Druml et al. 2023 — UV filter composition and SPF profile of sunscreens marketed to pediatric populations in Philadelphia retail outlets
This open-access Cureus paper from a Drexel-University-affiliated dermatology team and AmberNoon (a sun-protective-clothing company) is an observational market survey of 410 sunscreen products cataloged in CVS, Walgreens, Target, and Wegmans stores plus their online catalogs in the Philadelphia area during a ten-day window in June 2023. The authors restricted the catalog to active sunscreen formulations sold at retail and characterized each by SPF, broad-spectrum claim, water-resistance claim, application form (lotion/spray/stick/etc.), active UV filter composition (chemical organic filters vs physical inorganic filters), and demographic marketing terms on the label (“baby”, “babies”, “children”, “kids”, “sports”, “active”). The two physical (inorganic) UV filters in the surveyed market were titanium dioxide and zinc oxide; the paper does not measure contamination of these sunscreens with non-intentional heavy metals — its relevance to HMI is formulation prevalence and stated concentration ranges of titanium-dioxide-bearing and zinc-oxide-bearing sunscreens, with a pediatric-marketing breakdown.
Key numbers
Page citations refer to the published PDF (Cureus 15(10): e46785). All values are reported as the authors reported them; no unit conversions applied. Percentages are calculated against the denominators the authors specify (overall n=410, baby n=27, kids n=44, sports n=71); for the physical-UV-filter concentration ranges the denominator is the subset of products containing the named filter, not the parent demographic.
Overall catalog (n=410; p. 2-3)
- 410 distinct sunscreen products cataloged from CVS, Walgreens, Target, Wegmans plus manufacturer websites between June 1-10 2023 (p. 2).
- 380 (92.7%) had SPF ≥30; 30 (7.3%) had SPF <30. SPF ratings spanned 4 to 100 (p. 2).
- SPF distribution: SPF 4-12 in 6 products (1.5%); SPF 15-50 in 335 products (81.7%); SPF >50 in 69 products (16.8%). Within 15-50: SPF 15 in 23 (5.6%), SPF 25 in 1 (0.2%), SPF 30 in 113 (27.6%), SPF 35 in 1 (0.2%), SPF 40 in 2 (paper says “4.9%” but that is a typo for what the row count of 2/410 = 0.5% would yield; the paper’s text reports “2 (4.9%)”), SPF 45 in 13 (3.2%), SPF 50 in 182 (44.4%) (p. 2).
- 410/410 (100%) claimed broad-spectrum UV coverage; 379 (92.4%) claimed water resistance, of which 371 (97.9%) were 80-minute water-resistant, 7 (1.8%) were 40-minute, and 1 (0.3%) was 30-minute (p. 3).
- Application form: 209 (51%) lotions, 129 (31.5%) sprays, 35 (8.5%) sticks, with smaller counts for creams, hair mists, powders, serums, roll-ons, gels, oils, lip balms, mists (p. 3).
Overall UV-filter prevalence (n=410; p. 3, Table 1)
- Chemical-only formulations: 281 (68.5%). Physical-only formulations: 117 (28.5%). Combination: 12 (2.9%). The paper’s body text separately says 293 products had chemical filters and 129 products had physical filters; the combination overlap reconciles these counts.
- Avobenzone: 281 products (68.5%); concentration range 1-3%.
- Homosalate: 276 products (67.3%); concentration range 1-15%.
- Octisalate: 259 products (63.2%); concentration range 1-5%.
- Octocrylene: 286 products (69.8%); concentration range 1-10%.
- Oxybenzone: 31 products (7.6%); concentration range 2-6%.
- Octinoxate: 12 products (2.9%); concentration range 2-7.5%.
- Meradimate: 1 product (0.2%); concentration 5%.
- Titanium dioxide: 61 products (14.9% of overall); concentration range 3-20.8%.
- Zinc oxide: 129 products (31.5% of overall, i.e., all formulations containing physical UV filters); concentration range 2.4-24.8%.
”Baby” / “babies” subset (n=27; p. 4-5, Table 1)
- 25/27 (92.6%) SPF 15-50; 2/27 (7.4%) SPF >50 (specifically SPF 55, with none above SPF 55); 100% SPF ≥30; 0% SPF <15 (p. 4-5).
- 27/27 (100%) broad-spectrum and 80-minute water-resistant (p. 5).
- 23/27 (85%) physical-only UV filters; 3/27 (11%) chemical-only UV filters; 1/27 (3.7%) combination physical + chemical. The body text qualifies that 14 (52%) contained zinc oxide as the exclusive UV filter (no titanium dioxide) at 12-24.8%, 9 (33%) combined zinc oxide with titanium dioxide, all 3 chemical-only contained avobenzone + homosalate + octisalate + octocrylene, and the 1 combination product was a “mineral enriched” formulation with homosalate + octisalate + octocrylene + zinc oxide.
- Avobenzone: 3 of 27 (11.1%) at 2.7-3%.
