Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
335 Indian Journal of Dermatology 2012; 57(5)
Introduction
Ultraviolet (UV) composes only a small region of the
electromagnetic radiation spectrum and is divided into
three subdivisions: Ultraviolet C (UVC) (200–290
nm), Ultraviolet B (UVB) (290–320 nm), and UVA
(320– 400 nm). Ultraviolet A (UVA) is further divided
into UVA1 (340–400 nm) and UVA2 (320–340 nm).
Ozone in the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs 100% of UVC,
approximately 90% of UVB, and virtually no UVA and
hence depletion of the ozone layer has lead to a substantial
increasein UVtransmission tothe Earth’ssurface.
The understanding of Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and
its effects on the skin is important. The UV spectrum
causes ageing of the skin, sunburn development, the
production of precancerous and cancerous lesions, and
immunosuppression. Immunosuppressive effects include
suppression of contact hypersensitivity and delayed-type
hypersensitivityandchanges inLangerhans cellfunction. [1]
UVA is associated with ageing effects and produces
pigmentation. It penetrates deeper into the skin layer and
indirectly damages the DNA via the production of radical
oxygen species (ROS). It causes a decrease in Langerhans
cellspresentinthedermis,whereasincreasinginammatory
cells in the dermis.[2] UVA increases the expression of
p53, a tumor suppressor gene,[3] whereas promoting UVB
carcinogenicity and oxidative stress.[4] UVB exposure, on
the other hand, causes sunburns and DNA strand breaks.
UVB produces pyrimidine dimer mutations, which are
stronglyassociated withnonmelanomaskincancers.[4]
For many years the focus of research and protective
strategies, has been centered on the UV part of sunlight,
because their relatively high photon energy causes
macroscopic skin changes that are visible even after a
short duration of exposure resulting in accelerated skin
ageing and contributing to the development of cancer. UV
radiation only accounts for approximately 7% of the sun’s
energy[5] but InfraredA (IRA) (760–1440 nm) can also act
as a damaging environmental factor to skin through its
ability to result in alterations in gene expression of skin
cells at multiple points,[6] resulting in accelerated skin
ageing[7,8]and contributingto thedevelopmentofcancer.[9]
The effect of visible light on the skin has received very
little attention, compared with UV radiation and its effects
on the skin are probably less important than the role of
UV radiation. However, visible light sensitivity is an
important phenomenon in diseases such as porphyria, solar
urticaria, and other idiopathic photodermatoses such as
polymorphouslighteruption.
Photoprotection
Modern topical photoprotection involves both primary
protective factors (sunscreens) that absorb or reect
UV radiation and secondary factors (e.g., antioxidants,
osmolytes, and DNA repair enzymes) that can disrupt
the photochemical cascade triggered by UV-penetration,
therebylimiting skindamage.
Sunscreens
Sunscreens have been divided into chemical absorbers
(organic) and physical blockers (inorganic) on the basis
of their mechanism of action. Chemical sunscreens
are generally aromatic compounds conjugated with
a carbonyl group. This general structure allows the
Address for correspondence: Dr. Reena Rai, Department of Dermatology,
PSG Hospitals, Coimbatore, India. E-mail: drreena_rai@yahoo.co.in
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website: www.e-ijd.org
DOI: 10.4103/0019-5154.100472
Update on Photoprotection
Reena Rai, Shanmuga Sekar C, Srinivas CR
Department of Dermatology, PSG Hospitals, Coimbatore, India
Abstract
Photoprotectionbysunscreens, clothingandglasses areimportantto protectthe skin againstthe detrimentaleffectsof sunexposure. In
order to achieve complete protection, topical strategies must shield against the range of solar wavelengths ultraviolet A, ultraviolet B,
infrared radiation that can damage the skin. To provide the necessary broad spectrum coverage, combinations of chemical and physical
UVlters alongwith moleculesthat arecapable ofinterfering withand/or preventingthe deleteriouseffects ofsunlight arediscussed in
thisreview.
Key Words: Photoprotection, sunscreens, uv radiation
CME Article
What was known?
Modern topical photoprotection involves both primary protective factors
(sunscreens) that absorb or reect. UV radiation and secondary factors
(e.g., antioxidants, osmolytes, and DNA repair enzymes) that can disrupt the
photochemical cascade triggered by UV-penetration.
[Downloaded free from http://www.e-ijd.org on Monday, April 9, 2018, IP: 103.214.62.170]
336Indian Journal of Dermatology 2012; 57(5)
Rai, et al.: Photoprotection
molecule to absorb high-energy UV rays and release
the energy as lower-energy rays, thereby preventing the
skin-damaging UV rays from reaching the skin. Physical
blockers or nonchemical sunscreens reect or scatter
UVR. They contain inert minerals such as titanium
dioxide or zinc oxide. Organic are either UVA or UVB
blockers[Table1].
UV B blockers
Aminobenzoates
PadimateOis themostpotent UV-B absorber. Thedecline
in its use, along with the demand for higher sun protection
factor (SPF) products have led to the incorporation of
multiple active ingredients into a single product to achieve
the desired SPF, replacing single Para amino benzoic acid
(PABA)esters.
