BB creams and their photoprotective effect

Abstract

Abstract BB creams appeared on the market quite recently. These creams, which give a perfect complexion by covering up the skin's blemishes, have a photoprotective effect in the majority of cases. An SPF value ranging from 10 to 45 concerning the products we tested is displayed on the packaging. The 21 commercially-available BB creams were tested to assess their efficacy (determination of the SPF) and their photostability (determination of their efficacy after UV irradiation). It was shown that 70% of the products tested have an SPF determined in vitro by us which matches the SPF displayed on the product. For the remaining 30%, it can be seen that products have SPF values of between 2 and 10 times lower than those indicated on the products. It can also be noted that there is a large disparity in terms of photostability since, under the same experimental conditions, however, some products only lose 5% of their photoprotective efficacy, whereas others lose 60%.

Full text

http://informahealthcare.com/phd
ISSN: 1083-7450 (print), 1097-9867 (electronic)
Pharm Dev Technol, Early Online: 1–4
!
2014 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc. DOI: 10.3109/10837450.2014.965322
RESEARCH ARTICLE
BB creams and their photoprotective effect
Ce
´
line Couteau, Eva Paparis, and Laurence J. M. Coiffard
Faculty of Pharmacy, Universite
´
de Nantes, Nantes Atlantique Universite
´
s, Faculty of Pharmacy, Nantes, France
Abstract
BB creams appeared on the market quite recently. These creams, which give a perfect
complexion by covering up the skin’s blemishes, have a photoprotective effect in the majority
of cases. An SPF value ranging from 10 to 45 concerning the products we tested is displayed on
the packaging. The 21 commercially-available BB creams were tested to assess their efficacy
(determination of the SPF) and their photostability (determination of their efficacy after UV
irradiation). It was shown that 70% of the products tested have an SPF determined in vitro by us
which matches the SPF displayed on the product. For the remaining 30%, it can be seen that
products have SPF values of between 2 and 10 times lower than those indicated on the
products. It can also be noted that there is a large disparity in terms of photostability since,
under the same experimental conditions, however, some products only lose 5% of their
photoprotective efficacy, whereas others lose 60%.
Keywords
BB cream, photostability, skin, SPF
History
Received 15 April 2014
Revised 4 September 2014
Accepted 6 September 2014
Published online 30 September 2014
Introduction
For a number of years, a fashion has been emerging for cosmetic
products other than sun products which have a Sun Protection
Factor (SPF) – a universal indicator of a given product’s
photoprotective nature in the UVB field. Cosmetics companies
are now highlighting in their marketing argument the fact that
their products have properties which protect the user against
photo-aging
1
. We have chosen to study around twenty BB creams.
BB Cream, otherwise known as Blemish Baume/Blemish Balm is
a cosmetic cream which originated in Germany, and which was
first used by dermatologists for its calming properties and also for
hiding various problems after laser treatments such as peeling/
skin resurfacing. Since then, several Korean stars made the
product popular after revealing the secret of their perfect yet
natural-looking complexion. The trend then spread to Japan, the
whole of south-east Asia, the United States and now Europe
2
.
BB cream, which is an alternative to foundation, is a polyvalent
cosmetic product, presented as having several properties such as
moisturizing and soothing the skin, giving it an even tone,
working against wrinkles and dark patches, as well as giving
protection against UV rays. This is the aspect we wanted to study
by determining their photoprotective efficacy with an in vitro
method.
Materials and methods
The commercially-available products tested are presented in
Table 1. Thirty milligrams of product exactly weighed were
spread on PMMA plates over the whole surface (25 cm
2
) using a
finger cot. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) plates (Roughness
Value Sa ¼ 5.5) were purchased from Europlast (Aubervilliers,
France). The final mass remaining on the plate after spreading
is 18 mg. The SPF of the creams was measured in vitro. Three
plates were prepared for each product to be tested and 9
measurements were performed on each plate
3
. Transmission
measurements between 290 and 400 nm were carried out using
two spectrophotometers equipped with an integrating sphere (UV
Transmittance Analyzer UV1000S, and UV 2000 - Labsphere,
North Sutton, Melbourne). The calculations for either term use
the same relationship:
SPF ¼
X
400
290
E

