| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:52 pm  |
| CookieD wrote: |
Here is a very long 5 part series about different sunscreens that is worth reading about if you get the chance.
The author ends up liking physical sunscreen/inorganic best but this is a quote I have a question about.
"However, in terms of UVB protection, TiO2 is significantly better than ZnO! This study (5) suggests that ZnO can’t achieve an SPF of higher than 10, while TiO2 reached an SPF of 38. While these numbers aren’t absolute, they do support the above mentioned claim."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18271305
Does anyone have full access to this study instead of the Abstract? I have been using some sunscreens with only ZO and some with TI and ZO mixed. It would seem from this study that the mixed sunscreens would provide better overall (both UVA and UVB) protection then just ZO alone.
This might explain why I can tan while wearing some ZO only sunscreens. Thanks.
http://www.futurederm.com/2012/09/06/are-inorganic-sunscreens-better-than-organic-ones-part-iv-level-of-protection-and-practicality/ |
Don't think it's just this study. I've seen a couple other papers that show solid data how zinc alone (or most filters alone, anyway) offers significantly inferior protection compared to same % zinc combined with other filters. The spectrophotometer graphs show that the UVA wavelenths portion of combined zinc+titanium or zinc+oxtinoxate exceeds the graphs for zinc, titanium or oxtinoxate alone. UVB protection shoots sky high as well. But there are different kinds of both titanium and zinc that are used in sunscreens and they don't all perform the same.
Obviously, sunscreen vendors aren't interested in a truly educated customer. Least they start demanding the good (and expensive) brand name Japanese or European physical filters in their sunscreens. It's easier to show some oversimplified slides that say, zinc is enough, rest is fluff. And then just mix up some zinc. Could be good, could be bad. Without some actual spectrophotometer data - hard to guess. |
_________________
Do what all good pragmatists do. Compromise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:14 pm |
| I think I posted somewhere about how I think they achieved the SPF rating, but without actually testing it in vitro with a spectrophotometer... Who knows. But it is doable, even using just titanium, as shown by the EU sunscreens based on titanium, which does make me feel tiny bit safer, since I hear in the US protection ratings may be determined by testing sunscreen in vivo (on actual person's skin) and that test can be cheated, add some magnesium ascorbate phosphate or whatever to sunscreen and skin doesn't burn as fast regardless of the actual filters or lack thereof. In EU at least SPF is determined in labs, not so easy to cheat a spectrometer type of device that doesn't give a horse's willy about plankton, antioxidant content, it just shoots the UV range through the sample and reads the transmittance. I just wish all UVA ratings were in vitro tested as well. |
_________________
Do what all good pragmatists do. Compromise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:20 pm |
| Good review! That article also points the differences between different kinds of physical filters and their different properties. It is very true, while ago someone tested a zinc-only sunscreen (not available on market anymore) and according to that calculator SPF was somewhere under 9 (based on those formulas), formulators claimed SPF 30 (based on the zinc content), but actual spectrophotometer test ended up being SPF 18-19. And though it was zinc, it didn't protect well beyond 360 nm, so there's that. A very extreme example, most aren't as egregious. But it was zinc and like 17% or something. I looked at those very different results and whom do you trust there? Personally I'm sticking with spectrometer results, hard to argue with those rather solid facts. And I know few formulators who hate those machines because they send an solid looking sunscreen right into trash can. Evil. I wish it was that easy, just look at filter per cents and determine ratings with a few formulas, but they aren't always right. More like guidelines. They are accurate with pure chemical filters though, almost same SPF as manufacturers give on tube, but since they do round up the numbers it's given. |
_________________
Do what all good pragmatists do. Compromise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:39 pm |
I've been meaning to try this sunscreen out.Looks great for the body and possibly the face with some added tint.I use Purple Prairie for the face so this may be ok.
