TITANIUM DIOXIDE AND ZINC OXIDE NANOPARTICLES IN SUNSCREENS 231 The lack of penetration through the epidermis is considered as the main reason for the absence of skin carcinogenesis–promoting effects. INTERACTIONS OF SUNSCREENS WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES Sunscreens are not only dermal preparations applied on the skin. Many cosmetic prepara- tions, dermocosmeceutic, and dermal preparations are applied every day. It is important to investigate potential interactions between sunscreens containing NPs, to fi nd out whether sunscreens enhance or block resorption. Effects of drugs applied to the skin for many diseases can be modulated and disturbed. Peire et al. have researched interactions with amphotericin. TiO2 NPs can modulate the transdermal permeation of the ampho- tericin. The main reason is the superfi cial chemistry of TiO2 (51). ROS generated by TiO2 and ZnO NPs can increase skin permeability. Transdermal drug and other substances (dyes, pesticides, and toxins) penetration can be favored or reduced by modulating the TiO2 surface charge (coating) and its oxidative potential (crystalline phases), so the enhancer effect of TiO2 NPs can be adjusted and converted up or down- ward (52,53). People are encouraged to use sunscreens when they are exposed to sunlight, and it is often on fields where pesticides are applied. The dermal penetration of the herbicide 2,4-dicholorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is enhanced by the formulations containing chem- ical UV absorbers, the absorbers themselves, and the insect repellent DEET. Brand et al. investigated whether commercially available sunscreens containing TiO2 or ZnO enhance the transdermal absorption of pesticides. For in vitro studies, hairless mouse skin was used. In vitro permeability studies were performed with the pesticides: parathion, mala- thion, 2,4-D, and paraquat. The data demonstrate that there was signifi cant penetration enhancement of malathion, parathion, and paraquat when compared with controls. The difference between ZnO and TiO2 was noticed because ZnO can interfere with 2,4-D penetration and TiO2 had no effect. Although, the risk-benefi t analysis gives the recom- mendation for using sunscreens (54). CONCLUSION There are conclusive pieces of evidence that TiO2 and ZnO NPs do not penetrate through intact and healthy human skin, but further studies are necessary to confi rm their penetra- tion through damaged and sensitive skin. Of paramount importance is the fi nding that most studies do not demonstrate NPs’ skin penetration and that no signifi cant concentra- tions are found in layers of viable cells. It must be emphasized that cytotoxic and patho- logical outcomes are presented in studies using high concentrations of NPs, which are impossible to be used for human purpose. Results of in vivo–in vitro and human–animal studies should be cautiously extrapolated. Some studies have given conclusive pieces of evidence about the potential of NPs to in- duce ROS in vitro, which largely mediate NP-induced cytotoxicity and genotoxicity, but the important real-situation information is that NPs used in sunscreens have modifi ed the surface so it has less possibility to produce ROS, even after UV exposure. Sunscreens also contain antioxidants to neutralize generated ROS, and endogenous antioxidants can
JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 232 protect against oxidative stress. These are important factors for the prevention of possible harmful effects of ROS. Risk-benefi t analysis of TiO2 or ZnO NPs usage in sunscreens strongly indicates that potential risks are vastly outweighed by the benefi ts. Sunscreens afford protection against UV-induced skin damages, such as photoaging and, importantly, skin cancer. Possibilities of artifi cial intelligence, especially machine learning, as one of the most pow- erful technique, must be applied in further studies in the prediction of the mechanism of penetration and toxicity. REFERENCES (1) M. Norval, R. M. Lucas, A. P. Cullen, F. R. de Gruijl, J. Longstreth, Y. Takizawa, J. C. van der Leun, The human health effects of ozone depletion and interactions with climate change, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 10, 199–225 (2011). (2) J. C. van der Pols, G. M. Williams, N. Pandeya, V. Logan, A. C. Green, Prolonged prevention of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin by regular sunscreen use, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., 15, 2546–2548 (2006). (3) A. Green, R. MacLennan, and V. Siskind, Common acquired naevi and the risk of malignant melanoma, Int. J. Cancer, 35, 297–300 (1985) . (4) M. E. Burnett and S. Q. Wang, Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review, Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed., 27, 58–67 (2011). (5) T. H. Keegan, L. A. Ries, R. D. Barr, A. M. Geiger, D. V. Dahlke, B. H, Pollock, W. A. Bleyer, Com- parison of cancer survival trends in the United States of adolescents and young adults with those in children and older adults, Cancer, 122, 1009–1016 (2016). (6) American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures, 2018, accessed January 26, 2018, https://www.cancer. org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-fi gures/2018/ cancer-facts-and-fi gures-2018.pdf. (7) T. G. Smijs and S. Pavel, Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens: focus on their safety and effectiveness, Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl., 4, 95–112 (2011). (8) X. Wu and R. H. Guy, Applications of nanoparticles in topical drug delivery and in cosmetics, J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol., 19, 371–384 (2009). (9) N. Durán, S. S. Guterres, and O. L. Alves, Nanotoxicology: Materials, Methodologies, and Assessments (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2014). (10) International Cooperation on Cosmetic Regulation, Report of the ICCR Joint Ad Hoc Working Group on Nanotechnology in Cosmetic Products: Criteria and Methods of Detection - ICCR-4. From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Offi ce, Washington 2010. (11) International Organization of Standardization, Nanotechnologies–Guidance on Physico-Chemical Characterization of Engineered Nanoscale Materials for Toxicologic Assessment (Geneva, Switzerland, 2012) . (12) FDA, Guidance for Industry: Safety of Nanomaterials in Cosmetic Products, https://www.fda.gov/ media/83957/download accessed February 5, 2019. (13) K. M. Tyner, A. M. Wokovich, W. H. Doub L. F. Buhse, L. P. Sung, S. S. Watson, N. Sadrieh, Compar- ing methods for detecting and characterizing metal oxide nanoparticles in unmodifi ed commercial sun- screens, Nanomedicine 4, 145–159 (2009). (14) P. J. Lu, S. C. Huang, Y. P. Chen, L. C. Chiueh, D. Y. Shih, Analysis of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in cosmetics, J. Food Drug Anal., 23, 587–594 (2015). (15) H. Shi, R. Magaye, V. Castranova, J. Zhao, Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: a review of current toxicological data, Part Fibre Toxicol., 10, 15 (2013). (16) S. E. Cross, B. Innes, M. S. Roberts, T. Tsuzuki, T. A. Robertson, P. McCormick, Human skin penetration of sunscreen nanoparticles: in-vitro assessment of a novel micronized zinc oxide formulation, Skin Pharmacol. Physiol., 20, 148–154 (2007). (17) F. Pfl ücker, H. Hohenberg, E. Hölzle, T. Will, S. Pfeiffer, R. Wepf, W. Diembeck, H. Wenck, H. Gers- Barlag, The outermost stratum corneum layer is an effective barrier against dermal uptake of topically applied micronized titanium dioxide, Int. J. Cosmet. Sci., 21, 399–411 (1999).
Purchased for the exclusive use of nofirst nolast (unknown) From: SCC Media Library & Resource Center (library.scconline.org)