, Mitchnick MA, Kollias N | title=Microfine zinc oxide is a superior sunscreen ingredient to microfine titanium dioxide | journal=Dermatol Surg | volume=26 | issue=4 | pages=309–14 |date=April 2000 | pmid=10759815 | doi= 10.1046/j.1524-4725.2000.99237.x | url=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/openurl?genre=article&sid=nlm:pubmed&issn=1076-0512&date=2000&volume=26&issue=4&spage=309}} {{deadlink|date=July 2014}}</ref> |
||
Owing to consumer confusion over the real degree and duration of protection offered, labeling restrictions are in force in several countries. In the [[European Union|EU]] sunscreen labels can only go up to SPF 50+ ( |
Owing to consumer confusion over the real degree and duration of protection offered, labeling restrictions are in force in several countries. In the [[European Union|EU]], sunscreen labels can only go up to SPF 50+ (initially listed as 30 but soon revised to 50).<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006H0647:EN:NOT | title=Commission Recommendation of 22 September 2006 on the efficacy of sunscreen products and the claims made relating thereto | publisher=Official Journal of the European Union | date=2006-09-22 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref> [[Australia]]'s [[Therapeutic Goods Administration]] increased the upper limit to 50+ in 2012.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.arpansa.gov.au/uvrg/rginfo_p13.cfm | title=UV Resource Guide - Sunscreens | publisher=Arpansa | date=2008-12-20 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cancer.org.au/preventing-cancer/sun-protection/preventing-skin-cancer/spf50sunscreen.html | title=SPF50+ Sunscreen | date=2013-02-01 | accessdate=2014-02-06}}</ref> In the 2007 and 2011 draft rules, the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) proposed a maximum SPF label of 50, to limit unrealistic claims.<ref>[http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/sunscreen/qa.htm Questions and Answers on the 2007 Sunscreen Proposed Rule<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref name="fda2011">{{cite web | url=http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingOver-the-CounterMedicines/ucm258468.htm | title=Questions and Answers: FDA announces new requirements for over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen products marketed in the U.S. | date=2011-06-23 | accessdate=2012-04-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Revised Effectiveness Determination; Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use|journal=[[Federal Register]]|date=17 June 2011|volume=76|issue=117|pages=35672–35678|url=http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/Over-the-CounterOTCDrugs/StatusofOTCRulemakings/UCM313542.pdf|accessdate=21 November 2013|author1=Department of Health and Human Services|author2=Food and Drug Administration}}</ref> Others have proposed restricting the active ingredients to an SPF of no more than 50, due to lack of evidence that higher dosages provide more meaningful protection.<ref name="onpoint">{{cite web | url=http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/16/sunscreen | date=2011-06-16 | accessdate=2012-04-10 | title=Sunscreen Takes Some Heat: New Dangers, New Rules}}</ref> |
||
Others have proposed restricting the active ingredients to an SPF of no more than 50, due to lack of evidence that higher dosages provide more meaningful protection.<ref name="onpoint">{{cite web | url=http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/16/sunscreen | date=2011-06-16 | accessdate=2012-04-10 | title=Sunscreen Takes Some Heat: New Dangers, New Rules}}</ref> |
|||
[[Image:erythemal action spectrum.svg|thumb | 300px | UV sunlight spectrum (on a summer day in the Netherlands), along with the CIE Erythemal action spectrum. The effective spectrum is the product of the former two.]] |
[[Image:erythemal action spectrum.svg|thumb | 300px | UV sunlight spectrum (on a summer day in the Netherlands), along with the CIE Erythemal action spectrum. The effective spectrum is the product of the former two.]] |
||
The SPF can be measured by applying sunscreen to the skin of a volunteer and measuring how long it takes before sunburn occurs when exposed to an artificial sunlight source. In the US, such an ''[[in vivo]]'' test is required by the [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]]. It can also be measured ''[[in vitro]]'' with the help of a specially designed [[spectrometer]]. In this case, the actual [[transmittance]] of the sunscreen is measured, along with the degradation of the product due to being exposed to sunlight. In this case, the transmittance of the sunscreen must be measured over all wavelengths in the |
The SPF can be measured by applying sunscreen to the skin of a volunteer and measuring how long it takes before sunburn occurs when exposed to an artificial sunlight source. In the US, such an ''[[in vivo]]'' test is required by the [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]]. It can also be measured ''[[in vitro]]'' with the help of a specially designed [[spectrometer]]. In this case, the actual [[transmittance]] of the sunscreen is measured, along with the degradation of the product due to being exposed to sunlight. In this case, the transmittance of the sunscreen must be measured over all wavelengths in the UVB range (290–320 nm), along with a table of how effective various wavelengths are in causing sunburn (the ''erythemal action spectrum'') and the actual intensity [[spectrum]] of sunlight (see the figure). Such ''in vitro'' measurements agree very well with ''in vivo'' measurements.<ref>[http://www.optometrics.com/corporate/support/KFDA.html Optometrics products<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
||
Numerous methods have been devised for evaluation of UVA and UVB protection. The most reliable spectrophotochemical methods eliminate the subjective nature of grading [[erythema]].<ref>Dominique Moyal "How to measure UVA protection afforded by suncreen products" www.medscape.com/viewarticle/576849</ref> |
Numerous methods have been devised for evaluation of UVA and UVB protection. The most reliable spectrophotochemical methods eliminate the subjective nature of grading [[erythema]].<ref>Dominique Moyal "How to measure UVA protection afforded by suncreen products" www.medscape.com/viewarticle/576849</ref> |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
:<math>\mathrm{SPF} = \frac{\int A(\lambda) E(\lambda)d\lambda}{\int A(\lambda) E(\lambda)/\mathrm{MPF}(\lambda) \, d\lambda},</math> |
:<math>\mathrm{SPF} = \frac{\int A(\lambda) E(\lambda)d\lambda}{\int A(\lambda) E(\lambda)/\mathrm{MPF}(\lambda) \, d\lambda},</math> |
||
where <math>E(\lambda)</math> is the solar irradiance spectrum, <math>A(\lambda)</math> the erythemal action spectrum, and <math>\mathrm{MPF}(\lambda)</math> the monochromatic protection factor, all functions of the wavelength <math>\lambda</math>. The MPF is roughly the inverse of the transmittance at a given wavelength. |
where <math>E(\lambda)</math> is the solar irradiance spectrum, <math>A(\lambda)</math> the erythemal action spectrum, and <math>\mathrm{MPF}(\lambda)</math> the monochromatic protection factor, all functions of the wavelength <math>\lambda</math>. The MPF is roughly the inverse of the transmittance at a given wavelength. |
||
The above means that the SPF is not simply the inverse of the transmittance in the |
The above means that the SPF is not simply the inverse of the transmittance in the UVB region. If that were true, then applying two layers of SPF 5 sunscreen would be equivalent to SPF 25 (5 times 5). The actual combined SPF is always lower than the square of the single-layer SPF. |
||
=== |
=== UVA protection === |
||
====Persistent pigment darkening (PPD)==== |
==== Persistent pigment darkening (PPD) ==== |
||
The persistent pigment darkening (PPD) method is a method of measuring UVA protection, similar to the SPF method of measuring UVB light protection. Originally developed in Japan, it is the preferred method used by manufacturers such as [[L'Oréal]]. |
The persistent pigment darkening (PPD) method is a method of measuring UVA protection, similar to the SPF method of measuring UVB light protection. Originally developed in Japan, it is the preferred method used by manufacturers such as [[L'Oréal]]. |
||
Instead of measuring [[erythema]] or reddening of the skin, the PPD method uses UVA radiation to cause a persistent darkening or tanning of the skin. Theoretically, a sunscreen with a PPD rating of 10 should allow a person 10 times as much UVA exposure as would be without protection. The PPD method is an ''[[in vivo]]'' test like SPF. In addition, Colipa has introduced a method that, it is claimed, can measure this ''[[in vitro]]'' and provide parity with the PPD method.<ref>[http://www.colipa.com/site/index.cfm?SID=15588&OBJ=28546&back=1 Colipa UVA method]</ref> |
Instead of measuring [[erythema]] or reddening of the skin, the PPD method uses UVA radiation to cause a persistent darkening or tanning of the skin. Theoretically, a sunscreen with a PPD rating of 10 should allow a person 10 times as much UVA exposure as would be without protection. The PPD method is an ''[[in vivo]]'' test like SPF. In addition, Colipa has introduced a method that, it is claimed, can measure this ''[[in vitro]]'' and provide parity with the PPD method.<ref>[http://www.colipa.com/site/index.cfm?SID=15588&OBJ=28546&back=1 Colipa UVA method]{{dead link | date=July 2014}}</ref> |
||
====Ultraviolet protection factor (UPF)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
=== SPF equivalence === |
==== SPF equivalence ==== |
||
[[File:UVA logo.svg|thumb | 125px | The UVA seal used in the [[European Union|EU]]]] |
[[File:UVA logo.svg|thumb | 125px | The UVA seal used in the [[European Union|EU]]]] |
||
Line 79: | Line 77: | ||