Cinnamates
The cinnamates have largely replaced PABA derivatives
as the next most potent UVB absorbers. They are
octinoxate (octyl methoxycinnamate [OMC]) and
cinoxate (2-ethoxyethyl-methoxycinnamate). OMC is a
potent UVB absorber and is the most frequently used
sunscreen ingredient. The efcacy of OMC can be further
increased when encapsulated in polymethyl methacrylate
microsphere.[10]
Salicylates
Salicylates are weak UVB absorbers and they are generally
used in combination with other UV lters. Both octisalate
and homosalate are water insoluble that leads to their high
substantivity, which is the ability to retain its effectiveness
afterexposuretowaterand perspiration.Trolaminesalicylate
is water soluble and has been used in hair products. These
compounds can also play a minor role to stabilize and
preventphotodegradation ofother sunscreeningredients.[11]
Octocrylene
The absorption prole of octocrylene spans from 290 to
360nmwithpeakabsorptionat307nm.Thecompoundhas
anexcellent safetyprole withlowirritation,phototoxicity,
and photoallergic potential.[12] Octocrylene may be used in
combination with other UV absorbers to achieve higher
SPFformulas andtoaddstability.
Ensulizole
Ensulizole or phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid is water
soluble, and it is used in products formulated to feel lighter
and less oily, such as daily use cosmetic moisturizers.
It is a selective UVB lter, allowing almost all UVA
transmission.
Ultraviolet A
Benzophenones
Although benzophenones are primarily UVB absorbers,
oxybenzone absorbs well through UVA II and can be
considered a broad-spectrum absorber. It signicantly
augments UVB protection when used in a given formula.
Oxybenzone has the highest incidence of contact and
photocontact dermatitis of all sunscreens, and these
reactionsare intensiedby exposureto sunorheat.[13]
Benzophenones have poor substantivity, but uptake of the
molecules is detectable in the blood and urine after topical
application. However, the systemic absorption seems to be
of little biological consequence.[14] The molecules become
unstable with UV exposure via oxidation reactions and
consumptionof antioxidantreserves.[11]
Oxybenzone is not photostable and can generate oxygen
radicals upon UV exposure.[15] There is a concern about
its endocrine and carcinogenic effect even though current
scienticstudies havenotsupportedthisfears.[16]
Anthranilates
AnthranilatesareweakUVBlters,andtheyabsorbmainly
inthenear UVAportion of thespectrum.Anthranilatesare
less effective in this range than benzophenones, and they
areless widelyused.
Avobenzone
Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane or avobenzone provides
superior protection through a large portion of the UVA
range, including UVA I. Despite its efcacy and broad
spectrum, avobenzone is intrinsically photounstable and
signicant photodegradation can occur with a loss of
50–90% of molecules after 1 hour of UV exposure.[17] To
increase the photostability of avobenzone, molecules such
Table 1: Sunscreens and their absorption spectra
Organic lters Sunscreen ingredients Absorption (nm)
Aminobenzoates PABA 283-289
Padimate O 290-310
Anthralates Meradimate 286,335
Cinnamates Octinoxate 311
Cinoxate 289
Salicylates Octisalate 307
Homosalate 306
Trolamine Salicylate 260-355
Benzophenones Oxybenzone 288,325
Sulisobenzone 288,366
Dioxybenzone 288,352
Dibenzoylmethane Avobenzone 360
Camphor Ecamsule 345
Miscellaneous Octocrylene 303
Ensulizole 310
Methylene-bis-benzotr
iazolyltetramethylbuty
lphenol
303,360
Bis-ethylhexyloxyph
enolmethoxyphenyltr
iazine
280-380
Octyltriazone 314
[Downloaded free from http://www.e-ijd.org on Monday, April 9, 2018, IP: 103.214.62.170]
337 Indian Journal of Dermatology 2012; 57(5)
Rai, et al.: Photoprotection
as UV absorber (e.g., octocrylene) and non-UV lter (e.g.,
diethylhexyl2, 6-napththalate)are added.
Ecamsule
Terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid or Mexoryl
SX provides protection within the near UVA range. The
compound is photostable, water resistant, and has low
systemicabsorption.
Methylene-bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol
(MBBT)
Itisabroadspectrumsunscreen,decreasingUVAmorethan
UVB transmission. This molecule offers a broad spectrum
coverage with two absorption peaks at 303 and 360 nm.
The molecule size is large, minimizing the opportunity for
systemic absorption or endocrine-like effects. It acts as a
hybridbetween organicandinorganiclters,combiningthe
micronizedparticletechnologyofinorganicUV lterswith
an organic molecule and together, these properties serve to
absorb,scatter,andreectUVR.
Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine
(BEMT)
It has a broad spectrum of coverage from 280 to 380 nm
and is photostable. It is also advantageous for a lack of
endocrine-likeeffects.[18]
Hydroxybenzotriazoles class: Drometriazole trisiloxane
Drometriazole trisiloxane (DTB) belongs to the class of
hydroxybenzotriazole molecules. It has broad-spectrum
coverageand isphotostable.
