Is PFA the same as PPD for sunscreens???
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:40 pm

In the May issue of Allure magazine there was a big article on sunscreens and sun protection. It mentioned Anthelios, but what caught my eye was an ad for Neutrogena Ultra Sheer spf 70 with helioplex.

There was a chart talking about a rating system for UVA protection called PFA. This ad said this particular s/s had a PFA of 23.3 (compared to Banana Boat Sport spf50 with PFA6, Coppertone Sport spray spf30 with PFA 4.4, amd Coppertone Sport lotion spf30 with PFA 4.3)

Does anyone know how helioplex compares to mexoryl? There was also an ad for Lancome UV Expert spf20 with Mexoryl SX.

I am diligently reading info on s/s here and elsewhere so I can make the perfect choice (not sure if it exists, though Confused

)

One other thing, the article listed several s/s with added antioxidants: MD Skincare Powerful Sun Protection spf30, Shiseido Sun Protection Eye Cream spf32, DDF Enhancing Sun Protection spf30, Skin Effects by Jeffrey Dover s/s lotion spf60, Hawaiian Tropic Oil Free Faces s/s spf30, Freeze 24-7 Ice Shield Facial cleanser with s/s spf15, Lancome UV Expert 20, Neutrogena Healthy Defense Daily Moisturizer spf45 w/ helioplex, and Prescribed Solutions Up the Anti Full Spectrum sunblock spf30. Any thoughts Question

free skin care · Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:40 pm

bump please!

free skin care · Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:58 pm

Hi Tsjmom

It's not something I've come across much either. Here's one explanation from MUA
http://makeupalley.com/board/m.asp/id=55829355/iPN=1/
I don't fully understand it myself, but I'll read again later.

I've heard good things about Helioplex and the Neutrogena looks like a viable alternative to euro SS.

The estimated PPD for the Lancome UV Expert spf *50* is only 10
http://www.makeupalley.com/user/notepad/sunscreens/
I see from reviews here that people really like it so I'm thinking it's elegant which usually equates with lower protection, alas Sad

I'm afraid the perfect SS doesn't yet exist. It's a matter of compromise IMO

free skin care · Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:10 am

Thanks Molly! I really appreciate your response. I was using Bioderm Max Fluide but now understand it's not compatible w/ MMU. I think you're right - the perfect s/s doesn't yet exist Confused

Thu May 03, 2007 5:19 am

Hello Tsjmom:

I work in the industry and you ask questions that I hear a lot. My view is that to compare products you need to understand what sort of protection measure the manufacturer is giving.

UVB protection measures are standardized as SPF factors. Most people do not realize that SPF only tells you how much the product stops a burn and it tells you absolutely nothing about other protection. Many people mistake a high SPF for being good for everything.

When you get to UVA protection (UVA causes aging), there are 2 main types: physical (or insoluble) sunscreens and chemical (or soluble) sunscreens. Zinc and titanium are physical. Helioplex, Mexoryl and Avobenzone are typical chemical examples. Soluble (chemical) sunscreens are less visible and a good choice for many as they disappear rapidly. But they get used up as they protect from UVA. Essentially Helioplex claims that it lasts longer. Mexoryl works by reinforcing protection around a small band cap (called the short UVA) that is missed out by the standard Avobenzone (Parsol 1789) that is in all these products and that has been around since the 1980s. PFA is not a standardized measure of protection and scientists are not agreed that it’s a good indicator.

Interestingly, when you use physical blocks you do not have the problem of the protecting ingredients breaking down with time (for example the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide literally stay on the top of the skin until wiped or washed off). The absorption spectrums of these ingredients (when used together) give good protection up to 380 nm which means they cover the spectrum that Neutrogena and L'Oreal (the owners of Mexoryl, Anthelios and Lancome) are working to protect. For example, they do not have weak protection from 320 to 345 nm that Mexoryl is used for. Physical sunscreens can be more matte and have good long lasting protection.

