Arch Dermatol Res (2009) 301:603–608
DOI 10.1007/s00403-009-0974-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Are cosmetic products which include an SPF appropriate
for daily use?
Delphine Séhédic Æ Armelle Hardy-Boismartel Æ
Céline Couteau Æ Laurence J. M. Coiffard
Received: 23 March 2009 / Revised: 29 May 2009 / Accepted: 4 June 2009 / Published online: 20 June 2009
Ó Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract The goal of this study is to investigate com-
mercially available cosmetics (foundations, skin care
creams) which also claim to include a sun protection factor
(SPF). Are these products, which are not considered sun-
screen 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 deter-
mining the following four values in terms of current legal
recommendations: SPF, UVA protection factor (PF-UVA),
UVB/UVA ratio and critical wavelength (kc). 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 suffi-
ciently photostable. It would seem inappropriate to use
filters in the formulas of non-sunscreen cosmetics.
Keywords SPF
Foundation
Skin care cream

Effectiveness
Photostability
Appropriateness
D. Séhédic
A. Hardy-Boismartel
C. Couteau

L. J. M. Coiffard (&)
Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Nantes, Nantes Atlantique
Universités, LPiC, MMS, EA2160, 1 rue G. Veil, BP 53508,
44000 Nantes, France
e-mail: laurence.coiffard@univ-nantes.fr
Introduction
Recently, the majority of European cosmetics companies have
introduced non-sunscreen products onto the market which
claim to include an SPF. Most of these products are founda-
tions or daily-use skin care creams. If this may be justified as a
way to prevent premature skin aging, it is important not to
overlook the risks linked to this type of practice. It is currently
well known that ultraviolet radiation, through a variety of
mechanisms, is involved in photoaging [9, 16].
We were interested to determine whether these products
conform to the recommendations related to sunscreen
products, such as a UVB/UVA ratio of B3 and a critical
wavelength of kc C 370 nm [6]. In order to guarantee
constant efficacy of products, the UV filters used should be
photostable [2, 7, 15]. Photostability has been studied
because these products should be effective all the day.
UVA protection is very important too because these radi-
ations have deleterious effects and play an important role
during the process of immunosuppression and photocarci-
nogenesis [11]. COLIPA proposed a UVA labeling symbol.
This indicates that the level of UVA protection provided by
a product is at least 1/3 ratio of its SPF. The star system
based on the PF-UVA/SPF was introduced by Boots in
1992. There are five categories of products (0–5 stars)
according to the value of the ratio. But there is no rec-
ommendation for ‘‘non-SPF’’ cosmetics.
Materials and methods
Determining effectiveness
We tested 35 products currently available in perfume
stores and pharmacies. The list of products includes
123
604
6 day creams, 8 anti-aging creams, 10 tinted face creams and
foundations, 6 self-tanning lotions, 1 skin lightening cream,
2 anti-redness creams and 2 spot remover creams—all
claiming an SPF between 4 and 30 (Table 1). Polymethyl-
methacrylate (PMMA) plates were purchased from Europ-
last (Aubervilliers, France). A previous study has described
the protocol [1, 3]. Thirty milligrams of precisely weighed
product were spread across the entire surface (25 cm2) of a
PMMA plate using a cot-coated finger. After spreading,
15 mg of the product remained on the finger cot. SPF and
PF-UVA of the creams were measured in vitro. Three plates
were prepared for each product to be tested and nine mea-
surements were taken from each plate. Transmission mea-
surements between 290 and 400 nm were taken using a
spectrophotometer equipped with an integrating sphere (UV
Transmittance Analyzer UV1000S, Labsphere, North Sut-
ton, USA). The calculations used the following equations: 1
or 2, respectively, for SPF and PF-UVA:
X
400 X
400
SPF ¼ Ek B k = Ek Bk =MPFk ð1Þ
290 290
X
400 X
400
PF-UVA ¼ Ek Bk = Ek Bk =MPFk ð2Þ
320 320
where Ek is the spectral irradiance of terrestrial sun light,
