| |
 |
| Author |
Message |
AugustBurst
New Member
 
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 1
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:39 am  |
Hi everyone! I've been researching about sunscreens quite a bit lately. I am currently using a chemical sunscreen and have decided to switch over to a safer product. That seems to Zinc Oxide Physical Sunscreen. I've been looking into non-nano ones because of the risk associated with nanoparticle penetration. It's been exhausting reading and reading on the internet and I have found a few recent studies suggesting that ZnO nanoparticles DID form tumors in lab tests but in animals. I honestly don't know much about all of this but I'll freely admit - I have anxiety issues so I'm scared crapless about potential cancer and will go to great lengths to avoid as much risk as possible!
Sorry for rambling but on to the topic! I've been looking into these non-nano sunscreens and lots of them say "with an average of ___ size particles" with the average being more than 100nm. But that being the average, does that not mean they could still contain some nanoparticles, just that the overall averages to a number greater than 100nm? And even the ones who state a minimum particle size, they are always very, very close too 100nm (120nm usually). Isn't that still a bit too close to the edge and risky?
And then I ran into this page from Key Sunscreen (who use nanoparticles and claim that many non-nano companies do the same) which seems like a legitimate claim because how else could a zinc oxide sunscreen go on clear? If they aren't nano then they must leave a white cast, no? I feel like I can't trust any company  Is there any alternative to sunscreen? Maybe green tea/vitamin c but that won't be strong enough in the summer??? Anyway, here is the article, please let me know your thoughts.
| Quote: |
Issue #2: How can sunscreen manufacturers claim they are effective while also claiming they do not use nano?
Answer: They are really using nano and either don’t know it or don’t care. If it goes on clear, it is nano.
Some sunblock suppliers claim they are not using nano-zinc-oxide, yet still claim to have the same transparency and effectiveness as nano-scale solutions even though they are using larger-scale particles, which of course is impossible because of the intra-particle gaps inherent with the larger particles. The answer to the riddle may lie in how, and with what equipment, the sunblock manufacturer’s zinc-oxide supplier is measuring the particles.
In my lab I have collected samples of all forms of zinc-oxide particles and zinc-oxide dispersions from most, if not all, manufacturers of zinc-oxide. I have zinc-oxide samples used for personal care products and even samples used to make varnishes to protect wood finishes. Using Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) technology, I can peer into the world of nanotechnology and reveal the structure of a wide variety of zinc-oxide particles. So, you can say that the TEM is a sort of lie detector on a nano-scale, that reveals the truth about zinc-oxide particle size and structure.
When we looked at two major providers of large-particle zinc-oxide, we noticed that the particles in the oil dispersion very closely resembled our own nano-zinc-oxide particles. Upon closer inspection with high-resolution microscopes, however, the alleged micron-scale particles were actually an agglomeration of smaller, nano-scale particles. To the left (Fig. 2) is a picture of an agglomeration of zinc-oxide particles. As you can see, they are clumpy and jagged-looking. I believe this agglomeration holds the key to how some core ingredient manufacturers of zinc-oxide believe they can claim their particles are not nano-scale. Incidentally, some of these particles are among the finest nano-zinc-oxide in the world.
Looking at the same agglomeration after dispersion into the final sunscreen products, the agglomeration would have seemed to have disappeared and broken up into separate nano particles. 80+% of the particles in the nano graph to the right are ~20nm See figure 3
When I first engaged with zinc-oxide manufacturers, I could not figure out why they would not sell me just the particles in powder form — they said I had to buy the particles dispersed in oil. And then as I began to study the particles, I could not understand why the manufacturers would go to the effort to create some of the most perfectly shaped nano-particles in the world, only to wad them together to create micron-sized particles.
Perhaps it is marketing interpreting science to enhance their story and tell customers what they think they want to hear? Please keep in mind as you read on that there is an old adage that says, “liars figure and figures lie.”
Here is what I theorize: manufacturers first measure the zinc-oxide particle size using a Malvern Mastersizer particle size analyzer. This is a device that is nowhere near as precise as a TEM or even a lower-resolution scanning electron microscope (SEM), and, in fact, is not really suited to measuring nano-scale objects. Further corrupting the measurement process, manufacturers create a sample preparation in such a way that the dispersion becomes unstable and leads to particle agglomeration and a resulting larger object to be measured than the original, single particles. It also is important to understand that, in the process of manufacturing, it is necessary to wash the zinc-oxide particles to remove salts. When the particles are dried, they tend to agglomerate. I suspect that manufacturers use a technique called spray drying that tends to increase, rather than decrease, the agglomeration. Depending on when in the agglomeration and subsequent dispersion process the actual measurement is made, it is possible to get virtually any desired result.