- Homosalate: 4 of 27 (14.8%) at 9%.
- Octisalate: 4 of 27 (14.8%) at 3-4.5%.
- Octocrylene: 4 of 27 (14.8%) at 9% (the paper’s text says “in three (11.1%)” but Table 1 row reports 14.8% — recording both as the source did).
- Oxybenzone: 0 of 27 (0%).
- Octinoxate: 0 of 27 (0%).
- Meradimate: 0 of 27 (0%).
- Titanium dioxide: 9 of 27 (33.3%) at 3.4-8.1%.
- Zinc oxide: all 24 baby products that contained physical UV filters contained zinc oxide; Table 1 reports the cell as 88.8% (i.e., 24/27 of all baby products). Concentration range 7.3-24.8% within the products containing zinc oxide.
- Application form: 14/27 (52%) lotions, 5/27 (18.5%) sticks, 8/27 (29.6%) sprays.
”Children” / “kids” subset (n=44; p. 5-6, Table 1)
- 36/44 (81.8%) SPF 15-50; 8/44 (18.2%) SPF >50; 3/44 (6.8%) SPF 100; 100% SPF ≥30 (p. 6).
- 44/44 (100%) broad-spectrum and 80-minute water-resistant.
- 13/44 (29.5%) physical-only UV filters; 31/44 (70.5%) chemical-only UV filters; 1 (2.3%) combination (the paper notes this 1-of-44 combination product paired zinc oxide with octinoxate and octisalate).
- Avobenzone: 30/44 of the chemical-bearing subset at 2.5-3% (Table 1 cell: 68.2%).
- Homosalate: 29 at 9-15% (Table 1 cell: 65.9%).
- Octisalate: 30 at 4.5-5% (Table 1 cell: 68.2%).
- Octocrylene: 30 at 4-10% (Table 1 cell: 68.2%).
- Oxybenzone: 5 at 3.5-6% (Table 1 cell: 11.4%).
- Octinoxate: 2 at 3-7.5% (Table 1 cell: 4.5%).
- Meradimate: 0 (0%).
- Titanium dioxide: Table 1 cell 13.6% (i.e., 6/44).
- Zinc oxide: Table 1 cell 31.8% (i.e., 14/44; the body text reports 7 with zinc oxide as exclusive filter at 15-24.8% and 6 combining zinc oxide with titanium dioxide and 1 combining zinc oxide with octinoxate and octisalate).
- Application form: 14/44 (31.8%) lotions, 21 (47.7%) sprays, 6 (13.6%) sticks, 3 (6.8%) roll-ons.
- Oxybenzone–SPF correlation noted by the authors: 5 of the 6 children’s products with SPF ≥70 contained oxybenzone, and all 3 children’s products with SPF 100 contained oxybenzone (p. 6).
”Sports” / “active” subset (n=71; p. 6, Table 1)
- 54/71 (76.1%) SPF 15-50; 17/71 (23.9%) SPF >50; 5/71 (7.0%) SPF 100; 65/71 (91.5%) SPF ≥30; 6/71 (8.5%) SPF <30 (p. 6).
- 71/71 (100%) broad-spectrum and 80-minute water-resistant.
- 7/71 (9.9%) physical UV filters; 64/71 (90.1%) chemical UV filters; 0 combination.
- Of the 7 physical-bearing products: all 7 contained zinc oxide at 6.5-24.08%; 3 combined zinc oxide with titanium dioxide at 3.4-4.5%.
- Avobenzone: 64/64 of chemical-bearing subset at 1.5-3% (Table 1 cell: 90.1%).
- Homosalate: 62 at 3-15% (Table 1 cell: 87.3%).
- Octisalate: 55 at 4-5% (Table 1 cell: 77.5%).
- Octocrylene: 62 at 4-10% (Table 1 cell: 87.3%).
- Oxybenzone: 12 at 3.5-6% (Table 1 cell: 16.9%).
- Octinoxate: 2 at 2-5% (Table 1 cell: 2.8%).
- Meradimate: 0 (0%).
- Titanium dioxide: Table 1 cell 4.2% (i.e., 3/71).
- Zinc oxide: Table 1 cell 9.9% (i.e., 7/71).
- Application form: 28/71 (39.4%) lotions, 33 (46.5%) sprays, 6 (8.5%) sticks, 2 (2.8%) roll-ons, 2 (2.8%) lip balms.
- Oxybenzone–SPF correlation noted by the authors: 8 of the 11 sports products with SPF ≥70 contained oxybenzone, and all sports products with SPF 100 contained oxybenzone (p. 6).
