26 replies to this topic

[Maecenas]

Hello everyone! I wanted to tell you a story about my desperate attempts and struggles to find the best sunscreen, the story full of drama and perseverance (and wasted money). Since many years I've been searching for that one ideal sun cream that doesn't look greasy or chalky, but to no avail. White cast and greasiness seemed to be the two curses of every sunscreen I've bought. I've spent tons of money on them, my vanity and  paranoia of cancer almost made me bankrupt,  as most of the creams or sprays I've bought were very expensive brand products and lured me with  constant promises of no white cast, "dry touch", no greasiness, but always turned me into a fat smeared, shiny ghost in the end. I was following that carrot on a stick, throwing away a fortune.

But recently I saw the light at the end of a tunnel. I've bought a really cheap sunscreen based on zinc oxide. I was surprised it didn't leave any white cast, nor the slightest greasiness on my face. On the other hand, the percentage and the type of  zinc oxide aren't indicated and its label blatantly lies about it being waterproof, as the slightest touch of water makes it run in white streaks down my face. So I wonder, if it also lies about its UV protection, which is 50+. What do you think of it? Is it useless?

Here is the list of its compounds: 

Aqua, Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate, Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate, Zinc Oxide, Dimethicone, Ethylhexyl Salicylate, Glyceryl Stearate, Ceteareth-20, Ceteareth-12, Cetearyl Alcohol, Cetyl Palmitate, Isodecyl Neopentanoate, Diisopropyl Sebacate, Lauryl Lactate, Potassium Cetyl Phosphate, Hydroxypropyl Starch Phosphate, Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid, ТЕА, Ethylhexyl Triazone, 4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor, Caprylyl Methicone, Phenyl Trimethicone, Ammonium Acryloyldimethyltaurate/VP Copolymer, Disodium Phenyl Dibenzimidazole Tetrasulfonate, Beta-Carotene, Disodium Lauriminodipropionate Tocopheryl Phosphates, SC-СО2-extract Chamomilla Recutita (Camomile), Parfum, Phenoxyethanol, Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Butylparaben.

 

[sdxl]

They are probably not lying about the SPF 50+, since I count 8 UV absorbers. But if it is as bad as you say it is when it comes to water resistance, I would keep on searching.

[mustardseed41]

I'd not even purchase one that did not disclose the % of zinc.

[happy lemon]

If we refer to the BASF Sunscreen Simulator, the maximum amount of Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate is 10%.

 

https://www.sunscree...put_show.action

 

Thus, I am inclined to believe that the % of the zinc oxide in your sunscreen is not more than 10%.

[Heyman]

To me any sunscreen with ZnO seems to have that problem. Some are much better and some are worse, but I've yet to find one that is at least not somewhat cosmetically unpleasing. Did you try sunscreens without ZnO? Like Biore UV Aqua Rich Watery essence? PA++++, SPF 50+, uses Tinsorb S and Uvinul A Plus for UVA protection. Using it since almost a year now, it is almost perfect to me.

[happy lemon]

I have the Biore that you mentioned but don't think that it is a sunscreen that offers me a wide UV spectrum protection; although cosmetically speaking, it looks great (other Japanese watery gel sunscreen products have such texture too).

 

http://www.google.co...iw=1366&bih=645

 

From the net, I managed to locate the ingredients of this gel sunscreen, though it was SPF 50 PA+++ (Rose version).

 

The percentage of the UV filters was as follows:

 

Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine (Tinosorb S) 2%

Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate (Uvinul A Plus) 1%

Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate (Uvinul MC80) 8.51%

Ethylhexyl Triazone (Uvinul T150) 0.50%

 

I put them in the BASF Sunscreen Simulator and the SPF is 20; and this sunscreen fails in the UVA metrics based on the European standard & is of PA++ based on the standard of Japan.