Inorganic sunscreens
Inorganic sunscreens or physical blockersscatter or reect
UV rays
Some of the original sunblocks were opaque formulations
reectingor scatteringUVR.Poorcosmeticacceptance had
limited the widespread use until micro sized forms became
available,also knownasinorganicparticulate sunscreens.
Titanium dioxide
Titanium dioxide is a broad-spectrum UV lter that does
not penetrate the stratum corneum. It has undergone a
processofmicronization for improvedcosmesis. Microne
titanium dioxide provides photoprotection against UVB and
UVA II (315–340 nm)[18] but lacks coverage within UVA1
(340–400nm).
Zinc oxide
Zinc oxide is a safe and effective ingredient in photoprotective
products. It is photostable, nonphotoreactive,[19] and
nonphotocatalytic.[12] It has little potential for irritation or
sensitization.Smaller,micronized zincoxideisconsideredas
abroad-spectrumUVprotectant.Althoughnotasefcientin
the UVB range as titanium dioxide, this inorganic UV lter
covers predominately the UVA spectra, with protection into
UVA1. Zinc oxide is also considered inferior as a UV lter
totheorganicsunscreens.[12]
Secondary photoprotection
Secondary photoprotection involves the use of active agents
to counteract the inherent photochemical processes that can
induce DNA damage in skin cells. It may be achieved by
antioxidants, osmolytes, and DNA repair enzymes,[20,21]
(e.g.,photolyaseandT4 endonucleaseV).
UVA damages the skin tissue through reactive oxygen
species (ROS) production, and these radicals are neutralized
by the body’s innate defense mechanism through a
series of enzymatic (e.g., superoxide dismutase, catalase,
glutathione reductase, and peroxidase) and nonenzymatic
antioxidants (AOs). When the buildup of ROS from UV
and environmental pollutions exhausts the enzymatic
machinery and depletes the AOs reservoir, damage to the
DNA, lipid membrane, and proteins can occur. Topical
AOs exert their effect inside the cells and can reverse this
shortage.Furthermore,once penetratedthrough thestratum
corneum, they may remain active for several days.[22] The
antioxidants have also been shown to protect against Near
infrared radiation (IRA) and hence they are important for
theircentral roleinIRAinducedadverseeffects.[7,23]
Antioxidants that are used in sunscreens and cosmetic
products are vitamins and polyphenols. Vitamins
formulated in sunscreens are water soluble vitamin C
and lipophilic vitamin E. Application of L-ascorbic acid
has shown to protect UV-related damage as measured
by erythema or sun burn cells.[24] Topical application of
a-tocopherol has demonstrated a number of protective
effects including reduction in erythema,[25] photoaging,[26]
photocarcinogenesis,[26]and immunosuppression.[27]
Silymarin
Silymarin is derived from the milk thistle plant, Silybum
marianum. This avonoid has strong AO effects capable
of scavenging ROS and preventing lipid and lipoprotein
oxidation. Topical silymarin has been shown to inhibit
UVB-induced sunburn cells, prevent UVB induced
pyrimidine dimers, and reduce the number of UVB-induced
tumorsin mice.[28]
Green tea polyphenols
Green tea contains a rich level of polyphenols and as
AOs, tea polyphenols are more potent than vitamins C
and E. They are capable of scavenging singlet oxygen,
superoxide radicals, hydroxyl radicals, peroxyl radicals,
and hydrogen peroxide. Aside from the AO functions,
tea polyphenols also have antiinammatory and
anticarcinogeniceffects.[29]
Osmolytes
Osmolytes are small molecules that control and stabilize the
cellular environment by regulating hydration and responses
[Downloaded free from http://www.e-ijd.org on Monday, April 9, 2018, IP: 103.214.62.170]
338Indian Journal of Dermatology 2012; 57(5)
Rai, et al.: Photoprotection
tostressconditions.Osmolytes(compatibleorganicsolutes)
are not only utilized by cells to control cell volumes, but
they have been identied as integral parts of the cellular
defense against environmental noxae. The osmolytes
taurine[30] and ectoine[31] have been demonstrated to protect
against detrimental UV effects and are incorporated into
severalcommerciallyavailablesunscreens.
Photoprotection by clothing
Wearing clothing has been emphasized as an important
means of photoprotection. Compared with sunscreens,
clothing has a number of advantages. Clothing and hats
offer a balanced and uniformed protection for both UVA
and UVB but most of the sunscreens deliver more UVB
protection.Clothingand hatsoffer morereliableprotection
as long as users remember to wear them. By contrast,
a user needs to apply sunscreens 30 minutes prior going
outdoors and reapply them every 2 hours, and the degree of
protection offered by sunscreens depends on application of
thecorrectamountoftheproduct.
The protection offered by clothing is measured by
ultravioletprotection factor(UPF).
UPF is dened as the ratio of average effective UV
irradiance transmitted without fabric to the average
effective UV irradiance transmitted through fabric. Fabrics
are placed into classes based on the calculated label UPF
value.[32] The good protection is composed of fabrics with
labelUPF valueof15–24,thevery goodprotectionclassis
composed of fabrics with label UPF values of 40–50, and
50+(the highestvaluepermittedonalabel).
