Protecting our skin from the damaging effects of solar radiation is a critical aspect of preventative healthcare with profound economic and public health implications. Excessive sun exposure is the primary driver of skin cancer, the most common cancer in the United States, affecting an estimated one in five Americans by age 70 (Glaser & Tomecki, 2020). The annual cost of treating skin cancers in the U.S. exceeds $8 billion, impacting individuals, families, and national productivity (Glaser & Tomecki, 2020). One of the most immediate consequences of excessive sun exposure is UV-induced erythema, commonly known as sunburn. Repeated sunburns, especially during childhood and adolescence, significantly increase the risk of developing skin cancer later in life.

Table 1:The Impact of Solar Radiation on Skin: Understanding the Risks and Protective Measures
This table provides a comprehensive overview of the impact of different wavelengths of light on skin health. The “Wavelength Range” column indicates the specific range of wavelengths for each type of electromagnetic radiation. The “Percentage of Solar Radiation” column represents the approximate percentage of the total solar energy that reaches the Earth’s surface for each type of radiation. The “Impact on Skin” section uses arrows to indicate the relative risk of various skin concerns associated with each type of radiation: one arrow (↑) signifies low risk, two arrows (↑↑) signify moderate risk, and three arrows (↑↑↑) signify high risk. The “Mechanism of Damage” column describes the primary ways in which each type of radiation can damage the skin, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, inflammation, and immunosuppression. Finally, the “Protection Measures” column lists practical strategies to minimize the harmful effects of each type of radiation, including sunscreen use, protective clothing, seeking shade, and limiting exposure to specific light sources.

Type of Ray	Wavelength Range (nm)	Percentage of Solar Radiation	Impact on Skin	Protection Measures
Ultraviolet C (UVC)	100 – 280	0% (absorbed by the ozone layer)	Does not reach the Earth’s surface; highly damaging if exposed	N/A
Ultraviolet B (UVB)	280 – 315	~5%	Photoaging: ↑↑ – Skin Cancer: ↑↑↑ Pigmentation: ↑↑	Sunscreen with high SPF, protective clothing, seeking shade, avoiding midday sun.
Ultraviolet A I (UVA I)	315 – 340	~75%	Photoaging: ↑↑↑ – Skin Cancer: ↑↑ Pigmentation: ↑↑↑	Broad-spectrum sunscreen with high UVA protection, protective clothing, sunglasses.
Ultraviolet A II (UVA II)	340 – 400	~20%	Photoaging: ↑↑ – Skin Cancer: ↑ Pigmentation: ↑↑	Broad-spectrum sunscreen, protective clothing.
Visible Light	400 – 700	~45%	Photoaging: ↑↑ – Skin Cancer: ↑ Pigmentation: ↑↑	Broad-spectrum sunscreen, antioxidants, limiting excessive sun exposure.
High Energy Visible (HEV) Light	400 – 450	~15%	Photoaging: ↑↑ – Skin Cancer: ↑  Pigmentation: ↑	Broad-spectrum sunscreen, antioxidants, limiting screen time, increasing distance from screens.
Blue Light	450 – 495	~20%	Photoaging: ↑ – Pigmentation: ↑↑	Antioxidants, some broad-spectrum sunscreens, blue light filtering glasses.
Infrared A (IR-A)	700 – 1400	~40%	Photoaging: ↑↑ – Skin Cancer: ↑ Pigmentation: ↑	Broad-spectrum sunscreen with IR protection, antioxidants, protective clothing, seeking shade.
Infrared B (IR-B) & C (IR-C)	1400 – 1,000,000	~15% (IR-B) & ~1% (IR-C)	Minimal impact on skin; mostly absorbed by the atmosphere for IR-C. IR-B can cause heat stress.	Protective clothing, seeking shade (for IR-B). N/A for IR-C.

Beyond skin cancer, a spectrum of other sun-induced skin conditions demands attention. Photoaging, characterized by premature wrinkles, sagging, and skin discolorations, is largely attributed to chronic sun exposure, with UV radiation being a major contributor (Salminen et al., 2022). This fuels a multi-billion dollar industry of anti-aging products and procedures, reflecting both individual expense and the psychological toll of premature aging (Antoniou et al., 2010).

While UV radiation is a well-known culprit in skin damage, the impact of visible light, particularly high-energy visible light (HEV) or blue light (400-450 nm), is also gaining recognition. Blue light penetrates deeper into the skin than some UV rays (Boyer et al., 2023), contributing to photoaging and exacerbating signs like wrinkles and hyperpigmentation (Chamayou-Robert et al., 2022). Furthermore, blue light can stimulate melanocyte activity, potentially worsening hyperpigmentation, particularly in darker skin tones (Regazzetti et al., 2018). This can lead to healthcare costs and psychosocial challenges, impacting quality of life (Joseph, 2020).

Beyond the visible effects, both UV and blue light can trigger the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the skin, leading to oxidative stress and damage to cellular components (Pieper et al., 2022). This oxidative stress is a key driver of skin aging and can contribute to various skin conditions.

In addition to UV and visible light, infrared radiation (IR) also plays a role in sun damage. IR penetrates deep into the skin, potentially contributing to inflammation and collagen degradation. The growing awareness of the diverse effects of solar radiation has fueled a surge in demand for broader sun protection strategies. The cosmeceutical market is expanding, with products targeting blue light damage and incorporating antioxidants to mitigate oxidative stress.

Increased screen time in various professions raises concerns about the long-term impact of blue light exposure on skin health, potentially leading to workplace health costs. As our understanding of the full spectrum of solar radiation expands, so too does the need for comprehensive photoprotection strategies.

This expanded understanding drives the development of next-generation sunscreens with enhanced photostability, broad-spectrum protection, water & sweat resistance, and improved safety profiles.

Furthermore, personalized photoprotection, leveraging advanced diagnostics and AI, promises to optimize sun safety strategies tailored to individual needs. This evolution is intertwined with a growing awareness of the skin microbiome’s role in UV response and overall skin health, alongside a push for eco-friendly formulations and sustainable practices. However, translating these scientific advancements into accessible and effective consumer products is shaped by the complex and varying regulatory landscape.

In addition to advancements in sunscreen technology, consumer education and packaging play vital roles in promoting effective sun protection. Educational initiatives are crucial to raise awareness about the importance of sun safety, proper sunscreen application, and factors that can influence sunscreen efficacy, such as storage conditions. Packaging also plays a significant role, with user-friendly designs and informative labeling contributing to better adherence and overall sun protection.