I work for PRESCRIBEDsolutions and we work exclusively with dermatologists and other doctors. We have products with both physical and chemical sunscreens. What we have found is that while so many products have focused on UVB and UVA protection, dermatologists and plastic surgeons now realize that this is just not enough for their patients including many undergoing the latest cosmetic procedures who need a product that not only provides UVB and UVA but also visible light protection.

The new PRESCRIBEDsolutions' Up the Anti Full Spectrum and Visible Sunblock SPF 30 was formulated to give comprehensive protection at wavelengths through both the UVA and UVB spectrums upwards to the visible spectrum in a light, tinted cream. Many consumers purchase other products with an SPF 60 or higher without understanding that these may not protect from the type of light that will give them trouble.

So overall,
if you want something more moisturizing you choose a sunscreen with chemical UVA protection. Helioplex, Mexoryl or any of the others shown are fine choices. With all these you will need to reapply.

If you want something longer lasting, use purely physical protection. See how it looks on your skin.

If you have undergone PDT (photodynamic therapy) or other newer cosmetic procedures, or if you have a sensitivity to light such that you get rosacea like redness, then choose a product which also has visible light protection. Prescribed Solutions Up the Anti does this as well as UVA and UVB and has a tint so it doubles as a foundation.

Finally, if you are doing sport or are at the beach, choose something cheap and gunky (so it does not wash off). For everyday choose something more cosmetically elegant.

free skin care · Thu May 03, 2007 3:12 pm

Aurelian I can't thank you enough for putting all the s/s info in one concise place for me. You laid it out in layman's terms so I can better understand it. Very Happy

free skin care · Fri May 04, 2007 12:31 am

Aurelian, thank you for your detailed info but I have some questions. Is it true that the higher % of Zinc Oxide, the PPD is higher? Also, since Zinc Oxide can protect from both the UVA/UVB, just Zinc Oxide alone as the main ingrediant in a s/s is suffient for protection then? Sorry for all the questions Wink

But I really need some clarification in choosing a good s/s thank you! Smile

Fri May 04, 2007 5:26 am

PPD is not a widespread standardized measure that I come across in the US.

With something that provides physical protection, the larger it is or the more its available, the more it will protect. Therefore I would estimate that the higher level of zinc will give better UVA protection.

You cannot compare fully between different zinc oxides as particle size will not be the same between two products and you will probably want larger particles (though these will be more visible on the skin)

There is a wavelength in the UVA band where zinc stops protecting and therefore you are generally better off with a mix of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide rather than just one of these.

When it comes to UVA protection there are a multitude of excellent screens. Each has a different protection range based on the characteristics of the molecules. For example, we are using a red algae extract called Helioguard 365 as a purely UVA screen which absorbs maximally at 335 nm

So, my suggestions would be:
* Choose combination of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide rather than just one of these.
* Generally the higher the percentages the better, though find something that you like the look of. Its useless to have protection that you do not use because it looks wrong.
* Make sure you use another product with powerful anti-oxidants at the same time. C+E combinations or C with pine bark extract are particularly good at providing the protection against free radicals which, in the end, cause much of the aging of the skin.

free skin care · Thu May 17, 2007 8:15 pm

I can't thank you enough, Aurelian! The info you've given us here is very helpful and cleared up a lot of my own misconceptions as well. Now i know what to look for in a s/s. Cool

Have a safe summer everybody!

free skin care · Thu May 17, 2007 8:49 pm

Aurelian wrote:

PPD is not a widespread standardized measure that I come across in the US.

With something that provides physical protection, the larger it is or the more its available, the more it will protect. Therefore I would estimate that the higher level of zinc will give better UVA protection.

You cannot compare fully between different zinc oxides as particle size will not be the same between two products and you will probably want larger particles (though these will be more visible on the skin)

There is a wavelength in the UVA band where zinc stops protecting and therefore you are generally better off with a mix of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide rather than just one of these.

