Sunscreen Labeling Research Articles

Impact of a Youth Sun Safety Educational Program.

Sun protection early in life is necessary to prevent skin cancer. Therefore, youth sun safety education is imperative. However, such programs have often failed to bring about behavioral change in youths. We evaluate a sun safety educational program's effectiveness in improving elementary school students' knowledge of sun safety, confidence in their ability to explain the importance of sun protection, and their understanding of sunscreen labels. A 1.5-hour program was conducted for the fourth-grade students. Forty-five of the 53 students participated in the study and completed the pre- and post-surveys, a response rate of 84%. These surveys were identical, consisting of four questions rated on a Likert scale to assess changes in the students' knowledge, confidence, and understanding regarding sun protection. The students overall had a statistically significant increase in their knowledge of sun safety and sun protective measures, confidence in their ability to explain the importance of sun protection, and their understanding of sunscreen labels. In alignment with the current literature, this study demonstrates the importance of school-based sun safety programs and notably shows that such programs can increase youths' understanding of sunscreen labels and confidence in explaining the importance of sun protection. It is our hope that the program will cause increased practice of sun protective behaviors among the students. Further research is needed to determine how effective such programs are in increasing the practice of sun protective behaviors in youths.

Sunscreen Safety and Efficacy for the Prevention of Cutaneous Neoplasm.

Sunscreen is widely used for ultraviolet radiation protection. Studies validate sun protection factors (SPFs) to prevent ultraviolet (UV)-induced skin changes such as melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Few studies examine sunscreen's impact on endocrine and immune system dysregulation, the production of radical oxygen species, and whether the ingredients deteriorate under prolonged exposure. We present an investigation of sunscreen labels and how ingredients impact sun safety and human health. A review of the literature was conducted using Embase and PubMed to examine sunscreen safety, efficacy, and use to prevent UV-induced skin damage. Increasing sunscreen reapplication, wearing protective clothing, and limiting exposure can reduce the incidence of skin cancer. Inorganic sunscreens form barriers to block UV light, but without titanium dioxide (TiO2), they may not be advantageous due to their low UVA protection. Organic sunscreens absorb into the skin and provide a better feeling after application. Octocrylene and avobenzone are stable and provide UVA and UVB protection with minimal adverse effects. Oxybenzone is harmful to the neuroendocrine system and should be avoided. Titanium dioxide works for broad-spectrum UV protection and offers minimal adverse effects. Octocrylene and avobenzone are organic sunscreen ingredients that also provide a better feeling on the skin after application, which enables higher rates of use. Oxybenzone should be avoided.

Consumers pay attention to ingredients on the front of a label: an eye tracking study.

Sunscreen is an important part of skin cancer prevention. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed numerous changes to sunscreen labeling including adding active ingredients to the front of a label. The purpose of the study was to identify and describe differences in attention between current label formatting and the proposed label formatting. Forty-seven participants were interviewed. Participants were presented with mock sunscreen labels that resembled current labeling or labeling based on the proposed FDA rule. While reading the labels, eye movements were recorded. Participants spent 12.3 s longer looking at the front of the proposed rule-compliant label than they did on the front of the current label. They spent the longest time reading the directions (13-14 seconds) compared with other areas. Placing active ingredients on the front of a label in relatively large font makes it more likely consumers will look at the information.

Sunscreens: Misconceptions and Misinformation

Over the past 70 years, sunscreens have evolved from beach products designed to prevent sunburn to more cosmetically elegant skincare products intended to protect against multiple long-term adverse consequences of characteristically low-intensity daily UV and visible light exposure. Sunscreen testing and labeling intended to quantify such protection are unfortunately often misunderstood by users and have also led to illegal misleading and potentially dangerous industry practices. Changes in regulatory requirements, better policing, and more informative sunscreen labeling would benefit users and their physician advisors.

Visual Aids for Sunscreen Application: A mixed methods study.