This article provides an overview of the current state and future trajectory of sun protection, exploring the latest research on solar radiation’s impact, innovations in sunscreen technology, and behavioral approaches to sun safety. It will also address ethical considerations, future research needs, and the crucial interplay between science, regulation, and consumer behavior to provide a holistic understanding of the evolving landscape of sun protection and its vital implications for public health. Research on the long-term effects of the full solar spectrum on skin health is ongoing. As our understanding grows, we can expect further innovations in skincare and preventative measures to protect against the harmful effects of the sun.

 Our understanding of sun protection has undergone a remarkable evolution, moving beyond the simplistic goal of preventing sunburn to encompass a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to safeguarding skin health. This paradigm shift is driven by a growing recognition of the diverse and far-reaching effects of solar radiation, encompassing not only the well-known damaging effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation but also the emerging understanding of the impact of visible light, particularly high-energy visible light (HEV) or blue light, and infrared radiation (IR).

The Expanding Spectrum of Solar Radiation

Ultraviolet C (UVC) (100-280nm): UVC radiation is the most energetic and potentially harmful type of UV radiation. However, it is almost entirely absorbed by the ozone layer and does not reach the Earth’s surface. Therefore, it does not pose a direct threat to skin health under normal circumstances. However, it’s worth noting that artificial sources of UVC, such as germicidal lamps used for disinfection, can be harmful to the skin and eyes if proper precautions are not taken.   

Ultraviolet B (UVB) (280-315nm): Primarily absorbed by the epidermis, UVB radiation is the chief culprit behind sunburns. It causes direct DNA damage that can lead to mutations and contribute to skin cancer (Meyer & Stockfleth 2021). UVB also plays a significant role in immunosuppression, impairing the skin’s ability to fight off infections and potentially contributing to the development of skin cancer (Tang et al., 2024).   

UVA (315-400nm):
UVA I (315-340nm): Penetrating deeper into the skin to reach the dermis, UVA I radiation is a major contributor to photoaging, causing wrinkles, sagging and age spots (Guan et al., 2021). It also generates reactive oxygen species (ROS), leading to oxidative stress and damage to cellular components like collagen and elastin, which are essential for maintaining skin structure and elasticity (Dunaway et al., 2018). While less intense than UVB, UVA I can also contribute to DNA damage and increase the risk of skin cancer (Gasparro, 2000).   

UVA II (340-400nm): UVA II radiation also contributes to photoaging and pigmentation changes, although its penetration depth is less than that of UVA I. It can still generate ROS and contribute to skin damage.   

Visible Light (400-700nm): Visible light comprises the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. It includes different colors, ranging from violet to red. While visible light is generally considered less harmful than UV radiation, certain wavelengths within this spectrum, particularly high-energy visible light (HEV) or blue light, can have significant effects on skin health.   

HEV Light (400-450nm): This portion of the visible light spectrum, encompassing violet and some blue light, has greater potential for causing oxidative stress and inflammation in the skin. It can disrupt the skin’s natural repair mechanisms and contribute to premature aging.   

Blue Light (450-495nm): While blue light can also contribute to oxidative stress, its primary concern is its potential role in hyperpigmentation, especially in darker skin tones. It can stimulate melanocyte activity, leading to increased melanin production and uneven skin tone.   

Infrared Radiation (IR) (700nm-1mm):
IRA (700-1400nm): IRA penetrates deep into the skin, reaching the subcutaneous tissue. It can contribute to inflammation, collagen degradation and potentially even skin cancer development (Passeron et al., 2020). The long-term effects of IRA exposure on skin health are still being investigated, but it plays a role in the overall picture of sun damage.   

IRB (1400-3000nm) and IRC (3000nm-1mm): IRB and IRC have less impact on the skin compared to IRA. IRB can cause heat stress, while IRC is mostly absorbed by the atmosphere with minimal effects on skin.

Mechanisms of Skin Damage

Solar radiation inflicts damage on the skin through various intricate mechanisms, triggering a cascade of events that can lead to premature aging, hyperpigmentation and skin cancer. Different wavelengths of light interact with the skin in distinct ways, contributing to the overall picture of sun damage.   

Direct DNA Damage: UVB radiation is well-known for its ability to directly damage DNA, leading to mutations that can contribute to skin cancer (Kim et al., 2022). While UVA radiation is less effective in directly damaging DNA, it can still contribute to DNA damage indirectly through the generation of ROS (Khan et al., 2018).   

Oxidative Stress: Both UVA and HEV radiation generate ROS, highly reactive molecules that can damage cellular components like DNA, proteins and lipids (Palmer & Kitchin, 2010). This oxidative stress is a key driver of photoaging, contributing to wrinkles, sagging and age spots (Kligman, 1989). It can also exacerbate inflammatory skin conditions and increase the risk of skin cancer (Mohania et al., 2017). Blue light, while less energetic than UVA, can also contribute to ROS generation and oxidative stress, particularly in the deeper layers of the skin. IR-A radiation can also induce ROS production, although its primary mechanism of damage is through heat stress.   

Inflammation: UV radiation triggers inflammatory responses in the skin, characterized by redness, swelling and discomfort. This inflammation can contribute to both photoaging and the development of skin cancer (Awad et al., 2018). HEV and IR radiation can also induce inflammatory responses, further contributing to skin damage (Kligman, 1986; Krutmann et al., 2017). Blue light has also been shown to trigger inflammatory pathways in the skin, potentially contributing to photoaging and other skin conditions.   

Immunosuppression: UVB radiation is known to suppress the skin’s immune system, reducing its ability to fight off infections and potentially contributing to the development of skin cancer (Ullrich, 1995). This immunosuppressive effect can also make the skin more susceptible to other environmental stressors and pathogens. While UVA radiation also has some immunosuppressive effects, they are generally less pronounced than those of UVB.

Disruption of Skin Barrier Function: Solar radiation can disrupt the skin’s barrier function, impairing its ability to retain moisture and protect against external aggressors. This can lead to dryness, sensitivity and increased susceptibility to irritation and infection (Rittié & Fisher, 2015). IR-A radiation, due to its deep penetration, can also contribute to skin barrier disruption.

Melanin Production: Exposure to UV radiation, particularly UVA, and HEV/blue light stimulates melanin production in the skin, leading to tanning and hyperpigmentation (Schutz, 2021). While melanin provides some natural protection against UV damage, excessive melanin production can result in uneven skin tone and dark spots, which can be cosmetically concerning and challenging to treat. Blue light has been shown to stimulate melanocyte activity and contribute to hyperpigmentation.