In the UK and Ireland, the [[Boots (chemist)|Boots]] star rating system is a proprietary ''[[in vitro]]'' method used to describe the ratio of UVA to UVB protection offered by sunscreen creams and sprays. Based on original work by Prof. Brian Diffey at Newcastle University, the Boots Company in Nottingham, UK, developed a standard method that has been adopted by most companies marketing these products in the UK. The [[logo]] and methodology of the test are licenced for a token fee to any manufacturer or brand of sunscreens that are sold in the Boots retail chain, provided the products to which the logo is applied perform to the standard claimed. Own Label products exclusively sold in other retailers are now excluded from the terms of the licence. |
In the UK and Ireland, the [[Boots (chemist)|Boots]] star rating system is a proprietary ''[[in vitro]]'' method used to describe the ratio of UVA to UVB protection offered by sunscreen creams and sprays. Based on original work by Prof. Brian Diffey at Newcastle University, the Boots Company in Nottingham, UK, developed a standard method that has been adopted by most companies marketing these products in the UK. The [[logo]] and methodology of the test are licenced for a token fee to any manufacturer or brand of sunscreens that are sold in the Boots retail chain, provided the products to which the logo is applied perform to the standard claimed. Own Label products exclusively sold in other retailers are now excluded from the terms of the licence. |
||
It should not be confused with SPF, which is measured with reference to burning and UVB. One-star products provide the least ratio of UVA protection; five-star products are best. The method has recently been revised in the light of the Colipa UVA PF test, and with the new EU recommendations regarding UVA PF. The method still uses a [[spectrophotometer]] to measure absorption of UVA vs UVB; the difference stems from a requirement to pre-irradiate samples (where this was not previously required) to give a better indication of UVA protection, and of photostability when the product is used. With the current methodology, the lowest rating is three stars, the highest being five stars. |
It should not be confused with SPF, which is measured with reference to burning and UVB. One-star products provide the least ratio of UVA protection; five-star products are best. The method has recently been revised in the light of the Colipa UVA PF test, and with the new EU recommendations regarding UVA PF. The method still uses a [[spectrophotometer]] to measure absorption of UVA vs UVB; the difference stems from a requirement to pre-irradiate samples (where this was not previously required) to give a better indication of UVA protection, and of photostability when the product is used. With the current methodology, the lowest rating is three stars, the highest being five stars. |
||
In August 2007, the FDA put out for consultation the proposal that a version of this protocol be used to inform users of American product of the protection that it gives against UVA,<ref>[http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/sunscreen/qa.htm |
In August 2007, the FDA put out for consultation the proposal that a version of this protocol be used to inform users of American product of the protection that it gives against UVA,<ref>[http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/sunscreen/qa.htm Questions and Answers on the 2007 Sunscreen Proposed Rule]</ref> but after concern this would be too confusing this was not adopted.<ref name="onpoint" /> |
||
==== PA system ==== |
==== PA system ==== |
||
Asian brands, particularly Japanese ones, tend to use The Protection Grade of UVA (PA) system to measure the UVA protection a sunscreen provides. |
Asian brands, particularly Japanese ones, tend to use The Protection Grade of UVA (PA) system to measure the UVA protection a sunscreen provides. The PA system is based on the PPD reaction and is now widely adopted on the labels of sunscreens. According to the Japan Cosmetic Industry Association, PA+ corresponds to a UVA protection factor between two and four, PA++ between four and eight, and PA+++ more than eight. |
||
The Protection Grade of UVA (PA) system is based on the PPD reaction and is now widely adopted on the labels of sunscreens. According to the Japan Cosmetic Industry Association PA+ corresponds to a UVA protection factor between two and four, PA++ between four and eight, and PA+++ more than eight. |
|||
==Sunblock== |
== Sunblock == |
||
[[File:SPF15SunBlock.JPG|thumb | 175px | | A tube of SPF 15 sun block lotion]] |
[[File:SPF15SunBlock.JPG|thumb | 175px | | A tube of SPF 15 sun block lotion]] |
||
Sunblock typically refers to opaque sunscreen that is effective at blocking both UVA and UVB rays and uses a heavy carrier oil to resist being washed off. [[Titanium dioxide]] and [[zinc oxide]] are two of the important ingredients in sunblock.<ref name="americanelements">{{cite web|title=Nanotechnology Information Center: Properties, Applications, Research, and Safety Guidelines|url=http://www.americanelements.com/nanotech.htm|publisher=[[American Elements]]}}</ref> Unlike the organic sun-blocking agents used in many sunscreens, these metal oxides do not degrade with exposure to sunlight. |
Sunblock typically refers to opaque sunscreen that is effective at blocking both UVA and UVB rays and uses a heavy carrier oil to resist being washed off. [[Titanium dioxide]] and [[zinc oxide]] are two of the important ingredients in sunblock.<ref name="americanelements">{{cite web|title=Nanotechnology Information Center: Properties, Applications, Research, and Safety Guidelines|url=http://www.americanelements.com/nanotech.htm|publisher=[[American Elements]]}}</ref> Unlike the organic sun-blocking agents used in many sunscreens, these metal oxides do not degrade with exposure to sunlight. |
||
The use of the word "sunblock" in the marketing of sunscreens is controversial. |
The use of the word "sunblock" in the marketing of sunscreens is controversial. Since 2013, the FDA has banned such use because it can lead consumers to overestimate the effectiveness of products so labeled.<ref name="fda2011"/> Nonetheless, many consumers use the words sunblock and sunscreen synonymously. |
||
For total protection against damage from the sun, the skin needs to be protected from UVA, UVB and IRA ([[infrared]] light). Roughly 35% of solar energy is IRA.<ref>P. Schroeder, PhD and J. Krutmann, MD [http://www.skintherapyletter.com/2010/15.4/2.html What is Needed for a Sunscreen to Provide Complete Protection]</ref> |
For total protection against damage from the sun, the skin needs to be protected from UVA, UVB and IRA ([[infrared]] light). Roughly 35% of solar energy is IRA.<ref>P. Schroeder, PhD and J. Krutmann, MD [http://www.skintherapyletter.com/2010/15.4/2.html What is Needed for a Sunscreen to Provide Complete Protection]</ref> |
||
== |
== Active ingredients == |
||
Sunscreens contain one or more of the following ingredients: |
Sunscreens contain one or more of the following ingredients: |
||
* [[organic chemistry|Organic chemical]] compounds that absorb ultraviolet light. |
* [[organic chemistry|Organic chemical]] compounds that absorb ultraviolet light. |
||
* Inorganic [[Suspended solids|particulates]] that reflect, scatter, and absorb UV light (such as [[titanium dioxide]], [[zinc oxide]], or a combination of both).<ref name="americanelements" /> |
* Inorganic [[Suspended solids|particulates]] that reflect, scatter, and absorb UV light (such as [[titanium dioxide]], [[zinc oxide]], or a combination of both).<ref name="americanelements" /> |
||
* Organic particulates that mostly absorb light like organic chemical compounds, but contain multiple [[chromophores]] |
* Organic particulates that mostly absorb light like organic chemical compounds, but contain multiple [[chromophores]] that may reflect and scatter a fraction of light like inorganic particulates, and behave differently in formulations than organic chemical compounds. An example is [[Bisoctrizole|Tinosorb M]]. Since the UV-attenuating efficacy depends strongly on particle size, the material is micronised to particle sizes below 200 nm. The mode of action of this photostable filter system is governed to about 90% by absorption and 10% by scattering of UV light. |
||
=== Active ingredients === |
|||
The principal ingredients in sunscreens are usually [[aromaticity|aromatic]] molecules [[conjugated system|conjugated]] with [[carbonyl]] groups. This general structure allows the molecule to absorb high-energy ultraviolet rays and release the energy as lower-energy rays, thereby preventing the skin-damaging ultraviolet rays from reaching the skin. So, upon exposure to UV light, most of the ingredients (with the notable exception of [[avobenzone]]) do not undergo significant chemical change, allowing these ingredients to retain the UV-absorbing potency without significant [[photodegradation]].<ref name= CTFA1998 /> A chemical stabilizer is included in some sunscreens containing avobenzone to slow its breakdown |
The principal ingredients in sunscreens are usually [[aromaticity|aromatic]] molecules [[conjugated system|conjugated]] with [[carbonyl]] groups. This general structure allows the molecule to absorb high-energy ultraviolet rays and release the energy as lower-energy rays, thereby preventing the skin-damaging ultraviolet rays from reaching the skin. So, upon exposure to UV light, most of the ingredients (with the notable exception of [[avobenzone]]) do not undergo significant chemical change, allowing these ingredients to retain the UV-absorbing potency without significant [[photodegradation]].<ref name= CTFA1998 /> A chemical stabilizer is included in some sunscreens containing avobenzone to slow its breakdown; examples include formulations containing [[Helioplex]]<ref>[http://www.realsimplerewards.com/rsn/microsites/neutrogena_helioplex.html Neutrogena | How Helioplex Works]</ref> and AvoTriplex.<ref>[http://www.bananaboat.com/avotriplex/index.html Banana Boat AvoTriplex]</ref> The stability of avobenzone can also be improved by [[bemotrizinol]],<ref>{{cite journal |
||
| title=Photostabilization of Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (Avobenzone) and Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate by Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (Tinosorb S), a new UV broadband filter |
