• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Zinc Oxide Sunscreens

sunscreen

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Shula

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 2
  • Location:London, UK
  • NO

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:38 PM


I prefer to use a zinc oxide based sunscreen, and have tried several (often imported from the USA as there aren't as many available in the UK).

 

The best ones I've found seem to include a low percentage (around 7% or so) of non-nano zinc oxide, or a higher percentage (17% or more) of nano zinc oxide. It seems that UVA1 protection is not as good with nano particles, but would that be balanced out by the higher percentage?

 

This is a question I'd love to ask Eva Victoria, but she doesn't seem to be around at the moment. What do others think?



#2 Heyman

  • Guest
  • 207 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Germany

Posted 05 June 2014 - 04:56 AM

If you put them in the basf sunscreen simulator, you can look at the curve. Even nano ZnO in higher percentages can block out maybe 70% of the UVA at the very end of the spectrum (if I remember correctly, you should check it) which is at least some protection. I myself switched to purely photostable chemical ones (Biore UV Aqua Rich watery essence) as ZnO was still a bit too cosmetically unelegant no matter which I tried.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for AGELESS LOOKS to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:27 AM

Burnout makes a great non-nano zinc sunscreen. I'm loving their Ocean Tested one for the summer. It has 20% non nano zinc. I use this on my face and Purple Prairie (20% non-nano) on my neck. Sounds a lil odd but I wear the PP on face and neck in cooler weather. I'm mainly concerned with face sweating in warmer weather and the Burnout is more water resistant. I did a side by side comparison of these 2 sunscreens. One side of face with each. 1/8tsp each side. I was surprised how close they looked. Especially after an hour or so. The Purple Prairie was more white but still very acceptable to me. I actually like seeing some white on my skin. Burnout is damn near non white. Burnout is very popular. Devita was another sunscreen that  gave me zero white effect. I stopped using because of price and people saying they saw color while using it. Purple Prairie is more oily on the skin. Purple Prairie is as much as 3 times less cost per ounce.

 

http://www.essential...=asc&&start=300

 

http://www.purplepra...t&product_id=52


Edited by mustardseed41, 05 June 2014 - 05:31 AM.


#4 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 05 June 2014 - 06:19 AM

If you put them in the basf sunscreen simulator, you can look at the curve. Even nano ZnO in higher percentages can block out maybe 70% of the UVA at the very end of the spectrum (if I remember correctly, you should check it) which is at least some protection. I myself switched to purely photostable chemical ones (Biore UV Aqua Rich watery essence) as ZnO was still a bit too cosmetically unelegant no matter which I tried.

 

I checked out that sunscreen. Good UVB protection but the (Uvinul A Plus) in it as the chief UVA ingredient only protects to 354nm. Not so good.



#5 Shula

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 2
  • Location:London, UK
  • NO

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:21 AM

I will have a play on the BASF sunscreen simulator, thanks!

 

I've seen Burnout mentioned a lot here, and although it doesn't seem to be available in the UK, it looks like they offer reasonable international shipping, so I will order a tube to try! I don't mind a little whitening, as my skin is pale anyway, and I wear a light tinted moisturiser over the top.

 

I seem to have spent so much time trying to find the perfect sunscreen, but what suits one person, may not suit another, and what works on my skin one day, might not the next! So I have several on the go, but overall have found my skin likes zinc oxide based ones. I have sensitive skin and eyes, and chemical based ones occasionally give me a reaction, although I usually use a chemical based product for my power walks round the park (currently Avene Very High Protection Cream SPF 50), which I wash off when I get home.

 

I also often use a different sunscreen on my face, neck/chest and hands, as again different products can suit different areas of the body, and it can make financial sense too, as some facial sunscreens are quite expensive!

 

Today I'm wearing Algenist Ultra Lightweight UV Defense Fluid SPF50 30ml (Zinc Oxide 17.1% Octinoxate 7.5% Titanium Dioxide 2.0%). Apparently they use non-nano zinc oxide, but it isn't too whitening. I like it very much, but the downside is that it contains a lot of alcohol denat, which can dry my skin out if I use it too often.


Edited by Shula, 05 June 2014 - 10:34 AM.


#6 Heyman

  • Guest
  • 207 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Germany

Posted 05 June 2014 - 06:22 PM

 

If you put them in the basf sunscreen simulator, you can look at the curve. Even nano ZnO in higher percentages can block out maybe 70% of the UVA at the very end of the spectrum (if I remember correctly, you should check it) which is at least some protection. I myself switched to purely photostable chemical ones (Biore UV Aqua Rich watery essence) as ZnO was still a bit too cosmetically unelegant no matter which I tried.