Polyester has the best UV absorbing capacity while
cotton has the least.[33] The use of optical whitening agents
can likewise increase UPF through their uorescent-
like properties (re-emitting absorbed UVR in the visible
spectrum); however, this augmented protection is limited
bypartial UVBcoverage.[34]
To conclude wearing a colored loose tting fabric offers
thebestphotoprotectionfrom clothing.
Photoprotection by glasses
UVR ltration by sunglasses is important because it
prevents the development of certain ocular disorders
including cancers of the eye/eyelid, cataracts, and possibly
age-related macular degeneration. Sunglass effectiveness,
on the other hand, depends on factors such as size, shape,
UV blocking ability, and reection from the back of
the lens.[13] The American Academy of Ophthalmology
recommends that sunglasses block 99% of UVR, and those
that comply with this standard are labeled accordingly. [35]
The United States, the United Kingdom, Germany,
Australia, and France have standards for UV protective
sunglasses. In our country we do not have any standard
guidelines for sunglasses. Dongre et al.[36] studied the UV
protective properties of sunglasses in UV phototherapy
chambers and reported that the mean reduction in UVA
penetration was 84.89% and that in UVB penetration was
68.74%. Thirteen sunglasses (four branded ones and nine
unbranded ones) provided greater than 80% reduction in
UVA rays and hence wearing sunglasses during outdoor
workcouldprovideadequatesunprotection.
Newer technologies in sunscreens
Various technologies are used to make the sunscreens more
effectiveand cosmeticallyacceptable.
Nanotechnology in sunscreens
Nanomaterials are ultrane single particles with a
diameter less than 100 nm.[37] Nanotechnology is currently
being developed for diagnosis and labeling, targeting of
drugs, and immunotherapy. In 1999 the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) allowed the use of nanoparticles in
sunscreens. The use of nanoparticles improves the texture
andcosmeticappealof sunscreens.
The traditionally used physical blockers such as titanium
dioxide and zinc oxide are thicker formulations and hence
were not cosmetically acceptable. The newer sunscreens
containing nanosized products of titanium dioxide and
zinc oxidehave replaced the older formulations and these
ultraneparticlesblendwiththeskin andare cosmetically
acceptable.
The use of nanotechnology has revolutionized the
eld of sunscreens but toxicologists believe that the
nanoparticles can be potentially harmful. The penetration
of nanoparticles are limited by their molecular size.
Lademann et al.
[38] investigated the penetration of titanium
dioxide microparticles into the horny layer and the orice
of the hair follicle in human skin and found that the
amount of titanium dioxide found in any given follicle
wasless than1%oftheapplied totalamountofsunscreen.
Penetration of microparticles into the viable skin tissue
wasnot detected.
Thelarger surfacearea ofthe ultraneparticlescanprovide
an interface for catalytic reactions which can produce
free radicals and damages the proteins, lipids and DNA.
Nanoparticles can also form complexes with proteins which
canescapeimmunologicalsurveillance.[39] The nanoparticle–
protein complexes can also act as haptens, which can
induce autoimmune diseases.[40] Further studies are required
todeterminethesafetyofnanosizedparticlesunscreens.
Sunspheres
This technology consists of styrene/acrylate polymers
that form a nonabsorbable material. These spheres are
then lled with water, which upon application to the skin,
escapesleavingahollowshellcapableoflightscattering.
These hollow spheres increase the surface area contact of
UV lters with incoming UVR, increasing the effective
SPFof asunscreenby50–70%.
[Downloaded free from http://www.e-ijd.org on Monday, April 9, 2018, IP: 103.214.62.170]
339 Indian Journal of Dermatology 2012; 57(5)
Rai, et al.: Photoprotection
Controversial aspects of sunscreens
There are certain controversies regarding the
usage of sunscreens.
Schulmpf et al.[41] noted that benzophenone, 3-benzylidene
camphor, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, and octyl-
methoxycinnamate increased uterine weight in immature
rats. Scientic Committee of Cosmetic Products and Non-
Food Products, an European committee based in Belgium,
noted that the relative estrogenic potencies of UV sunscreen
products, both in vitro and in vivo, were about 1 million
lessthanestradiol,thepositivecontrolsubstance.[11] Thyroid
weight was increased by higher 4-methylbenzylidene
camphor doses. The UV lter benzophenone 2 inactivates
human recombinant thyroperoxidase in vitro and disturbs
thyroid hormone homeostasis in rats.[42] The endocrine
activity of sunscreens is controversial and future studies are
warranted.
There are conicting reports regarding the efcacy of
sunscreens against the immunosuppressive effects of UV
and it has been shown that the application of a sunscreen
with a higher SPF can decrease the systemic UVB induced
suppressionofcontacthypersensitivityinhuman skin.[43]
Regular sunscreen application can delay[44] or prevent the
onset of skin tumors in mice, while other reports also
indicateitsefcacyagainstprecanceroushumanlesions.[45]
There is also a risk that the regular use of sunscreen could
lead to decreased vitamin D levels in the elderly[46]through
the decreased UVB-induced cutaneous synthesis of
previtaminD3; butthe riskisminimalintropicalclimate.
