Original Contribution

Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 15, 3--9

Sunscreen remanence on the skin: a noninvasive real time in vivo

spectral analysis assessing the quenching of specular ultraviolet A
light reflectance

rald E. Pie

rard, MD, PhD,1 Diana Khazaka, MBA,2 & Gabriel Khazaka, MBA2
Ge
1
2

Laboratory of Skin Bioengineering and Imaging (LABIC), Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
CK Electronic, Cologne, Germany

Summary

Background Under specific light illumination, particularly ultraviolet radiation (UVR),

the skin produces both specular light reflectance and, possibly, specific fluorescent
emission. A quenching effect of fluorescence is observed following the application of
sunscreens active against UVA radiations.
Aims To assess noninvasively in a real-time process, the potential sunscreen
remanence/substantivity after application on the skin.
Methods The Visiopor device was used in a real-time procedure after application of
sunscreens to the skin. A quenching effect of follicular fluorescence due to bacterial
porphyrins was evaluated at 30-min intervals. The Visioscan device was used as a
distinct UVA emitter in a control procedure of spectral analysis of specular UVR
emission and reflectance by dermal fibers.
Results Under UVA-1 irradiations, facial skin produced different patterns of specular
UVR reflectance and fluorescent emission as well. The porphyrin-related follicular
fluorescence was instantly abated by UVA blockers present in suncare products. The
potential sunscreen remanence/substantivity was assessed by the follicular and
interfollicular fluorescence recurrence all along the next hours.
Conclusions All UVA blocker-containing suncare products exhibited a similar overall
quenching effect on porphyrin-enriched facial hair follicles and dermal fibers. This
effect lasted for a few hours. Differences in the fluorescence recovery were likely
related to the amount in suncare application and the nature of the formulation
components.
Keywords: sunscreen, porphyrin, fluorophore, Propionibacterium acnes, sunburn
protection factor, spectral analysis, UVA protection factor

Introduction
A growing part of the Western populations, essentially
Caucasian people, has increased the lifetime solar
Correspondence: G

erald E. Pie
rard, Laboratory of Skin Bioengineering and
Imaging, Department of Dermatopathology, University Hospital of Liege,
Li
ege B-4000, Belgium. E-mail: gerald.pierard@ulg.ac.be
Accepted for publication July 9, 2015

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure following the

expansion of the growing outdoor leisure time. Over
recent years, a greater awareness of the potential
harmful effects of solar irradiation has emerged among
scientists, physicians, and the lay public. People are
now aware that excessive solar radiations without
appropriate protection are harmful and cause
lesions including sunburn, photoaging, and skin
cancers.1 Indeed, cumulative erythemogenic and

Sunscreen remanence and specular ultraviolet light

. G E Pierard et al.

nonerythemogenic exposures to UVR contribute to

various acute and chronic damages to human skin.
The cutaneous photodamages induced by UVR depend
on the radiation wavelengths (WL). The UVA spectrum
encompasses the almost nonerythemogenic UVA1
(WL: 340400 nm) and the discretely erythemogenic
UVA2 (WL: 320340 nm). The UVB (WL: 280
320 nm) is about 1000 times more erythemogenic
than the shortwave UVA2.
The recent brands of suncare products are offered to
consumers in order to abate or in part control some of
the UVR deleterious effects on the skin. Decreasing skin
exposure to solar UVR reduces specific photodamages
including photoaging and photocarcinogenesis. In this
field, UVA light is important to be considered in the
whole spectrum of UVR. In practice, distinct stringent
in vitro and in vivo tests are currently available for
defining the potential efficacy of suncare formulations.215
The major impact of photodamages depends on sunlight representing the main source of human UVR
exposure. The UVR spectrum spans the WL range from
100 to 400 nm. Most of the WL below 280 nm are filtered by the ozone layer in the stratosphere and therefore do not reach the earth. For years, the
erythemogenic UVB was considered to be the most dangerous part of the UVR spectrum. However, UVA also
participates in photodamages. There is real value in
regular daily use of photoprotective formulations on
exposed skin areas. Both the lifetime and remanence of
suncare ingredients are critical parameters. Obviously,
subjects with high cumulative sun exposure with
sun-sensitive skin types are at high risk for developing
severe chronic alterations due to UVR. The ideal sun
protection agents should provide a combination of high
protection effective against both UVA and UVB. The
protective efficacy of sunscreens is predominantly evaluated in vivo by measuring the UVB induction of erythema in human skin and is expressed as the sunburn
protection factor (SPF). In addition, some UVA protection parameters, such as in vivo persistent pigment
darkening (PPD),4 diffuse reflectance spectroscopy,2 and
the in vitro UVA protection factor, are outlined.6,9,1618
A major issue about biological relevance is that these
parameters do not reflect the whole range of deleterious UVR effects, including damages to blood vessels,
immunosuppression, photoaging, and photocarcinogenesis.18 Of note, the SPF level directly influences personal sunlight exposure time, and people use
sunscreens to deliberately extend sun exposure. Moreover, the formulations should be water- and sweatresistant, photostable, nontoxic, and cosmetically