 

I checked out that sunscreen. Good UVB protection but the (Uvinul A Plus) in it as the chief UVA ingredient only protects to 354nm. Not so good.

 

 

Did you look at the 2014 formulation? It still has Uvinul A Plus but as the main UVA protection uses Tinosorb S. BASF Sunscreen Simulator shows two version of the Tinosorb S: In water Base and (i think) in Oil base. For some reason, the one in water base offers much better UVA protection in the end of the range up to 400 nm, comparable to the Zinc Oxide sunscreen with about 18% ZnO that I used prior to this (nano ZnO, but high percentage). I don't know for sure but I would guess that they use the one in water base in the Biore Aqua Rich UV watery essence. I hope. Which means the UVA protection should be similar to the japanese sunscreen containing a high amount of ZnO.

 

Burnout made me look like a Ghost and felt really greasy. I just look more unhealthy as soon as a sunscreen contains ZnO or Tio2, its a bit more greasy and I don't like to apply as much. If you like a Zinc Oxide sunscreen and use it at a decent amount thats great!
 



#7 gt35r

  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • NO

Posted 06 June 2014 - 11:42 PM

It is remarkably how this very old piece of technology, non-nano Zinc Oxide, is still the best UV filter. I used to use generic chemical only sunscreens that had a SPF of 30 or even 50 but a PPD  of only 4. 

 

I use Zinc Oxide (non nano) at 15 - 20 percent. Burn out is good, I agree. 



#8 Heyman

  • Guest
  • 207 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 June 2014 - 05:24 AM

It is remarkably how this very old piece of technology, non-nano Zinc Oxide, is still the best UV filter. I used to use generic chemical only sunscreens that had a SPF of 30 or even 50 but a PPD  of only 4. 

 

I use Zinc Oxide (non nano) at 15 - 20 percent. Burn out is good, I agree. 

 

With chemical sunscreens you can get PPDs of 40+... I don't think with ZnO thats possible.
 



#9 gt35r

  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • NO

Posted 07 June 2014 - 05:27 AM

 

It is remarkably how this very old piece of technology, non-nano Zinc Oxide, is still the best UV filter. I used to use generic chemical only sunscreens that had a SPF of 30 or even 50 but a PPD  of only 4. 

 

I use Zinc Oxide (non nano) at 15 - 20 percent. Burn out is good, I agree. 

 

With chemical sunscreens you can get PPDs of 40+... I don't think with ZnO thats possible.
 

 

 

Yeah you are definitely right about that. I think with high concentration zinc the PPD ends up being 8-10 or so. However, the chemical sunscreens that allow for a PPD that high are not approved by the FDA so here in the US ZnO is the best choice. 

 

Also I am not sure how long the chemical sunscreen like Tinosorb last; even if they are photostable they may be absorbed by the skin eventually where as Zinc will not leave the top layer of the skin. 


Edited by gt35r, 07 June 2014 - 05:27 AM.


#10 Heyman

  • Guest
  • 207 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:05 AM

Also I am not sure how long the chemical sunscreen like Tinosorb last; even if they are photostable they may be absorbed by the skin eventually where as Zinc will not leave the top layer of the skin. 

 

 

I would also be really interested in that. I read some article some time ago about how sunscreen applied to the back was still like 80% as effective about 8 hours later, but I wonder the same. If I find it i might post it here, if someone knows more about this it would be great. The US and FDA thing kinda sucks for people living in the US. I buy it from Rakuten, I think they ship world-wide and as the sunscreen only costs like $6 if you buy not only one, the shipping cost is bearable.

 

Edit: Seems like the vast majority of Tinosorb S does not get absorbed or stays on / near the surface after 24 hours: http://www.fda.gov/o...tachment_02.pdf -> page 19


Edited by Heyman, 07 June 2014 - 06:38 AM.


#11 happy lemon

  • Guest
  • 272 posts
  • 7

Posted 07 June 2014 - 12:51 PM

...... I myself switched to purely photostable chemical ones (Biore UV Aqua Rich watery essence) as ZnO was still a bit too cosmetically unelegant no matter which I tried.

 

I thought that you liked Orbis.



#12 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 07 June 2014 - 03:13 PM

 

It is remarkably how this very old piece of technology, non-nano Zinc Oxide, is still the best UV filter. I used to use generic chemical only sunscreens that had a SPF of 30 or even 50 but a PPD  of only 4. 