| title=Photostabilization of Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (Avobenzone) and Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate by Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (Tinosorb S), a new UV broadband filter |
||
|date=September 2001 | pmid=11594052 |
|date=September 2001 | pmid=11594052 |
||
Line 111: | Line 108: | ||
}}</ref> [[octocrylene]]<ref>[http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/dnpus/pe_parsol_340.htm DSM Nutritional Products North America - Cosmetics: Basis for Performance - Parsol 340 - Octocrylene]</ref> and various other photostabilisers. |
}}</ref> [[octocrylene]]<ref>[http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/dnpus/pe_parsol_340.htm DSM Nutritional Products North America - Cosmetics: Basis for Performance - Parsol 340 - Octocrylene]</ref> and various other photostabilisers. |
||
⚫ | Sunscreening agents are used in some hair care products such as shampoos, conditioners and styling agents to protect against protein degradation and color loss. Currently, [[benzophenone-4]] and [[ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate]] are the two sunscreens most commonly used in hair products. [[Cinnamidopyltrimonium chloride]] and a few others are used to a much less degree. The common sunscreens used on skin are rarely used for hair products due to their texture and weight effects. |
||
=== FDA allowable ingredients === |
|||
The FDA made significant changes on sunscreen product [[labeling]] in 2011, ruling that: |
The FDA made significant changes on sunscreen product [[labeling]] in 2011, ruling that: |
||
* |
* To be classified as "broad spectrum", sunscreen products must provide protection against both [[Ultraviolet A|UVA]] and [[UVB]]. |
||
* |
* Claims of products being "[[waterproof]]", "sweatproof" or "sunblocks" are prohibited. |
||
* |
* "Water resistance" claims on the front label must indicate how long the sunscreen remains effective and specify whether this applies to swimming or sweating, based on standard testing. |
||
* |
* Sunscreens must include "Drug Facts" information on the container. However, there is no regulation that deems it necessary to mention whether the contents contain nanoparticles of mineral ingredients. (The EU has stricter regulation against the use of nanoparticles, and in 2009 introduced labeling requirements for nanoparticle ingredients in certain sunscreens and cosmetics.)<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/is-sunscreen-safe |title=Is Sunscreen Safe? |publisher=Eluxe Magazine |date=June 8, 2014 |accessdate=June 10, 2014}}</ref><ref>[http://www.sgs.com/~/media/Global/Documents/Technical%20Documents/Technical%20Bulletins/Safeguards/SGS-Safeguards%2012511-%20FDA%20sunscreen%20labelling%20rule%20-A4%20-EN-11.pdf New sunscreen labeling rules announced by U.S. FDA] SGS SafeGuards Bulletin, Retrieved 06/20/2013</ref> |
||
The following are the FDA allowable active ingredients in sunscreens: |
The following are the FDA allowable active ingredients in sunscreens: |
||
Line 131: | Line 128: | ||
| [[p-Aminobenzoic acid]] |
| [[p-Aminobenzoic acid]] |
||
| PABA |
| PABA |
||
| 15% (EC |
| 15% (EC: banned from sale to consumers from 8 October 2009) |
||
| USA, AUS |
| USA, AUS |
||
| Protects against skin tumors in mice.<ref>{{cite journal| authors= H Flindt-Hansen; P. Thune; T. Eeg-Larsen|title=The inhibiting effect of PABA on photocarcinogenesis |journal=Archives of Dermatological Research|volume=282|pages=38–41|year=1990|doi=10.1007/BF00505643| pmid= 2317082| issue= 1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| authors= H Flindt-Hansen; P. Thune; T. Eeg-Larsen|title= The effect of short-term application of PABA on photocarcinogenesis |journal= Acta Derm Venerol.|volume=70|pages=72–75|year=1990| pmid= 1967881| issue= 1}}</ref><ref name="Sensitization">{{cite journal| authors=P. J. Osgood; S. H. Moss; D. J. Davies| title=The sensitization of near-ultraviolet radiation killing of mammalian cells by the sunscreen agent para-aminobenzoic acid| journal=Journal of Investigative Dermatology| volume=79| issue=6| pages=354–357| year=1982| doi=10.1111/1523-1747.ep12529409| pmid=6982950}}</ref> Shown to increase DNA defects, however, and is now less commonly used. |
| Protects against skin tumors in mice.<ref>{{cite journal| authors= H Flindt-Hansen; P. Thune; T. Eeg-Larsen|title=The inhibiting effect of PABA on photocarcinogenesis |journal=Archives of Dermatological Research|volume=282|pages=38–41|year=1990|doi=10.1007/BF00505643| pmid= 2317082| issue= 1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| authors= H Flindt-Hansen; P. Thune; T. Eeg-Larsen|title= The effect of short-term application of PABA on photocarcinogenesis |journal= Acta Derm Venerol.|volume=70|pages=72–75|year=1990| pmid= 1967881| issue= 1}}</ref><ref name="Sensitization">{{cite journal| authors=P. J. Osgood; S. H. Moss; D. J. Davies| title=The sensitization of near-ultraviolet radiation killing of mammalian cells by the sunscreen agent para-aminobenzoic acid| journal=Journal of Investigative Dermatology| volume=79| issue=6| pages=354–357| year=1982| doi=10.1111/1523-1747.ep12529409| pmid=6982950}}</ref> Shown to increase DNA defects, however, and is now less commonly used. |
||
Line 137: | Line 134: | ||
| [[Padimate O]] |
| [[Padimate O]] |
||
| OD-PABA, octyldimethyl-PABA, σ-PABA |
| OD-PABA, octyldimethyl-PABA, σ-PABA |
||
| 8% (EC,USA,AUS) 10% (JP) |
| 8% (EC, USA, AUS) 10% (JP) |
||
(Not currently supported in |
(Not currently supported in EC and may be delisted) |
||
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| |
| |
||
Line 144: | Line 141: | ||
| [[Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid]] |
| [[Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid]] |
||
| Ensulizole, Eusolex 232, PBSA, Parsol HS |
| Ensulizole, Eusolex 232, PBSA, Parsol HS |
||
| 4% (US,AUS) 8% (EC) 3% (JP) |
| 4% (US, AUS) 8% (EC) 3% (JP) |
||
| EC,USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| Genotoxic in bacteria<ref name="Mosley2007">{{cite journal |year= 2007 |month= |title= Light-Induced Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of a Sunscreen Agent, 2-Phenylbenzimidazol in Salmonella typhimurium TA 102 and HaCaT Keratinocytes |journal= International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |volume= 4 |issue= 2 |pages=126–131 |id= |url= |doi=10.3390/ijerph2007040006 |author1= Mosley, C N |author2= Wang, L |author3= Gilley, S |author4= Wang, S |author5= Yu, H |pmid= 17617675}}</ref> |
| Genotoxic in bacteria<ref name="Mosley2007">{{cite journal |year= 2007 |month= |title= Light-Induced Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of a Sunscreen Agent, 2-Phenylbenzimidazol in Salmonella typhimurium TA 102 and HaCaT Keratinocytes |journal= International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |volume= 4 |issue= 2 |pages=126–131 |id= |url= |doi=10.3390/ijerph2007040006 |author1= Mosley, C N |author2= Wang, L |author3= Gilley, S |author4= Wang, S |author5= Yu, H |pmid= 17617675}}</ref> |
||
|- |
|- |
||
Line 162: | Line 159: | ||
| [[Oxybenzone]] |
| [[Oxybenzone]] |
||
| Benzophenone-3, Eusolex 4360, Escalol 567 |
| Benzophenone-3, Eusolex 4360, Escalol 567 |
||
| 6% (US) 10% (AUS, |
| 6% (US) 10% (AUS, EC) 5% (JP) |
||
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| |
| |
||
Line 168: | Line 165: | ||
| [[Homosalate]] |
| [[Homosalate]] |
||
| Homomethyl salicylate, HMS |
| Homomethyl salicylate, HMS |
||
| 10% (EC, JP) 15% (US,AUS) |
| 10% (EC, JP) 15% (US, AUS) |
||
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| |
| |
||
Line 181: | Line 178: | ||
| Eusolex OCR, 2-Cyano-3,3-diphenyl acrylic acid, 2-ethylhexylester |
| Eusolex OCR, 2-Cyano-3,3-diphenyl acrylic acid, 2-ethylhexylester |
||
| 10% |
| 10% |
||
| EC,USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| Increases ROS<ref name="Hanson" /> |
| Increases ROS<ref name="Hanson" /> |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| [[Octyl methoxycinnamate]] |
| [[Octyl methoxycinnamate]] |
||
| Octinoxate, EMC, OMC, Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, Escalol 557, 2-Ethylhexyl-paramethoxycinnamate, Parsol MCX |
| Octinoxate, EMC, OMC, Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, Escalol 557, 2-Ethylhexyl-paramethoxycinnamate, Parsol MCX |
||
| 7.5% (US) 10% (EC,AUS)20% (JP) |
| 7.5% (US) 10% (EC, AUS) 20% (JP) |
||
| EC,USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| [[Octyl salicylate]] |
| [[Octyl salicylate]] |
||
| Octisalate, 2-Ethylhexyl salicylate, Escalol 587, |
| Octisalate, 2-Ethylhexyl salicylate, Escalol 587, |
||
| 5% (EC,USA,AUS) 10% (JP) |
| 5% (EC, USA, AUS) 10% (JP) |
||
| EC,USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
Line 199: | Line 196: | ||
| 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxybenzophenone-5-sulfonic acid, 3-Benzoyl-4-hydroxy-6-methoxybenzenesulfonic acid, Benzophenone-4, Escalol 577 |
| 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxybenzophenone-5-sulfonic acid, 3-Benzoyl-4-hydroxy-6-methoxybenzenesulfonic acid, Benzophenone-4, Escalol 577 |
||
| 5% (EC) 10% (US, AUS, JP) |
| 5% (EC) 10% (US, AUS, JP) |
||
| EC,USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
Line 210: | Line 207: | ||
| [[Avobenzone]] |
| [[Avobenzone]] |
||
| 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-3-(4-tert-butyl<br>phenyl)propane-1,3-dione, Butyl methoxy dibenzoylmethane, BMDBM, Parsol 1789, Eusolex 9020 |
| 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-3-(4-tert-butyl<br>phenyl)propane-1,3-dione, Butyl methoxy dibenzoylmethane, BMDBM, Parsol 1789, Eusolex 9020 |
||
| 3% (US) 5% (EC,AUS)10% (JP) |
| 3% (US) 5% (EC, AUS)10% (JP) |
||
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| Not available<ref>{{cite journal|title=Human Safety and Efficacy of Ultraviolet Filters and Sunscreen Products|journal=Dermatologic Clinics|volume=24|pages=35–51|year=2006|doi=10.1016/j.det.2005.09.006|pmid=16311166|last1=Nash|first1=JF|issue=1}}</ref> |
| Not available<ref>{{cite journal|title=Human Safety and Efficacy of Ultraviolet Filters and Sunscreen Products|journal=Dermatologic Clinics|volume=24|pages=35–51|year=2006|doi=10.1016/j.det.2005.09.006|pmid=16311166|last1=Nash|first1=JF|issue=1}}</ref> |