S

d

=
X
400
290
E

S

T

d

ð1Þ
where E

is CIE erythemal spectral effectiveness, S

is solar
spectral irradiance and T

is spectral transmittance of the sample
4
.
Studies of stability were led using a previously-established
protocol
5
. The PMMA plates coated with creams are placed for
2 h in a solar simulator (Suntest CPS + ) at 650 W/m
2
. The SPF is
determined at the beginning (SPF
0
) and after 2 h (SPF
2h
). The
ratio SPF
2h
-SPF
0
/SPF
0
 100 enables us to classify the products
into two categories: photostable products which retain more than
90% of their efficacy and non-photostable products which do
not retain 90% of their efficacy under the conditions of our
experiment.
Filters in products tested for photostability were subjected to
dosing by High Performance Liquid Chromatography based on
the method of Rastogi and Jensen with some modifications.
Firstly, 0.1 g of each of the products which were to be analyzed
was weighed. Then tetrahydrofurane or potassium hydroxide was
added (0.1% w/w) in the case of phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic
acid, until a total mass of approximately 10 g was obtained. The
mixture was homogenized by putting it in a vortex for about 30 s
until the sample was well homogenized and then put in an
ultrasonic bath for 30 min. The solution was extracted using a
syringe, then filtered directly in an HPLC vial. All chemicals were
analytical grade and suitable for HPLC where appropriate.
Address for correspondence: L. J. M. Coiffard, Universite
´
de Nantes,
Nantes Atlantique Universite
´
s, LPiC, MMS, EA2160, Faculty of
Pharmacy, 9 rue Bias – Nantes, F-44000 France. Tel +33 253 484317.
E-mail: laurence.coiffard@univ-nantes.fr
Pharmaceutical Development and Technology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Faculte De Chirurgie Dentaire on 09/30/14
For personal use only.

Separation was performed on a HPLC system (Shimadzu LC2010
CHT) equipped with quaternary pump, DAD (Photo Diode Array
Detector) detector, autosampler, thermostated column oven,
degasser and LC Solutions software. A X-bridge Shield RP18
column (150  4.6 mm; 3.5 mm) was used for separation.
Separation was performed by following a gradient time program.
The mobile phase consisted of solvent A (H
3
PO
4
0.1% w/w) and
solvent B (MeOH) with the elution profile as follows: 0–7 min,
80% B; 7–30 min, 100% B; 30–40 min, 80% B. Elution was
performed at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min. The C
18
column was
maintained at 30

C throughout the analysis. The detection
wavelength was set at 300 nm. The injection volume was set at
10 mL. The run time was set at 40 min. The peaks were identified
by comparing the retention times of the reference standards with
the sample.
Results and discussion
The SPF values determined by using two spectrophotometers are
presented in Table 2. In 70% of cases, we observed that the values
found matched the values displayed on the packaging, no matter
which of the two machines was used. The percentage is equivalent
to that found during previous studies on other types of products
6
.
These products are formulated using a mixture of organic and/or
inorganic filters. However, for 6 products, the SPF value displayed
on the packaging was higher than the one we found. This was the
case particularly concerning products formulated with mineral
filters. During a previous study, we showed the lack of efficacy of
this type of filter
7
, which is again the case here with
commercially-available products. This is all the more true in the
present case, since the raw material is used in some cases here in
pigmentary form as we said before. Only the products whose
actual SPF values matched the values displayed on the packaging
were studied for their photostability. We defined previously that a
product was considered to be photostable if the SPF determined
after 2 h of irradiation in a Suntest was at least 90% of its initial
value
5
. By applying this criterion, we notice that almost all of the
products studied are photolabile. The results of the dosages
carried out show an large decrease in the concentration of certain
filters (Table 3). Product N