 

I use Zinc Oxide (non nano) at 15 - 20 percent. Burn out is good, I agree. 

 

With chemical sunscreens you can get PPDs of 40+... I don't think with ZnO thats possible.
 

 

 

Really great info. from Eva Victoria a few years back explaining why PPD is not so relevant in Zinc Oxide sunscreens.

 

http://www.longecity...rs/#entry391991

 

With this in mind, I feel that each individual must make her own risk-benefit analysis of what SPF/PPD to wear. Please refer to this post for quotes from various publications with recommendations for minimum SPF. I have never seen any peer-reviewed publication make a recommendation on a minimum PPD. Please note that PPD is analogous to SPF in that PPD X absorbs 1 - 1/X UVA rays. However, this is a bit of an over-simplication because UVA rays between 320 and 360 nm are higher energy and thus contribute more to the PPD response than UVA rays between 360 and 400 nm, which are lower energy but more penetrating. Thus, PPD correlates more to protection between 320 and 360 nm than protection between 360 and 400 nm. It is virtually impossible to get PPD > 10 and excellent UVA-I protection from sunscreens currently available in the US. Please refer to this post for information on research that has demonstrated the superior efficacy of non-US formulations with Mexoryl and Tinosorb, as well as personal accounts from MUAers. Ultimately, the best approach may be to wear the highest SPF/PPD formulation that you feel comfortable applying liberally and that you can tolerate, afford, and obtain.

http://www.makeupall...me=sunscreenFAQ


Edited by mustardseed41, 07 June 2014 - 03:17 PM.


#13 happy lemon

  • Guest
  • 272 posts
  • 7

Posted 07 June 2014 - 03:35 PM

Thank you for digging out the post for us, mustardseed41.



#14 gt35r

  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • NO

Posted 07 June 2014 - 04:05 PM

 

 

It is remarkably how this very old piece of technology, non-nano Zinc Oxide, is still the best UV filter. I used to use generic chemical only sunscreens that had a SPF of 30 or even 50 but a PPD  of only 4. 

 

I use Zinc Oxide (non nano) at 15 - 20 percent. Burn out is good, I agree. 

 

With chemical sunscreens you can get PPDs of 40+... I don't think with ZnO thats possible.
 

 

 

Really great info. from Eva Victoria a few years back explaining why PPD is not so relevant in Zinc Oxide sunscreens.

 

http://www.longecity...rs/#entry391991

 

With this in mind, I feel that each individual must make her own risk-benefit analysis of what SPF/PPD to wear. Please refer to this post for quotes from various publications with recommendations for minimum SPF. I have never seen any peer-reviewed publication make a recommendation on a minimum PPD. Please note that PPD is analogous to SPF in that PPD X absorbs 1 - 1/X UVA rays. However, this is a bit of an over-simplication because UVA rays between 320 and 360 nm are higher energy and thus contribute more to the PPD response than UVA rays between 360 and 400 nm, which are lower energy but more penetrating. Thus, PPD correlates more to protection between 320 and 360 nm than protection between 360 and 400 nm. It is virtually impossible to get PPD > 10 and excellent UVA-I protection from sunscreens currently available in the US. Please refer to this post for information on research that has demonstrated the superior efficacy of non-US formulations with Mexoryl and Tinosorb, as well as personal accounts from MUAers. Ultimately, the best approach may be to wear the highest SPF/PPD formulation that you feel comfortable applying liberally and that you can tolerate, afford, and obtain.

http://www.makeupall...me=sunscreenFAQ

 

 

 

From Eva's post:

But the real difference between an organic sunscreen and a ZnO (15%+) containing one is that the UVAI protection from 385nm is usually non-existent for organic sunscreens (even when they contain TiO2*) while the one with 15%+ ZnO has at least PPD 10 at 385nm and about 4-8 at 400nm (depending on the particle size). So it provides lower SPF and PPD (UVAII) but it actually does cover the whole UVA spectrum! And again it is inherently photostable!"

 

Also she mentions that nano-ZnO has very low UVA1/PPD protection. She also mentions if it is non-nano and at 15% or more ZnO it has very broad coverage over UVA1,UVA2,UVB and you can expect of PPD of around 10.



#15 happy lemon

  • Guest
  • 272 posts
  • 7

Posted 07 June 2014 - 04:27 PM

I am using Allie & Orbis, both of them contain over 17% of ZnO but I don't know if it is nano or not.



