Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

ELSEVIER 8(1997) 12-17

Review

Rating clothing for sun protection: current status in Australia

Duncan G. Stanford '**, Katherine E. Georgouras ''•^, Michael T. Pailthorpe "'
^ Dermatology Centre. Liierpool Hospitai PO Box 103. Liierpooi NSW 2170, Australia
Department of Dermatology. University of New South Wales. Sydney. Australia
' Department of Textile Technology, University of New South Wales. Sydney. Australia

Abstract

Clothing has been promoted as a major sun protection measure for some time, yet its performance in this role
has only recently been studied. The principal test methods for measuring the photoprotectiveriess of clothing are:
in vitro testing, in which ultraviolet transmission through a garment is measured; and in vivo testing, where
protection by tbe garment from human skin erythema is assessed. Our research team has been studying the
fabric properties and design factors involved in photoprotection by clothing so that more effective products can
be developed. Fabric properties identified include: the construction and fibre type used, tbe stretch and hydration
states, and ultraviolet-absorbing dyes and chemicals incorporated. An exciting innovation has been the use of an
ultraviolet absorber which dramatically improves a garment's rating. In Australia, we are about to have the
world's first standard for rating sun-protective clothing.

Keywords: Photoprotection; Ultraviolet radiation; Skin cancer; Sun protection factor

1. Introduction protection afforded by various sun protection prod-

ucts has arisen. However, different organisations have
In Australia, where there are high levels of ambi- been using different rating systems, wbich has led to
ent ultraviolet radiation (UVR) [1] and the highest consumer confusion and to false claims [5]. In this
incidence of skin cancer in the world [2,3], there is context, a Standards Australia/Standards New
an obvious need to reduce both the occupational and Zealand committee was established to determine a
recreational sun exposure of the population. Public reliable test method and simple rating scheme for
health campaigns over the past 15 years have greatly sun-protective clothing [6]. Australian standards have
increased general awareness in Australia of the haz- already been published for raling chemical sun-
ards of UVR overexposure [4]. screens [7] and sunglasses [8].
As the public embraces the sun protection strate- As high skin cancer rates are not unique to Aus-
gies advocated, a demand to quantify the relative tralia, similar initiatives are being taken elsewhere,
notably by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
in the USA [9] and the National Radiological Protec-
"Corresponding author. Tel.: 612 828 4561; Fax: 612 498 tion Board in the UK. The Commission Intema-
5722. tionale de I'EcIairage (CIF) has appointed a commit-

0926-9959/97/517.00 Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All righls reserved

Pll S0926-9959(96)00101-8
 14683083, 1997, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.1997.tb00450.x by The University Of Melbourne, Wiley Online Library on [11/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D.G. Stanford et ai / J. Eur. Acad Dermatoi Venereoi 8 (1997) 12-17 13