 

 

 

 

[Heyman]

The percentage of the UV filters was as follows:

 

Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine (Tinosorb S) 2%

Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate (Uvinul A Plus) 1%

Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate (Uvinul MC80) 8.51%

Ethylhexyl Triazone (Uvinul T150) 0.50%

 

I put them in the BASF Sunscreen Simulator and the SPF is 20; and this sunscreen fails in the UVA metrics based on the European standard & is of PA++ based on the standard of Japan.

 

Thank you very much, very interesting indeed! A bit disappointed to see such low numbers. I wonder how they managed to get SPF50 with that. However, as it is a large cosmetic company, I don't think they lied about their SPF and PPD. I'd really like to know the ingredients of their newer PA++++ version...

[aribadabar]

I'd drop it if only for the paraben family listed at the end.

[JBForrester]

I've always stuck with Zinc Oxide sunscreens but I was a bit shocked to find out according to Consumer Report's 2015 Best and Worst Sunscreen Evaluation that most of the sunscreens on the "worst" list were those that were either natural or with a large percent of zinc oxide. And the best? Mostly chemical sunscreens, and with oxybenzone - at least 5%. Thoughts? Here is the full list according to WebMD:

 

http://www.webmd.com...orts-sunscreens

 

[mustardseed41]

I've always stuck with Zinc Oxide sunscreens but I was a bit shocked to find out according to Consumer Report's 2015 Best and Worst Sunscreen Evaluation that most of the sunscreens on the "worst" list were those that were either natural or with a large percent of zinc oxide. And the best? Mostly chemical sunscreens, and with oxybenzone - at least 5%. Thoughts? Here is the full list according to WebMD:

 

http://www.webmd.com...orts-sunscreens

 

Consumer Reports would be the last place I'd look at for sunscreen info. Oxybenzone is a UVB blocker that blocks short range UVII rays. Great if you don't want to get burned. Crappy if your concerned with long range UVI (aging) rays.

Nothing new to report here. It's a balancing act when choosing a sunscreen. Optimum protection/cosmetically pleasing.

A non-nano zinc oxide with 15%+ zinc or chemical sunscreens that are very photo-stable that don't need to be re-applied so often like Mexoryl or Tinosorb.

 

http://www.smartskin...es-3-and-4.html

Edited by mustardseed41, 30 May 2015 - 06:54 PM.

[fntms]

I'd drop it if only for the paraben family listed at the end.

I am disappointed by all the paraben in this (seems to make my skin break out, I have the blue version which is pa+++)... Also I feel the sun protection is not that great. I prefer the Neutrogena Ultra with uv 100 factor series. Clarins also has a new good 50+ anti pollution liquid cream that gives good (subjective) sun protection and is easy to apply but is too expensive for regular use.

[Heyman]

I've always stuck with Zinc Oxide sunscreens but I was a bit shocked to find out according to Consumer Report's 2015 Best and Worst Sunscreen Evaluation that most of the sunscreens on the "worst" list were those that were either natural or with a large percent of zinc oxide. And the best? Mostly chemical sunscreens, and with oxybenzone - at least 5%. Thoughts? Here is the full list according to WebMD:

 

http://www.webmd.com...orts-sunscreens

 

It isn't really relevant. They tested after people went into the water - so mostly what they tested was water-resistance. Many sunscreens came in about 4-40% below their SPF claims after this. A zinc-oxide sunscreen claiming SPF 50 having only SPF 30 after going for a swim is not relevant for everyday life nor is it a horrible result. Without going for a swim likely all sunscreens provided an SPF of about 50. What they didn't test was UVA protection so the whole report is somewhat rubbish anyway.

[Aurel]

What would be a good sunscreen for everyday life? --> Not going for a swim and not much of sun exposure

[StephCThomp]

I have had the same struggle with sunscreens - too white, too dry, too thick and oily. No Goldilocks products (just right) to be found.  The closest, though, have been European sunscreens.  Many use modern, low toxicity, broad spectrum filters.  If you're going to experiment, I'd suggest that's your best bet.  Asia is also very worthwhile looking to, provided you can find sunscreens that aren't full of alcohol - though if Biore agrees with you, then you may be fine with high levels of alcohol.  (I'm not :(.)

