Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Comparison between evaluation methods from sun protection factors.

Authors: M C, Martini;

Comparison between evaluation methods from sun protection factors.

Abstract

Objective methods for evaluation of Sun Protection Factors (SPF) are numerous. Only the most used methods both in vitro and in vivo will be described. The results obtained with different types of spectrophotometric methods (solution, thin layer over quartz slides or measurement of transmittance and diffusion after coating with emulsions over the stratum corneum) show that only the last method, which involves an integration sphere, is able to give data in good correlation with in vivo Sun protection factors. Among in vivo methods, the animal of choice is the albino guinea pig, because of its sensitivity and erythemateous reactions similar to those of human skin. Nevertheless, this method is only reliable for product screening and true SPF values must be determined on humans. Two official methods, the American (FDA) and the German (DIN 67501). are described with advantages and disadvantages. In Fine, a new method which is a combination of these two methods is proposed. Twenty people are irradiated by a Xenon lamp which emits about 0.60 mw/cm(2) of UVB, 3.5 mw cm(-2) for UVA and IR, sufficient to obtain a temperature of 35 degrees C of the skin surface. The product is applied on the back of volunteers in quantity of 1 mg/cm(-2). Test zones have a surface of 2.25 cm(2). Irradiation begins 10 min after application of the product and the exposure times are increased from zone to zone following a geometric progression, with 1.25 as ratio. Two standard prepara- tions are used, one with SPF=4, the other with SPF=9-10. Erythema is evaluated visually 16 to 24 h after irradiation. Each SPF is determined using the classical ratio MED with sunscreenlMED without sunscreen and the geometrical mean is calculated to obtain the definitive value of SPF.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    3
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
3
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!