Methods (brief)
Observational catalog of suncare/sun-protection displays at four major retail outlets in the Philadelphia region (CVS, Walgreens, Target, Wegmans), supplemented by review of each manufacturer’s website, between June 1 and June 10 2023. For each of 410 sunscreen products the authors recorded brand name, product type (lotion/spray/stick/lip balm/etc.), SPF value, broad-spectrum claim, water-resistance claim and duration, active sunscreen ingredients and their concentrations as printed on the label, and any demographic marketing descriptors on the label (“kids”, “children”, “baby”, “babies”, “sports”, “active”). Statistical analysis was descriptive only (counts and percentages). No analytical chemistry was performed; the values reported are label-claim values and the prevalences are catalog frequencies, not measured contamination concentrations. The authors note this was an observational study not requiring IRB approval. The paper does not specify any quantitative limits of detection or quality-control replicates because no chemical measurements were taken. Limitations the authors flag: inactive-ingredient profiles were not examined; the catalog was limited to brick-and-mortar retail outlets and their manufacturer websites and did not include direct-to-consumer-only e-commerce brands; sensitive-skin-marketed products were not separately analyzed. A potential conflict of interest is disclosed: corresponding author E. N. Ilyas reports employment from AmberNoon, a company that sells sun-protective clothing.
Implications
- Certification (HMTc): The paper contributes formulation-prevalence and stated-concentration data for titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as intentional UV filters in pediatric sunscreens sold in US retail in mid-2023. It does not contribute heavy-metal contamination data (Pb, Cd, As, Hg, Ni, Cr-VI, Sn, Sb, Al), so it does not advance HMTc threshold-setting for those analytes on the baby-sunscreen-mineral or baby-sunscreen-chemical rows. It does usefully establish the market share split (baby products are predominantly mineral, kids and sports products are predominantly chemical) which downstream certification work will want when scoping which chemistry-class the threshold applies to. The oxybenzone-with-high-SPF correlation in kids and sports products is documentation of an exposure-related labelling pattern, not a heavy-metals finding.
- Courses: A teachable case study for brand QA and marketing teams of how demographic marketing terms on US sunscreen labels are unregulated and how the AAP-guideline-aligned subset (SPF 30-50, no oxybenzone) and the marketed-to-children subset diverge. Useful for the “claims vs evidence” module.
- App: Adds prevalence context for the consumer app’s sunscreen category, specifically that mineral-filter (TiO2 / ZnO) products dominate the baby-marketed shelf and chemical-filter products (with oxybenzone enrichment at the high-SPF end) dominate the kids- and sports-marketed shelves. Does not add ingredient-level contamination_profile values.
- Microbiome: Not applicable.
Wiki pages this source may touch
Verification notes
- Conflict of interest declared: corresponding author E. N. Ilyas reports employment from AmberNoon (a sun-protective-clothing company). The paper’s framing of “the safer choice is sun-protective clothing” is therefore not synthesis-grade independent evidence; it is reported here as the authors’ framing only.
- The paper does not measure heavy-metal contamination of sunscreens. It documents formulation prevalence and label-claim concentrations of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as intentional UV filters. The
metals: [Ti, Zn]frontmatter reflects intentional-ingredient prevalence, not contamination measurements. - Paper-internal numerical inconsistencies recorded as the source presented them: (a) p. 2 reports SPF 40 at “2 (4.9%)” — the percentage is implausible for 2/410 (which would be 0.5%) and appears to be a typo in the source; both values are recorded as the source wrote them. (b) p. 5 body text for baby products says octocrylene was in “three (11.1%)” of chemical-bearing baby products while Table 1 reports the octocrylene baby cell at 14.8%; both reported as the source did. (c) p. 5 body text says 23/27 (85%) baby products contained only physical filters and 3/27 (11%) chemical only with 1 (3.7%) combination, but separately says “the four sunscreens that contained chemical sunscreen ingredients” — counting the 3 chemical-only + 1 combination product as 4 chemical-bearing products reconciles this.
- The baby-zinc-oxide Table 1 cell at 88.8% (24/27 baby products) reconciles with the body-text breakdown of “14 (52%) zinc oxide exclusive + 9 (33%) zinc oxide + titanium dioxide + 1 combination (mineral-enriched) zinc oxide with three chemical filters” = 24 of 27 baby products containing zinc oxide.
- Brand names on the labels surveyed are not reproduced in this page per Part 12 strict reading. The paper itself does not present brand-by-brand contamination rankings — it presents demographic-marketing-term aggregations across an anonymized catalog — so the strict reading is intrinsically satisfied without aggregation work.
matrices: [cosmetic-personal-care]follows the precedent set by other manual-fetch cosmetic ingest pages (e.g., barabash2025-sunscreen-tio2-zno-release-spicp-tofms, almukainzi2022-saudi-topical-cosmetics-icpms).products/sun-suntan-productsexists inwiki/products/but is not listed in the 2026-05-17 taxonomy snapshot — the snapshot is stale relative to the livewiki/products/directory. The routing for this paper deliberately uses the pediatric-specific slugsbaby-sunscreen-mineral,baby-sunscreen-chemical, andchildren-personal-carebecause the paper’s scope is specifically the pediatric subset; sun-suntan-products is the adult umbrella and the paper’s adult-comparator data (the 410-overall baseline) would be a broad_product_context route at most.
Page history
The five most recent substantive edits to this page. The full version history lives in git; when DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.