 

The place with the lowest probability of finding a great sunscreen, I would suggest, is the US. American sunscreens appear to be behind the times and usually thick with cheap, unpleasant chemicals.

 

Here's another annoyance to bear in mind:  The smaller the particles of zinc oxide - i.e. the more 'invisible' a product is - the lower its actual sun protection, especially against UVA.  And by quite a margin.  That's the problem with a purely physical block - if you can't see it, it's because light is not bouncing off it!  (Well, more or less true.)

 

Edited by StephCThomp, 31 May 2015 - 11:04 AM.

[nowayout]

Not to feed your paranoia, but sunscreens are not necessarily side-effect free.

 

 

Int J Androl. 2012 Jun;35(3):424-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2012.01280.x.

Sunscreens: are they beneficial for health? An overview of endocrine disrupting properties of UV-filters.

Krause M¹, Klit A, Blomberg Jensen M, Søeborg T, Frederiksen H, Schlumpf M, Lichtensteiger W, Skakkebaek NE, Drzewiecki KT.

Author information

Abstract

Today, topical application of sunscreens, containing ultraviolet-filters (UV-filters), is preferred protection against adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation. Evidently, use of sunscreens is effective in prevention of sunburns in various models. However, evidence for their protective effects against melanoma skin cancer is less conclusive. Three important observations prompted us to review the animal data and human studies on possible side effects of selected chemical UV-filters in cosmetics. (1) the utilization of sunscreens with UV-filters is increasing worldwide; (2) the incidence of the malignant disorder for which sunscreens should protect, malignant melanoma, is rapidly increasing and (3) an increasing number of experimental studies indicating that several UV-filters might have endocrine disruptive effects. The selected UV-filters we review in this article are benzophenone-3 (BP-3), 3-benzylidene camphor (3-BC), 3-(4-methyl-benzylidene) camphor (4-MBC), 2-ethylhexyl 4-methoxy cinnamate (OMC), Homosalate (HMS), 2-ethylhexyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate (OD-PABA) and 4-aminobenzoic acid (PABA). The potential adverse effects induced by UV-filters in experimental animals include reproductive/developmental toxicity and disturbance of hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis (HPT). Few human studies have investigated potential side effects of UV-filters, although human exposure is high as UV-filters in sunscreens are rapidly absorbed from the skin. One of the UV-filters, BP-3, has been found in 96% of urine samples in the US and several UV-filters in 85% of Swiss breast milk samples. It seems pertinent to evaluate whether exposure to UV-filters contribute to possible adverse effects on the developing organs of foetuses and children.

 

[Maecenas]

My top sunscreen at present time is Garnier Ambre Solaire Clear Protect SPF 30. Although it's somewhat greasy and shiny - still it's the best I've found from the dozens I've bought in the last 3 years. I've been using it regularly and have never had sunburns and got only a very slight tan after spending two weeks in intense sun. So at least it gives a good protection against UVB. It has 3/5 star rating against UVA. Also it's cheap and because it contains alcohol - they have a disclaimer on a label not to spray it on your face. I just shut my eyes before spraying.

 Here are the ingredients: Alcohol Denat.,Homosalate,Octocrylene,Ethylhexyl Salicylate,Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane,C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate,Drometrizole Trisiloxane,Ethylenediamine / Stearyl Dimer Dilinoleate Copolymer,Acrylates / Octylacrylamide Copolymer,Ethylhexyl Triazone,Tocopherol,Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde,Limonene,Linalool,Benzyl Salicylate,Benzyl Alcohol,Alpha-Isomethyl Ionone,BHT,Butylphenyl Methylpropional,Citronellol,Citral,Coumarin,Parfum / Fragrance

What do you think of it?

