Not all UV filters are created equal. Some UV filters break down under UV radiation, making them non-photostable. This results in diminished protective effects, and the breakdown products can irritate the skin.

Certain chemical sunscreens have the potential to trigger allergies, often misinterpreted as sun allergy. Learn how to identify sun allergies in this article.

It is particularly concerning when UV filters enter the bloodstream, posing a risk of disrupting the body's metabolic processes. Therefore, careful consideration is crucial when it comes to UV filters.

A good UV filter should encompass these qualities:

UV filters are indicated on the sunscreen packaging along with other ingredients. However, manufacturers often combine several UV filters in one product.

Moreover, many filter substances hide behind complex and hard-to-remember names (see the list at the end). Therefore, a closer look is necessary.

While it may be tedious, a thorough examination of the ingredient list is worthwhile. In the United States, UV filters are listed separately on the packaging, making them easier to identify. This practice would also simplify recognition in Germany.

Additionally, the combination of filters should protect against both UVA and UVB rays. UVB rays from the sun cause sunburn, while UVA rays silently contribute to skin aging.

The indicated sun protection factor (SPF) only refers to UVB radiation. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the packaging also features the UVA seal. This is the only way to be certain that the product provides protection against both types of rays.

The seal is present when the UVA protection is 1/3 of the UVB protection. For example, with an SPF of 30, the UVA factor must be at least 10. Incidentally, the UVA factor is also referred to as PPD, which stands for

Persistent Pigment Darkening

. This relates to protection against pigmentation, i.e., skin tanning.

From a dermatological perspective, the higher the UVA protection, the better. If in doubt, inquire with your manufacturer.

In simplified terms, visible light appears to have many positive effects on our skin health. Visible light is divided into different frequency ranges perceived as colors, such as blue, red, yellow. Blue Light is also a part of visible light.

Certain wavelengths from the red and yellow light spectrum are used in dermatology as lasers, for example, to treat redness, visible vessels, and acne. Blue light can also have positive effects and is used in dermatology to treat precancerous skin lesions, acne, and psoriasis. On the other hand, blue light seems to favor the formation of free radicals, which can have long-term negative consequences. It is associated with hyperpigmentation.

So, what is important for sun protection? Broad-spectrum protection with high UVA protection is the most important. After that, we are concerned about antioxidants that also protect against the harmful part of visible light, and there is also tested Blue Light protection. If that is ensured, there is absolutely no need to worry.

By the way, it is a widespread myth that mineral filters mainly reflect UV radiation. In reality, reflection accounts for only a very small part of the protective effect. A large portion of the radiation is absorbed, similar to chemical filters.

Both filters have advantages and disadvantages. In the next paragraph, we will take a closer look at mineral filters. After that, we will address the question of whether chemical or mineral UV filters are better.

Mineral filters such as

titanium dioxide

or

zinc oxide

(INCI:

Titanium Dioxide, Zinc Oxide

) are generally well-tolerated. They have the advantage of not breaking down and not triggering allergic reactions. By the way, certified natural cosmetics must always rely on mineral filters.

However, these filters are not as pleasant to use as the chemical alternatives. The small particles often leave a white residue on the skin and are difficult to remove.

Mineral particles in nanoparticle size provide a solution. These particles are extremely tiny and therefore spread more easily on the skin. However, there has been recent debate about these small particles. It is suspected that the particles are so small that they can penetrate the body, posing a potential risk to the organism.

Whether nanoparticles penetrate the skin is not conclusively clarified according to current studies. In this article, we delve into the question of how harmful nanoparticles in sunscreens really are.

For those who want to be absolutely sure, avoiding nanoparticles is advisable. In our opinion, this is especially true for specific children's and baby sunscreens. Baby skin is so delicate that one should not take any risks.

By the way, all particles in nanoparticle size must be labeled with the word "Nano" in the ingredients list (always in parentheses after the respective filter).

While mineral filters are always well-tolerated, careful consideration is needed for chemical UV filters.

Taking a look at the ingredient list can be worthwhile. Because a sunscreen with compatible chemical filters is just as safe as a mineral sunscreen.

There are even some advantages. Modern chemical filters are much easier to remove from the skin's surface since they do not penetrate the skin. Mineral filters linger longer on the skin and can accumulate in our stratum corneum. This leads to mineral sun protection products potentially drying out the skin.

After in-depth exploration of the UV filters used, we now believe that sunscreens with the right chemical filters are superior. However, it also remains a matter of personal philosophy. Ultimately, it depends on what makes you feel most comfortable.

Note: There are many chemical sunscreen filters with undesirable side effects. Unfortunately, these are also the most commonly used filter substances, such as

Octocrylene

.

By the way, a new study from 2021 reveals that

Octocrylene

breaks down over time, decomposing into harmful substances. Therefore, it's advisable not to save a sunscreen with

Octocrylene

for the next summer.

We answer this question with a clear "yes and no." Mineral filters could be considered natural UV filters. However, they have dermatological drawbacks (drying out the skin).

Even in our ecosystem, tiny zinc oxide and titanium particles don't really belong. So, they are not truly natural.

Chemical UV filters are also called organic filters. But does that make them natural?