Bk is the erythemal effectiveness and MPFk is the mean
monochromatic protection factor [5].
Determining photostability
The plates were exposed for varying lengths of time to a
solar simulator (Suntest CPS?; Atlas, Moussy le Neuf,
France) apparatus equipped with a xenon arc lamp
(1,500 W) and special glass filters restricting transmission
of light below 290 nm. The temperature of the samples was
kept low and constant using a tap water cooling circuit
connected to the walls of the reactor. In order to eliminate
the turbulence inside the Suntest chamber, we have
developed a system in our laboratory where the plates are
blocked between two rails and covered with a quartz plate.
The light source emission was maintained at 650 W/m2 in
accordance to global solar spectral irradiance at sea level
measured in accordance to CIE. Before and after irradia-
tion, SPF, PF-UVA, ratio and critical wavelength of the
products was measured in vitro according to the protocol
previously described [4].
Results and discussion
Results describing all tested products are summarized in
Table 2. Table includes SPF, PF-UVA, and critical
123
Arch Dermatol Res (2009) 301:603–608
wavelength before and after irradiation. Depending on the
origin of the tested product, we found different results:
nearly half of the products coming from a perfume store
did not conform to current legislation on sunscreen prod-
ucts. The protection provided by these products worked
mainly against UVB radiation. Most often, only narrow-
band UVB filters were found in the formula and the most
common among these (in 80% of the products) was oc-
tylmethoxycinnamate. Nearly half of the products included
octocrylene, another narrowband UVB filter, and/or tita-
nium dioxide which increase effectiveness. It is important
to remember that for any of the products which list titanium
dioxide as an ingredient, its concentration can be weak—
lower than 2%, which translates into an extremely limited
effectiveness. UVA protection is often insufficient and yet
we know that it is UVA radiation which penetrates deeper
and is probably involved in photoaging [9, 10]. For some
time, it has been accepted that only the products able to
absorb or reflect UVA radiation are the ones which might
be interesting in terms of sun-induced changes. In vivo
testing, using the PPD method, determined that only a few
of these products demonstrated UVA radiation protection.
The values were 12, 10, 10, 9, and 8 for the following
products, respectively, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 18 (Table 2). All
the products sold in a pharmacy respected current standards
(ratio UVB/UVA B 3 and kc C 370 nm).
In terms of photoprotection, very few products (8/35, 4
from the perfume store and 4 from the pharmacy) dem-
onstrated photostability (Table 2). By photostability, we
mean that they retained 90% effectiveness (for both UVB
and UVA radiation) after 2 h of exposure to the Suntest.
Depending on where a product is purchased, a consumer
may buy a product claiming a certain SPF, and therefore
may assume photoprotection for the duration they use the
product, when actually 20% of all products we tested
(7 products of perfumery) did not protect their user from all
kinds of ultraviolet radiation (Table 2). They present a ratio
[3. Furthermore, majority of them (77% of the tested
products) were not photostable according to the conditions
established in a previous study [4].
Furthermore, because of the adverse reactions produced
by certain filters, such as benzophenone-3, including
allergies [13] and endocrine disturbances at rather high
concentrations [14], it is important to investigate whether
the daily use of these kinds of products is a good idea.
How much of the product is applied? The in vivo
method of determining the effectiveness recommends a
dose of 2 mg/cm2. Studies show that consumers use
much less sunscreen product than recommended and
even more so for foundations and skin care creams [8].
We can assume that users, believing themselves pro-
tected, may seek sun exposure in the same way they
would expect after applying the sunscreen. Finally, in
Arch Dermatol Res (2009) 301:603–608 605