tee to examine photoprotection by clothing, which Table 1

has not yet met. Protection factor derived by the in vitro test method

2. Histurical perspective
Tested UPF =
Textiles have been used by man for protection A\
from the elements since antiquity, yet few studies
where E (A)= relative erythemal spectral effectiveness [36];
have assessed the performance of clothing as a bar-
S (A) = solar spectral irradiance i n W . m ~ ' ' n m ~ ' ;
rier to UVR. Initially, UVR transmission through T (A) = spectral transmiltance of item;
textiles was measured at a few specific wavelengths A (A)= wavelength step in nm
using simple radiometers [10-15]. Subsequently,
spectral transmission in the UVB or full UVR re- Mean UPF = (UPF, -I-UPF^ + ...+ UPF^,)/N
Rated UPF = mean UPF - K X standard
gions has been measured using a spectrophotometer deviation of the mean UPF
or spectroradiometer [16-28]. Recently, an integrat- where K is determined by the number of samples measured
ing sphere has been added to collect both direct and
diffuse transmitted radiation [19-28]. A protection
factor is calculated from the spectral transmission
summated over the entire wavelength range, tbe solar or spectroradiometer measures the percentage trans-
spectral irradiance and the human skin erythema mission at wavelength intervals of 5 nm or less in
action spectrum. the 280-400 nm spectral range. An integrating sphere
attachment ensures that both direct and diffuse trans-
The protection provided by clothing from human
mitted radiation are collected. At least 4 specimens
skin erythema using UVB or simulated sunlight has
must be taken from the garment, 2 in the machine
also been measured [19,29]. A protection factor is
direction and 2 in the cross-machine direction. A
the minimal erythema dose (MED) for skin protected
protection factor is calculated by a computer pro-
by the fabric, divided by the MED for unprotected
gramme to provide a single value representative of
skin. A comparison of both methods demonstrated
the whole wavelength range while ensuring suffi-
close correlation provided tbe clothing was not di-
cient weighting is given to the more biologically
rectly on the skin surface, when human skin testing
effective UVB band (Table 1).
resulted in a lower protection factor [19].
(2) In vivo testing measures the relative protec-
Polysulphone film badges have also been used to
tion afforded by the garment from human skin ery-
measure both UVR transmission in the laboratory
thema [7,19,29]. A xenon arc solar simulator is the
and exposure dose in the field [13,30]. While cloth-
preferred source of UVB and UVA. with filters to
ing has been tbe subject of most studies [10-29],
absorb wavelengths below 290 nm and to reduee
others have assessed hats [30,31] or shadecloth [32].
visible and infrared radiation. A 30 cm" test site is
Protection from skin cancer by clothing has been
delineated on the lower back of at least 10 volunteers
assessed in only one study, using a hairless mouse
of skin phototypes I, II or III. At least 5 subsites,
model [33]. A direct relationship between UVR
each 1 cm"^ and separated by at least 1 cm, are
transmission of clothing and skin tumour formation
exposed to increasing doses of simulated sunlight. A
has been reported in tbe case of a patient with
similar set of adjacent subsites, covered by the un-
xeroderma pigmentosum [34].
stretched fabric specimen clipped into a cardboard or
metal template, is exposed in a same manner. For
unprotected skin, dose increments should cover the
3. Test methods
range of 0.6-1.5 times the predicted MED (based on
Two principal test methods are used to assess the subject's skin phototype). Eor protected skin,
photoprotection by clothing: exposure increments are no greater than 1.26 times
(I) In vitro testing measures UVR transmission predicted MED when the protection factor is likely
through tbe garment [6,16-28]. A spectrophotometer to be less than 25, and no greater than v'l .25 times
 14683083, 1997, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.1997.tb00450.x by The University Of Melbourne, Wiley Online Library on [11/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 D.G. Stanford et ai/J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 8(1997) 12-17

Table 2 higher rating. Fabrics of higher weight but the same

Fabric properties affecting UVR transmission through clothing construction transmit less UVR [22-26]. Nonethe-
1. Construction 4. Strelch 7. Colour less, summerweight fabrics (less than 200 g / m ' )
2. Weight 5. Hydration 8. UVR absorbers that are tightly woven still result in a high rating.
3. Fibre type 6. Wash and wear
Increased stretch due to tension will lower tbe
rating [20-26]. Most woven fabrics stretch relatively
predicted MED when the protection factor is likely little and so show only minor variations in rating,
to be over 25. The MED is read at 16-24 h and, whereas knitted fabrics are prone to stretch and show
ideally, the minimal erythema site should be flanked marked variations. Lycra is particularly susceptible
on one side by a site with no response, and on the to this effect [28]. Generally, a wet textile has a
other side by a site with a greater response. A lower rating than the dry textile, as water is thought
protection factor is determined by dividing the MED to reduee UVR scattering and so increase transmis-
for protected skin by the MED for unprotected skin. sion [14,21-26,28,29]. The amount of water ab-
sorbed is determined by the fibre type. Washing and
wearing a garment over the standard lifetime actually
4. Fabric properties affecting UVR transmission increase the rating [26] (Figs. 1 and 2). This effect is
accounted for mainly by sbrinkage during the first
Properties affecting the UVR transmission by a laundering (care cycle) [27].
fabric are listed in Table 2, and the results of Univer- The fibre type used to construct the fabric affects
sity of NSW studies, in particular, are summarized in the rating, especially for undyed fabrics [10,11,13,
Table 3. 15,18,19,23,24,26]. Bleached cotton and viscose are
Fabric construction is the main factor involved relatively transparent to UVR giving a low rating.
[11-13,15-26], with a tighter weave or knit giving a Unbleached cotton contains pigments called lignins.