Edited by Maecenas, 06 June 2015 - 02:22 PM.

[fntms]

I have had the same struggle with sunscreens - too white, too dry, too thick and oily. No Goldilocks products (just right) to be found. The closest, though, have been European sunscreens. Many use modern, low toxicity, broad spectrum filters. If you're going to experiment, I'd suggest that's your best bet. Asia is also very worthwhile looking to, provided you can find sunscreens that aren't full of alcohol - though if Biore agrees with you, then you may be fine with high levels of alcohol. (I'm not :(.)

The place with the lowest probability of finding a great sunscreen, I would suggest, is the US. American sunscreens appear to be behind the times and usually thick with cheap, unpleasant chemicals

I think the Neutrogena sunscreens (spf 100+) are quite good overall and better value than European products (although I am I the EU)... Is that not the general consensus?

[mustardseed41]

 

I have had the same struggle with sunscreens - too white, too dry, too thick and oily. No Goldilocks products (just right) to be found. The closest, though, have been European sunscreens. Many use modern, low toxicity, broad spectrum filters. If you're going to experiment, I'd suggest that's your best bet. Asia is also very worthwhile looking to, provided you can find sunscreens that aren't full of alcohol - though if Biore agrees with you, then you may be fine with high levels of alcohol. (I'm not :(.)

The place with the lowest probability of finding a great sunscreen, I would suggest, is the US. American sunscreens appear to be behind the times and usually thick with cheap, unpleasant chemicals

I think the Neutrogena sunscreens (spf 100+) are quite good overall and better value than European products (although I am I the EU)... Is that not the general consensus?

 

 

Not sure about the value thing but when it comes to chemical sunscreens, you have a real advantage living in the EU. You have better access to sunscreens with Tinosorb and Mexoryl. These ingredients are far more photo stable than Neutrogena sunscreens. The Neutrogena sunscreens are better than most US chemical sunscreens though.

Edited by mustardseed41, 07 June 2015 - 04:31 AM.

[orion602]

Does anyone here have any experience with Ladival? They sold it to me in pharmacy claiming its good. I use it time to time (since last summer), but didn't notice any significant difference comparing with few other sunscreens i tried.

 

now i did some search, and it surprised me that they claim to filter not just UVA+UVB, but IR-A as well. [I have never heard about skin damaging infra-A till now]

 

How useful is this claimed infrared protection?

 

the following text is from marketing article, not sure how seriously we can take it..

Ladival Sun Protection launches in the UK this month (January 2015) with a premise unique to mainstream sun care; as well as protecting against both UVA and UVB, it also shields from infrared-A.

Infrared-A makes up a third of the sun’s damaging rays and is the most deeply penetrating, causing both long and short term damage. Unlike UVA and UVB rays, it can’t be absorbed or reflected by traditional sun protection ingredients; protection needs to take place inside the skin cells. Ladival protects against infrared-A by delivering a special formulation of the most effective antioxidants directly into the cell to boost its defences.

Justine Hextall, Consultant Dermatologist and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, says: “Standard sunscreens that we currently know and buy only protect against UVA and UVB. That means they protect against just 7% of the sun’s rays. By choosing a sunscreen that also includes infrared-A protection, people can protect against 37% of the sun’s rays – that’s protection against four times more of the sun’s damaging rays. Because of their long wavelength, infrared-A rays penetrate the epidermis and dermis and can lead to the formation of free radicals, which can damage body cells and cause both short and long term skin damage. Effects can include premature skin ageing, decreased skin elasticity, and increased wrinkling, but most importantly, damage to skin DNA that can also impact your long term health.”

 

 

[mustardseed41]

 

Does anyone here have any experience with Ladival? They sold it to me in pharmacy claiming its good. I use it time to time (since last summer), but didn't notice any significant difference comparing with few other sunscreens i tried.

