Infrared and skin: Friend or foe.

In the last decade, it has been proposed that the sun's IR-A wavelengths might be deleterious to human skin and that sunscreens, in addition to their desired effect to protect against UV-B and UV-A, should also protect against IR-A (and perhaps even visible light). Several studies showed that NIR may damage skin collagen content via an increase inMMP-1 activity in the same manner as is known for UVR. Unfortunately, the artificial NIR light sources used in such studies were not representative of the solar irradiance. Yet, little has been said about the other side of the coin. This article will focus on key information suggesting that IR-A may be more beneficial than deleterious when the skin is exposed to the appropriate irradiance/dose of IR-A radiation similar to daily sun exposure received by people in real life.IR-A might even precondition the skin--a process called photo prevention--from an evolutionary standpoint since exposure to early morning IR-A wavelengths in sunlight may ready the skin for the coming mid-day deleterious UVR. Consequently IR-A appears to be the solution, not the problem. It does more good than bad for the skin. It is essentially a question of intensity and how we can learn from the sun. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Evaluation of sunscreen products using a reconstructed skin model exposed to simulated daily ultraviolet radiation: relevance of filtration profile and SPF value for daily photoprotection.

BACKGROUND: The recent definition of a standard daily ultraviolet radiation (DUVR) has allowed us to reproduce non-zenithal sun exposure conditions. Exposure to simulated DUVR induces biological damage in human skin, suggesting the need for an appropriate photoprotection. METHODS: Sunscreen products were evaluated using human reconstructed skin in vitro. Two commercial sunscreens (A and B) having similar sun (burn) protection factor (SPF) values (approximately 15) but different profiles of transmission over the UVA range were tested on skin models exposed to increasing doses of DUVR. Another pair of sunscreens was also tested. One (product C) had an SPF approximately 18 with a well-balanced UVB-UVA profile and the other (product D) an SPF of approximately 27 with low UVA absorption. Biological parameters were assessed by (i) histology, (ii) vimentin immunostaining for dermal fibroblasts, and (iii) analysis of matrix metalloprotease (MMP)-1 secretion. RESULTS: Products A and C gave better protection from DUVR with regard to fibroblast alterations and MMP-1 release compared with products B and D, respectively. CONCLUSION: To ensure an efficient daily photoprotection from DUVR, the filtration profile of the product should be well balanced with a sufficient level of UVA absorption. With regard to end points evaluated in this study, our data suggest that a higher SPF value does not compensate for low UVA filtration.

The EpiSkin phototoxicity assay (EPA): development of an in vitro tiered strategy using 17 reference chemicals to predict phototoxic potency.

The aim of the study was to investigate the ability of human reconstructed epidermis EpiSkin(LM) to identify the phototoxic potency of topically or systemically applied chemicals (EPA: EpiSkin phototoxicity assay). Three classes, according to their available human phototoxic potential, were evaluated: systemic phototoxic compounds, topical phototoxic chemicals and non-phototoxic compounds. Non-cytotoxic concentrations of chemicals were applied topically or directly added to the underlying culture medium in order to mimic a systemic-like administration. Following treatment, tissues were exposed to non-cytotoxic dose of UVA (50 J cm(-2)). Cell viability and pro-inflammatory mediators (IL-1alpha) were investigated 22 h after UVA exposure. Our results show that the phototoxic potential of chemicals can be determined using cell viability combined with inflammatory mediator measurements (cytokine IL-1alpha) in a 3-D epidermis model. Moreover, the EPA was able to discriminate efficiently between phototoxic and non-phototoxic products. Furthermore, the EPA is sensitive to the administration route in the prediction of the phototoxic potency of the tested chemical. Differences observed between the two routes of administration (topical or systemic-like) may be linked in part to chemicals bioavailability which depends on specific penetration potential, epidermis barrier function and also on keratinocytes absorption/metabolization processes. Results were very promising and showed a very good sensitivity (92.3%) and an excellent specificity (100%) with an overall accuracy of 94.1%. The performances of the EPA showed that the EpiSkin(LM) model is an interesting tool able to integrate decision-making processes to address the question of phototoxicity linked to the application site.

Biological effects of simulated ultraviolet daylight: a new approach to investigate daily photoprotection.

BACKGROUND: The irradiance of standard ultraviolet daylight (UV-DL) is representative of most frequently encountered UV exposure conditions and simulators of UV-DL can now be used to properly investigate the biological effects of a non-extreme UV radiation. One of the characteristics of the simulated UV-DL used in this study is its dUVA to dUVB irradiance ratio, which amounts to 24, instead of close to 10, for the simulated zenithal UV radiation (UV-SSR). PURPOSE/METHODS: The aim of our study was to compare photobiological effects induced, in human skin, by acute and semi-chronic exposure to simulated UV-DL with those induced by UV-SSR. RESULTS: Differences between UV doses needed to induce given biological effects after exposure to simulated UV-DL compared with UV-SSR indicate that the spectral distribution of the UV spectrum is of primary importance with regard to biological endpoints in the epidermis (SBC, p53, thymine dimers, Langerhans cells, and melanocyte alterations, etc.) and in the dermis (collagen, tenascin, etc.). Significant biological damage was noticed after 19 cumulative exposures to 0.5 minimum erythemal dose (MED) of UV-DL over 4 weeks. 0.5 MED of UV-DL corresponds to 1/9 of the daily typical dose received in Paris in April, emphasizing the need for an efficient daily UV protection. CONCLUSION: Simulated UV daylight is a relevant new tool for daily photoprotection studies.

Standard ultraviolet daylight for nonextreme exposure conditions.

The skin is exposed to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from natural or artificial sources on a daily basis. The effects of chronic low dose exposure merit investigation, even when these effects are neither conspicuous nor clinically assessable. The purpose of the present study was to define a relative spectral UV irradiance that is representative of frequent nonextreme sun exposure conditions and therefore more appropriate for studies of the long-term and daily effects of solar UV on the skin. Solar spectral UV irradiance values were calculated for different dates and locations by using a radiative transfer model. The spectral irradiance values obtained when the solar elevation is lower than 45 degrees were averaged. An important feature is the dUVA (320-400 nm) to dUVB (290-320 nm) irradiance values ratio, which was found to be 27.3 for the overall average. When the months corresponding to extreme irradiance values (low or high) were excluded from the calculations, the dUVA to dUVB ratio ranged from 27.2 to 27.5. The mean spectral irradiance of the model presented here represents environmental UV exposure conditions and can be used both as a standard to investigate the biological effects of a nonextreme UVR and to assess the effectiveness of products for daily skin protection.