Measuring sunscreen efcacy
The UVB protection offered by sunscreens is measured by
theSPFandsubstanstivity.
Sun protection factor
SPF is a numerical rating system to indicate the degree of
protectionprovidedbyasuncareproduct.Itisdenedas
the ratio of the least amount of UV energy (UVB) required
to produce minimal erythema on sunscreen-protected skin
to the amount of energy required to produce the same
erythema on unprotected skin. As UVB is approximately
1000 times more erythemogenic as compared with UVA,
theSPF islargelyameasureofprotectionagainstUVB.
Substantivity
This term is dened as the ability of a sunscreen to
maintain efcacy and withstand adverse conditions such
as exposure to water and sweat.[47] The FDA also denes
theterms‘water-resistant’and ‘verywaterresistant.’Water
resistance is dened as the ability of a sunscreen to retain
its photoprotective properties following two 20-minute
intervals (40 minutes total) of moderate activity in water
immersion. Very water resistant is dened by doubling
aquatic activity time to four 20-minute activity intervals (80
minutes total).[48] Interestingly, the FDA permits products
labeled as water resistant or very water resistant to be
groupedtogetherunderthesameterm‘sweatresistant.’[49]
Assessing UVA protection
The in vivo testing methods are immediate pigment
darkening (IPD), persistent pigment darkening (PPD), and
theprotectionfactor inthe UVA(PFA).These methodsare
expensive, and require unacceptably high UVA exposure to
human subjects. IPD describes the immediate gray-brown
pigmentation of the skin as caused by the oxidation of
preformed melanosomes in the skin. IPD peaks within the
rst minute after UVAexposure.[13] The transient nature of
IPD which requires immediate testing makes it a less than
idealmeasurement toolof UVAprotection.
The PPD method, currently used in Austria and Japan,
evaluates sunscreen effectiveness against UVA by
measuring melanin photo-oxidation postexposure.[50] PPD
is measured between 2 and 24 hours following irradiation
and has the added benet of simultaneously evaluating
sunscreen photostability. However, PPD requires subjects
be exposed to high-intensity lamps for long periods of time
(upto1hour).
The PFA has a less inclusive endpoint following UVA
irradiation, measuring either erythema or pigmentation
(tanning). Like PPD, it is evaluated 24 hours after light
exposure.
In vitro models of evaluating UVA protection present a
uniquesetofsolutionsandchallenges.Unlike in vivo testing,
laboratory testing may be a more efcient, reproducible,
cost-effective testing method. In vitro method of UVA
protection is measured by the Diffey critical wavelength
determination.[51] In this method, the sunscreen agent is
applied to a substrate, and the UV absorbance is measured
alongacontinuumfrom290 to400nm.Itisthencalculated
as ‘the wavelength below which 90% of sunscreen’s UV
absorbance occurs.[13,49] The UK uses a variation of this in
vitro testcalled the Boots Star rating. The Star system is a
ratio of two in vitro tests: the measurement of a product’s
UVAabsorbancetoitsUVBabsorbance.
Ideal Sunscreen
The ideal sunscreen should rst and foremost provide
superior efcacy with broad-spectrum coverage,
photostability, and high substantivity. It should have an
appealing feel and uniformly coat the skin surface. Lastly,
a sunscreen should be supplied at a reasonable cost to the
consumer.
General application recommendations
Application density
The average adult should apply approximately 35 mL
for full-body application to cover an area of 1.73 m.[2,52]
In addition to application density, consumers should be
[Downloaded free from http://www.e-ijd.org on Monday, April 9, 2018, IP: 103.214.62.170]
340Indian Journal of Dermatology 2012; 57(5)
Rai, et al.: Photoprotection
educated on overall guidelines for sunscreen use. The
sun-protective clothing is a powerful adjunct to topical
sunscreens.Clothingshould cover skinrst, and sunscreen
should be used under clothing as well as to exposed skin.
Individuals should avoid time spent outdoors between 10
am and 4 pm. Since the time zones and daylight savings
time separates solar noon from the ascribed noon time,[53]
Ting offers a convenient rule of thumb: ‘If one’s shadow
islongerthan oneistall,’avoid prolongedoutsideactivity.
Eide[54] refers to this as the ‘shadow rule’ and patients
should avoid this time, when the solar zenith is less than
45degrees.
Reapplication
Reapplying sunscreen after initial application is another
important step in effective sun safety. Individuals should
applyarst coat ofsunscreen half anhourbefore walking
out of the door. A second application approximately 20
minutes after initial application is estimated to prevent an
additional65–80%ofUVtransmission[55] and corrects areas
ofmisapplication.[56]Sunscreen should be reapplied every 2
hours and more frequently during activity-lled days. Up
to 85% of a product can be removed by towel drying, so
reapplication should occur after swimming, sweating, or
anyotherrigorousactivity.
