85 replies to this topic

[Eva Victoria]

I think your intentions are good Eva. Your enthusiastic and keen on educating people. But I find to many incorrect statements and exaggerations to be able to trust your posts. You´ve been wrong about vitamin C, E, FDA-regulations, UV-filters, retinoids, synthetic antioxidants and stuff like availability/laws/timetables. I haven´t even felt like pointing it all out. It´s not my job. But I see that others here have also corrected your posts recently.

It´s like you´re in a hurry to post. Don´t be. It´ll just result in sloppy posts. Advice? Take your time and double check your sources before you post.

I know the above may sound harsh, but there´s no other way for me to say it. I don´t like to sugarcoat things. I want these forums to be a place of good science and sound advice.

Ok. I'll take more time on posting my posts. Thanks for the advice, Fredrik.

[Fredrik]

I think your intentions are good Eva. Your enthusiastic and keen on educating people. But I find to many incorrect statements and exaggerations to be able to trust your posts. You´ve been wrong about vitamin C, E, FDA-regulations, UV-filters, retinoids, synthetic antioxidants and stuff like availability/laws/timetables. I haven´t even felt like pointing it all out. It´s not my job. But I see that others here have also corrected your posts recently.

It´s like you´re in a hurry to post. Don´t be. It´ll just result in sloppy posts. Advice? Take your time and double check your sources before you post.

I know the above may sound harsh, but there´s no other way for me to say it. I don´t like to sugarcoat things. I want these forums to be a place of good science and sound advice.

Ok. I'll take more time on posting my posts. Thanks for the advice, Fredrik.

Cool!

[Kingston]

I do love phisical blocks myself and do not mind to have my face painted white. Au contraire, I miss it and don't feel protected if there is not a visible white-cast to my face.

BTW, I found a sunscreen which I have ordered and are excited as a kid before Xmas to get it delivered:

Photoderm MINERAL SPF 50+ - UVA 22

http://www.bioderma....action/594.html

Has anybody tried this? Does it have a light non-greasy consistency?

Eva, I am in love with this post about sunscreen formulations. Its interesting to see from a formulators point of view!

About the Photoderm Mineral...haven't tried it but thinking about it as well. From what you know, do you think it has high concentrations of ZnO and TiO2? Since it has high UVA protection, does that mean it has the right particle size etc that you've mentioned need to be in a high ppd physical sunscreen? I am hoping this will be a good physical sunscreen to add over a stable chemical sunscreen on long days out in the sun.

Just wanted to add that I truly value you as a member here and all the helpful information you post. You are one of the only posters that I know who takes the time to answer almost everyone's questions with a detailed response. Thanx!

[Eva Victoria]

I do love phisical blocks myself and do not mind to have my face painted white. Au contraire, I miss it and don't feel protected if there is not a visible white-cast to my face.

BTW, I found a sunscreen which I have ordered and are excited as a kid before Xmas to get it delivered:

Photoderm MINERAL SPF 50+ - UVA 22

http://www.bioderma....action/594.html

Has anybody tried this? Does it have a light non-greasy consistency?

Eva, I am in love with this post about sunscreen formulations. Its interesting to see from a formulators point of view!

About the Photoderm Mineral...haven't tried it but thinking about it as well. From what you know, do you think it has high concentrations of ZnO and TiO2? Since it has high UVA protection, does that mean it has the right particle size etc that you've mentioned need to be in a high ppd physical sunscreen? I am hoping this will be a good physical sunscreen to add over a stable chemical sunscreen on long days out in the sun.

Just wanted to add that I truly value you as a member here and all the helpful information you post. You are one of the only posters that I know who takes the time to answer almost everyone's questions with a detailed response. Thanx!

Hi Kingston!

Thank you very much for your kind words!
I truly appreciate them!

Photoderm mineral sunscreen shouold have approximately 15-17% physical actives. Since it is not stated anywhere what the concentration of the filters are I can ony guess from teh UVA value.
I have not received my order on this sunscreen yet so I'll have to vait till I can have a look at the "whiteness" on the skin to be able to evaluate whether tehy used non-micro ZnO or not. I doudt that they did though. It would be very surprizing if they would have used something that is whitening. TiO2 I am 100% sure is in micronized form (higher SPF, less actives needed= less whitening and also the cost prise is lower.)

I'll let you know more about this product when I have finally received it from France

[sdxl]

You should know that in Scandinavia (ask Fredrik or others here from Scandinavia) cosmetic companies do not priority high SPF marketed even though they produce it and market it widely in the rest of the EU).
The affordable sunscreens stop at SPF20 (UVA rarely more than 8).
La Roche-Posay is the only line that you can get hold of that has SPF50+ for face, SPF20 for body and SPF40 fro kids :( Though LRP is conciderably more expensive than Garnier and the filters are exactly the same (except the concentration is higher for UVA in LRP).

Don't know exactly what they say in this commercial, but I'm sure it's Swedish.

Looking at the Danish Garnier website, the Ambre Solaire range is indeed very limited compared to other countries.

[Eva Victoria]

You should know that in Scandinavia (ask Fredrik or others here from Scandinavia) cosmetic companies do not priority high SPF marketed even though they produce it and market it widely in the rest of the EU).
The affordable sunscreens stop at SPF20 (UVA rarely more than 8).
La Roche-Posay is the only line that you can get hold of that has SPF50+ for face, SPF20 for body and SPF40 fro kids :( Though LRP is conciderably more expensive than Garnier and the filters are exactly the same (except the concentration is higher for UVA in LRP).

Don't know exactly what they say in this commercial, but I'm sure it's Swedish.

Looking at the Danish Garnier website, the Ambre Solaire range is indeed very limited compared to other countries.

Thank you for this useful info! I'll check it out whether we can get hold of the Sensitive series from Garnier here in Norway! I always buy them in France.

