The DOI matches its Crossref record; 174 of the 174 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 56 of the 134 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review
Open accessAbstract
Skin exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and pollutants causes several skin disorders, calling for protection methods such as sunscreen application. However, common sunscreen contains chemicals that have displayed toxicity when exposed to ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, alternatives approaches have been recently developed, such as the use of natural phytochemicals as active ingredients in photoprotection preparations. Here, we review skin protection with focus on the physics of ultraviolet radiation and photoprotection by ultraviolet filters. We present sensors for measuring ultraviolet radiation and ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems. We discuss the phototoxicity of drugs, preservatives, personal care products, and pollutants. Photocarcinogenesis, photoallergy, photostability, and toxicity of sunscreen ingredients and their impacts on human health and skin, are also reviewed. We observed that phytochemicals are promising for photoprotection due to their ability to absorb photon energy, and thus act as antioxidants.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes literature on solar ultraviolet radiation, photoprotection, and natural phytochemical alternatives to conventional sunscreens. It concludes that phytochemicals are promising photoprotectants because they absorb photon energy and act as antioxidants, but standardization and clinical validation remain needed.
Key findings
- Only about 5% of solar ultraviolet radiation reaches the earth’s surface in the ultraviolet spectrum, corresponding to 96.65% UV-A and 3.35% UV-B, with UV-C virtually undetectable.
- Sun protection factors 15, 30, 45, and 50 block/absorb UV-B light at 93.3%, 96.7%, 97.8%, and 98.0%, respectively.
- Melanin provides an estimated 1.5–2.0 sun protection factor, with some suggestions up to 4 SPF, implying absorption of around 50% to 75% of ultraviolet radiation.
- Nordic countries showed skin cancer rates ranging from 25 to 34 per 100,000 population despite average radiation levels of 2.3–3.4 kWh/m², while Australia had the highest irradiation per day mean and the highest skin cancer rate; Asian and African countries had lower rates.
Methods
- Design: a systematic literature review was adopted to assess and synthesize available literature on photoprotection and associated impacts on human health and the environment.
- Data: published studies on ultraviolet physics, sensors, ecosystems, phototoxicity, photocarcinogenesis, sunscreen ingredients, skin microbiome, and natural photoprotectants; the text notes that about 52% of reviewed articles addressed ultraviolet impacts on biotic and abiotic environments, and 34 articles presented findings on human health effects.
- Analysis: qualitative/narrative synthesis with summary tables; no meta-analysis or primary experimental data are reported.
Limitations
- Stated: plant photoprotectants are constrained because biotic and abiotic factors such as crop management, latitude, climate, and soil affect phytochemical profiles, making it challenging to quantify or predict essential active ingredients in the right proportion after harvest.
- Stated: clinical trials of identified photoprotectants should be replicated to eradicate uncertainties and scaled up for mass production; photosafety testing remains important for natural agents.
- Evident from the text: although described as a systematic literature review, the paper does not report databases, search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or the total number of included studies, and findings are synthesized narratively rather than quantitatively.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 No full text of the sources · 25 Partly supported · 19 Supported · 16 No basis given · 9 Own interpretation · 7 Sources not found · 3 Supported so far · 2 Not supported · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“On the other hand, it protected the cell from apoptosis via modulating the tumor suppressor protein p53 and pro-apoptotic BAX (BCL-2-associated X protein), BAK (BCL-2 antagonist killer 1), BID (BCL-2-interacting domain death agonist) and BCL-2 (B-cell lymphoma-2) pathways (Reagan- Shaw et al. 2006).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Reagan-Shaw et al. 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports that sanguinarine pretreatment increased Bax, Bid, and Bak and decreased Bcl-2 in a pattern favoring apoptosis—not protection from it. The Discussion likewise says sanguinarine enhanced UVB-damaged HaCaT cells’ ability to undergo apoptosis. The paper describes protection from UVB damage through elimination of damaged cells, not protection of those cells from apoptosis. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Individual responses to phototoxic chemicals are influenced by several parameters, including absorption, metabolism and light penetration into the skin”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoallergy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Korzeniowska et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says phototoxic reactions require a large drug dose and exposure to light, supporting the general point that responses depend on more than the chemical alone. It does not identify absorption, metabolism, or light penetration into the skin as factors influencing individual responses; searches for those terms found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“According to Wnuk et al. (2022), benzophenone-3, an organic sunscreen formulation commonly used in cosmetic products to minimize damaging effect by ultraviolet radiation has been reported to disrupt functioning of organs, endocrine systems and fetal development in humans.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wnuk et al. 2022 source
The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies BP-3 as an organic sunscreen used in personal care products to reduce UV damage. The section on potential toxic effects (page unavailable) says BP-3 can disrupt human tissues and organs, including the endocrine system, and neonatal development during pregnancy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“UV-B radiation has the ability to traverse the entire epidermis layer and reach the dermis compartment of the human skin”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Romanhole et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Solar radiation section says UVB can penetrate the stratum corneum and epidermis, but does not say it traverses the entire epidermis or reaches the dermis. The Radiation and its interaction with skin section says UVB is mainly absorbed by epidermal cell components and identifies UVA as penetrating deeper, even to dermal fibroblasts. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites WHO Newsroom 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“On the other hand, direct ultraviolet-induced DNA and membrane damage to the skin microbiome may result in pathogen-associated molecular patterns that interfere with ultraviolet-induced immune suppression (Patra et al. 2018).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Patra et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction’s ‘Ultraviolet-radiation (UV-R)’ section says UV affects the skin microbiome and that a skin commensal may diminish UV-induced immune suppression by converting cis-urocanic acid to its trans form. It does not say that UV directly damages microbial DNA or membranes, or that damage generates pathogen-associated molecular patterns that interfere with immune suppression. The paper provides a different proposed mechanism for the claimed interference. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, a recent study on mice model of contact hypersensitivity and germ-free reported that the skin microbiome inhibited ultraviolet-induced immune suppression (Patra et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Patra et al. 2019 source
The Results section, “Skin Microbiome Limits UV-Induced Suppression of Systemic Adaptive Immune Response,” reports that the presence of a microbiome inhibited UV-B-induced suppression of contact hypersensitivity in SPF mice, while germ-free mice showed greater suppression. The Discussion likewise describes protection against UV-induced immune suppression in the germ-free and SPF mouse comparison. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Many dyes, for example methylene blue, rose Bengal and eosin, pigments, for example chlorophyll, hematoporphyrin and flavins, and aromatic hydrocarbons are effective photosensitizers because these molecules may reach a long-lived triplet state in high quantum yield”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoallergy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Ormond and Freeman 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (§1.1; page not provided) explains that a photosensitizer can enter a longer-lived triplet state, and §2.4 identifies methylene blue and rose Bengal as sensitizers. The cited paper does not establish a high quantum yield for reaching that triplet state across the listed molecules; its reported quantum yields concern singlet oxygen. The searched passages also do not substantiate the claim about eosin, flavins, or aromatic hydrocarbons. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Xiao et al. 2018 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The Micrococcus luteus strain has the unique ability to counteract the negative effects of ultraviolet on the immune system by converting the cis-urocanic acid produced by ultraviolet radiation during skin exposure (Patra et al. 2018).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Patra et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction’s UV-R section says that UV exposure converts trans-urocanic acid to cis-urocanic acid and that Micrococcus luteus can convert cis-UCA back to its trans form. It says this could *potentially* diminish immune suppression; it does not establish that the bacterium counteracts UV’s immune effects or that this ability is unique. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Sadly, most sunscreen formulations contain organic and inorganic ultraviolet filters that are non-biodegradable in marine and terrestrial ecosystems.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Milito et al. 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6 (page not provided) says sunscreens typically contain organic or inorganic UV filters and reports evidence that some synthetic filters may harm marine environments. Section 13 (page not provided) discusses potential pollution of ground and sea waters, but neither section establishes that most formulations contain filters that are non-biodegradable in both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Wastewater sewers and treatment plants form the main pathway of ultraviolet filters to the environment.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Chatzigianni et al. 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Pathways of UV filters from sunscreens to the environment” section identifies wastewater treatment plants and sewage systems as routes by which UV filters reach the environment. It also describes direct transfer to water and does not establish that wastewater systems are the main pathway. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Direct photolysis ensures that ultraviolet filters are disintegrated into harmful products in the aquatic environment”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Chatzigianni et al. 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Pathways of UV filters from sunscreens to the environment” section says direct photolysis decomposes UV filters and that harmful by-products may form in aquatic environments. It does not say direct photolysis ensures harmful products form; the claim overstates that possibility as a certainty. No page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A study found that the skin microflora plays an important role in differential gene expression regulation in the skin, particularly for genes encoding Toll-like receptors and antimicrobial peptides, as well as genes associated with the interleukin (IL)-1 family (Meisel et al. 2018).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Meisel et al. 2018 source
The Results section ('Cutaneous immune response genes are differentially regulated by resident microbiota') reports differential expression in skin with and without commensal microbiota. It specifically identifies genes encoding Toll-like receptors and antimicrobial proteins, as well as upregulated IL-1 family cytokine genes. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“the paradigm shift toward the use of natural agents and plant materials as phytochemical alternatives to sunscreens is currently gaining momentum globally”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Anand et al. 2022b sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Conclusions and future perspectives (page numbers unavailable) describe growing interest in plant-based compounds as alternatives to synthetic radioprotective drugs. They concern protection from ionizing radiation, not phytochemical alternatives to sunscreens or a global trend in sunscreen use. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“DNA photoproducts are considered as a molecular trigger for the induction of immunosuppression and initiation of photocarcinogenesis”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bosch et al. 2015 source
Section 2.6 says cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPD) can prompt secretion of IL-10, a cytokine crucial to skin immunosuppression. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 describe UV-induced DNA damage during carcinogenic initiation and link DNA dimers affecting p53 to skin cancer. The indexed passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Srivastav et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The outcome of several experimental studies strongly suggests that these phytochemicals could be employed in therapeutic applications like cosmetics or medicine formulations to prevent ultraviolet-induced skin damage (Nguyen et al. 2022).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Nguyen et al. 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Antiaging section (page unavailable) reports that nanoparticles synthesized from plant extracts show promise as ultraviolet filters and in anti-aging products. It does not establish that phytochemicals themselves can be used in cosmetics or medicine formulations to prevent ultraviolet-induced skin damage; that changes the subject from plant-based nanoparticles to phytochemicals. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Findings from mouse and in vitro studies of phytochemical photoprotection generalize to human skin.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A study showed that the skin commensal bacterium, Propionibacterium acnes, was able to secrete an antioxidant enzyme like RoxP for radical oxygenase of”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Allhorn et al. 2016 source
The Discussion identifies RoxP as a secreted antioxidant enzyme produced by P. acnes. The Results section reports RoxP in the strain’s secreted protein fraction and shows that purified RoxP reduced free radicals. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Grape seed proanthocyanidins also resulted in the prevention of the malignant progression of UV-B-induced papillomas to carcinomas.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Katiyar 2016 source
Section 3 reports that dietary grape seed proanthocyanidins significantly inhibited the malignant transformation of UV-exposed papillomas to carcinomas in mice. The Abstract also reports this effect. Page numbers are not available in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Various studies have found that alkaloids such as sanguinarine, piperine and caffeine act as defenders against ultraviolet radiation damage (Dinkova-Kostova 2008;Verma et al. 2017;Gherardini et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dinkova-Kostova 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s discussion of alkaloids reports protection against UV damage by caffeine and sanguinarine in cell and mouse studies (page numbers unavailable in the indexed passages). A search for piperine found no passage addressing it, so this source does not support that example. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verma et al. 2017 source
- Supportedcites Gherardini et al. 2019 source
Gherardini et al. is offered for the caffeine portion of the sentence. In Results (page not provided), the paper reports that topical caffeine reduced UV-induced skin cytotoxicity and epidermal keratinocyte damage in ex vivo skin samples. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Similarly, when human skin was topically treated with green tea polyphenols before exposure to ultraviolet radiation, a dose-dependent inhibition of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer formation was observed (Katiyar 2016).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Katiyar 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction identifies green tea polyphenols as having anti-skin-carcinogenic activity, but does not describe topical treatment of human skin or a dose-dependent effect on CPD formation. Section 4.2 discusses CPDs after dietary grape-seed proanthocyanidins in mice, a different treatment and population. Searches for topical green tea treatment and dose-dependent CPD inhibition found no passage addressing the claimed observation. (LLM, conf=0.74)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Most studies have found that increasing carotene consumption reduces the severity of ultraviolet-induced erythema (Stahl and Sies 2012).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Stahl and Sies 2012 source
The Dietary intervention section states that most studies found elevated carotenoid intake ameliorated UV-induced erythema. It also reports significantly lower erythema after ten weeks of tomato-paste consumption. The citing sentence is a fair paraphrase of that summary. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, in vivo findings on SKH-1 hairless mice reported that pretreatment with sanguinarine significantly decreased the UV-B-mediated skin edema, skin hyperplasia and infiltration of leukocytes.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ahsan et al. 2007 source
- Partly supportedcites Dinkova-Kostova 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The sanguinarine passage reports that topical application before UV exposure reduced edema, hyperplasia, and infiltration of inflammatory cells in SKH-1 hairless mice. The References section identifies the underlying study as concerning UVB damage. Our copy does not state that these reductions were statistically significant. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This protein positively influences the viability of monocytes and keratinocytes exposed to oxidative stress (Andersson et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Andersson et al. 2019 source