When measured with a Malvern Mastersizer, the aforementioned particle agglomerations clustering was, indeed, 1 micron in size, as advertised by the manufacturer. After this first measurement, the manufacturer disperses the agglomerate in oil and the agglomerate breaks up into nano-particles. We know this is true because we examined and measured the particles using a TEM. (Incidentally, a TEM is much more powerful than an SEM. One of the three TEMs that we have access to is able to resolve 0.5 nm objects). So, what I think they are doing is measuring the agglomeration, knowing full well that, in the oil dispersion, the agglomeration will separate back into nano-particles. (see Fig 3) They are careful to say, simply, that they “measured” the particle — and not that they measured the particle prior to it being dispersed in oil back to its original nano-size. |
I don't know if this is propaganda for their sunscreen or is valid but it is making me nervous. It sounds possible and it would explain the "no white cast". Is there any ZnO sunscreen that is 100% non-nano period? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:45 am |
Where did the article you posted come from? I know even EWG (Environmental Working Group) has deemed the nano particle Sunscreens as safe, and they can be brutal as far as safety.  |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
 |
Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:50 am |
Nanotechnology & Sunscreens
EWG's 2009 Sunscreen Investigation
Section 4: Nanotechnology & Sunscreens
See next section
When we began our sunscreen investigation at the Environmental Working Group, our researchers thought we would ultimately recommend against micronized and nano-sized zinc oxide and titanium dioxide sunscreens. After all, no one has taken a more expansive and critical look than EWG at the use of nanoparticles in cosmetics and sunscreens, including the lack of definitive safety data and consumer information on these common new ingredients, and few substances more dramatically highlight gaps in our system of public health protections than the raw materials used in the burgeoning field of nanotechnology. But many months and nearly 400 peer-reviewed studies later, we find ourselves drawing a different conclusion, and recommending some sunscreens that may contain nano-sized ingredients.
Consumer Reports (2007) testing showed that consumers can be protected from UV radiation using products free of nano-scale ingredients like zinc and titanium. We expected to find this as well, but we took our study further than Consumer Reports to be certain. We looked not only at whether or not products provide broad-spectrum UV protection, but also at which sunscreens break down in the sun, and at the full range of potentially hazardous sunscreen ingredients that can absorb through the skin and into the body to pose other risks. Our answers changed.
Our study shows that consumers who use sunscreens without zinc and titanium are likely exposed to more UV radiation and greater numbers of hazardous ingredients than consumers relying on zinc and titanium products for sun protection. We found that consumers using sunscreens without zinc and titanium would be exposed to an average of 20% more UVA radiation — with increased risks for UVA-induced skin damage, premature aging, wrinkling, and UV-induced immune system damage — than consumers using zinc- and titanium-based products. Sunscreens without zinc or titanium contain an average of 4 times as many high hazard ingredients known or strongly suspected to cause cancer or birth defects, to disrupt human reproduction or damage the growing brain of a child. They also contain more toxins on average in every major category of health harm considered: cancer (10% more), birth defects and reproductive harm (40% more), neurotoxins (20% more), endocrine system disruptors (70% more), and chemicals that can damage the immune system (70% more) (EWG 2007).
We also reviewed 16 peer-reviewed studies on skin absorption, nearly all showing no absorption of small-scale zinc and titanium sunscreen ingredients through healthy skin. In a 2007 assessment the European Union found no evidence of nano-scale particles absorbing through pig skin, healthy human skin, or the skin of patients suffering from skin disorders (NanoDerm 2007). Overall, we found few available studies on the absorption of nano-scale ingredients through damaged skin, but nearly all other sunscreen chemicals approved for use in the U.S. also lack these studies.
In contrast to zinc and titanium, the common sunscreens octinoxate and oxybenzone absorb into healthy skin — in large amounts according to some studies. These 2 sunscreens can cause allergic reactions, can lead to hormone-driven uterine damage, and can act like estrogen in the body, raising potential concerns for breast cancer.
On balance, EWG researchers found that zinc and titanium-based formulations are among the safest, most effective sunscreens on the market based on available evidence. The easy way out of the nano debate would be to steer people clear of zinc and titanium sunscreens with a call for more data. In the process such a position would implicitly recommend sunscreen ingredients that don't work, that break down soon after they are applied, that offer only marginal UVA protection, or that absorb through the skin.