Table 1 Characteristics of products tested

No. Trade name (laboratory) Function Composition (filters) SPF labeled

1 Absolue premium bx (Lancôme) Anti-aging Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15

Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid
2 Platinéum hydroxy(a)-calcium (Lancôme) Anti-aging Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid
3 Ultra correction crème anti-rides (Chanel) Anti-aging Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 10
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
4 Hydramax ? (Chanel) Tinted cream Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
Benzophenone 3
CI 77891 (titanium dioxide)
5 Vitalumière (Chanel) Anti-aging Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
CI 77891 (titanium dioxide)
6 Hydraction (Dior) Hydrating cream Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate (7.5%) 20
Benzophenone 3 (2%)
Titanium dioxide (1.83%)
Octocrylene (1%)
Benzophenone 4 (0.50%)
7 Capture totale (Dior) Foundation Titanium dioxide (3.16%) 15
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate (3%)
8 Diorskin pure light (Dior) Foundation Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate (4%) 25
Titanium dioxide (2.64%)
9 Double wear (Estée Lauder) Foundation Titanium dioxide 10
10 Ultra natural bronze care (Lancaster) Self-tanning Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 6
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
Octocrylene
11 Day wear plus (Estée Lauder) Anti-aging Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
12 Crème de jour White Lucency (Shiseido) Daily cream Octocrylene 15
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid
CI 77891 (titanium dioxide)
13 Resilience lift extreme (Estée Lauder) Anti-aging Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
CI 77891 (titanium dioxide)
14 Crème anti-rides (Gatineau) Self-tanning Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 25
Benzophenone 3
Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
15 Défilift (Gatineau) Tinted cream CI 77891 (titanium dioxide) 10
16 Melascreen (Ducray) Lightening product Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
17 Hydraphase XL (La Roche Posay) Hydrating cream Octocrylene 15
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
18 Rosaliac XL (La Roche Posay) Redness cream Octocrylene 15
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
19 Vinoperfect (Caudalie) Lightening product Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
20 Nuxuriance (Nuxe) Lightening product Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 8
Ethylhexylsalicylate
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
CI 77891 (titanium dioxide)

123
606 Arch Dermatol Res (2009) 301:603–608

Table 1 continued
No. Trade name (laboratory) Function Composition (filters) SPF labeled

21 Normateint (Vichy) Foundation Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 20

CI 77891 (titanium dioxide)
22 Polysiane (Klorane) Tinted cream Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 30
Octocrylene
Methylene bis-benzotriazolyl
Tetramethylbutylphenol
Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol
Methoxyphenyltriazine
Titanium dioxide
23 Soin hydratant aux baies sauvages (Galénic) Tinted cream Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 10
Titanium dioxide
Octocrylene
24 Fluide hydratant bonne mine (Caudalie) Tinted cream Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate (7.5%) 8
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane (2.5%)
25 Avène anti-rougeurs (Avène) Redness cream Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 10
Methylene bis-benzotriazolyl
Tetramethylbutylphenol
26 Redermic XL (La Roche Posay) Anti-aging Octocrylene 15
Ethylhexylsalicylate
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
27 Soleil prodigieux (Nuxe) Self-tanning Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 10
Ethylhexylsalicylate
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
28 Beauty (Nivéa) Self-tanning Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 4
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
29 Couvrance (Avène) Foundation Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
Zinc oxide
Titanium dioxide
30 Hydroprotect (Eucérine) Hydrating cream Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol
Methoxyphenyltriazine
31 Minésol (Roc) Self-tanning Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 8
Ethylhexylsalicylate
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
32 Retin-Ox (Roc) Anti-aging Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 15
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
33 Aqualia thermal (Vichy) Hydrating cream Octocrylene 15
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
Drometrizol trisiloxane
Terephtalydene dicamphor sulfonic acid
CI 77891 (Titanium dioxide)
34 Hydra ? summer skin (Roc) Self-tanning Homosalate 20
Octocrylene
Benzophenone-3
Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane
35 Aérateint (Vichy) Foundation Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate 14
CI 77891 (Titanium dioxide)
From 1 to 15: products marketed in perfumery; from 16 to 35: products marketed in pharmacy

