- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In most articles on pubmed it is concluded that, although some of the negative side effects of some UV-filters, wearing sunscreen every day is better than not applying sunscreen at all. For now I just believe that is true, although looking at this article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17015167) on Octocrylene producing more ROS than control after 60min and many others about free radical production and hormonal activity/allergic reactions, I wonder if we will find in 25 years some filters weren’t as good as we thought.
With that in mind I would like to have a sort of idea what uv-filters have the least possible side effects. I think you could definitely rank sunscreen actives, considering possible photodegradation, hormonal activity, ease of absorption, formation of free radicals, possible photoallergic reactions and the size (“the Dalton rule”).I’ve ranked some uv-filters, what do you think is the data/ranking correct?From best to worst:
1 Tinosorb S (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl
triazine, Bemotrizinol) , Photodegradation: none Hormonal activity: none absorption:
none free radicals: none photoallergenic: no Dalton: 6922 Uvinul A plus (Diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate), Photodegradation: none Hormonal activity: none absorption: none free
radicals: none photoallergenic: no Dalton: 3983 Mexoryl XL (Drometrizole trisiloxane, DTS, Silatriazole),
Photodegradation: none Hormonal activity: none absorption: none free radicals: ?
photoallergenic: no Dalton: 5014 Uvasorb HEB (Diethylhexyl butamido triazone, Iscotrizinol)
, Photodegradation: none Hormonal activity: none absorption: none free
radicals: ? photoallergenic: no Dalton: 7665 Bisdisulizole Disodium (Neo Heliopan AP, Disodium phenyl
dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate), Photodegradation: none Hormonal activity: none
absorption: none free radicals: none photoallergenic: no Dalton: 6756 Tinosorb M (methylene bis-benzotriazolyl
tetramethylbutylphenol/MBBT, Bisoctrizole), Photodegradation: none Hormonal
activity: none absorption: none free radicals: none photoallergenic: only to
decyl glucoside Dalton: 6597 Mexoryl SX (Ecamsule, Terephthalylidene Dicamphor Sulfonic
Acid, TDSA), Photodegradation: some, 40% Hormonal activity: none absorption: none
free radicals: none photoallergenic: no Dalton: 6078 Uvinul T150 (Ethylhexyl Triazone, EHT, Octyltriazone), Photodegradation:
very little 4% Hormonal activity: none absorption: none free radicals: some photoallergenic:
unlikely Dalton: 8239 Ethylhexyl Salicylate (Octisalate, EHS, Octyl Salicylate),
Photodegradation: some 30% Hormonal activity: none absorption: some free
radicals: none photoallergenic: no Dalton: 25010 Zinc Oxide , Photodegradation: none Hormonal activity: none
absorption: To some extend free radicals: yes photoallergenic: no Dalton: 8111 Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid (Ensulizole, PBSA), Photodegradation:
none Hormonal activity: none absorption: none free radicals: maybe photoallergenic:
yes Dalton: 27512 Avobenzone (BUTYL METHOXYDIBENZOYLMETHANE, Parsol 1789),
Photodegradation: yes, 55% Hormonal activity: none absorption: yes free
radicals: none photoallergenic: yes Dalton: 32013 Titanium dioxide, Photodegradation: none Hormonal
activity: none absorption: Not known for sure free radicals: yes photoallergenic:
no Dalton: 8014 Trolamine Salicylate (Triethanolamine Salicylate), Photodegradation:
? Hormonal activity: ? absorption: yes free radicals: ? photoallergenic: ? Dalton: 28715 Cinoxate (2-Ethoxyethyl p-methoxycinnamate, Phiasol), Photodegradation:
? Hormonal activity: ? absorption: ? free radicals: ? photoallergenic: ? Dalton: 25016 Dioxybenzone (Benzophenone-
, Photodegradation: ? Hormonal
activity: ? absorption: ? free radicals: ? photoallergenic: ? Dalton: 24417 Amiloxate (Isoamyl-p-Methoxycinnamate), Photodegradation: yes, 70% Hormonal activity: ? absorption: ? free
radicals: ? photoallergenic: ? Dalton:18 Benzohenone-4 (Sulisobenzone), Photodegradation: none Hormonal
activity: ? absorption: yes free radicals: ? photoallergenic: yes Dalton: 30819 Polysilicone-15 (Parsol SLX,
Dimethicodiethylbenzalmalonate, PS15), Photodegradation: ? Hormonal activity: ?