http://www.mexitanproducts.com/SPF50.html |
|
|
|
|
 |
Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:01 pm |
| jazzi wrote: |
| Good review! That article also points the differences between different kinds of physical filters and their different properties. It is very true, while ago someone tested a zinc-only sunscreen (not available on market anymore) and according to that calculator SPF was somewhere under 9 (based on those formulas), formulators claimed SPF 30 (based on the zinc content), but actual spectrophotometer test ended up being SPF 18-19. And though it was zinc, it didn't protect well beyond 360 nm, so there's that. A very extreme example, most aren't as egregious. But it was zinc and like 17% or something. I looked at those very different results and whom do you trust there? Personally I'm sticking with spectrometer results, hard to argue with those rather solid facts. And I know few formulators who hate those machines because they send an solid looking sunscreen right into trash can. Evil. I wish it was that easy, just look at filter per cents and determine ratings with a few formulas, but they aren't always right. More like guidelines. They are accurate with pure chemical filters though, almost same SPF as manufacturers give on tube, but since they do round up the numbers it's given. |
Here is a Pubmed abstract that talks about that same thing. They take 15 sunscreens with the identical SPF rating marketed in Europe. After exposure to sunlight radiation only 5 of the sunscreens had UVA protection based on the EC standard.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277959 |
_________________
Everything has beauty but not everyone sees it |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:44 am |
Eva writes:
"When TiO2 or ZnO are coated they generate much less oxidants. One of the newest and most innovative coating for TiO2 is from Oxonica. Their TiO2 is coated with Manganese which almost entirely eliminates free-radical production in the presence of UVR and makes that the TiO2 has full spectrum protection (up to 385nm). this material is called Optisol [...]"
I'm in Europe at the moment and when I went to a pharmacy to look for a sunblock, the pharmacist kept bringing me TiO2 sunblocks and added that they were "with manganese." I got Eucerin Sun creme 50+ for dry skin but I cannot find anything called "Optisol" in it.
Here's the ingredients list:
Aqua
Octocrylene
Glycerin
Alcohol Denat.
Titanium Dioxide (nano)
Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane
Ethylhexyl Salicylate
Homosalate
Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine
Ethylhexyl Cocoate
Glyceryl Stearate Citrate
Hydrogenated Coco-Glycerides
Cetearyl Alcohol
Glycyrrhetinic Acid
Glycyrrhiza Inflata Root Extract
VP/Hexadecene Copolymer
Xanthan Gum
Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer
Trimethoxycaprylylsilane
Trisodium EDTA
Silica
Dimethicone
Ethylhexylglycerin
Phenoxyethanol
By the way, this sunscreen isn't great, anyway. I will still be looking for another one. It would still be good to figure out about the coated TiO2 so I can maybe grab a few bottles before I return to the US. I really wanted to get the Clarins UV Plus HP Day Screen High Protection SPF 40 but got worried due to it only containing TiO2. I wonder if the formula is different in Europe and possibly better. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:36 am |
| Penta wrote: |
Eva writes:
"When TiO2 or ZnO are coated they generate much less oxidants. One of the newest and most innovative coating for TiO2 is from Oxonica. Their TiO2 is coated with Manganese which almost entirely eliminates free-radical production in the presence of UVR and makes that the TiO2 has full spectrum protection (up to 385nm). this material is called Optisol [...]"
I'm in Europe at the moment and when I went to a pharmacy to look for a sunblock, the pharmacist kept bringing me TiO2 sunblocks and added that they were "with manganese." I got Eucerin Sun creme 50+ for dry skin but I cannot find anything called "Optisol" in it.
Here's the ingredients list:
Aqua
Octocrylene
Glycerin
Alcohol Denat.
Titanium Dioxide (nano)
Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane
Ethylhexyl Salicylate
Homosalate
Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine
Ethylhexyl Cocoate
Glyceryl Stearate Citrate
Hydrogenated Coco-Glycerides
Cetearyl Alcohol
Glycyrrhetinic Acid
Glycyrrhiza Inflata Root Extract
VP/Hexadecene Copolymer
Xanthan Gum
Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer
Trimethoxycaprylylsilane
Trisodium EDTA
Silica
Dimethicone
Ethylhexylglycerin
Phenoxyethanol
By the way, this sunscreen isn't great, anyway. I will still be looking for another one. It would still be good to figure out about the coated TiO2 so I can maybe grab a few bottles before I return to the US. I really wanted to get the Clarins UV Plus HP Day Screen High Protection SPF 40 but got worried due to it only containing TiO2. I wonder if the formula is different in Europe and possibly better. |
I used to wear this- the European version is still all Tio2 and contains a hefty amount of alcohol. I like Invisible Zinc spf 30. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:30 pm |
| LondonJamie wrote: |
I like Invisible Zinc spf 30. |
Hi LondonJamie, can you tell me how about the texture and feel of Invisible zinc. Maybe how it feels in comparison to some other sunscreens you have use and what type of skin you have.