Before you asked me why I did not include the Helioplex complex (patented by Johnson & Johnson, Neutrogena) in this topic.
Here are some links and the Graph for Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Sunblock SPF85 and SPF55.
So you can see it for yourself why US sunscreens don't have a chance when there is Mexoryl XS +XL or TinosorbS+M

http://cosmeticsdata...p...and_id=434

http://cosmeticsdata...ingred06=704372

http://www.realsimpl..._helioplex.html

Attached Files

•  Neutrogena_Ultra_Sheer_Dry_Touch_Sunblock_SPF_85.pdf   397.89KB   77 downloads
•  Neutrogena_Ultra_Sheer_Dry_Touch_Sunblock_SPF_55.pdf   391.95KB   107 downloads

Edited by Eva Victoria, 06 July 2008 - 11:24 AM.

[Fredrik]

Before you asked me why I did not include the Helioplex complex (patented by Johnson & Johnson, Neutrogena) in this topic.
Here are some links and the Graph for Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Sunblock SPF85 and SPF55.
So you can see it for yourself why US sunscreens don't have a chance when there is Mexoryl XS +XL or TinosorbS+M

What is the meaning of doing these CIBA sunscreen simulations when it´s clear that they´re inaccurate? The Neutrogena sunscreens have SPF 55 and 85 respectively as stated on the bottles and measured on human subjects. Not your calculations of SPF 18.6 and SPF 22.7 in the attached graphs. It´s nice that you invest your time in doing these simulations, not trying to be a jerk but they´re inaccurate, both with regards to SPF and UVA-protection.

It´s the same with the other sunscreens in your sunscreen profiles post.

http://www.imminst.o...les-t21473.html

The in vivo measured SPF of MD formulations is 30. That is the real SPF, not a simulation. Your CIBA calculations give the wrong SPF of 15.3.

Clinique City block SPF 15. Your calculation gives SPF 6.6. Less than half the real SPF.

Olay complete is SPF 15. But your CIBA calculation inaccurately gives SPF 10.2

And so on. It´s not only showing the wrong SPF, you also get the wrong UVA-protection factor in those simulations. The Neutrogena Ultra sheer sunscreens has a much higher PFA (PPD) than the simulated values of 6.8 and 7.5. The Ciba simulator doesn´t take synergistic effects of stabilizers and other ingredients into account (that is stated on the bottom of all your attached calculations).

The PFA of Neutrogena Ultra sheer SPF 70 is 23.3 or 26.5 depending on what source you want to believe. It´s certainly higher than what a CIBA simulation would show.

Recent PFA values, (a measure of a UVA-ingredient's effectiveness), conducted by an independent laboratory, revealed that Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Sunblock SPF 70 had a PFA value of 26.5
http://www.emaxhealt...m/66/13688.html

http://futurederm.wo...tag/neutrogena/

And Coppertone has a graph that show their PFA (PPD) values to be higher than the US mexoryl sx SPF 15 sunscreen (PPD 15.8). It also shows that Neutrogena AGE shield SPF 45 has a PPD of 14.1.

http://www.copperton...e_education.jsp

Edited by Fredrik, 06 July 2008 - 03:23 PM.

[Brainbox]

Regarding simulation, measurent conditions and real-life situations. Some (naive) thoughts to start a discussion.

One of the most important issues a sunscreen should protect against is UVR induced immunosuppression. As far as I'm aware, there's no proven real link between SPF and IPF (immune protection factor), just the educated assumption that a filter that protects against UV radiation will also protect against the immunosuppression with a positive correlation. But what correlation?

Methods used to evaluate the immune protection factor of a sunscreen: advantages and disadvantages of different in vivo techniques.Young AR.
St. John's Institute of Dermatology, King's College, London, England.

Solar UV radiation (UVR) induces skin cancer in humans, a process partially mediated by UVR-induced immunosuppression. To help prevent skin cancer, sunscreens should prevent UVR-induced immunosuppression to a level that is comparable to their sun protection factor (SPF). There are no standardized protocols for determining the immune protection factor (IPF) of sunscreens or agreement on what degree of IPF is needed to fully preserve cutaneous immune function. Current in vivo approaches to this problem rely on sunscreens' ability to prevent localized UVR-induced suppression of contact hypersensitivity (CHS) and delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) responses, using either the induction or elicitation arms of these responses, with comprehensive controls. The induction arm of the CHS response is sensitive to a single suberythemal exposure of solar-simulated radiation (SSR), and allows for direct SPF and IPF comparisons. However, this approach requires a large number of volunteers and is extremely labor-intensive and time-consuming. The elicitation arm of the CHS or DTH response exploits prior sensitization to contact or recall antigens. Fewer volunteers are needed, but current protocols require repeat SSR exposure, which may invalidate comparison with SPF measures based on a single exposure, or erythemal doses, which may have systemic effects. Robust protocols for routinely assessing IPF are needed.

PMID: 15603218 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

A Dutch investigation (albeit 2002) revealed that of the measured sunscreens, a rather large percentage did not yield the specified SPF in practice. Add to that the fact that a lot of people do not apply sufficient amounts, what does the SPF actually mean in practice?

The Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority/ Inspectorate for Health Protection and Veterinary Public Health investigated 58 sunscreens samples for their labelled SPF (Sun Protection Factor). From this investigation, 19 samples appeared to have a negative deviation of 25% or more from the labelled value.
The consumer, normally using these deviating sunscreens, will not have an adequate protection against the dangerous UV radiation.
The protection offered by a sunscreen is assessed after it is phototested in vivo at an internationally agreed application of 2 mg/cm2. A number of studies have shown that consumers apply approximately 50% less of this. Because of the fact that consumers normally apply a thinner layer, the consumer will therefore have also less protection.

I also understand that accuracy of the SPF method to measure sunscreen performance is debated. The PPD method would probably be more accurate.

I agree that using SPF values from theoretical simulations is questionable, however, we only use the SPF value (and measuring method) because we do not have a better alternative. Therefore, the correlation with the simulation and (practically reduced) real-life protection might not be according practically occurring mechanisms, but the fact that a SPF 50 sunscreen might not have a practical protection factor of 50 against immunosuppression seems evident.