When it comes to UVA protection there are a multitude of excellent screens. Each has a different protection range based on the characteristics of the molecules. For example, we are using a red algae extract called Helioguard 365 as a purely UVA screen which absorbs maximally at 335 nm

So, my suggestions would be:
* Choose combination of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide rather than just one of these.
* Generally the higher the percentages the better, though find something that you like the look of. Its useless to have protection that you do not use because it looks wrong.
* Make sure you use another product with powerful anti-oxidants at the same time. C+E combinations or C with pine bark extract are particularly good at providing the protection against free radicals which, in the end, cause much of the aging of the skin.

Great post. What do you use?

Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:28 am

UVA rating systems are a little complicated. PPD is known as persistent pigment darkening and measures the protection against tanning much as SPF measures protection against sunburn.
A PFA rating is the ratio of how much more UVA light it takes to cause tanning with a sunscreen as compared to skin without protection. This number is often converted into a + to +++ scale called the PA rating system.

The problem with the PFA rating system is that is provides information about the short wavelength UVA rays (320-approximately 350nm) without providing meaningful information about what is going on from 250-400nm, the longer wavelength UVA rays. These longer wavelength UVA rays do not produce a response that can be observed, but are the cause of solar aging and likely melanoma induction.

The best way to measure protection against these longer wavelength UVA rays is by knowing a products critical wavelength. This is an in-vitro (laboratory test) measuring the point at which a sunscreen protection has dropped to 90%, beginning at the start of the UVB range.
This critical wavelength measurement should be performed on a sample which has been irradiated to prove the formulation is photostable.

The FDA is finally addressing the UVA issue, and is proposing a UVA rating system based both on the PFA and an in-vitro test very similar to critical wavelength. This will be a huge step forward, although it will likely be 2009 at the earliest before these rules take effect.

In the meantime, there are a few products that are photostable with high critical wavelengths (over 375nm) offering excellent UVA protection.
Anthelios makes its critical wavelength of 378nm available on their website for medical professionals. LUCA is a new product which actually put their critical wavelength of 383nm on the bottle. I do not know the exact number
but Neutrogena with Helioplex is likely in the 375nm range. If you like a product and you don't know the critical wavelength, call the manufacturer of sales rep. They can find it out
and the above three are just the ones with which I am familiar.

A quick answer about Mexoryl and Helioplex. Mexoryl is a new active ingredient form L'Oriel. Helioplex is a new stabilizer and strengthener of avobenzone marketed by Neutrogena. These are variations on the same theme, how to increase the critical wavelength and photostabilty of a formulation. Given the close critical wavelength between the two, which is preferable
likely comes down to athetics as they both provide excellent UVA protection.

hope this helps,

k gruber Cool

free skin care · Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:39 am

Great post, Karl and welcome to EDS! Sunscreen and sun protection; truly one of the most frequent and confusing topics that abound on this forum. More solid knowledge rather than urban myths are always needed. Very Happy

If I'm understanding this correctly, we need to keep track of 3 things to measure how effective our sunscreen is - SPF, PPD AND PFA, or is PFA more important than PPD? I guess I'm a little confused because both of these have to do with UVA and tanning vs. burning.

Sigh, does it make sense to combine physical ingredients like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide + chemical ingredients so we can hedge all our bets?

Thanks again,

athena

Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:05 am

Athena 123

PPD is not likely to be seen on labels. It stands for persistant pigment darkening seen in skin when exposed to short wavelength UVA light. The ratio of PPD of protected sunscreen skin to unprotected skin is the PFA value. This you will see on bottles/labels. Sometimes this PFA value is further distilled down in a +to +++ system called the PA system.

Probably the better thing to look for is critical wavelength. For SPF values over 15, the critical wavelength gives a more accurate measurement of the short and long wavelength UVA rays blocked. The above PFA rating only tells about protection from short wavelength UVA rays. It is the long wavelength UVA rays which likely cause more damage to the skin, but do not produce a observable effect. In other words, it is possible to have a high PFA value sunscreen which still provides inadequate long wavelength UVA protection.

I would say the take home message would be to use at least a SPF15 with a critical wavelength of 370nm or above.

Hope this helps,

kgruber Cool

free skin care · Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:29 am

WOW Karl - thank you for the great info and welcome to EDS Smile

Do you have s/s suggestions that meet these minimum requirements (spf 15+ and wavelength 370+nm), whether they're US, European, or Asian?