I am looking for something light and non greasy. That doesn't make me look like a ghost or feel sticky on my face during the day. Thanks. |
_________________
Everything has beauty but not everyone sees it |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:30 pm |
| LondonJamie wrote: |
I used to wear this- the European version is still all Tio2 and contains a hefty amount of alcohol. I like Invisible Zinc spf 30. |
Oh, I didn't even know about the alcohol. I have super sensitive, dry skin, so that might be a deal breaker. Do you know if Clarins' TiO2 is manganese-coated if you buy it in Europe?
After reading all those things above i'm kinda worried about using sunscreen that contains zinc only. I'd prefer a mixture of zinc and TiO2 or even TiO2 only if it's coated with manganese. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:07 am |
According to an article in the London Evening News,'What's so great about this SkinCeuticals cream?' June 10, it is one of the best and is used by Christina Hendricks and Gwynnie.
Haven't tried it myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:29 pm |
| I really like alba botanica natural hawaiian sunscreen revitalizing green tea spf 45, protects agains UVA and UVB rays. I find it very moisturizing without being greasy and does not leave a chalky appearance, I think it makes my skin look kinda glowy (in a good not oily way). Never tried any of the fancy suncreens, so I can only compare it to the common drug store brands I've tried in the past...neutrogena, banana boat, others. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:05 am |
| Penta wrote: |
http://www.mdsolarsciences.com/mineral_creme_spf_50_12.html#.Ubfhx-tQ1Fs
Has anyone tried this? What do you guys think? |
so I went to his website, looks like a good product but...it's just so pathetic that these companies still think of consumers as idiots and would just list few of the main ingredients, why dont they list the full list?? come on now!
I am never going to purchase any product until I have the full ingredient list... |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:09 am |
| CookieD wrote: |
Here is a Pubmed abstract that talks about that same thing. They take 15 sunscreens with the identical SPF rating marketed in Europe. After exposure to sunlight radiation only 5 of the sunscreens had UVA protection based on the EC standard.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277959 |
another reason to use physical sunblocks.... in particular ZnO |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:40 pm |
| I'm quite happy with Kimbery Sayers. I can't remember if its ZnO (I think it is--its a physical block, for sure, cause thats all I use). Its not micronized so there is a little white cast, but its perfect for car to store to car to store to pick up kids kind of stuff. I bought it twice which is like some kind of miracle for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:22 am |
| This is such a great thread now that summer is here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:28 pm |
| CookieD wrote: |
| Here is a Pubmed abstract that talks about that same thing. They take 15 sunscreens with the identical SPF rating marketed in Europe. After exposure to sunlight radiation only 5 of the sunscreens had UVA protection based on the EC standard. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277959 |
It would be nice to know what those five sunscreens are  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:59 pm |
| daler wrote: |
| Penta wrote: |
http://www.mdsolarsciences.com/mineral_creme_spf_50_12.html#.Ubfhx-tQ1Fs
Has anyone tried this? What do you guys think? |
so I went to his website, looks like a good product but...it's just so pathetic that these companies still think of consumers as idiots and would just list few of the main ingredients, why dont they list the full list?? come on now!
I am never going to purchase any product until I have the full ingredient list... |
According to EWG it's fine but I'm unsure about the amount Ti02 (1,5%), not sure if that's enough. What sunblock do you use, daler? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:02 am |
| A very good sunscreen with a combination of ZO (17.1%), TD (1.6%) and Octinoxate (7.5% - the highest percent allowed by the FDA) is Chanel UV Essential SPF 50. It sinks in well and although it goes on white does not leave a white cast. It dries to a matte finish. It’s pricey but it’s good stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:13 pm |
I probably should have read this thread before making a purchase, for better of for worse I just ordered several different Bioderma Photoderm Max 50+ (with Tinsorb) from a website in France using an online translator! Shipping is the killer, but I'm in Asia anyway...