#16 Heyman

  • Guest
  • 207 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 June 2014 - 09:53 PM

 

...... I myself switched to purely photostable chemical ones (Biore UV Aqua Rich watery essence) as ZnO was still a bit too cosmetically unelegant no matter which I tried.

 

I thought that you liked Orbis.

 

 

I still like it. But it feels a bit greasy on the skin, its not easy to remove and its not as cosmetically elegant, e.g. you still look a bit more unhealthy. In the end it lead me to not applying it everyday when I thought I'm not going out anyway. On the other hand, the Biore one actually acts like a moisturizer and makes my skin feel better than not applying it, I kinda look forward to it. So I'd rather apply a not-so-great sunscreen but apply it all the time. The orbis is 90% perfect.

 

As I read Evas post the photostability issue was mainly regarding Avobenzone, the only ingredient in the US that is used in chemical sunscreens for UVA. If I'm wrong please correct me. Tinosorb and Uvinul A Plus is photostoble and the new formulation in water base is according to the BASF sunscreen simulator at least somewhat protective in the UVA1 spectrum, maybe  PPD of 3 in the 400 nm range and PPD of ~6 at 390 nm. This should be comparable to the Allie and Orbis, that likely use nano ZnO as it is almost invisible.

 

Playing around with the basf sunscreen simulator it seems as if modern chemical filters can at least achieve the same results as nano ZnO. I have no doubt that non-nano ZnO is better in the 400 nm range (and a combination with chemicals would be even better) but it is no good if you look like a ghost, dislike the feeling on your skin and stop applying it every day because of that. The best sunscreen is in my opinion one that you actually apply every single day.

 

I wonder how much antioxidants help in the UVA 1 range, since application of sunscreen alone doesn't help against visible light / IR radiation that seems to play a role as well. If you use good antioxidants anyway, maybe its not sooo important to be extremely careful in the 380-400 nm range?



#17 happy lemon

  • Guest
  • 272 posts
  • 7

Posted 08 June 2014 - 02:44 AM

I have the ingredient list of Biore but it does not tell us the percentage of each filter, so I cannot use the BASF sunscreen simulator. 

 

Heyman, do you have the percentage?



#18 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 08 June 2014 - 04:55 AM

I like Badger for waterproof.  I think it is 30 spf.  It really is natural.  It is a health food store brand in the US. It uses zinc oxide.  


  • like x 1

#19 gt35r

  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • NO

Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:14 AM

I was curious, can you use any Zinc Oxide preparation as sunscreen? There are baby diaper crash creams that have 20 to 40 percent ZnO content and end up costing less, gram for gram. Does anyone know if you can use a 20 percent ZnO diaper rash as replacement for ZnO sunscreen? 

 

Otherwise I use Burnout and am a big fan of ZnO.

 

Also as a sub question, how long do you guys thing ZnO application will last assuming the person is not swimming or sweating much.

 

Thank you.



#20 happy lemon

  • Guest
  • 272 posts
  • 7

Posted 08 June 2014 - 05:58 AM

......Does anyone know if you can use a 20 percent ZnO diaper rash as replacement for ZnO sunscreen? 

The particle size of Zno in diaper rash is very large, so it is very white.



#21 happy lemon

  • Guest
  • 272 posts
  • 7

Posted 08 June 2014 - 06:01 AM

I like Badger for waterproof.  I think it is 30 spf.  It really is natural.  It is a health food store brand in the US. It uses zinc oxide.  

 

Zinc Oxide used in Badger is uncoated.

 

If possible, I will not to use it.

 

You may see the comment of Eva regarding uncoated ZnO.

 

http://www.longecity...ch&fromsearch=1



#22 gt35r

  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • NO

Posted 08 June 2014 - 06:16 AM

Over here Eva Said:

 

http://www.longecity...victoria/page-4

"I do not worry about the safety of ZnO even in the uncoated state. It has been proven in countless studies its anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory effect even in the case of Eczema."

 

Btw what happened to her? She has been inactive for a while. 



#23 Shula

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 2
  • Location:London, UK
  • NO

Posted 08 June 2014 - 08:40 AM

Interesting reading and links! In the UK I have access to the very best chemical sunscreens (and do use them on occasion) but I feel much more comfortable with zinc oxide. This is not only because my skin reacts well to it, but I like to layer skincare products (serum, followed by moisturiser, followed by sunscreen, then makeup) and zinc oxide based sunscreens seem to work effectively with this routine.