||
Line 217: | Line 214: | ||
| Mexoryl SX, Terephthalylidene Dicamphor Sulfonic Acid |
| Mexoryl SX, Terephthalylidene Dicamphor Sulfonic Acid |
||
| 10% |
| 10% |
||
| EC,AUS (US: |
| EC, AUS (US: approved in certain formulations up to 3% via New Drug Application (NDA) Route) |
||
| Protects against skin tumors in mice<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite journal |title= photoprotection | journal= Lancet |volume=370 |pages=528–37 |year=2007 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60638-2 |author1= Lautenschlager, Stephan |author2= Wulf, Hans Christian |author3= Pittelkow, Mark R |pmid= 17693182 |issue= 9586}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| title=Percutaneous absorption of Mexoryl SX in human volunteers: comparison with in vitro data|date=Nov–Dec 2003| pmid=14528058| author=Benech-Kieffer F, Meuling WJ, Leclerc C, Roza L, Leclaire J, Nohynek G| journal= Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol| volume=16| pages=343–55| doi=10.1159/000072929| issue=6}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| title=Mexoryl SX protects against solar-simulated UVR-induced photocarcinogenesis in mice|date=October 1996| pmid=8863475| author=Fourtanier A| journal= Photochem Photobiol| volume=64| pages=688–93| doi=10.1111/j.1751-1097.1996.tb03125.x| issue=4}}</ref> |
| Protects against skin tumors in mice<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite journal |title= photoprotection | journal= Lancet |volume=370 |pages=528–37 |year=2007 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60638-2 |author1= Lautenschlager, Stephan |author2= Wulf, Hans Christian |author3= Pittelkow, Mark R |pmid= 17693182 |issue= 9586}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| title=Percutaneous absorption of Mexoryl SX in human volunteers: comparison with in vitro data|date=Nov–Dec 2003| pmid=14528058| author=Benech-Kieffer F, Meuling WJ, Leclerc C, Roza L, Leclaire J, Nohynek G| journal= Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol| volume=16| pages=343–55| doi=10.1159/000072929| issue=6}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| title=Mexoryl SX protects against solar-simulated UVR-induced photocarcinogenesis in mice|date=October 1996| pmid=8863475| author=Fourtanier A| journal= Photochem Photobiol| volume=64| pages=688–93| doi=10.1111/j.1751-1097.1996.tb03125.x| issue=4}}</ref> |
||
|- |
|- |
||
Line 223: | Line 220: | ||
| CI77891 |
| CI77891 |
||
| 25% (No limit Japan) |
| 25% (No limit Japan) |
||
| EC,USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
Line 229: | Line 226: | ||
| |
| |
||
| 25% (US) 20% (AUS) |
| 25% (US) 20% (AUS) |
||
(EC |
(EC: 25%, provided particle size >100 nm) |
||
(Japan |
(Japan: no limit) |
||
| EC,USA, AUS, JP |
| EC, USA, AUS, JP |
||
| Protects against skin tumors in mice<ref name="autogenerated1" /> |
| Protects against skin tumors in mice<ref name="autogenerated1" /> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
Other ingredients approved within the EU<ref> |
Other ingredients approved within the EU<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R1223&qid=1406148728060&from=EN |title=Regulation No. 1223/2009 on cosmetic products |journal=Official Journal of the European Union |date=December 22, 2009 |accessdate=July 23, 2014}}</ref> and other parts of the world,<ref>[http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/argom_10.pdf Australian Regulatory Guidelines for OTC Medicines - Chapter 10<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> that have not been included in the current FDA Monograph: |
||
{| class="wikitable" |
{| class="wikitable" |
||
Line 285: | Line 282: | ||
| [[Iscotrizinol|Uvasorb HEB]] |
| [[Iscotrizinol|Uvasorb HEB]] |
||
| Iscotrizinol, Diethylhexyl butamido triazone, DBT |
| Iscotrizinol, Diethylhexyl butamido triazone, DBT |
||
| 10% (EC) 5% (JP) |
| 10% (EC) 5% (JP)<sup>*</sup> |
||
| EC, JP |
| EC, JP |
||
|- |
|- |
||
Line 295: | Line 292: | ||
| [[Amiloxate]] |
| [[Amiloxate]] |
||
| Isopentyl-4-methoxycinnamate, Isoamyl p-Methoxycinnamate, IMC, Neo Heliopan E1000 |
| Isopentyl-4-methoxycinnamate, Isoamyl p-Methoxycinnamate, IMC, Neo Heliopan E1000 |
||
| 10% |
| 10%<sup>*</sup> |
||
| EC, AUS |
| EC, AUS |
||
|} |
|} |
||
Many of the ingredients |
Many of the ingredients awaiting approval by the FDA were relatively new and developed to absorb UVA.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Beth |last=Kapes |url=http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=169626 |title=Docs rally for better sun protection — Advances still unavailable in United States |journal=Dermatology Times |volume=26 |issue=7 |page=100 |date=July 2005 |accessdate=July 23, 2014}}</ref> |
||
<sup>*</sup> Time and Extent Application (TEA), Proposed Rule on FDA approval expected 2009 |
<sup>*</sup> Time and Extent Application (TEA), Proposed Rule on FDA approval expected 2009 |
||
==Application== |
== Application == |
||
⚫ | A sunscreen study from 2001 suggests that the best protection is achieved by dividing the SPF number in half and reapplying that many minutes after sun exposure begins. For example, if the SPF is 30, sunscreen should be reapplied once after 15 minutes of exposure. Further reapplication is only necessary after activities such as swimming, sweating, or rubbing/wiping.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Diffey B | title=When should sunscreen be reapplied? | url= | journal=J Am Acad Dermatol | volume=45 | issue=6 | pages=882–5 | year=2001 | pmid=11712033 | doi=10.1067/mjd.2001.117385}}</ref> |
||
{{Howto | section | date=October 2009}} |
|||
[[Image:Man sitting under beach umbrella.JPG|upright | right | thumb | Protection of the skin through use of a beach umbrella]] |
|||
⚫ | More recent research at the [[University of California, Riverside]], indicates that sunscreen must be reapplied within 2 hours in order to remain effective. Not reapplying could even cause more cell damage than not using sunscreen at all, due to the release of extra [[radical (chemistry)|free radicals]] from those sunscreen chemicals that were [[sunscreen controversy#absorption of photoactive sunscreen ingredients into the skin|absorbed into the skin]].<ref name="Hanson">{{cite journal | author=Kerry M. Hanson, Enrico Gratton and Christopher J. Bardeen | title=Sunscreen enhancement of UV-induced reactive oxygen species in the skin | doi=10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2006.06.011 | journal=Free Radical Biology and Medicine | year=2006 | volume=41 | pmid=17015167 | issue=8 | pages=1205–12}}</ref> |
||
Excessive exposure to direct sunlight is potentially harmful. Excessive exposure can result in [[sunburn]] if a person does not wear [[sun protective clothing]] or use suitable sunscreen. Products with a higher SPF ([[Sunscreen#Sun Protection Factor|Sun Protection Factor]]) level provide greater protection against ultraviolet radiation. However, in 1998, the Annual Meeting of the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] reported that some sunscreens advertising UVA and UVB protection do not provide adequate safety from UVA radiation and could give sun tanners a false sense of protection. A sunscreen which is [[hypoallergenic]] and noncomedogenic does not cause rashes or clog the pores, which can cause [[acne]]. |
|||
⚫ | |||
For those choosing to tan, some dermatologists recommend the following preventative measures: |
|||
⚫ | The dose used in [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]] sunscreen testing is 2.2 mg/cm² of exposed skin.<ref name= CTFA1998>{{cite web | url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/00/Sep00/090600/c000573_10_Attachment_F.pdf | title=Re: Tentative Final Monograph for OTC Sunscreen | publisher=[[Food and Drug Administration (United States)]] | date=1998-09-11 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref> If one assumes an "average" adult build of height 5 ft 4 in (163 cm) and weight 150 lb (68 kg) with a 32-inch (82-cm) waist, that adult wearing a bathing suit covering the groin area should apply 29 g (approximately 1 oz) evenly to the uncovered body area. Considering only the face, this translates to about 1/4 to 1/3 of a teaspoon for the average adult face. Larger or smaller individuals should scale these quantities accordingly. |
||
Some studies have shown that people commonly apply only 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount recommended to achieve the rated sun protection factor (SPF), and in consequence the effective SPF should be downgraded to a square root or 4th root of the advertised value.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Faurschou A, Wulf HC | title=The relation between sun protection factor and amount of sunscreen applied in vivo | journal=Br. J. Dermatol. | volume=156 | issue=4 | pages=716–9 |date=April 2007 | pmid=17493070 | doi=10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07684.x | url=}}</ref> A later study found a significant exponential relation between SPF and the amount of sunscreen applied, and the results are closer to linearity than expected by theory.<ref name="DOI10.1111/j.1600-0781.2009.00408.x">{{cite journal | author=Schalka S, dos Reis VM, Cucé LC | title=The influence of the amount of sunscreen applied and its sun protection factor (SPF): evaluation of two sunscreens including the same ingredients at different concentrations | journal=Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed | volume=25 | issue=4 | pages=175–80 |date=August 2009 | pmid=19614894 | doi=10.1111/j.1600-0781.2009.00408.x | url=}}</ref> |
|||
* Sunscreens that should block both UVA and UVB rays are called ''broad-spectrum sunscreens''. |
|||
* Sunscreens need to be applied thickly enough to get the full SPF protection. |
|||
* Sunscreens should be applied 15 to 30 minutes before exposure, followed by one reapplication 15 to 30 minutes after the sun exposure begins. Further reapplication is necessary only after activities such as swimming, sweating, and rubbing.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Diffey, B.L. | title=When should sunscreen be reapplied? | journal= J Am Acad Dermatol. | year=2001 | volume=45 | pages=882–5 | doi=10.1067/mjd.2001.117385 | pmid=11712033 | issue=6}}</ref> |