Sunscreen Technology Advancements

This deeper understanding of the mechanisms of skin damage has fueled significant advancements in sunscreen technology. Next-generation sunscreens offer broader protection, enhanced photostability and improved safety profiles.   

Broad-Spectrum Protection: The term “broad-spectrum” in sunscreen refers to its ability to protect against both Ultraviolet A (UVA) and Ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation. It’s important to understand that not all sunscreens are created equal when it comes to broad-spectrum protection. The specific UV filters included in a sunscreen determine the extent of its protection against different wavelengths.   

Mineral vs. Chemical Sunscreens: Mineral sunscreens, containing active ingredients like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, typically offer inherent broad-spectrum protection by physically blocking and scattering a wide range of UV rays. Chemical sunscreens, on the other hand, rely on chemical filters that absorb specific wavelengths of UV radiation. The combination of different chemical filters is often necessary to achieve comprehensive broad-spectrum protection.   

Wavelength Coverage: Some chemical filters are more effective at absorbing UVB rays (e.g., octinoxate, octisalate), while others are better at absorbing UVA rays (e.g., avobenzone, ecamsule). To achieve truly broad-spectrum protection, a sunscreen must contain a combination of filters that effectively cover both UVA and UVB wavelengths. Table 2 provides a detailed overview of common UV filters and their protective capabilities against different wavelengths.   

Table 2: Summary of Common UV Filters in Sunscreens
This table provides an overview of chemical and mineral (only Titanium Dioxide & Zinc Oxide listed here) sunscreen agents commonly used in sun protection products. It lists their chemical structure, mechanism of action (how they protect against UV radiation), and their protective efficacy against different types of UV radiation, including UVB, UVA I, and UVA II. The table also includes information on potential side effects, and FDA GRASE (Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective) classification.

Chemical Agent (Alternative/Trade Name)	Structure	Mechanism of Action	UVB Protection	UVA I Protection	UVA II Protection	HEV/Blue Light Protection	Side Effects	FDA GRASE Classification
Avobenzone (Parsol 1789)	C20H22O3	Absorbs UVA rays	Low (<50%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	Moderate (50-85%)	Rare skin reactions, photodegradation	Non GRASE (III)
Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3)	C14H12O3	Absorbs UVB and UVA rays	Moderate (50-85%)	Moderate (50-85%)	Moderate (50-85%)	Moderate (50-85%)	Skin irritation, potential hormone disruption	Non GRASE (III)
Octinoxate (Octyl Methoxycinnamate)	C18H26O3	Absorbs UVB rays	High (>85%)	Low (<50%)	Low (<50%)	Low (<50%)	Skin irritation, potential hormone disruption	Non GRASE (III)
Homosalate	C16H26O3	Absorbs UVB rays	Moderate (50-85%)	Low (<50%)	Low (<50%)	Low (<50%)	Skin irritation	Non GRASE (III)
Octisalate (Octyl Salicylate)	C12H22O2	Absorbs UVB rays	Moderate (50-85%)	Low (<50%)	Low (<50%)	Low (<50%)	Skin irritation	Non GRASE (III)
Octocrylene	C24H34O2	Absorbs UVB and some UVA rays	High (>85%)	Moderate (50-85%)	Moderate (50-85%)	Moderate (50-85%)	Skin irritation	Non GRASE (III)
Ecamsule (Mexoryl SX)	C20H22O3	Absorbs UVA rays	Low (<50%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	Moderate (50-85%)	Rare skin reactions, photostable	No GRASE rating
Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine (BEMT, Bemotrizinol)	C24H30O3	Absorbs UVA and UVB rays	Moderate (50-85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	Rare skin reactions, photostable	Non GRASE
Tinosorb S (Bisoctrizole)	C29H32O3	Absorbs UVA and UVB rays	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	Minimal skin reactions, photostable	Non GRASE
Tinosorb M (Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol)	C30H32O3	Absorbs UVA and UVB rays	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	Minimal skin reactions, photostable	Non GRASE
Mexoryl XL (Drometrizole Trisiloxane)	C24H30O3	Absorbs UVA rays	Low (<50%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	Moderate (50-85%)	Rare skin reactions, photostable	Non GRASE
Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891)	TiO2	Reflects and scatters UV rays	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	Minimal skin reactions, can leave a white cast	GRASE (I)
Zinc Oxide (CI 77947)	ZnO	Reflects and scatters UV rays	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	High (>85%)	Minimal skin reactions, can leave a white cast	GRASE (I)

Importance of Broad-Spectrum Protection: Both UVA and UVB radiation contribute to skin damage. UVB is primarily responsible for sunburns, while UVA penetrates deeper into the skin, causing photoaging and contributing to skin cancer risk. Therefore, adequate protection against both types of UV radiation is essential for maintaining skin health.

UVA I vs. UVA II: UVA radiation is further categorized into UVA I (315-340nm) and UVA II (340-400nm). UVA I penetrates deeper into the skin and is more strongly associated with photoaging, while UVA II is more associated with pigmentation changes. Ideally, a broad-spectrum sunscreen should provide adequate protection against both UVA I and UVA II.

HEV vs. Blue Light: High-energy visible (HEV) light (400-450nm) and blue light (450-495nm) are both parts of the visible light spectrum. HEV light has a greater potential for causing oxidative stress and inflammation, while blue light is more strongly associated with hyperpigmentation. Some newer sunscreens are formulated to provide protection against both HEV and blue light.   

Infrared Radiation (IR): Infrared radiation is also part of the solar spectrum and can contribute to skin damage through heat stress and the generation of ROS. Some broad-spectrum sunscreens now offer some level of protection against IR radiation, particularly IR-A (700-1400nm), which has the greatest potential for skin damage.   

Visible Light Protection: While traditional sunscreens primarily focused on UV protection, there is growing interest in developing sunscreens that also offer protection against visible light, particularly HEV and blue light. This is because visible light, especially from electronic devices, can contribute to photoaging, hyperpigmentation and other skin concerns.   

Enhanced Photostability: Improved photostability means that sunscreens remain effective for longer periods, providing more consistent protection against UV damage. This is achieved using new and improved UV filters and the development of innovative formulations that prevent the breakdown of sunscreen ingredients upon exposure to sunlight (Nash & Tanner, 2014).

New and Improved UV Filters: Next-generation sunscreens incorporate new and improved UV filters, including chemical filters and refined mineral filters like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. These mineral filters have been micronized and surface-modified to eliminate the white cast often associated with traditional mineral sunscreens, making them more cosmetically elegant and appealing to consumers (Dréno et al., 2019).

