logo
Mineral v chemical sunscreen: Which one should you be using?

Mineral v chemical sunscreen: Which one should you be using?

BBC News3 days ago
Some people are trading chemical sunscreens in favour of mineral versions because of fears over toxicity, pollution and effectiveness. Is there actually any difference?
Mineral sunscreen is having a moment. Amid concerns that so-called "chemical" sunscreens may be bad for our bodies, brains, and even coral reefs, mineral-based formulations have become the fastest-growing share of the global sunscreen market.
But debates over "chemical" versus "mineral" sunscreens are riddled with misconceptions. Many commonly repeated claims – such as mineral sunscreens not containing chemicals; that chemical sunscreens have been proven harmful; or that chemical sunscreens absorb UV, while mineral ones only reflect it – are misleading, even false.
The confusion begins with terminology. "Everything is a chemical," points out Brian Diffey, emeritus professor of photobiology in dermatological sciences at the UK's University of Newcastle and inventor of sunscreen's UVA star rating. What people call "chemical" filters are more accurately termed organic, since they contain carbon-hydrogen bonds, says Diffey. Inorganic filters (often called mineral), primarily titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, lack those bonds. All are chemicals.
Seeking to protect our skin and bodies from the Sun is not a new trend – nor are sunscreens, organic or inorganic. Ancient Mesopotamians used umbrellas; ancient Greeks, wide-brimmed hats. Along with various coverings, people applied concoctions to the body. In Africa, the use of ochre-based pastes, still used as sunscreen by people such as the Himba in Namibia, dates back at least 285,000 years, while the Roman writer Cornelius Celsus advised slathering the skin with olive oil.
It wasn't until the 19th Century, however, that scientists discovered ultra-violet radiation (UVR) – and realised that some ingredients, like quinine sulphate (derived from a tree bark), could absorb it. Scientists duly recommended it as a sunscreen. By 1930, researchers had found a number of other ingredients that absorbed UVR, including aesculin (from trees such as horse chestnut) and larch bark tannin. Though they wouldn't meet today's SPF standards, in terms of how they protected the skin, they all were organic ("chemical") sunscreens.
Later, dozens of other ingredients were added to this list – including those produced by mixing together different substances in a laboratory to induce a chemical reaction. Often referred to as "synthetic chemicals", these types of ingredients – including avobenzone, oxybenzone, octisalate and octinoxate – have been found to absorb UV rays far more effectively than their predecessors. Another type of sunscreen came to market, too: "mineral" sunscreens.
While they might seem more "natural", the titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in today's sunscreens are usually lab-produced.
The great deflection debate
At first, it was thought that organic sunscreens absorbed UVR, while inorganic sunscreens physically reflected and scattered UVR away from the skin – a belief that was perpetuated further in a 1970s United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monograph.
This idea is still commonly heard today, including from seemingly authoritative sources. It also is partly why inorganic sunscreens sometimes are also called "physical sunscreens", implying that they block out UV rays like an umbrella deflects raindrops.
"People say that mineral or inorganic sunscreens reflect ultraviolet radiation," says Antony Young, professor emeritus of experimental photobiology at King's College London and a lifelong researcher of sunscreen efficacy. "And that's not true."
In fact, modern titanium dioxide and zinc oxide only reflect or scatter 4-5% of the UV range, an authoritative, peer-reviewed 2015 study found. They absorb the other 95%.
Indeed, scientists have been aware that inorganic sunscreens absorb UV since the 1980s – so much so that the authors of the 2015 study already seemed exasperated with having to provide even further proof. Their study emphasised "yet again", they wrote, "that the true function of these insoluble 'physical' or 'mineral' UV filters is in fact identical to that of the soluble 'chemical' UV filters.
"These data indicate clearly that these filters act primarily as UV-absorbing materials, and not as UV-scattering or UV-reflecting materials."
They're not even actually "reflecting" that 5%, adds Diffey: "They scatter it." UV rays aren't bounced off the surface of the inorganic particles. Instead, he says, "the light rays go into the medium. They bounce around from the atoms or molecules. Some of them then will come back out again. And that's called scattering."
Meanwhile, many sunscreens, even some marketed as "mineral", use both organic and inorganic UV filters.
But in general, experts say, whether a UV filter works by absorbing, reflecting or scattering UVR doesn't really matter. The amount of heat generated in the skin by absorption is negligible – and a tiny fraction of the heat generated from the Sun's exposure itself.
Ultimately, says Mary Sommerlad, a consultant dermatologist based in London and British Skin Foundation spokesperson: "You don't need to decide whether you want your UV energy to be absorbed or reflected, because they're working in pretty much the same way." That is, by reducing how much UVR your skin absorbs to protect it from damage and risk of developing cancer.
Particles and solutions
If organic and inorganic sunscreens work so similarly, why do they feel different?
It comes down to solubility. Most organic filters are soluble, meaning their active ingredients can be dissolved in a medium like water or oil. Inorganic sunscreens are not: their particles remain intact. As a result, inorganic sunscreens can feel thicker and give a white cast, while organic filters can provide smoother, clearer formulations.