Table 3
UNSW studies assessing textile properties: .summary of results with illustrative examples
Stretch 128!
' consumer survey: 15% mean stretch (range 2-52%) when lycra garments worn
' ]0% stretch significantly lowered UPF of lycra garments e.g. cotton/elastane (dry state)
relaxed UPF 50 +
10% stretch UPF 10

Hydration [23]
' wet state significantly lowered UPF in 15 of 22 typical summer-weight fabrics e.g. polyester/cotton interlock
dry UPF 30
wet UPF 10

Wash and wear [26.27]

' field study: 20 subjects; pure cotton T-shirts; 10 weeks wash and wear
as new UPF 15
used UPF 35

" 5 pure cotton T-shiris (same batch as above); standard laundering regime
as new UPF 15
after 1 wash UPF 35
after 36 washes UPF 35

UVR absorbers [23J

' Rayosan C® significantly increased UPF of fabrics e.g. pure cotton knitted (pad batch application)
control UPF 30
Raynsan C® UPF 50 +
 14683083, 1997, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.1997.tb00450.x by The University Of Melbourne, Wiley Online Library on [11/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D.G. Stanford et al./J. Eur. Acad. Dermatoi Venereol. 8(19971 12-17 15

(a)

Fig. 1. Wash and wear study: light micrographs of fabric sample

from pure cotton T shirt (a) before and (b) after 10 weeks of
regular use (garment put through I care cycle and worn for 4-8
h/week).

which absorb UVR and so give a higher rating.

Manufacturing processes can also affect UVR-ab-
sorbing properties. Some dyes absorb UVR, while
fluorescent whitening agents absorb some UVA.
Darker shades of a dye will give a higher rating for
fabrics of the same construction and weight than
Fig. 2. Wash and wear study: image analysis of fabric sample
lighter shades of the same dye [11-13,22-26]. UVR from pure cotton T shirt (a> before and (b) after study (see Fig. 1
absorbers, colourless compounds that have long been legend).
used to protect fabric from photodegradation, are
now being used to enhance photoprotection of fabric
[23]. While resin-coated formulations have been used 5. Current situation in Australia
in Japan, a novel compound developed in Australia
{Rayosan®, Clariant) covalently fixes to the fibre Suncreams are rated by in vivo testing, as in most
and is thus fast to washing and sunlight. Rayosan® countries, and are given a Sun Protection Factor
increases the rating of a summer-weight cotton gar- (SPF) with a current upper limit of SPFI5^ [7]. An
ment by 300%. analagous scheme has been used for sunglasses [35],

Table 4
UPF classification scheme for sun proteclive clothing [7]
UPF range Category description Mean effective UPF rating
UVR transmission (%)
15-24 Good protection 6.7-4.2 15, 20
25-39 Very good prelection 4.1-2.6 25, 30, 35
40-50. 50 + Excellent protection ^2.5 40. 45, 50, 50 +
 14683083, 1997, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.1997.tb00450.x by The University Of Melbourne, Wiley Online Library on [11/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
16 D.G. Stanford et ai / J. Eur. Acad. Dermatoi Venereol. 8(1997) 12-17