Sofina is hugely popular around here b/c it gives a beautiful finish. Anthelios XL is popular, as well as Bioderma and Avene.

I really appreciate your help in this very important but confusing issue.

Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:13 pm

TSJmom,

I wish I could give some broad recommendations, but there are very few products which give their critical wavelength data (although all manufactures have this data as it is used in formulating). Anthelios, LUCA, and Neutrogena with Helioplex definitely meet and exceed the 370nm critical wavelength requirement and are photostable. For Anthelios and LUCA this information is either published on company websites or printed on the bottle. For Neutrogena with Helioplex, I am familiar enough with Helioplex that I am confident that it achieve at least a 375nm critical wavelength and is photostable. Each of these products are very different in athetics, but give comparable UVA protection.

A couple of months ago the EWG (Environmental Working Group) listed sunscreens and level of UVA protection. I have found no mention of their methodology in rating the level of UVA protection. Given the number of products tested, I suspect that they extrapolated their results based on the active ingredients and their concentrations. Unfortunately there is no short cut, you have to do the UVA testing on each individual formulation.

I would suggest if you like a product but don't know the level of UVA protection. Call the company and ask the critical wavelength,PFA, or boots star score. The boots score should be at least 3 stars on a 1-4 scale and the PFA(PA)value should be +++.

This is a competitive market, with expensive products being pushed by doctors and spas. They should know the level of UVA protection (critical wavelength, boots score, and PFA value) of the products they have chosen to represent.
Don't be afraid to ask.

I hope this helps a little,

Kgruber Cool

free skin care · Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:58 pm

Thanks Karl for your informative post. Looking forward to seeing more from you on other topics as well.

free skin care · Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:14 pm

Hello Dr. Gruber,

I hope that you plan on sticking around our forum as we can perhaps have some very interesting and informative discussions of UVA protection and various UVA rating systems. So I welcome you.

However, I do think it only fair that you disclose your financial interest in the one product that you have recommended. You are according to the following article the co-founder of LUCA.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index.shtml

(Sorry I cannot post the exact link but go to the above and search for LUCA. It is the first article that the search pulls up.)

I do not have the time right now to examine your sunscreen and above posts and to comment on them. I honestly was curious to see if you were a real doctor and apparently you are but of course it goes without saying that one should make it crystal clear that they have a financial interest in what they are recommending.

HK

Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:34 pm

Dear Ms. Kitty,

Thank you for your input.

If I were pushing subjective qualities of a product with which I had financial interest, this relationship should certainly be stated. What I addressed in the site were specific questions, which were directed at a confusing but very important health issue which is the need for good UVA protection and the ability of consumers to make informed decisions about the products they use. To this end, I mentioned three products because they are the only ones which currently provide data on their UVA protection based on in-vitro testing (critical wavelength). This is not a subjective opinion, but fact. If there are other products that provide this information, I will gladly include it in future discussions. By the way, two of the three products mentioned are direct competitors, both in the quality of product they provide and the markets they have targeted.

The only recommendation that I did make was if someone likes a product, ask the manufacturer or sales rep about the level of UVA protection, specifically critical wavelength, PA value or Boots start score as these are the standards for UVA evaluation. Until the FDA approves the new four star UVA rating system, these are the best ways to rate the level of UVA protection provided.

At no time was I concealing my identity, as I provided both my first and last name. Also, absolutely no solicitations have been made on our behalf towards EDS Skin Care. On Monday, while I was googling the FDA website for information regarding their just released UVA regulations including PFA values, I came across the EDS Skin Care website. It was during this time that I came across this website and found questions that I felt I could help answer.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Karl Gruber M.D.
Cool

free skin care · Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:12 am

karlgruber wrote:

... If I were pushing subjective qualities of a product with which I had financial interest, this relationship should certainly be stated. What I addressed in the site were specific questions, which were directed at a confusing but very important health issue which is the need for good UVA protection and the ability of consumers to make informed decisions about the products they use. To this end, I mentioned three products because they are the only ones which currently provide data on their UVA protection based on in-vitro testing (critical wavelength). This is not a subjective opinion, but fact. If there are other products that provide this information, I will gladly include it in future discussions. By the way, two of the three products mentioned are direct competitors, both in the quality of product they provide and the markets they have targeted.