If this were nano-containing eye shadow, blush, or body glitter our position would be different — if it's not protecting your health, don't use it. But sunscreen is meant to protect us from exposure to a known human carcinogen, UV radiation, responsible for some of the more than one million cases of skin cancer diagnosed in this country every year.
EWG conducted our sunscreen study because comprehensive sunscreen safety standards have not yet been set in this country. FDA has been drafting these standards for 31 years, and still has set no firm deadline for finalizing their latest proposed rule, issued in August 2007. FDA has also not yet evaluated sunscreen chemicals that are widely available in other parts of the world and that could potentially replace nanoparticles in sunscreen.
EWG has called for more safety studies for all sunscreens, nano or not. We've called for more data to understand when and in what amounts these ingredients penetrate the skin, and we've advocated for science-based assessments of health risks, so that everyone from consumers to health officials at FDA will know that we have the best possible products on the market. For nano-scale ingredients we have also called for full labeling so consumers can make informed choices.
We think people need to know what products to use while we all wait for FDA to finish finalizing their sunscreen safety standards. EWG will continue to advocate for better safety standards and more safety studies for sunscreens — from nano-scale up.
Ultimately, consumers make their own choices, and those wishing to avoid zinc and titanium can choose the "no nano" search option on our website to see the best of sunscreens that do not contain these small particles.
More on link:
http://www.ewg.org/nanotechnology-sunscreens |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:29 am |
Welcome!
Why do you think only nano can be clear, because that article says so? Have you researched the properties of micronised zinc as an ingredient? There are plenty of research labs with transmission electron microscopes, and published studies always divulge their methodology. If published research says invisible micronised zinc is feasible then it is.
Nano zinc cannot be invisible end of story, nor can micronised end of story, the 100% powders must be visible or we'd have an emperor's new clothes scenario! That article claims agglomerations of nano the size of micronised are being mistakenly described. Yet those agglomerations must still be invisible, or the product would have a white cast and customers would complain. That suggests to me micronised can be invisible, since it has the same particle size.
Important phrases "some key manufacturers ... two major providers ... what I theorize." IMO 120nm is very close to 100nm, it's 20% more which is massive if you have the correct equipment. If the supplier is reputable the 120nm will be a conservative estimate anyway. Sunscreens are not just used cosmetically they are used medically so some companies, and thus some suppliers, will be very particular about the uniformity of their ingredients.
If you don't mind the idea of DIYing your sunscreen you might e-mail this company. The owner was a scientist long before becoming a businesswoman and retains those ethics and standards. She will tell you honestly whether there is any nano in her zinc, and how she can be confident.
http://stores.skinessentialactives.com/-strse-59/Zinc-Oxide-dsh--Invisible-Zinc-dsh-/Detail.bok
If you do e-mail the company, please post any reply here so we can all benefit from your research.  |
_________________
Sensitivity, forehead pigmentation & elevens, nose & chin clogged pores. Topicals: Aloe vera, squalane, lactic acid, Myfawnie KinNiaNag HG: Weleda calendula, Lanolips, Guinot masque essentiel, Flexitol Naturals, Careprost. Gadgets: Vaughter dermarollers, Lightstim. |
|
whoppitywhopper
New Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 1
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:08 am |
| hello can some kind person tell me which are is the best sunscreen that is zink but has no nano particle? youre favorite brand name i will buy it if cost is fair and square! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:20 am |
| whoppitywhopper wrote: |
| hello can some kind person tell me which are is the best sunscreen that is zink but has no nano particle? youre favorite brand name i will buy it if cost is fair and square! |
I use Burnout some love it others do not, I think it is very individual which is best for one's skin. There are many listed on the link below and rated.
http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2011sunscreen/best-sunscreens/best-beach-sport-sunscreens/
Top Sunscreens
Our top-rated sunscreens all contain the minerals zinc or titanium. They are the right choice for people who are looking for the best UVA protection without any sunscreen chemical considered to be a potential hormone disruptor. None of the products contain oxybenzone or vitamin A and none are sprayed or powdered.
http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2011sunscreen/best-sunscreens/best-beach-sport-sunscreens/ |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:21 am |
I use invisible zinc ...the moisturuser one...which is 1 micron (1000 nm?)zinc oxide.
They claim it's 20-50 x larger than average size nano particles. But it is micronised zinc. I personally prefer micronised. It's all confusing isnt it?!