Consumers routinely underapply sunscreen, and this may be because they misinterpret application quantity directions on sunscreen labels. U.S. labels use ambiguous terms such as "apply generously" to communicate application quantity. Visual aids may be helpful to consumers to determine proper application quantity. To examine sunscreen application practices and sunscreen quantity visual aid preferences. Sets of five GIFs and five static images were created corresponding to five quantities of sunscreen. Participants extracted their typical-use sunscreen quantity from a pre-measured tube and answered questions about their estimation process and use of labeled instructions. Participants then identified their typical-use sunscreen quantity in response to three stimuli: teaspoons, images, and GIFs and reported their preferred format. No participants reported using the label directions for application quantity to inform their sunscreen use. The GIF-based visual aid for sunscreen application quantity (44%) was preferred over image-based (40%) or teaspoon-based (16%) versions (p=.0249). Addition of a GIF demonstration to clarify application quantity was reported as highly helpful. Consumers have difficulty determining the appropriate quantity of sunscreen to use and labeling does not influence their application quantity. A QR code incorporating an image or GIF demonstration of proper sunscreen quantity could be useful to sunscreen consumers.

In vitro Assessment of Solar Filters for Erythropoietic Protoporphyria in the Action Spectrum of Protoporphyrin IX.

Introduction: Subjects with erythropoietic protoporphyria rely on broad-spectrum sunscreens with high sun protection factor, which is not informative on efficacy in the absorption spectrum of protoporphyrin IX, spanning visible radiation and peaking around 408 nm. Photoactivation of protoporphyrin IX is responsible for painful skin photosensitivity in erythropoietic protoporphyria.The authors assessed the protective efficacy of six sunscreens in vitro in the absorption spectrum of protoporphyrin IX.Method: Transmittance measurements were performed in the 300–850 nm wavelengths on samples of six photoprotective products applied to polymethyl methacrylate plates. Porphyrin protection factor was calculated in the 300–700 nm region to provide a measurement for the efficacy of each product based on the action spectrum of protoporphyrin IX.Results: Product A showed the highest porphyrin protection factor among tested products with a median value of 4.22. Product A is a sunscreen containing organic filters, titanium dioxide and synthetic iron oxides, pigmentary grade active ingredients that absorb visible radiation. Other products showed inefficient protection in the visible, with transmittance between 75 and 95% at 500 nm. The low porphyrin protection factor of inorganic filter product B was attributed to particle micronization, as declared by the manufacturer.Conclusion: Adding porphyrin protection factor to sunscreen labeling could help patients with erythropoietic protoporphyria and other photosensitivity disorders identify products tailored on their specific needs. The development of sunscreens providing protection from visible radiation and excellent cosmetical tolerability could improve the lifestyle of patients with erythropoietic protoporphyria.

HDRS - Hybrid Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy: Non-Erythemal In Vivo Driven SPF and UVA-PF Testing.

In order to define a label SPF of topically applied sunscreens, in vivo test methods like ISO 24444, FDA Guideline, and the Australian Standard are used worldwide. The basis of all these methods is to induce an erythemal skin reaction by UV irradiation to find the level of MEDu and MEDp (Minimal Erythmal Dose unprotected and protected). In vitro methods replacing the human skin by any kind of nonhuman material are still not available. Thus, offering the new hybrid diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (HDRS) technique that can maintain an in vivo level for SPF testing while neglecting the UV-dose-related erythemal skin reaction is a perfect combination to take care of sun protection and any ethical concerns in SPF testing nowadays. HDRS is a combination of in vivo diffuse reflectance spectroscopy measurements on the skin and in vitro transmission measurements of a sunscreen on a roughened polymethylmethacrylate plate. By this technique, the in vivo behavior of the investigated sunscreen on the skin is measured as well as the UVB absorption, which is still nonvisible in the reflectance technique. In order to establish an alternative method for in vivo SPF and UVA-PF testing, a huge number of sunscreens (250 samples) were measured by HDRS and compared with the worldwide accepted standards ISO 24444, ISO 24442, and ISO 24443. The variety of sunscreens measured reflect a wide range of different types of formulations as well as a wide range of SPFs (5-120) to validate this new alternative SPF testing procedure. Far-reaching statistical data analyses show an excellent link between the new nonerythemal-driven HDRS-SPF technique and ISO 24444 results. In the same way, HDRS-UVA-PF results can be correlated with UVA-PF values calculated from ISO 24442 as well as from ISO 24443. The importance of the inclusion of a spectral ratio of photodegradation is shown in the comparison of photostable and photounstable products. Owing to the elimination of any erythemal-relevant UVB and UVA doses, absolutely no skin reaction occurs during the HDRS experiment. Consequently, there is no need to define an MED anymore. For the first time, an alternative way to arriving at SPF and UVA-PF values is shown, without any ethical concerns of SPF testing in vivo and/or any restriction of SPF testing in vitro. Regardless of the type of formulation or the level of protection, an excellent correlation between SPFHDRSand SPF24444as for sunscreen labeling could be found. By this new alternative nonerythemal technique, not only SPF values can be measured but also UVA-PF values can be calculated with a linear correlation to ISO 24442 as well as to ISO 24443 from the same set of data. By this a robust alternative test method of SPF and UVA-PF values is described, taking into account the interaction of sunscreen formulation and skin.