|||
* Sun rays are strongest between 10 am and 4 pm.<ref>http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/actionsteps.htm{{Dead link | date=October 2009}}</ref> Sun rays are stronger at higher [[elevation]]s (mountains) and [[latitude]]s near the [[equator]]. |
|||
* Wearing a hat with a brim and anti-UV sunglasses can provide almost 100% protection against ultraviolet radiation's entering the eyes. |
|||
* Reflective surfaces like snow and water can greatly increase the amount of UV radiation to which the skin is exposed. |
|||
⚫ | |||
Recent evidence indicates that [[caffeine]] and [[caffeine sodium benzoate]] increase UVB-induced [[apoptosis]] both in topical and oral applications. In mice, UVB-induced [[hyperplasia]] was greatly reduced with administration of these substances. Although studies in humans remain untested, caffeine and caffeine sodium benzoate may be novel inhibitors of [[skin cancer]].<ref name=Conney2008>{{cite journal | author=Conney, Allan H | title=Effect of Caffeine on UVB-induced Carcinogenesis, Apoptosis, and the Elimination of UVB-induced Patches of p53 Mutant Epidermal Cells in SKH-1 Mice | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18179623 | journal=Photochemistry and Photobiology | pages=330–338 | year=2008 | pmid=18179623 | doi=10.1111/j.1751-1097.2007.00263.x | volume=84 | last2=Kramata | first2=P | last3=Lou | first3=YR | last4=Lu | first4=YP | issue=2}}</ref> |
|||
⚫ | Updated package labeling standards in the [[United States]] were under development since 1978. A set of final [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]] rules, published in June 2011, bans "waterproof" claims, instead requiring claims of 40 or 80 minutes "water-resistant" protection. It also requires a standardized "Drug Facts" label and requires specific FDA approval for "sunblock" and "instant protection" labels. Claims of protection over two hours are not allowed without specific approval.<ref name="fda2011" /> |
||
⚫ | Due to requests by several trade associations and the personal care industry, the FDA extended the implementation period for 6 months from the original compliance dates. The revised implementation date was December 17, 2013 for products with annual sales less than US $25,000, and December 17, 2012 for all other products.<ref>[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-11/pdf/2012-11390.pdf Labeling and Effectiveness Testing; Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Delay of Compliance Dates] Retrieved 09/27/2012</ref> The extension allowed manufacturers adequate time for thorough testing and the full implementation of the new labeling requirements which cover: |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | The dose used in [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]] sunscreen testing is 2.2 mg/cm² of exposed skin.<ref name= CTFA1998>{{cite web | url=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/00/Sep00/090600/c000573_10_Attachment_F.pdf | title=Re: Tentative Final Monograph for OTC Sunscreen | publisher=[[Food and Drug Administration (United States)]] | date=1998-09-11 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | More recent research at the [[University of California, Riverside]], indicates that sunscreen must be reapplied within |
||
⚫ | |||
Updated package labeling standards in the [[United States]] have been under development since 1978. |
|||
⚫ | A set of final [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]] rules |
||
⚫ | |||
Due to requests by several trade associations and the personal care industry, the FDA ultimately decided to extend the implementation period for 6 months from the original compliance date. This decision allows manufacturers adequate time for thorough testing and the full implementation of the new labeling requirements which cover: |
|||
* Broad Spectrum designation |
* Broad Spectrum designation |
||
* Use claims |
* Use claims |
||
Line 340: | Line 319: | ||
* Water resistance claims |
* Water resistance claims |
||
* Drug facts |
* Drug facts |
||
* Maximum [[Sunscreen#Sun protection factor (SPF) and labeling requirements|SPF]] value on sunscreen labels to "50 |
* Maximum [[Sunscreen#Sun protection factor (SPF) and labeling requirements|SPF]] value on sunscreen labels to "50+" |
||
These changes |
These labeling changes were designed to help consumers identify and select suitable sunscreen products offering protection from sunburn, early skin aging, and skin cancer.<ref>[http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-safeguards-10412-us-fda-extends-deadline-for-new-sunscreen-labeling-requirements-a4-en-12.pdf US FDA Delays Implementation Deadlines for Sunscreen Labeling Requirements] SGS SafeGuard Bulletin, Retrieved 09/27/2012</ref> |
||
==Hair care== |
|||
⚫ | Sunscreening agents are used in some hair care products such as shampoos, conditioners and styling agents to protect against protein degradation and color loss. Currently, [[benzophenone-4]] and [[ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate]] are the two sunscreens most commonly used in hair products. [[Cinnamidopyltrimonium chloride]] and a few others are used to a much less degree. The common sunscreens used on skin are rarely used for hair products due to their texture and weight effects. |
||
== See also == |
== See also == |
Revision as of 22:08, 23 July 2014
Sunscreen (also commonly known as sun screen, sunblock, suntan lotion, sunburn cream, sun cream or block out)[1] is a lotion, spray, gel or other topical product that absorbs or reflects some of the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the skin exposed to sunlight and thus helps protect against sunburn. Skin-lightening products have sunscreen to protect lightened skin because light skin is more susceptible to sun damage than darker skin. A number of sunscreens have tanning powder to help the skin to darken or tan; however, tanning powder does not provide protection from UV rays.
Depending on the mode of action, sunscreens can be classified into physical sunscreens (i.e., those that reflect the sunlight) or chemical sunscreens (i.e., those that absorb the UV light).[2]
Medical organizations such as the American Cancer Society recommend the use of sunscreen because it aids in the prevention of developing squamous cell carcinomas.[3] Many sunscreens do not block UVA radiation, which does not cause sunburn but can increase the rate of melanoma and photodermatitis, so people using sunscreens may be exposed to high UVA levels without realizing it.[4] The use of broad-spectrum (UVA/UVB) sunscreens can address this concern. Diligent use of sunscreen can also slow or temporarily prevent the development of wrinkles and sagging skin.[5]
Health effects
Benefits
Sunscreen use can help prevent melanoma[6] and squamous cell carcinoma, two types of skin cancer.[7] There is little evidence that it is effective in preventing basal cell carcinoma.[8]
A 2013 study concluded that the diligent, everyday application of sunscreen can slow or temporarily prevent the development of wrinkles and sagging skin. The study involved 900 white people in Australia and required some of them to apply a broad-spectrum sunscreen every day for four and a half years. It found that people who did so had noticeably more resilient and smoother skin than those assigned to continue their usual practices.[5]
Potential risks
In 2008 two studies by the CDC highlighted concerns about the sunscreen chemical oxybenzone (benzophenone-3). The first study detected the chemical in 97% of the 2,500 Americans tested, while the second found that mothers with high levels of oxybenzone in their bodies were more likely to give birth to underweight baby girls.[9] While surrounded by much controversy, it does provide broad-spectrum UV coverage, including UVB and short-wave UVA rays.[10]
In 2006 the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia carried out a review of sunscreen safety studies and concluded: "There is evidence from isolated cell experiments that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide can induce free radical formation in the presence of light and that this may damage these cells (photo-mutagenicity with zinc oxide). However, this would only be of concern in people using sunscreens if the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide penetrated into viable skin cells. The weight of current evidence is that they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin."[11]
Concerns have also been raised about potential vitamin D deficiency arising from prolonged use of sunscreen. Typical use of sunscreen does not usually result in vitamin D deficiency; however, extensive usage may.[12] Sunscreen prevents ultraviolet light from reaching the skin and if properly applied will, under high UV Index conditions, approximately halve vitamin D synthesis; whether the effect is exacerbated under low UV intensity is not yet proven.[13][14] When the UV Index is greater than 3 (which occurs daily within the tropics and daily during the spring and summer seasons in temperate regions) adequate amounts of vitamin D3 can be made in the skin after only ten to fifteen minutes of sun exposure at least two times per week to the face, arms, hands, or back without sunscreen. With longer exposure to UVB rays, an equilibrium is achieved in the skin, and the vitamin degrades as fast as it is generated.[15]
History
Among widely used modern sunscreens, one of the earliest was produced by Benjamin Green, an airman and later a pharmacist, in 1944.[16] The product, Red Vet Pet (for red veterinary petrolatum), had limited effectiveness, working as a physical blocker of ultraviolet radiation. It was a disagreeable red, sticky substance similar to petroleum jelly. This product was developed during the height of World War II, when it was likely that the hazards of sun overexposure were becoming apparent to soldiers in the Pacific and to their families at home. Sales of this product boomed when Coppertone acquired the patent and marketed the substance under the Coppertone girl and Bain de Soleil branding in the early 1950s.