Concluding: there's nothing wrong with being sceptical towards SPF protection factors.

Edited by brainbox, 06 July 2008 - 05:39 PM.

[Eva Victoria]

Before you asked me why I did not include the Helioplex complex (patented by Johnson & Johnson, Neutrogena) in this topic.
Here are some links and the Graph for Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Sunblock SPF85 and SPF55.
So you can see it for yourself why US sunscreens don't have a chance when there is Mexoryl XS +XL or TinosorbS+M

What is the meaning of doing these CIBA sunscreen simulations when it´s clear that they´re inaccurate? The Neutrogena sunscreens have SPF 55 and 85 respectively as stated on the bottles and measured on human subjects. Not your calculations of SPF 18.6 and SPF 22.7 in the attached graphs. It´s nice that you invest your time in doing these simulations, not trying to be a jerk but they´re inaccurate, both with regards to SPF and UVA-protection.

It´s the same with the other sunscreens in your sunscreen profiles post.

http://www.imminst.o...les-t21473.html

The in vivo measured SPF of MD formulations is 30. That is the real SPF, not a simulation. Your CIBA calculations give the wrong SPF of 15.3.

Clinique City block SPF 15. Your calculation gives SPF 6.6. Less than half the real SPF.

Olay complete is SPF 15. But your CIBA calculation inaccurately gives SPF 10.2

And so on. It´s not only showing the wrong SPF, you also get the wrong UVA-protection factor in those simulations. The Neutrogena Ultra sheer sunscreens has a much higher PFA (PPD) than the simulated values of 6.8 and 7.5. The Ciba simulator doesn´t take synergistic effects of stabilizers and other ingredients into account (that is stated on the bottom of all your attached calculations).

The PFA of Neutrogena Ultra sheer SPF 70 is 23.3 or 26.5 depending on what source you want to believe. It´s certainly higher than what a CIBA simulation would show.

Recent PFA values, (a measure of a UVA-ingredient's effectiveness), conducted by an independent laboratory, revealed that Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Sunblock SPF 70 had a PFA value of 26.5
http://www.emaxhealt...m/66/13688.html

http://futurederm.wo...tag/neutrogena/

And Coppertone has a graph that show their PFA (PPD) values to be higher than the US mexoryl sx SPF 15 sunscreen (PPD 15.8). It also shows that Neutrogena AGE shield SPF 45 has a PPD of 14.1.

http://www.copperton...e_education.jsp

SPF values are influenced by several factors among others silicone oils in the composition which will boost SPF vaues and that the Simulator cannot take into account unfortunately.
However in many cases like with MDFormulations or Ch.Dior the measured SPF and PA values were less than stated on the bottle when we tested them in vivo.
It is valid unfortunately also for Clinique Super CityBlock SPF25 and SPF15.

These graphs are not really meant to be taken 100%, they are more showing the type of sunscreen composition one uses: American sunscreens tend to be "sloppy" when it comes to UVA2 and UVA1 protection; EU sunscreens (good ones!) tend to have a more "fatty" appearance. Their transmittance graphs are even more important to look at to get some ideas whether it can be a good enough sunscreen or not.
And it is defenetely up to the consumer to decide.

The Neutrogena sunscreens even though have a more EU-like appearance on the graphs they are not exactly the best sunscreens since they contain Oxybenzone (harmful, toxic both for the envinronment and for human cells).

On the site of the American EWG you can also find their measured sunscreen profiles amon others for Neutrogena and 100 more sunscreens with very much the same conclusion as the Ciba sunscreen simulator.

http://cosmeticsdata...egory=sunscreen

Remember, it is still up to the producer to label their sunscreen (SPF and UVA).

Please see the test of sunscreens done in a German laboratory, juni 2008:

"Beskyttelsesfaktoren, SPF, som står påført kremene, stemmer ikke alltid med den faktiske beskyttelsen, ifølge testlaboratoriet. Heldigvis gir de fleste høyere beskyttelse enn det som står påført, men fem av kremene har litt lavere faktor enn det som opplyses"

Full test: Nyt sommersola - uten å skade huden - forbrukerportalen.no
http://forbrukerport...c=1212577470.11

Ville bare tilføre at Nivea kom dårlig ut i denne testen i UVA men testen som ble gjort tidligere av Forbrukerrådet så kom samme solkremen best ut med høyeste UVA beskyttelse som kan tyde på at denne testen i Tyskland ikke ble ordentlig gjennomført når det gjelder UVA målingen.

Edited by Eva Victoria, 06 July 2008 - 07:13 PM.

[Fredrik]

These graphs are not really meant to be taken 100%, they are more showing the type of sunscreen composition one uses: American sunscreens tend to be "sloppy" when it comes to UVA2 and UVA1 protection; EU sunscreens (good ones!) tend to have a more "fatty" appearance. Their transmittance graphs are even more important to look at to get some ideas whether it can be a good enough sunscreen or not.

There is still no reason to post inaccurate graphs (simulations) of sunscreens just to make a point on another issue (that US sunscreens can be more broadspectrum). You don´t actually know the PPD of these new stabilized avobenzone sunscreens from Neutrogena and Aveeno. So why post speculative UVA-protection values and false SPF? It doesn´t help anyone here make the right decision.

One of the best broadspectrum filters is still avobenzone and the mexoryls and tinosorbs help to stabilize it. I see them partly as avobenzone stabilizers. Loreal can use their own mexoryls + both tinosorbs, but they still use avobenzone in every sunscreen they make. Why is that do you think? I consider the Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreens (and Loreals octocrylene + mexoryl SX +avobenzone) still to be good options for US citizens.

The only UVA values we have on these new formulas are from the companies themselves or their competitors. We won´t be able to judge the UVA-protection accurately until they´ve been PPD tested (that´s done in vivo on humans, like SPF) as proposed by the final FDA sunscreen monograph to be finalized later this year. CIBA simulations based on just % of the filters are inherently inaccurate.

Edited by Fredrik, 06 July 2008 - 08:20 PM.