Conclusion
Complete topical photoprotection can only be obtained
if a sunscreen formula protects against UVB, UVA, and
IRA. The role of additional wavelengths contributing to
skin damage is currently not known. In order to achieve
a near complete broad spectrum protection as possible,
a sunscreen should incorporate molecules of both of
primary and secondary photoprotection along with other
photoprotectivemeasures.
What is new?
Complete topical photoprotection can only be obtained if a sunscreen formula
protects against UVB, UVA, and IRA.
References
1. Hanneman KK, Cooper KD, Baron ED. Ultraviolet
immunosuppression: mechanisms and consequences. Dermatol
Clin2006;24:19-25.
2. Lavker RM, Gerberick GF, Veres D, Irwin CJ, Kaidbey KH.
Cumulative effects from repeated exposures to sub erythemal
doses of UVB and UVA in human skin. J AmAcad Dermatol
1995;32:53-62.
3. Seité S, Moyal D, Verdier MP, Hourseau C, Fourtanier A.
Accumulatedp53proteinandUVAprotectionlevelofsunscreens.
PhotodermatolPhotoimmunol Photomed2000;16:3-9.
4. Rhodes LE. Topical and systemic approaches for protection
against solar radiation-induced skin damage. Dermatol Clin
1998;16:75–82.
5 Kochevar IE,TaylorCR,Krutmann J.Fundamentalsofcutaneous
photobiologyandphotoimmunology.In:WolffK, GoldsmithLA,
Katz S, et al. editors.Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology In General
Medicine, 7thed.NewYork:McGraw-Hill; 2008.p.797-808.
6 Calles C, Schneider M, Macaluso F, BenesovaT, Krutmann J,
Schroeder P. Infrared A radiation inuences the skin broblast
transcriptome:mechanismsandconsequences.J InvestDermatol
2010;130:1524-36.
7 SchroederP,LademannJ,DarvinME,StegeH,MarksC,Bruhnke
S, et al. Infrared radiation-induced matrix metalloproteinase
in human skin: implications for protection. J Invest Dermatol
2008;128:2491-7.
8 Schroeder P, Pohl C, Calles C, Marks C, Wild S, Krutmann J.
Cellular response to infrared radiation involves retrograde
mitochondrialsignaling. FreeRadic BiolMed2007;43:128-35.
9 Jantschitsch C, Majewski S, Maeda A, Schwarz T, Schwarz A.
Infrared radiation confers resistance to UV-induced apoptosis
via reduction of DNA damage and upregulation of antiapoptotic
proteins.J InvestDermatol 2009;129:1271-9.
10 Gogna D, Jain SK, Yadav AK,Agrawal GP. Microsphere based
improvedsunscreenformulationofethylhexylmethoxycinnamate.
CurrDrug Deliv2007;4:153-9.
11. KullavanijayaP,LimHW.Photoprotection.JAmAcad Dermatol
2005;52:937-58;quiz 959-62.
12. Nash JF. Human safety and efcacy of ultraviolet lters and
sunscreenproducts. DermatolClin 2006;24:35-51.
13. Cole C. Sunscreen protection in the ultraviolet A region: how
to measure the effectiveness. Photodermatol Photoimmunol
Photomed2001;17:2-10.
14. Janjua NR, Mogensen B, Andersson AM, Petersen JH,
Henriksen M, Skakkebaek NE et al. Systemic absorption of
the sunscreens benzophenone-3, octyl-methoxycinnamate, and
3-(4-methyl-benzylidene) camphor after whole-body topical
applicationandreproductivehormonelevelsinhumans JInvest
Dermatol2004;123:57-61.
15. SchallreuterKU,WoodJM, FarwellDW,MooreJ, EdwardsHG.
Oxybenzone oxidation following solar irradiation of skin:
photoprotection versus antioxidant inactivation. J Invest
Dermatol1996;106:583-6.
16. Janjua NR, Mogensen B, Andersson AM, Petersen JH,
Henriksen M, Skakkebaek NE, et al. Systemic absorption of
the sunscreens benzophenone-3, octyl-methoxycinnamate, and
3-(4-methyl-benzylidene) camphor after whole-body topical
applicationandreproductive hormonelevels inhumans. JInvest
Dermatol2004;123:57-61.
17. Deandre A, Lang G. Photostability assessment of sunscreens.
Benzylidene camphor and dibenzoylmethane derivatives. Int J
CosmetSci 1988;10:53-62.
18. Lowe NJ. An overview of ultraviolet radiation, sunscreens, and
photo-induceddermatoses. DermatolClin 2006;24:9-17.
19 Moloney FJ,CollinsS, MurphyGM.Sunscreens:safety,efcacy
andappropriate use.AmJ ClinDermatol 2002;3:185-91.
20 Dong KK, Damaghi N, Picart SD, Markova NG, Obayashi K,
Okano Y, et al. UV-induced DNA damage initiates release of
MMP-1in humanskin. ExpDermatol2008;17:1037-44.
21. YaroshDB,O’ConnorA,AlasL,PottenC,WolfP.Photoprotection
by topical DNA repair enzymes: molecular correlates of clinical
studies.Photochem Photobiol1999;69:136-40.