Multifunctional Actives: Sunscreens are becoming increasingly sophisticated with the addition of multifunctional actives, such as antioxidants and skin barrier repair ingredients. Antioxidants, like vitamins C and E and green tea polyphenols, help neutralize free radicals generated by UV exposure and pollution, providing an extra layer of defense against skin damage (Milito et al., 2021). Ingredients that support skin barrier repair, such as ceramides and niacinamide, help maintain the skin’s natural defenses and resilience, promoting faster recovery from sun exposure (Berkey et al., 2019).

Nanotechnology: Nanotechnology revolutionized sunscreen formulations by enabling the development of novel delivery systems that enhance the efficacy, safety and cosmetic appeal of sunscreens. These nanosystems, including polymeric nanoparticles, liposomes, nanostructured lipid carriers, solid lipid nanoparticles and nanoemulsions, among others, offer several advantages:

Improved UV Protection: Nanoparticles can enhance the SPF and broaden the UV protection spectrum of sunscreens by increasing the absorption and scattering of UV radiation.

Enhanced Photostability: Encapsulating UV filters in nanoparticles can protect them from degradation, improving their photostability and extending their effectiveness.   

Targeted Delivery: Nanoparticles can facilitate the targeted delivery of sunscreen ingredients to specific skin layers, improving their penetration and reducing systemic absorption.

Cosmetic Elegance: Nanosystems can improve the cosmetic appeal of sunscreens by reducing the white cast associated with mineral filters, enhancing spreadability, and creating lighter textures.

While nanotechnology holds great promise for the future of sunscreens, it also raises safety concerns that need to be addressed through rigorous testing and regulation. Ongoing research is crucial to ensure the long-term safety and efficacy of these nanosystems.

SPF Enhancers: Research is exploring the use of various compounds to enhance the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of sunscreens. These compounds can work through different mechanisms, such as increasing the absorption or scattering of UV radiation, stabilizing UV filters, or boosting the skin’s natural defenses. While the evidence for some of these enhancers is still limited, ongoing research suggests their potential to improve the efficacy of sunscreens.

UV Absorbers: In addition to traditional UV filters, researchers are investigating the use of natural and synthetic UV absorbers to provide additional protection against a broader range of wavelengths. These absorbers can complement the action of traditional filters, potentially offering more comprehensive protection against sun damage.

Other Compounds: Various other compounds, such as antioxidants, anti-inflammatory agents and DNA repair enzymes, have potential to enhance sun protection and mitigate the harmful effects of UV radiation. These compounds can work synergistically with UV filters and other sunscreen ingredients to provide a more holistic approach to skin protection.

Table 3: Examples of Natural Enhancers of Sun Protection:
Exploring the Potential of Antioxidants, and UV Absorbers with published evidence
This table explores the potential of natural molecules and compounds to enhance sun protection and improve skin health. These agents are categorized as antioxidants, UV absorbers, or other beneficial ingredients. Antioxidants neutralize free radicals generated by UV exposure, reducing oxidative stress and protecting against photoaging. UV absorbers provide additional sun protection by absorbing UV radiation. Other beneficial ingredients, such as hyaluronic acid, support skin hydration and barrier function, contributing to overall skin health and resilience. The table lists the mechanisms of action, potential benefits, and potential concerns associated with each agent, along with evidence from a recent research article supporting their use in sun protection. While these natural agents show promise in enhancing sun protection, further research is needed to fully understand their long-term efficacy and safety and to optimize their formulation and delivery in sunscreen products.

Natural Agent	Category	Mechanism of Action	Potential Benefits	Evidence
Rosmarinic acid	Antioxidant/Anti-inflammatory	Neutralizes free radicals, reduces inflammation	Reduces inflammation, enhances skin protection	Found in Plectranthus amboinicus extract, showed broad-spectrum UV protection with an SPF of 12.63 [1].
Lignin	Antioxidant	Neutralizes free radicals	Skin protection, anti-aging	A 5% solution improved SPF by 2.80-3.53 and showed a UVA/UVB ratio of 0.69-0.72 [2].
Carotenoids	Antioxidant	Neutralizes free radicals, protects against photoaging	Enhances natural sun protection	May enhance skin’s natural defenses against UV damage by quenching singlet oxygen and scavenging free radicals [3].
Flavonoid compounds (e.g., Quercetin, Rutin)	Antioxidant	Neutralizes free radicals, protects against photoaging	Enhances natural sun protection	Rutin enhanced antioxidant properties by 40% and photoprotective properties by 70% in a sunscreen formulation [4].
Ferulic acid	Antioxidant	Neutralizes free radicals, protects against photoaging	Enhances natural sun protection	1.0% ferulic acid increased SPF from 19.7 to 26 in a sunscreen formulation [5].
Naringenin	Antioxidant	Neutralizes free radicals, protects against photoaging	Enhances natural sun protection	Naringenin-loaded PLGA particles showed higher SPF than pure naringenin [6].
Mycosporine-like Amino Acids (MAAs)	UV Absorber	Absorbs UV radiation, protects against UV damage	Provides additional sun protection	Found in red algae species, showed potent UVB protection and antioxidant properties [7].

Table 3 provides a summary of some of the natural molecules and boosters that are being investigated for their potential to enhance sun protection. While the evidence for some of these agents remains limited, ongoing research suggests their potential to improve the efficacy and safety of sunscreens.

The ongoing research and development in these areas hold promise for the future of sunscreen technology, offering the potential for even more effective, safe, and personalized sun protection strategies.

Personalized Photoprotection

Recognizing that everyone’s skin is different, the field of photoprotection is moving toward more personalized solutions. Advanced diagnostics, such as high-resolution imaging and genetic testing, can assess individual risk factors and inform personalized sun protection strategies (Passeron et al., 2021). AI-powered algorithms can analyze a range of personal data, from skin type and location to activity levels, to provide customized recommendations for sunscreen selection, application frequency and sun-safe behaviors. This personalized approach may significantly improve adherence to sun protection guidelines, as individuals are more likely to engage with recommendations that are tailored to their specific needs and circumstances.

The Skin Microbiome

The skin microbiome, a complex ecosystem of microorganisms living on our skin, is gaining attention in the field of photoprotection. Research uncovering the intricate interplay between the microbiome, UV exposure and skin barrier function, suggests that a healthy microbiome can bolster the skin’s natural defenses against UV damage (Rai et al., 2022). This has opened exciting possibilities for incorporating prebiotics and probiotics into sunscreen formulations to support a healthy microbiome and enhance its protective capabilities.