absorption: ? free radicals: ? photoallergenic:
none Dalton: 150020 Octocrylene (OCR), Photodegradation: None Hormonal
activity: ? absorption: Yes free radicals: Yes photoallergenic: Yes Dalton: 36121 Homosalate (Homomethyl salicylate, HMS), Photodegradation:
? Hormonal activity: Yes absorption: Yes free radicals: ? photoallergenic: ? Dalton: 26222 Benzophenone-3 (Oxybenzone) , Photodegradation: some, 10%
Hormonal activity: Yes absorption: Yes free radicals: Yes photoallergenic: Yes Dalton:
22823 Padimate O (Octyldimethyl PABA/Ethylhexyl dimethyl Paba),
Photodegradation: Yes, 70% Hormonal activity: Yes absorption: ? free radicals: Yes
photoallergenic: unlikely Dalton: 27724 Octyl methoxycinnamate (Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate/EHMC/
Octinoxate), Photodegradation: Yes, 60% Hormonal activity: Yes absorption:
Yes free radicals: Yes photoallergenic: Yes Dalton: 29025 Enzacamene, Photodegradation: Some, 20% Hormonal activity: Yes absorption: ?
free radicals: ? photoallergenic: Yes Dalton:
25126 Benzyl Salicylate, Photodegradation: ? Hormonal
activity: ? absorption: free radicals: ?
photoallergenic: ? Dalton:27 3-benzylidene camphor, Photodegradation: ? Hormonal
activity: ? absorption: free radicals: ?
photoallergenic: ? Dalton:That’s a very detailed list Peter, Thank you for sharing. I prefer Zinc oxide despite the chemical sunscreens getting higher PPD.
Thank you very much for this list! The sad thing is that all these organic sunscreen ingredients sting my eyes and irritate my skins. I have a sunscreen with Uvinul A Plus that’s a lovely texture but boy… my eyes and skin hurt. I think I have to switch pure inorganic sunscreen with just ZnO.
Escherichia, what a shame that your skin is so sensitive! Sunscreen is important to me because of where I live. The sun UV rays here are bad and we have one of the highest cases of skin cancer in the world, 2 out of 3 aussies will be diagnosed with skin cancer by the time they are 70.
It’s spring now and soon summer, so I am definitely catching up on sunscreen news.
Peter: What are the criteria used for the ranking? Really pleased to see that some of the chemical filers have “Photodegradation: none”. I always thought that all chemical filters degrade under the sun.
Perhaps you’ve seen this before(Table from EPA)In my blog, i compared Physical vs Chemical sunscreen. http://loveneedwant.wixsite.com/blog/single-post/2016/09/24/Physical-vs-Chemical-SunscreenPerhaps the scientist RandyS can comment if this is true:-
Physical sunscreens REFLECTS sun.
-
Chemical sunscreen ABSORBS sun
yikes @escherichia I just googled betaderm and it is a steroid! Not good used long-term. I do sincerely hope your skin is able to repair itself asap and the acid mantle healthy again!