acceptable. Attempts at improving public awareness of

the hazards of UVR exposures are strived, but a large
number of people still commonly flock to sunbathing
at the beach.
The sunscreen effect depends on a set of factors
including the SPF, as well as the nature and the
applied amount of photoprotective agents, and the sunscreen remanence on the skin. The SPF of a suncare
formulation is assessed by the producer company. The
total amount of the suncare applied to the skin commonly remains uncontrolled, and the remanence on
the skin is influenced by some environmental conditions (swimming, brushing, etc.). The design of new
methods assessing the intrinsic remanence of given
sunscreens is welcome.
Propionibacterium spp, particularly P. acnes, synthesize and release specific porphyrins into the core of
microcomedones.19,20 Coproporphyrin III and protoporphyrin IX are variably involved in a fluorescence effect.
The metabolic process begins with colorless tetrapyrrole porphyrinogens. Oxidation of these compounds
produces porphyrins that are photosensitizing moieties.
Porphyrins are strongly fluorescent when exposed to
excitation light by near-UVA and blue light, as well as
in the red portion of the visible spectrum (600
650 nm). The emission WL of fluorescent light by porphyrins ranges 580700 nm. Fluorescence intensity of
individual pilosebaceous follicles and porphyrin content
is correlated and strongly reflects the population density of P. acnes in microcomedones. By contrast, some
researchers claimed that the fluorescence aspect was
related to a distinct process.20 Quite recently, specific
UVR CCD cameras (Visiopor PP34 and Visioscan
VC98, C+K electronic, Cologne, Germany) were used
for examining skin fluorescence.2123 The instrumental
procedure provides objective information about specular UVA reflectance. In addition, the incident light is in
part transformed into fluorescent light after specific
activation of a series of specific fluorophores present in
the skin.2123
This study was designed to explore the effects of sunscreens in abating the specular UVA reflectance. The
transmission spectrum of the sunscreen evaluates the
changes in absorption of distinct structures of the skin
with and without each suncare product.

Materials and methods

This observational study was approved by the Ethics
Committee of the University Hospital of Liege and was
conducted in accordance with the Declaration of
Helsinki.

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Sunscreen remanence and specular ultraviolet light