As chemistry advances have shrunk inorganic particle sizes down, the white-cast effect has decreased. These "nanoparticles" (less than 100nm in size) of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide have led to their own set of concerns around skin penetration. But even this minuscule particle size doesn't penetrate more than the stratum corneum – the outermost skin layer – thus preventing systemic absorption.
Most organic UV filters operate at the surface of the skin, too. Because sunburns develop at the upper layers of the skin, a UV filter must bind to the stratum corneum in order to work, say experts. Like inorganic sunscreens, therefore, organic sunscreens absorb the vast majority of UV at the skin's surface.
But it is true that some organic filters are systemically absorbed. "Some active ingredients will find their way through to the bloodstream," says Diffey. "Whether or not that's doing us any harm or not remains to be seen."
So far, there isn't good evidence that it is.
The vast majority of research finding risks of chemicals like oxybenzone has been performed on animals, using massive amounts. In one 2001 study that sparked concern about endocrine disruption, for example, baby rats were fed extremely large quantities of UV filters like oxybenzone for four days. Those that consumed oxybenzone had uteruses that were 23% larger than rats that didn't.
But when later researchers put these numbers into perspective, they found that – to reach the same systemic concentration of oxybenzone the rats had – a human would need to apply a 6% oxybenzone sunscreen every day… for 277 years.
Why are animals exposed to so much of a particular ingredient? Because it helps scientists determine the potential safety limit. "The reason for these studies is to determine how much is safe," says Michelle Wong, chemist and author of the book The Science of Beauty who frequently tackles sunscreen myths online. As a result, "they are always looking for an effect. They will generally use a large enough amount of the ingredient… to elicit some sort of effect.
"If they don't, then they don't know where the line is."
So far, the threshold at which the ingredients pose a risk seems to be many times higher than the quantity in which people are using them. One scientific review published earlier this year found no evidence that UV filters like avobenzone and homosalate can damage DNA or cause cancer in humans – and that blood levels of these chemicals from topical sunscreen are far below the amount at which they might have an effect.
In one 2004 study, for example, 32 people applied creams made up of 10% oxybenzone. Four hours after application, both men and women had slightly lower levels of testosterone. But after just four days of application, the differences between the appliers and the control group disappeared – leading the researchers to conclude that differences in the hormones weren't actually from the sunscreen itself.
Even so, because ingredients like avobenzone are absorbed into the bloodstream, out of caution regulators like the FDA have requested more safety data from manufacturers.
More like this:• Sunscreen: Are you using it correctly?• Sunscreens: Safe or toxic?• Why sunscreen is not enough to prevent sunburn
The effects of organic filters on the environment – particularly coral reefs – are a little more unclear. Studies that have raised concerns have mostly been lab-based experiments; real-world impacts may be different. One study, for example, found that while UV filters were detected in the seawater across 19 tourist hotspots in Hawaii, 12 locations showed less than 10 parts per trillion of oxybenzone – the equivalent of 10 drops in a water-filled football stadium. The area with the highest concentration, Waikiki Beach, had 136 parts per trillion.
All were at levels far below the concentration at which the lab-based studies found damage to coral reefs. However, in 2018 Hawaii made the move to ban the sale of sunscreens containing chemicals oxybenzone and octinoxate. "If you have places with a high load of tourists going in, it is not unreasonable to stay cautious and say, 'Yes, there may be additive effects'," marine scientist Jorg Wiedenmann said at the time.
Still, while much of the focus regarding coral toxicity has been on organic UV filters, inorganic UV filters may have an effect too. Meanwhile, some marine biologists point out that the far larger (and better-proven) threat to corals is climate change – and that the biggest bleaching events have been in places without tourists.
While scientists haven't yet proven any concrete, adverse effects to humans of using organic (or inorganic) sunscreens, aside from occasional side effects like allergic reactions, we can't say the same of excessive UV exposure. At worst, it can lead to skin cancer, the most common type of cancer in countries including the US and the UK. If it spreads, the deadliest type, melanoma, has only a 35% five-year survival rate.
This is why the best sunscreen, experts say, is one you are happy to use.
For some people, that is a sunscreen that is smoother, clearer and absorbs more quickly. For others, that might be a sunscreen that has fewer toxicology concerns, no matter how theoretical.
"SPF is SPF," says Young. "It doesn't really matter what the ingredients are."
--
For trusted insights into better health and wellbeing rooted in science, sign up to the Health Fix newsletter, while The Essential List delivers a handpicked selection of features and insights.
For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Brit teen left fighting for her life after ear infection on idyllic Greek holiday turned into nightmare health battle
Brit teen left fighting for her life after ear infection on idyllic Greek holiday turned into nightmare health battle

The Sun

time9 hours ago

  • The Sun

Brit teen left fighting for her life after ear infection on idyllic Greek holiday turned into nightmare health battle

A BRIT teen holidaying on an idyllic Greek island has been left fighting for her life after an ear infection turned into a nightmare health battle. Millie Bayles, 19, now remains in intensive care at an Athens hospital after jetting out on a sunshine holiday to the island of Rhodes. 5 5 Her family said she first noticed symptoms of an ear infection - but it turned into something much more serious. Millie, who comes from North Wales, was diagnosed with bacterial meningitis - leaving her family with a £40,000 bill to get her home. She was moved 300 miles from the island to intensive care in the Greek capital. The Brit teen, who is said to be out of immediate danger, remains in a semi-conscious state. Mum Lauren Murphy and stepfather Pete flew out to be by her side as doctors battle to get her well. Millie unfortunately failed to take out travel insurance when she went with friends for the summer break. Her mum has now received a quote for tens of thousands of pounds to pay for her medical bills and bring her back to the UK. Lauren has been left no choice but to turn to the public for help to pay for her treatment - which includes a private medical emergency flight. The family have reached their £40,000 target on their appeal with more than 900 donations from family, friends and even strangers - and hope to get Millie home soon. Lauren said: "We are now at the stage where we can look to bring Millie back to the UK. I caught brain-swelling virus after snorkelling on holiday "She is out of immediate danger, but she has a long road to recovery ahead of her." "She is still only semi-conscious, and we have yet to see how badly this illness will have affected her brain in the long term. "Unfortunately, due to being an invincible young person, Millie neglected to take out any holiday insurance, and so we have to fund her medical flight home privately. "We desperately need help to get our girl back to her home country so she can continue her recovery process." Step-father Pete Murphy said: "I am so overwhelmed by the immediate generosity of all of you lovely people and plenty that are certainly not on my friend list. "Myself, Lauren and Millie are so grateful for your kind donations. Millie has got a long battle ahead but she certainly has a lot of people routing for her and we can't thank you enough for that." What is meningitis and how you can you avoid getting it? MENINGITIS is an infection of the protective membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord (meninges). It can be very serious if not treated quickly - it can cause life-threatening sepsis and result in permanent damage to the brain or nerves. Symptoms include: a high temperature (fever) being sick a headache a rash that does not fade when a glass is rolled over it (but a rash will not always develop) a stiff neck a dislike of bright lights drowsiness or unresponsiveness seizures (fits) Call 999 for an ambulance or go to your nearest A&E immediately if you think you or someone you look after could have meningitis or sepsis. Meningitis is usually caused by a bacterial or viral infection. Bacterial meningitis is rarer but more serious than viral meningitis. Infections that cause meningitis can be spread through: sneezing coughing kissing Vaccinations offer some protection against certain causes of meningitis. These include the: MenB vaccine – offered to babies aged 8 weeks, followed by a second dose at 16 weeks and a booster at 1 year 6-in-1 vaccine – offered to babies at 8, 12 and 16 weeks of age pneumococcal vaccine – 2 doses offered to babies at 12 weeks and 1 year, and a single dose offered to adults aged 65 or over Hib/MenC vaccine – offered to babies at 1 year of age MMR vaccine – offered to babies at 1 year and a second dose at 3 years and 4 months MenACWY vaccine – offered to teenagers, sixth formers and "fresher" students going to university for the first time Source: NHS 5 5

Hundreds of thousands of US taxpayer-funded vaccine doses may expire, lawmakers say
Hundreds of thousands of US taxpayer-funded vaccine doses may expire, lawmakers say

Reuters

time12 hours ago

  • Reuters

Hundreds of thousands of US taxpayer-funded vaccine doses may expire, lawmakers say

WASHINGTON, July 23 (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of doses of mpox vaccine that the United States had promised to send to African nations are in danger of going to waste, dozens of congressional Democrats said in a letter to the U.S. State Department on Wednesday. Forty-eight Democratic members of the House of Representatives, led by Representatives Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and Sara Jacobs of California, signed the letter, saying that the vaccines may expire as they sit in warehouses, wasting the U.S. taxpayer dollars that paid for them. The letter said 800,000 doses of the vaccines are at risk, and that some 220,000 doses could be viable if the State Department begins shipping them immediately. "This is a moral, strategic, and public health failure in the making," the letter said. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Republican U.S. President Donald Trump has made sharp cuts to foreign aid programs since beginning his second term six months ago, firing thousands of aid agency employees and contractors and throwing global humanitarian operations into chaos. The Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives passed legislation this month approving Trump's request for about $8 billion in foreign aid cuts. Trump has said the U.S. pays disproportionately for foreign aid, and he wants other countries to shoulder more of the burden. The World Health Organization first declared the outbreak of mpox in August 2024, when an outbreak of a new form of the disease spread from the badly-hit Democratic Republic of Congo to neighboring countries. Uganda and Burundi also have been significantly affected. Mpox is a viral infection that spreads through close contact and typically causes flu-like symptoms and pus-filled lesions. It is usually mild, but can be lethal. The WHO said last month that the outbreak was still a public health emergency of international concern, its highest form of alert.