[Fredrik]

I also understand that accuracy of the SPF method to measure sunscreen performance is debated. The PPD method would probably be more accurate.

First, I agree. IPF is an exciting concept to fight skin cancer and I think we will hear more about it. Some misconceptions about testing needs to be straightened out though.

PPD has nothing to do with SPF. PPD stands for persistent pigment darkening and is a somewhat similar in vivo procedure as SPF but to measure the effects of UVA-radiation in human subjects. So the PPD will never replace SPF, it will complement it. Because they measure entirely different things, UVA and UVB.

There´s no controversy regarding measuring SPF in a lab with human subjects. It´s an standardized procedure that won´t be changed by the new FDA sunscreen monograph. To test an SPF they use exactly 2 mg per square cm of skin and can measure the correct SPF value on the erythema reaction of the subjects.

In real life people don´t use 2 mg per square cm of skin, just 25 to 50% of that. But this has nothing to do with the inaccurate SPF/PPD simulations that Eva keeps posting. She just puts the % of actives into the computer model and it spits out these numbers based on a mathematical formula. It doesn´t mean a thing in real life, because sunscreens need to be tested in vivo for their UVA/UVB values.

Edited by Fredrik, 07 July 2008 - 07:53 AM.

[Brainbox]

Ok, thanks for the clarifications.

I also understand that you do not directly oppose to the view I tried to present that being sceptic towards SPF value’s is not a bad thing.
- According to the Dutch evaluation (from 2002, couldn’t find amore recent one) some manufacturers do not yield the SPF they specify on the package,
- It’s my pessimistic view that manufacturers will apply the measurements rules in such a fashion that the SPF comes out as positive as possible (which could be a generalisation of the issue above),
- Measurements (even the in-vivo ones) are executed in lab conditions,
- Most users do not apply sufficient of the product to yield the specified SPF (just one of the practicalities in the application of the lab conditioned SPF in real life).

Therefore, I will not make myself dependant on the SPF protection, but I will only go out in the sun when no other option is available and only then will use a sunscreen to protect myself as good as possible. I'm not going to "enjoy" the sun at noon and bank on the protection that is provided by a sunscreen.

Avoidance first and protection if no other option is available.

Edited by brainbox, 07 July 2008 - 06:30 AM.

[Fredrik]

Ok, thanks for the clarifications.

I also understand that you do not directly oppose to the view I tried to present that being sceptic towards SPF value's is not a bad thing.

Absolutely. I´ve said from the beginning on this forum that sun avoidance comes first, then clothing and shadow and last sunscreens. But the problem isn´t with the products, it´s about people not using the products as they´re intended to. Only patients with photodermatoses tend to use sunscreens the right way, giving them the SPF that is stated on the bottle. We need to apply enough sunscreen (or more practical, use the highest SPF and UVA-rating we can tolerate) and reapply it.

I apply my SPF 50+ everyday but I know it only gives me an SPF 7 in real life and the Heliocare gives me three times the basal protection, SPF 3 all over my body.

[Eva Victoria]

Ok, thanks for the clarifications.

I also understand that you do not directly oppose to the view I tried to present that being sceptic towards SPF value's is not a bad thing.
- According to the Dutch evaluation (from 2002, couldn't find amore recent one) some manufacturers do not yield the SPF they specify on the package,
- It's my pessimistic view that manufacturers will apply the measurements rules in such a fashion that the SPF comes out as positive as possible (which could be a generalisation of the issue above),
- Measurements (even the in-vivo ones) are executed in lab conditions,
- Most users do not apply sufficient of the product to yield the specified SPF (just one of the practicalities in the application of the lab conditioned SPF in real life).

Therefore, I will not make myself dependant on the SPF protection, but I will only go out in the sun when no other option is available and only then will use a sunscreen to protect myself as good as possible. I'm not going to "enjoy" the sun at noon and bank on the protection that is provided by a sunscreen.

Avoidance first and protection if no other option is available.

This is exactly my point what you have just said, Brainbox!
"Avoidance first and protection if no other option is available."

[Eva Victoria]

These graphs are not really meant to be taken 100%, they are more showing the type of sunscreen composition one uses: American sunscreens tend to be "sloppy" when it comes to UVA2 and UVA1 protection; EU sunscreens (good ones!) tend to have a more "fatty" appearance. Their transmittance graphs are even more important to look at to get some ideas whether it can be a good enough sunscreen or not.

There is still no reason to post inaccurate graphs (simulations) of sunscreens just to make a point on another issue (that US sunscreens can be more broadspectrum). You don´t actually know the PPD of these new stabilized avobenzone sunscreens from Neutrogena and Aveeno. So why post speculative UVA-protection values and false SPF? It doesn´t help anyone here make the right decision.

One of the best broadspectrum filters is still avobenzone and the mexoryls and tinosorbs help to stabilize it. I see them partly as avobenzone stabilizers. Loreal can use their own mexoryls + both tinosorbs, but they still use avobenzone in every sunscreen they make. Why is that do you think? I consider the Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreens (and Loreals octocrylene + mexoryl SX +avobenzone) still to be good options for US citizens.

The only UVA values we have on these new formulas are from the companies themselves or their competitors. We won´t be able to judge the UVA-protection accurately until they´ve been PPD tested (that´s done in vivo on humans, like SPF) as proposed by the final FDA sunscreen monograph to be finalized later this year. CIBA simulations based on just % of the filters are inherently inaccurate.

To answer to one of your questions (since I have answered to the others previously) "Loreal can use their own mexoryls + both tinosorbs, but they still use avobenzone in every sunscreen they make. Why is that do you think?"

Because there is no better alternative today to have almost full UVA1 coverage without using AVO (unless one is willing to use so much ZnO on their skin that it becomes a messy white paste. And believe me there are not many costumers out there!).
Secondly it is a brand name (Parasol 1789) which is recognized by costumers so you'll be able to sell more of your products.
Thirdly, it is approved in all continents which make it easier to incorporate into products.