Beyond sunscreen, wearable technology is emerging as a valuable tool for personalized sun protection. Wearable UV sensors can provide real-time feedback on UV exposure, empowering individuals to make informed decisions about seeking shade, reapplying sunscreen, or adjusting their activities to minimize sun damage. Nutricosmetics, or oral supplements, are being explored as a complementary approach to enhance the skin’s internal defenses against UV radiation. For example, carotenoids, found in many fruits and vegetables, boost the skin’s antioxidant capacity and reduce inflammation caused by sun exposure (de Souza et al., 2021; Baswan et al., 2021).

These advancements in sunscreen technology, personalized approaches and complementary strategies represent a significant step forward in the quest for comprehensive and effective sun protection. By understanding the diverse effects of solar radiation and embracing a holistic approach to skin health, we can move toward a future where everyone has the knowledge and tools they need to protect their skin from the sun.

Regulations & Implications

The regulatory landscape for sunscreens is complex and varies significantly across different regions, impacting the development, availability, and consumer perception of sun protection products. This variation stems from differing classifications of sunscreens, safety testing requirements, permitted ingredients, and labeling standards, creating a patchwork of regulations that manufacturers and consumers must navigate.

Global Regulatory Frameworks

United States (US): The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates sunscreens as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, subjecting them to strict safety and efficacy testing. However, the FDA has been criticized for its slow pace in approving new sunscreen ingredients and updating its regulations, potentially limiting consumer access to innovative technologies (Surber & Osterwalder, 2021). This cautious approach can be attributed, in part, to concerns about the potential long-term effects of certain sunscreen chemicals, as highlighted by studies on the environmental risks of octinoxate (Chatzigianni et al., 2022) and the potential absorption of sunscreen ingredients through the skin (Romanhole et al., 2020).

In 2019, the FDA proposed a rule to categorize sunscreen filters as:

• Category I—”GRASE” (Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective)
• Category II—non-GRASE
• Category III—requires further evaluation

Currently, only two UV filters, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, are classified as GRASE (Category I). This highlights the FDA’s stringent safety standards and the ongoing need for research to evaluate the long-term effects of various sunscreen ingredients.

European Union (EU): Sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics in the EU, with a more comprehensive and updated regulatory framework that emphasizes both human and environmental safety. The EU has a wider range of approved UV filters and stricter labeling requirements, reflecting a greater emphasis on consumer transparency and informed choice (Pawlowski et al., 2023). The EU also prioritizes environmental protection, with regulations aimed at minimizing the impact of sunscreen ingredients on marine ecosystems (Thomas et al., 2024).

Other Regions: Regulatory approaches in other countries vary widely, often influenced by the US or EU models. For instance, Canada and Mexico largely align with US regulations, while South Africa and Australia tend to follow EU standards. In Asia, countries like China, Japan and Korea have their own unique regulatory frameworks, with varying levels of stringency and emphasis on different aspects of safety and efficacy.

Global Nuances and Oversight

Table 4: Global Sunscreen Regulations: A Comparative Overview 
This table provides a concise comparison of sunscreen regulations across different regions, highlighting key features and challenges. It outlines each region’s regulatory body, sunscreen classification, and specific regulatory approaches. Key features include the stringency of safety and efficacy testing, the range of approved ultraviolet (UV) filters, labeling requirements, and environmental considerations. Challenges encompass issues such as navigating complex regulations, balancing innovation with safety, addressing potential gaps in regulation, and ensuring consumer access to safe, effective, and sustainable sunscreens. Understanding these diverse regulatory landscapes is crucial for manufacturers, researchers, and consumers to promote informed choices and advance the development of innovative and globally accessible sun protection strategies. This table references the following regulatory bodies:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US,  the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in China, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) in Korea, the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) in Mexico, and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA). It also includes the  Protection Grade of UVA (PA) rating used in Japan.

Region	Regulatory Body	Classification	Key Features	Challenges
US	FDA	OTC drug	Rigorous testing, limited UV filters, standardized labeling.	Slow approval, ingredient safety debates, consumer confusion.
EU	European Commission	Cosmetic	Extensive testing, broad UV filter range, environmental focus.	Complex framework, balancing innovation and safety.
UK	MHRA	Aligns with EU, potential divergence.	Similar to EU, may adopt unique regulations.	Consistency with EU, adapting to changes.
China	NMPA	Cosmetic	Stringent regulations, mandatory animal testing (exceptions apply).	Lengthy process, ethical concerns.
Japan	MHLW	Quasi-drug	Stricter than cosmetics, specific labeling (PA rating).	Complex system, consumer education.
Korea	MFDS	Functional cosmetic	Focus on efficacy, innovation emphasis.	Keeping pace, balancing innovation and safety.
South America	Varies	Varies	Diverse, harmonization efforts.	Inconsistencies, access challenges.
Canada	Health Canada	Aligns with US, flexibility.	Similar to FDA, broader UV filter range.	Balancing US alignment with unique needs.
Mexico	COFEPRIS	Similar to US	Follows FDA guidelines.	Limited research, access to advancements.
South Africa	SAHPRA	Follows EU	Aligns with EU standards.	Adapting to local context.
Australia	TGA	Therapeutic good	Strict, comprehensive labeling, high awareness.	High compliance costs, balancing regulations.

Table 4 provides a concise comparison of sunscreen regulations across different regions, highlighting key features and challenges. It outlines each region’s regulatory body, sunscreen classification and specific regulatory approaches. Key features include the stringency of safety and efficacy testing, the range of approved ultraviolet (UV) filters, labeling requirements and environmental considerations. Challenges encompass issues such as navigating complex regulations, balancing innovation with safety, addressing potential gaps in regulation, and ensuring consumer access to safe, effective and sustainable sunscreens. Understanding these diverse regulatory landscapes is crucial for manufacturers, researchers and consumers to promote informed choices and advance the development of innovative and globally accessible sun protection strategies.

This table references the following regulatory bodies: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in China, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) in Korea, the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) in Mexico, and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA). It also includes the Protection Grade of UVA (PA) rating used in Japan.

The Future of Regulation

Looking ahead, it is likely that regulatory oversight of sunscreens will continue to evolve, with a greater emphasis on:

Ingredient Safety: Ongoing research on the potential long-term effects of sunscreen ingredients, including nanoparticles and chemical filters, will likely lead to more refined safety testing requirements and stricter regulations for certain substances (Onyango et al 2023; Parwaiz & Khan, 2023; Vivek et al., 2023).

