Sunscreen Filter

8/9/2019 Sunscreen Filter

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sunscreen-filter 1/4

IT SEEMS THE U.S. government is now

concerned about the rising incidences

of skin cancer in the country. This was

expressed not in the form of issuing a Final

Regulation—delayed for over a decade—

that governs the use of sunscreens in the

U.S. Instead, the government imposed a

tax on tanning salons! At the eleventh hour

of the health care overhaul bill, the U.S.

Senate removed the so-called “Botax” andimposed a 10% tax on tanning salons.

Though any action to discourage the

use of tanning salons should be hailed, the

mere politics of this situation does not sit

well with me. For one thing, it again illus-

trates that if you have a powerful lobby in

Congress, you can pass or amend just about

any bill proposed.

The powerful American Medical Asso-

ciation (AMA) and the American Academy

of Dermatology (AAD) lobbies managed to

surgically remove the 5% tax suggested onall cosmetic procedures (such as Botox) and

instead implanted a new 10% tax on the

tanning salon industry. More importantly,

this industry will never be able to raise the

$2.7 billion over 10 years that is envisioned

by the Congressional Joint Committee on

Taxation. The tanning salon industry’s

growth has flat-lined and it has been hit

hard by the economic downturn, and of

course, by the negative publicity that in-

door-tanning is a known carcinogen.1

The House bill, on the other hand, is

likely to overturn this provision in the Sen-

ate version of the health-care overhaul bill.

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) blasted theidea of a tax on tanning beds, calling it “a

blatant attack on Orange Americans.”2

Rep. Boehner said the anti-tanning provi-

sion would likely create opposition from

the so-called “Orange Republicans.”3 Can

we solicit those Orange Republicans to join

forces with red, white and tanned Democ-

rats to influence the FDA to finalize the

sunscreen regulations in the U.S?

I am currently soliciting signatures to

petition the FDA to release the Final

Monograph. I have met with dermatologistSteven Wang, cosmetic chemists in our in-

dustry, and members of concerned citizens

and environmental groups, most notably

the Environmental Working Group (EWG),

to draft such a letter to the FDA. I look for-

ward to soliciting the support of all con-

cerned in signing this petition and

declaring our opposition to the status quo.

The image of the sunscreen industry and

that of the regulators has been tarnished

during those years of indecision. More im-

portantly, this chaos of non-regulation hasbeen detrimental to all those exposed to

the ravages of the sun. The statistics of skin

cancer growth in the U.S. bear it out.

Returning to the recent developments

with the tanning salons, the Indoor Tan-

ning Association (ITA) has agreed to a set-

tlement with the Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) regarding health and

safety claims of indoor tanning.4 The FTC

compliant claims that in March 2008, the

association launched an advertising cam-

paign designed to portray indoor tanning as safe and beneficial. The campaign is ac-

cused of making these false claims:

• Indoor tanning is approved by the

government;

• Indoor tanning is safer than tanning

outdoors (since UV light received is moni-

tored and controlled);

• A national Academy of Science study

determined that “the risks of not getting

enough UV light far outweigh the hypo-

thetical risk of skin cancer;”and• Vitamin D supplements may harm the

body’s ability to fight disease.

Under its settlement with the FTC, all

future ITA ads must be substantiated and

not misleading and are required to clearly

make several disclosures:

*NOTICE: Exposure to UV radiation may

increase the likelihood of developing skin can-

cer and may cause serious eye injury.

And for ads that claim exposure to UV

radiation produces vitamin D in the body

must prominently disclose:

*NOTICE: You do not need to become tan

for your skin to make Vitamin D. Exposure to

UV radiation may increase the likelihood of

developing skin cancer and may cause serious

eye injury.

The U.S. FDA is planning to hold a pub-

lic debate in the Spring to discuss the prosand cons of stricter regulations on the use

of tanning beds, including stronger warn-

ings on cancer risks and reclassifying them.5

Dermatologists Drop SupportIn an unrelated development, the Ameri-

can Academy of Dermatology (AAD) has

decided to withdraw its Seal of Recogni-

tion program for sunscreens.6 The AAD is

no longer accepting new applications for

the program, but products that were ac-

cepted into the program prior to Nov. 15,2009 will continue to carry the seal until

48 • happi happi.com March 2010

T AXING OUR P ATIENCE

The Sunscreen Filter

Nadim Shaath

Alpha Research

& Development Ltd

Dr. Nadim Shaath is the president of

Alpha Research & Development Ltd., a consulting firm

in White Plains, NY specializing in sunscreen formula-

tions and new product ideas in cosmetics, essential oils

and ultraviolet filters. He has over 30 years of experi-

ence as chairman of the chemistry department at

SUNY-Purchase, the technical director at Felton, the

president of Nickstadt-Moeller, Inc. and the CEO of KatoWorldwide. He can be reached at [email protected]



See more of the science behind SolaStay by viewing webinars at hallstar.com/starnet

Prepare to take your sunscreens to new levels of performance. SolaStay S1

quenches the singlet excited states of UV filters, including Avobenzone and Octinoxate

(OMC). So it works up to 1000 times faster than other photostabilizers and protects

against loss of absorbance up to four times better. With the power of SolaStay S1in your

formulas, you can achieve previously unobtainable levels of SPF and UVA protection.

You may never have to worry about making your numbersagain. You will eclipse them.