"I consider the Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreens (and Loreals octocrylene + mexoryl SX +avobenzone) still to be good options for US citizens."

They are indeed (except the unnecessary usage of Benzophone-3). I neve said the opposite. What I'm trying to point out is that if one makes the effort and has some knowledge about sunscreens then one can easily order better sunscreens online (which are less damaging to health and envinronment)! (From an EU supplier).

[Fredrik]

To answer to one of your questions (since I have answered to the others previously) "Loreal can use their own mexoryls + both tinosorbs, but they still use avobenzone in every sunscreen they make. Why is that do you think?"

Because there is no better alternative today to have almost full UVA1 coverage without using AVO (unless one is willing to use so much ZnO on their skin that it becomes a messy white paste. And believe me there are not many costumers out there!).
Secondly it is a brand name (Parasol 1789) which is recognized by costumers so you'll be able to sell more of your products.
Thirdly, it is approved in all continents which make it easier to incorporate into products.

"I consider the Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreens (and Loreals octocrylene + mexoryl SX +avobenzone) still to be good options for US citizens."

They are indeed (except the unnecessary usage of Benzophone-3). I neve said the opposite. What I'm trying to point out is that if one makes the effort and has some knowledge about sunscreens then one can easily order better sunscreens online (which are less damaging to health and envinronment)! (From an EU supplier).

There´s no credible evidence that sunscreens are damaging to anyones health though. That is just speculation based on experimental research at this time (reactive metals, free radical producing filters and hormonal effects). But I agree that we have more options and generally better UVA-protection in EU, asia and south america where these filters are available.

[Brafarality]

These graphs are not really meant to be taken 100%, they are more showing the type of sunscreen composition one uses: American sunscreens tend to be "sloppy" when it comes to UVA2 and UVA1 protection; EU sunscreens (good ones!) tend to have a more "fatty" appearance. Their transmittance graphs are even more important to look at to get some ideas whether it can be a good enough sunscreen or not.

There is still no reason to post inaccurate graphs (simulations) of sunscreens just to make a point on another issue (that US sunscreens can be more broadspectrum). You don´t actually know the PPD of these new stabilized avobenzone sunscreens from Neutrogena and Aveeno. So why post speculative UVA-protection values and false SPF? It doesn´t help anyone here make the right decision.

One of the best broadspectrum filters is still avobenzone and the mexoryls and tinosorbs help to stabilize it. I see them partly as avobenzone stabilizers. Loreal can use their own mexoryls + both tinosorbs, but they still use avobenzone in every sunscreen they make. Why is that do you think? I consider the Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreens (and Loreals octocrylene + mexoryl SX +avobenzone) still to be good options for US citizens.

The only UVA values we have on these new formulas are from the companies themselves or their competitors. We won´t be able to judge the UVA-protection accurately until they´ve been PPD tested (that´s done in vivo on humans, like SPF) as proposed by the final FDA sunscreen monograph to be finalized later this year. CIBA simulations based on just % of the filters are inherently inaccurate.

To answer to one of your questions (since I have answered to the others previously) "Loreal can use their own mexoryls + both tinosorbs, but they still use avobenzone in every sunscreen they make. Why is that do you think?"

Because there is no better alternative today to have almost full UVA1 coverage without using AVO (unless one is willing to use so much ZnO on their skin that it becomes a messy white paste. And believe me there are not many costumers out there!).
Secondly it is a brand name (Parasol 1789) which is recognized by costumers so you'll be able to sell more of your products.
Thirdly, it is approved in all continents which make it easier to incorporate into products.

"I consider the Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreens (and Loreals octocrylene + mexoryl SX +avobenzone) still to be good options for US citizens."

They are indeed (except the unnecessary usage of Benzophone-3). I neve said the opposite. What I'm trying to point out is that if one makes the effort and has some knowledge about sunscreens then one can easily order better sunscreens online (which are less damaging to health and envinronment)! (From an EU supplier).

Hey, Eva,

Figured I would post here since this appears to be an active thread and the question is somewhat relevant:

Is zinc oxide stable? For example, if I accidentally leave my 10% zinc oxided Blue Lizard Suncream out in the car for a few days on 80-90 degree days (somewhat hotter inside car, of course), will it still be full strength?

Otherwise, hope all is well.

[Eva Victoria]

These graphs are not really meant to be taken 100%, they are more showing the type of sunscreen composition one uses: American sunscreens tend to be "sloppy" when it comes to UVA2 and UVA1 protection; EU sunscreens (good ones!) tend to have a more "fatty" appearance. Their transmittance graphs are even more important to look at to get some ideas whether it can be a good enough sunscreen or not.

There is still no reason to post inaccurate graphs (simulations) of sunscreens just to make a point on another issue (that US sunscreens can be more broadspectrum). You don´t actually know the PPD of these new stabilized avobenzone sunscreens from Neutrogena and Aveeno. So why post speculative UVA-protection values and false SPF? It doesn´t help anyone here make the right decision.

One of the best broadspectrum filters is still avobenzone and the mexoryls and tinosorbs help to stabilize it. I see them partly as avobenzone stabilizers. Loreal can use their own mexoryls + both tinosorbs, but they still use avobenzone in every sunscreen they make. Why is that do you think? I consider the Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreens (and Loreals octocrylene + mexoryl SX +avobenzone) still to be good options for US citizens.

The only UVA values we have on these new formulas are from the companies themselves or their competitors. We won´t be able to judge the UVA-protection accurately until they´ve been PPD tested (that´s done in vivo on humans, like SPF) as proposed by the final FDA sunscreen monograph to be finalized later this year. CIBA simulations based on just % of the filters are inherently inaccurate.

To answer to one of your questions (since I have answered to the others previously) "Loreal can use their own mexoryls + both tinosorbs, but they still use avobenzone in every sunscreen they make. Why is that do you think?"

Because there is no better alternative today to have almost full UVA1 coverage without using AVO (unless one is willing to use so much ZnO on their skin that it becomes a messy white paste. And believe me there are not many costumers out there!).
Secondly it is a brand name (Parasol 1789) which is recognized by costumers so you'll be able to sell more of your products.
Thirdly, it is approved in all continents which make it easier to incorporate into products.