Follicular fluorescence dots (FFD) were conveniently

observed using the Visiopor PP34 (C+K electronic).2123 The device contains a set of 16 LED which
emit UVA1 in the WL range 375385 nm. For controls
in a UVR spectrum analysis procedure, the Visioscan
VC98 (C+K electronic) was used, emitting UVA in the
range 380395 nm WL, with a peak at 387 nm.2428
Each of the devices was closely applied to the skin in
order to collect images on a computer screen. The incident light was reflected and scattered nearby the skin
surface. This phenomenon corresponded to the specular
light reflectance (SLR) detected by each of the CCD cameras, although it remained barely visible to the naked
eye. SLR observation is noninvasive, ethical, and applicable without any restrictions in humans.
A total of six series of seven Caucasian adults were
enrolled. They were of both genders, and they showed
no facial dermatoses. In each group, they applied what
they expected to be a regular amount of sun protection
in routine clinical application on the face. The applied
amount was assessed by the weight difference in each
commercial formulation before and after the single
application on a fixed surface area delimited by a
pierced supple plastic sheet (3* 3 cm) which was successively deposited on the forehead and neck (for Visiopor and Visioscan) and the nose (for Visiopor only).
The Visioscan and Visiopor examinations were
performed at 30-min intervals till 8 h. During that period of time, any contacts with towels and other pieces
of fabrics were avoided. Inadvertent contacts with the
hands were yet possible. The presence of FFD was
recorded in each individual. The kinetics of FFD
changes was established.
The test products were commercially available. They
corresponded to Anthelios (La Roche Posay, 50+ SPF),
Capital Soleil (Vichy, 50+ SPF), Eryfotona (Isdin, 100+
SPF), Eucerin Sun Protection (Eucerin, 50+ SPF), Extra
Sun Fluid (Louis Widmer, 50+ SPF), and Mustela sun
lotion (Expanscience, 50+ SPF). For each suncare product arbitrarily identified A to F, the median numbers
of FFD and their interindividual ranges were determined at each evaluation time.

The aspects provided by the Visioscan were completely distinct. FFD were not highlighted, but the presence of a mosaic superficial melanoderma (MSM)
(Fig. 3) and follicular keratosis was disclosed. One
application of any of the suncare products was followed by a widespread darkening evenly distributed
over the images. This aspect vanished during the following hours (Table 3, Fig. 4a,b).

Discussion
Photoprotection formulations are available as creams,
lotions, oils, sprays, gels, and sticks. They contain different UV filters and, depending on their galenic presentation, they are associated with various
moisturizers, conservatives, and some alternative
photoprotectors such as antioxidants. The actual UVR

Table 1 Visiopor fluorescence patterns on the forehead and

photoprotective quenching by six products AF. Medians (and
ranges) of analytical data

Product

Applied amount
mg/cm2

Initial fluorescent
follicular dots
N/cm2

A
B
C
D
E
F

0.32
0.51
0.33
0.56
0.48
0.28

8
10
7
8
10
11

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

(0.300.72)
(0.370.81)
(0.200.50)
(0.37071)
(0.310.92)
(0.240.89)

(514)
(817)
(39)
(610)
(613)
(817)

Median
persistent
follicular
remanence time
duration (min)
100%

<20%

240
300
270
300
150
360

360
480
30
420
420
480

Table 2 Visiopor fluorescence pattern on the nose and photoprotective UVA quenching by six products AF. Medians (and
ranges) of analytical data

Product

Applied amount
mg/cm2

Initial fluorescent
follicular dots
N/cm2

A
B
C
D
E
F

0.63
0.77
0.58
0.81
0.67
0.35

14
11
12
10
12
11

Results
At entry in the study using the Visiopor, all subjects
exhibited a pattern of FFD (Tables 1, 2). The initial
densities in FFD were frequently more abundant on the
nose than on the forehead (Fig. 1a,b). Immediately
after the application of any suncare product, the FFD
pattern vanished followed by a progressive recurrence
of FFD taking place over time (Table 2, Fig. 2a,b,c).

. G E Pierard et al.

(0.441.07)
(0.401.18)
(0.360.74)
(0.961.23)
(0.391.21)
(0.310.96)

(917)
(814)
(916)
(713)
(817)
(713)

Median
persistent
follicular
remanence time
duration (min)
100%

<20%

240
330
330
300
210
270

420
450
420
420
480
480

Sunscreen remanence and specular ultraviolet light

. G E Pierard et al.

protection is influenced by the filter(s) nature and

increases with their concentration in sunscreens,29 but
potential toxicity and reduced cosmetic acceptance
limit UVR filter concentration for clinical use. The SPF
of the product refers to the protection it affords from

(a)

(b)

Figure 1 Visiopor aspect of follicular fluorescent dots on (a) the

nose and (b) on the forehead.