The Results section (‘RoxP can protect human cells from oxidative damage in vitro’) reports that RoxP rescued paraquat-exposed monocyte and keratinocyte cell lines from oxidative damage, with a stronger effect in monocytes. The Discussion likewise states that RoxP increased the viability of both cell lines under oxidative stress. The finding is from in vitro cell cultures. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Common secondary plant compounds used as alternative photoprotectants include carotenoids, polyphenols, natural botanicals agents, phytochemicals, antioxidants, alkaloids and phenolic compounds as illustrated in Fig .5 (Nunes et al. 2018;Fardiyah et al. 2020;Bendjedid et al. 2021).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Nunes et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 identifies polyphenols, alkaloids, flavonoids and phenolic acids as plant metabolites with photoprotective potential, and discusses antioxidant plant extracts. It does not identify carotenoids as photoprotectants or establish the entire list as common secondary plant compounds; “botanical agents” and “phytochemicals” are broader descriptions rather than specific compound classes. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites Fardiyah et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and §3.1 Phytochemical test (page numbers unavailable) describe plant extracts and their flavonoids, polyphenols, alkaloids, and phenolic compounds as relevant to photoprotection; §3.1 also describes some of these constituents as antioxidants. The paper does not identify carotenoids as photoprotectants, so it supports much, but not all, of the attributed list. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bendjedid et al. 2021 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“As a result, it may effectively inhibit the production of reactive oxygen species by these infiltrating leukocytes upon UV-B exposure (Nichols and Katiyar 2010).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Nichols and Katiyar 2010 source
The Anti-oxidant effects section states that EGCG blocks UVB-induced leukocyte infiltration in mouse and human skin and thus may inhibit reactive oxygen species production by those leukocytes. This directly supports the claim’s qualified wording. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Cyanobacteria contain a variety of defense mechanisms, including the production of UV-absorbing compounds such as mycosporine-like amino acids and enzymes such as superoxide dismutases, which help to minimize the effects of oxidative stress (Lawrence et al. 2018).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lawrence et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Background and discussion passages (page unavailable) describe MAAs as UV-absorbing compounds with photoprotective and antioxidant properties; the References list work on MAAs in cyanobacteria. The paper does not say that cyanobacteria produce superoxide dismutases as a defense against oxidative stress. Its only mention of superoxide dismutase is in a reference about human keratinocytes. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Epigallocatechin-3-gallate has the ability to prevent UV-B-induced leukocyte infiltration in both mouse and human skin.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Nichols and Katiyar 2010 source
The Anti-oxidant effects section (page not provided) explicitly states that EGCG blocks UVB-induced leukocyte infiltration in both mouse and human skin. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Further, they also observed that sanguinarine prevented UV-B-mediated elevations in ornithine decarboxylase, proliferating cell nuclear antigen and Kiel antigen-67, all of which are indicators of cellular proliferation (Ahsan et al. 2007;Dinkova-Kostova 2008).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ahsan et al. 2007 source
- Supportedcites Dinkova-Kostova 2008 source
The main-text sanguinarine passage reports that topical application in SKH-1 hairless mice suppressed activation of ornithine decarboxylase, proliferating cell nuclear antigen, and Kiel antigen-67 after UV exposure. The References section identifies the cited mouse study as concerning UV-B-mediated damage. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Isoflavonoids are dietary antioxidants that may protect against oxidative stress connected to inflammation and damaging the macromolecule by free radicals and other oxygen and nitrogen oxidizers (Miadoková 2009).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Miadoková 2009 source
The Introduction defines isoflavonoids as dietary antioxidants that may protect against oxidative stress linked to inflammation and macromolecule damage by free radicals and oxygen- and nitrogen-based oxidizing agents. The citing sentence closely paraphrases that definition. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In SKH-1 hairless mice, the addition of grape seed proanthocyanidins to a standard diet effectively inhibited photocarcinogenesis, as evidenced by reduced tumor incidence, decreased tumor multiplicity and smaller tumor sizes (Katiyar 2016).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Katiyar 2016 source
Section 3 reports that grape seed proanthocyanidins were added to an AIN76A control diet and tested in SKH-1 hairless mice. It reports dose-dependent reductions in the percentage of mice with tumors, tumor multiplicity, and tumor size compared with an unsupplemented diet. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The photochemical production of reactive oxygen species and reactive nitrogen species is the principal mechanism by which ultraviolet radiation can induce molecular reactions in human skin.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoallergy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The researcher reported that antimalarial drugs like quinine and mefloquine may be associated with the induction of skin diseases and cancer by altering various biological processes due to phototoxicity as well as the formation of photoproducts”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Drugs and preservatives
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently a study reported that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons like carbazole, which is found in coal, eye kohl and tattoo ink, induced photodynamic reactions and causes phototoxicity in the human keratinocyte cells”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Srivastav et al. 2020 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Photoirradiation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons has also been linked to human skin cancer due to exposure to terrestrial light”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yu 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Literature also reported that DNA damage as photogenotoxicity can be found under UV-B irradiation”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ali et al. 2011 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For instance, benzophenone is an ingredient for sunscreen, and photosensitized benzophenone induced cell death of skin keratinocytes”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Personal care products
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Amar et al. 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The absorption of light by the endogenous/exogenous photosensitizer in the presence of oxygen in a live creature can produce photooxidation, which can lead to chemical and biological consequences”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoallergy
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This study reported that they can induce phototoxicity under the environmental intensity of UV-B irradiation.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Srivastav et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, phototoxicity reactions have been found quite variable in a population exposed to the same agent.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoallergy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observed that phytochemicals are promising for photoprotection due to their ability to absorb photon energy, and thus act as antioxidants.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons like anthracene, benzanthracene received environmental intensities of sunlight and ultraviolet radiation (UV-A and UV-B) and produced toxic products.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, sunscreens alone may provide insufficient protection from ultraviolet radiation.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Sunscreen ingredients
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As per the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, 46 hair dye ingredients act as a sensitizer”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Personal care products
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mujtaba et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Amar et al. (2015) reported that benzophenone was unstable under sunlight and ultraviolet radiation exposure.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Sunscreen ingredients