Public misperceptions of common sunscreen labeling claims: A survey study from the Minnesota State Fair

Public misperceptions of common sunscreen labeling claims: A survey study from the Minnesota State Fair

Patient knowledge of FDA-mandated sunscreen labeling terminology: A cross-sectional survey.

Insufficient understanding of sunscreen labeling terminology is a barrier to effective use. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the "final rule" on sunscreen labeling in 2011, in an effort to promote effective usage. However, relatively little is known about patient knowledge of sunscreen labeling terminology. This study assesses the sunscreen labeling knowledge of dermatology patients, with an emphasis on understanding of the FDA-mandated wording. A validated survey was administered to consecutive dermatology office patients. Respondents answered questions about sunscreen use practices, sunscreen knowledge, and demographics. To assess their sunscreen knowledge, they responded to questions on the concepts of sun protection factor, broad-spectrum, and waterproof. A total of 334 patients completed surveys. Only 8.7% of patients correctly answered all three questions related to sunscreen labeling terminology. Patients with a personal history of skin cancer were more likely to answer more than half of the questions correctly (P=0.004). Older persons and those with darker skin types were most likely to answer all questions incorrectly. General understanding of sunscreen labeling was poor, and a minority of consumers comprehended the key features of sunscreen labeling. This knowledge gap appeared to be slightly smaller in the subpopulation of patients with a personal history of skin cancer.

Truths and myths in sunscreen labeling.

The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) has prioritized skin cancer prevention efforts in 2018, as photoprotection measures adopted by the general public remain suboptimal. A large proportion of patients lack understanding of primary prevention methods for skin cancer, and mistruths in advertising may contribute significantly to this deficit. Sunscreen labels are often stacked with multiple claims of seemingly high significance, making it difficult for patients to differentiate their validity when selecting a sunscreen. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published its monograph in 2011 to address these controversies in sunscreen labeling, but the reliability of several other claims remain unclear. In this article, we discuss several claims commonly made on sunscreen labels, and address the truths and mistruths surrounding them.

자외선 차단제의 블루라이트 차단효과에 관한 연구

Blue light is the highest energy wavelengths in the visible light region and induces skin aging and active oxygen. Studies on harmful mechanism of skin are under way. Research on blue light blocking materials in cosmetics and formulation studies are in the early stage, and the test methods related to blue light blocking measurement are not established. The blue light blocking efficacy was established by referring to the test method of the sunscreen in vitro test(COLIPA guideline, ISO 24443, FDA Final Rule on Sunscreen Testing and Labeling). The blue light blocking effect was evaluated for 17 kinds out of 27 kinds of sunscreen raw materials suggested in KFDA guideline. The Effect was 14.97% for zinc oxide and 16.32% for bishexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine, 35.47% for methylene bis-benzotriazolyltetramethylbutylphenol, and 65.96% for titanium dioxide. In addition, the effect of micro-titanium dioxide was twice as high as that of the nano-titanium dioxide. The results suggested that the light blocking effect test method can be used to search for blue light blocking materials and study cosmetic formulations.

Hybrid Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy: Non-Erythemal in vivo Testing of Sun Protection Factor