The only recommendation that I did make was if someone likes a product, ask the manufacturer or sales rep about the level of UVA protection, specifically critical wavelength, PA value or Boots start score as these are the standards for UVA evaluation. Until the FDA approves the new four star UVA rating system, these are the best ways to rate the level of UVA protection provided.

At no time was I concealing my identity, as I provided both my first and last name. Also, absolutely no solicitations have been made on our behalf towards EDS Skin Care. On Monday, while I was googling the FDA website for information regarding their just released UVA regulations including PFA values, I came across the EDS Skin Care website. It was during this time that I came across this website and found questions that I felt I could help answer....

Well said Karl - And I appreciate the fact that you don't hide your identity, profession or relationship to the skincare industry under the cloak of an internet username. It rather increases the credibility of your posts. I also find posts from other vendors and CEOs of skincare products under their REAL identities who have reputations to protect extremely credible as well.

There does tend to be suspicion on EDS and other skincare forums whenever someone in the cosmetics/skincare business makes any appearance of "pushing" products, although I didn't see Karl's recommendations as any attempt to "sell".

hkitty, while you've been fairly informative in some of your posts, I don't know who you are nor what your position [ if any ] in the skincare industry you possess, care to share? Laughing

free skin care · Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:48 pm

athena123 this is a skincare forum! Most of us are here to learn from and share with others. I was under the impression that forums were anonymous. I strongly believe that if someone has a financial interest in something that they need to disclose that interest. I do not necessarily feel that they have to diclose their identity but they should state that they are affiliated with a company when they mention that companies products even if the product mention is not specifically an attempt to sell. So I guess we have differing views on whether the Doctor should have disclosed that he is the co-founder of LUCA. Yes he was open in posting his full name which easily allowed me to look up his relationship to the company but I think that it would have been better if he had just mentioned that he had a financial interest in LUCA. I do have very high standards and unfortunately most sellers that come to EDS and other forums seem to me to generally be quite unethical and deceptive. I also do not share your high opinion of most vendors that are members of EDS who reveal their real identity but that is just my opinion on such things. So yes count me amoungst the suspicious. Wink

It is not even necessarily about "pushing" products. I am sure that Dr. Gruber did not miss the fact that the membership of EDS is huge and open to trying new products. I also imagine that he is not unaware that mere mention of his product on the forum is probably enough to generate quite a few sales. Why do you think that EDS had big problems with sellers and felt the need to close down the DIY review forum? It is because the sellers cannot resist this forum. They do not need to come out and say "Hey I am selling this, do you want to buy it." All they need to do is come on and say that critical wavelenght is the best measure of UVA protection, indicate that they are a doctor in the hopes that most members will see the MD and think Medical Deity, mention their product as ONE amoung several and then watch as the hits on their website go up and up. It does not matter if he increased the sales of Anthelios or Neutrogena too his sales are I am guessing up quite a bit since he joined. So let's not be naive here. I gather that you have been around forums enough to understand this.

As for who I am. That is none of your business!! I actually think that it is inappropriate for you to insinuate that I have an agenda and am trying to hide my identity. And please do not say you are not insuinuating this! I will say this much I have no postion in the skincare industry, I am not affiliated with any company that is in the skincare industry and I have no financial interest at all in skincare or in anything related to skincare or cosmetics. Let's just say that I am interested in skincare and am on this forum to share and discuss with others.

Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:48 pm

This is a forum. If critical wavelength, Boots, or PFA are not good UVA rating systems, what would you recommend? This is a controversial issue, that is why the FDA has taken 9 years to recommend a UVA rating system. There are even MD's who recommend not using sunscreens and favor daily sun time to increase levels of vitamin D. In my opinion the need for good UVA protection and a UVA rating system is the most important current skin care issue. As I said this is controversial, with some formulator friends of mine arguing that the beneficial effects of UVA protection peaks at 375nm, others are convinced that UVA damage(particularly melanoma) extend well beyond the 400nm range. Again, controversial issues and fertile ground for a good forum. Any comments?
To all in the forum...have a safe Labor Day Weekend.

free skin care · Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:19 am

Geez kitty, while I can certainly agree that this is a skincare forum, after that we're just gonna have to part ways.

It's very interesting to me that in many debate forums, REAL IMPORTANT issues can be discussed with civility rather than hostility because the ideas or positions are attacked rather than the poster. So why is it that on a skincare forum I'm met with such an unwarranted reaction when I merely point out the fact that those who post under their own real names have more credibility than those who don't? hmm

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you, but you've lost any credibility you may have had with me.

Since the days of Hippocrates, health and beauty has been plagued with false promises and snakeoil salesmen [and women]! Very Happy

It doesn't hurt to be skeptical of every new "miracle cure" and to research carefully before jumping on the next bandwagon. Yet I don't at all agree with the broad brush you've painted when you portray "most" vendors here on EDS as generally deceptive. I actually find quite a few vendors who participate in this forum to be very informative when it comes to their own area of interest and would sooner welcome them, rather than push them away with hostility and suspicion.

I prefer to strike a balance, but that's just me.

free skin care · Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:55 am

karlgruber wrote:

This is a forum. If critical wavelength, Boots, or PFA are not good UVA rating systems, what would you recommend? This is a controversial issue, that is why the FDA has taken 9 years to recommend a UVA rating system. There are even MD's who recommend not using sunscreens and favor daily sun time to increase levels of vitamin D. In my opinion the need for good UVA protection and a UVA rating system is the most important current skin care issue. As I said this is controversial, with some formulator friends of mine arguing that the beneficial effects of UVA protection peaks at 375nm, others are convinced that UVA damage(particularly melanoma) extend well beyond the 400nm range. Again, controversial issues and fertile ground for a good forum. Any comments?
To all in the forum...have a safe Labor Day Weekend.

Karl-Your above post seems to imply that I was questioning the value of UVA ratings such as critical wavelength, Boots or PFA. I was not questioning this. Yes, I suppose that one could discuss the merits and problems with each of those but overall I think that these UVA ratings systems can be a valuable tool for the consumer and sunscreen manufacturers. I am aware of the controversies you mentioned and they can very well be fertile ground for a good forum. I guess we shall see if the EDS forum is a "good forum" to have such discussions on. Wink

free skin care · Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:00 am

athena123,

I will only say the following in reference to your latest post.

We are all aware that this thread disappeared. We can only assume that the moderators went through it with a fine tooth comb. My posts are still there in their original form and were not edited. Since there are forum guidlines against personal attacks on other members one can only assume that the moderators did not feel that my posts were a personal attack on anyone.

HK

free skin care · Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:16 pm

Karl- Let's start with critical wavelenght.....

I am a little confused by your description of critical wavelenght on the LUCA website. Here is a quote from that website. I have underlined that part which I wish to have clarified.

"Critical wavelength is an international rating system for UVA protection. It is a measurement performed on a machine in which sunscreen is applied to a slide. The slide is then irradiated from an artificial light source to simulate sun exposure. Exposure begins at 290nm, with subsequent exposure to progressively higher wavelengths of light. The point at which the sunscreen allows 10% of the rays to penetrate through the slide is defined as the critical wavelength. Another way of looking at this, would be this is the point where the level of protection provided by the sunscreen has dropped, to the point where only 90% of the rays are blocked (absorbed).

I am not 100% sure what you mean by critical wavelenght being the point at which the sunscreen allows 10% of the rays to penetrate. Are you implying that if a sunscreeen has a CW of 383 like yours does then this means that it lets through 10% of the radiation of that specific wavelength so that it is blocking/absorbing 90% of the radiation with a wavelength of 383. Or do you mean to imply something else? TIA

Automatic Message

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.