Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
BioMed Central
BMC Dermatology
BMC Dermatology
2001,
1
:6
Research article
Protection against ultraviolet radiation by commercial summer
clothing: need for standardised testing and labelling
Thilo Gambichler*, Sebastian Rotterdam, Peter Altmeyer and
Klaus Hoffmann
Address: Department of Dermatology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
E-mail: Thilo Gambichler* - t.gambichler@derma.de; Sebastian Rotterdam - s.rotterdam@derma.de; Peter Altmeyer - p.altmeyer@derma.de;
Klaus Hoffmann - k.hoffmann@derma.de
*Corresponding author
Abstract
Background: The use of clothing as a means of sun protection has been recommended in recent
education campaigns. Contrary to popular opinion, however, some fabrics provide insufficient
ultraviolet (UV) protection.
Material and methods: We investigated 236 apparel textiles of the spring/summer collections
2000 and 2001. In accordance with the forthcoming European standard the UV protection factor
(UPF) of the fabrics was determined spectrophotometrically.
Results: Seventy-eight (33%) fabrics had UPF < 15, 45 (19%) had UPF = or > 15 and < 30, and 113
(48%) had UPF = or > 30 (30+). More than 70% of the wool, polyester, and fabric blends, and only
less than 30% of the cotton, linen, and viscose fabrics had UPF values of 30+. Fabrics with black,
navy-blue, white, green, or beige colours provided most frequently UPF values of 30+.
Conclusions: It is difficult for the sun-aware consumer to choose the 'right' garment, with a third
of summer clothing providing insufficient UV protection and only half of the fabrics having UPF 30+,
the UPF recommended by the European standard. Therefore, apparel summer fabrics should be
measured and labelled in accordance with a standard document.
Background
The incidence of skin cancer has been increasing at an
alarming rate over the past several decades. While there
are many factors involved in the onset of melanoma and
non-melanoma skin cancers, overexposure to ultraviolet
radiation (UVR) has clearly been identified as an impor-
tant factor. High levels of exposure in childhood have
been associated with greater proneness to develop skin
cancer. Whether this is due to the skin being particularly
sensitive to sunlight in childhood or due to a large pro-
portion of total lifetime dose accumulating over this pe-
riod is not known, as most of a lifetime of UV exposure
occurs during childhood and adolescence [1,2]. In the
past few decades, sun protection campaigns have been
initiated in Australia, the United States, and Europe to
educate the population about sensible behaviour in the
sun. These campaigns, principally targeted towards the
protection of children, tried to change attitudes regard-
ing the idealisation of the darker complexion and the sta-
tus symbol of tanned skin. Apart from avoidance of the
Published: 25 October 2001
BMC Dermatology 2001, 1:6
Received: 25 September 2001
Accepted: 25 October 2001
This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-5945/1/6
© 2001 Gambichler et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in any medium for any non-
commercial purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL. For commercial use, contact info@biomedcentral.com
BMC Dermatology 2001, 1:6 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-5945/1/6
sun, especially at peak hours, the most frequently used
form of UV protection is the application of sunscreens.
Since suitable clothing offers usually simple and effective
broadband protection against the sun, the use of fabrics
has been highlighted in recent education campaigns.
Contrary to popular opinion, however, some fabrics pro-
vide insufficient UV protection [3]. We conducted a
study on a great number of commercial apparel fabrics
designed for recent spring/summer collections.
Material and methods
We investigated 236 apparel fabrics of the spring/sum-
mer collections 2000 and 2001. The fabrics were provid-
ed by a leading European garment manufacturer (Klaus
Steilmann GmbH & Co. KG, Bochum, Germany). The
mean ± SD weight of the fabrics was 158 ± 51,5 g/m
2
(range: 39–275 g/m
2
). In accordance with the forthcom-
ing European standard [4] the UV protection factor
(UPF) of the fabrics was determined spectrophotometri-
cally in the laboratory as it has previously been described
in detail [5,6]. Correspondingly, the fabrics were investi-
gated unstretched and in dry condition [4]. In short, we
used a Cary 500 UV/Vis/NIR spectrophotometer (Vari-
an Deutschland GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). Direct
and diffuse UV transmission was assessed with the aid of
an integrating sphere. In order to minimize any meas-
urement error that might be caused by fluorescent prop-
erties of the fabrics a UG-11 filter (Schott, Mainz,
Germany) was used. The spectrophotometric measure-
ments were carried out in the wavelength range of 290–
400 nm in 1 nm steps.
