Assessment of Natural Sunlight Protection Provided by 10 High-SPF Broad-Spectrum Sunscreens and Sun-Protective Fabrics.

Abstract

In 1978, the FDA Advisory Panel proposed both indoor and natural sunlight SPF testing methods but reverted to indoor testing only in 1993. Today's sunscreen sun protection and broad-spectrum claims are based on mandated clinical tests using solar simulators and in vitro spectrophotometers. This research evaluated the protection of 10 high-SPF (30-110), broad-spectrum sunscreen products, as well as 6 sun-protective fabrics against natural sunlight in Arequipa, Peru. Each of the 17 subjects was exposed to natural sunlight for 1 h and 59 min under clear skies, with temperatures and humidity similar to those in an indoor clinical laboratory. Test sites were photographed 16-24 h later. Four dermatologists evaluated the photographs for erythema and persistent pigment darkening (PPD). Perceptible sun-induced skin injury (sunburn and/or pigmentation) was detected at 97% of the sunscreen-protected scores. The most sun-sensitive subjects obtained the least erythema protection. The higher the SPF was, the higher the erythema protection, but the intensity of PPD was also higher. The 2 sunscreens using only FDA-approved sunscreen filters rated 30 SPF and 45+ SPF performed poorly: Eighty-one percent of the 136 scores were graded 1 minimal erythema dose or higher erythema, achieving, at a maximum, SPF of 5-7 in natural sunlight. Sun-protective fabrics tested provided excellent sun protection. The erythema and PPD observed through the sunscreens in less than 2 h are incongruous with the broad-spectrum, high-SPF sunscreen claims. Reapplying these sunscreens and staying in the sun longer, as stated on the product labels, would have subjected the subjects to even more UV exposure. High-SPF, broad-spectrum sunscreen claims based on indoor solar simulator testing do not agree with the natural sunlight protection test results.