22. PinnellSR,Yang H,Omar M,Monteiro-Riviere N,DeBuys HV,
Walker LC, et al. Topical L-ascorbic acid: percutaneous
absorptionstudies. DermatolSurg2001;27:137-42.
23. Krutmann J, Schroeder P. Role of mitochondria in photoaging
of human skin: the defective powerhouse model. J Investig
DermatolSymp Proc2009;14:44-9.
24. Roshchupkin DI, Pistsov MY, Potapenko AY. Inhibition of
ultraviolet light-induced erythema by antioxidants. Arch
DermatolRes 1979;266:91-4.
[Downloaded free from http://www.e-ijd.org on Monday, April 9, 2018, IP: 103.214.62.170]
341 Indian Journal of Dermatology 2012; 57(5)
Rai, et al.: Photoprotection
25. Jurkiewicz BA, Bissett DL, Buettner GR. Effect of topically
applied tocopherol on ultraviolet radiation-mediated free radical
damagein skin.J InvestDermatol1995;104:484-8.
26. Burke KE, Clive J, Combs GF Jr, Commisso J, Keen CL,
Nakamura RM. Effects of topical and oral vitamin E on
pigmentation and skin cancer induced by ultraviolet irradiation
inSkh:2 hairlessmice. NutrCancer2000;38:87-97.
27. Yuen KS, Halliday GM. alpha-Tocopherol, an inhibitor of
epidermal lipid peroxidation, prevents ultraviolet radiation from
suppressing the skin immune system. Photochem Photobiol
1997;65:587-92.
28. Katiyar SK, Korman NJ, Mukhtar H, Agarwal R. Protective
effects of silymarin against photocarcinogenesis in a mouse skin
model.J NatlCancer Inst1997;89:556-66.
29. Elmets CA, Singh D, Tubesing K, Matsui M, Katiyar S,
MukhtarH. Cutaneousphotoprotectionfrom ultravioletinjuryby
greentea polyphenols.JAmAcadDermatol2001;44:425-32.
30. Rockel N, Esser C, Grether-Beck S, Warskulat U, Flögel U,
Schwarz A, et al. The osmolytetaurine protects against
ultraviolet B radiation-induced immunosuppression. J Immunol
2007;179:3604-12.
31. Buenger J, Driller H. Ectoin: an effective natural substance to
prevent UVA-induced premature photoaging. Skin Pharmacol
Physiol2004;17:232-7.
32. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM
International). In: Bailey SJ, Baldwin NC, McElrone EK, et al.,
editors.StandardD6603-00,Standard guidefor labelingof UV-
protectivetextiles.AASTMstandard;2004.7:03. p.1187-91
33. Crews PC, Kachman S, Beyer AG. Inuence on UVR
transmission of undyed woven fabrics. Textile Chem Colorist
1993;31:17-26.
34. Edlich RF, Cox MJ, Becker DG, Horowitz JH, Nichter LS,
Britt LD, et al. Revolutionary advances in sun-protective
clothing--an essential step in eliminating skin cancer in our
world.J LongTermEffMedImplants2004;14:95-106.
35. Young S, Sands J. Sun and the eye: prevention and detection of
light-induceddisease. ClinDermatol 1998;16:477-85.
36. Dongre AM, Pai GG, Khopkar US. Ultraviolet protective
properties of branded and unbranded sunglasses available in the
Indian market in UV phototherapy chambers. Indian J Dermatol
Venereol Leprol2007;73:26-8.
37. MaynardA. Nanotechnology: Aresearch strategy for addressing
risk. Project on emerging nanotechnologies. Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, June 2006. Available from:
http://www.nanotechproject.org/le_download/77.[Last accessed
2007Dec 1].
38. Lademann J, Weigmann H, Rickmeyer C, Barthelmes H,
Schaefer H, Mueller G, et al. Penetration of titanium dioxide
microparticles in a sunscreen formulation into the horny layer
and the follicular orice. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol
1999;12:247-56.
39. Borm PJ, Kreyling W. Toxicological hazards of inhaled
nanoparticles-potential implications for drug delivery.J Nanosci
Nanotechnol2004;4:521-31.
40. Donaldson K, Stone V, Tran CL, Kreyling W, Borm PJ.
Nanotoxicology.OccupEnviron Med2004;61:727-8.
41. Schlumpf M, Schmid P, Durrer S, Conscience M, Maerkel K,
HenselerM, et al. Endocrine activity and developmental toxicity
ofcosmetic UVlters--anupdate.Toxicology2004;205:113-22.
42. Schmutzler C, BacinskiA, Gotthardt I, Huhne K, Ambrugger P,
Klammer H, et al. The ultraviolet lter benzophenone 2
interferes with the thyroid hormone axis in rats and is a potent
in vitro inhibitor of human recombinant thyroid peroxidase.
Endocrinology2007;148:2835-44.
43. Whitmore SE, Morison WL. Prevention of UVB-induced
immunosuppression in humans by a high sun protection factor
sunscreen.ArchDermatol1995;131:1128-33.