Environmental Protection: The impact of sunscreen ingredients on marine ecosystems and the environment will continue to be a major focus, leading to greater restrictions on certain chemicals and the promotion of eco-friendly formulations (Schneider & Lim 2019; Chatzigianni et al., 2022).

Consumer Transparency: Clear and standardized labeling will become increasingly important, empowering consumers to make informed choices about their sun protection. This may include more detailed information about ingredients, UV protection levels and potential risks (Guan et al, 2021).

Technological Advancements: New technologies, such as in vitro testing methods (Bielfeldt 2021) and AI-powered risk assessment tools (Gantenbein et al., 2025), could help streamline the regulatory process and accelerate the approval of new sunscreen ingredients.

By understanding the global nuances of sunscreen regulation and the ongoing efforts toward harmonization, we can better appreciate the challenges and opportunities facing the sun protection industry. Ultimately, a more collaborative and science-driven approach to regulation will benefit both consumers and the environment, paving the way for a future where everyone has access to safe, effective and sustainable sun protection.

Discussion

The landscape of sun protection is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by a deeper understanding of solar radiation and its multifaceted impact on skin health. We now recognize that the damaging effects of sunlight extend beyond the well-known UVB rays, encompassing a broader spectrum that includes UVA, high-energy visible light (HEV), and infrared radiation (IR). This expanded knowledge has fueled the development of next-generation sunscreens with enhanced photostability, broader protection against multiple wavelengths, and improved safety profiles. The incorporation of multifunctional actives, such as antioxidants and skin barrier repair ingredients, further enhances the protective capacity of these formulations, addressing a wider range of skin concerns and environmental stressors.

The movement towards personalized photoprotection represents another significant advancement. Recognizing that individuals have unique sun protection needs based on factors like skin type, genetics, lifestyle and specific skin conditions, personalized approaches aim to tailor recommendations and product selection to individual requirements. Advanced diagnostics, such as high-resolution imaging and genetic testing, identify individuals at higher risk of sun damage and inform targeted sun protection strategies. AI-powered algorithms analyze a range of personal data, including skin type, location, and activity levels, to provide customized recommendations for sunscreen selection, application frequency and sun-safe behaviors. This personalized approach has the potential to significantly improve adherence to sun protection guidelines, as individuals are more likely to engage with recommendations that are tailored to their specific needs and circumstances.

The emerging understanding of the skin microbiome’s role in photoprotection adds another layer of complexity to the field. Research suggests that a healthy and balanced microbiome can enhance the skin’s natural defenses against UV radiation and other environmental stressors. Conversely, dysbiosis, or an imbalance in the microbiome, can increase susceptibility to UV-induced damage and inflammation. The potential of prebiotics and probiotics to modulate the skin microbiome and enhance its protective capacity opens up exciting new avenues for sun protection. Future sunscreens may incorporate ingredients that promote a healthy microbiome, further bolstering the skin’s resilience against UV damage.

Despite these significant advancements, significant challenges remain. Ensuring consistent and correct sunscreen application is a persistent hurdle, as many individuals do not apply enough sunscreen or reapply it frequently enough to achieve the stated SPF protection. Improving sunscreen adherence requires a multi-faceted approach, encompassing educational campaigns to raise awareness, user-friendly formulations that enhance the user experience, clear and informative labeling that empowers consumers to make informed choices, and regulatory measures that ensure product quality and efficacy.

Another critical challenge is addressing concerns about the safety of certain sunscreen ingredients. While sunscreens are rigorously tested for safety before they are marketed, ongoing research is essential to ensure the long-term safety of both established and novel ingredients. Concerns have been raised about the potential for some chemical filters, such as Benzophenone-3, to be absorbed into the bloodstream and potentially disrupt endocrine function. Similarly, the safety of nanoparticles, particularly titanium dioxide, used in mineral sunscreens is an area of ongoing research. It is important to balance the benefits of broad-spectrum protection with careful consideration of potential risks. Transparency and open communication about sunscreen ingredient safety are essential for building public trust and ensuring the continued use of these vital protective products.

The fragmented regulatory landscape for sunscreens adds another layer of complexity to these challenges. Differing approaches to sunscreen regulation across different regions can impact consumer access to innovative sunscreen technologies and create confusion about product safety and efficacy. For instance, the FDA’s cautious approach to approving new sunscreen ingredients may limit the availability of certain UV filters that are widely used in other countries. This can create disparities in sun protection options and potentially hinder the adoption of newer, more effective technologies.

Furthermore, varying safety standards and labeling requirements can make it difficult for consumers to compare products and make informed choices. The lack of harmonization in sunscreen regulation also poses challenges for manufacturers seeking to market their products globally, as they must navigate different registration processes and comply with diverse labeling requirements. This can increase costs and limit the availability of certain products in some markets.

Despite these challenges, the growing trend towards harmonization of sunscreen regulations offers hope for a more unified and consumer-centric approach to sun protection. Organizations like the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR) promote global cooperation and convergence in regulatory approaches. This collaboration is essential for addressing the complex issues surrounding sunscreen safety, efficacy and environmental impact. A more harmonized regulatory landscape would benefit both consumers and the industry. It would facilitate the development and marketing of innovative sunscreen technologies, improve consumer access to safe and effective products, and promote greater transparency and understanding of sun protection. Furthermore, it would enable more efficient use of resources and reduce the regulatory burden on manufacturers, potentially leading to lower costs and greater product availability.

Promoting the widespread adoption of new technologies, such as wearable UV sensors and nutricosmetics, is another important consideration. Wearable UV sensors can provide real-time feedback on UV exposure, empowering individuals to make informed decisions about sun protection behaviors. Nutricosmetics, while not a replacement for topical sunscreen, may offer a complementary approach to enhancing the skin’s internal defenses against UV damage. Integrating these new technologies into sun protection strategies requires further research to demonstrate their efficacy and determine their optimal use.

The exploration of natural photoprotectants, like those derived from marine sources and plant extracts, is a promising avenue for developing environmentally friendly and potentially safer sunscreens. These natural compounds may offer unique advantages, such as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, in addition to UV filtering capabilities. However, further research is needed to assess their long-term safety and efficacy and to optimize their formulation and delivery for maximum effectiveness.

Finally, sustainability and ethical considerations are becoming increasingly important in the sunscreen industry. Consumers are increasingly aware of the environmental impact of their choices and seek eco-friendly products. The development of biodegradable and reef-safe sunscreens, which avoid harmful chemical filters that can damage coral reefs and other aquatic ecosystems, is a crucial step toward minimizing the environmental footprint of sun protection. Sustainable packaging, ethical sourcing of ingredients and responsible manufacturing practices are also important considerations for companies in the sunscreen industry.

