BACKGROUND: A lot of protective tools such as sunshades (sun-cap), sun-shielding tints and various sunscreens are widely used to protect solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Although dermatologists are aware of these products, they do not know the exact protective efficacy or their stability after strong UV irradiation. OBJECTIVE: We tried to measure the spectal absorbance and transmittance of various sunscreening products. In addition, we measured change of sunscreens's absorbance or transmittance after strong UV irradiation for 30, 60 and 90 minutes. METHODS: We purchased five commercially available sunshades (product A-E), five sun-tinting films (product A-E), and eight sunsceens (product A-H) with similar sun-protection factor (SPF) around 30, and measured spectral absorbance and transmittance of those agents. For the sunscreens, they were irradiated with 250 watt Xenon-Arc lamp and change of spectral responses were evaluated. RESULTS: In absorption and transmission spectra of five different sun-caps, sun-cap C showed very good protection in entire UV range whereas all others protected UV only partially. Absorption and transmission spectra of six different sun-shielding tints showed all of them protected UV fairly well and tint C showed the best protection. Eight different sunscreens showed profound differences in spectal absorbances or transmittances. Sunscreen-A showed the best protection and there was no relationship between price and spectral-protection of sunscreens. In the photo-stability of eight sunscreens after UV-irradiation, there were big differences. Only sunscreen-A showed the least change after UV irradiation, and all other sunscreens showed a change of specta by increased UV-irradiation time. CONCLUSION: Protection efficacies of sunscreening products were variable, and most sunscreens were unstable to strong UV irradiation. Further studies would be necessary to give proper information for protecting UV effectively to dermatologists and consumers.
Absorption ; Sunscreening Agents

BACKGROUND: Recently, concerns regarding protection provided by sunscreens in the UVA spectrum have been raised. But there is no standard testing protocol for quantifying this protection. OBJECTIVE: As an ideal test methodology, the PFA test using the concept of minimal pigment darkening dose(MPPD) was evaluated to determine its ability to quantify the UVA protection provided by a sunscreen. METHODS: Sunscreen products were tested on unsensitized women subjects with both UVA from a Sellas UVA lamp in a protocol similar to the sun protection factor test(SPF) and UVB by the SPF protocol. RESULTS: The protection factors in UVA ranged from 5.0 to 5.3 depending on the type of absorber and the UVB blocking filter. CONCLUSION: This test method provides a realistic in vivo estimate of the amount of UVA protection provided by sunscreens.
Female ; Humans ; Sun Protection Factor ; Sunscreening Agents*

BACKGROUND: Human repeated insult patch tests (HRIPTs) are a final method for safety assessment of chemical ingredients. In the representative HRIPTs, the Shelanski and modified Draize require 200 participants, but the maximization and modified maximization tests require only 25. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of three sunscreen ingredients using the Shelanski and maximization methods. METHODS: Octylmethoxycinnamate, butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane, and octyltriazone (BASF) were prepared for the induction, as 25% ointment in white petrolatum base. After a 2-3 week resting phase, patch and photopatch tests were conducted, but pretreatment with SLS was only performed in the maximization test. The results were analyzed using the Chi-Square test. RESULTS: During the induction phase, there were only two (4%) weak positive reactions observed with the Shelanski method, whereas all 25 displayed strong or extremely positive reactions with the maximization method. Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane displayed the most frequent elicitation reactions; the patch and photopatch tests displayed weak positive reactions in four (2%) and six (3%), and in one (4%) and two (8%), with the Shelanski and maximization tests, respectively. Taking into account two of the six reactors displayed positive reactions to petrolatum with the Shelanski test, the actual number of positive patch test reactions would be four (2%). The difference in results of the two methods was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although it is not easy to conduct HRIPT on 200 subjects, and the results from the two tests were not significantly different, the reactions from the maximization tests were too severe to be recommended in humans.
G0 Phase ; Humans* ; Patch Tests* ; Petrolatum ; Photosensitivity Disorders ; Sunscreening Agents*

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of these para-amino- benzoate, benzophenone and cinnamate sunscreens in the same base(cream) and the effect of concentration on sun protection with three different concentrations(2 5%, 5. 0% and 7. 5%.). Twenty-one normal healthy Korean-men, majority(2. 5%) of whom have skin type iv or v, were applied to their untanned back with above prepared nine different sunscreens and calculated individual sun protection factor (SPF) of these different sunscreens. The test results can be summarized as follows: 1. In the para-aminobenzoic acid, the mean SPF, of concentrations were 7. 33+2. 87, 7.35+2. 89 and 7. 37+2. 88 no significant difference. 2. In the benzophenone, the mean SPF of all of 2. 5M, ntrations was 3.43 t0. 85. 3 In the cinnamate, the mean SPF of all of 2. 5% 5. O%
4-Aminobenzoic Acid ; Benzoates ; Skin* ; Solar System ; Sun Protection Factor ; Sunscreening Agents*

