| |
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not side-effects that are in question here, it's the intended effect. When it comes to its effectiveness at blocking UV, there should be a better way than just "apply some to a dozen random volunteers and time how long it takes before they get a sunburn". In my imagination, the lab would have some a testing process that spreads a precisely-controlled volume over a standard surface area, textured to be similar to skin, then measures UV transmission percentage vs wavelength with a diffraction grating and photocell. Or something like that! | | |
| ▲ | chimeracoder 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > In my imagination, the lab would have some a testing process that spreads a precisely-controlled volume over a standard surface area, textured to be similar to skin, then measures UV transmission percentage vs wavelength with a diffraction grating and photocell. Or something like that! With this approach, how would you measure the effectiveness of the sunscreen when it's been absorbed by the skin (which is necessary for the sunscreen to work properly - that's why they always say to wait ten minutes after applying before going out into the sun)? There's a reason in vitro and in vivo are both studied for clinical trials of medications. Sunscreen isn't any different: you're using a product making a specific claim about a clinical outcome, so that needs to be tested. | | |
| ▲ | jiggawatts 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > With this approach, how would you measure the effectiveness of the sunscreen when it's been absorbed by the skin You can eliminate the "can't possibly work" cases much faster and cheaper. More importantly, it is cheap enough to be always used as a baseline verification when human testing is so expensive that it can only be used as a random sample double-check. It's like unit testing vs full user acceptance testing. You can and should do both, but the latter isn't for every PR. | | |
| ▲ | chimeracoder 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > More importantly, it is cheap enough to be always used as a baseline verification > It's like unit testing vs full user acceptance testing. You can and should do both, but the latter isn't for every PR. You say all this as if it weren't already happening. OP was surprised human testing was being conducted at all, not that non-human testing wasn't being done (which is a claim nobody made, and which isn't true). |
| |
| ▲ | lukan 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "that's why they always say to wait ten minutes after applying before going out into the sun" They don't always say that. Some say explicitely that it provides instant protection. (there are different ways, that sunscreen provides protection) | | |
| ▲ | chimeracoder 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > They don't always say that We're talking about chemical sunscreens here, and they should say it because they do require it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | casey2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | IDK. There are tons of things that can happen on (and in importantly for sunscreen) human skin. (Skin sweats in the hot sun, but of course your skin can have various reactions to and with chemical) This seems like the simplest and most effective method for testing effectiveness (should probably come up with some other tests for carcinogenic properties though) The problem is that testing has to be reproducible but usage doesn't. |
| |
| ▲ | shermozle 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've actually been a test subject for sunscreen here in Australia. It involved having sunscreen put on different parts of your body, hopping into a Jacuzzi for an hour or so, then being zapped with UV on both sunscreened and clear skin. Easiest hundred bucks I ever made, gotta say. | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You get paid for an hour in the jacuzzi? Sign me up ;) | |
| ▲ | pmontra 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How did they measure the effectiveness of the sunscreen and any side effects on your skin? |
| |
| ▲ | mcbain 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The testing here is not just that it is safe on skin, but the SPF test itself is done by slathering it on humans and exposing them to light to determine a rating. | |
| ▲ | SapporoChris 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're kidding? You equate "not testing on human subject" to "not testing"? | |
| ▲ | dzhiurgis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Skin doesn’t just absorb things. In fact it’s incredibly good at resisting so much so that most beauty products are complete BS. | | |