Conclusion

The future of sun protection is undeniably bright, illuminated by groundbreaking scientific advancements, innovative technologies and a growing awareness of the importance of sun safety. However, realizing the full potential of these advancements requires a collaborative and multifaceted approach that addresses the challenges of sunscreen adherence, ingredient safety, regulatory harmonization and environmental sustainability. By embracing a holistic approach that integrates cutting-edge science, personalized strategies and sustainable practices, we can move toward a future where effective sun protection is seamlessly integrated into our daily lives.

---

About the Author

Professor Ardeshir Bayat, MD, PhD, has over 20 years of experience spanning clinical practice, academic research, and the beauty industry. An internationally recognized figure in skin health, anti-aging and skin healing innovation, he has delivered more than 600 presentations and authored over 520 publications. His robust H-index of 80 highlights his significant influence and thought leadership in dermatological science as well as contribution to cosmetic advancements. ardeshir.bayat@uct.ac.za

References

1. Glaser KS, Tomecki KJ. Sunscreens in the United States: Current Status and Future Outlook. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020;1268:355-379. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-46227-7_18. PMID: 32918228.
2. Boyer F, Delsol C, Ribet V, Lapalud P. Broad-spectrum sunscreens containing the TriAsorB™ filter: In vitro photoprotection and clinical evaluation of blue light-induced skin pigmentation. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023 Oct;37 Suppl 6:12-21. doi: 10.1111/jdv.19290. PMID: 37671996.
3. Salminen A, Kaarniranta K, Kauppinen A. Photoaging: UV radiation-induced inflammation and immunosuppression accelerate the aging process in the skin. Inflamm Res. 2022 Aug;71(7-8):817-831. doi: 10.1007/s00011-022-01598-8. Epub 2022 Jun 24. PMID: 35748903; PMCID: PMC9307547.
4. Antoniou C, Kosmadaki MG, Stratigos AJ, Katsambas AD. Photoaging: prevention and topical treatments. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2010;11(2):95-102. doi: 10.2165/11530210-000000000-00000. PMID: 20141230.
5. Chamayou-Robert C, DiGiorgio C, Brack O, Doucet O. Blue light induces DNA damage in normal human skin keratinocytes. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2022 Jan;38(1):69-75. doi: 10.1111/phpp.12718. Epub 2021 Jul 23. PMID: 34265135.
6. Regazzetti C, Sormani L, Debayle D, Bernerd F, Tulic MK, De Donatis GM, Chignon-Sicard B, Rocchi S, Passeron T. Melanocytes Sense Blue Light and Regulate Pigmentation through Opsin-3. J Invest Dermatol. 2018 Jan;138(1):171-178. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2017.07.833. Epub 2017 Aug 24. PMID: 28842328.
7. Joseph AW. Quality of Life Studies in Skin Cancer Treatment and Reconstruction. Facial Plast Surg. 2020 Apr;36(2):194-199. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1709130. Epub 2020 May 15. PMID: 32413928.
8. Pieper C, Lee EB, Swali R, Harp K, Wysong A. Effects of Blue Light on the Skin and Its Therapeutic Uses: Photodynamic Therapy and Beyond. Dermatol Surg. 2022 Aug 1;48(8):802-808. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000003500. Epub 2022 Jun 24. PMID: 35917260.
9. Meyer T, Stockfleth E. Light and Skin. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2021;55:53-61. doi: 10.1159/000517592. Epub 2021 Oct 25. PMID: 34698038.
10. Tang X, Yang T, Yu D, Xiong H, Zhang S. Current insights and future perspectives of ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure: Friends and foes to the skin and beyond the skin. Environ Int. 2024 Mar;185:108535. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108535. Epub 2024 Feb 27. PMID: 38428192.
11. Guan LL, Lim HW, Mohammad TF. Sunscreens and Photoaging: A Review of Current Literature. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2021 Nov;22(6):819-828. doi: 10.1007/s40257-021-00632-5. Epub 2021 Aug 13. PMID: 34387824; PMCID: PMC8361399.
12. Dunaway S, Odin R, Zhou L, Ji L, Zhang Y, Kadekaro AL. Natural Antioxidants: Multiple Mechanisms to Protect Skin From Solar Radiation. Front Pharmacol. 2018 Apr 24;9:392. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00392. PMID: 29740318; PMCID: PMC5928335.
13. Gasparro FP. Sunscreens, skin photobiology, and skin cancer: the need for UVA protection and evaluation of efficacy. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Mar;108 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):71-8. doi: 10.1289/ehp.00108s171. PMID: 10698724; PMCID: PMC1637776.
14. Austin E, Geisler AN, Nguyen J, Kohli I, Hamzavi I, Lim HW, Jagdeo J. Visible light. Part I: Properties and cutaneous effects of visible light. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 May;84(5):1219-1231. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.02.048. Epub 2021 Feb 25. PMID: 33640508; PMCID: PMC8887026.
15. Passeron T, Krutmann J, Andersen ML, Katta R, Zouboulis CC. Clinical and biological impact of the exposome on the skin. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jul;34 Suppl 4:4-25. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16614. PMID: 32677068.
16. Kim DJ, Iwasaki A, Chien AL, Kang S. UVB-mediated DNA damage induces matrix metalloproteinases to promote photoaging in an AhR- and SP1-dependent manner. JCI Insight. 2022 May 9;7(9):e156344. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.156344. PMID: 35316219; PMCID: PMC9090247.
17. Khan AQ, Travers JB, Kemp MG. Roles of UVA radiation and DNA damage responses in melanoma pathogenesis. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2018 Jun;59(5):438-460. doi: 10.1002/em.22176. Epub 2018 Feb 21. PMID: 29466611; PMCID: PMC6031472.
18. Palmer DM, Kitchin JS. Oxidative damage, skin aging, antioxidants and a novel antioxidant rating system. J Drugs Dermatol. 2010 Jan;9(1):11-5. PMID: 20120419.
19. Kligman LH. Photoaging. Manifestations, prevention, and treatment. Clin Geriatr Med. 1989 Feb;5(1):235-51. PMID: 2646001.
20. Mohania D, Chandel S, Kumar P, Verma V, Digvijay K, Tripathi D, Choudhury K, Mitten SK, Shah D. Ultraviolet Radiations: Skin Defense-Damage Mechanism. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;996:71-87. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56017-5_7. PMID: 29124692.