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Amar et al. 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Epidemiological studies and experimental models indicate that chronic exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation that damages the skin's biomolecules leading to skin cancer.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, several studies reported that several sunscreen ingredients become photosensitive and unstable under exposure to ultraviolet radiation.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Photoexcited substances lead to the generation of reactive oxygen species, RNS and hydroxy radicals through type 1 and type 2 photosensitized reactions.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoallergy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Sunscreen is one of the personal care products that is extensively used as a safeguard for skin, but studies have reported that components of sunscreens fail to protect users”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Personal care products
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sardoiwala et al. 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Now it has been investigated that personal care products become activated followed by solar ultraviolet radiation exposures mostly UV-A and UV-B.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Personal care products
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, organic ultraviolet filters absorbed high-intensity ultraviolet rays and are released in the form of light or heat.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoprotection by ultraviolet filters
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saka and Chella 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Shaw et al. (1992) have studied the photochemistry of para-aminobenzoic acid, and they found two photoproducts were formed, 4-(4'-aminophenyl) aminobenzoic acid (I) and 4-(2'-amino-5'-carboxy-phenyl) aminobenzoic acid (II) after exposure to ultraviolet radiation.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Sunscreen ingredients
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shaw et al. 1992 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Inorganic ultraviolet filters contain ingredients like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles, which scatter or reflect ultraviolet radiation and prevent it from reaching the skin”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoprotection by ultraviolet filters
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saka and Chella 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“On the other hand, the imbalance between excessive oxidative stress generation and insufficient antioxidant defense was created by prolonged ultraviolet radiation exposure.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fernández-García 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Evidence is found in the ban of some ultraviolet synthetic filter sunscreens containing octyl methoxycinnamate (octinoxate) and benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone) from distribution and sale in Hawaii in January 2021 and other parts of Mexico, Palau, and the Caribbeans”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zen Life and Travel, 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This photooxidative stress leads to sunburn, erythema, edema, and phototoxic reactions, such as photoallergy, photosensitivity, photoaging, and photocarcinogenesis”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sardoiwala et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Consequently, photooxidative reactions are initiated, and high amounts of oxidative stress overwhelm the natural protection of skin cells causing damage to biomolecules and affecting the integrity of cells as well as tissues (Fernández-García 2014).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fernández-García 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Carotenoids' photoprotective qualities are linked to their antioxidant activities, which effectively scavenge reactive oxygen species, such as superoxide anions, singlet molecular oxygen, hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen peroxide (Sies and Stahl 2004).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sies and Stahl 2004 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Another study investigated that oral administration of soy isoflavone extract in a hairless mouse model protects UV-B-induced skin aging (Kim et al. 2004).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kim et al. 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A study reported that treatment of anthocyanins inhibited the production of hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) and lipid peroxide in human dermal fibroblast cells caused by UV-A irradiation.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li et al. 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A recent study revealed that piperine was stable under UV-A/ UV-B exposure viz it was not degraded under ultraviolet radiation.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verma et al. 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Further, they found that piperine protects human keratinocytes from ultraviolet radiation-induced cell damage via the NF-κB (nuclear factor kappa light chain enhancer of activated B cells), BAX/ BCL-2 pathway in keratinocytes cells (Verma et al. 2017).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verma et al. 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similarly, anthocyanins reduced UV-B-induced oxidative stress and cell death in BALB/c mouse skin tissues when applied topically (Li et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li et al. 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these findings support that Isoflavones provide effective photoprotection against ultraviolet radiation damage.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, research studies have indicated that when human fibroblasts were treated with epigallocatechin-3-gallate in culture, it effectively prevented the UV-induced rise in collagen secretion and collagenase mRNA levels.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kim et al. 2001 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, epigallocatechin-3-gallate was found to regulate mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathways (Kim et al. 2001).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kim et al. 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings suggest that anthocyanin could be a promising choice for the creation of photoprotective agents.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the levels of myeloperoxidase, cyclooxygenase-2, prostaglandin E2, cyclin D1 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen were also reduced by the presence of grape seed proanthocyanidins (Sharma and Katiyar 2010).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma and Katiyar 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the skin, grape seed proanthocyanidins were observed to inhibit the UV-B-induced infiltration of proinflammatory leukocytes.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma and Katiyar 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a human reconstituted skin model, the isoflavone genistein was found to be photoprotective against UV-B induced pyrimidine dimer production and proliferating cell nuclear antigen expression.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Moore et al. 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They observed that this cocktail protects pig skin from photodamage as evaluated by sunburn cell development and erythema (Lin et al. 2008).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lin et al. 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Additionally, it demonstrated the ability to inhibit the binding activities of nuclear transcription factors NF-κB (nuclear factor kappa light chain enhancer of activated B cells) and activated protein (AP)-1, both induced by UV exposure.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kim et al. 2001 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 27
- It may state two separate claims as one. 50
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“The authors substantiated this by reporting that trend estimates of ultraviolet irradiance showed no significant difference during study periods”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chubarova et al. 2018 source
- Disputedcites Zhang et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.4 (page unavailable) reports statistically significant positive surface-UV trends in some regions and significant negative trends at ground-observation sites in the Northeast and Ohio River Valley. The Conclusion and discussion (page unavailable) also says estimated trends differ by sampling method. This contradicts the unqualified claim that trend estimates showed no significant difference. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Aun et al. 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The development of carcinoma depends on the UV-A and UV-B absorption by the superficial skin layers and is mainly responsible for oxidative damage to cellular DNA, proteins and lipids, via photosensitized reactions, which can lead to mutations in key cancer genes”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites D'Orazio et al. 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Photocarcinogenesis is the result of a series of simultaneous and sequential biochemical reactions that eventually result in skin cancer”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Subhadarshani et al. 2020 source