The sunscreening effect can be varied according to the vehicles. Therefore the purpose of this study is to compare the effect of vehicles(bases) on sun protection in p-aminobenzoic acid, cinnamate and benzophenone sunscreens with same concentration (2.5%), We included ointment (white petrolatum), cream (hydrophilic), milky lotion and alcohol as the sunscreen vehicles. The test results can be summarized as follows: We could not recognize a sunscreening effect of sunscreen vehicles which did not contain sunscreening agent. In the case of p-aminobenzoic acid, the mean sun protection factor was higher in the sequence of cream, milky lotion, alcohol, ointment, each showing 9, 95+/-3.67, 8.09+/-2.56, 5.14+/-1.45, 4.35+/-1.46 respectively. In the case of cinnamate, the mean sun protection factor was higher in the sequence of cream, ointment, milky lotion, alcohol, each showing 6 46+/-1.89, 5.42+/-1.49, 4.82+/-1.84, 4.05+/-1.45 respectively. 4. In the case of benzophenone, the mean sun protection factor was higher in the sequence of cream, alcohol, ointment, milky lotion, each showing 5 .26+/-1.56, 4.94+/-1.24, 4.56+/-1.71, 4.18+/-1.23 respectively.
4-Aminobenzoic Acid ; Skin* ; Solar System ; Sun Protection Factor ; Sunscreening Agents

BACKGROUND: The xenon arc solar simulator is the most commonly used light source in studies on immediate tanning, but there has been no report on the immediate tanning response in Korean skin induced by UVA from that source. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to measure the minimal immediate tanning dose(MITD) for UVA in Korean, brown skin. Methods: UVA irradiation was performed on normal back skin of twenty-six healthy Korean young adults, with increasing doses from 0.5J/cm2 to 4.5J/cm2 using xenon arc solar simulator equipped with appropriate filters. Visual assessment of MITD was done by two investigators. Results: The mean and standard deviations of MITD were 2.38+/- 0.65J/cm2 in 26 subjects. MITDs distributed from 1.0J/cm2 to 3.5J/cm2. There were no significant differences of MITD between skin type III and IV. Conclusion: Conclusively, we obtained the data on the MITD in Korean skin induced by UVA from the solar simulator. The results of this study may be valuable for the research into photomedicine and useful data for evaluating sunscreens.
Humans ; Research Personnel ; Skin ; Sunscreening Agents ; Tanning* ; Triacetoneamine-N-Oxyl* ; Xenon ; Young Adult*

BACKGROUND: Solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation induces sunburn, immune suppression, and various pigmentary disorders. Sunscreens are widely used to protect those untoward effects by UV but there are reports of phototoxicity or stability problems of sunscreens after exposure to UV. OBJECTIVE: We tried to compare sunscreens with different photostability in terms of their protection against various biologic responses like sunburn, immune suppression or pigmentation. METHODS: Three different sunscreens with SPF around 30 were used; Sunscreen-A (Sc-A) was photochemically inert, sunscreen-B (Sc-B) showed intermediate level of photostability, and sunscreen-C (Sc-C) was the least stable. To observe their in vivo effects, we measured sunscreen-protection against sunburn by back-skin swelling and sunburn cell formation, against immune suppression measured by depletion of Langerhans cells, local and systemic suppression of contact hypersensitivity (CHS), and against pigmentation by irradiation with mixed light source with UVA and UVB lamps that mimic solar UV spectrum. RESULTS: Back skin swellings by 5 kJ/m2 of UVB were protected well by sunscreens, but protection of Sc-C against 50 kJ/m2 of UVB was worse than Sc-A or Sc-B. Sunburn cells were increased significantly in mice irradiated with 5 kJ/m2 of UVB and it was protected by sunscreens, and the effect of photostability was minimal. Depletion of epidermal Langerhans cells by 5 kJ/m2 of UVB was protected completely by sunscreens. Local suppression of CHS by 5 kJ/m2 of UVB was protected by sunscreens, and Sc-A had better protection. But, in the experiment with 50 kJ/m2 of UVB, the protective efficacy was reversed; Sc-A showed worse protection. Systemic suppression of CHS by 10 kJ/m2 of UVB was protected well by sunscreens, and Sc-A had better protection and Sc-C had worse protection. In the experiment irradiated with 100 kJ/m2 of UVB, the protection of sunscreens was decreased, and Sc-B showed better protection, whereas Sc-C showed worse protection. In UV-induced pigmentation, all three sunscreens showed significant protection both by L* value and individual topographic angle (ITA) with the best protection by Sc-A and the worst protection by Sc-B. CONCLUSION: These data showed sunscreens can protect various in vivo responses and photostability of sunscreens played important roles particularly in the back-skin swelling and systemic suppression of CHS by high dose of UVB.
Animals ; Dermatitis, Contact ; Dermatitis, Phototoxic ; Langerhans Cells ; Mice ; Pigmentation ; Skin ; Sunburn ; Sunscreening Agents*

