Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The real UVB photoprotective efficacy of vegetable oils: in vitro and in vivo studies

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some vegetable oils are currently being promoted as a safe alternative to commercial sunscreens. The true UVB photoprotective efficacy of 14 virgin vegetable oils and the suitability of the dilution method for determining their SPF value were evaluated. Oils and standard sunscreens were investigated in vitro by the Mansur's method in Slovakia and in vivo by the ISO method in the Czech Republic. SPF values in vitro (0.1; 0.0; 0.4; 0.2 and 0.2) and in vivo (2.5; 1.2; 2.6; 2.6; and 2.8) of the five most promoted oils (from carrot seed, coconut, raspberry seed, rosehip seed, and wheat germ) were significantly lower than the values reported in the controversial studies. We have shown that the overestimated SPF values of these oils were determined by authors who did not strictly follow Mansur's original methodology. The other eight vegetable oils also provide no or negligible SPF values. Only the in vitro SPF value of 11.2 tamanu oil is worth mentioning, probably due to high proportion of calophyllolides. In vitro and in vivo SPF ratios from 1.14 to 0.94 obtained by two methods in two laboratories for six commercial sunscreen oils used as controls confirm the correctness of performing the Mansur's method in this study. However, this dilution method has proven to be fundamentally flawed in determining the SPF value of substances with such negligible photoprotection as most vegetable oils can provide. An SPF value of less than 1, which can be determined by this Mansur's method, is physiologically impossible and meaningless.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All authors declare that all data and materials as well as software applications, support their published claims and are in accordance with field standards.

Code availability

Not applicable for that section.

References

  1. Garmyn, M., Young, A. R., & Miller, S. A. (2018). Mechanisms of and variables affecting UVR photoadaptation in human skin. Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences, 17, 1932–1940.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, L. A., Marchetti, B., Karsili, T. N., et al. (2017). Photoprotection: extending lessons learned from studying natural sunscreens to the design of artificial sunscreen constituents. Chemical Society Reviews, 46, 3770–3791.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hojerová, J., Medovčíková, A., & Mikula, M. (2011). Photoprotective efficacy and photostability of fifteen sunscreen products having the same label SPF subjected to natural sunlight. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 408(1–2), 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Felton, S. J., Shih, B. B., Watson, R. E. B., et al. (2020). Photoprotection conferred by low level summer sunlight exposures against pro-inflammatory UVR insult. Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences, 19, 810–818.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Klimová, Z., Hojerová, J., & Beránková, M. (2015). Skin absorption and human exposure estimation of three widely discussed UV filters in sunscreens: in vitro study mimicking real-life consumer habits. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 83, 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hojerová, J., Peráčková, Z., & Beránková, M. (2017). Margin of safety for two UV filters estimated by in vitro permeation studies mimicking consumer habits: effects of skin shaving and sunscreen reapplication. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 103, 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hiller, J., Klotz, K., Meyer, S., et al. (2019). Systemic availability of lipophilic organic UV filters through dermal sunscreen exposure. Environment International, 132, 105068.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stoeckelhuber, M., Scherer, M., Peschel, O., et al. (2020). Human metabolism and urinary excretion kinetics of the UV filter Uvinul A plus® after a single oral or dermal dosage. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 227(6), 113509.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bom, S., Jorge, J., Ribeiro, H. M., et al. (2019). A step forward on sustainability in the cosmetics industry: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225, 270–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wood, E. (2018). Impacts of sunscreens on coral reefs. International Coral Reef Initiative briefing, Feb 2018. https://www.icriforum.org/sites/default/files/ICRI_Sunscreen_0.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  11. Merten, J. W., Roberts, K. J., King, J. L., et al. (2020). Pinterest homemade sunscreens: a recipe for sunburn. Health Communication, 35(9), 1123–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Escentials of Australia. (2020). https://www.escentialsofaustralia.com/products/productid942. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  13. Natural Sourcing. (2020). Specialist in Cosmeceuticals Ingredients. https://www.praannaturals.com/product-literature/NS_info_redraspberryseedoil_organic.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  14. Pacific Scents. (2020). Natural protection from the sun with vegetable oils. https://pacificscents.com.au/natural-protection-from-the-sun-with-vegetable-oils. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  15. Natural Factors (USA/Canada). (2020). https://naturalfactors.com/en-us/articles/4-uses-for-coconut-oil. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  16. Oomah, D., Ladet, S., Godfrey, D. V., et al. (2000). Characteristics of raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) seed oil. Food Chemistry, 69, 187–193.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaur, C. D., & Saraf, S. (2010). In vitro sun protection factor determination of herbal oils used in cosmetics. Pharmacognosy Research, 2, 22–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Suryawanshi, J. A. S. (2016). In-vitro determination of sun protection factor and evaluation of herbal oils. International Journal of Pharmacology Research, 6(1), 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ranjithkumar, J., Sameesh, A., & Ramakrishnan, H. (2016). Sunscreen efficacy of Punica granatum (Pomegranate) and Citrullus colocynthis (Indrayani) seed oils. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences, 10(3), 198–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. de Souza, C. M. P., dos Santos, P. G. G., Santana, C., et al. (2014). Physicochemical characterization and in vitro evaluation of the photoprotective activity of the oil from Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill seeds. African Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 48(8), 824–831. http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jrme/papers/Vol-5%20Issue-1/Version-3/A05130105.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  21. Kumar, K. A., & Viswanathan, K. (2013). Study of UV transmission through a few edible oils and chicken oil. Journal of Spectroscopy, 28, 1–5. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jspec/2013/540417/. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  22. Gause, S., & Chauhan, A. (2016). UV-blocking potential of oils and juices. International Journal Cosmetic Science, 38(4), 354–363.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mansur, J. S., Breder, M. N. R., Mansur, M. C. A., et al. (1986). Determinação do fator de proteção solar por espectrofotometria (Determination of sun protection factor by spectrophotometric methods). Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, 61, 121–124.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mansur, J. S., Breder, M. N. R., Mansur, M. C. A., et al. (1986). Correlação entre a determinação do fator de proteção solar em seres humanos e por espectrofotometria (Correlation of sun protecting factor in human beings and by spectrophotometry). Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia., 61, 167–172.