"I consider the Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreens (and Loreals octocrylene + mexoryl SX +avobenzone) still to be good options for US citizens."

They are indeed (except the unnecessary usage of Benzophone-3). I neve said the opposite. What I'm trying to point out is that if one makes the effort and has some knowledge about sunscreens then one can easily order better sunscreens online (which are less damaging to health and envinronment)! (From an EU supplier).

Hey, Eva,

Figured I would post here since this appears to be an active thread and the question is somewhat relevant:

Is zinc oxide stable? For example, if I accidentally leave my 10% zinc oxided Blue Lizard Suncream out in the car for a few days on 80-90 degree days (somewhat hotter inside car, of course), will it still be full strength?

Otherwise, hope all is well.

Hi Paul!

ZnO is photostable as long as it is not washed off or wiped off of your skin. It does not decreed in the sun however the other ingredients in your sunscreen bottle might!
So I am not sure I would put something on my skin which can increase the number of oxidants on my skin.

[Eva Victoria]

I do love phisical blocks myself and do not mind to have my face painted white. Au contraire, I miss it and don't feel protected if there is not a visible white-cast to my face.

BTW, I found a sunscreen which I have ordered and are excited as a kid before Xmas to get it delivered:

Photoderm MINERAL SPF 50+ - UVA 22

http://www.bioderma....action/594.html

Has anybody tried this? Does it have a light non-greasy consistency?

Eva, I am in love with this post about sunscreen formulations. Its interesting to see from a formulators point of view!

About the Photoderm Mineral...haven't tried it but thinking about it as well. From what you know, do you think it has high concentrations of ZnO and TiO2? Since it has high UVA protection, does that mean it has the right particle size etc that you've mentioned need to be in a high ppd physical sunscreen? I am hoping this will be a good physical sunscreen to add over a stable chemical sunscreen on long days out in the sun.

Just wanted to add that I truly value you as a member here and all the helpful information you post. You are one of the only posters that I know who takes the time to answer almost everyone's questions with a detailed response. Thanx!

Hi Kingston!

As promised I'll let you know my opinion about Bioderma Mineral sunscreen SPF50+ PPD22 (in vivo according to the manufacturer).
I have finally received one tube of this long awaited sunscreen.
It says on the packaging that it in non-whitening/invisible on the skin.
Well, of course it depends how you look at it, I guess. Applying it just in the right amount turned my face like a clown. White like a ghost! After allowing it to dry 30 min my face was still extremely white. I would assume it does have good UVA coverage since it is really white. It settled in a white powdery finish which is very nice if you like to look white. (I do).
But for the experiment I put some coloured micro-beads on top which disguised the extrem whiteness very well. It actually made it fully wearable for a normal person.
You can find coloured micro-beads in E.Lauder Daywear tinted version or in SkinFusion. Most likely there are plenty of other products as well out there which I don't know about. (Coloured microbeads will not have a foundation-finish but only a bit of colour without the heaviness).

All in all: Bioderma Mineral sunscreen SPF50+ is a great sunscreen!

This is what the manufacturer says:

http://www.bioderma....istics/594.html
Properties
100% mineral fragrance-free formula.
Water-resistant. Photostable.
Non-comedogenic. Hypoallergenic.
100 g tube


Ingredients
CYCLOMETHICONE, ZINC OXIDE, WATER (AQUA), TITANIUM DIOXIDE, CYCLOPENTASILOXANE, POLYGLYCERYL-3 POLYDIMETHYLSILOXYETHYL DIMETHICONE , DIMETHICONE, PHENYL TRIMETHICONE, BUTYLENE GLYCOL, SODIUM CHLORIDE, ALUMINUM HYDROXIDE, STEARIC ACID, PEG/PPG-18/18 DIMETHICONE, DIMETHICONE/METHICONE COPOLYMER, ECTOIN, MANNITOL, XYLITOL, RHAMNOSE, FRUCTOOLIGOSACCHARIDES, LAMINARIA OCHROLEUCA EXTRACT, PENTYLENE GLYCOL, DISTEARDIMONIUM HECTORITE, HINOKITIOL, TRIETHYL CITRATE, CAPRYLIC/CAPRIC TRIGLYCERIDE, BHA.

• The maximum anti-UVB efficacy and unmatched "extreme anti-UVA" performance of Photoderm MINÉRAL safely protect against sunburn and prevent sun intolerance reactions.

• A major advance against risks of cell damage, its exclusive patented Cellular BIOprotection^® complex* provides optimum protection for the skin cells.

• The 100% mineral ultra-fluid texture of Photoderm MINÉRAL leaves the skin feeling comfortable and extremely soft. Perfectly colourless when applied, Photoderm MINÉRAL spreads very easily, leaving no oily film.

• Non-comedogenic, Photoderm MINÉRAL is water-resistant and photostable.

• Photoderm MINÉRAL is fragrance-free and ensures excellent tolerance.

* BIODERMA patent

[Brafarality]

I´ve seen a plastic face mask sold online, used after laser procedures to shield the face 100%. It´s clear plastic. I just can´t find it now when I did a search. But I found patents on it though.

Myself I use a Panama hat from coolibar, UPF 50. I would never use a "wielders mask" style thingy. A mans gotta keep some sense of style, even if sun phobic =)

This is a sun visor you can turn down to shield your face:

http://www.axtionsystems.com/sovis.htm

I actually bought one of the visors!
I used to wear it with a balaclava (or ninja mask or whatever it was), looking like a superhero/villain, or, as my friend Ed noted, a riot policeman.
That was harsh. Me=not big fan of beating up people.

Note: the visor I purchased is terrible to wear by itself. It just grips uncomfortably onto your temples and you can't move around much in it without it loosening and falling off. However, if it is worn over a balaclava or ski mask or similar, it grips to the fabric and works pretty well.