123
Arch Dermatol Res (2009) 301:603–608 607

Table 2 Efficacy and photostability of tested products

Before irradiation After irradiation
No. SPF PF-UVA Ratio kc SPF PF-UVA Ratio kc
(mean ± SD) (mean ± SD) UVB/UVA (nm) (mean ± SD) (mean ± SD) UVB/UVA (nm)

1 14.40 ± 1.30 3.26 ± 0.17 4.42 353 11.10 ± 0.99 3.12 ± 0.13 3.55 355
2 14.79 ± 0.91 3.15 ± 0.10 4.69 345 9.39 ± 0.69 2.84 ± 0.11 3.31 354
3 8.48 ± 2.74 2.69 ± 0.50 3.15 377 5.55 ± 1.31 1.60 ± 0.14 3.47 377
4 23.90 ± 2.65 6.13 ± 0.62 3.90 367 13.11 ± 1.86 4.93 ± 0.56 2.66 353
5 11.65 ± 1.77 5.27 ± 0.39 2.21 373 11.65 ± 1.77 5.27 ± 0.39 2.21 385
6 28.36 ± 6.83 6.10 ± 1.33 4.64 357 22.48 ± 3.82 5.32 ± 0.49 4.22 358
7 9.40 ± 0.59 5.69 ± 0.35 1.65 385 9.01 ± 0.54 6.13 ± 0.33 1.47 385
8 15.52 ± 3.01 6.55 ± 0.89 2.37 382 13.01 ± 2.10 7.00 ± 0.77 1.86 383
9 7.15 ± 0.86 6.66 ± 0.74 1.07 388 7.67 ± 0.82 7.06 ± 0.71 1.09 388
10 12.69 ± 2.21 8.96 ± 1.21 1.42 379 4.57 ± 0.51 3.22 ± 0.37 1.42 379
11 34.27 ± 8.35 11.87 ± 2.25 2.89 375 3.71 ± 0.69 1.63 ± 0.10 2.28 335
12 10.96 ± 0.90 5.61 ± 0.33 1.95 377 9.50 ± 0.89 5.43 ± 0.36 1.75 377
13 12.24 ± 0.84 2.76 ± 0.08 4.43 340 6.49 ± 0.56 2.41 ± 0.06 2.69 355
14 39.12 ± 6.61 12.47 ± 1.60 3.14 375 10.81 ± 2.02 3.74 ± 0.36 2.89 357
15 11.05 ± 2.56 6.60 ± 1.13 1.67 384 12.93 ± 2.79 7.65 ± 1.21 1.69 385
16 13.07 ± 1.80 4.50 ± 0.40 3.03 374 10.00 ± 2.44 4.23 ± 0.65 2.36 378
17 17.21 ± 4.11 15.04 ± 2.85 1.44 379 14.70 ± 2.90 12.35 ± 2.06 1.19 379
18 14.72 ± 2.34 13.58 ± 1.83 1.08 378 13.32 ± 2.21 11.53 ± 1.68 1.15 378
19 51.21 ± 6.76 19.26 ± 2.16 2.66 377 15.87 ± 1.87 4.80 ± 0.44 3.31 379
20 7.91 ± 0.67 4.95 ± 0.13 1.60 377 2.17 ± 0.14 1.53 ± 0.07 1.42 369
21 20.71 ± 2.69 9.98 ± 1.10 2.07 383 18.54 ± 2.43 10.12 ± 1.10 1.83 383
22 59.75 ± 8.86 22.30 ± 3.12 2.68 377 58.60 ± 7.99 20.99 ± 2.66 2.79 377
23 11.14 ± 1.44 4.89 ± 0.35 2.28 378 7.83 ± 0.77 4.20 ± 0.29 1.86 381
24 17.78 ± 2.92 8.41 ± 1.08 2.11 377 3.56 ± 0.48 1.87 ± 0.11 1.90 360
25 10.29 ± 0.84 3.60 ± 0.12 2.86 373 6.80 ± 0.77 2.92 ± 0.12 2.33 374
26 8.43 ± 2.53 6.35 ± 1.56 1.33 379 5.85 ± 1.66 4.97 ± 1.24 1.18 380
27 11.25 ± 2.85 5.81 ± 0.97 1.94 375 2.12 ± 0.37 1.89 ± 0.32 1.12 378
28 6.33 ± 2.08 3.77 ± 1.20 1.68 373 1.71 ± 0.14 1.29 ± 0.06 1.32 365
29 16.42 ± 3.63 7.98 ± 1.18 2.06 384 11.91 ± 2.12 7.55 ± 1.02 1.58 383
30 16.18 ± 3.00 7.11 ± 1.01 2.28 372 15.05 ± 3.99 6.51 ± 1.05 2.31 372
31 25.22 ± 2.69 12.14 ± 1.03 2.08 377 3.15 ± 0.45 1.65 ± 0.10 1.91 349
32 40.12 ± 6.37 19.92 ± 2.51 2.01 378 4.84 ± 0.81 2.57 ± 0.27 1.88 373
33 24.85 ± 4.21 18.63 ± 2.45 1.33 379 16.87 ± 2.75 12.93 ± 1.74 1.30 379
34 18.18 ± 5.99 11.71 ± 3.05 1.55 378 14.66 ± 5.22 9.80 ± 2.72 1.50 377
35 6.37 ± 0.42 4.83 ± 0.28 1.32 387 6.83 ± 0.51 5.51 ± 0.36 1.24 387