For samples, call +1-312-385-4494

www.hallstar.com/solastay

Graph compares SolaStay S1 with Octocrylene in photostabilizingthe dicult combination of Avobenzone and OMC after 25 MED

% U V A A b s o r b a n c e R e t a i n e d

Irradiated with 25 MED

No Photostabilizer 3% Photostabilizer 5% Photostabilizer30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

SolaStay S1

Octocrylene

©2010 The HallStar Company



50 • happi happi.com March 2010

The Sunscreen Filter

the end of their two-year terms. Four com-

panies currently participate in this program

namely, Johnson & Johnson, AminoGene-

sis, Coolibar and Merz Pharmaceuticals. As I noted in an earlier column, some

members of the Academy had criticized the

program due to conflicts of interest and for

the fact that manufacturers were required

to pay a sizable amount to display the seal

on their product.

When politics distract us from the issues

at hand, we would do well to focus back on

the basics. The science of developing effec-

tive filters is still ongoing. Late last year, the

Society of Cosmetic Chemists had its annual

meeting at the New York Hilton on Dec. 10

and 11 with a scientific session devotedsolely to “sunscreens.” The session was

moderated by Dr. Mindy Goldstein. The first

speaker was Craig Bonda from Hallstar.

Bonda is an accomplished speaker. He

spoke on “Improving Sunscreen Photosta-

bility by Quenching the Singlet Excited

State.”He has recently written an article de-

scribing the photophysics of Ethylhexyl-

methoxycrylene which is marketed by

Hallstar as Solastay S1.7The chemistry of the

molecule warrants a brief discussion. It is ba-

sically an octocrylene molecule that is sub-stituted in the para-position with an electron

releasing methoxyl substituent. It has a UVA

absorbance at about 340nm with an extinc-

tion coefficient over 12,000. The electron-

delocalization that is enhanced by themethoxyl grouping 8 in the octrocylene mol-

ecule decreases the molecule’s energy re-

quirements, thereby increasing its maximum

absorption from 303 nm for octocrylene (see

Fig. 1) to 340nm for ethylhexylmethoxycry-

lene as shown in Fig. 2:

The second speaker was Howard Ep-

stein from EMD, who spoke on the encap-

sulation technology in sunscreens. He

reviewed the Sol-gel process that permits

the encapsulation of organic oil-soluble

sunscreens, such as octinoxate and

avobenzone. This permits adequate UVA/UVB protection with minimal dermal pen-

etration of the organic sunscreen. Encap-

sulation also permits incompatible

ingredients, such as avobenzone and octi-

noxate to be formulated together with de-

creased interaction between those two

reactive UV filters. It also lowers the allergy

potential by using an inner capsule.

The third speaker was Dr. Pascal Del-

rieu from Kobo products who spoke on

“Non-Nano Zinc Oxide.” Since zinc oxide

has a lower refractive index than titaniumdioxide, he focused his work primarily on

zinc oxide that has a better chance of

transparency. The size of the particles has

been at issue; the safety of nano-particles(below 100nm) has recently been chal-

lenged by consumer and environmental

groups thus the need for larger than nano-

sized zinc oxide particles. Delrieu dis-

cussed the most popular measurement

methods and their capacity to predict par-

ticle size adequately. These include electron

microscopy and image analysis, dynamic

light scattering, laser diffraction and

acoustic attenuation spectroscopy. A num-

ber of UV attenuation grades of zinc oxide

of large particle size were evaluated and aspecial grade in the range of 100–400nm

was introduced using C12-15 alkylben-

zoates and jojoba esters.

All in all, the NYSCC meeting provided

a needed forum for interaction and dia-

logue amongst scientists, regulators, mar-

keters, recruiters, job seekers and

management. What goes on behind the

scenes is just as important as the technical

meetings and the attendance at the tech-

nology showcase. •

References

1. Happi, March 2009 “The Sunscreen Filter.”2. http://online.wsj.com/article/12/22/20093. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-

borowitz, 12/28/094. http://www.consumeraffairs.com, 1/27/105. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/arti-

cle,1/20/20106. http:// www.aad.org.7. Bonda, C. et.al (2010) “Singlet Quenching

proves faster is better for photostability”, Cos-met. Toil. 25, 40-48.

8. Shaath, N.A. (2005). “The Chemistry of ul-traviolet filters”. In Sunscreens: Regulationsand Commercial Development, 3rd edition,

Shaath, N.A., Editor, New York, NY: Taylor &Francis, 217- 238.

Fig.1: Octocrylene Resonance Delocalization λmax: 303nm

Fig. 2: Ethylhexylmethoxycrylene Resonance Delocalization λmax: 340nm



QUALITY. PERFORMANCE.

TOGETHER WE IMPROVE THE

QUALITY OF LIFE.

Innovation, precision, thoroughness and close customer collaboration

are just a few of the reasons that make WACKER the first choice

among manufacturers looking to improve the quality, appearance and

functionality of their products.

We look at it as improving the quality of life. Which is why we are

continually advancing our knowledge to help you deliver products

that ultimately have a positive impact in the markets and industries

you serve. For consumer goods, commercial products and industrial

applications, we tackle the most challenging of questions and bring

solutions into clear focus.

We have 27 production sites worldwide and a global network of over

100 sales offices. And each is committed to working together with you

to create imaginative and innovative solutions to meet your specificneeds. And for making a better future today and every day.

CREATING TOMORROW’S SOLUTIONS

Wacker Chemical Corporation, 3301 Sutton Road, Adrian, MI 49221, USA

TEL: +1 888 922 5374, FAX: +1 517 264 4068, [email protected]

Wacker Chemie AG, Hanns-Seidel-Platz 4, 81737 München, Germany

TEL: +49 89 6279 0, FAX: +49 89 6279 1770, www.wacker.com

Sunscreen Filter

Documents

Transcript of Sunscreen Filter