19 is the only photostable product
(Figure 1). This is due to the fact that it is formulated using
titanium dioxide which is a very photostable filter
8
. We can
consider that the products number 1 and number 16 are quite
photostable, insofar as the SPF loss does not exceed 15% after
irradiation in a Suntest. These two products contain octocrylene,
a filter which is known to improve the photostability of other
filters such as ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, butyl methoxydi-
benzoylmethane and benzophenone-3
9
. All the other products
found to be photo-unstable are formulated with ethylhexyl-
methoxycinnamate, ethylhexylsalicylate and/or benzophenone-3.
Salicylates turn out to be particularly photo-unstable products
5
.
We should remind ourselves here that BB creams are cosmetic
products destined for facial make-up and that, therefore, they are
not designed to be reapplied throughout the course of the day.
Besides BB creams are not labeled as sunscreens, their marketing
argument presents them as being products which protect the user’s
skin from the harmful effects of UV rays.
After studying the formulation of the products tested, it can
be noticed that 25% contain benzophenone-3, also known as
oxybenzone. Benzophenones and particularly oxybenzone, are
Table 1. UV combinaison in commercial products tested.
Products tested
(SPF labeled) UV filters
1 (30) Octocrylene, Titanium dioxide, Bis-ethylhexyloxy-
phenol methoxyphenyl triazine, Methylene bis-
benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol
2 (20) Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate
3 (30) Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, Ethylhexylsalicylate,
Benzophenone-3, Titanium dioxide
4 (30) Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate (3,75%), Titanium
dioxide (3,55%), Benzophenone-3 (1,00%)
5 (30) Homosalate, Benzophenone-3, Ethylhexylsalicylate,
Octocrylene, Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane,
Titanium dioxide
6 (25) Titanium dioxide, Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate,
Zinc oxide (10)
7(35) Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, Ethylhexylsalicylate,
Benzophenone-3, Titanium dioxide
8 (15) Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, Bis-ethylhexyloxy-
phenol methoxyphenyl triazine, Diethylamino
hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate
9 (20) Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate
10 (15) Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate
11 (20) Octocrylene, Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane,
Terephtalydene dicamphor sulfonic acid,
Drometrizole trisiloxane
May contain: Titanium dioxide
12 (10) Zinc oxide
13 (20) Ethylhexylsalicylate, Octocrylene,
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane,
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid
14 May contain: Titanium dioxide
15 (30) May contain: Titanium dioxide
16 (10) Octocrylene, Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
17 (25) Ethylhexylsalicylate, Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate,
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane, Octocrylene,
Titanium dioxide
18 (15) Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, Octocrylene,
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid
May contain: titanium dioxide
19 (20) Titanium dioxide, Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate
20 (45) Titanium dioxide, Zinc oxide
21 (20) Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, Zinc oxide, Titanium
dioxide, Octocrylene, Benzophenone-3,
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
Table 2. In vitro determination of SPF for 21 bb creams tested before and
after irradiation.
Products tested
(SPF labelled)
SPF ± DS
Labsphe
`
re 1000S Labsphe
`
re 2000
Before
irradiation
After
irradiation
Before
irradiation
After
irradiation
1 (30) 47 ± 6 42 ± 6 64 ± 2 57 ± 1
2 (20) 10 ± 2 9 ± 2 12 ± 2 10 ± 1
3 (30) 28 ± 3 18 ± 2 28 ± 1 18 ± 0
4 (30) 29 ± 4 25 ± 2 29 ± 0 28 ± 3
5 (30) 34 ± 3 14 ± 2 38 ± 3 14 ± 1
6 (25) 14 ± 1 11 ± 1 15 ± 1 14 ± 1
7 (35) 32 ± 4 21 ± 3 38 ± 4 24 ± 3
8 (15) 33 ± 4 23 ± 3 40 ± 3 28 ± 0
9 (20) 29 ± 4 22 ± 3 31 ± 1 24 ± 0
10 (15) 17 ± 2 10 ± 2 17 ± 1 11 ± 1
11 (20) 20 ± 3 16 ± 2 24 ± 2 16 ± 1
12 (10) 5 ± 0 5 ± 0 5 ± 1 5 ± 0
13 (20) 23 ± 2 12 ± 2 24 ± 2 14 ± 1
14 2±02±03±03±0
15 (30) 3 ± 0 3 ± 0 4 ± 0 3 ± 0
16 (10) 14 ± 2 13 ± 1 15 ± 2 13 ± 2
17 (25) 29 ± 4 13 ± 2 34 ± 2 16 ± 1
18 (15) 36 ± 4 29 ± 4 38 ± 4 29 ± 3
19 (20) 32 ± 2 31 ± 3 35 ± 3 36 ± 3
20 (45) 16 ± 3 16 ± 2 16 ± 2 19 ± 3
21 (20) 24 ± 4 17 ± 2 25 ± 1 18 ± 1
2 C. Couteau et al. Pharm Dev Technol, Early Online: 1–4
Pharmaceutical Development and Technology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Faculte De Chirurgie Dentaire on 09/30/14
For personal use only.