21. Awad F, Assrawi E, Louvrier C, Jumeau C, Giurgea I, Amselem S, Karabina SA. Photoaging and skin cancer: Is the inflammasome the missing link? Mech Ageing Dev. 2018 Jun;172:131-137. doi: 10.1016/j.mad.2018.03.003. Epub 2018 Mar 12. PMID: 29545203.
22. Kligman LH. Photoaging. Manifestations, prevention, and treatment. Dermatol Clin. 1986 Jul;4(3):517-28. PMID: 3521997.
23. Krutmann J, Bouloc A, Sore G, Bernard BA, Passeron T. The skin aging exposome. J Dermatol Sci. 2017 Mar;85(3):152-161. doi: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2016.09.015. Epub 2016 Sep 28. PMID: 27720464.
24. Ullrich SE. Modulation of immunity by ultraviolet radiation: key effects on antigen presentation. J Invest Dermatol. 1995 Jul;105(1 Suppl):30S-36S. doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12315219. PMID: 7615994.
25. Rittié L, Fisher GJ. Natural and sun-induced aging of human skin. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2015 Jan 5;5(1):a015370. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a015370. PMID: 25561721; PMCID: PMC4292080.
26. Schütz R. Blue Light and the Skin. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2021;55:354-373. doi: 10.1159/000517644. Epub 2021 Oct 25. PMID: 34698025.
27. Stengel F. Homeostasis in Topical Photoprotection: Getting the Spectral Balance Right. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018 Nov;19(Suppl 1):40-44. doi: 10.1007/s40257-018-0369-2. PMID: 30374900; PMCID: PMC6244613.
28. Nash JF, Tanner PR. Relevance of UV filter/sunscreen product photostability to human safety. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014 Apr-Jun;30(2-3):88-95. doi: 10.1111/phpp.12113. Epub 2014 Feb 19. PMID: 24433498.
29. Dréno B, Alexis A, Chuberre B, Marinovich M. Safety of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in cosmetics. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Nov;33 Suppl 7:34-46. doi: 10.1111/jdv.15943. PMID: 31588611.
30. Milito A, Castellano I, Damiani E. From Sea to Skin: Is There a Future for Natural Photoprotectants? Mar Drugs. 2021 Jun 30;19(7):379. doi: 10.3390/md19070379. PMID: 34209059; PMCID: PMC8303403.
31. Berkey C, Oguchi N, Miyazawa K, Dauskardt R. Role of sunscreen formulation and photostability to protect the biomechanical barrier function of skin. Biochem Biophys Rep. 2019 Jun 10;19:100657. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrep.2019.100657. PMID: 31211250; PMCID: PMC6562193.
32. Rai S, Rai G, Kumar A. Eco-evolutionary impact of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure on microorganisms, with a special focus on our skin microbiome. Microbiol Res. 2022 Jul;260:127044. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2022.127044. Epub 2022 Apr 21. PMID: 35483310.
33. de Souza Guedes, L.; Martinez, R.M.; Bou-Chacra, N.A.; Velasco, M.V.R.; Rosado, C.; Baby, A.R. An Overview on Topical Administration of Carotenoids and Coenzyme Q10 Loaded in Lipid Nanoparticles. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10071034.
34. Baswan SM,  Klosner AE,  Weir C, et al.  Role of ingestible carotenoids in skin protection: A review of clinical evidence. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed.  2021; 37: 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpp.12690.
35. Surber C, Osterwalder U. Challenges in Sun Protection. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2021;55:1-43. doi: 10.1159/000517590. Epub 2021 Oct 25. PMID: 34698021.
36. Chatzigianni M, Pavlou P, Siamidi A, Vlachou M, Varvaresou A, Papageorgiou S. Environmental impacts due to the use of sunscreen products: a mini-review. Ecotoxicology. 2022 Nov;31(9):1331-1345. doi: 10.1007/s10646-022-02592-w. Epub 2022 Sep 29. PMID: 36173495; PMCID: PMC9652235.
37. Romanhole RC, Fava ALM, Tundisi LL, Macedo LM, Santos ÉMD, Ataide JA, Mazzola PG. Unplanned absorption of sunscreen ingredients: Impact of formulation and evaluation methods. Int J Pharm. 2020 Dec 15;591:120013. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.120013. Epub 2020 Oct 24. PMID: 33132151.
38. Pawlowski S, Luetjens LH, Preibisch A, Acker S, Petersen-Thiery M. Cosmetic UV filters in the environment-state of the art in EU regulations, science and possible knowledge gaps. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2023 Oct;45 Suppl 1:52-66. doi: 10.1111/ics.12898. PMID: 37799077.
39. Thomas T, Fat M and Kearns G (2024) Sunscreens: potential hazards to environmental and human health.Front. Mar. Sci. 11:1471574.doi: 10.3389/fmars.2024.1471574.
40. Onyango DO, Selman BG, Rose JL, Ellison CA, Nash JF. Comparison between endocrine activity assessed using ToxCast/Tox21 database and human plasma concentration of sunscreen active ingredients/UV filters. Toxicol Sci. 2023 Oct 30;196(1):25-37. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfad082. PMID: 37561120; PMCID: PMC10613966.
41. Vivek P. Chavda, Devarshi Acharya, Vivek Hala, Shilpa Daware, Lalitkumar K. Vora,
42. Sunscreens: A comprehensive review with the application of nanotechnology,
43. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology,86,2023,104720,ISSN 1773-2247,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jddst.2023.104720.
44. Parwaiz S, Khan MM. Recent developments in tuning the efficacy of different types of sunscreens. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2023 Dec;46(12):1711-1727. doi: 10.1007/s00449-023-02919-9. Epub 2023 Sep 1. PMID: 37656257.
45. Schneider SL, Lim HW. Review of environmental effects of oxybenzone and other sunscreen active ingredients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan;80(1):266-271. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.033. Epub 2018 Nov 14. PMID: 29981751.
46. Bielfeldt S. Performance Metrics of Sunscreen Formulations: In Vitro and In Vivo Techniques. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2021;55:124-132. doi: 10.1159/000517657. Epub 2021 Oct 25. PMID: 34698029.
47. Gantenbein L, Cerminara SE, Maul JT, Navarini AA, Maul LV. Artificial Intelligence-Driven Skin Aging Simulation as a Novel Skin Cancer Prevention. Dermatology. 2025;241(1):59-71. doi: 10.1159/000541943. Epub 2024 Oct 14. PMID: 39401496; PMCID: PMC11793091.