 

now i did some search, and it surprised me that they claim to filter not just UVA+UVB, but IR-A as well. [I have never heard about skin damaging infra-A till now]

 

How useful is this claimed infrared protection?

 

the following text is from marketing article, not sure how seriously we can take it..

Ladival Sun Protection launches in the UK this month (January 2015) with a premise unique to mainstream sun care; as well as protecting against both UVA and UVB, it also shields from infrared-A.

Infrared-A makes up a third of the sun’s damaging rays and is the most deeply penetrating, causing both long and short term damage. Unlike UVA and UVB rays, it can’t be absorbed or reflected by traditional sun protection ingredients; protection needs to take place inside the skin cells. Ladival protects against infrared-A by delivering a special formulation of the most effective antioxidants directly into the cell to boost its defences.

Justine Hextall, Consultant Dermatologist and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, says: “Standard sunscreens that we currently know and buy only protect against UVA and UVB. That means they protect against just 7% of the sun’s rays. By choosing a sunscreen that also includes infrared-A protection, people can protect against 37% of the sun’s rays – that’s protection against four times more of the sun’s damaging rays. Because of their long wavelength, infrared-A rays penetrate the epidermis and dermis and can lead to the formation of free radicals, which can damage body cells and cause both short and long term skin damage. Effects can include premature skin ageing, decreased skin elasticity, and increased wrinkling, but most importantly, damage to skin DNA that can also impact your long term health.”

 

 

 

It looks like a great sunscreen with Tinosorb S, Uvinol A Plus, Avobenzone, and Titanium Dioxide. They won't disclose exactly why theirs is more special due to the Infared protection but a closer look at the ingredients tells you why. They use some good antioxidants in there. Vitamin. E, Co-Q10, Grape Seed Extract, and Ascorbyl Tetraisopalmitate (Fat soluble form of Vitamin C).

 

I have no problem with antioxidants being in a sunscreen. The more the merrier. I just have to wonder how much of the antioxidants are actually getting down to the deep layers and providing all this Infared protection that they claim??? IMO this would never be a replacement for separate topical Vitamin C serum and Tretinoin.

 

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8552187

 

Edited by mustardseed41, 07 June 2015 - 11:10 PM.

[Maecenas]

 

Does anyone here have any experience with Ladival? They sold it to me in pharmacy claiming its good. I use it time to time (since last summer), but didn't notice any significant difference comparing with few other sunscreens i tried.

 

now i did some search, and it surprised me that they claim to filter not just UVA+UVB, but IR-A as well. [I have never heard about skin damaging infra-A till now]

 

How useful is this claimed infrared protection?

 

the following text is from marketing article, not sure how seriously we can take it..

Ladival Sun Protection launches in the UK this month (January 2015) with a premise unique to mainstream sun care; as well as protecting against both UVA and UVB, it also shields from infrared-A.

Infrared-A makes up a third of the sun’s damaging rays and is the most deeply penetrating, causing both long and short term damage. Unlike UVA and UVB rays, it can’t be absorbed or reflected by traditional sun protection ingredients; protection needs to take place inside the skin cells. Ladival protects against infrared-A by delivering a special formulation of the most effective antioxidants directly into the cell to boost its defences.

Justine Hextall, Consultant Dermatologist and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, says: “Standard sunscreens that we currently know and buy only protect against UVA and UVB. That means they protect against just 7% of the sun’s rays. By choosing a sunscreen that also includes infrared-A protection, people can protect against 37% of the sun’s rays – that’s protection against four times more of the sun’s damaging rays. Because of their long wavelength, infrared-A rays penetrate the epidermis and dermis and can lead to the formation of free radicals, which can damage body cells and cause both short and long term skin damage. Effects can include premature skin ageing, decreased skin elasticity, and increased wrinkling, but most importantly, damage to skin DNA that can also impact your long term health.”

 

 

I think it's an advertisement trick aimed at the most paranoid people.