The Mechanisms of Photocarcinogenesis section describes a systematic sequence in which molecular and biochemical changes accumulate in keratinocytes, leading to basal and squamous cell carcinomas. Its initiation, promotion, and progression stages support the claim's description of a multistep process leading to skin cancer. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Physical ultraviolet filters, such as sunglasses and sun clothing, and chemical ultraviolet filters, such as sunscreen lotions, are both useful, but they do not offer comprehensive protection”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites D'Orazio et al. 2013 source
The Conclusions recommend sunscreen, protective clothing, hats and UV-protective sunglasses together. They also advise repeated sunscreen application and coverage of often-missed areas, supporting the point that these measures are useful but do not individually provide comprehensive protection. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites Ruszkiewicz et al. 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes chemical and physical UV filters as sunscreen ingredients used to minimize UV-related harm, and notes that melanoma prevalence has risen despite increasing sunscreen use. It does not identify sunglasses or sun clothing as physical UV filters or assess whether those items offer comprehensive protection. Instead, it names zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as physical filters. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites Garnacho Saucedo et al. 2020 source
The Photoprotective measures section describes clothing and sunglasses as effective physical barriers and says sunscreen minimizes UV damage but should not be used to justify longer sun exposure. The Chemical or organic sunscreens section describes UV protection from sunscreen ingredients, while the paper recommends combining these measures with shade and reduced exposure. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Sunscreens can induce side effects such as irritation, allergy and phototoxic reactions, affect the synthesis of vitamin D, generate reactive oxygen species and act as photosensitizers (DiNardo and Downs 2018;Ngoc et al. 2019;Neale et al. 2019;Passeron et al. 2019;Narla and Lim 2020;Suh et al. 2020).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites DiNardo and Downs 2018 source
- Partly supportedcites Ngoc et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.5 reports contact sensitivity, photoallergic dermatitis, and a possible reduction in vitamin D production from sunscreen use, while noting conflicting findings on vitamin D. Section 2.2 says sunscreen nanoparticles can produce reactive oxygen species. The review does not establish phototoxic reactions or that sunscreens act as photosensitizers; the latter term appears in a reference title. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Neale et al. 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“For example, sun protection factors 15, 30, 45 and 50 block/absorb the UV-B light 93.3%, 96.7%, 97.8% and 98.0%, respectively (Wilson et al. 2012).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Challenges
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Wilson et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction discusses surface UV radiation and its health impacts, but does not discuss sunscreen. Searches for SPF, sunscreen, and the four stated UV-B blocking percentages found no supporting passage in our copy. The citing sentence names Wilson et al. (2012), but our copy does not identify that work as the source of these figures. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Bernhard et al. (2020) reported that changes in ultraviolet radiation during the last twenty years have been generally minimal, resulting in less than 4% in a decade.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bernhard et al. 2020 source
Section 1.6 (p. 10) states that changes in UV radiation during the last 20 years have generally been small—less than approximately 4% per decade—with few exceptions. This supports the citing sentence’s paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Ultraviolet radiation has been shown to cause significant changes in the skin as well as modify immunological responses (Shen et al. 2016).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Shen et al. 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (“Transcriptomic responses to different UVR conditions”; page unavailable) reports substantial UV-induced gene-expression changes in cultured human keratinocytes, including enrichment of inflammatory-response and leukocyte-activation pathways. This supports changes in skin cells and immune-related gene expression, but the Discussion cautions that cultured cells do not capture interactions among cell types in vivo; the paper does not directly establish a modified immunological response in skin. (LLM, conf=0.84)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Indirect photolysis in an aquatic environment thereby generates toxins, like cyclodimers and benzoic acids, from the untreated effluents, with the consequence that aquatic life is greatly hampered.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Chatzigianni et al. 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Pathways of UV filters from sunscreens to the environment” section (page not provided) says direct or indirect photolysis can form harmful by-products, including substituted benzoic acids and cyclodimers. It also says wastewater effluents can carry residual UV agents into marine ecosystems. It does not specifically say these by-products form from untreated effluents or establish that the by-products themselves greatly hamper aquatic life. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“According to current research, skin microorganisms have an impact on gene expression in the skin and are responsible for training and adjusting its immunological response (Belkaid and Segre 2014;Meisel et al. 2018).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Belkaid and Segre 2014 source
- Supportedcites Meisel et al. 2018 source
The Discussion reports that microbial colonization changes gene expression in the skin and describes the microbiome as priming the cutaneous immune response. The Conclusions likewise state that the skin microbiome mediates immune-response processes at the transcriptional level. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Umar and Tasduq (2022) highlighted the positive impacts of ultraviolet radiation on human skin which ranges from the enhancement of melanogenesis that acts as natural sunscreen inherent in dark-skinned people, to ultraviolet radiation phototherapeutic treatment of inflamed cutaneous conditions.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Umar and Tasduq (2022) source
In “UV Induced Melanogenesis Acts as a Natural Sunscreen,” the paper says UV exposure promotes melanin synthesis and describes melanin’s photoprotective effect. In “UV Phototherapy in Treatment of Numerous Cutaneous Disorders,” it describes UV phototherapy for inflammatory skin conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. The comparison of skin-cancer incidence in White and Black subjects also supports the reference to darker skin. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Abundant melanin pigmentation and thicker dermis layer might help to shroud wrinkles, but indirect DNA lesions and oxidative stress are catalyzed by the availability of more melanin pigments”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lee 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2 says pheomelanin is phototoxic and promotes UV-induced damage, supporting a limited link between a type of melanin and skin damage. It also says eumelanin is photoprotective. The Introduction mentions wrinkles but does not say pigmentation or a thicker dermis conceals them; sections 3.1 and 3.2 do not establish that more melanin catalyzes oxidative stress or indirect DNA lesions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common type of non-melanoma skin cancer.It is responsible for roughly 20% of all skin cancer cases discovered”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Prasad et al. 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Abstract says basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are the two most common non-melanoma skin cancers, with basal cell carcinoma far more frequent. The Discussion reports that squamous cell carcinoma accounts for approximately 20% of cutaneous malignancies in lighter-skinned populations, particularly Caucasians; it does not establish that percentage for all skin cancer cases without that population qualifier. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Generally, there is abundant evidence that ultraviolet radiation is carcinogenic to humans, and it forms the major driver of other underlying medical conditions ranging from eye defects, sunburn, skin disorder and hair damage”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Grandi & D'Ovidio 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2 (page unavailable) identifies melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers among the best-known long-term effects of solar radiation and says effects on the skin and eyes are mostly attributed to UVA and UVB. It does not substantiate the full list in the claim: searches for sunburn and hair damage found no passage attributing those effects to UV radiation. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kim & Giovannucci 2020 source
