Cited by 162Skin Protection and Agingmelanin and skin pigmentationNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies

Sunscreens Inadequately Protect Against Ultraviolet-A-Induced Free Radicals in Skin: Implications for Skin Aging and Melanoma?

Open access
Haywood, Rachel, Wardman, Peter, Sanders, Roy, Linge, Claire·2003·Journal of Investigative Dermatology

Abstract

Sunscreens are employed to mitigate the adverse effects of sunlight on skin but are primarily designed to prevent ultraviolet-B-associated burning and damage. The increasingly recognized role of ultraviolet A in aging, and possibly melanoma, highlights the need to include ultraviolet A screens; however, validation remains difficult. We have used a novel method to establish the efficacy of sunscreens, by measuring ultraviolet-A-induced free-radical production (thought to contribute towards ultraviolet-A-related aging and malignant change). Electron spin resonance spectroscopy was used to detect free radicals directly in human Caucasian skin during irradiation with levels of ultraviolet comparable to solar intensities. Using this system the protection afforded by three high factor sunscreens (sun protection factor 20+) that claim ultraviolet A protection was examined. Each sunscreen behaved similarly: at recommended application levels (> or = 2 mg per cm2) the ultraviolet-induced free radicals were reduced by only about 55%, and by about 45% at 0.5-1.5 mg per cm (0.5 mg per cm2 reported for common usage). A "free-radical protection factor" calculated on the basis of these results was only 2 at the recommended application level, which contrasts strongly with the erythema-based sun protection factors (mainly indicative of ultraviolet B protection) quoted by the manufacturers (20+). The disparity between these protection factors suggests that prolonged sunbathing (encouraged by use of these creams) would disproportionately increase exposure to ultraviolet A and consequently the risk of ultraviolet-A-related skin damage.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12498.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent study of three high SPF broad-screen sunscreens revealed that at 2 mg per cm2 application, UVA-induced free radical formation was reduced only 55% with even worse protection when application levels were decreased.

    “Indeed a recent study of three high SPF broad-screen sunscreens revealed that at 2 mg per cm 2 application, UVAinduced free radical formation was reduced only 55% with even worse protection when application levels were decreased (Haywood et al, 2003).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Buettner GR, Jurkiewicz BA: Ascorbate radical: A valuable marker of oxidative stress. In: Favier AE, Cadet J, Kalyanaraman B, Fontecave M, Pierre J-L, (eds.) Anal of Free Radicals in Biological Systems. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, 1995;
  2. Calvert JG and Pitts JN: Photochemistry. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966
  3. Lim HW, Naylor M, Honigsmann H, et al: American Academy of Dermatology Consensus Conference on UVA protection of sunscreens: Summary and re- commendations. Washington, DC, Feb 4, 2000. J Am Acad Dermatol 44: 505^508, 2001
  4. McKinlay AF, Di¡ey BL: A reference action spectrum for ultraviolet induced ery- thema in human skin. In: Passchier WF, Bosnjakovich BFM, (eds.) Human Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation: Risks and Regulations. International Congress Series, 1987;
  5. Packer L: Ultraviolet radiation (UVA, UVB) and skin antioxidants. In: Rice-Evans CA, Burdon RH, (eds.) Free Radical Damage and its Control, Amsterdam: Else- vier Science, 1994
  6. Valenzeno DP, Pottier RH, Mathis P, Douglas RH (eds): Photobiological Techniques. NATO ASI Series A, Life Sciences 216. New York: Plenum Press, 1991;
  7. 50^54 Wang SQ, Setlow R, Berwick M, Polsky D, Marghoob AA, Kopf AW, Bart RS: Ultraviolet A and melanoma: A review. J Am Acad Dermatol 44:837^846, 2001

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haywood, R., Wardman, P., Sanders, R., & Linge, C.
Affiliations
Mount Vernon Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Haywood, Rachel
Venue
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-10
Volume
121
Issue
4
Pages
862-868
ISSN
0022-202X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2030827853
Cited by
162
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 8
FWCI
9.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Investigative Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK
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 › Epidemiology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Keywords
sunscreen, UVA, free radicals, skin aging, melanoma, sun protection factor, sunscreen efficacy, human skin, sunbathing, ultraviolet radiation
MeSH terms
Free Radicals, Humans, Melanoma, Skin, Skin Neoplasms, Sunscreening Agents, Ultraviolet Rays, Reproducibility of Results, Skin Aging, Oxidative Stress, In Vitro Techniques

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.

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