Induction of chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei by 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (oxybenzone) in human lymphocytes

Oxybenzone or benzophenone-3 (2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone; BP-3) is a filter used in a variety of personal care products for protection of human skin and hair from damage by ultraviolet radiation. BP-3 is suspected to exhibit endocrine disruptive properties. Indeed, it was found to be able to interact with the endocrine system causing alteration of its homeostasis, with consequent adverse health effects. Moreover, it is ubiquitously present in the environment, mostly in aquatic ecosystems, with consequent risks to the health of aquatic organisms and humans. In the present study, we analyzed the cytogenetic effects of BP-3 on human lymphocytes using in vitro chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei assays. Blood samples were obtained from five healthy Italian subjects. Lymphocyte cultures were exposed to five concentrations of BP-3 (0.20, 0.10, 0.05, 0.025, and 0.0125?μg/mL) for 24 and 48?h (for chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei tests, respectively). The concentration of 0.10?µg/mL represents the acceptable/tolerable daily intake reference dose established by European Union, whereas 0.20, 0.05, 0.025, and 0.0125?µg/mL represent multiple and sub-multiple of this concentration value. Our results reported cytogenetic effects of BP-3 on cultured human lymphocytes in terms of increased micronuclei and chromosomal aberrations’ frequencies at all tested concentrations, including concentrations lower than those established by European Union. Vice versa, after 48-h exposure, a significant reduction of the cytokinesis-block proliferation index value in cultures treated with BP-3 was not observed, indicating that BP-3 does not seem to produce effects on the proliferation/mitotic index when its concentration is equal to or less than 0.20?μg/mL.     

Simplified method to substantiate SPF labeling for sunscreen products

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Worldwide, sunscreen sun protection factor (SPF) testing is based on 30-year-old technology. At the time the SPF test came into being, the highest SPFs available were in the 6-8 range. The SPF test is reasonably accurate for SPFs up to 15, but is much less reliable for measuring SPFs of 30 and higher. The method we propose addresses two primary reasons for this unreliability: 1) difficulties in applying products uniformly and 2) the subjectivity and variability of perception in evaluating and grading responses to UV doses. METHODS: Our proposed SPF substantiation method differs from the current SPF test in that sunscreen-protected test sites receive the same UV dose in four uniformly spaced sub-sites, which are graded as passing if no response is seen or failing if any response is seen. The response may be tanning, erythema, or a combination of both. To demonstrate the method, two commercial products with labeled SPFs of 30 and 45 and the P2 sunscreen standard were tested at two different laboratories. RESULTS: The SPF 30 product and SPF 15 standard were shown to be correctly labeled. However, it is questionable as to whether the SPF 45 product provides protection against 45 minimal erythema doses. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed SPF substantiation method is not dependent on subjective evaluation of responses, accounts for non-uniform product application, and provides a conservative estimate of sunscreen protection. The method consists of a systematic repetition of identical tests that are considerably more rigorous than the current methods that are based on single data points per test subject. While the current SPF test remains necessary and valuable as a dose ranging tool, we propose that this SPF substantiation method supersede the old method for final SPF label determination.     

Randomized controlled community trial of the efficacy of a multicomponent stage-matched intervention to increase sun protection among beachgoers

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is about as common as all other cancers combined and is preventable by sun protection. The most intense sun exposures often occur on the beach, so we chose this setting to test an intervention to affect sun protection behaviors. METHODS: We developed a multicomponent stage-matched intervention for beachgoers and evaluated its efficacy in a randomized trial for influencing stage of change and self-reported behavior. RESULTS: We randomized 2,324 persons ages 16 to 65 on the beach (83% of those approached). The intervention was effective in increasing self-reported sun protective behaviors. Effects were similar across gender and age groups. CONCLUSIONS; The beach is a good site for recruitment and intervention to prevent skin cancer in high-risk populations. Our stage-matched intervention package was effective for increasing sun protective behaviors.     

UV-induced immune suppression and sunscreen

Sun protection factor (SPF) that measures sunscreen protection against erythema and edema may not be enough to measure a sunscreen's activity against many other biologic reactions induced by ultraviolet radiation (UV). It may be better to evaluate sunscreen efficacy using various tools including immune protection factor (IPF), mutation protection factor (MPF) and protection against photocarcinogenesis. In terms of immune protection, sunscreens protected against UV-induced immune suppression significantly. But protection in some cases was partial and often the IPF of sunscreens were less than the SPF. IPF may differ with various immunological endpoints, and it may be better to use a couple of different assays to measure sunscreen protection more objectively. Sunscreen use protects against most UV-induced non-melanoma skin cancers and actinic keratoses but its activity against melanoma is not clear. More studies with broad-spectrum stable sunscreens and better models for the investigation of malignant melanoma are required.     

