Journal of Dermatological Science (2008) 50, 159—161

www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jods

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Combination of UVA-filters and UVB-fil-
ters or inorganic UV filters–—Influence on
the sun protection factor (SPF) and the
PF-UVA determined by in vitro method
KEYWORDS
Sunscreens; UVA; UVB; In vitro test
The use of sunscreen products is a widely accepted
method of primary prevention against skin cancer,
sunburn and various photo-disorders. The degree to
which a sunscreen protects the skin from ultraviolet
(UV) rays is given as its sun protection factor (SPF)
that is predominantly influenced by UVB transmis-
sion through the product. However, the UVA-block-
ing properties of a product are of significance as UVA
plays a role in photocarcinogenesis, photo-aging and
photosensitive damages [1—4]. In this work, we

Table 1 Combinations of UVA- and UVB-filters–—influence on SPF

In blue, additivity; in orange, booster effect; in red, incompatibility; mean  S.D., SPF/PF-UVA  3.

0923-1811/$30.00 # 2007 Japanese Society for Investigative Dermatology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jdermsci.2007.11.007
 160
Table 2 Combinations of UVA- and UVB-filters–—influence on PF-UVA
Filter (PF-UVA) Avobenzone Benzophenone-5 Oxybenzone Anisotriazine Methylene bis- Diethylamino Bisimidazylate
mean  S.D. mean  S.D. mean  S.D. mean  S.D. benzotriazolyl hydroxybenzoyl mean  S.D.
(5.02  0.25) (3.45  0.32) (2.94  0.19) (20.95  2.00) tetramethyl butyl hexyl benzoate (5.88  0.42)
phenol mean  S.D. mean  S.D.
(5.39  0.47) (8.36  0.89)
PABA 4.63  0.42 3.35  0.35 2.66  0.86 9.61  0.41 4.95  0.37 5.03  0.30 5.25  0.19
Homosalate 15.36  2.38 3.19  0.16 4.96  0.32 20.61  1.34 5.56  0.23 14.60  0.78 6.30  0.49
Oxybenzone 8.26  0.87 4.35  0.23 — 13.29  1.34 8.77  0.55 16.48  1.20 6.68  0.31
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid 5.16  0.35 3.92  0.30 3.72  0.40 24.39  1.54 8.74  0.41 4.38  0.26 3.86  0.26
Octocrylene 23.99  4.33 5.07  0.28 7.01  0.48 25.43  1.54 11.64  1.35 18.93  0.84 6.70  0.42
Octyl methoxycinnamate 24.79  3.47 4.11  0.20 5.62  0.33 25.75  2.54 12.00  0.84 19.78  1.25 6.70  0.60
PEG-25 PABA 4.88  0.61 3.64  0.19 3.58  0.28 18.66  1.04 5.75  0.33 7.72  0.30 8.32  0.34
Isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate 28.95  3.44 4.16  0.08 6.19  0.34 22.88  0.83 11.15  0.70 20.83  1.06 7.33  0.74
Octyl triazone 8.04  0.69 4.12  0.18 6.37  0.45 24.94  1.13 13.60  1.21 8.63  0.39 5.66  0.35
Diethylhexyl butamidotriazone 22.56  3.33 4.30  0.34 5.19  0.37 30.69  2.01 11.07  0.74 43.12  3.13 6.32  0.46
4-Methylbenzylidene camphor 10.61  2.42 3.45  0.23 5.00  0.31 20.66  1.21 6.25  0.74 11.76  0.45 6.14  0.29
3-Benzylidene camphor 4.09  0.46 3.24  0.15 3.74  0.24 17.48  1.05 4.62  0.37 4.16  0.11 5.40  0.45
Octylsalicylate 8.30  1.38 3.56  0.13 4.47  0.20 18.82  1.73 5.61  0.58 13.75  0.48 5.64  0.38
Octyl dimethyl PABA 21.03  4.35 4.12  0.25 6.35  0.54 23.70  1.11 7.68  0.76 17.99  0.87 6.17  0.49
Benzophenone-5 7.38  0.46 — 5.71  0.38 12.55  0.68 9.73  0.85 8.25  0.43 6.93  0.48
Methylene bis-benzotriazolyl 16.80  1.60 9.27  0.57 6.11  0.38 22.40  1.80 — 7.67  0.37 8.81  0.86
tetramethyl butyl phenol
Anisotriazine 47.91  4.29 23.13  1.84 12.56  2.03 — 36.55  3.11 29.70  1.12 21.83  1.68
Polysilicone 15 6.65  0.70 3.90  0.22 3.23  0.08 19.50  1.46 8.61  0.76 6.82  0.53 5.41  0.41
TiO2 (5.34  0.50) 16.92  0.78 6.67  0.37 7.63  0.31 32.96  1.05 7.94  1.66 18.82  1.19 7.53  0.46
ZnO (3.27  0.36) 7.47  0.84 6.97  0.60 5.22  0.27 23.35  1.35 6.69  0.73 7.04  0.67 7.62  0.47