- Partly supportedcites Moan et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'UV from sun and sunbeds' section identifies UVB's carcinogenic potential, supporting the cancer-risk portion of the claim. But 'Sun and cutaneous malignant melanoma' says the causal role of sun exposure in melanoma is disputed, and the cited passages do not establish UV as a major driver of eye defects, skin disorders, or hair damage. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Ultraviolet radiation has been shown to alter the composition and activity of the microbiota, as well as modulate cellular response and immunological function”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Patra et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Results (page unavailable) report that UV-B changes skin gene expression, cellular responses, and immune function, with effects that differ depending on whether a skin microbiome is present. They do not show that UV alters the composition or activity of the skin microbiota; the study compares mice with and without microbiomes rather than measuring UV-induced changes in the microbes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“According to an in vitro study, UV-B irradiation increased the number of human keratinocyte (HaCaT) cells in the gap 2-mitosis phase of the cell cycle, but pretreatment with sanguinarine dramatically shifted cells toward the synthesis phase.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Reagan-Shaw et al. 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not supplied) says UVB caused G2–M arrest in HaCaT cells and sanguinarine pretreatment caused significant S-phase arrest at 15 mJ/cm² UVB. At 30 mJ/cm², however, pretreatment caused G2–M arrest instead, so the claimed shift toward S phase needs a low-dose qualifier. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Porphyrins play a vital role in the function of hemoglobin, ultraviolet rays also directly affect cutaneous propionibacteria such as Propionibacterium acnes by reducing their porphyrin production (Wang et al. 2012).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wang et al. 2012 source
The Results section (“Porphyrin Production in P. acnes Serves as a Parameter of UV Radiation,” Figure 2) reports that porphyrin production in P. acnes fell as UV-B dose increased. The human facial bacteria results (Figure 4) also show a dose-dependent reduction after UV-B exposure. The cited evidence concerns UV-B specifically. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This finding was based on the 16S rDNA sequencing and reveals a decrease in the family Lactobacillaceae and Pseudomonadaceae while the phylum Cyanobacteria increased following ultraviolet radiation exposure (Burns et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Burns et al. 2019 source
The Methods (DNA isolation and microbiome analysis; page not provided) describe sequencing the V4 region of the 16S rDNA gene. The Results (UV exposure alters the skin microbiome; page not provided) report a general increase in Cyanobacteria and decreases in Lactobacillaceae and Pseudomonadaceae after UVA and UVB exposure, while noting some individual exceptions. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This enzyme possesses intriguing features that may be useful in lowering oxidative damage caused by ultraviolet exposure (Souak et al. 2021).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Souak et al. 2021 source
Section 4.2 identifies RoxP as an antioxidant enzyme and says it has properties that could be useful in reducing oxidative stress linked to UV exposure. The citing sentence preserves that tentative wording. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Phytochemicals may operate in a variety of ways, including being capable of absorbing the ultraviolet and act as filters, stimulating the immune system, triggering gene suppression, stopping oxidative DNA damage, detoxifying carcinogens and initiating specific signaling pathways (Vanhaelewyn et al. 2020).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Vanhaelewyn et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on phenolics (page unavailable) says flavonoids absorb UV radiation, filter harmful UV-B rays, and act as antioxidants. It also describes antimicrobial effects and plant defense responses. It does not support the full list of mechanisms attributed to phytochemicals, particularly stimulation of the immune system, gene suppression, prevention of oxidative DNA damage, or detoxification of carcinogens; the DNA Damage section instead discusses separate DNA-repair mechanisms. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Rabiei et al. showed that ultraviolet protection of workwear fabrics can be improved by coating titania nanoparticles (Rabiei et al. 2022).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rabiei et al. 2022 source
The Conclusion reports that TiO2-coated textiles had greater ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) values than uncoated textiles and explicitly concludes that coating workwear fabrics with TiO2 nanoparticles can improve their UV protection. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Also, oral photoprotectants do not offer full skin protection, but they provide a boost to set photoprotection in motion in living organisms (Torres-Contreras et al. 2022).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Torres-Contreras et al. 2022 source
Section 3, “Plant-Derived Molecules as Skin Photoprotection Agents” (page not provided), says oral photoprotectors do not directly protect the skin but can boost or activate its photoprotective mechanisms. This supports the citing sentence’s distinction between incomplete protection and a boost to the body’s defenses. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“About 52% of the reviewed articles, as shown in the Supplementary Material, addressed the impacts of ultraviolet radiation on biotic and abiotic environments, with major reports bordering on marine/aquatic life responses to the ultraviolet effect.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirty-four of the articles reviewed for this work presented findings on the beneficial and adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation on human health.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, chronic exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, especially UV-A and UV-B, generates oxidative stress and induces skin damage.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sardoiwala et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, its limitation in cosmetics applications is an uneven distribution on the skin due to lumping; thus, the uncovered areas are exposed to sunlight, not resistant to water, and easily washed off by sweating and water contact giving the skin a comparatively whiter than normal shade.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoprotection by ultraviolet filters
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saka and Chella 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, coal tar is used to treat psoriasis, which contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: It is applied topically to the skin followed by ultraviolet radiation exposure.This treatment has been implicated in the pathogenesis of acquiring skin cancer”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fu et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Photochemical and cytological studies suggested that para-aminobenzoic acid interacts with DNA following ultraviolet radiation and might potentiate photocarcinogenesis.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Sunscreen ingredients
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shaw et al. 1992 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons go through a series of photochemical processes that result in the production of reactive oxygen species and photoproducts, which can damage cell membranes and DNA, and cause cell death”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The application of sunscreen before exposure to ultraviolet radiation, prevents sunburn, skin damage as well as skin cancer (Medeiros and Lim 2010;Mancebo et al. 2014).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Challenges
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Medeiros and Lim 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mancebo et al. 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Occupational exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can induce breathing problems, chest pain and vexing coughing, as well as cancer”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Srivastav et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“According to studies, after ultraviolet radiation exposure, these ingredients become photosensitized and form toxic photoproducts, which causes genetic damage and apoptosis in skin cells”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Personal care products
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sunburn is caused mostly by UV-B, which is a substantial risk factor for skin cancer, particularly melanoma.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“UV-A causes genetic damage to cells, photoaging and immunosuppression when it penetrates deep into the dermis of the skin.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generally, ultraviolet radiation in form of UV-A and UV-B penetrates beyond the stratospheric ozone layer and delivers both beneficial and adverse effects on human health, plants, air quality, biogeochemical systems, and aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Ultraviolet radiation in ecosystems