Experts warn of another global epidemic as rare virus spreads to new areas
Experts warn of another global epidemic as rare virus spreads to new areas

Daily Mail​

time12 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Experts warn of another global epidemic as rare virus spreads to new areas

The World Health Organization has issued an urgent call for action as cases of chikungunya virus explode across the globe. The chikungunya virus is spread primarily by the Aedes mosquito species and nearly half a million people became infected between 2004 and 2005 - leading to a worldwide epidemic. Chikungunya infections are most common in Asia, Africa and South America though more recently cases have also emerged across Europe and the US. The virus can cause symptoms like fever, joint pain and life-threatening complications related to the heart and brain. The infection does not spread from person to person through bodily contact or saliva and can only be transmitted through a bite from an infected mosquito. Since there is no specific medical treatment for the chikungunya infections, experts are asking people to regularly use insect repellents and wear long-sleeve clothing to prevent mosquito bites this summer Diana Rojas Alvarez, a medical officer at the who said of the new cases: 'We are seeing history repeating itself,' referencing the 2004-2005 epidemic. The current surge began in early 2025, with major outbreaks in the Indian Ocean islands of La Reunion, Mayotte and Mauritius. According to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, there have been about 220,000 Chikungunya virus cases and 80 related deaths in 14 countries since the beginning of 2025. An estimated one-third of La Reunion's population - nearly 300,000 people - have already been infected, according to Rojas Alvarez. During the last epidemic, about 266,000 people were infected out of which 203 died on La Reunion. The virus has also spread to Madagascar, Somalia, Kenya and India and is making its way to Europe. There have been approximately 800 imported chikungunya cases in continental France since May 1, Rojas Alvarez said. Out of the 800 cases, 12 of the infected people had been bitten by local mosquitoes without having travelled to high-risk areas in several southern French regions. The chikungunya outbreak has occurred far earlier in the year than is typical, and this could indicate the mosquitoes that carry chikungunya are becoming increasingly at home in France thanks to climate change, officials warned. Two cases have also been reported in Italy this week and both people were infected within the country rather than abroad, according to the Foreign Office-backed Travel Health Pro. In June of this year, Australian vacationers were issued a warning AS The Cook Islands, a nation in the South Pacific, declared the most recent outbreak of the disease after 19 cases were recorded. Case counts have also been increasing in Samoa, Tonga, French Polynesia, Fiji and Kiribati. As of July 16, two dozen cases of chikungunya infections in the US that had been contracted while traveling to high-risk areas have been reported by the CDC. While it remains unclear where patients contracted the virus, the federal agency has issued an elevated risk of exposure notice for Brazil, Colombia, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines and Thailand. Approximately 200 cases of the virus were reported in 2024 in the US. According to the CDC, chikungunya was rarely identified in American travelers before 2006. However between 2006– and 2013, nearly 30 people tested positive for the infection every year in the US. All were travelers visiting or returning to the US from affected areas in Asia, Africa, or the Indian Ocean. In 2014, 2,799 cases, out of which 12 were locally-acquired, were reported in various US states including Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands - marking the year as the highest ever. Though not fatal, chikungunya can cause a range of effects, which are primarily marked by a sudden onset of fever and severe joint pain, while other common symptoms include muscle pain, headache, nausea, fatigue and rashes. While the acute phase of the illness usually resolves within a week or two, the joint pain can persist for weeks, months or even years in some individuals. However, in some cases, infections can progress to severe dengue, which can cause potentially life-threatening complications such as internal bleeding and organ damage, and death. In extreme cases, eye, heart and neurological complications have also been reported in people suffering from a chikungunya infection. Newborns, adults aged 65 and older and people with certain health conditions are also at the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure due to an infection. While the virus cannot be transmitted directly from person to person, people can become infected with chikungunya when mosquitoes feed on another infected person and then bite them. If a pregnant woman is infected around the time of delivery, the baby can also be infected at birth, which often results in severe disease in the baby. While there is no medication to treat a chikungunya infection, its symptoms can be managed by taking acetaminophen for pain and drinking lots of fluids. In late 2023, the FDA also approved a vaccine for chikungunya for people over the age of 18 who are at increased risk of exposure to the virus called IXCHIQ.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store