    Google Scholar 

  25. FDA. (2019). US food and drug administration, CFR: code of federal regulations title 21 (1), Sec. 352.70 Standard sunscreen. Revised as of April 1, 2019. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e864e020bb35619e319dfcab7180a049&mc=true&node=se21.5.352_170&rgn=div8. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  26. ISO 24444:2019 (2019). Cosmetics: sun protection test methods: in vivo determination of the sun protection factor (SPF). ISO/TC 217 Cosmetics ICS: 71.100.70, 59. https://www.iso.org/standard/72250.html. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  27. Pissavini, M., Marguerie, S., and Doucet, O. (2016). SPF tests reveal no ideal in vitro substrate exists. Cosmetic and Toiletries, 131, 20–30. https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/testing/spf/SPF-Tests-Reveal-No-Ideal-In-vitro-Substrate-Exists-375272221.html. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  28. Bendová, H., Akrman, J., Krejčí, A., et al. (2007). In vitro approaches to evaluation of sun protection factor. Toxicology in Vitro, 2, 1268–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pissavini, M., Tricaud, C., Wiener, G., et al. (2020). Validation of a new in vitro sun protection factor (SPF) method to include a wide range of sunscreen product emulsion types. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 42, 421–428.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sayre, R. M., Agin, P. P., LeVee, G. J., et al. (1979). Comparison of in vivo and in vitro testing of sunscreening formulas. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 29(3), 559–566.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lowe, N. J., & Breeding, J. (1983). Sunscreen predictive assays: Alternative assays that measure the ability of different sunscreens to protect against epidermal and dermal effects of ultraviolet irradiation. Cosmetics and Toiletries, 98, 65–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Solar light. SPF testing multiport 6-channel light source. Model 601 v.2. https://solarlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Simulators_601-v2-5.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  33. Council for international organizations of medical sciences (CIOMS). (2016). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  34. WMA Declaration of Helsinki (2013). Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, 1964, amended 2013. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  35. Yang, S. I., Liu, S., Brooks, G. J., et al. (2018). Reliable and simple spectrophotometric determination of sun protection factor: A case study using organic UV filter-based sunscreen products. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 17, 518–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sudhahar, V., anf Balasubramanian, V. (2013). Sun production factor (SPF) determination of marketed sunscreen formulation by in-vitro method using UV-VIS spectrophotometer. Archives of Applied Science Research, 5(6), 119–122. http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com/archive.html>. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  37. Dutra, E. A., Oliveira, D. A., Kedor-Hackmann, L. G., et al. (2004). Determination of sun protection factor (SPF) of sunscreens by ultraviolet spectrophotometry. (Revista Brasileira de Ciências Farmacêutica) Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 40(3), 381–385. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-93322004000300014>. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  38. Mesías, L. G. G., Qwisgaard, A. M. R., Untivero, G. P. C., et al. (2017). Comparison of the photoprotective effects of sunscreens using spectrophotometric measurements or the survivability of yeast cells exposed to UV radiation. Revista de la Sociedad Química del Perú, 83(3), 294–307. URL: <http://www.scielo.org.pe/pdf/rsqp/v83n3/a05v83n3.pdf>. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  39. Montenegro, L., & Santagati, L. M. (2019). Use of vegetable oils to improve the sun protection factor of sunscreen formulations. Cosmetics, 6(25), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wagemaker, T. A. L., Carvalho, C. R. L., & Filho, O. G. (2011). Sun protection factor, content, and composition of lipid of green coffee beans. Industrial Crops and Products, 33, 469–473.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Runger, T. M. (2003). Ultraviolet light. In: Bolognia, J. L., Jorizzo, J. L., and Rapini, R. P. (Eds.), Dermatology (vol. 2, 1st ed., Chapter 86, pp. 1353–1357). London: Mosby.