common causes of photoallergy and are increasingly used in
products other than sunscreens. Benzophenones may also produce
photoallergic contact urticaria, in addition to delayed contact
and photocontact dermatitis, which may complicate the clinical
presentation
10
.
Studying the list of ingredients allows us to state that 7 out of
the 21 products tested contain alcohol, which is not desirable as
this ingredient is a penetration enhancer. Very few products
are formulated with mineral filters only: titanium dioxide and/or
zinc oxide.
Few studies enable us to conclude that daily photoprotection is
beneficial
11
. We can even reasonably think that it is not necessary
for a person having no particular problems to use a photo-
protective product every day of the year and at all latitudes. If
we take Nantes as an example, low UV levels are seen even now,
in May.
The use of the BB creams is similar to a normal day
moisturizer or foundation cream. BB creams must not be
considered as sunscreen products. Considering the results of this
research, it is highlighted that most of these products have their
Table 3. UV filters concentration before and after irradiation.
Products tested
UV-filters (% w/w)
N

Before
irradiation
After
irradiation
1
Octocrylene 8.44 ± 0.42 7.07 ± 0.33
Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine 3.16 ± 0.08 1.72 ± 0.07
Methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol 1.33 ± 0.02 1.32 ± 0.03
3
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 7.75 ± 0.27 3.25 ± 0.09
Ethylhexylsalicylate 4.09 ± 0.02 1.26 ± 0.04
Benzophenone-3 2.35 ± 0.29 2.33 ± 0.27
4
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 3.80 ± 0.09 0.75 ± 0.09
Benzophenone-3 1.03 ± 0.04 1.00 ± 0.07
5
Homosalate 5.12 ± 0.04 3.33 ± 0.50
Benzophenone-3 3.98 ± 0.03 3.90 ± 0.02
Ethylhexylsalicylate 2.27 ± 0.01 0.85 ± 0.05
Octocrylene 2.09 ± 0.01 1.80 ± 0.06
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane 1.89 ± 0.01 0.66 ± 0.04
7
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 7.41 ± 0.18 3.00 ± 0.02
Ethylhexylsalicylate 3.96 ± 0.05 1.12 ± 0.01
Benzophenone-3 2.25 ± 0.01 2.20 ± 0.05
8
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 6.58 ± 0.57 3.00 ± 0.02
Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine 2.44 ± 0.07 0.85 ± 0.01
Diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate 2.31 ± 0.06 2.28 ± 0.06
9
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 9.50 ± 0.56 4.41 ± 0.12
10
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 4.35 ± 0.07 0.43 ± 0.01
13
Ethylhexylsalicylate 2.39 ± 0.01 0.84 ± 0.05
Octocrylene 2.22 ± 0.01 1.92 ± 0.01
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane 1.99 ± 0.01 0.71 ± 0.01
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid 1.60 ± 0.01 1.45 ± 0.01
16
Octocrylene 3.03 ± 0.02 2.85 ± 0.02
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane 0.43 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.01
17
Ethylhexylsalicylate 5.93 ± 0.04 1.54 ± 0.01
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 3.72 ± 0.02 1.50 ± 0.01
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane 2.63 ± 0.02 0.94 ± 0.01
Octocrylene 2.60 ± 0.02 2.30 ± 0.02
18
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 7.74 ± 0.05 3.80 ± 0.02
Octocrylene 2.99 ± 0.02 2.50 ± 0.05
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid 2.81 ± 0.02 2.56 ± 0.02
19
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 9.95 ± 0.22 4.95 ± 0.13
21
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 5.52 ± 0.25 2.33 ± 0.15
Octocrylene 1.93 ± 0.02 1.85 ± 0.01
Benzophenone-3 0.89 ± 0.01 0.86 ± 0.01
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane 1.21 ± 0.05 0.41 ± 0.01
DOI: 10.3109/10837450.2014.965322 BB creams and photoprotection 3
Pharmaceutical Development and Technology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Faculte De Chirurgie Dentaire on 09/30/14
For personal use only.