But, anyway, I subsequently lost track of both the face shield and the balaclava and have not re-purchased them. I just use sunblock when I am outside. The mask and shield were just way too weird and, actually, unnerving to some who may have thought me a bank robber or worse! At least with a heavy application of sunblock, the worst I look like is a freak or someone with a contagious skin condition, both of which I can easily handle.

If you find any information about the face mask, I humbly beseech thee to please post it here.

Thanks.

Edited by paulthekind, 16 July 2008 - 08:39 PM.

[JLL]

Could you tell me what you think about these ingredients in the sunscreen (SPF 30, UVB & UVA protection) I bought:

Aqua
Octocrylene
C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate
Ethylhexyl Salicylate
Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol
Methoxyphenyl Triazine
Butylene Glycol
Myristyl Myristate
Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl
Hexyl Benzoate
Glycerin
Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl
Tetramethylbutylphenol
Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane
Canola
Behenyl Alcohol
Myristyl Alcohol
Tocopheryl Acetate
Potassium Cetyl Phosphate
Sorbitan Stearate
Steareth-21
Decyl Glucoside
Propylene Glycol
Xanthan Gum
Carbomer
Sodium Hydroxide
Citric Acid
Methylparaben
Propylparaben
Phenoxyethanol

I don't know enough about chemistry to know whether some of the ingredients in there do the same thing (i.e. form a film on the skin instead of going through the skin) as the dimethicone and other stuff you mentioned. They give it a UVA rating of 4 out of 5, whatever that means.

The website for the product is here, but it's in Finnish, so I doubt it helps: http://www.aconordic...d=4635&pid=3189

Thanks in advance!

[sdxl]

JLL looks like they used a good combination of filters, Tinosorb M and S, Uvinul A Plus, avobenzone, octocrylene and ethylhexyl salicylate. The use of myristyl myristate worries me, because it is a comedogenic ingredient. I don't see any silicones in the formula. The 4 of 5 stars is very likely the Boots rating they use in the UK, reflecting the UVA/UVB balance. The sunscreen has at least a PPD of 10.

[Eva Victoria]

Hi JLL!

It looks to be a good sunscreen from ACO as it was pointed out by SDXL.
The star-rating can mean the Scandinavian unofficially used UVA rating which does not mach the Boots star rating system. It is used on the products of Cosmica/Aco sold at pharmacies.

Could you tell me what you think about these ingredients in the sunscreen (SPF 30, UVB & UVA protection) I bought:

Aqua
Octocrylene
C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate
Ethylhexyl Salicylate
Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol
Methoxyphenyl Triazine
Butylene Glycol
Myristyl Myristate
Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl
Hexyl Benzoate
Glycerin
Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl
Tetramethylbutylphenol
Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane
Canola
Behenyl Alcohol
Myristyl Alcohol
Tocopheryl Acetate
Potassium Cetyl Phosphate
Sorbitan Stearate
Steareth-21
Decyl Glucoside
Propylene Glycol
Xanthan Gum
Carbomer
Sodium Hydroxide
Citric Acid
Methylparaben
Propylparaben
Phenoxyethanol

I don't know enough about chemistry to know whether some of the ingredients in there do the same thing (i.e. form a film on the skin instead of going through the skin) as the dimethicone and other stuff you mentioned. They give it a UVA rating of 4 out of 5, whatever that means.

The website for the product is here, but it's in Finnish, so I doubt it helps: http://www.aconordic...d=4635&pid=3189

Thanks in advance!

[shifter]

Every sunscreen I see here in Australia has Octyl Methoxycinnamate (OMC) which I have heard is pretty toxic to the skin. I would love a damage free sunscreen as I burn very easily and was recently burnt again on a holiday in Iceland! I'd like to use sunscreen, but if I am to apply it to my skin multiple times every day for many years I want to be assured that it not only protects from UV rays but is healthy for my skin and body as well. For me, If its not the highest SPF in the world, thats fine so long as its the safest.

[Eva Victoria]

Every sunscreen I see here in Australia has Octyl Methoxycinnamate (OMC) which I have heard is pretty toxic to the skin. I would love a damage free sunscreen as I burn very easily and was recently burnt again on a holiday in Iceland! I'd like to use sunscreen, but if I am to apply it to my skin multiple times every day for many years I want to be assured that it not only protects from UV rays but is healthy for my skin and body as well. For me, If its not the highest SPF in the world, thats fine so long as its the safest.

Hi Shifter!

The only really 100% safe sunscreen there is the ones that contain only physical agents: TiO2 and ZnO. These won't penetrate your skin at all. They always stay on the surface of your skin, photostable and non-toxic.

A good alternative is Bioderma Photoderm Mineral sunscreen SPF50+ (UVA22)
Avene Cream Minerale SPF50 (ZnO content is much lower than that of Bioderma)

One thought on OMC. It has been discussed millions of times and it is still one of the safest (chemical/organic) UVB filters there is.
It won't irritate the skin hence it can be safely applied even on very sensitive skin. OC: Octocrylene, which is a very commonly used UVB filter today (it stabilizes AVO) can cause skin rashes, hives, contact exzema.
So OMC is still a better alternative especially if it is combined with Tinosorb M and S (and AVO and/or ZnO) you can get a well balanced, cosmetically acceptable sunscreen without the side-effects

[Brafarality]

Hey, Eva,

Hope all is well and that your sunscreen is progressing nicely to market.

You have probably answered this ad infinitum, but if you have a sunscreen you can recommend, it would be greatly appreciated:

Sunscreen needs:

1-available in US
2-as invisible as possible when applied to face (chemical formulas ok)
3-good UVA/broad spectrum protection
4-non-irritating

It is becoming more necessary to seek out a non-crazy-white zinc oxide sunscreen lately that is available in the US.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Also, how did you go about getting your sunscreen produced?
Do you contact manufacturers directly or do you go through agents or some other means?
Are there kits one can order online to help develop moisturizers such as sunscreens, perhaps with basic ingredients, etc.?

Not sure. Just curious.


