4.7 Review

Sunscreen testing: A critical perspective and future roadmap

Journal

TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 157, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2022.116724

Keywords

Sunscreens; Sun protection; Safety; Testing; Ethical; Regulation; Standard

Funding

  1. ARPANSA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article provides a comprehensive review of the existing sunscreen testing standards and offers a critical perspective on the challenges, demands, and opportunities in improving analytical methods for sunscreen testing. It serves as a roadmap for individuals interested in sunscreen testing, including manufacturers, regulatory bodies, policy makers, and academic researchers.
Sunscreens have become a mainstream consumer product for protection against the damaging ultravi-olet (UV) radiation in sunlight. Before a sunscreen is released to the market, it must undergo a set of safety and efficacy tests established by a government or relevant regulatory authority. Regulatory bodies rely on access to appropriate analytical methods to ensure product compliance. The current sunscreen testing standards, particularly those to evaluate the sunscreen efficacy, are far from ideal from both a regulatory and an ethical perspective. For instance, some tests mandate unwarranted exposure of UV radiation to humans and cannot be reliably replicated. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the existing sunscreen testing standards, while providing a critical perspective on associated challenges, demands and opportunities in improving analytical methods for sunscreen testing. This re-view will provide a roadmap for those interested in sunscreen testing, including manufacturers, regu-latory bodies, policy makers and academic researchers. Crown Copyright (c) 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available