94 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS Figure 6. ULTRAVIOLET ABSORPTION •'ONC-•NTRllT/OIF / 27D 290 310 ULTRAVIOLET ABSORPTION O.• g WA V•Z • N C rN - MI• t•t C•O N ß Figure 7. Figure 8.
EVALUATION OF SUNSCREENING AGENT 95 ULTRAVIOLET ABSORPTION OPTI CA L ,•OL VEN•' •oeN$1T¾ EI•IiICoelVTRATI•A/ 0,0005'/, 0,? , 2?0 290 310 330 •V•L ENCrH- •/ZZ Figure 9. I,? 0.3 0,1. 0,0 ULTRAVIOLET ABSORPTION :ELL: i,o •,• •t/A•TZ SOLVENT: /4ErNA•OL t#l•tlT.MrlON I ' •7_ _% ' /1 - -1 *• ...... Figure 10. AMERSCREEN P v. • .......... •0--- / i ! ',• :Co.•o• i '"• ......... ...... ø'1 o. •60 285 3]0 335 0.2 Z60 _ Ethoxyethyl- p- methoxyclnnamat e 285 •10 335 Figure 11. Stability of Amerscreen P and 2-ethoxyethyl-p-methoxycinnamate. 0.5 per cent methanolic solutions exposed to direct sunlight uv curves on 0.5 per cent solutions in 0.0025 cm cell
Previous Page Next Page 
Purchased for the exclusive use of nofirst nolast (unknown)
From: SCC Media Library & Resource Center (library.scconline.org)