Not really. While they are organic compounds, they are substances that do not naturally occur in nature. Some have side effects.

Many antioxidants, such as

Vitamin E

and

Vitamin C

, help the skin protect itself against UV radiation. Plant-based substances like

green tea

,

resveratrol

, or

astaxanthin

also safeguard our skin, providing natural sun protection.

But beware: the natural sun protection factor is very low. No one should rely solely on natural substances. We recommend always using "real" UV filters as well.

There are now several chemical UV filters that provide effective protection against UV radiation while being well-tolerated. These UV filters are currently considered safe based on research findings. They have low allergenic potential, and studies have not shown any hormonal effects. All the filters listed here are also photostable.

All common UV filters have been classified as "safe" on the positive list of the Cosmetics Regulation. However, new studies are continually being published, and we are not focused on the "average skin" but rather on our own skin and that of our family.

All common UV filters are listed as "safe" on the regulatory positive list for cosmetics. Yet, with new studies frequently emerging, our focus isn't on "average skin" but rather on our own and our family’s. This is why we choose to avoid the following UV filters.

We firmly believe that chemical UV filters have no place inside the body and should not accumulate there. Various studies help us determine whether the skin allows these substances to pass through.

Regularly, studies examine the blood or breast milk of participants for specific chemicals. If UV filters are detected, it indicates they have somehow entered the body.

Furthermore, laboratory tests investigate the penetration rate through the skin. For the UV filter Benzophenone-3, for instance, a penetration rate of over one percent was observed. Other UV filters that do not pass this test include:

Benzophenone-3, Benzophenone-4, Benzophenone-5, 4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor, Homosalate, Octocrylene, Octyl Methoxycinnamate

There are reports about some UV filters causing allergic reactions. Interestingly, this could also be the cause of a supposed sun allergy. We recommend avoiding the potential allergens:

Benzophenone-3, Benzophenone-4, Benzophenone-5, Ethylhexyl Dimethyl PABA, Homosalate, Octocrylene

This can occur when UV filters resemble our hormones. In such cases, they may interfere with various metabolic processes or potentially promote tumors. Why use these substances when better options exist? We abstain from:

Benzophenone-3, Benzophenone-4, Benzophenone-5, 4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor, Isoamyl Methoxycinnamate, Homosalate, Octocrylene, Octyl Methoxycinnamate

A substance meant to protect us from the sun should not break down under sunlight. While there are ways to stabilize these UV filters with other ingredients, caution is still advised with:

Octyl Methoxycinnamate

Tinosorb S is a safe UV filter that we recommend. However, there is also the new filter

Tinosorb S Lite Aqua

(INCI: B

is-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine, Acrylates/C12-22 Alkyl Methacrylate Copolymer

). In this case, oil-soluble filters have been encapsulated with microplastics to create lighter textures. For ecological reasons, we advise against using microplastics.

The filters

Tinosorb M

and

Tinosorb A2B

(INCI:

Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol (Nano)

and

Tris-Biphenyl Triazine (Nano)

) are innovative hybrid forms of filters, combining both chemical and mineral components. Since these filters incorporate nanoparticles, we cannot recommend them without reservations.

PLATZHALTER PRODUKTE NEBENEINANDER

Some UV filters can harm coral reefs. The filters currently under scrutiny are the "3 Os":

Oxybenzone

,

Octocrylene

, and

Octinoxate

.

The use of

Oxybenzone

and

Octinoxate

is even banned in Hawaii.

Octocrylene

is found in most products on the German market, often in high concentrations. We recommend avoiding these filters.

Additionally, there's a new UV filter containing microplastics: Tinosorb S Lite Aqua. Concerning the protection of our oceans, we advise against using this filter.

In the 'Reef Safe' discussion, there's uncertainty, as not all filters have been thoroughly examined. The prevailing opinion suggests that mineral filters like Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide are reef-friendly, although there are dissenting views. What we can assert confidently is that the safe UV filters from our list also minimize the risk to our oceans.

One thing is clear: the most ocean-friendly approach is to cover your body with UV protection shirts.

Navigating the multitude of UV filters is challenging, especially as sunscreens often combine several of them. However, a discerning eye can take a significant step towards compatible sun protection.

For those who wish to avoid chemicals, opting for mineral filters like Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide is advisable. Nonetheless, there are also chemical alternatives that are equally safe and may even offer advantages.

In the following list, you'll find all common UV filters. Nothing should hinder your safe sunbathing.

By the way, our extensive sunscreen test provides additional criteria for compatible sun protection. For instance, it is advisable to steer clear of fragrances.

EWG – 

EWG – 

Oxford Journals Toxicological Sciences – 

Pharmazeutische Zeitung – 

Unbedenklichkeitsstudien zu Zinkoxid – 

Universität Göttingen – 

Scientific studies on Pubmed

Studie zu Benzophenone – 

Studie zu UV-Strahlung und Hautalterung – 

Studie zu Infarot-Strahlung – 

.

Studie zu Nanopartikeln – 

Studie zu Octocrylene – 

Studie zu Octocrylene – 

Studie zur Haltbarkeit von Octocrylene – 

Studie zu Photostabilität –