Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,603
Registered: ‎05-22-2016

Re: UV Protector for the face

[ Edited ]

Recent studies have shown that mineral (physical) sunscreens do not protect you as much as the chemical types. People are getting burned while using some brands of mineral sunscreens. The complaints about it are compelling...so much so that many derms are now recommending chemical sunscreens. For myself, at the high elevation where I live, I use a chemical sunscreen b/c I cannot afford to take the risk.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,736
Registered: ‎02-19-2014

Re: UV Protector for the face


@SilleeMee wrote:

Recent studies have shown that mineral (physical) sunscreens do not protect you as much as the chemical types. People are getting burned while using some brands of mineral sunscreens. The complaints about it are compelling...so much so that many derms are now recommending chemical sunscreens. For myself, at the high elevation where I live, I use a chemical sunscreen b/c I cannot afford to take the risk.


@SilleeMee I notice you've said this several times. You've got my attention! If you have a chance, could you please link to the studies you are referring to? I did a search and did not find anything from credible sources such as the Mayo Clinic, the FDA, or The Skincancer Foundation that indicated people should not use inorganic sunscreens due to ineffectiveness. Which sunscreens are people getting burned by? I'd love to read what you found. Heart

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,603
Registered: ‎05-22-2016

Re: UV Protector for the face

@Porcelain 

I'll try to find something for you. But in the meantime, my info comes from recent news segments and one episode of Dr. Oz where a derm talked about sunscreens. 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,603
Registered: ‎05-22-2016

Re: UV Protector for the face

[ Edited ]

@Porcelain 

It's not so much that the physical sunscreens are less effective but rather how they are being applied. Sunscreen manufacturers are micronizing their UV blocking particles in order to make them more aesthetically appealing on the skin. But the fact of the matter is that people do not apply enough of a physical sunscreen to get complete protection because when they do apply the correct amounts then it makes them look bad. 

 

Here's a section out of a pub dated Jan/2019 from the NIH dot gov site:

 

"The mechanism of action of physical sunscreen is based on the reflection and scattering of UV light in much the same way as clothing. The reflective properties determine the effectiveness of the sunscreens. These properties include the reflective index, the size of the particles, the film thickness, and the dispersion of base. The higher the reflective index, the better the UV filter. Decreasing the size of the particles to a micronized form (10 to 50 nm) is more cosmetically appealing but leads to protection of shorter wavelengths and increases the risk of systemic absorption.[8] A thick coating increases the degree of reflection but is cosmetically less appealing. Iron oxide can be added to increase absorption and improve UVA protection. Physical sunscreens consist of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.[3]

Microfine zinc oxide protects against a wide range of UVA including UVA 1 (340 to 400 nm). It is very photostable and does not react with other UV filters. It is more effective than titanium dioxide in regards to UVA protection [3]; however, it is less efficient against UVB radiation.[5]

Microfine titanium dioxide protects against UVA 2 (315-340 nm) and UVB, but does not protect against UVA 1 as does zinc oxide .[5] It has a smaller particle size and higher refractive index than zinc oxide, causing it to appear white and making it cosmetically less appealing. Photochemical reactions cause zinc oxide and titanium dioxide to become less effective as a sunscreen. For this reason, silica and dimethicone coat these particles, stabilizing these inorganic filters.[3] "

 

 

 

That is from this pub:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537164/

Honored Contributor
Posts: 9,139
Registered: ‎04-16-2010

Re: UV Protector for the face

Dr. Dennis Gross SPF 50 physical block (he also offers an spf 50 chemical). Best I have found. Been using it for 5 years.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,603
Registered: ‎05-22-2016

Re: UV Protector for the face

[ Edited ]

@Porcelain 

Here's an interesting pub about micro-sized titanium dioxide (used in cosmetics)....it's about the toxicity of it, not about UV protection.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30383985

 

If it's not one thing, it's another....(eye roll).

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,736
Registered: ‎02-19-2014

Re: UV Protector for the face

@SilleeMee Thank you! I can't pretend to know anywhere near as much as you about chemistry by a long shot. I'm not a pro, and you are.

