Premium
Sunscreen sun protection factor claim based on in vivo interlaboratory variability
Author(s) -
Miksa S.,
Lutz D.,
Guy C.,
Delamour E.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
international journal of cosmetic science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.532
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1468-2494
pISSN - 0142-5463
DOI - 10.1111/ics.12333
Subject(s) - sun protection factor , in vivo , population , sun protection , sunscreening agents , statistics , mathematics , biology , medicine , microbiology and biotechnology , dermatology , cancer , skin cancer , genetics , environmental health
Objective The SPF (sun protection factor) is the best known reference in the world for expressing UVB protection. The SPF is used for labelling purposes for consumer guidance. The determination of the SPF is often accomplished using an in vivo method that has been standardized. Only one in vivo SPF value from one laboratory is required for claiming an SPF value. The aim of this study was to determine the relevance of the in vivo SPF value in terms of interlaboratory variability for claiming purposes and to determine whether some minimum number of different in vivo SPF values from different laboratories would improve the reliability of the final SPF claimed. Methods A large population of 44 different commercially available sunscreen formulations from the European market has been investigated, covering various product types. The majority of the SPF values claimed ranged from 15 to 50+. For each product, at least three different in vivo SPF values tested in different laboratories have been gathered, and a variety of statistical analyses have been performed. Results For each SPF category from the average of all samples, the minimum and maximum in vivo ‐measured SPF values from the different laboratories would lead to labels claiming different levels of SPF for the same product. Indeed, with coefficients of variation for in vivo SPF determinations that exceed 50% in some cases, as an example, the same product could in reality be claimed to be SPF 30, SPF 50 or SPF 50+. Conclusion In this study, the authors demonstrated that using only one in vivo SPF value from one laboratory may actually challenge the reliability of the final SPF claim significantly. To reduce the consumer health risk by ensuring the reliability of the SPF claim, an average from at least 3 (ideally 4) different in vivo SPF values should be compulsory.