(a)

(b)

erythema after a single exposure to UVR but gives limited information on UVA protection. However, in the
European Union, the protection against UVA assessed
by the persistent pigment darkening30 has to be at
least one-third of the claimed SPF.31 In the present
study, the sunscreens were characterized by very high
protection with SPF reaching 50+ or 100+, and the
UVA protection factor was above 20.
Sunscreen remanence refers to its resistance to outside removal by water, sweat, or rubbing. A usual recommendation for sunscreen use is one application 15
30 min before sun exposure and repeated application
of it every second hour. The product has to be reapplied earlier after activities washing out or rubbing off
the sunscreen, that is, after swimming, sweating, or
towel drying. The so-called water-resistant suncare
products are defined as protecting skin for 40 min of
bathing, whereas waterproof (very water-resistant)
sunscreens protect for 80 min. Tightly related to remanence is the product substantivity that characterizes
the capacity of a filter compound to adhere to structures in the upper epidermis, thus ensuring a long lasting action. In addition, the notion of remanence
encompasses the possible transcutaneous penetration,
the sweat resistance, and the molecular alterations, in
part UVR induced of the sun protection agent. The present findings confirm that the durability of the UVR
protection is fairly good.19,31,32
UVR damage causes skin carcinomas and melanomas,1 whereas sunscreens abate UVR. The perception
of the UVA involvement in cutaneous photocarcinogenesis fueled a burst of new broad spectrum sunscreens.2,4 The daily use of high SPF and broad
spectrum sunscreens applied in liberal amounts is recommended as part of a photoprotection plan. The SPF
is commonly used for comparing the efficacy of sunscreen products, rather than providing information
about the absolute protection. However, the difference

(c)

Figure 2 Typical evolution of Visiopor follicular fluorescent dots (a) before one application of a sunscreen, (b) immediately after
application, and (c) a couple of hours later.

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Sunscreen remanence and specular ultraviolet light

between sunscreens with higher SPF values in transmission of UVR is negligible.31

A quenching effect of FFD fading under Visiopor
examination was previously reported following sunscreen applications filtering the incident light.22 The
instant suppression of follicular fluorescence was
impressive when the spectrum activity of sunscreens
covered the WL range of UVA. By contrast, the Visioscan did not revealed FFD due to distinct WL of the
emitted UVA. The mechanism of skin fluorescence
under Visioscan is indeed different with other distinct
stimulated fluorophores. The incident UVA penetrates
the superficial dermis stimulating the fibrous networks,
particularly the collagen fibers which reemit fluorescent light back to the skin surface and the camera sensor. Epidermal melanin filters the back and forth way
of the light inside the epidermis. Moreover, any UVA
protector deposited at the skin surface will abate the
fluorescence reaching back the skin surface. Such
extinction of the skin fluorescence is an indicator of
the remanence of a suncare formulation applied on the

. G E Pierard et al.

skin. The renewal rate of the stratum corneum does

not affect the sunscreen remanence.33
In the present study, the applied amount of suncare
product was much reduced compared with the classical
sunscreen coverage of 2 mg/cm2 corresponding clearly
to an overapplication regarding the common use by
consumers.15 Indeed, the present amount of sunscreen
ranged from about 0.21.23 mg/cm2 which is in a
range of previously reported amounts32 and represents
a real-world practice.34 Theorically, SPF decreases by
the square of the reduction of the amount applied.15,31
Our findings using the Visiopor and Visioscan suggest that the sunprotective effect is quite immediate following application without any lag period. Remanence
commonly appears to last some hours, a period much
prolonged over the regular 2-h expectation.
It is likely that the FFD pattern is a protected area
compared with the interannexial SC. Clearly, we did

(a)

(b)

Figure 3 Mosaic superficial melanoderma of the neck disclosed

by the Visioscan.
Table 3 Visioscan fluorescence of the forehead skin and photoprotective fluorescence quenching by six products AF. Medians
(and ranges) of analytical data

Product

Applied amount
mg/cm2

Median overall
remanence duration (min)

A
B
C
D
E
F

0.32
0.51
0.33
0.56
0.48
0.28

180
240
120
210
120
270

(0.300.72)
(0.370.81)
(0.200.50)
(0.37071)
(0.310.42)
(0.840.39)

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Figure 4 Visioscan aspect of the skin of the neck (a) immediately after application of a sunscreen and (b) a couple of hours
later.

