【防晒性能表征:Quo vadis?】]

4区 医学 Q3 Medicine
Hautarzt Pub Date : 2022-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-03-25 DOI:10.1007/s00105-022-04958-x
Uli Osterwalder, Christian Surber
{"title":"【防晒性能表征:Quo vadis?】]","authors":"Uli Osterwalder,&nbsp;Christian Surber","doi":"10.1007/s00105-022-04958-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The task of the first sunscreens was to prevent the development of sunburn and, following the spirit of the 1950/1960s, to not impair the tanning of the skin. The need to quantify the protective performance soon arose. Originally with the help of natural-nowadays artificial-sunlight, a method was developed to determine a sun protection factor (SPF). It is formally defined as a ratio between minimum erythema-effective UV dose on sunscreen-protected skin and minimum erythema-effective UV dose on unprotected skin (ISO 24444:2019). Three observations question the suitability of the method. (1) Interlaboratory variability: Despite strict standardization, results of SPF determinations from different laboratories are subject to large variations. (2) Natural vs. artificial sunlight: The radiation spectrum of artificial sunlight differs from that of natural sunlight. SPFs determined with artificial sunlight (as depicted on all sunscreens currently on the market) are significantly too high compared to SPF determination with natural sunlight. (3) Erythema burden: When determining SPF, subjects are exposed to potentially harmful radiation. Against this background alternative methods-in vitro SPF, hybrid diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (HDRS) and in silico calculations-are presented. These have the potential to replace the current method. As an immediate measure, it is recommended to return to the comprehensible description of low, medium, high, and very high protection and in the future to take into account the spectrum of natural sunlight.</p>","PeriodicalId":12970,"journal":{"name":"Hautarzt","volume":" ","pages":"276-282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8964537/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Characterization of sun protection performance: Quo vadis?]\",\"authors\":\"Uli Osterwalder,&nbsp;Christian Surber\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00105-022-04958-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The task of the first sunscreens was to prevent the development of sunburn and, following the spirit of the 1950/1960s, to not impair the tanning of the skin. The need to quantify the protective performance soon arose. Originally with the help of natural-nowadays artificial-sunlight, a method was developed to determine a sun protection factor (SPF). It is formally defined as a ratio between minimum erythema-effective UV dose on sunscreen-protected skin and minimum erythema-effective UV dose on unprotected skin (ISO 24444:2019). Three observations question the suitability of the method. (1) Interlaboratory variability: Despite strict standardization, results of SPF determinations from different laboratories are subject to large variations. (2) Natural vs. artificial sunlight: The radiation spectrum of artificial sunlight differs from that of natural sunlight. SPFs determined with artificial sunlight (as depicted on all sunscreens currently on the market) are significantly too high compared to SPF determination with natural sunlight. (3) Erythema burden: When determining SPF, subjects are exposed to potentially harmful radiation. Against this background alternative methods-in vitro SPF, hybrid diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (HDRS) and in silico calculations-are presented. These have the potential to replace the current method. As an immediate measure, it is recommended to return to the comprehensible description of low, medium, high, and very high protection and in the future to take into account the spectrum of natural sunlight.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12970,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hautarzt\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"276-282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8964537/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hautarzt\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-022-04958-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/3/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hautarzt","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-022-04958-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

第一批防晒霜的任务是防止晒伤的发展,并遵循20世纪50年代至60年代的精神,不损害皮肤的晒黑。对防护性能进行量化的需求很快就出现了。最初是借助自然阳光(现在是人造阳光),人们发明了一种确定防晒系数(SPF)的方法。它的正式定义是受防晒霜保护的皮肤上的最小红斑有效紫外线剂量与未受保护的皮肤上的最小红斑有效紫外线剂量之比(ISO 24444:2019)。三项观察结果对该方法的适用性提出了质疑。(1)实验室间变异性:尽管严格标准化,但不同实验室的SPF测定结果存在很大差异。(2)自然阳光与人工阳光:人工阳光的辐射光谱与自然阳光不同。与用自然阳光测定的SPF值相比,用人工阳光测定的SPF值(如目前市场上所有防晒霜上所描述的那样)明显过高。(3)红斑负担:在确定SPF时,受试者暴露于可能有害的辐射中。在此背景下,提出了体外SPF,混合漫反射光谱(HDRS)和计算机计算的替代方法。这些有可能取代目前的方法。作为一项即时措施,建议回到低、中、高和非常高防护的可理解描述,并在未来考虑到自然阳光的光谱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

[Characterization of sun protection performance: Quo vadis?]

[Characterization of sun protection performance: Quo vadis?]

[Characterization of sun protection performance: Quo vadis?]

[Characterization of sun protection performance: Quo vadis?]

The task of the first sunscreens was to prevent the development of sunburn and, following the spirit of the 1950/1960s, to not impair the tanning of the skin. The need to quantify the protective performance soon arose. Originally with the help of natural-nowadays artificial-sunlight, a method was developed to determine a sun protection factor (SPF). It is formally defined as a ratio between minimum erythema-effective UV dose on sunscreen-protected skin and minimum erythema-effective UV dose on unprotected skin (ISO 24444:2019). Three observations question the suitability of the method. (1) Interlaboratory variability: Despite strict standardization, results of SPF determinations from different laboratories are subject to large variations. (2) Natural vs. artificial sunlight: The radiation spectrum of artificial sunlight differs from that of natural sunlight. SPFs determined with artificial sunlight (as depicted on all sunscreens currently on the market) are significantly too high compared to SPF determination with natural sunlight. (3) Erythema burden: When determining SPF, subjects are exposed to potentially harmful radiation. Against this background alternative methods-in vitro SPF, hybrid diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (HDRS) and in silico calculations-are presented. These have the potential to replace the current method. As an immediate measure, it is recommended to return to the comprehensible description of low, medium, high, and very high protection and in the future to take into account the spectrum of natural sunlight.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hautarzt
Hautarzt 医学-皮肤病学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
93
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Der Hautarzt is an internationally recognized journal informing all dermatologists working in practical or clinical environments about important developments in the field of dermatology including allergology, venereology and related areas. Comprehensive reviews on a specific topical issue focus on providing evidenced based information on diagnostics and therapy. Freely submitted original papers allow the presentation of important clinical studies and serve the scientific exchange. Case reports feature interesting cases and aim at optimizing diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Review articles under the rubric "Continuing Medical Education" present verified results of scientific research and their integration into daily practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信