[happy lemon]

 

The percentage of the UV filters was as follows:

 

Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine (Tinosorb S) 2%

Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate (Uvinul A Plus) 1%

Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate (Uvinul MC80) 8.51%

Ethylhexyl Triazone (Uvinul T150) 0.50%

 

I put them in the BASF Sunscreen Simulator and the SPF is 20; and this sunscreen fails in the UVA metrics based on the European standard & is of PA++ based on the standard of Japan.

 

Thank you very much, very interesting indeed! A bit disappointed to see such low numbers. I wonder how they managed to get SPF50 with that. However, as it is a large cosmetic company, I don't think they lied about their SPF and PPD. I'd really like to know the ingredients of their newer PA++++ version...

 

 

Here is the percentage of each UV filer of the latest PA++++.

 

Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine (Tinosorb S)  1.80%

Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate (Uvinul A Plus)    1.20%

Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate (Uvinul MC80)    10%

Ethylhexyl Triazone (Uvinul T150)             1%

 

http://www.cosdna.co...40e8193960.html

 

From the BASF Sunscreen Simulator:

SPF: 25

Critical Wavelength: 366 nm

PA++

 

It fails the EU PPD rating.

 

[Heyman]

Here is the percentage of each UV filer of the latest PA++++.

 

Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine (Tinosorb S)  1.80%

Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate (Uvinul A Plus)    1.20%

Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate (Uvinul MC80)    10%

Ethylhexyl Triazone (Uvinul T150)             1%

 

http://www.cosdna.co...40e8193960.html

 

From the BASF Sunscreen Simulator:

SPF: 25

Critical Wavelength: 366 nm

PA++

 

It fails the EU PPD rating.

 

Thank you very much! This is very helpful. What I would like to add though:

 

1) The percentages did not seem to change compared to the version prior to this, even though the PPD changed a lot. Are you sure this information is accurate and not just copied by someone from the old version?

 

2) The BASF sunscreen simulator is not more accurate than the claim of the producer. The latter is the actually tested value, the former just a rough estimate. If Kao claims their sunscreen is SPF 50 PA++++, it most likely actually is. I haven't seen any case where a large manufacturer of sunscreens lied by such a large factor, and tests of these claims have been done in the past on other sunscreens. So I generally believe that the sunscreen is PA++++. The question is how do they achieve it and I'd be very interested to see how. Maybe it has something to do with the other ingredients, e.g. plant extracts as antioxidants?

 

There is/was also a sunscreen by skinceuticals with ZnO and TiO2 which both had rather low quantities yet they somehow achieved a pretty high SPF and PPD. Eva Victoria also wondered how they did this but did not seem to mistrust their claim, read about this a few years ago.
 

Edited by Heyman, 07 August 2015 - 06:17 AM.

[happy lemon]

 

Thank you very much! This is very helpful. What I would like to add though:

 

1) The percentages did not seem to change compared to the version prior to this, even though the PPD changed a lot. Are you sure this information is accurate and not just copied by someone from the old version?

 

 

In Taiwan, there is a regulation that manufacturers have to list the percentage of all UV filters in either packaging bag or packaging box.

 

 

2) The BASF sunscreen simulator is not more accurate than the claim of the producer. The latter is the actually tested value, the former just a rough estimate. If Kao claims their sunscreen is SPF 50 PA++++, it most likely actually is. I haven't seen any case where a large manufacturer of sunscreens lied by such a large factor, and tests of these claims have been done in the past on other sunscreens. So I generally believe that the sunscreen is PA++++. The question is how do they achieve it and I'd be very interested to see how. Maybe it has something to do with the other ingredients, e.g. plant extracts as antioxidants?

 

Unless we send samples to a lab to run a test, I think that it is difficult for us to verify the actual rating of SPF & PA.

 

I have collected the UV filter percentage of some Japanese, Taiwanese, American & German sunscreens & used the Simulator to see if there is any discrepancy of the SPF claimed by sunscreen manufacturers and the estimated by BASF.