photo-protection efficacy reduced after irradiation. The consumer
must use correctly the product.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no declaration of interest.
References
1. Seite S, Fourtanier A, Rougier A. Photoprotection in moisturizers
and daily-care products. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 2010;145:
631–636.
2. Misery L. BB creams: a revolutionary product dating from 1860.
Ann Dermatol Venereol 2014;141:74–76.
3. Couteau C, Pommier M, Paparis E, Coiffard L. Study of the efficacy
of 18 sun filters authorized in the European Union tested in vitro.
Pharmazie 2007a;62:449–452.
4. Sayre MR, Agin PP, Le Vee GJ, Marlowe E. A comparison of in vivo
and in vitro testing of sunscreening formulas. Photochem Photobiol
1978;29:559–566.
5. Couteau C, Faure A, Fortin J, et al. Study of the photostability
of 18 sunscreens in creams by measuring the SPF in vitro. J Pharm
Biomed Anal 2007b;44:270–273.
6. Couteau C, Coiffard L. Les produits solaires: des proble
`
mes en
termes d’efficacite
´
. Act pharm 2013;523:35–40.
7. Couteau C, Alami S, Guitton M, et al. Interest of mineral filters in
sunscreen products – comparison of the efficacy of zinc oxide and
titanium dioxide by in vitro method. harmazie 2008;63:58–60.
8. Hojerova
´
J, Medovcı
´
kova
´
A, Mikula M. Photoprotective efficacy
and photostability of fifteen sunscreen products having the
same label SPF subjected to natural sunlight. Int J Pharm 2011;
408:27–38.
9. Gaspar LR, Maia Campos PMBG. Photostability and efficacy
studies of topical formulations containing UV-filters combination
and vitamins A, C and E. Int J Pharm 2007;343:181–189.
10. Nedorost ST. Facial erythema as a result of benzophenone allergy.
J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;49:S259–S261.
11. Seite
´
S, Fourtanier AM. The benefit of daily photoprotection. J Am
Acad Dermatol 2008;58:S160–S166.
12. Rastogi SC, Jensen GH. Identification of UV filters in sunscreen
products by high-performance liquid chromatography–diode-array
detection. J Chrom A 1998;828:311–316.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
19 16 1 4 11 18 9 8 21 3 7 10 13 17 5
Decrease of SPF (%)
Products tested
Figure 1. Photostability of products tested.
4 C. Couteau et al. Pharm Dev Technol, Early Online: 1–4
Pharmaceutical Development and Technology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Faculte De Chirurgie Dentaire on 09/30/14
For personal use only.