Sunscreen remanence and specular ultraviolet light

. G E Pierard et al.

not follow the current regulations about testing of suncare products.16 We thus tried to avoid obvious overestimations of the sun protection effects.32,35,36 However,
in the absence of controlled suncare applications, comparing the remanence of distinct products was not
attempted. The present fluorescent quenching under
Visiopor examination is clearly confined to FFD sites
probably corresponding to keratotic plugs focusing skin
adhesion of suncare products. Due to the evenly regular corneocyte desquamation,33 this situation is probably not encountered at the SC surface. The suncare
remanence/substantivity of the interfollicular epidermis
is shown by the Visioscan. There is probably a direct
correlation between the present findings and the
overall UVA protection afforded by the suncare
formulations.
The presently described method is cheap, rapid, and
noninvasive. It possibly fits with some specific questions including comparisons between distinct formulations, considerations about interindividual differences,
resistance to sweating and swimming, possible interactions with various topical formulations, influences of
formulations on compliance, methods of applications,
etc.

10

11
12

13

Acknowledgments
The devices were provided by the company C+K technology. No other sources of funding were used to assist
in the preparation of this manuscript. The authors
have no conflict of interests that are directly relevant
to the content of this study. The authors appreciate
the excellent secretarial assistance of Mrs. Ida Leclercq.

14

15

16

References
1 Leiter U, Garbe C. Epidemiology of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancerthe role of sunlight. Adv Exp Med
Biol 2008; 624: 89103.
2 Gillies R, Moyal D, Forestier S et al. Non-invasive in vivo
determination of UVA efficacy of sunscreens using diffuse
reflectance spectroscopy. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2003; 19: 1904.
3 Gardiner J, Bailey P, Makino THB. Colipa guidelines:
International sun protection factor (SPF) Test method.
Eur Cosmet Assoc Brussels 2006; 19.
4 Moyal D, Wichrowski K, Tricaud C. In vivo persistent pigment darkening method: a demonstration of the reproducibility of the UVA protection factors results at several
testing laboratories. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed
2006; 22: 1248.
5 Verheugen G. Commission recommendation of 22
September 2006 on the efficacy of sunscreen products

17

18

19

20

21

and the claims made relating thereto. Off J Eur Union

2006; 265: 3943.
Bendova H, Akrman J, Krejci A et al. In vitro approaches
to evaluation of Sun Protection Factor. Toxicol Vitr 2007;
21: 126875.
Bleasel MD, Aldous S. In vitro evaluation of sun protection factors of sunscreen agents using a novel UV spectrophotometric technique. Int J Cosmet Sci 2008; 30:
25970.
Garoli D, Pelizzo MG, Bernardini B et al. Sunscreen tests:
correspondence between in vitro data and values reported
by the manufacturers. J Dermatol Sci 2008; 52: 193
204.
COLIPA. In vitro UV protection method task force. In
vitro method for the in vitro determination of UVA protection factor and critical wavelength values of sunscreen products. www.colipa.com. Guidel March 2011.
Pelizzo M, Zattra E, Nicolosi P et al. In vitro evaluation of
sunscreens: an update for the clinicians. ISRN Dermatol
2012; 2012: 352135.
Bens G. Sunscreens. Adv Exp Med Biol 2014; 810: 429
63.
Jou PC, Tomecki KJ. Sunscreens in the United States: current status and future outlook. Adv Exp Med Biol 2014;
810: 46484.
Khunkitti W, Satthanakul P, Waranuch N et al. Method
for screening sunscreen cream formulations by determination of in vitro SPF and PA values using UV transmission spectroscopy and texture profile analysis. J Cosmet
Sci 2014; 65: 14759.
Schuch AP, Moraes MC, Yagura T et al. Highly sensitive
biological assay for determining the photoprotective efficacy of sunscreen. Env Sci Technol 2014; 48: 1158490.
Faurschou A, Wulf HC. The relation between sun protection factor and amount of sunscreen applied in vivo. Br J
Dermatol 2007; 156: 7169.
COLIPA, CTFA-SA, CtFA J. International Sun Protection
Factor (SPF). Test method. COLIPA, CTFA-SA; CTFA;
JCIA, Eds; Brussels, 2006: pp. 46.
Moyal D, Alard V, Bertin C et al. The revised COLIPA
in vitro UVA method. Int J Cosmet Sci 2013; 35:
3540.
Schuch AP, Garcia CCM, Makita K et al. DNA damage as
a biological sensor for environmental sunlight. Photochem
Photobiol Sci 2013; 12: 125972.
Pagnoni A, Kligman AM, Kollias N et al. Digital fluorescence photography can assess the suppressive effect of
benzoyl peroxide on Propionibacterium acnes. J Am Acad
Dermatol 1999; 41: 7106.
Son T, Han B, Jung B et al. Fluorescent image analysis
for evaluating the condition of facial sebaceous follicles.
Skin Res Technol 2008; 14: 2017.
Szepetiuk G, Pi
erard-Franchimont C, Quatresooz P et al.
How I explore..skin by photodiagnosis using skin fluorescence and its functional imaging. Rev Med Liege 2010;
65: 5216.