And, last really silly question:

Supposing I made my own formula for myself and just wanted 25-50 bottles or so for my own personal use, are there any micro-manufacturers that would do that for me?

[Eva Victoria]

Hey, Eva,

Hope all is well and that your sunscreen is progressing nicely to market.

You have probably answered this ad infinitum, but if you have a sunscreen you can recommend, it would be greatly appreciated:

Sunscreen needs:

1-available in US
2-as invisible as possible when applied to face (chemical formulas ok)
3-good UVA/broad spectrum protection
4-non-irritating

It is becoming more necessary to seek out a non-crazy-white zinc oxide sunscreen lately that is available in the US.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Also, how did you go about getting your sunscreen produced?
Do you contact manufacturers directly or do you go through agents or some other means?
Are there kits one can order online to help develop moisturizers such as sunscreens, perhaps with basic ingredients, etc.?

Not sure. Just curious.


And, last really silly question:

Supposing I made my own formula for myself and just wanted 25-50 bottles or so for my own personal use, are there any micro-manufacturers that would do that for me?

Hi Paul!

Recommending a sunscreen that is :

1-available in US
2-as invisible as possible when applied to face (chemical formulas ok)
3-good UVA/broad spectrum protection
4-non-irritating

I cannot, sorry! :(
American sunscreen formulations tend to contain Benzophone-3 and Octocrylene. These UV-filters are potentially irritating to the skin.
The only sunscreen I would recommend available in the US is the ones that contain min 20% non-micronized! ZnO. But it'll be very whitening on the skin!

The only sunscreens I really recommend is
Bioderma Photoderm (It contains OC,TinosorbS+M, AVO )
Bioderma Photoderm Minerale (only TiO2 + ZnO, very whitening)
Avene SPF50+ Creme without fragrance (no OC; only OMC, TinosorbS+M) non-whitening, good UVA-protection, but could be better!
Nivea Light Feeling Sensation SPF30 (this formula contains only OMC, TinosorbS, TiO2, Ethylhexyl Tirazone and Avobenzone) I would add 15% ZnO, mix it well. It'll boost the SPF and the UVA protection nicely and it won't be whitening on the skin! (it is because the formula is very light and silicone based). This is the most cosmetically acceptable sunscreen with its matt finish and elegance. It is not very water-proof though.

All these sunscreens can be ordered online with shipping to the US!

"lso, how did you go about getting your sunscreen produced?
Do you contact manufacturers directly or do you go through agents or some other means?
Are there kits one can order online to help develop moisturizers such as sunscreens, perhaps with basic ingredients, etc.?"

Since I work in the field I knew exactly which company I have to contact to get my sunscreen produced.

There are ready made kits to develop moisturizers such as sunscreens, I would not recommend making your own sunscreen at home though.
Since sunscreen is more than just a moisturizer (it is suppossed to protect your skin) and wrongly developed products can do more harm than good :(

You have to know how different sunscreen agents work, their synergy and all the small details that will make that the sunscreen will work. (Making the right emulsion, molecular size and penetration, ph-balance, preservatives, emulsifiers).

Making a moisturizer is not that difficult (even though in my opinion you need some experience and knowledge about molecular size and penetration, ph-balance, preservatives, emulsifiers and synergetic effects of diff. ingredients.
However, even if everything goes wrong the only thing that can happen is that it won't have any effect on your skin.

Real, effective ingredients that really have proven effect are always classified as drugs and cannot be obtained that easily. Here the formulation (base) is crutial to have the desired effect on the skin (f. ex. Tretinoin will work better in a Propylene Glycol base than in Petrolatum; or HQ will have a greater effect with less irritation if it is formulated in a rich Glycerine base instead of the common Petrolatum base that many manufacturers use to save costs; HQ can be sold OTC up to 2% concentration in the US).


"Supposing I made my own formula for myself and just wanted 25-50 bottles or so for my own personal use, are there any micro-manufacturers that would do that for me?"

Probably a pharmacy that has a laboratory could mix all things up for you. But, again, it has to be a reliable company to deliver what you ask.

What you will need for a sunscreen mostly can be found or ordered by a chemist in the US. OMC, Magnesium Ascorbyl Phosphate (Stay C 50), Vit E, Ethylhexyl Tirazone, ZnO, AVO, TiO2.
However, some sunscreen ingredients will have to be bought from Ciba Chemicals though (Tinosorb S+M) which they only sell in huge quantities. (Makes it very expensive for a few bottles).
Sunscreens containing Tinosorb CANNOT be sold in the USA! (So you won't be able to sell any of them legally). Commercial sunscreen formulations cannot contain AVO mixed with particle filters like ZnO or Tio2 in the USA!

[Brafarality]

Thanks Eva for your time and thorough knowledge.

[Mia K.]

Hey, Eva,

Hope all is well and that your sunscreen is progressing nicely to market.

You have probably answered this ad infinitum, but if you have a sunscreen you can recommend, it would be greatly appreciated:

Sunscreen needs:

1-available in US
2-as invisible as possible when applied to face (chemical formulas ok)
3-good UVA/broad spectrum protection
4-non-irritating

It is becoming more necessary to seek out a non-crazy-white zinc oxide sunscreen lately that is available in the US.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Not Eva, but I'm a fellow American in search of a sunscreen that meets your criteria.

One that you might find acceptable is Hawaiian Creations 2x spf 50 available from drugstore.com http://www.drugstore...amp;catid=12101

My husband wears this and has no complaints; I find the texture more comfortable than the Neutrogena w/Helioplex.
I think in my case the quest for the "perfect" s/s stands in the way of the "good" (or even the excellent). Right now I'm using RoC Minesol spf 40 and Eucerin creme/gel spf 25 both ordered from tubotica.com. I'm convinced that the tinosorbs are the way to go and so I am willing to fork over the $/h fees for overseas delivery.

Good luck!
Mia

[spacey]

Has anyone tried the Bioderma Photoderm MAX Fluid SPF 100? How is it compared to the Bioderma Photoderm Mineral SPF50+(uva22)?