One-to-one comparison of sunscreen efficacy, aesthetics and potential nanotoxicity

Abstract

Numerous reports have described the superior properties of nanoparticles and their diverse range of applications. Issues of toxicity1,2, workplace safety3,4 and environmental impact5,6,7,8,9 have also been a concern. Here we show a theoretical comparison of how the size of titanium dioxide nanoparticles and their concentration in sunscreens can affect efficacy, aesthetics and potential toxicity from free radical production. The simulation results reveal that, unless very small nanoparticles can be shown to be safe, there is no combination of particle size and concentration that will deliver optimal performance in terms of sun protection and aesthetics. Such a theoretical method complements well the experimental approach for identifying these characteristics.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Prediction of size-dependent SPF.
Figure 2: Prediction of the size-dependent transparency, which governs aesthetic appeal.
Figure 3: Prediction of the potential for generation of ROS as a function of nanoparticle size.
Figure 4: Prediction of the efficacy, transparency and potential for nanotoxicity of titania nanoparticles in sunscreens.
Figure 5: Numerical simulation of optimal product attributes.

References

  1. 1

    Hoet, P. H. M., Brüske-Hohlfeld, I. & Salata, O. V. Nanoparticles—known and unknown health risks. J. Nanobiotech. 22, 12 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Magrez, A. et al. Cellular toxicity of carbon-based nanomaterials. Nano Lett. 6, 1121–1125 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Donaldson, K. et al. Carbon nanotubes: a review of their properties in relation to pulmonary toxicology and workplace safety. Toxicol. Sci. 92, 5–22 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Bartis, J. & Landree, E. Nanomaterials in the Workplace: Policy and Planning Workshop on Occupational Safety and Health (RAND, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Donaldson, K., Stone, V., Tran, C. L., Kreyling, W. & Borm, P. J. A. Nanotoxicology. Occup. Environ. Med. 61, 727–728 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Oberdörster, G., Oberdörster, E. & Oberdörster, J. Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ. Health Perspect. 113, 823–839 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Barnard, A. S. Nanohazards: knowledge is our first defence. Nature Mater. 5, 245–248 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Baun, A., Hartmann, N., Grieger, K., & Kusk, K. Ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to aquatic invertebrates: a brief review and recommendations for future toxicity testing. Ecotoxicology 17, 387–395 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Nel, A., Xia, T., Mädler, L. & Li, N. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311, 622–627 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Tyner, K. M. et al. Comparing methods for detecting and characterizing metal oxide nanoparticles in unmodified commercial sunscreens. Nanomedicine 4, 145–159 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Hirakawa, T., Yawata, K. & Nosaka, Y. Photocatalytic reactivity for O2•− and OH radical formation in anatase and rutile TiO2 suspension as the effect of H2O2 addition. Appl. Catal. A 325, 105–111 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Wiseman, H. & Halliwell, B. Damage to DNA by reactive oxygen and nitrogen species: role in inflammatory disease and progression to cancer. Biochem. J. 313, 17–29 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Serpone, N., Salinaro, A. & Emeline, A. Deleterious effects of sunscreen titanium dioxide nanoparticles on DNA: efforts to limit DNA damage by particle surface modification. Proc. SPIE 4258, 86–98 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Kertesz, Zs., Szikszai, Z. & Kiss, A. Z. Quality of skin as a barrier to ultra-fine particles. Contribution of the IBA Group to the NANODERM EU-5 Project (2003–2004).

  15. 15

    Vogt, A. et al. 40 nm, but not 750 or 1500 nm, nanoparticles enter epidermal CD1a+ cells after transcutaneous application on human skin. J. Invest. Dermatol. 126, 1316–1322 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Zhang, L. W. & Monteiro-Riviere, N. A. Assessment of quantum dot penetration into intact, tape-stripped, abraded and flexed rat skin. Skin Pharmacol. Physiol. 21, 166–180 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Barker, P. J. & Branch, A. The interaction of modern sunscreen formulations with surface coatings. Prog. Org. Coatings 62, 313–320 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Barnard, A. S. How can ab initio simulations address risks in nanotech? Nature Nanotech. 4, 332–335 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Villalobos-Hernández, J. R. & Müller-Goymann, C. C. Sun protection enhancement of titanium dioxide crystals by the use of carnauba wax nanoparticles: the synergistic interaction between organic and inorganic sunscreens at nanoscale. Int. J. Pharmacol. 322, 161–170 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Barnard, A. S. & Xu, H. An environmentally sensitive phase map of titania nanocrystals. ACS Nano 2, 2237–2242 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Yang, H. G. et al. Anatase TiO2 single crystals with a large percentage of reactive facets. Nature 453, 638–641 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Ohno, T., Sarukawa, K. & Matsumura, M. Crystal faces of rutile and anatase TiO2 particles and their roles in photocatalytic reactions. New J. Chem. 26, 1167–1170 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Jiang, J. et al. Does nanoparticle activity depend upon size and crystal phase? Nanotoxicol. 2, 33–42 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Mckinlay, A. F. & Diffey, B. L. A reference action spectrum of ultraviolet induced erythema in human skin, in Human Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation: Risks and Regulations 83–87 (Elsevier, 1987).

  25. 25

    Mie, G. Beiträge zur optik trüber medien, speziell kolloidaler metallösungen. Ann. Phys. 330, 377–445 (1908).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Thiele, E. S. & French, R. H. Light-scattering properties of representative, morphological rutile titania particles using a finite-element method. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 81, 469–479 (1998).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Popov, A. P., Priezzhev, A. V., Lademann, J. & Myllylä, R. TiO2 nanoparticles as an effective UV-B radiation skin-protective compound in sunscreens. J. Phys. D 38, 2564–2570 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Tuchin, V. V. Tissue Optics (SPIE Optical Engineering Press, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Barnard, A. S. A thermodynamic model for the shape and stability of twinned nanostructures. J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 24498–24504 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Barnard, A. S. & Curtiss, L. A. Prediction of TiO2 nanoparticle phase and shape transitions controlled by surface chemistry. Nano Lett. 5, 1261–1266 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A.S.B. acknowledges the support of the Australian Research Council (ARC) (DP0986752), L'Oréal Australia, and the Australian Academy of Sciences, and G. Smith and H. Xu for useful discussions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda S. Barnard.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Supplementary information (PDF 457 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barnard, A. One-to-one comparison of sunscreen efficacy, aesthetics and potential nanotoxicity. Nature Nanotech 5, 271–274 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2010.25

Download citation

Further reading