  42. Alfeetouri, O. H., Mosa, F. A., & Jibreel, W. A. (2019). Determination of sun protection factor (SPF) of some botanical oils by ultraviolet spectrophotometry. The Libyan Conference on Chemistry and Its Applications LCCA, 1(1), 52–58.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Healthline, DIY sunscreen recipes. URL: <https://www.healthline.com/health/homemade-sunscreen#diy-recipes>. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  44. Kanellis, V. G. (2020). Sharing recipes and creating potentially dangerous homemade sunscreens. Australasian Journal of Dermatology, 61(2), 161–161.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lim, T. L. C. (2020). Sunscreen: “Do-It-Yourself” (DIY) does not mean enough protection. Our Dermatology Online, 11(3), 273–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Anonym. (2014). Tamanu original unrefined oil. Pacifique Sud Ingredients, Aubagne, France, 10 pgs. URL: <http://www.eurotradingonline.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Ti_TAMANU_OIL.pdf>. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  47. Rejeki, S. S., and Wahyuningsih, S. (2015). Formulasi gel tabir surya minyak nyamplung (tamanu oil) dan uji nilai SPF secara in vitro. University Research Colloquium, Indonesia, 97–103. http://hdl.handle.net/11617/5168>. Accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  48. Lim, T.K. (2012). Calophyllum inophyllum. In: Edible Medicinal and Non-Medicinal Plants (pp. 7–20). Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1764-0_2.

  49. Léguillier, T., Lecsö-Bornet, M., Lémus, C. H., et al. (2015). The wound healing and antibacterial activity of five ethnomedical Calophyllum inophyllum oils: an alternative therapeutic strategy to treat infected wounds. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0138602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ansel, L. J., Lupo, E., Mijouin, L., et al. (2016). Biological activity of Polynesian Calophyllum inophyllum oil extract on human skin cells. Planta Medica, 82(11–12), 961–966.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported: by the Slovak Research and Development Agency, project No. APVV-16-0088; by the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, grant VEGA No. 1/0012/19; by ERDF/ESF project "International competitiveness of NIPH in research, development and education in alternative toxicological methods" (No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000860); by Ministry of Health, Czech Republic—conceptual development of research organization (National Institute of Public Health—NIPH, IN: 75010330"); by Young Research Support Program/ Excellent Team of STU, Slovak Republic, grant No. 1671; and by Young Research Program, grant STU VEFARO No. 1846/2020, Slovak Republic.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Laboratories of Cosmetology, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia

    Aneta Ácsová, Jarmila Hojerová, Lívia Janotková, Veronika Hamranová & Silvia Martiniaková

  2. The National Institute of Public Health in Prague, Centre of Toxicology and Health Safety, National Reference Centre for Cosmetics, Prague, Czech Republic

    Hana Bendová & Lucie Jedličková

Authors
  1. Aneta Ácsová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jarmila Hojerová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lívia Janotková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hana Bendová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lucie Jedličková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Veronika Hamranová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Silvia Martiniaková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by HJ and ÁA and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jarmila Hojerová.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics approval

The selection of ten volunteers for in vivo study as well as the entire study were performed in accordance with the principles described in the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects [In References No. 33, 34]. The study was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of the National Institute of Public Health in Prague, Czech Republic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ácsová, A., Hojerová, J., Janotková, L. et al. The real UVB photoprotective efficacy of vegetable oils: in vitro and in vivo studies. Photochem Photobiol Sci 20, 139–151 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-020-00009-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-020-00009-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation