Are Sunscreen products reliable?

What?

Sunscreens contain diverse active ingredients. Some use the inert inorganic mineral pigment, such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, primarily to reflect or scatter UV radiation. Others use organic chemicals or a mixture because chemicals can absorb UV rays. For instance, sunscreens also contain carbon-containing molecules that absorb light, such as oxybenzone, octinoxate, octisalate and avobenzone.

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) has reviewed 27 UV filters approved for Cosmetic Directive, each processes a designation, by which they should be declared on product packaging.

Each sunscreen product has a sunscreen products factor (SPF). It is misleading to interpret SPF as the strength of protection. In fact, SPF refers to the time for the UVB rays to redden the skin with the product compared to that without product. For instance, 15 SPF means using this sunscreen will take 15 times longer for the skin to burn than without using it.

 

How?

Most sunscreen products work by blocking, absorbing, reflecting and scattering UV rays through physical and chemical approaches. Physical method uses particles like titanium dioxide or zinc oxide mentioned above to reflect UV rays away from skins. Meanwhile, many complicated ingredients have chemical reaction with radiation as they contact, absorbing the UV rays, prevent the radiation harming the skins.

Specifically, sunscreens can combat with two types of damaging UV rays: UVA and UVB. Recent researches show that both UVB and UVA radiation will cause sunburn and skin cancer, while UVA rays will also deeply penetrate the skins and cause faster aging, wrinkling and eye damaging.

However, most sunscreen products on the market only block UVB rays while overlook the damage caused by UVA rays. Focusing on efficient UVA protection has a significant prospect in the future.

 

Safety?

Besides SCCP inspections, ingredients used in sunscreen products also must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA has reviewed 17 ingredients that can be used in UV products, including oxybenzone, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide mentioned before.

To guarantee the safety of ingredients, FDA conducts extensive inspections on the ingredients and moreover, regulates the safety and effectiveness of the ingredients until reaching the best performance. For instance, FDA has approved the use of zinc oxide in over-the-counter skin protectants and sunscreen products at concentrations up to 25 percent; active ingredients in sunscreen such as titanium dioxide protect our skin form the harmful UV rays.

 

Experiment!

Now let’s do something interesting using the nature print paper. The nature print paper will become very pale blue after exposure to the sunlight. We can use it to test the effectiveness of UV product by comparing the color.

Step 1: Take one piece of Nature print paper and put it on a piece of corrugated cardboard for support.

Step 2: Smear some sunscreen on part of the paper (the small circle). I used the Shiseido UV product with SPF 50, PF+++.

The paper without exposure to sunlight

Step 3: Expose the paper under sunlight until the blue paper turns very pale blue.

Step 4: Check the resulted paper.

After exposure to sunlight for 2 hours

We can discover that the whole paper became light blue, except the circle with sunscreen barely changed after 2 hours of exposure. We can see that the sunscreen products do have intensive effect and we can surely believe that sunscreen products can protect our skins against the harmful UV light.

 

Binks, Bernard P., et al. “How the sun protection factor (SPF) of sunscreen films change during solar irradiation.” Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 333 (2017): 186-199.

Holman, Dawn M., et al. “Patterns of sunscreen use on the face and other exposed skin among US adults.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 73.1 (2015): 83-92.

Saini, Ritu, and Andrea Szemplinski. “How to choose the right sunscreen for your skin type.” (2016).

Wahie, S., J. J. Lloyd, and P. M. Farr. “Sunscreen ingredients and labelling: a survey of products available in the UK.” Clinical and Experimental Dermatology: Clinical dermatology 32.4 (2007): 359-364.

Gasparro, Francis P., Mark Mitchnick, and J. Frank Nash. “A review of sunscreen safety and efficacy.” Photochemistry and photobiology 68.3 (1998): 243-256.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.