A friend told me about Calendula. It’s my go-to for healing now. Australia makes a multi-award winning product by Hope’s Relief, you can use it on the body or face. It also contains NPA10+ Manuka Honey, Aloe. Gotu Kola & Licorice Root. HG status for me. ReviewMy husband had a nasty reaction to undiluted tea tree oil & the summer heat and needed steroids + antibiotics. Using natural products help us minimise the usage of steroids/cortisones.Another HG is Calendula Caress, which is biodynamic calendula petals infused in almond oil, made in the USA. I used it on face and body when I had irritations. ReviewOne more, Bisabolol derived from Camomile.The Beauty Brains mentioned Allantoin in their podcast. LinkSorry to go off track, for irritable sensitive skin, my friends stick to physical only sunscreen; Zinc Oxide + Titanium Dioxide. Hope this helps
@RandyS Is this right?- Physical sunscreen REFLECT sun UV
- Chemical sunscreen ABSORB sun UV
Sorry for the late reply! I was caught up with some work…
Thanks for your concern. I don’t use betaderm unless it’s allergy/contact dermatitis. Whatever it was, it helped to clear the redness on my face a little and now my face is fine! But that means I can’t use that sunscreen anymore. ><Care to share which physical sunscreens u use? I just tried the Badger’s sunscreen (18% ZnO) which I ordered a week ago. It’s awesome in that my skin feels completely calm and my eyes don’t burn even when I rub it into them (testing haha). BUT, the white cast is major. Sigh.Randy, may I ask if the ZnO% matters in sunscreen? I read somewhere (can’t remember sorry) that percentages of ZnO and TiO2 matters for SPF protection/UVA protection. What do you think? Does the protection decrease linearly with % amounts?
I just found an article written by another cosmetic scientist saying that physical sunscreens work just like chemical sunscreens (there’s reflection but minimal): http://kindofstephen.com/physical-vs-chemical-sunscreens-myths/
I’m confused? Who is right?PHEW… Thank goodness your skin bounced back quickly! You got me worried.Bear in mind that i am based in Sydney, Australia so the sunscreens available here may differ from you. I tend to favour sunscreens containing Zinc Oxide. However after a mild sunburn this week (it’s Spring now) i am rethinking if i should stick to Physical only sunscreen… so far i have been using physical+chemical mixes.Despite using 5″ floppy hat, UV 400 sunglasses, double layer sunscreen + triple layer on extra sensitive areas… I still got burnt! I shared my sunburn in this forum thread:What was interesting was that I used one layer of 24.96% Zinc Oxide sunscreen on my neck and no burn there! I do not have allergies like you but I am thinking of that “chemical sunscreen absorbs theory”Thinking about sticking to pure Zinc Oxide sunscreen for summer. I shared in my blog how I found a 27% zinc oxide sunscreen SPF50+
In Australia, that is the strongest Zinc Oxide sunscreen. It is available overseas too, it’s the brand endorsed by Elle MacPherson.Have referenced to Stephen’s blog post in my blog before. It’s well written. I did read other sources that support that it isn’t as straight forward that ALL physical sunscreen REFLECT.Another myth busted is ALL Chemical sunscreen degrade under UV as confirmed by @Peter.
I want to try this brand Invisible Zinc (It’s US owned, made in Australia)
Maximum FDA-approved Concentration for Zinc Oxide is 25% SourceWill be interesting to try this 27% zinc oxide sunscreen. I know it will definitely not be makeup compatible and it will require a cleansing oil to remove (since it is water resistant).@escherichia I think Badger makes very good sunscreens. I have yet to try them but i think you’ll be alright if you use them. Would love your feedback on how makeup compatible they are.sorry for the large photo size, i do not know how to resize the photo@RandyS I think @escherichia raised a good question about the quantity of physical filters and the correlation to UVA and UVB protection.
As you can see in the photo above, both sunscreens are rated SPF40. The one on the left, Moogoo was rated SPF40 by Australia TGA and the one on the right Babo Botanicals was rated SPF40 by US (presumably FDA).Active ingredients- Moogoo : 24.96% Zinc Oxide
- Babo Botanicals : Zinc Oxide 3.3% & Titanium Dioxide 5.5%
Both sunscreens are not rated with PPD, so we can only guesstimate the UVB protection is similar. Based on EPA’s chart, i am guessing Mogoo’s sunscreen to have better UVA protection.The other differences are obviously there are different sunscreen testing methods/standards across different countries. US have very strict standards and similarly the same here in Australia. -
- The forum ‘Ask the Beauty Brains’ is closed to new topics and replies.