Sun Protection: Is your sunscreen protecting you?
Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2008
by Marie Veronique Nadeau
Marie Veronique Skin Therapy
UVA Protection-always be vigilant
A sunscreen with a high SPF rating may not, and in fact probably is not, protecting you against the longer wave length UVA rays. UVA rays are present from sunup to sundown, penetrate glass and clouds and enter the dermis. They are 1000 times more prevalent than UVB. They are called the aging rays because they cross-link collagen and elastin, turn melanin darker and cause hyper and hypo-pigmentation and broken capillaries. They also damage DNA, destroy Langerhans cells and compromise immune function. I believe, but of course this is just a guess, that we can attribute at least part of the increase in the prevalence of rosacea to the fact that people are getting more exposure than they should, because they believe that their "SPF 45 (and higher)" products are providing adequate protection. At any rate, in particular those of us who are rosacea-prone should be aware that UVA protection is a year round affair. My mnemonic is: UVA means U must be Vigilant Always.
Testing
This leads us to the all-important topic of testing. The SPF rating system tests burning rate times between protected and unprotected skin, and is a fairly simple test to perform. Since the effects of aging are longer-term the testing is much more problematic, though a test adopted by Japan and Europe, called Persistent Pigment Darkening, (PPD) uses essentially the same methodology as is used in SPF testing. L'Oreal Research presented such a PPD model in a recent study.
In the L'Oreal study human volunteers were exposed to 330-440 nm of light 3 times a week for 4 weeks. Exposed sites were compared with nonexposed sites, exposed sites protected with a broad UVA absorber, and exposed sites to which a sunscreen vehicle had been applied. Various parameters related to UVA exposure and early alleged alterations leading to photoaging were measured. Those parameters included pigment darkening, stratum corneum thickening and changes in elasticity.
Chemical sunscreen ingredients avobenzone and Mexoryl (TM) SX
Chemical sunscreens work by absorbing UV rays, lowering energy levels, then releasing the energy as heat.
Avobenzone (aka Parsol 1789) has been used in sunscreen products for a number of years for its ability to offer sun protection in the higher UV ranges, up to 400 nm (the UVA range is 320-400 nm). Unfortunately avobenzone degrades quickly in light, and 30 minutes of exposure will significantly reduce its effectiveness. It is sometimes combined with photostabilzers like octocrylene to extend its efficacy period.
Mexoryl (TM) SX is the active ingredient in a chemical sunscreen known as Anthelios that is in widespread use in Canada, Europe and Japan. L'Oreal holds the patent on it, and it has recently been approved by the FDA for sale in the US. It offers protection against the shorter wave lengths of UVA, showing greatest efficacy in the 340-350 nm range.
Mineral sunblocks work by reflecting or scattering energy rays.
Titanium dioxide
Mineral sunblock ingredients titanium dioxide and zinc oxide is a naturally-ocurring mineral that protects up to 360 nm. Zinc oxide
is a naturally-ocurring mineral that protects across the entire UV spectrum, 290 nm to 400 nm. The UVB range is 290 to 320 nm.
Pros and cons of sunscreen ingredients
Mexoryl
Pros
Stable, long-lasting
Light, absorbs well
Cons
Chemical sunscreens can irritate skin, especially at higher concentrations.
Protects against the shorter wave-lengths of UVA, not so effective for longer wave lengths.
Avobenzone
Pros
Light, absorbs well
Protects up to 400 nm
Cons
Chemical, may be irritating.
Degrades after 30 minutes in the sun.
Titanium dioxide
Pros
Mineral sunblock, will not irritate skin
Cons
Protects up to 360 nm, not effective for longer wave lengths
In most formulations leaves skin white and pasty looking
Zinc Oxide
Pros
Mineral sunblock, will not irritate skin
Anti-inflammatory
Safe, even for small children
Protects from 290 to 400 nm
Cons
In most formulations leaves skin white and pasty looking
Micronized mineral sunblocks
We can see that physical blocks win the sun protection competition hands-down. However, a sunscreen is only as good as a person's willingness to actually use it, and this is the major problem with mineral sunblocks-people just do not like the way they look on the skin. The sun care industry has responded to this problem by creating micronized versions. Unfortunately, while nano-sized particles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide do create a transparent product which absorbs well, nanoparticles may present potential health risks. I've talked at length about the questionable practice of using nanoparticles in creams in a previous newsletter-for more information please see the September, 2007 MV Newsletter.
Aside from the question of whether nanoparticles generate free radicals there is another problem associated with micronized sun protection products that we can state unequivocally: the smaller the particle, the less effective the UVA protection. Because mineral sunblocks work by reflecting energy rays from the surface of the skin micronized minerals are not as effective at the actual, physical process of scattering rays. The question arises--we may have a product that disappears on the skin that people will wear, but how much protection are they actually getting?
I would also add that I personally do not consider micronized mineral sun blocks a safe choice for children. We simply do not know enough about nanoparticle behaviour as yet. If you want to protect your infant from the sun, use a diaper cream like Weleda. It has a high concentration of zinc oxide in a safe base, and your kid could care less what she/he looks like!
This Article has been viewed 1,220 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)Very informative!
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.