 

The estimated SPF of all except Daylong is far more below the one claimed by the manufacturers. 

 

For those 3 Daylong sunscreens, the SPF rating claimed by Daylong matches the value run the Simulator & the PA  rating is ++++.

 

The new Biore Aqua Rich Watery Essence, Kao claims SPF 50 PA++++, the estimated SPF run by the Simulator is 25 & the PA is ++ only.

 

I use Daylong now.

[Heyman]

Unless we send samples to a lab to run a test, I think that it is difficult for us to verify the actual rating of SPF & PA.

 

I have collected the UV filter percentage of some Japanese, Taiwanese, American & German sunscreens & used the Simulator to see if there is any discrepancy of the SPF claimed by sunscreen manufacturers and the estimated by BASF.

 

The estimated SPF of all except Daylong is far more below the one claimed by the manufacturers.

Thank you for taking the time and actually checking!

 

Do we actually have to send samples or can we rely on the manufacturer claim? There are regulations in place so a manufacturer cannot just write on a product whatever SPF he likes. Here is a report about sunscreens not providing the SPF they claim - however this report soaked people in water before, so they actually tested water resistance

 

Is there any reason to suspect that the claimed SPF is not what it is, any cases like this in the past?

 

Is a PPD16 sunscreen that achieves this by some alternative means worse, the same or better compared to another sunscreen with a higher percentage of absorbers but the same PPD 16? If for example a higher PA is achieved via antioxidants, it might make the sunscreen even beneficial in the visible light / IR range. But obviously you only would care about this if you did not use antioxidants anyway, in which case a higher percentage of absorbers would be better.

Edited by Heyman, 07 August 2015 - 04:28 PM.

[happy lemon]

I don't know how the regulation can be strictly enforced as there are so many sunscreen in the market.

 

Look at this one, how can it achieve SPF 30?  Its SPF rating tested by BASF Simulator is 6.

 

http://www.coolasunc...er-matte-finish

 

 

Active Ingredients
Titanium Dioxide (Sunscreen) 3.2%
Zinc Oxide (Sunscreen) 1.8%

 

Inactive Ingredients
Aluminum Hydroxide, Butyrospermum Parkii (ORGANIC Shea Butter), Cucumis Sativus (ORGANIC Cucumber) Fruit Extract, Cyclopentasiloxane, Dimethicone Crosspolymer, Glycerin (ORGANIC), Hydrogen Dimethicone, Isopropyl Myristate, Linum Usitatissimum (ORGANIC Linseed) Seed Oil, Oenothera Biennis (ORGANIC Evening Primrose) Oil, Plankton Extract, Polyamide-5, Polysilicone-11, Propylene Carbonate, Rosa Canina (ORGANIC Rose Hip) Fruit Oil, Silica Silylate, Stearalkonium Hectorite.

 

I only buy mineral sunscreen of which the ZnO is 15% or above; for chemical ones; I would choose those ones if Tinosorb S and/or M is over 3%.

 

A while ago, I saw a video in youtube in which someone put the Biore Watery Essence PA+++ and another sunscreen (I forgot the name) which contained Tinosorb M, under a UV light to see which one would change the colour first.  To me, no surprise, it was Biore.

 

 

 

[Heyman]

Do you think gigantic companies lie about the SPF on their sunscreen? If we talk about some small all-natural company, maybe, but companies like Kao (Biore)? I just find that difficult to believe, why would they do that?

I have no idea how they achieve a different SPF but there are many factors that might play a role - dispersion, how uniform it spreads, other ingredients can boost the protection factor as well when combined, antioxidants, ...

Given that a large company does likely not lie about the PA rating, why would it matter how they achieve it? If they had some ingredients that somehow inhibited the persistent pigment darkening but did not reduce the damage this would be the only negative issue I can come up with right now.