Background/Aims: In order to define a label sun protection factor (SPF) of topically applied sunscreens, in vivo test methods like ISO 24444, FDA guideline, or the Australian standard are used worldwide. The basis of all these methods is provoking an erythemal skin reaction by UV irradiation to find the level of unprotected and protected minimal erythemal doses (MED). In vitro methods replacing the human skin by any kind of non-human material are still not available. Thus, offering the new hybrid diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (HDRS) technique that is able to stay on an in vivo level for SPF testing but meanwhile neglecting the UV-dose-related erythemal skin reaction is a perfect combination to take care of sun protection and any ethical concerns in SPF testing nowadays. Methods: HDRS is a combination of in vivo diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) measurements on the skin and in vitro transmission measurements of a sunscreen on a roughened polymethylmethacrylate plate. By this technique, the in vivo behavior of the investigated sunscreen on the skin is measured as well as the UVB absorption, which is still non-visible in the reflectance technique. In order to establish an alternative method for in vivo SPF testing, a huge number of sunscreens (80 samples) was measured by HDRS and compared to the worldwide accepted standard ISO 24444. The variety of sunscreens measured reflects a wide range of different types of formulations as well as a wide range of SPFs (5–120) to validate this new alternative SPF testing procedure. Results: The applied quantity of product as well as skin color dependencies of signal generation are shown to support any basic correlation of DRS signal generation and sun protection expectations. Far-reaching statistical data analyses show an excellent link of the new non-erythemally driven HDRS-SPF technique and ISO 24444 results. In the same way, HDRS-UVA-PF results can be correlated with UVA-PF values calculated from ISO 24443. Conclusion: Due to the elimination of any erythemal relevant UVB and UVA doses, absolutely no skin reaction occurs. Consequently there is no need to define a MED any more. For the first time an alternative way to SPF is shown without any ethical concerns of SPF testing in vivo and/or any restriction of SPF testing in vitro. Regardless of the type of formulation or the level of protection, an excellent correlation of SPF_HDRS and SPF₂₄₄₄₄ for sunscreen labeling could be found. By this new alternative non-erythemal technique, not only SPF values can be measured, but also UVA-PF values can be calculated with an excellent correlation to ISO 24443 from the same set of data. For the first time a robust alternative test method of SPF- and UVA-PF values is described, taking into account the interaction of sunscreen formulation and skin.

Update on sunscreens distributed by major US retailers that meet American Academy of Dermatology recommendations

Update on sunscreens distributed by major US retailers that meet American Academy of Dermatology recommendations

Sunscreens and their properties for skin protection from solar radiation

Extensive promotion on the internet and in the media has led to an increase in public awareness that too much exposure to sun can cause photodamage and skin cancers. However, there are gaps in knowledge regarding the selection of the right sunscreen, recommended dose and daily application schedule. The labels of sunscreens are often difficult to understand and consumers remain unaware about the potential photodamage caused by infrared (IR) and high-energy visible light (HEVL). Patients are becoming increasingly conscious about skin health and aesthetics, but they often seek help only after a significant amount of sun damage has already occurred. There are still many discrepancies related to the correct method of sunscreen application and the best times for reapplication. Much more research is needed to study the harmful effects of sunscreen ingredients on systemic absorption, if any, in areas such as safety in pregnant and breastfeeding women, and the relationship to various skin cancers and diseases. This article discusses the types and formulations of sunscreens for ultraviolet light, IR and HEVL protection. It also covers sunscreen labels, application techniques, recommended doses, safety and possible health hazards, related controversies, product shelf life and the importance of patient education.

Assessment of Consumer Knowledge of New Sunscreen Labels

Assessment of Consumer Knowledge of New Sunscreen Labels

Assessment of consumer knowledge of new sunscreen labels

Assessment of consumer knowledge of new sunscreen labels

Evaluation of sunscreens distributed by 2 major US retailers for meeting recommendations by the American Academy of Dermatology

Evaluation of sunscreens distributed by 2 major US retailers for meeting recommendations by the American Academy of Dermatology

The Beat

The Beat

UV protection and sunscreens: What to tell patients

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the major environmental risk factor for nonmelanoma skin cancer and is a suspected risk factor for melanoma. Avoiding overexposure to direct sunlight during the peak daylight hours, wearing protective clothing, and applying sunscreen are ways to protect the skin. To provide clinicians with the tools to advise patients and to answer their inquiries, including which sunscreen to use, we review UV radiation's effect on the skin, how sunscreens block UV light, current recommendations on sunscreen use, and new sunscreen labeling requirements.

Is There Truly No Benefit with Sunscreen Use and Basal Cell Carcinoma? A Critical Review of the Literature and the Application of New Sunscreen Labeling Rules to Real-World Sunscreen Practices

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common human malignancy. Both epidemiological and direct evidence have established ultraviolet (UV) exposure from the sun as the most important risk factor for BCC development. There has only been one randomized and controlled study to examine sunscreen's role in the prevention of BCC, and no significant protective benefit was found. This study did not address four important concepts: sunscreen abuse, sunscreen misuse, sunscreen formulation, and cumulative UV exposure. Thus, the results of this study are difficult to interpret and extrapolate with real-world sunscreen practices.