giving an Eye Protection Factor (EPF) from 1 to 10 should prove a useful reference for the International
to sunglasses tbat comply with the in vitro test CIE Committee when it commences its task.
method described in the Australian standard for rat-
ing sunglasses [8].
With regard to clothing and hats, the new Aus-
tralian standard will govern rating by the in vitro test References
method that determines an Ultraviolet Protection
Factor (UPF) (Table 4) [6]. In vitro testing is repro- []] Roy CR. Gies P. Ozone depletion and its calculated effect on
ducible yet cost-effective, costing Aus$50 compared solar UVB radiation levels for some Australian cities. In:
to Aus$500 for in vivo testing. If clothing is rated by Health Effects of Ozone Layer Depletion. National Heatth
and Medical Research Council. Australian Government Pub-
the in vivo method, an SPF can still be given in lishing Service. Canberra. 1989.
accordance with the Australian standard for rating [2] Marks R. Staples M. Giles GG. Trends in non-melanocytic
chemical sunscreens. skin cancer treated in Australia: the second national survey.
UPFs are a conservative rating based on worst- Int J Cancer 1993:53:585-590.
[3] Jeifs PL, Giles GG. Shugg D et al. Cutaneous malignant
case measurements that are rounded down to the
melanoma in Australia. 1989. Med J Aust 1994:161:182-187.
nearest multiple of 5. A ceiling of UPF50' was 14] Hill D. While V. Marks R, Borland R. Changes In sun-re-
chosen because, firstly, measurement errors increase lated attitudes and behaviours, and decreased sunburn preva-
significantly above that level and, secondly, it pro- lence in a population at high risk of melanoma. Eur J Cancer
vides a safety margin above that needed to protect Prev 1993:2:447-456.
against the likely maximum daily UVR exposure [5] Summer dress rules (editorial). Choice t995:Jan:6-10.
[6] Committee TX/21. Sun Protective Clothing - Evaluation
encountered in Australia (30-40 MEDs). As there and Classification. Draft Australia/New Zealand Standard
has been some confusion with SPF numbers, a cate- DR 94321. Standards Australia. Sydney. 1994.
gory description in words will be mandatory along [7] Standards Australia. Sunscreen Products - Evaluation and
with numbers in the UPF scheme. Percentage trans- Classification. AS 2604. Standards Australia. Sydney. 1993.
l8] Standards Australia. Sunglasses and Fashion Spectacles -
mission, separate UVB or UVA claims, and a rating Part 2: Performance Requirements. AS 1067.2. Standards
after 50 care cycles, will be optional. It is important Australia. Sydney. 1990.
to note that the standard will be open to review for [9] Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance for the
incorporation of new data in future editions. In par- Preparation of a Premarket Notification (510(KW Submission
ticular, test methods for wet fabrics and for stretched for Sun r^otective Clothing. Division of Small Manufacturers
fabrics are currently being refined. There is no inten- Assistance. USA, 1994.
tion to regard sun-protective clothing items as thera- [10] Morikofer W. Die Durchlassigkeit von Bekleidungstoffen
Spektralbereiche. Strahlen therapie 1931:39:57-79.
peutic devices as in the USA [9], where the battery [11] Genkov D. Atmazov P. Permeability of ultra-violet and
of tests demanded by the FDA would make the infrared rays ihrough cotton and synthetic textiles. Folia Med
rating of sun-protective clothing prohibitive to manu- (Plovdiv) 1968:10:277-280.
facturers. [12] Beme B, Fischer T. Protective effects of various types of
clothes against UV radiation. Acta Derm Venereol (Siockh)
1980:60:459-460.
[13] Hutchinson G. Hall A. The transmission of ultraviolet light
ihrough fabrics and its potential role in cutaneous synthesis
6. Conclusion of vitamin D. Hum Nuir I984:38A:298-3O2.
[14] Greiter F, Siladji T. Bilek P. Achtung, die Sonne ist fasi
uberall! Parfum Kosmet 1985:66:389-390.
Clothing has been advocated by dermatologists as [15] Siincy D. Benton R. Cole H ct al. Transmis.sion of polential ly
an effective form of photoprotection for some time, hazardous actinic ultraviolet radiation through fabrics. Appl
yet only recently has its performance in this role Ind Hyg 1987:2:36-44.
been subjected to serious scientific scrutiny. Now [16] Welsh C, Diffey B. The protection against solar actinic
radiation afforded by common clothing fabrics. Clin Exp
that sun-protective clothing is being marketed in
Dermatol 1981:6:577-582.
several countries, the need to standardize the test [17] Roy CR. Gies HP. Elliotl B. Solar ultraviolet radiation:
methods and rating schemes is apparent. The Stan- personal exposure and protection. J Occup Hlth Safety-Ausl
dards Australia/Standards New Zealand document NZ 1988:4:133-139.
 14683083, 1997, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.1997.tb00450.x by The University Of Melbourne, Wiley Online Library on [11/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D.G. Stanford et ai / J Eur. Acad Dermatoi Venereol. 8 (1997) 12-17 17