I've been using Bioderma for a long time, I usually order enough to last me a year cos of the killer shipping, and I cheat, using their Photoderm Max (sensitive skin) for body as it's a larger tube thus cheaper, and also lasts longer.
That being said, the last 2 years I've been using various other things after I last ran out - just to save cash, but decided to make an order again. This time I'm also going to use more of the face specific creams as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:22 pm |
Ooh, I probably should have read this thread to see what's out there these days before making a purchase, but for better or for worse I just ordered several various types of Bioderma Photoderm Max 50+ (with Tinsorb) from a website in France using an online translator! Shipping is the killer, but I'm in Asia so anything non local is going to cost international shipping.
I've been using Bioderma for a long time, since the old YTF days where I first saw it recommended (for anyone who remembers the YTF site). I usually order enough to last me about a year cos of the killer shipping, and I tend to cheat, frequently using their Photoderm Max (sensitive skin) for body as it's a larger tube thus cheaper, and also lasts longer.
That being said, the last 2 years I've been using various other things after I last ran out - but with my current tube of locally bought Avene running out I decided it was time to order Bioderma again. This time I'm also going to use more of the face specific creams as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:44 pm |
| ShastaGirl wrote: |
I've recently went on a sunscreen binge to try out a few new ones.
As for past history, I've preferred MVO face screen on my face and Pratima for my body. MVO remains a favorite of mine, but I ran out of Pratima and they are out of stock so I needed to find something new.
I tried two new body sunscreens and one new face version. Here are my impressions.
Body Sunscreen #1: Suntegrity Natural Mineral Sunscreen for Body SPF 30 $24 for 3oz
http://www.amazon.com/Suntegrity-Natural-Mineral-Sunscreen-Body/dp/B003O9KGMG/ref=sr_1_3?m=A3A9KDAX878IJW&s=merchant-items&ie=UTF8&qid=1369700202&sr=1-3
Suntegrity was orange scented and smooth going on. Zinc-based. Suitable for both face and body. Was highly rated last year by EWG, but for some reason the 2013 results don't include it at all.
Body Sunscreen #2: Banana Boat Natural Reflect Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50 $9 for 4 oz!
http://www.amazon.com/Banana-Boat-Natural-Reflect-Sunscreen/dp/B0063A42GE/ref=sr_1_8?s=beauty&ie=UTF8&qid=1369700443&sr=1-8
This one was a real winner! At $2.25/oz it's a steal compared to most other physical sunblocks. It's a mix of zinc and titanium. It's not greasy at all! Yay!! Plus it's water resistant. This is my new fav body sunscreen. No pricy shipping charges and it's cheap. Plus it works nice on the face too. I WILL buy this one again.
Face Sunscreen: Uriage Bariésun SPF 50+ Gold Tinted Cream $27 for 50ml
http://www.amazon.com/Uriage-Bari%C3%A9sun-Gold-Tinted-Cream/dp/B007NM2J66/ref=sr_1_3?s=beauty&ie=UTF8&qid=1369700687&sr=1-3&keywords=uriage+sunscreen
I tried this one based on fawnie's recommendation on another thread. It's quite nice and I've always wanted to try a sunscreen with tinsorb. I expected the "gold" to be a fairly light tinting, but it looks like foundation coming out of the tube. It had quite a bit of coverage to it. Non-greasy. Has a bit of a scent, but didn't linger too long. Very nice for the face, but a bit pricey (cheaper than the MVO I like though).
For those of you looking for a Devita alternative, take a look at these. I've not used them in heavy duty sun yet, but an hour or so this weekend and no pink color at all (I'm fair and burn very easy, always got color with Devita). |
Just an update, I had the chance to use both the Suntegrity and Banana Boat physical sunscreens I mentioned in a prior post, in some heavy duty sun last week while boating. I am really happy with both. No sunburns with either. Several of the guys used the Banana Boat, including two who are very fair, no burns for them either! At $9 for a 4oz tube from Amazon, it's a deal! |
|
|
|
|
| Thu May 29, 2025 3:52 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