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Sunscreen remanence and specular ultraviolet light

22 Szepetiuk G, Pi
erard S, Pi
erard-Franchimont C et al. Recent trends in specular light reflectance beyond clinical
fluorescence diagnosis. Eur J Dermatol 2011; 21:
15761.
23 Szepetiuk G, Pi
erard-Franchimont C, Quatresooz P et al.
Physico-biological foundation of skin fluorescence. Pathol
Biol 2012; 60: 3806.
24 Hermanns JF, Petit L, Pi
erard-Franchimont C et al.
Assessment of topical hypopigmenting agents on solar
lentigines of Asian women. Dermatology 2002; 204:
2816.
25 Xhauflaire-Uhoda E, Pi
erard-Franchimont C, Pi
erard GE
et al. Weathering of the hairless scalp: a study using skin
capacitance imaging and ultraviolet light-enhanced visualization. Clin Exp Dermatol 2010; 35: 835.
26 Hermanns-L^e T, Pi
erard-Franchimont C, Pi
erard GE.
Scrutinizing skinfield melanin patterns in young Caucasian women. Expert Opin Med Diagn 2013; 7: 45562.
27 Hermanns-L^e T, Pi
erard S. Streamlining cutaneous melanomas in young women of the Belgian Mosan region.
Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 320767.
28 Pi
erard GE, Hermanns-L^e T, Pi
erard SL et al. In vivo skin
fluorescence imaging in young Caucasian adults with
early malignant melanomas. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
2014; 7: 22530.
29 Schalka S, dos Reis VMS, Cuc
e LC. The influence of the
amount of sunscreen applied and its sun protection factor
(SPF): evaluation of two sunscreens including the same

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

30

31

32

33
34

35

36

. G E Pierard et al.

ingredients at different concentrations. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2009; 25: 17580.

Lim HW, Naylor M, H
onigsmann H et al. American Academy of Dermatology Consensus Conference on UVA protection of sunscreens: summary and recommendations.
Washington, DC, Feb 4, 2000. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;
44: 5058.
Lod
en M, Beitner H, Gonzalez H et al. Sunscreen use: controversies, challenges and regulatory aspects. Br J Dermatol 2011; 165: 25562.
Bodekaer M, Faurschou A, Philipsen PA et al. Sun protection factor persistence during a day with physical activity
and bathing. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2008;
24: 296300.
Pi
erard GE, Goffin V, Hermanns-L^e T et al. Corneocyte
desquamation. Int J Mol Med 2000; 6: 21721.
Chesnut C, Kim J. Is there truly no benefit with sunscreen
use and Basal cell carcinoma? A critical review of the literature and the application of new sunscreen labeling
rules to real-world sunscreen practices. J Skin Cancer
2012; 2012: 480985.
Young AR, Boles J, Herzog B et al. A sunscreens labeled
sun protection factor may overestimate protection at temperate latitudes: a human in vivo study. J Invest Dermatol
2010; 130: 245762.
Kaur A, Thatai P, Sapra B. Need of UV protection and
evaluation of efficacy of sunscreens. J Cosmet Sci 2014;
65: 31545.