[18] Robson J, Diftey BL. Textiles and sun protection. Photoder- [26] Stanford DG, Georgouras KE, Pailthorpe MT. Sun protection
matol Pholoimmunol Photomed 1990:7:32-34. by a summer-weight garment: the effect of washing and
[19] Menzies SW, Lukins PB. Greenoak GE et al. A comparative wearing. Med J Aust 1995:162:422-425.
study of fabric protection against UV-induced erythema de- [27] Stanford DG. Georgouras KE. Pailthorpe MT. The effect of
termined by spectropbotomelric and human skin measure- laundering on the sun protection afforded by a summer-weighl
ments. Pbolodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 1991:8:157- garment. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 1995:5:28-30.
163. [28] Moon R, Pailthorpe MT. Effect of stretcb and wetting on ihe
[20] Gies HP, Roy CR. Ellioit G. Ultraviolet radiation protection UPF of elastane fabrics. Auslralas Textiles 1995:15:39-42.
factors for personal protection in both occupational and [29] Jevtic AP. The sun protective effect of clothing, including
recreational situations. Radiat Protect Aust 1992:10:59-66. beachwear. Australas J Dermatol 1990:31:5-7.
[21] Pailthorpe MT, Jesson N. Textiles and UVR protection. In: [30] Diffey BL. Cheeseman J. Sun protection with hats. Br J
First Australian-Asian Conference on Radiation Science and Dermatoi 1992:127:10-12.
Nuclear Medicine, 1993 Feb 15-22: Sydney, Australia. Aus- [31] Keeling JH, Kraus EW. Pathak M, Sober AJ. Hats: design
tralian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Sydney, and protection from ultraviolet radiation. Mil Med
1993. 1989:154:250-255.
[22] Gies P. Roy C. Ultraviolet radiation, ozone thinning, the [32] Paillhorpe MT. Auer PD. On ihe percenlage UV shade
environment and UPF testing. In: Proceedings of the Textiles provided by sbadecloth. Australas Textiles 1991:11:35.
and Sun Protection Mini-conference, 1993 May 20. Sydney. [33] Menter JM, Hollins BS, Sayrc RM et al. Protection againsi
Australia. Sociely of Dyers and Colourists of Australia and UV pholocarcinogenesis by fabric materials. J Am Acad
New Zealand. Sydney. 1993:6-25. Dermatol 1994:31:711-716.
[23] Pailthorpe MT. Textile parameters and sun protection factors. [34] Bech-Thomsen N, Wulf HC. Ullman S. Xerodenna pigmen-
In: Proceedings of the Textiles and Sun Protection Mini-con- losum lesions related to ultraviolet iransmittance by clothes. J
ference. 1993 May 20, Sydney, Australia. Society of Dyers Am Acad Dermatol 1991:24:365-368.
and Colourisls of Australia and New Zealand, Sydney. [35] Gies HP. Roy CR, Elliott G. A propo.sed UVR protection
1993:32-53. factor lor sunglasses. Clin Exp Optom 1990:73:184-189.
[24] Sayre RM, Hughes S. Sun proteclive apparel: advancements [36] McKinley AF, Diffey BL. A reference action spectrum for
in sun protection. Skin Cancer 1993:8:41-47. ultra-violel induced erytbema in human skin. CIEJ
[25] Gies HP, Roy CR. Eiliolt G. Zongli W. Ultraviolet radiation 1987:6:17-22.
protection factors for clothing. Hlth Phys 1994;67:131-139.
14683083, 1997, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.1997.tb00450.x by The University Of Melbourne, Wiley Online Library on [11/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License