The first effective modern sunscreen may have been developed by chemist Franz Greiter in 1946. The product, called Gletscher Crème (Glacier Cream), subsequently became the basis for the company Piz Buin (named in honor of the place Greiter allegedly obtained the sunburn that inspired his concoction), which is still today a marketer of sunscreen products.[17] It has been estimated that Gletscher Crème had a sun protection factor of 2.
In 1962 Franz Greiter introduced the concept of sun protection factor (SPF), which has become a worldwide standard for measuring the effectiveness of sunscreen when applied at an even rate of 2 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2). Some controversy exists over the usefulness of SPF measurements, especially whether the 2 mg/cm2 application rate is an accurate reflection of people’s actual use.
Newer sunscreens have been developed with the ability to better withstand contact with water, heat and sweat.
Measurements of sunscreen protection
Sun protection factor (SPF) and labeling requirements
The SPF rating is a measure of the fraction of sunburn-producing UV rays blocked. For example, "SPF 15" means that 1/15th of the burning UV will reach the skin. The effectiveness of a sunscreen can be determined "by multiplying the SPF factor by the length of time it takes for him or her to suffer a burn without sunscreen."[18] Thus, if a person develops a sunburn in 10 minutes when not wearing a sunscreen, the same person will prevent sunburn for 150 minutes if he/she wears a sunscreen with an SPF of 15.[19] It is important to note that sunscreens with higher SPF do not last or remain effective on the skin any longer than lower SPF and must be continually reapplied as directed, usually every two hours.[20]
The SPF is an imperfect measure of skin damage because invisible damage and skin aging are also caused by ultraviolet type A (UVA, wavelength 320 to 400 nm), which does not cause reddening or pain. Conventional sunscreen blocks very little UVA radiation relative to the nominal SPF; broad-spectrum sunscreens are designed to protect against both UVB and UVA.[21][22][23] According to a 2004 study, UVA also causes DNA damage to cells deep within the skin, increasing the risk of malignant melanomas.[24] Even some products labeled "broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection" do not provide good protection against UVA rays.[25] Titanium dioxide probably gives good protection, but does not completely cover the UVA spectrum, as early 2000s research suggests that zinc oxide is superior to titanium dioxide at wavelengths between 340 and 380 nm.[26]
Owing to consumer confusion over the real degree and duration of protection offered, labeling restrictions are in force in several countries. In the EU, sunscreen labels can only go up to SPF 50+ (initially listed as 30 but soon revised to 50).[27] Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration increased the upper limit to 50+ in 2012.[28][29] In the 2007 and 2011 draft rules, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a maximum SPF label of 50, to limit unrealistic claims.[30][31][32] Others have proposed restricting the active ingredients to an SPF of no more than 50, due to lack of evidence that higher dosages provide more meaningful protection.[33]
The SPF can be measured by applying sunscreen to the skin of a volunteer and measuring how long it takes before sunburn occurs when exposed to an artificial sunlight source. In the US, such an in vivo test is required by the FDA. It can also be measured in vitro with the help of a specially designed spectrometer. In this case, the actual transmittance of the sunscreen is measured, along with the degradation of the product due to being exposed to sunlight. In this case, the transmittance of the sunscreen must be measured over all wavelengths in the UVB range (290–320 nm), along with a table of how effective various wavelengths are in causing sunburn (the erythemal action spectrum) and the actual intensity spectrum of sunlight (see the figure). Such in vitro measurements agree very well with in vivo measurements.[34] Numerous methods have been devised for evaluation of UVA and UVB protection. The most reliable spectrophotochemical methods eliminate the subjective nature of grading erythema.[35]
The ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) is a similar scale developed for rating fabrics for sun protective clothing.
Mathematically, the SPF (or the UPF) is calculated from measured data as
where is the solar irradiance spectrum, the erythemal action spectrum, and the monochromatic protection factor, all functions of the wavelength . The MPF is roughly the inverse of the transmittance at a given wavelength.
The above means that the SPF is not simply the inverse of the transmittance in the UVB region. If that were true, then applying two layers of SPF 5 sunscreen would be equivalent to SPF 25 (5 times 5). The actual combined SPF is always lower than the square of the single-layer SPF.
UVA protection
Persistent pigment darkening (PPD)
The persistent pigment darkening (PPD) method is a method of measuring UVA protection, similar to the SPF method of measuring UVB light protection. Originally developed in Japan, it is the preferred method used by manufacturers such as L'Oréal.
Instead of measuring erythema or reddening of the skin, the PPD method uses UVA radiation to cause a persistent darkening or tanning of the skin. Theoretically, a sunscreen with a PPD rating of 10 should allow a person 10 times as much UVA exposure as would be without protection. The PPD method is an in vivo test like SPF. In addition, Colipa has introduced a method that, it is claimed, can measure this in vitro and provide parity with the PPD method.[36]
SPF equivalence
As part of revised guidelines for sunscreens in the EU, there is a requirement to provide the consumer with a minimum level of UVA protection in relation to the SPF. This should be a UVA PF of at least 1/3 of the SPF to carry the UVA seal. The implementation of this seal is in its phase-in period,[when?] so a sunscreen without it may already offer this protection.[37]
A set of final U.S. FDA rules effective from summer 2012 defines the phrase "broad spectrum" as having a UVA SPF at least as high as the UVB SPF.[31]
Star rating system
In the UK and Ireland, the Boots star rating system is a proprietary in vitro method used to describe the ratio of UVA to UVB protection offered by sunscreen creams and sprays. Based on original work by Prof. Brian Diffey at Newcastle University, the Boots Company in Nottingham, UK, developed a standard method that has been adopted by most companies marketing these products in the UK. The logo and methodology of the test are licenced for a token fee to any manufacturer or brand of sunscreens that are sold in the Boots retail chain, provided the products to which the logo is applied perform to the standard claimed. Own Label products exclusively sold in other retailers are now excluded from the terms of the licence. It should not be confused with SPF, which is measured with reference to burning and UVB. One-star products provide the least ratio of UVA protection; five-star products are best. The method has recently been revised in the light of the Colipa UVA PF test, and with the new EU recommendations regarding UVA PF. The method still uses a spectrophotometer to measure absorption of UVA vs UVB; the difference stems from a requirement to pre-irradiate samples (where this was not previously required) to give a better indication of UVA protection, and of photostability when the product is used. With the current methodology, the lowest rating is three stars, the highest being five stars. In August 2007, the FDA put out for consultation the proposal that a version of this protocol be used to inform users of American product of the protection that it gives against UVA,[38] but after concern this would be too confusing this was not adopted.[33]
PA system
Asian brands, particularly Japanese ones, tend to use The Protection Grade of UVA (PA) system to measure the UVA protection a sunscreen provides. The PA system is based on the PPD reaction and is now widely adopted on the labels of sunscreens. According to the Japan Cosmetic Industry Association, PA+ corresponds to a UVA protection factor between two and four, PA++ between four and eight, and PA+++ more than eight.
Sunblock
Sunblock typically refers to opaque sunscreen that is effective at blocking both UVA and UVB rays and uses a heavy carrier oil to resist being washed off. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are two of the important ingredients in sunblock.[39] Unlike the organic sun-blocking agents used in many sunscreens, these metal oxides do not degrade with exposure to sunlight.
The use of the word "sunblock" in the marketing of sunscreens is controversial. Since 2013, the FDA has banned such use because it can lead consumers to overestimate the effectiveness of products so labeled.[31] Nonetheless, many consumers use the words sunblock and sunscreen synonymously.
For total protection against damage from the sun, the skin needs to be protected from UVA, UVB and IRA (infrared light). Roughly 35% of solar energy is IRA.[40]
Active ingredients
Sunscreens contain one or more of the following ingredients:
- Organic chemical compounds that absorb ultraviolet light.
- Inorganic particulates that reflect, scatter, and absorb UV light (such as titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, or a combination of both).[39]
- Organic particulates that mostly absorb light like organic chemical compounds, but contain multiple chromophores that may reflect and scatter a fraction of light like inorganic particulates, and behave differently in formulations than organic chemical compounds. An example is Tinosorb M. Since the UV-attenuating efficacy depends strongly on particle size, the material is micronised to particle sizes below 200 nm. The mode of action of this photostable filter system is governed to about 90% by absorption and 10% by scattering of UV light.
The principal ingredients in sunscreens are usually aromatic molecules conjugated with carbonyl groups. This general structure allows the molecule to absorb high-energy ultraviolet rays and release the energy as lower-energy rays, thereby preventing the skin-damaging ultraviolet rays from reaching the skin. So, upon exposure to UV light, most of the ingredients (with the notable exception of avobenzone) do not undergo significant chemical change, allowing these ingredients to retain the UV-absorbing potency without significant photodegradation.[41] A chemical stabilizer is included in some sunscreens containing avobenzone to slow its breakdown; examples include formulations containing Helioplex[42] and AvoTriplex.[43] The stability of avobenzone can also be improved by bemotrizinol,[44] octocrylene[45] and various other photostabilisers.