contrast to a sunscreen product which recommends References

reapplication every 2 h, it seems unlikely that founda-
tions and other skin care creams, for example, would
integrate this recommendation into their instructions for
use.
For these diverse reasons, the consumers should be
educated about the poor protection of daily cosmetics with
SPF. Furthermore the cosmetic industry needs to include
better actives to offer improved UVA protection.
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 340:1–5
2. Chatelain E, Gabard B (2001) Photostabilization of butyl meth-
oxydibenzoylmethane (Avobenzone) and ethylhexyl methoxy-
cinnamate by bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine
(Tinosorb S), a new UV broadband filter. Photochem Photobiol
74(3):401–406

123
608
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 62:449–452
4. Couteau C, Faure A, Fortin J, Paparis E, Coiffard LJM (2007)
Study of the photostability of 18 sunscreens in creams by mea-
suring the SPF in vitro. J Pharm Biomed Anal 44:270–273
5. Diffey BL, Robson J (1989) A new substrate to measure sun-
screen protection factors throughout the ultraviolet spectrum.
J Soc Cosmet Chem 40:127–133
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 39–43
7. Farmer KC, Naylor MF (1996) Sun exposure, sunscreens, and
skin cancer prevention: a year-round concern. Ann Pharmacother
30:662–673
8. Ferrero L, Pissavini M, Marguerie S, Zastrow L (2003) In vitro
determination of sun protection factor. J Cosmet Sci 54:463–466
9. Kligman L (1989) Photoaging: manifestations, prevention, and
treatment. Clin Geriatr Med 5:235–251
10. Krutman J (2000) Ultraviolet A radiation-induced biological
effects in human skin: relevance for photoaging and photoder-
matosis. J Dermatol Sci 23:S22–S26
123
Arch Dermatol Res (2009) 301:603–608
11. Meunier L (2003) Photoprotection de la cellule de Langherans.
In: Schmitt D (ed) La cellule de Langherans humaine. Inserm,
Paris, pp 267–278
12. Rabe JH, Mamelak AJ, McElgunn PJS, Morison WL, Sauder DN
(2006) Photoaging: mechanisms and repair. J Am Acad Dermatol
55:1–19
13. Schauder S, Ippen H (1997) Contact and photocontact sensitivity
to sunscreens: review of a 15-year experience and of the litera-
ture. Contact Derm 37:221–232
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 109:239–244
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
832:273–277
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 63:41–51