BACKGROUND: Although deleterious effects of sunlight have been increased recently, the surveillance of the attitudes toward sun-exposure and the behavioral aspect of using sunscreens in Koreans has hot been cammied out. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate the attitude toward the harmfulness of sun-exposure and behaviors of using sunscreens in Korea. METHOD: Five hundred and fifty-two subjects were surveyed to assess the attitude toward sun-exposure, as well as the subjects' knowledge about, and the use of sunscreens. Underlying data including demographic data, skin colors, skin types, occupation, and sun-exposure, were obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of subjects believed that sun-exposure is bad for their skins, but, on the contrary, 12.5% believed it to be beneficial. Fifty-two percent of subjects used sunscreens. Almost all subjects(93.8%) knew why to use sunscreens but 62.7% of subjects did not know the meaning of sun protective factors(SPF). Women, indoor workers, subjects older than 40 yearsold, with less sun-exposed, fair colored skin, or with skin type I, II, III tended to know the deleterious effects of sunlight and the meaning of SPF and used more sunscreen. CONCLUSION: High risk population - men, outdoor workers, subjects less than 40 yearsold, with more sun-exposed, dark colored skin, or skin type VI, V could be targeted with campaigns that promote attitudinal and behavioral changes.
Female ; Humans ; Korea* ; Male ; Occupations ; Skin ; Solar System ; Sunlight ; Sunscreening Agents*

BACKGROUND: Chronic exposure to ultraviolet radiation(UVE) nduces photoaging characterized by dry, deeply wrinkled, inelastic, leathery, and irregulaity pigmented skin. UVR also induces solar keratosis and carcinoma, and is a contributing factor in melanoma. Sunscreens are used to prevent solar damage to skin and, if used on a daily lass should significantly reduce the incidence of the chronie photodamaging events. OBJECTIVE: We tried to evaulate the photoaging effects of UVR in the skin and the photoprotective effect of sunscreens. METHOD: We examined the gross and microscopic changes skin of albino hairless Skh : HR-1 mice exposed chronically to ultraviolet B(UVB) and suncreen-treated mice. RESULTS: The skin of the UVB-irradiated mouse shows chear, cteristic signs of photoaging, such as deep wrinkles across the back, and thickened and a hery skin. Histologically, the photoaged skin shows increased epidermal thickness, numeross fibroblasts and inflammatory cell infiltration in the upper dermis, and many enlarged keratering cysts in the lower dermis. By the 20th week, seven of the total of 9 mice(78%) in UVB irradiated mice developed at least one tumor. Histologically, the tumor is a papilloma, but the he are many dyskeratotic cells and loss of polarity in epidermis. Octyl methoxycinnamate or TiO ZnO Talc-treated mic show a significantly decreased wrinkling score, mimmal epidermal hyperplasia, slightly increased dermal cellularity, and lack of proliferation of cysts. The octyl dimethyl PABA-treatd mice shows significantly increased wrinkling score and marked inflammatory infiltration dermis. By the 20th week, only one mouse had developed a tumor in the octyl methoxy irmamate-treated group and no evidence of tumor was seen in the TiO ZnO Talc-treated group. In the octyl dimethyl PABA-treated group, five of 7 mice(71%) developed at least one tumor. CONCLUSION: The skin which is chronically exposed to UVB is subject to photoaging and photocarcinogenesis and regular use of an adequate sunscreen would prevent these photodamaging effects of UVB.
Animals ; Dermis ; Epidermis ; Fibroblasts ; Hyperplasia ; Incidence ; Keratosis ; Melanoma ; Mice ; Mice, Hairless ; Papilloma ; Skin* ; Sunscreening Agents*

Recently, exposure to sunlight is increasing due to expanded life time, outdoor leisures, and reduced sun protective ozone layer. Sunlight can produce not only benefit but also various kinds of harmful effect, such as skin carcinogenesis, photoaging and immunologic alterations, These effects can be minimized by sunscreens. This article reviews the methods to measure a suncreens efficacy and factors influencing the measurement. I. Measurement of photoprctective efficacy 1)The sun protective factor(SPF): The SPF is defined as the ratio of the UVB doses required to produce minimal erythema dose(MED) with sunscreen applied to without it. However, the exact procedures are not estabiished and the value is varied by methods. 2)Photoprotective factor A(FFA): In spite of its clinical improtance, evaluation of UVA protection rernains a problem due to its physiologic features. The methods to measure UVA protection are by the use of erythemal, phototoxic and pigmentary rections. 3)Outdoor measurement: It is ideal to measure the photoprotectiveness outdoor but a wide variation in value results from radiance sources and environmental factors. II. Factors influencing the evaluation The radiance sources, individ zal sensitivity to sunlight, product components and various environmental factors can make differences. Conclusion As more sunlight, exposure, he irnportance of photoprotection is increasing. The exact methods to measure the protectiveness of UVA and UVB should be established, especially adjusted to Korean people
Carcinogenesis ; Erythema ; Leisure Activities ; Skin ; Solar System ; Stratospheric Ozone ; Sunlight ; Sunscreening Agents