Sunscreening agents are used in some hair care products such as shampoos, conditioners and styling agents to protect against protein degradation and color loss. Currently, benzophenone-4 and ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate are the two sunscreens most commonly used in hair products. Cinnamidopyltrimonium chloride and a few others are used to a much less degree. The common sunscreens used on skin are rarely used for hair products due to their texture and weight effects.
The FDA made significant changes on sunscreen product labeling in 2011, ruling that:
- To be classified as "broad spectrum", sunscreen products must provide protection against both UVA and UVB.
- Claims of products being "waterproof", "sweatproof" or "sunblocks" are prohibited.
- "Water resistance" claims on the front label must indicate how long the sunscreen remains effective and specify whether this applies to swimming or sweating, based on standard testing.
- Sunscreens must include "Drug Facts" information on the container. However, there is no regulation that deems it necessary to mention whether the contents contain nanoparticles of mineral ingredients. (The EU has stricter regulation against the use of nanoparticles, and in 2009 introduced labeling requirements for nanoparticle ingredients in certain sunscreens and cosmetics.)[46][47]
The following are the FDA allowable active ingredients in sunscreens:
UV-filter | Other names | Maximum concentration | Permitted in these countries | Results of safety testing |
---|---|---|---|---|
p-Aminobenzoic acid | PABA | 15% (EC: banned from sale to consumers from 8 October 2009) | USA, AUS | Protects against skin tumors in mice.[48][49][50] Shown to increase DNA defects, however, and is now less commonly used. |
Padimate O | OD-PABA, octyldimethyl-PABA, σ-PABA | 8% (EC, USA, AUS) 10% (JP)
(Not currently supported in EC and may be delisted) |
EC, USA, AUS, JP | |
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid | Ensulizole, Eusolex 232, PBSA, Parsol HS | 4% (US, AUS) 8% (EC) 3% (JP) | EC, USA, AUS, JP | Genotoxic in bacteria[51] |
Cinoxate | 2-Ethoxyethyl p-methoxycinnamate | 3% (US) 6% (AUS) | USA, AUS | |
Dioxybenzone | Benzophenone-8 | 3% | USA, AUS | |
Oxybenzone | Benzophenone-3, Eusolex 4360, Escalol 567 | 6% (US) 10% (AUS, EC) 5% (JP) | EC, USA, AUS, JP | |
Homosalate | Homomethyl salicylate, HMS | 10% (EC, JP) 15% (US, AUS) | EC, USA, AUS, JP | |
Menthyl anthranilate | Meradimate | 5% | USA, AUS | |
Octocrylene | Eusolex OCR, 2-Cyano-3,3-diphenyl acrylic acid, 2-ethylhexylester | 10% | EC, USA, AUS, JP | Increases ROS[52] |
Octyl methoxycinnamate | Octinoxate, EMC, OMC, Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, Escalol 557, 2-Ethylhexyl-paramethoxycinnamate, Parsol MCX | 7.5% (US) 10% (EC, AUS) 20% (JP) | EC, USA, AUS, JP | |
Octyl salicylate | Octisalate, 2-Ethylhexyl salicylate, Escalol 587, | 5% (EC, USA, AUS) 10% (JP) | EC, USA, AUS, JP | |
Sulisobenzone | 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxybenzophenone-5-sulfonic acid, 3-Benzoyl-4-hydroxy-6-methoxybenzenesulfonic acid, Benzophenone-4, Escalol 577 | 5% (EC) 10% (US, AUS, JP) | EC, USA, AUS, JP | |
Trolamine salicylate | Triethanolamine salicylate | 12% | USA, AUS | |
Avobenzone | 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-3-(4-tert-butyl phenyl)propane-1,3-dione, Butyl methoxy dibenzoylmethane, BMDBM, Parsol 1789, Eusolex 9020 |
3% (US) 5% (EC, AUS)10% (JP) | EC, USA, AUS, JP | Not available[53] |
Ecamsule | Mexoryl SX, Terephthalylidene Dicamphor Sulfonic Acid | 10% | EC, AUS (US: approved in certain formulations up to 3% via New Drug Application (NDA) Route) | Protects against skin tumors in mice[54][55][56] |
Titanium dioxide | CI77891 | 25% (No limit Japan) | EC, USA, AUS, JP | |
Zinc oxide | 25% (US) 20% (AUS)
(EC: 25%, provided particle size >100 nm) (Japan: no limit) |
EC, USA, AUS, JP | Protects against skin tumors in mice[54] |
Other ingredients approved within the EU[57] and other parts of the world,[58] that have not been included in the current FDA Monograph:
UV-filter | Other names | Maximum concentration | Permitted in |
---|---|---|---|
4-Methylbenzylidene camphor | Enzacamene, Parsol 5000, Eusolex 6300, MBC | 4%* | EC, AUS |
Tinosorb M | Bisoctrizole, Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol, MBBT | 10%* | EC, AUS, JP |
Tinosorb S | Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenol triazine, Bemotrizinol, BEMT, anisotriazine | 10% (EC, AUS) 3% (JP)* | EC, AUS, JP |
Neo Heliopan AP | Bisdisulizole Disodium, Disodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate, bisimidazylate, DPDT | 10% | EC, AUS |
Mexoryl XL | Drometrizole Trisiloxane | 15% | EC, AUS |
Benzophenone-9 | Uvinul DS 49, CAS 3121-60-6, Sodium Dihydroxy Dimethoxy Disulfobenzophenone [59] | 10% | JP |
Uvinul T 150 | Octyl triazone, ethylhexyl triazone, EHT | 5% (EC, AUS) 3% (JP)* | EC, AUS |
Uvinul A Plus | Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate | 10% (EC,JP) | EC, JP |
Uvasorb HEB | Iscotrizinol, Diethylhexyl butamido triazone, DBT | 10% (EC) 5% (JP)* | EC, JP |
Parsol SLX | Dimethico-diethylbenzalmalonate, Polysilicone-15 | 10% | EC, AUS, JP |
Amiloxate | Isopentyl-4-methoxycinnamate, Isoamyl p-Methoxycinnamate, IMC, Neo Heliopan E1000 | 10%* | EC, AUS |
Many of the ingredients awaiting approval by the FDA were relatively new and developed to absorb UVA.[60]
* Time and Extent Application (TEA), Proposed Rule on FDA approval expected 2009
Application
A sunscreen study from 2001 suggests that the best protection is achieved by dividing the SPF number in half and reapplying that many minutes after sun exposure begins. For example, if the SPF is 30, sunscreen should be reapplied once after 15 minutes of exposure. Further reapplication is only necessary after activities such as swimming, sweating, or rubbing/wiping.[61]
More recent research at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that sunscreen must be reapplied within 2 hours in order to remain effective. Not reapplying could even cause more cell damage than not using sunscreen at all, due to the release of extra free radicals from those sunscreen chemicals that were absorbed into the skin.[52]
Dosage
The dose used in FDA sunscreen testing is 2.2 mg/cm² of exposed skin.[41] If one assumes an "average" adult build of height 5 ft 4 in (163 cm) and weight 150 lb (68 kg) with a 32-inch (82-cm) waist, that adult wearing a bathing suit covering the groin area should apply 29 g (approximately 1 oz) evenly to the uncovered body area. Considering only the face, this translates to about 1/4 to 1/3 of a teaspoon for the average adult face. Larger or smaller individuals should scale these quantities accordingly.
Some studies have shown that people commonly apply only 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount recommended to achieve the rated sun protection factor (SPF), and in consequence the effective SPF should be downgraded to a square root or 4th root of the advertised value.[62] A later study found a significant exponential relation between SPF and the amount of sunscreen applied, and the results are closer to linearity than expected by theory.[63]
Label regulations
Updated package labeling standards in the United States were under development since 1978. A set of final FDA rules, published in June 2011, bans "waterproof" claims, instead requiring claims of 40 or 80 minutes "water-resistant" protection. It also requires a standardized "Drug Facts" label and requires specific FDA approval for "sunblock" and "instant protection" labels. Claims of protection over two hours are not allowed without specific approval.[31]
Due to requests by several trade associations and the personal care industry, the FDA extended the implementation period for 6 months from the original compliance dates. The revised implementation date was December 17, 2013 for products with annual sales less than US $25,000, and December 17, 2012 for all other products.[64] The extension allowed manufacturers adequate time for thorough testing and the full implementation of the new labeling requirements which cover:
- Broad Spectrum designation
- Use claims
- "Waterproof," "sweatproof" or "sunblock" claims
- Water resistance claims
- Drug facts
- Maximum SPF value on sunscreen labels to "50+"
These labeling changes were designed to help consumers identify and select suitable sunscreen products offering protection from sunburn, early skin aging, and skin cancer.[65]
See also
Notes
- ^ "Preventing melanoma". Cancer Research UK. Retrieved 2009-09-22.
- ^ Sunscreens | The Ageing Skin
- ^ What You Need To Know About Skin Cancer
- ^ Terence SC Poon, Ross StC Barnetson and Gary M Halliday (2003). "Prevention of Immunosuppression by Sunscreens in Humans Is Unrelated to Protection from Erythema and Dependent on Protection from Ultraviolet A in the Face of Constant Ultraviolet B Protection". J Invest Dermatol. 121: 184–90. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12317.x.
- ^ a b "Sunscreen and Prevention of Skin Aging". 158 (11). Annals of Internal Medicine. June 4, 2013: 781–790.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help); Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - ^ Kanavy HE, Gerstenblith MR (December 2011). "Ultraviolet radiation and melanoma". Semin Cutan Med Surg. 30 (4): 222–8. doi:10.1016/j.sder.2011.08.003. PMID 22123420.