 

I've got a tube of Burnout on the way, and a friend has recommended MD Solar Sciences products, so I've ordered their Mineral Creme SPF 50, which contains 17% non-nano zinc oxide, a little titanium dioxide, and antioxidants too, so I'll let you know how I get on with both of those.

 

I hope Eva Victoria is well, I never actually 'spoke' to her, but have spent much time reading through her extremely knowledgable posts, and I'd love to know what progress there has been with her own sunscreen.


Edited by Shula, 08 June 2014 - 08:41 AM.


#24 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 08 June 2014 - 03:06 PM

I tried 20% diaper rash zinc cream before on my hands. Greasy as hell, made my hands stand out, and I left my mark every place I touched it seemed. :|o



#25 Shula

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 2
  • Location:London, UK
  • NO

Posted 08 June 2014 - 10:33 PM

On the plus side, no nappy rash on your hands.  :cool:



#26 Qowpel

  • Guest
  • 224 posts
  • 7
  • Location:New jersey

Posted 09 June 2014 - 06:57 PM

Ok so this is going to be a long post, and I sincerely hope we can all find the answer together because this gets very difficult to grasp.........

 

Ok

 

So for me, I use a zinc oxide sunscreen RAW ELEMENTS spf 30 which is 23% NON- nano Zno. Let's check out the perceived protection of this sunscreen first.... It appears Eva Victoria says that Zinc oxide protects from 290-400 nm in the UV spectrum......... But then she says that in the UV spectrum, ZnO "peaks" at 385 nm, which would mean that ZnO retains the highest PPD at roughly 385 nm and then a PPD of roughly 4 around the 400 range.......................

 

But then, with the ingredients of Bioderma Photomax spf 50+ contain Tinosorb S and Tinosorb M...... And I read an hour ago in a different thread Eva Victoria's post in which she says that Tinosorb M protects in such a way that its highest PPD is roughly at 388 nm........................ Wouldn't this make Tinosorb M, better than zinc oxide (even in high concentrations), at filtering UV light between 385-400 nm..................... Basically which would keep the skin younger looking (assuming that I reapply Bioderma as reccomended)...........

 

Also, EVA even said that Tinosorb M is a more efficient UVA filter than Zinc oxide............ so what conclusion can we come to finally?

Please let's try to find a REAL direct answer so that we can ALL go on looking younger faster


Edited by Qowpel, 09 June 2014 - 07:01 PM.

  • Ill informed x 1

#27 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 09 June 2014 - 09:00 PM

I've been wanting to try the RAW ELEMENTS sunscreen. How does it look as far as whiteness and greasy?

 

From all I've read, you can't go wrong either way with either Tinosorb M or non nano zinc. The slight  difference in protection is a moot point IMO. Maybe Tinosorb does add some more UVB protection also but I am more than confident in zinc's UVB capability. I have used Bioderma Photoderm Max in the past on my face and got some bad acne. I am wanting to use it again, this time just on my hands.


Edited by mustardseed41, 09 June 2014 - 09:02 PM.


#28 Shula

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 2
  • Location:London, UK
  • NO

Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:49 AM

Bioderma chemical sunscreens are excellent, but (as with many others) make my eyes sore or sting a while after applying. Another reason I like zinc oxide sunscreens is that I can usually take them right to my eyes without a problem.

 

The Burnout arrived, and I've used it a few times, but wasn't wild about it as a facial sunscreen, although I've been using it on my chest and hands. The MD Solar Sciences product I really like. It's very silicone-y, which wouldn't suit everyone, but for me means it works well as a makeup base. My current morning routine is a serum, followed by a moisturiser (with 7% zinc oxide, 2.8% titanium dioxide), followed by the MD Solar Sciences product (17% zinc oxide, 2% titanium dioxide), then makeup. So far, so good.

 

All sunscreens being sold in the UK/EU containing zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide now have to state if it's a nano product on the label, following a change in EU legislation, which is quite helpful.



#29 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 21 June 2014 - 04:26 AM

The link didn't work.  The internal search engine here doesn't work, and a Google search didn't turn it up.   What did she say?  


Edited by Luminosity, 21 June 2014 - 04:27 AM.


#30 Shula

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 2
  • Location:London, UK
  • NO

Posted 21 June 2014 - 07:53 AM

The internal search engine is working fine for me. Highlight Topic Search no the left of the page, then click on Forum Search. You can then personalise it according to what you're looking for (including by author), but from what I could find Eva Victoria didn't seem too concerned about uncoated zinc oxide.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: sunscreen

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users