The European standard for sun-protective clothing: EN 13758
Abstract
Clothing is considered one of the most important tools for sun protection. Contrary to popular opinion, however, some summer fabrics provide insufficient ultraviolet (UV) protection. The European Committee for Standardization (CEN), has developed a new standard on requirements for test methods and labelling of sun‐protective garments. This document has now been completed and is published. Within CEN, a working group, CEN/TC 248 WG14 ‘UV protective clothing’, was set up with the mission to produce standards on the UV‐protective properties of textile materials. This working group started its activities in 1998 and included 30 experts (dermatologists, physicists, textile technologists, fabric manufacturers and retailers of apparel textiles) from 11 European member states. Within this working group, all medical, ethical, technical and economical aspects of standardization of UV‐protective clothing were discussed on the basis of the expertise of each member and in consideration of the relevant literature in this field. Decisions were made in consensus. The first part of the standard (EN 13758‐1) deals with all details of test methods (e.g. spectrophotometric measurements) for textile materials and part 2 (EN 13758‐2) covers classification and marking of apparel textiles. UV‐protective cloths for which compliance with this standard is claimed must fulfill all stringent instructions of testing, classification and marking, including a UV protection factor (UPF) larger than 40 (UPF 40+), average UVA transmission lower than 5%, and design requirements as specified in part 2 of the standard. A pictogram, which is marked with the number of the standard EN 13758‐2 and the UPF of 40+, shall be attached to the garment if it is in compliance with the standard. The dermatology community should take cognizance of this new standard document. Garment manufacturers and retailers may now follow these official guidelines for testing and labelling of UV‐protective summer clothes, and the sun‐aware consumer can easily recognize garments that definitely provide sufficient UV protection.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The European standard created a requirement for UVA transmission, which had to be less than 5%.
“It also created a requirement for UVA transmission, which had to be less than 5%.”
From Photoprotection: a Review of the Current and Future Technologies (2010) · cites this paper as [16]
The European standard did not factor in the effect of stretching and wetness in the UPF assessment.
“However, the standard did not factor in the effect of stretching and wetness in the UPF assessment; the Committee felt that clothing with a UPF > 40 would be adequate to compensate for these factors.”
From Photoprotection: a Review of the Current and Future Technologies (2010) · cites this paper as [16]
A cutoff of 40+ was set as the minimum UPF value allowed.
“In addition, a cutoff of 40+ was set as the minimum UPF value allowed.”
From Photoprotection: a Review of the Current and Future Technologies (2010) · cites this paper as [16]
The European Committee for Standardization stipulated that clothing with a UPF label must cover the area from the neck to the hip, across the shoulders, and three quarters of the upper arm.
“The Committee stipulated the clothing with UPF label must cover the area from the neck to the hip, across the shoulders, and three quarters of the upper arm.”
From Photoprotection: a Review of the Current and Future Technologies (2010) · cites this paper as [16]
The UPF standard was later adopted and refined by the European Committee for Standardization in 2003.
“This standard was first developed and published in Australia in 1996 (14), and it was later adopted and refined by the European Committee for Standardization in 2003 (16).”
From Photoprotection: a Review of the Current and Future Technologies (2010) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
Gambichler, T., Hatch, K. L., Avermaete, A., Altmeyer, P., & Hoffmann, K. (2002) · Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0781.2002.180105.x · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Photoprotection: a Review of the Current and Future Technologies
Wang, S. Q., Balagula, Y., & Osterwalder, U. (2010) · Dermatologic Therapy · doi:10.1111/j.1529-8019.2009.01289.x · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Reply: Matters Arising ‘Investigating sources of inaccuracy in wearable optical heart rate sensors’
Bent, B., Enache, O. M., Goldstein, B., Kibbe, W., & Dunn, J. P. (2021) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00409-4 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gambichler, T., Laperre, J., & Hoffmann, K.
- Affiliations
- Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
- Centexbel (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Gambichler, T
- Venue
- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-01-11
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 125-130
- ISSN
- 0926-9959 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3083
- OpenAlex
- W2023946667
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Protection and Aging
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Polymers and Plastics › Textile materials and evaluations
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular and Laser Science Research
- Keywords
- sun-protective clothing, UV protection factor, UV-protective textiles, clothing classification, sun protection
- MeSH terms
- European Union, Humans, Materials Testing, Protective Clothing, Sunburn, Textiles, Ultraviolet Rays, Reproducibility of Results
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