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, physical and chemical measures of photoprotection are insufficient, and an alternative is necessary.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to a recent study, nabumetone, which is used as anti-inflammatory medicine, loses its function when exposed to UV-A and UV-B, and rises inflammatory markers”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Drugs and preservatives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Qureshi et al. 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It might be harmful to fetuses and children because it can be transmitted during suckling.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Anti-inflammatory drugs such as ketoprofen, naproxen showed phototoxic products and induce dermatological complications like photoallergic responses”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Drugs and preservatives
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Inadequate sunlight exposure induces the prevalence of cardio-metabolic diseases, resulting in low vitamin D synthesis in Africans and Asians residing in temperate regions”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davis 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although people with darker skin complexion experience less noticeable erythema symptoms manifest as redness of the skin or sunburn upon longer sunlight exposure, it is appropriate to say that carcinogenic threats and DNA damage can appear as malignant as those affecting people of lighter skin tones.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is most frequent in Caucasian populations and uncommon among Asians and African black races”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chu et al. 2007 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Photosensitized sunscreen agents lose their protection efficacy, trigger phototoxic reactions and induce skin cell damage”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With increasing overall lifetime exposure to sunlight/solar radiation, the risk of photocarcinogenesis in the head, neck, trunk and limbs rises.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Voriconazole and itraconazole are antifungal drugs that have been linked to liver damage, phototoxicity and cutaneous squamous cell cancer.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Drugs and preservatives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mujtaba et al. 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“UV-B, on the other hand, only penetrates the epidermis and damages cells.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly 80% of all occurrences of non-melanoma skin cancer are caused by basal cell carcinoma.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Usually, these chemical filters penetrate the skin, reach the circulatory system and can have a systemic action on the body and filters undergo changes and degradation”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photoprotection by ultraviolet filters
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saka and Chella 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It also observed that UV-B activation of chrysene enhances the intercellular oxidative stress and causes apoptosis by activating caspases-3 and phosphatidylserine translocation in skin cells.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Environmental pollutants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Srivastav et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The abundance of eumelanin in dark skin offers superior defense against UV-induced damage, with eumelanin being considered more effective in its photoprotective properties than pheomelanin (Gloster and Neal 2006).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gloster and Neal 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, photocarcinogenesis is dependent on a few factors, for example age, gender and the thickness of the skin.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the most common benefit known to be vitamin D synthesis”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Effect of ultraviolet radiation on human health and skin
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“After ultraviolet exposure, DNA damage, potent phospholipid activator formation factor and isomerization of inactive trans-to active cis-urocanic acid, are the primary key events in immunosuppression (Bernard et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bernard et al. 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Photosensitized methyl paraben and triclosan showed cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, arrest the cell cycle of skin cells and triggered apoptosis as well as plate sensitivity test showed a reduction in antibacterial activity”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Drugs and preservatives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dubey et al. 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has also been suggested that genistein could be used as a potent inhibitor for photocarcinogenesis (Moore et al. 2006).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Moore et al. 2006 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Some other studies reveal that cotton-based fabrics have excellent properties for ultraviolet protection (Kocić et al. 2019).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kocić et al. 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Grape seed proanthocyanidins belong to a class of phenolic compounds renowned for their potent antioxidant properties, safeguarding the body against premature aging, diseases and deterioration (Sharma et al. 2007).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma et al. 2007 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent study showed that anthocyanins against UV-B induced oxidative damage in keratinocyte cells and the activation of Nrf 2 (nuclear factor E2-related factor 2) signaling.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li et al. 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these findings should help researchers better understand how to treat ultraviolet-induced skin damage and other skin illnesses connected to microbiome changes or ultraviolet radiation exposure.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Findings from mouse and in vitro studies of phytochemical photoprotection generalize to human skin.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Modification of gene expression, activation or inactivation of regulatory pathways, immunological and inflammatory processes, and induction of apoptosis are all examples of photooxidative reactions that disrupt the function of cellular responses.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In textile manufacturing, polysorbate improved ultraviolet exposure protection and the esthetics of polyester fabric (Sk et al. 2022).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sk et al. 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Natural agents and secondary plant extracts have been elaborately discussed and presented to offer future prospects as sustainable options for sunscreen technology.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Natural agents can supplement the inadequacies of conventional sunscreens in ultraviolet radiation protection.
- Rests on an assumption: Findings from mouse and in vitro studies of phytochemical photoprotection generalize to human skin.
In the paper
“It has antimutagenic, anti-inflammatory and anticarcinogenic (Nandakumar et al. 2008) properties.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nandakumar et al. 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Piperine was also observed to lower ultraviolet radiation-mediated DNA damage, micronuclei creation and the sub-Gap 1 phase of the cell cycle, all of which helped to protect against photogenotoxicity.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verma et al. 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these studies show that ultraviolet radiation has significant qualitative and quantitative effects on the skin microbiota, potentially affecting skin pathology where ultraviolet radiation is a factor.”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Cross talk between skin microflora and ultraviolet radiation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
There are limited comprehensive review studies that specifically investigated alternative materials and new approaches to overcome the negative effects of using photoprotection, including protective ultraviolet agents made from synthetic materials, on human health and the ecosystem.
“To our knowledge, there are limited comprehensive review studies that specifically investigated the alternative materials as well as new approaches to overcome the negative effects of using photoprotection, including protective ultraviolet agents made from synthetic materials on human health and the ecosystem.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ultraviolet radiation is the most important risk factor for skin cancer.
“Still, ultraviolet radiation is the most important risk factor for skin cancer.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The natural skin protection mechanism is not effective after a short period of a few minutes, depending on skin type and the intensity of ultraviolet radiation.
“The natural skin protection mechanism is not effective after a short period of a few minutes, which also depends on the skin type and the intensity of ultraviolet radiation coming into that area.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sunscreen usage as a primary prevention approach has limited success in fully preventing skin disorders.
