OBJECTIVE: The SPF (sun protection factor) is the best known reference in the world for expressing UVB protection. The SPF is used for labelling purposes for consumer guidance. The determination of the SPF is often accomplished using an in vivo method that has been standardized. Only one in vivo SPF value from one laboratory is required for claiming an SPF value. The aim of this study was to determine the relevance of the in vivo SPF value in terms of interlaboratory variability for claiming purposes and to determine whether some minimum number of different in vivo SPF values from different laboratories would improve the reliability of the final SPF claimed. METHODS: A large population of 44 different commercially available sunscreen formulations from the European market has been investigated, covering various product types. The majority of the SPF values claimed ranged from 15 to 50+. For each product, at least three different in vivo SPF values tested in different laboratories have been gathered, and a variety of statistical analyses have been performed. RESULTS: For each SPF category from the average of all samples, the minimum and maximum in vivo-measured SPF values from the different laboratories would lead to labels claiming different levels of SPF for the same product. Indeed, with coefficients of variation for in vivo SPF determinations that exceed 50% in some cases, as an example, the same product could in reality be claimed to be SPF 30, SPF 50 or SPF 50+. CONCLUSION: In this study, the authors demonstrated that using only one in vivo SPF value from one laboratory may actually challenge the reliability of the final SPF claim significantly. To reduce the consumer health risk by ensuring the reliability of the SPF claim, an average from at least 3 (ideally 4) different in vivo SPF values should be compulsory.
OBJECTIVE: The SPF (sun protection factor) is the best known reference in the world for expressing UVB protection. The SPF is used for labelling purposes for consumer guidance. The determination of the SPF is often accomplished using an in vivo method that has been standardized. Only one in vivo SPF value from one laboratory is required for claiming an SPF value. The aim of this study was to determine the relevance of the in vivo SPF value in terms of interlaboratory variability for claiming purposes and to determine whether some minimum number of different in vivo SPF values from different laboratories would improve the reliability of the final SPF claimed. METHODS: A large population of 44 different commercially available sunscreen formulations from the European market has been investigated, covering various product types. The majority of the SPF values claimed ranged from 15 to 50+. For each product, at least three different in vivo SPF values tested in different laboratories have been gathered, and a variety of statistical analyses have been performed. RESULTS: For each SPF category from the average of all samples, the minimum and maximum in vivo-measured SPF values from the different laboratories would lead to labels claiming different levels of SPF for the same product. Indeed, with coefficients of variation for in vivo SPF determinations that exceed 50% in some cases, as an example, the same product could in reality be claimed to be SPF 30, SPF 50 or SPF 50+. CONCLUSION: In this study, the authors demonstrated that using only one in vivo SPF value from one laboratory may actually challenge the reliability of the final SPF claim significantly. To reduce the consumer health risk by ensuring the reliability of the SPF claim, an average from at least 3 (ideally 4) different in vivo SPF values should be compulsory.
Authors: Michael Jackson Ferreira da Silva; Alisson Mendes Rodrigues; Italo Rennan Sousa Vieira; Gelmires de Araújo Neves; Romualdo Rodrigues Menezes; Eloisa da Graça do Rosário Gonçalves; Maria Célia Costa Pires Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 4.036
Authors: David Q Andrews; Kali Rauhe; Carla Burns; Emily Spilman; Alexis M Temkin; Sean Perrone-Gray; Olga V Naidenko; Nneka Leiba Journal: Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 3.254