Past, Present, and Future of Sun Protection Metrics.

Current problems in dermatology Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-25 DOI:10.1159/000517667
Christian Surber, Steffen Uhlig, Colson Bertrand, Jürgen Vollhardt, Uli Osterwalder
{"title":"Past, Present, and Future of Sun Protection Metrics.","authors":"Christian Surber,&nbsp;Steffen Uhlig,&nbsp;Colson Bertrand,&nbsp;Jürgen Vollhardt,&nbsp;Uli Osterwalder","doi":"10.1159/000517667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the beginning of the development of sunscreen products, efforts have been made to measure and quantify the protection performance of such products. Early on an in vivo method was established that allowed statements on the sun protection performance in humans. Later, by establishing defined basic and experimental conditions, the method became internationally standardized delivering the well-known sun protection factor (SPF). The method was widely used and is nowadays regarded as a gold-standard method. Further standardized methods were added shortly thereafter. However, shortcomings such as the confined radiation spectra used by the methods, the invasiveness, the complexity in their application, as well as their time- and cost-intensity promoted the development of alternative methods. The shortcomings were recently followed by another, namely, the large interlaboratory variances of the sun protection metrics SPFISO 24444. This all together shows that there is a justifiable need to explore the potential of alternative methods, to complement the existing methods, to serve as equivalents, or even to replace it in the future. Based on the work of Uhlig and coworkers, the authors propose to test the suitability of the alternative methods and their possible equivalency to the reference methods in a broad-based investigation, taking into account possible interlaboratory variances. A research program - developed by a consortium - is in public planning where stakeholders from research, industry, authorities, and the public can come together to facilitate and further advance standardization of the measurement of the sun protection performance. The authors give an insight into historical, technical--conceptual, and future developments of methods for -determining the protective performance of sun protection products.</p>","PeriodicalId":11010,"journal":{"name":"Current problems in dermatology","volume":"55 ","pages":"170-187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current problems in dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000517667","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Since the beginning of the development of sunscreen products, efforts have been made to measure and quantify the protection performance of such products. Early on an in vivo method was established that allowed statements on the sun protection performance in humans. Later, by establishing defined basic and experimental conditions, the method became internationally standardized delivering the well-known sun protection factor (SPF). The method was widely used and is nowadays regarded as a gold-standard method. Further standardized methods were added shortly thereafter. However, shortcomings such as the confined radiation spectra used by the methods, the invasiveness, the complexity in their application, as well as their time- and cost-intensity promoted the development of alternative methods. The shortcomings were recently followed by another, namely, the large interlaboratory variances of the sun protection metrics SPFISO 24444. This all together shows that there is a justifiable need to explore the potential of alternative methods, to complement the existing methods, to serve as equivalents, or even to replace it in the future. Based on the work of Uhlig and coworkers, the authors propose to test the suitability of the alternative methods and their possible equivalency to the reference methods in a broad-based investigation, taking into account possible interlaboratory variances. A research program - developed by a consortium - is in public planning where stakeholders from research, industry, authorities, and the public can come together to facilitate and further advance standardization of the measurement of the sun protection performance. The authors give an insight into historical, technical--conceptual, and future developments of methods for -determining the protective performance of sun protection products.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
防晒指标的过去、现在和未来。
自防晒产品开发之初,人们就努力测量和量化防晒产品的防护性能。早期建立了一种体内方法,允许对人体防晒性能的陈述。后来,通过建立明确的基础和实验条件,该方法在国际上标准化,提供了众所周知的防晒系数(SPF)。这种方法被广泛使用,现在被认为是一种金标准方法。此后不久又增加了进一步的标准化方法。然而,这些方法所使用的局限辐射光谱、侵入性、应用复杂性以及时间和成本强度等缺点促使了替代方法的发展。最近,另一个缺点紧随其后,即防晒指标SPFISO 24444的实验室间差异很大。所有这些都表明,有理由需要探索替代方法的潜力,以补充现有方法,作为等效方法,甚至在将来取代它。基于Uhlig及其同事的工作,作者建议在广泛的调查中测试替代方法的适用性及其与参考方法的可能等效性,同时考虑到可能的实验室间差异。一个由一个联盟开发的研究项目是在公共规划中,来自研究、工业、当局和公众的利益相关者可以聚集在一起,促进和进一步推进防晒性能测量的标准化。作者对确定防晒产品防护性能的方法的历史、技术概念和未来发展进行了深入分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Auxiliary Utensils in Cosmetic and Medical Tattoo Settings. Static and Dynamic Anatomy of the Face, in Particular Eyebrows, Eyelids and Lips. Stretch Mark Treatment by Tattooing and Microneedling. On the Use, Effectiveness, and Safety of Face Masks, Gloves, and Disinfectants to Prevent Transfer of Microbials between the Tattooist and the Customer: A Practical Review of Pros and Cons Including the Occupational Safety of the Tattooist. Microblading Technique for Tattooing of "Hairstrokes" That Simulate Natural Hair: Eyebrow Tattooing and Correction of Medical Conditions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1