Heres a list about physical sunscreens which I found really good http://makeupalley.com/account/vn.asp?u=zincsunscreens#invisesp
You can always email or google if they are nano sized. Many on here used devita & pratima which is also micronised zinc but not sure of particle size? Marie Veronique does non nano sunscreen. I quite liked it but hated the scent...gave me headaches
@Dark moon I like the sound of burnout since there's not as many inactive ingredients as the invisible zinc. Does it feel nice on? Would you recommend for combo skin?
GL |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:31 am |
| dionie wrote: |
I use invisible zinc ...the moisturuser one...which is 1 micron (1000 nm?)zinc oxide.
They claim it's 20-50 x larger than average size nano particles. But it is micronised zinc. I personally prefer micronised. It's all confusing isnt it?!
Heres a list about physical sunscreens which I found really good http://makeupalley.com/account/vn.asp?u=zincsunscreens#invisesp
You can always email or google if they are nano sized. Many on here used devita & pratima which is also micronised zinc but not sure of particle size? Marie Veronique does non nano sunscreen. I quite liked it but hated the scent...gave me headaches
@Dark moon I like the sound of burnout since there's not as many inactive ingredients as the invisible zinc. Does it feel nice on? Would you recommend for combo skin?
GL |
I have super normal skin, but live in south Florida so it is most often like a sauna. I have used the child's, and regular formula and do not find either to be greasy at all and it does sink in well for me, but I always say what one finds is a dream another may find is a nightmare. I know we have a thread somewhere on here with many different experiences using Burnout. I will try and dig it up and post it here so you can read from a number of members. 
A huge plus for me is no eye irritation, the bane of my existence is very reactive eyes. |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:42 am |
We lost our old chart for Sunscreen UVA/UVB protection so I found these:
 |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:44 am |
Thanks darkmoon for the link. I'm really thinking about buyin it.
Like the chart too. It's amazing how many sunscreens are out there that don't offer good protection, or even okay protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:41 am |
| dionie wrote: |
Thanks darkmoon for the link. I'm really thinking about buyin it.
Like the chart too. It's amazing how many sunscreens are out there that don't offer good protection, or even okay protection. |
You are welcome dionie
I agree and I was not avoiding the question, I love it but think it is best if you can read a number of opinions/experiences. Good to meet you! |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:43 am |
That mean zinc oxide is the best.
Dark Moon:
I have a silly question. Can we use coconut oil and shea butter for sunscreen? |
_________________
mask |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:56 am |
| beauty mask wrote: |
That mean zinc oxide is the best.
Dark Moon:
I have a silly question. Can we use coconut oil and shea butter for sunscreen? |
Do you mean alone or as a mix with zinc oxide? I would not use either as a sunscreen on their own as much as I love them otherwise. I know there is a recipe to make your own Zinc Oxide based SS posted here somewhere. I bought a bunch of the Burnout and am still using that.
P.S. No silly questions, we all have to ask about things or we never learn! |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:32 am |
| beauty mask wrote: |
That mean zinc oxide is the best.
Dark Moon:
I have a silly question. Can we use coconut oil and shea butter for sunscreen? |
They both have an SPF or ~ 2/ 3 so I wouldn't rely on them. |
_________________
Sensitivity, forehead pigmentation & elevens, nose & chin clogged pores. Topicals: Aloe vera, squalane, lactic acid, Myfawnie KinNiaNag HG: Weleda calendula, Lanolips, Guinot masque essentiel, Flexitol Naturals, Careprost. Gadgets: Vaughter dermarollers, Lightstim. |
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:06 am |
thanks, I can't find this and I ask in another post again.
Sorry for confusing you. |
_________________
mask |
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:16 am |
| beauty mask wrote: |
thanks, I can't find this and I ask in another post again.
Sorry for confusing you. |
No problem at all beauty mask! |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:20 am |
| In addition, there is starting to be research in the area of supplements that reduce skin damage from sun exposure...internal sunscreens, if you like. They include pomegranate extract, astaxanthin, carotenoids, etc. However, these internal sunscreens are very weak compared to topical ones, so they cannot replace sunscreen, but if you are going on vacation and want to take extra precaution or just generally want to reduce UV damage, they can be a nice adjunct. |
_________________
34 y.o. FlexEffect and massage. Love experimenting with DIY and botanical skin care products. Appreciate both hard science and natural approaches. Eat green smoothies + lots of raw fruit and veggies. |
|
william22
New Member
Joined: 28 Jan 2013
Posts: 2
|
|
|
Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:39 am |
| some nano sunscreen creams are safes. try to use branded products. nowadays use of nano technology is increasing in cosmetic industries. |
|
|
|
|
| Tue Feb 11, 2025 5:47 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