“派莎”防晒乳膏对中波紫外线损伤人角质 形成细胞的保护作用

［摘要］ 目的探讨“派莎”防晒乳膏对中波紫外线（UVB）损伤人角质形成细胞（HKC）的保护作用及作用机制。方法用“派莎”防晒乳膏对HKC进行预处理24 h，采用不同强度的UVB 照射体外培养的HKC，24 h 后以噻唑蓝（MTT）法检测细胞生存率，用酶联免疫吸附（ELISA）法检测上清液中白细胞介素（IL 8）浓度，以酶联免疫吸附实验检测细胞上清液中肿瘤坏死因子（TNF） α的分泌量。结果经UVB照射后，细胞损伤程度与UVB照射剂量有关，“派莎”防晒乳膏可提高UVB照射后HKC的生存率，减少细胞因子TNF α的分泌。UVB 照射可使HKC 分泌IL 8 增加，“派莎”防晒乳膏组IL 8 浓度与对照组比较差异有显著性（P＜0.05）。结论UVB对HKC有损伤作用，且与照射强度相关，“派莎”防晒乳膏对HKC具有光保护作用。抑制TNF α和IL 8的释放，提高UVB照射后HKC的生存率，可能是其保护作用机制之一。     

镰形棘豆防晒霜对海训官兵日晒伤防护研究

目的观察镰形棘豆防晒霜对海训官兵日晒伤防治效果。方法采取整群抽样方法,分别对海上游泳和沙滩训练官兵进行防晒比较观察。海上游泳观察组于下海训练前将防晒霜涂抹短裤遮盖外的全部暴露部位,游泳2 h上岸休息时追加涂抹1次;沙滩训练观察组于训练前将防晒霜涂抹在体能服遮盖外的全部暴露部位。对照组未进行防护干预。比较训练期内观察组和对照组日晒伤的患病率及其晒伤程度。结果采集海上游泳观察组323例,对照组311例,观察组累积发生日晒伤78例(24.1%),对照组共发生日晒伤148例(41.1%),两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。沙滩训练观察组414例,对照组428例,观察组累积发生日晒伤80例(19.3%),对照组共发生日晒伤230例(53.7%),两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。日晒伤严重程度比较,海上游泳观察组Ⅰ度晒伤77例(23.8%)、Ⅱ度1例(0.3%),对照组Ⅰ度晒伤122例(39.2%)、Ⅱ度6例(1.9%),两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。沙滩训练观察组Ⅰ度晒伤79例(19.1%)、Ⅱ度1例(0.2%),对照组Ⅰ度晒伤213例(49.8%)、Ⅱ度17例(4.0%),两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论镰形棘豆防晒霜具有防水、防晒及减轻晒伤程度的作用。     

Sunscreen application at the beach

Background The sun protection factor (SPF) of sunscreens is determined after application of a standard amount. The European Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (COLIPA) standard amount is 2 mg/cm². Real‐life application of sunscreen is probably less than this. Aim To determine the amount of sunscreen present on the skin of people at the beach. Methods Volunteers at the beach were selected randomly and were not aware of being tested for the adequacy of their sunscreen application. All volunteers had applied sunscreen. Application had been more than 30 min before testing (sometimes up to 4 h earlier). The amounts of sunscreen applied to different body sites were determined quantitatively by tape stripping. Actual amounts of sunscreen applied were compared with the COLIPA standard. Also, sunscreen containing a fluorescent dye was applied to the skin of volunteers in a laboratory setting. The distribution of sunscreen application was visualized by UVA photography in a darkened room. Results Sixty volunteers, 33 males and 27 females, aged 17–68 years (median 32 years), were recruited at the beach. Sunscreen coverage was inadequate at all body sites. Coverage at various body sites differed greatly. Most volunteers had applied 10% or less of the COLIPA standard amount to all body sites assessed. The best protected areas were the upper arm and décolleté but, even in these areas, most volunteers had only applied 10% of the COLIPA standard amount. The worst protected areas were the ears and top of the feet. The back was typically badly protected if treated by the volunteers themselves. The back was better protected if another person had applied the sunscreen. In the laboratory, the fluorescent dye‐containing sunscreen showed the same pattern of sunscreen application as at the beach. Conclusions In real life, at the beach, very little sunscreen remains present on the skin.