| ▲ | johnisgood 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If you look at the skin as a protective barrier, then that makes sense, but its ability to absorb cosmetics depends on a lot of factors. First off, what makes a product more absorbable (i.e. influence percutaneous absorption)? Molecular size (typically smaller than ~500 Daltons). Lipophilicity (fat-solubility). Formulations and vehicle, e.g. emulsions (oil-in-water, water-in-oil) can improve penetration depending on balance. There are alcohol-based solutions that enhance delivery of certain actives but may irritate. There are other penetration enhancers such as propylene glycol, ethanol, fatty acids, which disrupt the skin barrier slightly to allow deeper diffusion. Heck, even salicylic acid does that. There are a lot of other factors here, such as your skin's condition (hydrated skin absorbs better), damaged or inflamed skin even more but sometimes to unsafe levels and it is typically contraindicated for almost all cosmetics. In any case, most cosmetic ingredients act locally (i.e. not supposed to enter into systemic circulation like transdermal drugs), improve hydration, texture, and/or appearance by altering the stratum corneum or slightly beyond. Systemic absorption is limited unless specifically engineered to do so, such as nicotine patches, hormone creams, fentanyl patches, etc. I mentioned this below "transdermal drug delivery". The curious should look up the differences between cosmetic absorption vs. transdermal drug delivery as well. For example, cosmetics are not intended to penetrate into the bloodstream, hence the surface layer depth. To give you percentages, typically >90% remains on skin surface, but it also depends on what you want to achieve, because for example hyaluronic acid in creams are of large molecule (~3000-5000 Da), meaning it essentially 0% penetrates. It hydrates only by trapping water on the skin surface. Important to note here that sometimes this is exactly what people want, i.e. this surface hydration is what gives the "plump, glowing skin" effect people expect, so if the goal is hydration and surface smoothness, then large HA is ideal (surface action is enough), but if the goal is true wrinkle reduction or anti-aging, then surface HA alone is not sufficient. This is why companies combine HA with retinoids, peptides, or vitamin C, which act deeper and can influence collagen production. If the goal is long-term structural change, then you can have injectables (such as dermal fillers, which are being used for enlarging the lips, for one). Transdermal Drug Delivery on the other hand are supposed to enter the bloodstream so drugs delivered through skin (e.g., nicotine, fentanyl, estradiol patches) are engineered to bypass the stratum corneum barrier. They use optimized molecular size, solubility, enhancers, and occlusion. If you want percentages here as well, I would say 20-95% systemic absorption of applied dose, but it depends on a couple of factors I have previously mentioned. Just to stay on topic: sunscreens require only surface layer depth of absorption only, and in fact, many products work at this level. Their effectiveness depends heavily on formulation, proper application, and reapplication. Sunscreens do work when used correctly, they significantly reduce UV damage, premature aging, and skin cancer risk, BUT you must apply it properly and reapply often. You should combine with shade, too. | | |
| ▲ | LilBytes 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I have absolutely zero knowledge about the science and/or biology of skin, I read your post expecting it to end with something stupid like "don't know, I made all of this up". I'm glad it didn't! I love HN because, for every snarky comment that's made or said on a misunderstood, or incorrect basis of knowledge that would set off an alarm on QI, followed by a stern telling off by Stephen Fry. There's some one like you, who has an endless pit of knowledge to aritculate or better inform with a whole lot of insight thrown in for good measure. Thank you, your post's awesome. :) Small edit: I immediately thought "Your skin can't be that good as a barrier, nicotine and caffeine patches work through the skin?" when I saw the post you replied to, and loved that you made reference to it too. | | |
| ▲ | johnisgood 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Thank you, I truly appreciate your kind words! I just woke up when I saw the submission, and when I scrolled through the comments I saw the one to which I replied because it did provoke me enough (you can even say it triggered me :D) to make such a reply. I am glad it was a useful read to some at least! Of course if there are mistakes, I expect them to be called out and corrected, it has been a while since I last studied this. :) > to articulate or better inform I hope I did it right, I was still just waking up, and English is not my first language to begin with, but to see you write this does make me glad I made the comment. FWIW your comment is quite motivating, thank you again, I mean it. You made my day. :) (I try to encourage or motivate people as well who articulate my thoughts way better than I could ever hope to!) | | |
| ▲ | LilBytes 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Aww dude, nothing to thank me for, thank you though! :) I had no idea English was your second language! That's awesome. I'm dyslexic so language is really hard for me, I have to put a lot more effort than most. I'm pretty intolerant of people who get annoyed at others when spelling or grammar is incorrect when we don't know their personal context (I had to triple check my spelling of grammar at least three times there XD). I never got that impression from your post English wasn't your first language though! But I also wouldn't have stepped in to correct you even if you had. I nearly always find my own errors after a second or third visit, if I want cristicism of how I wrote something. I'll ask for it. If I didn't. I don't. I assume the same for everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
|