Education, Science, Technology, Innovation and Life
Open Access
Sign In

Comparative Evaluation of UV Spectrophotometry for Sun Protection Factor (SPF) Determination in a Reproducible in Vitro Method

Download as PDF

DOI: 10.23977/analc.2025.040106 | Downloads: 0 | Views: 34

Author(s)

Hanxuan Kong 1

Affiliation(s)

1 Shanghai Shangde Experimental School, Shanghai, China

Corresponding Author

Hanxuan Kong

ABSTRACT

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is a recognized carcinogen, with UVA (320–400 nm) and UVB (290–320 nm) contributing to photoaging, skin damage, and cancer. Sunscreens mitigate these risks, but there are discrepancies between labeled and actual Sun Protection Factor (SPF) values. This study employed UV–Vis spectrophotometry to assess SPF accuracy and photostability of commercial formulations under dark storage and natural sunlight over three weeks. Most products showed measured SPF values consistent with labels, though SkinBoard and L’Oréal were significantly lower, and Vaseline Brightening Skin Isolation fell within an acceptable deviation. SPF values declined across all samples, with slower reductions under dark storage. Dabao Watery Multi-action displayed the highest photostability, while SkinBoard declined most rapidly. These results prove UV–Vis spectrophotometry as a reliable, ethical alternative to in vivo testing and emphasize the need for improved quality control and photostability in sunscreen development.

KEYWORDS

Ultraviolet Radiation, Sunscreen, SPF, UV–Vis Spectrophotometry, Photostability, Labeling Accuracy

CITE THIS PAPER

Hanxuan Kong, Comparative Evaluation of UV Spectrophotometry for Sun Protection Factor (SPF) Determination in a Reproducible in Vitro Method. Analytical Chemistry: A Journal (2025) Vol. 4: 40-46. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/analc.2025.040106.

REFERENCES

[1] International Agency for Research on Cancer (2012). Solar and Ultraviolet Radiation. [online] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. International Agency for Research on Cancer.
[2] Meyers, R. (2001). Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology. ScienceDirect.
[3] Gray, N.F. (2014). Ultraviolet Disinfection. Microbiology of Waterborne Diseases, pp.617–630.
[4] Aislyn Oulee, Ahn, G.S., Javadi, S.S. and Wu, J.J. (2023). Phototherapy and DNA Damage: A Systematic Review. The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, [online] 16(6), p.55. 
[5] Matta, M. K., et al. (2015). Comparison of Sunscreen SPF Determination Methods: A Study on Various Approaches and Technologies. Dermatologic Therapy.
[6] Brar, G., Dhaliwal, A., Brar, A.S., Manasa Sreedevi, Ahmadi, Y., Irfan, M., Golbari, R., Zumárraga, D., Yateem, D., Lysak, Y. and Abarca-Pineda, Y.A. (2025). A Comprehensive Review of the Role of UV Radiation in Photoaging Processes Between Different Types of Skin. Cureus, [online] 17(3).
[7] Al-Sadek, T. and Yusuf, N. (2024). Ultraviolet Radiation Biological and Medical Implications. Current Issues in Molecular Biology, [online] 46(3), pp.1924–1942.
[8] Emri, G., Paragh, G. and Tósaki, A. (2018). Ultraviolet radiation-mediated development of cutaneous melanoma: An update. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, [online] 185, pp.169–175. 
[9] Young, A.R. (1997). Chromophores in human skin. Physics in Medicine and Biology, [online] 42(5), pp.789–802.
[10] Amaro-Ortiz, A., Yan, B. and D’Orazio, J. (2014). Ultraviolet Radiation, Aging and the Skin: Prevention of Damage by Topical cAMP Manipulation. Molecules, [online] 19(5), pp.6202–6219.
[11] Lopes, D.M. and McMahon, S.B. (2015). Ultraviolet Radiation on the Skin: A Painful Experience? CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, [online] 22(2), pp.118–126.
[12] Krull, U.J. and Thompson, Michael. (2003). Analytical Chemistry. Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, pp.543–579.
[13] Wilson, B.D., Moon, S. and Armstrong, F. (2012). Comprehensive Review of Ultraviolet Radiation and the Current Status on Sunscreens. The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, [online] 5(9), p.18.
[14] González, S., Aguilera, J., Berman, B., Calzavara-Pinton, P., Gilaberte, Y., Goh, C.-L., Lim, H.W., Schalka, S., Stengel, F., Wolf, P. and Xiang, F. (2022). Expert Recommendations on the Evaluation of Sunscreen Efficacy and the Beneficial Role of Non-filtering Ingredients. Frontiers in Medicine, 9.
[15] Mansur, J. A., et al. (2007). Evaluation of sun protection factor (SPF) using spectrophotometry and its application to sunscreen products. International Journal of Cosmetic Science.
[16] Tsai, Y. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2005). Determination of Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of Sunscreen Products by UV Spectrophotometry. Journal of Cosmetic Science.
[17] Shen, L., Pang, P., Zhong, M., Sun, Y., Qayum, A., Liu, Y., Rashid, A., Xu, B., Ma, H., Ma, H. and Ren, X. (2023). A comprehensive review of Ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE) for bioactive components: principles, advantages, equipment, and combined technologies. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 101, pp.106646.
[18] Xu, W., Yu, H., Yang, F., Yang, F., Liu, D., Lu, K., Gao, H. and Song, Y. (2022). Second derivative UV–visible spectroscopy characterizing structural components of dissolved and particulate organic matter in an urbanized river. Environmental Sciences Europe, 34(1).
[19] Prasad, A.A. and Kay, M. (2020). Assessment of Simulated Solar Irradiance on Days of High Intermittency Using WRF-Solar. Energies, 13(2), p.385.
[20] Fitzpatrick, T. B. (1988). The validity and practicality of sun protection factor (SPF) determination in sunscreens. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.
[21] Berardesca, E., et al. (2003). Evaluation of the effectiveness of sunscreens by skin color and sun protection factor. International Journal of Dermatology.

Downloads: 1253
Visits: 70497

Sponsors, Associates, and Links


All published work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2016 - 2031 Clausius Scientific Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.