44. Wulf HC, Poulsen T, Brodthagen H, Hou-Jensen K. Sunscreens
for delay of ultraviolet induction of skin tumors. J Am Acad
Dermatol1982;7:194-202.
45. Thompson SC, Jolley D, Marks R. Reduction of solar keratoses
byregular sunscreenuse. NEnglJMed1993;329:1147-51.
46. Matsuoka LY,Ide L, WortsmanJ, MacLaughlin JA, Holick MF.
Sunscreens suppress cutaneous vitamin D3 synthesis. J Clin
EndocrinolMetab 1987;64:1165-8.
47. Scherschun L, Lim HW. Photoprotection by sunscreens. Am J
ClinDermatol 2001;2:131-4.
48. Sunscreen drug products for over-the-counter human use; nal
monograph. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule.
FedRegist 1999;64:27666-93.
49. PohAgin P. Water resistance and extended wear sunscreens.
DermatolClin 2006;24:75-9.
50. NashJF,TannerPR,MattsPJ.UltravioletAradiation:testingand
labelingfor sunscreenproducts. DermatolClin2006;24:63-74.
51. DiffeyBL, Tanner PR,Matts PJ,Nash JF. in vitro assessment of
the broad-spectrum ultraviolet protection of sunscreen products.
JAmAcad Dermatol2000;43:1024-35.
52. RaiR, SrinivasCR.Photoprotection.IndianJ DermatolVenereol
Leprol2007;73:73-9.
53. Ting WW, Vest CD, Sontheimer R. Practical and experimental
consideration of sun protection in dermatology. Int J Dermatol
2003;42:505-13.
54. Eide MJ, Weinstock MA. Public health challenges in sun
protection.Dermatol Clin2006;24:119-24.
55. LoweNJ. Photoprotection.Semin Dermatol1990;9:78-83.
56. Diffey BL, Grice J. The inuence of sunscreen type on
photoprotection.Br JDermatol 1997;137:103-5.
How to cite this article: Rai R, Shanmuga SC, Srinivas CR. Update on
photoprotection. Indian J Dermatol 2012;57:335-42.
Received: April 2011. Accepted: December 2011.
Source of support: Nil, Conict of Interest: Nil.
[Downloaded free from http://www.e-ijd.org on Monday, April 9, 2018, IP: 103.214.62.170]
342Indian Journal of Dermatology 2012; 57(5)
Rai, et al.: Photoprotection
Questions
MCQ
1 The effects of UVA include
a) ageing effects and pigmentation
b) production of radical oxygen species
c) decrease in Langerhans cells
d) increases the expression of p53, a tumor suppressor
gene
e) all of the above
2. AllareUVBblockersexcept
a) octinoxate
b) octisalate
c) avobenzone
d) octocrylene
3. The substance used to stabilize water insoluble
sunscreen ingredients is
a) meridimate
b) trolamine salicylate
c) ecamsule
d) ensulizole
4. Secondaryphotoprotection includesallexcept
a) Antioxidants
b) Osmolytes
c) DNA repair enzymes
d) Inorganicsunscreens
5. TheclothingmaterialwithbestUVabsorbingcapacity
is
a) Cotton
b) Wool
c) Polyester
d) Silk
6. Theadverse effectsof nanoparticlesinclude
a) interface for catalytic reactions
b) complexes with proteins which can escape
immunological surveillance
c) inductionof autoimmunediseases.
d) all of the above
7. The UV lter which disturbs thyroid hormone
homeostasis in rats is
a) octylmethoxycinnamate
b) benzophenones
c) PABA
d) homosalate
8. The in vivo methods for measuring UVA protection
are all except
a) immediatepigmentdarkening (IPD)
b) persistent pigment darkening (PPD)
c) protection factor in the UVA (PFA)
d) sun protection factor (SPF)
9. The average adult should apply approximately
---mLforfull-bodyapplicationtocoveranareaof 1.73
m2
a) 25 ml
b) 30 ml
c) 35ml
d) 40ml
10. Completetopicalphotoprotectioncanonlybeobtained
if a sunscreen formula protects against
a) UVB
b) UVA
c) IRA
d) all of the above
Answers
1.(e) 2. (c) 3. (b) 4.(d) 5. (c)
6.(d) 7.(b) 8.(d) 9.(c) 10. (d)
DUPLICATE SUBMISSION
Itcametoournotice thatsomeauthorshavesubmittedsamearticlessimultaneously totwo(ormore)differentjournals.
Whilesubmittinganyarticlethe author/sgive/s anundertaking thatthespecicarticleis notsubmitted elsewhereoris
notunderconsiderationforpublicationby anyotherjournal.
So, simultaneous or parallel submission of same article to different journals cannot be taken as an innocent and
inadvertenterror butan intentional,unethical anderroneouscommission.
Thisisanunacceptableactonbehalfofanyauthor.
Ourjournalrecognizesthese asacademicdishonestyandfollowsapolicyofzerotoleranceinmatterslikethese.
– Koushik Lahiri
Editor,IJD®
Announcement
[Downloaded free from http://www.e-ijd.org on Monday, April 9, 2018, IP: 103.214.62.170]