With the aid of a computer-controlled autosampler, the
fabric samples (3 × 4 cm) were transported from the
sample magazine into the measurement position in front
of the integrating sphere [6,7]. Four samples of each fab-
ric were investigated. So, 16 single measurements both in
machine and cross-machine directions were performed
for each fabric. To determine the UPF, the spectral irra-
diance (both source and transmitted spectrum) was
weighted against the erythema action spectrum pro-
posed by the CIE. For each sample of a fabric, a mean
UPF value was calculated, and the lowest of the 4 sam-
ples was considered the in vitro UPF of the fabric [4]. The
UPF was rated as follows: 0+ (UPF <5); 5+ (5 ≤ UPF <
10); 10+ (10 ≤ UPF < 15); … 50+ (UPF ≥ 50).
Results and Discussion
As shown in Figure 1, 78 (33%) fabrics had UPF <15
(red), 45 (19%) had UPF ≥ 15 and < 30 (yellow), and 113
(48%) had UPF ≥ 30 (green). More than 70% of the wool,
polyester, and fabric blends, and less than 30% of the
cotton, linen, and viscose fabrics had UPF values of 30+
(Tab. 1). Fabrics with black, navy-blue, white, green, or
beige colours provided most frequently UPF values of
30+. Detailed data of white and black fabrics are shown
in Figure 2.
As parameters are rarely independent, systematic re-
search to quantify the effect of various manufacturing
methods is difficult. The UPF of a garment depends on a
number of factors, including fabric construction, type,
colour, weight, thickness, finishing processes, and pres-
ence of additives such as UV absorbing substances (e.g.,
titan dioxide, brightening agents), etc [3]. Moreover, the
UV protection provided by a garment during use de-
pends on wash and wear, including stretch and wetness
[3]. Thus, the UPF of a fabric is influenced by fabric
properties and the complexity of interaction between
these properties makes it impossible to predict the UPF
or to generalize comparison between e.g. cotton vs poly-
ester (Tab. 1) or black vs white (Fig. 2), nor is it sufficient
to hold a fabric to the light and assess the amount of light
seen through the spaces.
Figure 1
UPF rating of 236 commercial summer fabrics of different
fibre type, construction, and colour
Figure 2
UPF rating of white (n = 40) and black (n = 44) summer fab-
rics of different fibre type and construction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0+ 5+ 10+ 15+ 20+ 25+ 30+ 35+ 40+ 45+ 50+
UPF rating
Number of fabrics
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0+ 5+ 10+ 15+ 20+ 25+ 30+ 35+ 40+ 45+ 50+
UPF rating
Number of fabrics
BMC Dermatology 2001, 1:6 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-5945/1/6
The aim of the presented study was to investigate UV
protective properties of typical summer fabrics that are
currently available on the market. Although it was not
possible to study the parameters independently we have
demonstrated the following trends. Polyester and wool
fabrics usually provide sufficient UV protection (UPF
30+), while other fabrics, such as cotton, linen, and vis-
cose, frequently offer poor UV protection. We showed
that dark-coloured fabrics frequently have UPF values of
30+. Nevertheless, also white fabrics may provide suffi-
cient UV protection depending on other parameters such
as tightness of weave and fibre type. The most striking
result however is the fact that 78 fabrics (33%) have an
insufficient UPF of less than 15, and only 113 fabrics
(48%) fulfilled the requirements of the European stand-
ard for UV protective clothing, that is UPF 30+ [4]. Sim-
ilar results have been found in previous studies
performed in Switzerland, Germany, and Australia [8–
10].
The question arises, how would the sun-aware consumer
be able to choose the 'right' garment, with a third of sum-
mer clothes providing insufficient protection and only
about a half of the fabrics providing UPF 30+ as recom-
mended by the forthcoming European standard, respec-
tively?! Therefore, UV protection of apparel fabrics
should be measured and labelled in accordance with a
standard document. This is especially true for children's
clothing. A UPF of 30+ may be resistant against the ef-
fects of stretch, wetness, and environmental stresses. Be-
sides, UPF values obtained by measurements in real
exposure situations are usually higher than those ob-
tained by conventional laboratory testing which repre-
sents a 'worst-case scenario' (11–13). Apart from a
sufficiently high UPF the design of the garment is the
crucial factor in sun protection by clothing. The Europe-
an standard [4] includes therefore the following strin-
gent requirements for the design of garments: 1) clothing
designed to offer UV protection to the upper body must
provide at least coverage from the base of the neck down
to the hip and across the shoulders down to three quar-
ters of the upper arm 2) clothing designed to offer pro-
tection of the lower body (from the waist to below the
patella) must similarly provide complete coverage (Fig.
3).
In reality, in European countries such as Germany there
is only a market for children's UV protective clothing.