“As primary prevention approaches, sunscreen usage has shown limited success in fully preventing skin disorders.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Synthetic materials in sunscreen formulations are a threat to aquatic life, eco-sustainability and human health.
“Sunscreen formulation is characterized by synthetic materials that are a threat to aquatic life, eco-sustainability and human health.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Natural agents can supplement the inadequacies of conventional sunscreens in ultraviolet radiation protection.
“Natural agents are prepared to supplement the inadequacies of conventional sunscreens in ultraviolet radiation protection.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Findings from mouse and in vitro studies of phytochemical photoprotection generalize to human skin.
“The outcome of several experimental studies strongly suggests that these phytochemicals could be employed in therapeutic applications like cosmetics or medicine formulations to prevent ultraviolet-induced skin damage (Nguyen et al. 2022).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Variability in plant photoprotectant active ingredients is a trivial problem compared with their photoprotective prospects.
“However, this seems to be a trivial problem as the photoprotective prospects outweigh this uncertainty.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Introduction
“UV-B radiation has the ability to traverse the entire epidermis layer and reach the dermis compartment of the human skin, as represented in Fig. 1 (Romanhole et al. 2015;WHO Newsroom 2016).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Photocarcinogenesis
“UV-B, on the other hand, only penetrates the epidermis and damages cells.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > Natural agents and phytochemicals for photoprotection
“On the other hand, it protected the cell from apoptosis via modulating the tumor suppressor protein p53 and pro-apoptotic BAX (BCL-2-associated X protein), BAK (BCL-2 antagonist killer 1), BID (BCL-2-interacting domain death agonist) and BCL-2 (B-cell lymphoma-2) pathways (Reagan- Shaw et al. 2006).”
§ Skin protection from solar ultraviolet radiation using natural compounds: a review > References
“Enhancement of UVB radiation-mediated apoptosis by sanguinarine in HaCaT human immortalized keratinocytes.”
Citations
Cites
D'Orazio, J., Jarrett, S., Amaro-Ortiz, A., & Scott, T. (2013) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms140612222 · Cited by 1,984
The Protective Role of Melanin Against UV Damage in Human Skin †
Brenner, M., & Hearing, V. J. (2008) · Photochemistry and Photobiology · doi:10.1111/j.1751-1097.2007.00226.x · Cited by 1,741
The Role of Polyphenols in Human Health and Food Systems: A Mini-Review
Cory, H., Passarelli, S., Szeto, J., Tamez, M., & Mattei, J. (2018) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2018.00087 · Cited by 1,297
Nichols, J. A., & Katiyar, S. K. (2010) · Archives of Dermatological Research · doi:10.1007/s00403-009-1001-3 · Cited by 1,103
Dye Sensitizers for Photodynamic Therapy
Ormond, A., & Freeman, H. (2013) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma6030817 · Cited by 847
Krutmann, J., Bouloc, A., Sore, G., Bernard, B. A., & Passeron, T. (2017) · Journal of Dermatological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jdermsci.2016.09.015 · Cited by 768
Dialogue between skin microbiota and immunity
Belkaid, Y., & Segre, J. A. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1260144 · Cited by 749
Gloster, H. M., & Neal, K. (2006) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.08.063 · Cited by 668
Polymeric composite materials for radiation shielding: a review
More, C., Alsayed, Z., Badawi, M., Thabet, A., & Pawar, P. (2021) · Environmental Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1007/s10311-021-01189-9 · Cited by 638
The role of polyphenols in modern nutrition
Williamson, G. (2017) · Nutrition Bulletin · doi:10.1111/nbu.12278 · Cited by 551
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- de Paula CM, Germano Marciano A, Silveira Barreto Carvalho V et al (2021) Exposome extrinsic factors in the tropics: the need for skin protection beyond solar UV radiation. Sci Total Environ 782:146921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146921 · DOI
- Medeiros VLS, Lim HW (2010) Sunscreens in the management of photodermatoses. Skin Therapy Lett 15:1–3
- Wilson BD, Moon S, Armstrong F (2012) Comprehensive review of ultraviolet radiation and the current status on sunscreens. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 5:18–23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3460660/ · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Textile dyeing using natural mordants and dyes: a review
Repon, M., Dev, B., Rahman, M. A., Jurkonienė, S., Haji, A., Alim, M., & Kumpikaitė, E. (2024) · Environmental Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1007/s10311-024-01716-4 · Cited by 158
Gholap, A. D., Pardeshi, S. R., Hatvate, N. T., Dhorkule, N., Sayyad, S. F., Faiyazuddin, M., & Khalid, M. (2024) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142235 · Cited by 44
Impacts of ultraviolet irradiation on asphalt binder: a comprehensive review
He, Y., Hu, Q., Zhao, X., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Pavement Engineering · doi:10.1080/10298436.2025.2472839 · Cited by 37
Environmental & health impacts of ultraviolet radiation: current trends and mitigation strategies
Mmbando, G. S., & Ngongolo, K. (2024) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-024-00698-1 · Cited by 39
Mustafa, Y. F. (2024) · Journal of Molecular Structure · doi:10.1016/j.molstruc.2024.139806 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Verma, A., Zanoletti, A., Kareem, K. Y., Adelodun, B., Kumar, P., Ajibade, F. O., Silva, L. F. O., Phillips, A. J., Kartheeswaran, T., Bontempi, E., & Dwivedi, A.
- Affiliations
- Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (IN)
- National Interuniversity Consortium of Materials Science and Technology (IT)
- Kyungpook National University (KR)
- University of Ilorin (NG)
- Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya (IN)
- Federal University of Technology (NG)
- Corresponding author
- Verma, Ankit
- Zanoletti, Alessandra
- Adelodun, Bashir
- ORCID
- Venue
- Environmental Chemistry Letters
- Published
- 2023-09-15
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 273-295
- ISSN
- 1610-3653 (ISSN-L)
- 1610-3661
- OpenAlex
- W4386773922
- Semantic Scholar
- e5b358635f7023ad730cc050c7380e9361e95aa9
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 174
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 28.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Environmental Chemistry Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- eCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
- Greater South Information System
- Funders
- Università degli Studi di Brescia
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Protection and Aging
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry (medical) › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
- Keywords
- skin photoprotection, solar ultraviolet radiation, phytochemicals, sunscreen ingredients, phototoxicity, photocarcinogenesis, photoallergy, photostability, antioxidants, personal care products, preservatives, pollutants
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