 

From what I understand, that portion of that document is talking about the smallest size of nanoparticles: "10 to 50 nm." The mineral sunscreen I use contains a blend of different sized nano and micronized particles. It is broad spectrum and the titanium dioxide is between 10 and 100 nm and the zinc oxide is between 30 and 200 nm, SPF 50 and PA++++, water resistant for 80 minutes, and contains 22.5% zinc oxide and 22.5% titanium dioxide. The dosage level is two full passes of the powder. I use that much and it looks great and does not look odd after reapplying later on.

 

I saw one study that found titanium dioxide was less effective than avobenzone, but the percentage of titanium dioxide they used in the test was only 5%. I don't think that was a fair comparison because that low of a percentage would not be effective enough to legally be considered effective sunscreen. Plus, that study found that 5% zinc oxide was as effective as 3% avobenzone. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20806994

 

Regarding coatings and pigments, the new Colorscience Enviroshield technology claims to fix that. Still not clear on the how, since it seems to be very proprietary info. This is the paper they recently published in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jocd.13007

 

 

But of course, I think we all agree the best sunscreen is the one you will actually use. I don't think it is a good idea to discourage use of physical or chemical sunscreen. I personally don't care one iota which format of sunscreen people choose as long as it is a reputable brand, they apply it as directed, and they are willing to use it every dang day.

 

(If I have more to say, I'll just add it here by editing. Do not want to derail or turn the thread tedious!  Woman Wink)

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,614
Registered: ‎09-01-2010

Re: UV Protector for the face


@SilleeMee wrote:

@Porcelain 

Here's an interesting pub about micro-sized titanium dioxide (used in cosmetics)....it's about the toxicity of it, not about UV protection.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30383985

 

If it's not one thing, it's another....(eye roll).


@SilleeMee @Porcelain 

 

Oh my!!! I've been wearing Perricone's Photo Plasma and the new version of it for years because it contains titanium dioxide and not zinc oxide because from what I understand zinc oxide is toxic to dogs and I have a little Yorkie that loves to give me kisses on my face... now what to do. 

 

I always thought that a physical sunscreen was better than a chemical one, now I don't know what to do or which chemical sunscreen to change to... 

 

Indeed... if it's not one thing, it's another!!!

Quarrels end, but words once spoken never die... African Proverb
Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,603
Registered: ‎05-22-2016

Re: UV Protector for the face

@Tennessee Vol 

Just keep doing what you're doing and not to worry.  We have enough of others things to worry about....seriously. Woman Happy

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,736
Registered: ‎02-19-2014

Re: UV Protector for the face


@Tennessee Vol wrote:

@SilleeMee wrote:

@Porcelain 

Here's an interesting pub about micro-sized titanium dioxide (used in cosmetics)....it's about the toxicity of it, not about UV protection.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30383985

 

If it's not one thing, it's another....(eye roll).


@SilleeMee @Porcelain 

 

Oh my!!! I've been wearing Perricone's Photo Plasma and the new version of it for years because it contains titanium dioxide and not zinc oxide because from what I understand zinc oxide is toxic to dogs and I have a little Yorkie that loves to give me kisses on my face... now what to do. 

 

I always thought that a physical sunscreen was better than a chemical one, now I don't know what to do or which chemical sunscreen to change to... 

 

Indeed... if it's not one thing, it's another!!!


Totally. There is no perfect sunscreen. There is a downside to every single sunscreen ingredient. There are ingredients in use may be slightly toxic under certain circumstances and in one respect, but have important reasons for being present in a formulation and that are balanced with other ingredients to reverse or overwhelm the toxicity. Formulating sunscreen --since it is almost like a medicine, with people's health at stake-- ain't no joke.

 

But the one thing we know for sure that is extremely toxic to cells and can kill you is choosing not to choose -- and wearing no sunscreen at all and getting your cells microwaved by the sun. Not saying that is you @Tennessee VolWoman Wink

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr