Dermatol Clin 24 (2006) 85 – 100

Garments As Solar Ultraviolet Radiation

Screening Materials
Kathryn L. Hatch, PhDa, Uli Osterwalder, MSb,T
a
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
b
Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Basel, Switzerland

Although wearing clothing to protect one’s skin radiation protection advantage and about the mean-
from the harmful rays of the sun is not new practice, ing of the information provided on the product
this practice is of recent increasing interest. This label. These are the garments that form a special
article discusses 1) three types of protection (sunburn, classification of garments called sun-protective or UV-
precancerous skin lesion development, and photo- protective garments. By definition, sun-protective
aging) that can be realized by covering the skin with clothing is an item of personal apparel (including
fabric, 2) the process by which some garmets come garments, hats, shoes, and fabric intended to be made
to be labeled with information about ultraviolet (UV) into personal apparel) for which a claim of protective
radiation protection advantage, 3) the meaning of the advantage against solar ultraviolet radiation is made
information provided on product labels, 4) practical [5]. A UV-protective textile is any textile whose
guidelines that can be used to decide which summer- manufacturer or seller claims that it protects from
time garments having no stated sun protection in- sunlight, including harmful UV light, claims the
formation are the best for wearing out-of-doors, and 5) reduction of risk of skin injury associated with UV
the pros and cons of using fabric and sunscreen exposure, or uses a rating system that quantifies the
lotions for sun protection. Although this article amount of sun protection afforded [6]. There is no
covers information that has been reviewed previously wording in these definitions that delineates/specifies a
[1 – 4], it also conveys new information and takes specific skin injury associated with UV radiation. The
a different approach to explaining about how gar- definitions are clear, however, that the claims are for
ments act as solar radiation screening materials. This UV radiation from the sun, not from other sources.
should provide clear answers to questions most fre- Claims currently being made are for sunburn protec-
quently asked. tion, but that wording rarely is used on product labels.
This article covers four main topics. The first topic The third topic is about guidelines individuals can use
is about the types of sun protection—sunburn pro- to assist in deciding which garments (that have no
tection, precancerous skin lesion development pro- stated sun protection performance) would be the best
tection, and photoaging protection—that can be selection for a summer day out-of-doors activity. The
realized by covering the skin with fabric. New fourth topic compares and contrasts the use of fabric
unpublished information is provided about photo- and sunscreen lotions for sun protection effective-
aging protection to fabric-covered skin. The second ness. Finally, the article summarizes the concepts.
topic centers on the process by which some garments
come to be labeled with information about ultraviolet
Types of protection
T Corresponding author. Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Kly-
beckstrasse 141, R-1045.2.12, CH4002, Basel, Switzerland. This section describes test methods used to quan-
E-mail address: [email protected] tity the sunburn protection provided to skin by
(U. Osterwalder). covering it with fabric. It also describes results of

0733-8635/06/$ – see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.det.2005.09.005 derm.theclinics.com
86 hatch & osterwalder

experiments in which fabrics differing in sunburn of several swatches of the same fabric to take into
protection capability were used to investigate the account variation in fabric uniformity), they are used
capability of fabric to prevent or slow the occurrence to calculate percent transmittance values (percent
of precancerous skin lesions or skin photoaging. UVA, percent UVB, or a total percent transmittance
value), a fabric – ultraviolet protection factor (UPF)
Sunburn protection value, or a percent penetration value (1/UPF).

The fundamental evidence that fabric protects Percent transmittance

against erythema is the condition called farmer’s tan. The calculation of total UV percent transmittance
The areas of skin not covered by fabric, often the for a fabric is the ratio of the amount of radiation
lower arms and the neck, are the first to tan (darken) transmitted to the amount of radiation directed per-
or burn (redden). There are two major methods to pendicular to the fabric swatch surface. The calcu-
assess the amount/degree of sunburn protection lation of the percentage of UVB transmitted through
provided by various fabrics: the in vivo method and the fabric is the same, except only the data from the
the in vitro method. UV rays in the UVB region are used. Likewise, the
calculation of the percentage of UVA transmitted
In vivo method involves only the data when UVA was directed at the
The in vivo method is one that closely parallels fabric surface. Percent transmittance data do not take
the method used to assess the effectiveness of sun- into account that certain wavelengths in the UV range
screen lotions, that is to determine the sun protection are more responsible for skin damage than others. A
factor (SPF) of the lotion. The major difference is fabric that allows a high proportion of UVA may be
that fabric is placed on the skin surface rather than quite effective in preventing sunburn, as sunburning
spreading sunscreen lotion over the skin surface. is linked to UVB radiation.
Fabric SPF can be determined with Eq. 1:
Fabric – ultraviolet protection factor value. The
calculation of a UPF value is accomplished by com-
Radiation dose to produce bining the transmittance data with data collected that
just perceptible erythema established the relative power of UV wavelengths to
under fabric covered skin cause the skin to redden. These latter data, data col-
SPF ¼ ð1Þ lected using human subjects, are given in the ery-
Radiation dose to produce
themal action spectra [7]. The importance of using the
just perceptible erythema erythemal action spectra data in a protection calcu-
of uncovered skin lation is that fabrics that allow a greater portion of
the most powerful skin reddening rays to be trans-
mitted will receive a numerical value lower than a
In vitro method fabric that allows less of the powerful skin reddening
The in vitro method is also called the instrumental rays through, even when both fabrics transmit the
method, because a spectrophotometer is used. This same amount of radiation. UPF can be calculated as
method has an in vivo component to it. The two in Eq. 2:
major steps in this procedure are transmittance test-
ing and calculations based on the transmittance P
400
data collected. To obtain transmittance data, a fabric E ðkÞ  S ðkÞ  Dk
k¼290
swatch is placed in a spectrophotometer equipped UPF ¼ ð2Þ
P
400
with an integrating sphere. The procedure is to direct EðkÞ  T ðkÞ  S ðkÞ  Dk
a beam of radiation composed of one wavelength in k¼290

the UV light and of known quantity perpendicular to

the surface of the fabric swatch and to measure the where E(k) is the relative erythemal spectral ef-
amount of radiation transmitted through the fabric. fectiveness, S(k) is the solar spectral irradiance
The sending of beams of radiation continues until all (W m2 nm1), Dk is measured wavelength interval
wavelengths in the UV range (or in some tests the (nm), and T(k) is average spectral transmittance of
wavelengths at 2 or 5 nm intervals) have been di- the specimen.
rected to the fabric face and transmittance data The definition of UPF is that it is the ratio of
collected. Once the transmittance data have been average effective UV radiation irradiance transmitted
collected (usually by measuring the UV transmittance and calculated through air to the average effective
 solar uv radiation screening garments 87

UVR irradiance transmitted and calculated through

fabric. The UPF value calculated therefore indicates
how much longer a person can stay in the sun when
fabric covers the skin as compared with the length of
time in the sun without fabric covering to obtain same
erythemal response. The endpoint is generally just
perceptible skin reddening. Specific details on how to
conduct transmittance testing, and use the trans-
mittance data to calculate a UPF value for the fabric
tested can be found in the following standard docu-
ments developed by committees within national, re-
gional, or international standard setting organizations:

 AS/NZS 4399 (1996): Sun protective clothing

evaluation and classification [5] Fig. 1. Regression correlation curve between UPF and SPF.
 American Association of Textile Chemists and (Data from Osterwalder U, Rohwer H. Improving UV
protection by clothing—recent developments. Recent
Colorists 183-2000: Transmittance or blocking
Results Cancer Res 2002;160:62 – 9.)
of erythemally weighted ultraviolet radiation
through fabrics [8] Precancerous skin lesion protection
 BS 7914 (1998): Method of test for penetration
of erythemally weighted solar ultraviolet radia- Two dermatologists [12,13] have reported cases in
tion through clothing fabrics [9] which either the appearance of or number of skin
 EN 13758-1 (2001): Textiles—solar UV pro- tumors on the patient’s body seemed directly related
tective properties. Part 1: method of test for to type of clothing worn. In 1991, Bech-Thomson
apparel fabrics [10] and colleagues [12] reported that their xeroderma
pigmentosum patient had marked improvement in
Penetration/weighted transmittance. Another ex- skin condition after she started and continued to wear
pression of sunburn protection is penetration or ery- leather and denim skirts that transmitted little UV. In
thema weighted transmittance. It is calculated as the 1998, O’Quinn and Wagner [13] observed that their
inverse of UPF (1/UPF). The significance of 1/UPF is male patient (Fig. 2), who worked outside almost
that the resulting value lies between 1 and 0 (or 100% every day, had markedly fewer skin cancers under
and 0%). The interpretation is that the lower the the yoke areas of his shirt than under other areas of
percent or the closer to zero the value is, the greater his shirt. They concluded that the skin was more
the sunburn protection provided by the fabric. In con- protected by the double layer of fabric forming the
trast, the UPF value has virtually no upper limit to yoke (front and back) than by the single layer of
indicate the protection provided. fabric forming the body of the shirt.
It was Menter and his research team [14,15] who
Comparison of sun protection factor and ultraviolet conducted two studies to determine the ability of
protection factor values fabric to reduce the production of skin tumors. In
Theoretically, the UPF and SPF value for any other studies, hairless albino mice were used. In the
fabric should be the same, given the same incident study described here, the skins of the mice were not
spectral distribution on the fabric specimens used. photosensitized. In the other study they were. Sk-1
As Menter and Hatch [3] concluded after reviewing hairless albino mice—whose skins either were cov-
studies in which swatches of the same fabrics were ered with a fabric with an SPF of greater than 30,
used in in vivo and in vitro tests, however, statisti- a fabric with an SPF of 6.5, or not covered (the
cally identical results do not result. It is possible, control)—were irradiated with UV radiation using a
however, that the development of a standard in dose regimen seven-fold higher than that used to
vivo procedure that takes into account the results of produce squamous cell cancer in unprotected hairless
UPF/SPF comparison studies might lead to a proce- mice. The outcome of the experiment illustrated by
dure in which in vivo results would be correlated photographing one of the mice in each group and
more perfectly with in vitro results. Additionally, it presented in Fig. 3, was that the fabric with an SPF of
has been shown (Fig. 1) that a good correlation be- greater than 30 protected against premalignant lesions
tween the UPF and SPF values can be achieved, pro- better than the fabric with an SPF of 6.5. There was no
vided the garment is covering the skin uniformly [11]. protection improvement, however, by the fabric with
88 hatch & osterwalder

origin were protected by two different fabrics or left

bare. Specifically, the fabrics were:

1. Non – UV-enhanced fabric: Cotton T-shirt fab-

ric TF 437W, tubular, 124 g/m2 (Test Fabrics
Incorporated, Middlesex, New Jersey)
2. UV-enhanced fabric: Cotton T-shirt fabric
TF437W treated with three washes in household
washing machine (Miele Deluxe Electronic W724)
at 40C (cotton program) with a common laun-
dry detergent containing 0.25% of the UV-cutting
agent (UVCA) Tinosorb FD (Ciba Specialty
Chemicals Incorporated, Basel Switzerland)

The UPF values of the unwashed and UVCA-

washed fabrics were determined as UPF 4 and
UPF 13 respectively, using the Australian standard
[5]. Biophysical parameters of skin color, skin mois-
Fig. 2. Precancerous skin lesions under various sections of ture content, skin wrinkling, and skin elasticity
a shirt. (From O’Quinn RP, Wagner RF. Unusual patterns of were determined as a function of exposure to UV
chronic photodamage through clothing. Cutis 1998;61: radiation. Irradiation was performed three times a
269 – 71; with permission. n 1998, Quadrant HeathCom, Inc.) week for 12 weeks with less than one mean effec-
tive dose monthly adjusted (effective dose UVA
an SPF of 6.5 compared with the control. One would 320 – 400 nm [24 – 26 J/cm2], UVB 280 – 320 nm
expect that fabrics with higher SPF/UPF values to [0.04 – 0.06 J/cm2]) using a Multiport 601 150W
provide more protection against the development of Solar Light Simulator (Solar Light Company, Phila-
precancerous tumors, because it is primarily UVB delphia, Pennsylvania).
radiation that is involved in skin cancer development.

Photoaging protection Skin-darkening protection

Darkness of skin was assessed using a Minolta
The possible reduction of photoaging of skin by CM-508i Chromameter (Konica Minolta, Hannover,
covering it with fabric was just recently studied [16]. Germany) yielding the color in L-a-b coordinates. As
Over a 3-month period, skin of volunteers of Asian shown in Fig. 4, fabrics can efficiently prevent tan-

Fig. 3. Clinical appearance at 24 weeks of Sk-1 hairless mice irradiated with solar-simulating (SSR) for 12 weeks. (From Menter
JM, Hollins TD, Sayre RM, et al. Protection against UV photocarcinogenesis by fabric materials. J Am Acad Dermatol
1994;31:711 – 6; with permission.) (A) A mouse from the group irradiated with 5960 J/cm2 SSR in absence of fabric, with
squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). (B) A mouse from the group irradiated with 3460 J/cm2 SSR through typical fabric (SPF 6.5 ±
1.0). Note development of SCC. (C) A mouse from the group irradiated with 3460 J/cm2. (D) Normal unradiated control mouse.
 solar uv radiation screening garments 89

Fig. 4. Pigmentation of fabric-covered and -uncovered skin over a 3-month period of sun exposure.

ning. Tanning can be seen as a surrogate for various by surface profilometry (ie, analysis of the shadow
other kinds of photodamage. There is significantly patterns). As seen in Fig. 6, a significant increase in
better protection by the UPF-13 fabric as compared wrinkling occurred on the uncovered site over the
with the UPF-4 fabric. As can be seen in the figure, 3 months of UV exposure used in this study. When
there was also adequate (ie, balanced) UVA protec- fabric covered the skin during UV exposure, the
tion in these studies. With inferior UVA protection as formation of wrinkles was avoided. In the case of the
is the case with some types of sunscreens, one would protection by the UPF 13 fabric, a slight but sig-
expect more tanning. To completely avoid any sign nificant reduction of the wrinkles was detected after
of tanning (skin pigmentation), UPF greater than 15 3 months.
is required under the regime of irradiation used in
the study. Skin-elasticity protection
Skin elasticity was determined by a cutometer. A
Skin moisture retention protection tube with integrated light barrier measures by means
Skin exposed to sun has reduced moisture con- of repetitive suction skin extension and rebound time
tent. To determine whether skin covered with fab-
ric reduced the degree of skin moisture loss, skin
moisture content was determined before and after
irradiation using a Corneometer (Courage + Khazaka
Electronic GmbH, Köln, Germany) skin conductivity/
capacitance instrument. The results in Fig. 5 show
that the skin moisture content drops considerably
with UV irradiation. With fabric protection, the de-
gree of skin moisture loss was reduced to some ex-
tent, but not entirely. Again, the UPF-13 fabric had a
significantly better protection effect than the UPF-4
fabric. To avoid moisture loss or even increase the
moisture content of the skin, however, a protective
cream has to be applied.

Wrinkle protection Fig. 5. Change in skin moisture – content of skin covered

Wrinkles are an important sign of photoaging. and not covered by fabric over a 3-month period of
In this phase of the study, wrinkling was measured sun exposure.
90 hatch & osterwalder

 BS 7914 (1999): Children’s clothing, require-

ments for protection against erythemally weighted
solar ultraviolet radiation [17]
 EN 13758-2 (2003): Solar UV protective
properties—classification and marking of
apparel [18]

Labeling standards

Labeling standards differ from those that define

a process for determining the UPF/SPF for the
swatches (fabrics), because they direct the conversion
of the fabric UPF values generated in in vitro testing
to a single label UPF value, which in turn determines
Fig. 6. Formation of wrinkles as a result of sun exposure
over a 3-month period.
a classification category of the fabric/product. Label-
ing standards provide different directions for deter-
mining label information including the state of the
of the skin. As seen in Fig. 7, without protection skin fabric (eg, new or laundered) at the time of trans-
elasticity drops significantly over the irradiation mittance testing, so it is important to look for the
regime of 3 months. This effect was reduced to standard number on the product label.
some extent when fabric covered the skin. Again,
the UPF 13 fabric protected significantly better than Differences in basis of claims
the UPF-4 fabric, but some loss in skin elasticity oc- One of the active debates about classifying gar-
curred. This can be avoided completely or even be ments as UV-protective is whether classification
improved with a protective cream. should include:

Conclusions  only those garments made of fabrics having or

In all of these experiments, covering the skin exceeding an agreed to minimal level of sun-
with fabric was beneficial to reducing skin photo- burn protection and covering at least an agreed
aging. The skin was less changed in color, had fewer to minimum skin surface area; and
wrinkles, was more elastic, and more hydrated.  those garments made of fabric having or exceed-
Repeating these experiments with fabrics with iden- ing an agreed-to minimal level of sunburn pro-
tical UPF values, however, may not give the same tection with no requirement for area of garment
results. Identical results would be obtained only if the skin coverage
absorption spectra of the fabrics were identical, or the
absorption in the UVA was identical. The higher UPF Both bases for making a claim have been adopted.
value fabric in the study was one containing a AS/NZS 4399:1996 was issued by Standard Australia/
compound known to have excellent UVA absorption
and possibly was one that absorbs the most harmful
of the photoaging rays.

Garments sold with a sunburn-protective claim

The labeling of sunburn protective fabrics usu-

ally is accomplished using one of the following la-
beling standards developed by a committee within
a national, regional, or international standard set-
ting organization:

 AS/NZS 4399 (1996): Sun protective clothing

evaluation and classification [5]
 ASTM D6603-00: Standard guide for labeling Fig. 7. Changes in skin elasticity as a result of sunlight
of UV-protective textiles [6] exposure over a 3-month period.
 solar uv radiation screening garments 91

New Zealand and titled ‘‘Sun protective clothing gives the amount of each wavelength of radiation
evaluation and classification’’ [5]. ASTM D6603-00 that passes through the fabric, that is, is transmitted.
was issued by ASTM International and titled ‘‘Stan- These values are combined with weights, numbers
dard guide for labeling of UV-protective textiles’’ [6], that reflect relative differences among the wave-
require only that the fabric meet minimum protection lengths to cause skin reddening. The multiplication
levels. The BS 7914 (1999) standard issued by the and addition in the equation lead to a single UPF
British Standards Institute and titled ‘‘Children’s value, a value for the swatch of fabric that was tested.
clothing,’’ [17] and EN 13758-2 issued by the Euro- The labeling documents instruct that the amount of
pean Committee for Standardization under the title variation in the swatch UPF values can alter the UPF
‘‘Solar UV protective properties—classification and value, which is a straight average of the swatch UPF
marking of apparel’’ [18] require garment classifica- values. High variations lead to a lowering of the label
tion and minimum fabric UV-protective levels. UPF value.
Another critical difference in basis of claims that
a garment/fabric is sunburn protective lies in the Classification categories
condition of the fabric swatches of the fabric at the UPF garments/fabrics are placed into classes
time of testing. The ASTM 6603 labeling document based on the calculated label UPF value [5,6]. The
[6] specifies that the fabric swatches must be pre- good protection class is composed of fabrics with
pared for testing. What this means is that fabric is label UPF values of 15 to 24, the very good pro-
subjected to 40 launderings and many hours of tection class is composed of fabrics with label UPF
UV radiation exposure. If the fabric will be used in values of 25 to 39, and the excellent protection
swimwear, it also must be subjected to chlorinated class of fabrics with label UPF values of 40 to 50
pool water. Procedures for these exposures are spe- and 50 + (the highest value permitted on a label).
cified in ASTM 6544—the preparation of tex-
tiles before ultraviolet transmittance testing [19]. Manufacturers and certifiers
The rationale for this swatch preparation step is to
ensure that the lowest amount of protection during a Fabric and garment manufacturers who wish to
normal life of the fabric is used in making the sun- label their garments or a line of their garments
burn protection claim. In other words, the wearer of as being sun protective tend to do so using a label
the garment is assured that the label amount is the (hangtag) of a certifier. For example, in Australia/
least to be expected. New Zealand, the certifier is the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
Garment skin coverage and label UPF minimums In the United States, the major certifier for some
BS 7914 applies to children’s garments [17] and years was the American Sun Protection Association
EN 13758-2 [18] applies to garments for individuals (ASPA). In Europe, a certifier is the International
of all ages. Both standards require that clothing Testing Association for Applied UV Protection. An-
designed to offer protection to the upper body will other certifier is the Skin Cancer Foundation, which
at least completely cover the upper body, clothing provides a certification seal for those products that
designed to offer protection to the lower body will meet its certification requirements. Certifiers may
completely cover at least the lower body, and clothing use the standards produced by national and interna-
designed to offer protection to both the upper and tional standard-setting organizations. Often they set
lower body will at least completely cover the upper their own testing and labeling procedures and stan-
and lower body. Definitions of upper and lower body dards. The certifier’s name usually appears on the
in these standards include garments with elbow-length garment label.
sleeves, pants, and skirts extending to the knees to
be classed as solar UV-protective. The two standards Garment choice
differ in setting the garment fabric’s sunburn protec-
tion level. EN 13758-2 requires more than UPF 40 Garments include swimwear (styled with at least
and BS 7914 a penetration of 2.5% or less. elbow-length sleeves and knee-length shorts), long-
According to both AS/NZS 4399 [5] and ASTM sleeved shirts (often pastel or white) usually with
D 6603 [6], the fabric comprising the garment must collars, long skirts, driving sleeves, and pants. The
have a label-UPF rating of 15 for it to be classed fiber content of the fabric of many of these garments
as solar UV-protective. An important phrase here is is 100% nylon or 100% polyester. Because fiber
label UPF. This is different than swatch UPF value. content is required as marketplace information,
As outlined earlier, transmittance testing of swatches individuals can determine if the sun protective
92 hatch & osterwalder

garment is made from these fibers [20]. Nylon and in the fabric at the time of purchase and during a rea-
polyester, especially the latter, have high UV ab- sonable length of use. The garments tend to be more
sorbance [21] that can be enhanced with the addition expensive than similar styled garments for which a
of titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles [22,23]. Often the sunburn protection claim is not made. The higher cost
styling of garments made with polyester or nylon covers expenses for transmittance testing, product
fabric includes vents so that the garment is cooler to labeling, and development of the chemical com-
wear, the vents permitting insensible perspiration to pounds to enhance the UV-absorbance of the fabric.
have a way to escape (because water vapor has a Individuals who become sunburned with short pe-
difficult time diffusing through the fabric itself) and riods of sunlight exposure are encouraged to purchase
thus for body cooling to take place. Two factors and wear sunburn protective clothing. This group
prevent the diffusion of moisture through the fabric. includes fair skinned, red-headed individuals. Indi-
First, there is insufficient space between the yarns in viduals who sunburn slowly but spend long periods
the fabric, because the straight smooth filament yarns of time in the mid-day sun (working, gardening, and
pack closely together leaving insufficient void space playing sports for example) also are encouraged to
for water molecules to diffuse. Second, moisture wear labeled sunburn protective clothing mainly
cannot diffuse through the fibers (these are hydro- because they know the degree of built-in protection.
phobic fibers). The feeling can be likened to wearing Individuals who have other photosensitive con-
plastic wrap. Worthy of note is a recently developed ditions may be helped by wearing sunburn protective
nylon fabric made with BASF fibers that is cotton- clothing, but this clothing would need to have ability
like by touch and has high UPF value because of the to highly absorb UVA and also certain visible wave-
inclusion of finely dispersed TiO2 particles within the lengths. UPF values do not reveal that this is the case.
fibers [24]. As Menter and Hatch point out [3], exposure to UVB
Other garments for which a claim of UV radiation has a relatively minor role in triggering
protection is made are those made with cotton fiber the skin response of photosensitive individuals. It is
or rayon fiber (both fibers are composed of cellu- exposure to UVA and visible rays that are responsible
losic polymers). Again, fabric fiber composition is for their photosensitivity condition.
required product information [20]. These fibers have
poor UV absorbance [21], but their UV absorbance
can be improved significantly by finishing the fabric Garments sold without a claim
with optical whitener and UV-absorbing compounds
so that UPF ratings of 15 to 50+ can be obtained. Most, if not all, summertime outerwear garments
These UPF values qualify the fabric as UV-protective in a person’s closet probably were purchased with-
and allow the manufacturer to make a claim in the out consideration of how UV protective they are.
marketplace. The most used commercial modification Some of these garments, if transmittance tested,
to date for cotton fiber is the addition of a UV- would show UPF values of at least 15. In fact, the
absorbing compound, a compound specifically de- results of four studies undertaken during the 1990s
veloped to enhance UV absorption [25 – 29]. The [32 – 35] show that 50% to 80% of summertime
compound does not interfere with moisture transport fabrics have UPF values of 15 or greater (Fig. 8).
through the fiber or fabric. The most used modifica- Between 20% and 40% of the garments in these
tion for rayon fibers is to incorporate TiO2 in the studies had UPF values of 40 or greater.
fiber, with best improvement in UV absorption when The question is ‘‘How can individuals make best
the new microsized TiO2 particles are incorporated choices for UV protection among garments they own
[22,23]. Two recent experimental treatments [30,31] or among garments they are considering as additions
hold promise for enhancing the UV protection of to their own or children’s wardrobe’’? Or rephrased,
cotton fabrics. One treatment is applying a thin layer ‘‘What fabric features (selection criteria) likely place
of titanium using a sol gel application method [30], a fabric in the 15 UPF classification or higher’’? This
and the second is applying nano-scale titanium hy- section discusses the answer by first discussing useful
drosol in combination with fluorescent whitening selection factors and then often recommended but
agent [31]. not practical selection factors.

Purchasers Useful selection factors

Purchasers of garments sold with a UV protective Useful selection factors are those that are visu-
claim know the level of sunburn protection provided ally obvious, whether there is product information
 solar uv radiation screening garments 93

required to be stated on a textile product label, and

fibers are known to differ in UV-absorbing ability.
Crews and colleagues [21] determined how fi-
bers ranked relative to each other in regard to UV
absorbance. This approach is in contrast to earlier
studies in which fabrics of various fiber compositions
were ranked and fabrics that differed in other im-
portant characteristics such as thickness (eg, wool
fabrics are much thicker than cotton fabrics). The
results of the experiment [21] established fibers could
be classified in three distinct groups:

Group 1: polyester, which is the best UV absorber

Group 2: wool, silk, and nylon
Fig. 8. Fraction of summertime fabrics having various UPF Group 3: cotton and rayon (cellulosic fibers),
values. (Data from Refs. [32 – 35].) which are the poorest UV absorbers

that assists, or if the garment owner knows the laun- What is discouraging about these results is that the
dering history of his/her garments or his/her chil- favorite fibers, cotton, rayon and flax (linen) for
dren’s garments. summer wear, are at the bottom of the list. What is
encouraging is that garments one has in his/her
Garment style possession, perhaps the favorite ones having this
Garments that cover or shade the greatest skin fiber composition may be excellent choices. This is
area are better choices. These include hats with wide because of the presence of optical whitening com-
all-around brims, shirts with collars and long sleeves, pounds on these fabrics.
trousers with long legs, and skirts that are knee length
or longer. For many individuals, this is just too much Laundering history of cellulosic fiber fabrics
fabric, too confining and not appropriate to the Knowing the number of times a garment made
occasion. This is the time to complement garment from 100% cotton, 100% rayon, 100% flax (linen),
selection with sunscreen lotion. or from blends of these fibers with each other or
with polyester have been laundered is helpful infor-
Double fabric layers and fabric thickness mation in making a good choice of garment to wear
Shirts that have a yoke, as do cowboy-style shirts, out in the sun. Garments with these fiber composi-
can be constructed with a single or double layer of tions that have been laundered most are most likely
fabric in the yoke area. For UV protection to the the better choices. There are two major reasons;
shoulder and upper torso, purchasing and wearing a optical whitener is being deposited, and the fabric is
double yoke garment would be the better choice. This shrinking with each wash.
is illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows the skin condition
of a man who wore shirts with a double layer of Optical whitener accumulation
fabric in the yoke area. Note that the dark area on the Optical whitening agents (OWAs), also known as
man’s back is where there was a single layer of fabric florescent whitening agents and as brighteners, are
and the lighter areas where the double layer of a included in almost every heavy-duty detergent prod-
fabric in the shirt yoke reduced the penetration of uct sold in the United States and in Europe. These
UV radiation [13]. Fabric thickness, a reflection of OWAs are included, because they whiten and brighten
the amount of fiber in a given fabric area, is one fabrics. Compounds in this classification convert a
concentration measure. Given two fabrics differing portion of incident UV radiation to the visible blue
from each other only in thickness, the thicker fabric wavelength and reflect the visible blue wavelength.
would have the higher UV-absorbing ability. More specifically, OWAs absorb UV radiation near
360 nm and re-emit it at about 430 nm. More visible
Fabric fiber composition light reaches an observer’s eye from the surface of a
Fabrics may be composed of just one fiber (eg, fabric containing OWA than from an identical fabric
100% cotton, 100% polyester, 100% wool, or without OWA. White fabrics containing OWA are
100% silk). Other fabrics are blends of fibers (eg, said to be whiter and colored fabrics to be brighter
65% polyester and 35% cotton). Fiber composition is compared with the same fabric without the OWA.
94 hatch & osterwalder

Secondarily, the presence of OWAs on fabric Indiana). It is distributed primarily to grocery stores
enhances UPF value, because they absorb UV. Spe- in the United States. Laundry detergents containing
cifically, they absorb better in the UVA region than in UV absorbers are available in Europe, Asia, and Aus-
the UVB region (where most compounds in the tralia. Rinse-cycle fabric softeners (conditioners) con-
classification absorb poorly). Most compounds in this taining UV absorber are available in Switzerland and
classification have an absorption weakness at about Japan. Consumers should look for the Skin Cancer
308 nm, a wavelength that is a powerful producer Foundation Certification Seal and Ciba Specialty
of erythema. Chemical company’s butterfly logo on laundry prod-
Zhou and Crews [36] found after laundering uct packages and wording such as UV cut detergent,
cotton sheeting and cotton broadcloth 20 times in UV Shield, UPF 30+, and Sun Care on the package
home laundering equipment using detergent contain- to determine which products contain UV absorbers.
ing OWA, that the 100% cotton sheeting showed a The classification of compounds called the UVCA
tenfold increase in mean UPF (initial fabric UPF 5.5 class or UV-absorbing class is composed of com-
and after 20 washings UPF 57.1). The 100% cotton pounds having chromophore systems that absorb very
broadcloth showed about sixfold increase (after effectively in the UV region, enabling them to maxi-
20 washing UPF of 22). At 20 launderings, UPF still mize the absorption of UVR while in situ on textiles.
had not leveled off; more laundering may lead to These compounds also contribute to fabric whiteness
even greater improvement, but not only because of and brightness. Compounds within this class en-
the OWA. They noted that some of the UPF increase hance the UPF values of cellulosic fabrics, cellulosic
was because of shrinkage in the fabric. UPF values blended fabrics, 100% polyester fabrics, and 100%
increased when the test fabrics were laundered under nylon fabrics when added to the fabric during mill
identical conditions except for the presence of OWA. finishing [25 – 29]. Such mill-finished fabrics usually
Zhou and Crews [36] did not observe enhanced UPF are made into garments for which a claim of UV
values for the polyester or nylon fabrics they protection will be made. Their presence on those
laundered 20 times with detergent containing OWA. fabrics often is not revealed in labeling. Compounds
Reinehr and colleagues [37] compared whiteness in the UVCA class should not be confused with
values and UPF values of white and colored cotton UV-absorbing compounds whose purpose is to slow
fabrics before and after laundering the fabrics with the solar degradation of PA (polyamide/nylon) fiber
a traditional OWA compound and with an OWA com- or enhance light fastness of dyes on automotive PES
pound with improved absorption in the UV. Some (polyester/polyethylene terephthalate) fibers/fabrics.
fabrics had been prewhitened, so they could deter- Scientists working on the development of laundry
mine whether the addition of OWA in laundry had a products that include UV-absorbing compounds have
detrimental effect on whiteness, which it did not. shown that these products lead to significant im-
Finally, Reinehr and colleagues [37] softened and provement in UPF values of cotton fabrics that ini-
added OWA to cotton fabric using two-rinse cycle tially have little sunburn protection capability [38 –43].
fabric-softening products: one containing a cationic- Of particular interest are two studies conducted by
OWA (OWA-4) and the other OWA-2. Two for- researchers outside the product development arena to
mulations were used; 0.3% and 2.7% on weight of determine differences in the amount of UPF enhance-
after-rinse product of softening compound. The ment that would result by home laundering the same
fabric swatches laundered with the higher concen- fabrics with different laundry products.
tration cationic-OWA softener had higher SPF values Wang and colleagues [44] laundered a jersey
than the swatches laundered with the lower concen- fabric (initial UPF 4.7) and a print cloth fabric (initial
tration (SPF of 30 compared with 12). The compari- UPF 3.1). They found that after five cycles of laun-
son treatment (OWA-2) resulted in an SPF of 5 at dering in water only, the UPF of their jersey fabric
both concentrations. increased to 7.1 and UPF of their print cloth increased
to 4.2, which they attributed to fabric shrinkage. After
five cycles of washing in American Association of
Ultraviolet-absorber accumulation Textile Chemists and Colorists detergent with OWA,
UV-absorber compounds are available in select the UPF value was 6.0 for jersey and 4.4 for print
detergents and in a dedicated laundry product (a cloth. After washing the swatches once with detergent
dedicated product whose sole intent is to enhance the containing UVCA, the UPF for jersey was 11 and 7
UPF values of cotton and cotton blend fabrics). The for print cloth. By the fifth wash cycle, the jersey
name of the dedicated product is Rit SunGuard, fabric had a UPF value of 23, and the print cloth had
manufactured by Phoenix Brands (Indianapolis, a value of about 12.
 solar uv radiation screening garments 95

Kim and colleagues [45] laundered two white knit use these selection factors, however. An explana-
fabrics: a 100% cotton jersey (initial UPF of 14.2) tion follows.
and a 60% cotton – 40% polyester pique (initial UPF
of 23.4). After one laundering cycle with the Rit Fabric cover factor
SunGuard product, UPF values were 81.4 ± 23.0 Fabric cover factor is the proportion of a fabric
(jersey) and 39.6 ± 8.3 (pique). With Rit Whitener surface area filled with fiber/yarn to the total fabric
and Brightener product values were 30.5 ± 6.1 surface area. Scientists [21,26,27,48 – 51] quantify
(jersey) and 36.6 ± 6.1 (pique). UPF values above the cover factor of fabrics using either image analy-
30 were obtained by the conclusion of the fifth sis (the more commonly used method and that used
laundering with Tide (Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, to determine the cover factor of the fabrics in Fig. 9)
Ohio) and with Wisk (Unilever, Englewood Cliffs, or direct transmittance data.
New Jersey). Specifically, the UPF values at this When a fabric is placed on a white surface and
point were 43.3 ± 8.5 (jersey) and 39.7 ± 10.4 (pique the surface is magnified, as is the case in the photo-
fabric). There were statistically significant differences graphs of the cotton fabric shown in Fig. 9, one sees
in UPF values for fabric type and for laundry prod- that a portion of the white underlying surface is
uct used in the wash. Adding just the Rit SunGuard visible. The amount of white showing decreases
product to laundry water resulted in the most rapid from left to right. The measured fabric cover factors
achievement of a UPF of 30+. are 86%, 95%, and 98% [48]. The complementary
relationship is called fabric porosity (or fabric optical
Fabric shrinkage porosity) and provides data about the percent of
Cotton fabrics are subject to shrinkage when they fabric surface area not filled by fiber. The porosity
are laundered, knit cotton fabrics tending to shrink of the fabrics in Fig. 9 is therefore 14%, 5%, and
more than woven cotton fabrics. Small amounts of 2%, respectively.
shrinkage can lead to significant improvement in the Cover factor is a highly important fabric parame-
UPF value of the fabric. This is because a fabric ter, because it determines the probability of a UV
parameter textile scientists call fabric cover factor has ray striking a fiber. The greater the probability that
a tremendous influence on UV transmission, that is UV radiation directed at the fabric surface will strike
directed transmission, rays that do directly through a fiber and therefore be reflected or absorbed by
the fabric. They are not scattered as they go through the surface fiber or other fibers as it continues its
the fabric, because they never interact with the fibers journey through the maze of fibers comprising the
[46,47]. Fabric cover factor is discussed in the yarn leads to decreased transmittance (higher UPF).
next section. Conversely, the higher the percent porosity of the
fabric, the greater the probability that rays directed
Often recommended, but not practical selection perpendicular to the fabric surface (as is the case in
factors transmittance testing) will pass directly through
the pores in the fabric (where there is no UV-
Fabric cover factor, fabric depth of shade, and absorbing material.
fabric hue are three selection criteria that can have a If one had a set of fabrics composed of fibers
significant influence on the sun protection provided that absorbed all the radiation that struck them, but
to fabric-covered skin. Dermatologists and others each fabric had a different cover factor, then the
providing advice about UV protection by means of relationship between percent cover factor and SPF/
garments should not recommend that individuals UPF value would be as shown in Table 1 [33]. These

Fig. 9. Comparison of cover factor of three cotton fabrics having identical yarn structures. (From Algaba I, Riva A, Crews PC.
Influence of fiber type and fabric porosity on the UPF of summer fabrics. AATCC Review 2004;4(2):26 – 31; with permission.)
96 hatch & osterwalder

Table 1 black fabric is being absorbed while the visible light

Relationship between cover factor/porosity and sun and striking the fibrous portion of the white fabric scatters
ultraviolet protection factor values and is transmitted through the fabric. The transmitted
Cover Porosity Max theoretical scattered light blurs the impression of the amount of
factor (%) (%) fabric SPF/UPF light coming directly through the pores of the white
80 20 5 fabric. Although they used two extremes (a white and
90 10 10 black fabric), the same conclusions are reached under
93.4 6.6 15 other scenarios.
95 5 20
97.5 2.5 40 Fabric depth of shade
98 2 50 The description of a fabrics color may be speci-
99 1 100
fied, in a nonscientific way, by its hue (eg, red, or-
99.5 0.5 200
ange, yellow, blue, or green) and its depth of shade.
This discussion begins with the wisdom of using
data show that UPF increases rapidly as percent cover fabric depth of shade to estimate fabric UPF. Fabric
factor increases in small increments. Again, the fibers depth of shade is related to the lightness or darkness
in this set of fabrics absorb all the UV that strikes of the color (hue) of a fabric. For example, a red dye
them. This is not usually the case. can be used to make fabrics ranging in shade from
What if one had a set of cotton fabrics (or rayon light pink to dark red, the shade differing because of
fabrics) that were identical except for percent cover the concentration of the dye in the fabric. Similarly, a
factor? Algaba and colleagues [48] prepared such a black dye can be used to make fabrics ranging in
set (see Fig. 9) and determined the cover factor of shade from light gray to intense black. Although it is
each; the values are 86%, 95%, and 98% from left to true that the darker the shade of fabrics dyed with the
right. What would the UPF values of the fabrics be? same dye, the higher the UPF of the fabric (provided
The UPF of these fabrics (all below 15 UPF) does not the dye used has capability of absorbing in the UV
reflect the numbers shown in the figure. The reason is region of the electromagnetic spectrum) [52], fabric
that the fibers allow UV radiation to pass through depth of shade is an impractical selection factor for
them, so the effect of fabric cover factor is dimin- consumers to use, because the comparison probably
ished. None of the fabrics would provide even will not be between or among fabrics that were dyed
minimum protection (at least as defined in the UV with the same dye. Because dyes, even those that dye
labeling standards). the fabric to the same hue, differ in ability to absorb
Another reason not to recommend visual com- UV radiation, fabrics of the same hue and depth of
parison of fabrics to determine relative cover factor, shade will have different UPF values, sometimes
even when the fabrics may be made from fibers more dramatically different values.
UV-absorbing than cotton and rayon (the least UV- Srinivasan and Gatewood [52] conducted a study
absorbing fibers), is because the comparison fabrics showing how unreliable using hue and depth of shade
likely will differ in color; shade, even if the same comparison can be to estimate the UPF value of
hue; and thickness, all of which will effect the con- fabrics or attempt to rank fabrics on the basis of UPF
clusion (ranking). The visual comparison method is values. It was not their intent to show this relation-
to hold fabrics up to a light source, estimate the ship, however. They chose a 100%-cotton bleached
relative quantity of light passing through the fabric, print cloth fabric (initial UPF 4.1) and a series of
and select the fabric letting the least amount of visi- commonly used direct dyes, and then dyed swatches
ble light through. of the fabric with each dye to a pale shade and a dark
Osterwalder and colleagues [1] provide an expla- shade. The amount of dye added to the pale shade
nation about why this is not a reliable procedure by swatches was ~ 0.5% OWF and ~ 1.0% OWF to the
showing diagrams of two fabrics with cover factors of dark shade fabrics. When the UPF values for each
1.0%. One fabric was white (UPF 3.7) and the other swatch were determined, it was obvious that the
black (UPF 48.2). Using the visual comparison fabrics containing more dye (dark shades) had higher
method leads to subjects saying that the black fabric UPF values than swatches containing less of the same
would be far less ultraviolet protective than the white dye (pale shades).
fabric. The reason for this erroneous conclusion is
that the eye sees more distinct spots of visible light Fabric color: hue
coming through the black fabric than the white one Hue is the color of the fabric (eg, red, yellow, or
because the light striking the fibrous area of the blue). The question is whether one can relate fabric
 solar uv radiation screening garments 97

color (hue) to UPF. The answer is no. Consider the

data in Table 2, columns 1 and 4. The UPF data in
column 4 were calculated using the data in column 3
and knowing exactly the amount of dye that was
added to the swatches. Note that the UPF values in
column 4 are in descending order. Then note that
fabrics of the same hue do not cluster together. For
example, red fabrics with identical concentration of
dye have UPF values of 51, 31, and 20. Of note is
that the black fabric in this study did not have the
highest UPF value, even though advice has been
given to consumers that black fabrics are the best
UV protection choices. Also to be noted is that most
fabrics in the marketplace are not dyed with a single
dye but a carefully chosen set of dyes to produce the Fig. 10. Transmission of UV through unfinished and
fashion color, a situation that further complicates any UVCA-treated fabric when dry and wet. (Data from
chance of estimating the UPF values of colored Osterwalder U, Schlenker W, Rohwer H, et al. Facts and
fabrics, even those of like fiber composition or cover fiction on ultraviolet protection by clothing. Radiat Prot
Dosimetry 2000;91:255 – 60.)
factor. Other data about the relationship of dye type
and dye concentration on fabric to UPF values that
support the previous conclusions and add additional Cautions
knowledge about dyes and UPF can be found
elsewhere [53,54]. Sun protection afforded by covering one’s skin
with fabrics can be reduced during wearing. Of ma-
jor concern is a reduction in UPF when the fabric
becomes saturated with water. This would be of the
Table 2 most concern for swimwear and garments worn by
Direct dyes ranked for effectiveness in improving the
heavily sweating individuals. The amount of reduc-
ultraviolet protection factor of 4.1-UPF cotton fabric
tion can be minimal or substantial depending on the
Fabric UPF value fiber content of the fabric and whether the fabric has
Direct dye when each fabric
Fabric UPF shade been finished with UV-absorbing compounds or
used to dye had the same dye
laundered with products containing these compounds
cotton fabric Palea Darkb concentration
[3,55 – 58].
Red 28 39 51.7 41 In general, the UPF of white and pastel colored
Black 38 30 40 34
100% cotton fabric decreases as the moisture content
Red 24 28 37 31
of the fabric increases. As these fabrics get wet,
Green 26 22 29 26
Yellow 44 18 29 25 scattering is reduced, leading to an increase of UVR
Blue 1 22 30 26 penetration/transmittance. In contrast, fabrics con-
Yellow 106 19 28 25 taining UV absorbers or dyestuff compounds do not
Brown 154 23 31 25 have reduced UPF, because UV protection is pro-
Blue 86 16 19 24 vided almost exclusively by absorbance (Fig. 10).
Violet 9 21 29 24 Although this has been said before, ranking fabrics
Yellow 28 20 29 22 for sun protection performance is not done easily and
Red 80 17 25 20 often will lead to mistakes in judgment about how
Yellow 12 13 19 18
much sun protection is a being provided.
Blue 218 13 19 17
None 4.1 4.1 4.1
a
Each fabric contains about 0.5% dye on weight Comparison of fabric with sunscreen lotions
of fiber.
b
Each fabric contains about 1.0% dye on weight
of fiber.
Fabric can be a highly effective sun (ultraviolet
Data from Srinivasan M, Gatewood BM. Relationship of radiation) screening material. Fabric SPF/UPF values
dye characteristics to UV protection provided by cotton can be as high as for sunscreen lotions. The major
fabric. Textile Chem Colorist Am Dyestuff Reporter 2000; disadvantage of using garments as sunscreening
32:36 – 43. materials is probably that most garments do not
98 hatch & osterwalder

Table 3
Comparison of garments and sunscreens
Comparison factor of garments vs. sunscreen Comment
Cost Sunscreen costs  $1 per one full body application.
Garments labeled as UV-protective are costly.
Use of regular garments does not have an additional cost unless dedicated
UV absorber is purchased and applied.
Replacement frequency Sunscreen lotion needs replacement more frequently.
Protective garments are long-lasting.
Simplicity in testing Sunscreen is costly to test because it must be performed in vivo.
Fabrics are easily tested.
Long-lasting and photostable Sunscreen is temporary and must be reapplied.
Garments keep their protective property over the whole day.
Even and sufficient application Lotions require an even application to avoid having areas of inadequate
protection.
Individuals tend to underuse lotion so the protection stated on the product
may not be achieved.
Garments protect the area they cover.
Timing of application Sunscreens must be applied 30 minutes prior to sun exposure.
Garments may be donned at the last minute.
Waterproof-staying power on the skin Sunscreen must be reapplied.
Does not apply to normal textiles
Affected by wetting Protection may be lessened when white fabrics are wetted, but not if
protection effect is mainly due to absorption by dyestuff or UV absorber.
Skin tolerance There are known reactions to certain ingredients in lotions.
No known skin reactions from UV-absorbing compounds on fabrics.
UVA protection UVA protection by lotions often insufficient and not photostable; no UVA
issue with garments.
Sunburn protection As a rule-of-thumb, sunscreens only provide ~1/3 of the labeled protection
value [59] due to the lack of proper compliance.
Protection is much more reliable in fabrics (compliance is not a factor).
Photoaging Sunscreens are advantageous because of their active influence on hydration
of the skin.
Transparency Sunscreens preferred to covering the skin with fabric.

come labeled with a UPF value. But consumers can acquire a UV-absorbing compound, OWA (also
make reasonable judgments about relative sun pro- known as a florescent whitener), or they many be
tection performance and now have laundering options finished in the mill with these compounds. The
that lead to known levels of sun protection perfor- introduction of UVCA, compounds that increase the
mance. Application of sunscreen lotions and garment absorption of UV radiation of the fabrics to which
selection lead to a good sun screening strategy. Each they are applied, especially the absorption of the
option has its advantages and disadvantages as wavelengths most responsible for skin reddening
outlined in Table 3. (sunburning), has increased the ability of cotton and
cotton blend fabrics to protect against UV radiation.
Manufactured fibers can be enhanced by adding
Summary TiO2. Other compounds recently studied may be
applied to commercially available fabrics in the near
Fabric serves as a UV radiation filtering material, future. Fabrics can protect against sun burning,
because it is made from fibers that all have some UV development of precancerous skin lesions, and solar
reflecting and absorption ability, and because fabric aging of the skin. UV protection labeling is about
often is colored, meaning it contains colorants (dyes sunburn protection. New procedures will need to be
and pigments) that likewise have varying degrees of developed for labeling fabrics intended to protect
UV-absorbing ability. Further, cotton and cotton against other deleterious effects of the sun.
blend fabrics (eg, cotton and polyester blends) Another major point was that most cover-up
and rayon (viscose) fabrics and rayon blend fabrics garments, garments that cover the arms, legs and
 solar uv radiation screening garments 99

torso are UV protective, because the fabric from [11] Osterwalder U, Rohwer H. Improving UV protection
which they are made provides some UV protection to by clothing—recent developments. Recent Results
the skin. When a manufacturer decides to make a Cancer Res 2002;160:62 – 9.
[12] Bech-Thomson M, Wuld HC, Ullman S. Xeroderma
claim that a garment is UV protective, that manu-
pigmentosum lesions related to ultraviolet transmit-
facturer usually tests and labels the garment using
tance by clothes. J Am Acad Dermatol 1991;24:365 – 8.
a standard procedure, often one developed by a [13] O’Quinn RP, Wagner RF. Unusual patterns of chronic
committee within a national, regional, or international photodamage through clothing. Cutis 1998;61:269 – 71.
standard setting organization. Individuals who are [14] Menter JM, Hollins TD, Sayre RM, et al. Protection
sun-sensitive are urged to purchase and wear gar- against UV photocarcinogenesis by fabric materials.
ments for which a claim of UV protection is made. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994;31:711 – 6.
Using cover-up garments and sunscreen lotions is an [15] Menter JM, Hollins TD, Sayre RM, et al. Protection
effective combination for protection of the skin while against photodynamic therapy (PDT)-induced photo-
outdoors on sunny and cloudy days. sensitivity by fabric material. Photodermatol Photo-
immunol Photomed 1998;4:154 – 9.
[16] Baschong W, Artmann C, Schaumann M, et al. Sun
protection beyond sunburn—UV-protection in non-
References Caucasians. Presented at the American Academy of
Dermatology 62nd Annual Meeting. Washington DC,
[1] Osterwalder U, Schlenker W, Rohwer H, et al. Facts February 6 – 11, 2004.
and fiction on ultraviolet protection by clothing. Radiat [17] British Standards Institute. Standard 7949 – 1999:
Prot Dosimetry 2000;91:255 – 60. children’s clothing, requirements for protection against
[2] Rupp J, Böhringer A, Yonenaga A, et al. Textiles for erythemally weighted solar ultraviolet radiation.
protection against harmful ultraviolet radiation. Inter- Available at: http://www.bsi.org.uk. Accessed Octo-
national Textiles Bulletin 2001;47(6):8 – 20. ber 28, 2005.
[3] Menter JM, Hatch KL. Clothing as solar radiation [18] European Committee for Standardization. Standard
protection. Curr Probl Dermatol 2003;31:50 – 63. EN 13758 – 2: textiles—solar UV-protective properties.
[4] Hatch KL. Fabrics as UV radiation filters. In: Shaath Part 2: classification and marking of apparel. Available
NA, editor. Sunscreens: regulations and commercial at: http://www.cenorm.be. Accessed October 28, 2005.
development. 3rd edition. New York7 Karger Publish- [19] American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM
ing; 2004. p. 557 – 72. D6544 – 00: standard practice for preparation of textiles
[5] Standards Association of Australia. Standard AS/NZS prior to ultraviolet (UV) transmission testing. In: Bailey
4399: sun protective clothing: evaluation and classifi- SJ, Baldwin NC, McElrone EK, et al, editors. ASTM
cation. Homebush, Australia7 Australian/New Zealand standards, Vol. 7:03. 2004. p. 1152 – 5. Available at:
Standards; 1996. Available at: http://www.standards. http://www.astm.org. Accessed October 28, 2005.
com.au. Accessed October 28, 2005. [20] United States Federal Trade Commission. Textile Fiber
[6] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM Products Identification Act of 1960 and its amend-
International). Standard D 6603 – 00, Standard guide ments. Available at: http://www.ftc.gov. Accessed
for labeling of UV-protective textiles. In: Bailey SJ, October 28, 2005.
Baldwin NC, McElrone EK, et al, editors. ASTM [21] Crews PC, Kachman S, Beyer AG. Influences on UVR
standards, Vol. 7:03. 2004. p. 1187 – 91. Available at: transmission of undyed woven fabrics. Textile Chemist
http://www.astm.org. Accessed October 28, 2005. and Colorist 1999;31:17 – 26.
[7] Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage. Research [22] Wedler M, Hirthe B. UV-absorbing micro additives for
note. A reference action spectrum for ultraviolet- synthetic fibers. Chem Fibers International 1999;49:72.
induced erythema in human skin. CIE J 1987;6:17 – 22. [23] Dransfield GP. Inorganic sunscreens. Radiat Prot
[8] American Association of Textile Chemists and Color- Dosimetry 2000;91(1 – 3):271 – 3.
ists. Test method 183-2000: transmittance or blocking [24] BASF. No more sunburn! Clothing with sun protection
of erythemally weighted ultraviolet radiation through for young and old. Available at: http://www.basf.de/
fabrics. In: AATCC technical manual. Research Tri- science_around-us. Accessed October 28, 2005.
angle Park (NC): AATCC; 2004. p. 341 – 3. [25] Hilfiker R, Kaufmann W, Reinert G, et al. Improving
[9] British Standards Institute. Standard 7914 – 1998: sun protection factors of fabrics by applying UV ab-
method of test for penetration of erythemally weighted sorbers. Textile Res J 1996;66:61 – 70.
solar ultraviolet radiation through clothing fabrics. [26] Reinert G, Fuso F, Hilfiker R, Schmidt E. UV-
Available at: http://www.bsi.org.uk. Accessed Octo- protecting properties of textile fabrics and their im-
ber 28, 2005. provement. Textile Chem Colorist 1997;29:36 – 43.
[10] European Committee for Standardization. Standard [27] Jöllenbeck M. New UV absorbers for sun protective
EN 13758 – 1: textiles—solar UV-protective properties. fabrics. In: Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K, Stücker M,
Part 1: method of test for apparel fabrics. Available at: editors. Skin cancer and UV radiation. Berlin7 Springer
http://www.cenorm.be. Accessed October 28, 2005. Verlag; 1997. p. 382 – 7.
100 hatch & osterwalder

[28] Jöllenbeck M, Härri HP, Schlenker W, Osterwalder U. [44] Wang SQ, Kopf AW, Marx J, et al. Reduction of
UV protective fabrics. In: UV-protective Fabrics. Pro- ultraviolet transmission through cotton t-shirt fabrics
ceedings of American Association of Textile Chemists with low ultraviolet protection by various laundering
and Colorists Functional Finishes and High Perfor- methods and dyeing: clinical implications. J Am Acad
mance Textiles Symposium. Charlotte, North Carolina, Dermatol 2001;44:767 – 74.
January 27 – 28, 2000. [45] Kim J, Stone J, Crews P, et al. Improving knit fabric
[29] Eckhardt C, Rohwer H. UV protector for cotton UPF using consumer laundry products: a comparison
fabrics. Textile Chem Colorist Am Dyestuff Reporter of results using two instruments. Fam Consum Sci
2000;32:21 – 3. Res J 2004;33(2):141 – 58.
[30] Xin JH, Daoud WA, Kong YY. A new approach to [46] Stanford DG, Georgouras KE, Pailthorpe MT. The
UV-blocking treatment for cotton fabrics. Textile Res J effect of laundering on the sun protection afforded by
2004;72(2):97 – 100. a summer weight garment. J Eur Acad Dermatol
[31] New Xu P, Wang W, Chen S-L. UV blocking treatment Venereol 1995;5:28 – 30.
of cotton fabrics by titanium hydrosol. AATCC [47] Stanford DG, Georgouras KE, Pailthorpe MT. Sun
Review 2005;5(6):28 – 31. protection afforded by a summer weight garment:
[32] Robson J, Diffey BL. Textiles and sun protection. Pho- the effect of wash and wear. Med J Austr 1995;162:
todermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 1990;7:32 – 4. 422 – 5.
[33] Pailthorpe M. Textile parameters and sun protection [48] Algaba I, Riva A, Crews PC. Influence of fiber type
factors. In: Pailthorpe M, editor. Textiles and Sun Pro- and fabric porosity on the UPF of summer fabrics.
tection Conference Proceedings. Kensington (NSW)7 AATCC Review 2004;4(2):26 – 31.
The Society of Dyers and Colourists of Australia and [49] Menzies SW, Lukins PB, Greenoak GE, et al. A
New Zealand; 1993. p. 32 – 53. comparative study of fabric protection against ultra-
[34] Dummer R, Osterwalder U. UV protection factor of violet induced erythema determined by spectrophoto-
summer clothing in Switzerland and Germany. Derma- metric and human skin measurements. Photodermatol
tology 2000;200:81 – 2. Photoimmunol Photomed 1992;8:157 – 63.
[35] Gies HP, Roy CR, Elliott G, et al. Ultraviolet radiation [50] Sedlacek M. Development of an optical porosity meter
protection factors for clothing. Health Phys 1994;67: for the analysis of UV protective clothing [diploma
131 – 9. thesis]. Grenzach (Germany): FH Karlsruhe; 1998.
[36] Zhou Y, Crews PC. Effect of OBAs and repeated [51] Bommer B. Investigation of the UV protection
launderings on UVR transmission through fabrics. factor of knit wear under stretch [diploma thesis].
Textile Chemist and Colorist 1998;30:19 – 24. Grenzach (Germany): FHBB Muttenz; 1999.
[37] Reinehr D, Eckhardt C, Kaufmann W. Skin protection [52] Srinivasan M, Gatewood BM. Relationship of dye
against ultraviolet light by cotton textiles treated with characteristics to UV protection provided by cotton
optical brighteners. In: 4th World Surfactants Congress- fabric. Textile Chemist and Colorist American Dye-
Asociacion Espanola de Productores de Sustancias para stuff Reporter 2000;32:36 – 43.
Aplicaciones Tensioactivas (Barcelona). Cambridge [53] Veatch KD, Gatewood BM. Influence of light exposure
(UK): Royal Society of Chemistry; 1996. p. 264 – 76. on the UV protection of direct, reactive, acid, and
[38] Eckhardt C, Osterwalder U. Laundering clothes to be disperse dyes on cotton and nylon fabrics. AATCC
sun protective. In: Cahn A, editor. Proceedings Review 2002;2(2):47 – 51.
4th World Conference of Detergents: strategies for [54] Gorenšek M, Sluga F. Modifying the UV blocking ef-
the 21st century. (Montreux, 1998). Champaign (IL)7 fect of polyester fabric. Textile Research Journal 2004;
AOCS Press; 1999. p. 317 – 22. 74(6):469 – 74.
[39] Rohwer H, Eckhardt C. Laundry additive for the sun [55] Jevtic AP. The sun protective effect of clothing
protection of the skin. SÖFW J 1998;124:1241 – 4. including beachwear. Aust J Dermatol 1990;31:5 – 7.
[40] Rohwer H, Osterwalder U, Dubini M. Enhanced [56] Gambichler T, Hatch KL, Avermaete A, et al. Influ-
textile sun protection within a few washes. 39th Inter- ence of wetness on the ultraviolet protection factor
national Detergency Conference. Luxembourg, Sep- (UPF) of textiles: in vitro and in vivo measurements.
tember 6 – 8, 1999. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2002;180:
[41] Rohwer H, Kvita P. Sun protection of the skin with a 29 – 35.
novel UV absorber for rinse cycle application. SÖFW J [57] Moon R, Pailthorpe M. Effect of stretch and wetting
1999;125:1 – 5. on the UPF of elastane fabrics. Australasian Textiles
[42] Spillmann N. Sun protection via laundry products— 1995;15:39 – 42.
innovative science and creative effects to complete [58] Jesson N. Textiles for sun protection: wet versus
the circle of sun protection. In: Proceedings of the dry fabric protection against UV radiation. [disserta-
5th World Conference on Detergents. (Montreux, tion]. Sydney (Australia)7 University of New South
2002). Champaign (IL)7 AOCS Press; 1999. p. 42 – 197. Wales; 1992.
[43] Schaumann M, Rohwer H. UV absorbers for fabrics. [59] Diffey BL. Sunscreen isn’t enough. J Photochem Pho-
Happi 2003;36(2):59 – 61. tobiol 2001;64:105 – 8.