Correspondingly, there are only a few manufacturers and
traders in Germany dealing UV protective clothing and
most of them provide exclusively UV protective clothing
for children. By contrast in Australia, which has consid-
erably higher levels of solar UV radiation and higher in-
cidences of skin cancer, State Cancer Councils sell
sunscreens, sunglasses, hats, and UV protective clothing
to the public at a reasonable cost – an important attempt
to widen their use [9,10].
Conclusions
Commercial summer fabrics frequently provide insuffi-
cient UV protection. Since it is difficult for the sun-aware
consumer to choose the 'right' UV protective garment,
apparel summer fabrics should be measured and labelled
in accordance with a standard document.
List of abbreviations
Ultraviolet radiation: UVR; ultraviolet protection factor:
UPF
Table 1: UPF rating of 236 summer fabrics of different fibre types
CO 13223 1 2
(n = 14)
WO 128
(n = 11)
LI 11 10 8 6 1
(n = 36)
VI 2676124222111
(n = 64)
PA 613 6
(n = 16)
PL 1 2 11 2333
(n = 43)
Blends
*
2324343724
(n = 52)
UPF
rating 0+ 5+ 10+ 15+ 20+ 25+ 30+ 35+ 40+ 45+ 50+
CO = cotton ; WO =wool; LI =linen; VI =viscose; PA =polyamide; PL =polyester;
*
different mixtures of polyester, linen, viscose, and cotton fabrics
BMC Dermatology 2001, 1:6 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-5945/1/6
Competing interests
None declared
Acknowledgment
We are very grateful to Mr Roger Schmidt (Klaus Steilmann Institut für In-
novation und Umwelt GmbH, Bochum-Wattenscheid, Germany) who pro-
vided us the fabric materials for the measurements. This study was
supported in part by grant 07UVB60A/2 from the German Ministry of Sci-
ence and Technology.
References
1. Dixon H, Hons BA, Borland R, Hill D: Sun protection and sun-
burn in primary school children: the influence of age, gender,
and coloring. Prev Med 1999, 28:119-130
2. Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K, Stücker M eds: Skin cancer and UV ra-
diation. Springer Berlin New York 1997
3. Hoffmann K, Laperre J, Avermaete A, Altmeyer P, Gambichler T: De-
fined UV protection by apparel textiles. Arch Dermatol 2001,
137:1089-1094
4. CEN: Fabrics – solar UV protective properties – methods of test for appar-
el fabrics. PrEN 13758: 1999
5. Gambichler T, Avermaete A, Bader A, Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K: Ul-
traviolet protection by summer textiles. Ultraviolet trans-
mission measurements verified by determination of the
minimal erythema dose with solar-simulated radiation. Br J
Dermatol 2001, 144:484-489
6. Hoffmann K, Kesners P, Bader A, Avermaete A, Altmeyer P, Gam-
bichler T: Repeatability of in vitro measurements of the ultra-
violet protection factor (UPF) by spectrophotometry with
automatic sampling. Skin Res Technol 2001, 7:223-226
7. Laperre J, Gambichler T, Driscoll C, Böhringer B, Varieras S, Oster-
walder U, et al: Determination of the ultraviolet protection
factor of textile materials: measurement precision. Photoder-
matol Photoimmunol Photomed 2001, 17:223-229
8. Dummer R, Osterwalder U: UV transmission of summer cloth-
ing in Switzerland and Germany. Dermatology 2000, 200:81-82
9. Gies P, Roy C, Toomey S, Tomlinson D: Ambient solar UVR, per-
sonal exposure and protection. J Epidemiol 1999, 9:115-122
10. Pailthorpe M: Apparel textiles and sun protection: a marketing
opportunity or a quality control nightmare? Mutat Res 1998,
422:175-183
11. Kimlin MG, Parisi AV, Meldrum LR: Effect of stretch on the ultra-
violet spectral transmission of one type of commonly used
clothing. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 1999, 15:171-174
12. Moehrle M, Garbe C: Solar UV-protective properties of tex-
tiles Dermatology 2000, 201:82
13. Ravishankar J, Diffey BL: Laboratory testing of UV transmission
through fabrics may underestimate protection. Photodermatol
Photoimmunol Photomed 1997, 13:202-203
Figure 3
Example for a collection of sun protective clothing for chil-
dren. The design of these clothes fulfills the requirements of
the forthcoming European standard [4]
Publish with BioMed Central and every
scientist can read your work free of charge
"BioMedcentral will be the most significant development for
disseminating the results of biomedical research in our lifetime."
Paul Nurse, Director-General, Imperial Cancer Research Fund
Publish with BMC and your research papers will be:
available free of charge to the entire biomedical community
peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance
cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central
yours - you keep the copyright
editorial@biomedcentral.com
Submit your manuscript here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/manuscript/
BioMedcentral.com
