Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34601762›Full record

ArticlePhotodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine2022

Laboratory testing of sunscreens on the US market finds lower in vitro SPF values than on labels and even less UVA protection.

David Q Andrews, Kali Rauhe, Carla Burns, Emily Spilman, Alexis M Temkin, Sean Perrone-Gray, Olga V Naidenko, Nneka Leiba

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Natural photoprotection under scrutiny: an in vitro evaluation.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Modernizing U.S. Sunscreen Regulations: How Newer Filters Can Improve Public Health.Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Nanoscale advances · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

David Q AndrewsEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Kali RauheEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Carla BurnsEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Emily SpilmanEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Alexis M TemkinEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Sean Perrone-GrayEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Olga V NaidenkoEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Nneka LeibaEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.

Funding

Yellow Chair Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew research has attributed increased significance to the causal link between ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation and immunosuppression and carcinogenesis. In the United States, sunscreens are labeled with only their sun protection factor (SPF) and an imprecise term "broad-spectrum protection." Sunscreen marketing and efficacy evaluations continue to be based primarily on skin redness (sunburn) or erythema. We sought to evaluate the ultraviolet (UV) protection offered by common sunscreen products on the US market using laboratory-measured UV-absorption testing and comparing with computer-modeled protection and the labeled SPF values. This approach enables an investigation of the relationship between the labeled SPF and measured UVA protection, a factor that is ignored in current regulations.

methodsFifty-one sunscreen products for sale in the United States with SPF values from 15 to 110 and labeled as providing broad-spectrum protection were tested using a commercial laboratory. All products were evaluated using the ISO 24443:2012 method for sunscreen effectiveness. The final absorbance spectra were used for analysis of in vitro UV protection.

resultsIn vitro SPF values from laboratory-measured UV absorption and computer modeling were on average just 59 and 42 percent of the labeled SPF. The majority of products provided significantly lower UVA protection with the average unweighted UVA protection factor just 24 percent of the labeled SPF.

conclusionRegulations and marketplace forces promote sunscreens that reduce sunburn instead of products that provide better, more broad-spectrum UV protection. The production and use of products with broad spectrum UV protection should be incentivized, removing the emphasis on sunburn protection and ending testing on people.

Indexed as

SunburnSun Protection FactorErythemaHumansSkinSunscreening AgentsUltraviolet RaysSunscreening Agentserythemageneral dermatologymelanomaSPFsunscreenultraviolet AUVA protectionUVA protection factor

Identifiers

PMID34601762
PMCPMC9298345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.