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor
determined SPF, PF-UVA and UVB/UVA ratios of O/W
creams formulated by the authors [5—7] with 22
organic filters (15 UVB-filters, 4 UVA/UVB-filters
and 3 UVA-filters) and 2 inorganic filters (titanium
dioxide and zinc oxide) in combination. It is impor-
tant to take into account the value of ratio of SPF/PF-
UVA in order to ensure a homogeneous protection in
the two ultraviolet zones. Study of effectiveness in
UVB and UVA-range was determined by using in vitro
method [5]. The values of SPF and PF-UVA obtained
are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Tests of Student
(P <.05; n = 27) made it possible to classify combina-
tions in three categories: those for which the SPF
obtained corresponds to the sum of the SPF of each
taken credit separately, those for which the SPF
obtained is lower than that is obtained by calculation
and finally those for which the SPF obtained is higher
than that one could predict by calculation. It will be
noted that the combination of filters UVA with filters
UVB is translated in the large majority of the cases by
a booster rocket effect of SPF. However, some com-
binations even if they are completely remarkable if
one places oneself from the increase point of view in
effectiveness in field UVB will not be therefore
exploitable in practice because they are not accom-
panied by a rise of PF-UVA in the field long wave-
lengths. It is indeed of primary importance to ensure
a protection balanced enough in two fields UV.
Each UVA-filter was associated with titanium
dioxide or zinc oxide used at 10%. There is still
one compared using a test of Student, the results
obtained by measuring the SPF and the PF-UVA of
associations on the one hand and the results
obtained by the calculation on the other hand.
Three associations with titanium dioxide result in
an increase in effectiveness in fields UVA and UVB:
those carried out with butylmethoxydibenzoyl-
methane, anisotriazine and diethylamino hydroxy-
benzoyl hexyl benzoate.
None of the combinations with zinc oxide carried
out present synergistic effect at the same time in
field UVA and UVB all on the other hand, all of them
have an excellent ratio SPF/PF-UVA. If we want to
incorporate inorganic filter, it appears preferable to
privilege combinations with the titanium dioxide
which make it possible to reach values of SPF higher
than 50 than does not allow the zinc oxide (max-
imum SPF from approximately 39 with the aniso-
triazine).
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
161
In conclusion, it appears that on 135 combina-
tions carried out 111 are interesting for the formu-
lator which will be able to choose a combination
according to the level of desired protection:
‘‘weak’’, ‘‘medium’’, ‘‘high’’ or ‘‘very high’’.
References
[1] Bayer C, Taake CS, Moll I, Jung EG. Characterization of
sunburn cells after exposure to ultraviolet light. Photoder-
matol Photoimmunol Photomed 1995;11:149.
[2] Farmer KC, Naylor MF. Sun exposure, sunscreens, and skin
cancer prevention: a year-round concern. Ann Pharmacother
1996;30:662.
[3] Chatelain E, Gabard B, Surber C. Skin penetration and sun
protection factor of five UV filters: effect of the vehicle. Skin
Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 2003;16:28.
[4] Vanquerp V, Rodrı́guez C, Coiffard C, Coiffard LJM. High-
performance liquid chromatographic method for the compar-
ison of the photostability of five sunscreen agents. J Chrom A
1999;832:273.
[5] Couteau C, Pommier M, Paparis E, Coiffard LJM. Study of the
efficacy of 18 sun filters authorized in European Union tested
in vitro. Pharmazie 2007;62:449.
[6] Couteau C, Faure A, Fortin J, Paparis E, Coiffard LJM. Study of
the photostability of 18 sunscreens in creams by measuring
the SPF in vitro. J Pharmaceut Biomed Anal 2007;44:270.
[7] Alamy-El-Boury S, Couteau C, Boulande L, Paparis E, Coiffard
LJM. Effect of the combination of organic and inorganic filters
on the sun protection factor (SPF) determined by in vitro
method. Int J Pharm; in press.
Céline Couteau
Roula Chammas
Soumia Alami-El Boury
Benjamin Choquenet
Eva Paparis
Laurence J.M. Coiffard*
Université de Nantes, Nantes Atlantique
Universités, LPiC, SMAB, EA2160,
Faculty of Pharmacy, 1 rue G. Veil,
BP 53508, Nantes F-44000 France
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 2 40 41 28 73;
fax: +33 2 40 41 29 87
E-mail address: laurence.coiffard@univ-nantes.fr
(L.J.M. Coiffard)
28 June 2007