- ^ Burnett ME, Wang SQ (April 2011). "Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review". Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 27 (2): 58–67. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0781.2011.00557.x. PMID 21392107.
- ^ Kütting B, Drexler H (December 2010). "UV-induced skin cancer at workplace and evidence-based prevention". Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 83 (8): 843–54. doi:10.1007/s00420-010-0532-4. PMID 20414668.
- ^ "CDC: Americans Carry Body Burden of Toxic Sunscreen Chemical". Environmental Working Group. March 25, 2008. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
- ^ Burnett, M. E. and Wang, S. Q. (2011), Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, 27: 58–67
- ^ "Safety of sunscreens containing nanoparticles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide". February 2006. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
- ^ Norval, M; Wulf, HC (October 2009). "Does chronic sunscreen use reduce vitamin D production to insufficient levels?". The British journal of dermatology. 161 (4): 732–6. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09332.x. PMID 19663879.
- ^ Professor Young (2013-06-04). "Worried suncream blocks vitamin D? Here's good news..." Boots. Daily Mail. Retrieved 2013-07-05.
- ^ "Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D". National Academies Press. 2011. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
- ^ "Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D". National Institutes of Health. Archived from the original on 2007-09-10. Retrieved 2007-09-10.
- ^ Wang, Steven Q; Hu, Judy Y. "Challenges in Making an Effective Sunscreen". The Skin Cancer Foundation. Retrieved 2014-06-12.
- ^ "Gletscher Crème". 2010-04-22. Piz Buin. Archived from the original on 2010-05-12. Retrieved 2013-06-29.
- ^ Sunblock. UCSF. School of Medicine. Dept of Dermatology.
- ^ Sunblock. UCSF. School of Medicine. Dept of Dermatology.
- ^ "Sunscreen FAQs". American Academy of Dermatology. Retrieved July 22, 2014.
- ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12118426, please use {{cite journal}} with
|pmid= 12118426
instead. - ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12498.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi= 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12498.x
instead. - ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.04.035, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi= 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.04.035
instead. - ^ Berneburg M, Plettenberg H, Medve-König K, Pfahlberg A, Gers-Barlag H, Gefeller O, Krutmann J (2004). "Induction of the photoaging-associated mitochondrial common deletion in vivo in normal human skin". J Invest Dermatol. 122 (5): 1277–83. doi:10.1111/j.0022-202X.2004.22502.x. PMID 15140232.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ MSNBC.com : Sunscreen — protection or 'snake oil?'
- ^ Pinnell SR, Fairhurst D, Gillies R, Mitchnick MA, Kollias N (April 2000). "Microfine zinc oxide is a superior sunscreen ingredient to microfine titanium dioxide". Dermatol Surg. 26 (4): 309–14. doi:10.1046/j.1524-4725.2000.99237.x. PMID 10759815.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) [dead link] - ^ "Commission Recommendation of 22 September 2006 on the efficacy of sunscreen products and the claims made relating thereto". Official Journal of the European Union. 2006-09-22. Retrieved 2009-09-25.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ "UV Resource Guide - Sunscreens". Arpansa. 2008-12-20. Retrieved 2009-09-25.
- ^ "SPF50+ Sunscreen". 2013-02-01. Retrieved 2014-02-06.
- ^ Questions and Answers on the 2007 Sunscreen Proposed Rule
- ^ a b c d "Questions and Answers: FDA announces new requirements for over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen products marketed in the U.S." 2011-06-23. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
- ^ Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration (17 June 2011). "Revised Effectiveness Determination; Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use" (PDF). Federal Register. 76 (117): 35672–35678. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
- ^ a b "Sunscreen Takes Some Heat: New Dangers, New Rules". 2011-06-16. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
- ^ Optometrics products
- ^ Dominique Moyal "How to measure UVA protection afforded by suncreen products" www.medscape.com/viewarticle/576849
- ^ Colipa UVA method[dead link]
- ^ www.colipa.com[dead link]
- ^ Questions and Answers on the 2007 Sunscreen Proposed Rule
- ^ a b "Nanotechnology Information Center: Properties, Applications, Research, and Safety Guidelines". American Elements.
- ^ P. Schroeder, PhD and J. Krutmann, MD What is Needed for a Sunscreen to Provide Complete Protection
- ^ a b "Re: Tentative Final Monograph for OTC Sunscreen" (PDF). Food and Drug Administration (United States). 1998-09-11. Retrieved 2009-09-25.
- ^ Neutrogena | How Helioplex Works
- ^ Banana Boat AvoTriplex
- ^ Chatelain E, Gabard B. (September 2001). "Photostabilization of Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (Avobenzone) and Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate by Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (Tinosorb S), a new UV broadband filter". Photochem Photobiol. 74 (3): 401–6. doi:10.1562/0031-8655(2001)074<0401:POBMAA>2.0.CO;2. PMID 11594052.
- ^ DSM Nutritional Products North America - Cosmetics: Basis for Performance - Parsol 340 - Octocrylene
- ^ "Is Sunscreen Safe?". Eluxe Magazine. June 8, 2014. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
{{cite magazine}}
: Cite magazine requires|magazine=
(help) - ^ New sunscreen labeling rules announced by U.S. FDA SGS SafeGuards Bulletin, Retrieved 06/20/2013
- ^ "The inhibiting effect of PABA on photocarcinogenesis". Archives of Dermatological Research. 282 (1): 38–41. 1990. doi:10.1007/BF00505643. PMID 2317082.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - ^ "The effect of short-term application of PABA on photocarcinogenesis". Acta Derm Venerol. 70 (1): 72–75. 1990. PMID 1967881.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - ^ "The sensitization of near-ultraviolet radiation killing of mammalian cells by the sunscreen agent para-aminobenzoic acid". Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 79 (6): 354–357. 1982. doi:10.1111/1523-1747.ep12529409. PMID 6982950.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - ^ Mosley, C N; Wang, L; Gilley, S; Wang, S; Yu, H (2007). "Light-Induced Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of a Sunscreen Agent, 2-Phenylbenzimidazol in Salmonella typhimurium TA 102 and HaCaT Keratinocytes". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 4 (2): 126–131. doi:10.3390/ijerph2007040006. PMID 17617675.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=
(help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ a b Kerry M. Hanson, Enrico Gratton and Christopher J. Bardeen (2006). "Sunscreen enhancement of UV-induced reactive oxygen species in the skin". Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 41 (8): 1205–12. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2006.06.011. PMID 17015167.
- ^ Nash, JF (2006). "Human Safety and Efficacy of Ultraviolet Filters and Sunscreen Products". Dermatologic Clinics. 24 (1): 35–51. doi:10.1016/j.det.2005.09.006. PMID 16311166.
- ^ a b Lautenschlager, Stephan; Wulf, Hans Christian; Pittelkow, Mark R (2007). "photoprotection". Lancet. 370 (9586): 528–37. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60638-2. PMID 17693182.
- ^ Benech-Kieffer F, Meuling WJ, Leclerc C, Roza L, Leclaire J, Nohynek G (Nov–Dec 2003). "Percutaneous absorption of Mexoryl SX in human volunteers: comparison with in vitro data". Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 16 (6): 343–55. doi:10.1159/000072929. PMID 14528058.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Fourtanier A (October 1996). "Mexoryl SX protects against solar-simulated UVR-induced photocarcinogenesis in mice". Photochem Photobiol. 64 (4): 688–93. doi:10.1111/j.1751-1097.1996.tb03125.x. PMID 8863475.
- ^ "Regulation No. 1223/2009 on cosmetic products". Official Journal of the European Union. December 22, 2009. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
- ^ Australian Regulatory Guidelines for OTC Medicines - Chapter 10
- ^ "Uvinul Grades" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-09-25.
- ^ Kapes, Beth (July 2005). "Docs rally for better sun protection — Advances still unavailable in United States". Dermatology Times. 26 (7): 100. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
- ^ Diffey B (2001). "When should sunscreen be reapplied?". J Am Acad Dermatol. 45 (6): 882–5. doi:10.1067/mjd.2001.117385. PMID 11712033.
- ^ Faurschou A, Wulf HC (April 2007). "The relation between sun protection factor and amount of sunscreen applied in vivo". Br. J. Dermatol. 156 (4): 716–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07684.x. PMID 17493070.
- ^ Schalka S, dos Reis VM, Cucé LC (August 2009). "The influence of the amount of sunscreen applied and its sun protection factor (SPF): evaluation of two sunscreens including the same ingredients at different concentrations". Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 25 (4): 175–80. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0781.2009.00408.x. PMID 19614894.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Labeling and Effectiveness Testing; Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Delay of Compliance Dates Retrieved 09/27/2012
- ^ US FDA Delays Implementation Deadlines for Sunscreen Labeling Requirements SGS SafeGuard Bulletin, Retrieved 09/27/2012
External links
- FDA rulemaking history for sunscreens
- Make sure your sunscreen has The Skin Cancer Foundation's Seal of Recommendation
- Environmental Working Group: July 2009 Sunscreen Safety Guide and Report
- Information on what sunscreens are and how they work from The Skin Cancer Foundation
- Sun Safety for Babies and Children University of Florida/IFAS Extension Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences
- Article on UV absorbers not yet approved by the FDA
- Radiation protectants and their CAS registry number
- European Cosmetics ingredient database (CosIng)
- How does sunscreen work? Simple explanation from physics.org