Archives of Dermatological Research

, Volume 301, Issue 8, pp 603–608

Are cosmetic products which include an SPF appropriate for daily use?

  • Delphine Séhédic
  • Armelle Hardy-Boismartel
  • Céline Couteau
  • Laurence J. M. Coiffard
Original Paper


The goal of this study is to investigate commercially available cosmetics (foundations, skin care creams) which also claim to include a sun protection factor (SPF). Are these products, which are not considered sunscreen products, helpful or could they be harmful? Using an in vitro method, we tested the effectiveness of 35 commercially available products against UVB and UVA radiation. For each product, our testing focused on determining the following four values in terms of current legal recommendations: SPF, UVA protection factor (PF-UVA), UVB/UVA ratio and critical wavelength (λc). We also tested each product’s level of photostability. Effectively, when considering instructions for use (skincare products are applied once, in the morning) any product displaying an SPF must be particularly photostable, since its labeling does not indicate reapplication. In contrast, the packaging on sunscreen products clearly indicates the necessity of frequent reapplication. Out of the 35 products we tested, seven do not comply with legislation regarding sunscreen products. This non-compliance translates into insufficient protection against UVA radiation. The products sold in pharmacies did comply. In terms of photostability, only eight products out of the original 35 proved to be sufficiently photostable. It would seem inappropriate to use filters in the formulas of non-sunscreen cosmetics.


SPF Foundation Skin care cream Effectiveness Photostability Appropriateness 


  1. 1.
    Alami-El Bourry S, Couteau C, Boulande L, Paparis E, Coiffard LJM (2007) Effect of the combination of organic and inorganic filters on the sun protection factor (SPF) determined by in vitro method. Int J Pharm 340:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chatelain E, Gabard B (2001) Photostabilization of butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (Avobenzone) and ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate by bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (Tinosorb S), a new UV broadband filter. Photochem Photobiol 74(3):401–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Couteau C, Pommier M, Paparis E, Coiffard LJM (2007) Study of the efficacy of 18 sun filters authorized in European Union tested in vitro. Pharmazie 62:449–452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Couteau C, Faure A, Fortin J, Paparis E, Coiffard LJM (2007) Study of the photostability of 18 sunscreens in creams by measuring the SPF in vitro. J Pharm Biomed Anal 44:270–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diffey BL, Robson J (1989) A new substrate to measure sunscreen protection factors throughout the ultraviolet spectrum. J Soc Cosmet Chem 40:127–133Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Commission (2006) Recommendation on the efficacy of sunscreen products and the claims made relating thereto. Official Journal of the European Union L265/39, 2006/7647/EC, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farmer KC, Naylor MF (1996) Sun exposure, sunscreens, and skin cancer prevention: a year-round concern. Ann Pharmacother 30:662–673PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferrero L, Pissavini M, Marguerie S, Zastrow L (2003) In vitro determination of sun protection factor. J Cosmet Sci 54:463–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kligman L (1989) Photoaging: manifestations, prevention, and treatment. Clin Geriatr Med 5:235–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krutman J (2000) Ultraviolet A radiation-induced biological effects in human skin: relevance for photoaging and photodermatosis. J Dermatol Sci 23:S22–S26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meunier L (2003) Photoprotection de la cellule de Langherans. In: Schmitt D (ed) La cellule de Langherans humaine. Inserm, Paris, pp 267–278Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rabe JH, Mamelak AJ, McElgunn PJS, Morison WL, Sauder DN (2006) Photoaging: mechanisms and repair. J Am Acad Dermatol 55:1–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schauder S, Ippen H (1997) Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens: review of a 15-year experience and of the literature. Contact Derm 37:221–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schlumpf M, Cotton B, Conscience M, Haller V, Steinmann B, Lichensteinger W (2001) In vitro and in vivo estrogenicity of UV screens. Environ Health Perspect 109:239–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vanquerp V, Rodriguez C, Coiffard C, Coiffard LJM (1999) High-performance liquid chromatographic method for the comparison of the photostability of five sunscreen agents. J Chromatogr A 832:273–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wlaschek M, Tantcheva-Poor I, Naderi L, Ma W, Schneider LA, Razi-Wolf Z (2001) Solar UV irradiation and dermal photoaging. J Photochem Photobiol B 63:41–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Delphine Séhédic
    • 1
  • Armelle Hardy-Boismartel
    • 1
  • Céline Couteau
    • 1
  • Laurence J. M. Coiffard
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of PharmacyUniversité de Nantes, Nantes Atlantique Universités, LPiC, MMS, EA2160NantesFrance

Personalised recommendations