From the technologist’s diaries - suncare

When around this time last year I (quite prophetically) said that the winter would run under the banner of UVB+UVA, I didn’t expect these formulations to end up taking over every corner of our lab. The number of inquiries is enormous, and that’s a reason to be happy - with every new formulation I get a little better. Yet before that happens, I’ll probably earn myself a deep two-finger frown line that even the best botox won’t smooth out…

The variety of issues in this area is so big that you could easily create a full-on cosmetic telenovela with a touch of absurdity in the background. 

And here are my subjective conclusions:

⚜️We use online SPF calculators, which give us the protection level we expect. They make our work a lot easier. Everything would be great, except the suggested concentration is slightly higher than what’s actually needed in the final formula - for example, 22% instead of 19%. Those few percent make a critical difference in how the product feels on the skin. And we don’t know how much we can reduce - only in vivo tests can confirm that.

⚜️Calculators don’t allow incorporating SPF boosters. These are various substances that improve the uniformity of the film on the skin, reduce gaps in photoprotection, reduce redness, scatter light, and prevent filter crystallization. They have a brilliant property - ⬆️ SPF = ⬇️% filters = 🤩 sensorially. That calculators are only imperfect mathematical models, yet it could be helpful.

⚜️ Filter types - our hands are pretty much tied when it comes to choosing them. Right now, we get to excitedly pick from about 8 out of nearly 30 listed in Annex VI. Why only 8? The others come with: bad consumer PR (reef-safe concerns, fears of skin penetration, ongoing CMR reclassification debates, etc.), body-area usage restrictions, supply issues or high MOQs, nano forms that only a few clients accept, technological barriers, or incompatibilities.

⚜️ We also can’t include mineral filters in SPF calculators if they’re not from the supplier that created the calculator (which, to be fair, makes sense - everyone promotes their own raw materials).

⚜️ The inability to use liquid filters like Octocrylene or Homosalate worsens the sensorial properties — most of the filters we’re left with are powders, melt only at high temperatures, and create a greasy, heavy film on the skin.

⚜️ And lastly: SPF verification testing is very expensive, so if the result comes back at SPF 49.9 instead of 51, we have to adjust the formula and redo the testing - meaning more time and more $$$.

Clients ask me about using SPF in winter

I still hold a subjective yet strong belief (and yes, this might stir the pot) that using SPF as your primary, everyday moisturizer during the winter in Poland is overapplication (some makeups can handle that). The only exceptions I see are a very sunny winter day (we apply SPF additionally), ski trips, or vacations in the southern parts of Europe. The average person in Poland 🇵🇱 , during the cloudy and dark November–February season, basically just moves from home to work and back again - so there is virtually no significant sun exposure.

In this context, "burdening" the skin with UV filters is not the best idea. Winter is the time when the skin struggles with specific environmental conditions (dry indoor air, lack of sunlight and fresh air, cold temperatures leading to dryness, irritation, and cracking of the epidermis). 

👉 So it makes much more sense to focus on maintaining a healthy skin barrier, the foundation of which is the lipid fraction.

Following this logic: the skin needs replenishing and barrier-reinforcing components (squalane, fatty acids, ceramides, cholesterol) far more than a layer of UV filters, which on their own do not provide skincare benefits - they are functional ingredients. And more importantly, they cannot fulfill their intended role when there is no meaningful sunlight exposure.

In the remaining months, however, sunscreen is entirely justified - and absolutely essential.

🇰🇷 Korean inspirations 

Many of our clients ask us to develop a sunscreen “just like that product from that Korean brand xxx,” because the sensory experience is wonderful. This request is very common in our industry 😉 I would prepare such "an inspiration" if not for the critical differences in expectations when it comes to the product’s ingredients.

I look at Korean sunscreens with envy - there, with the addition of boosters, they can achieve SPF 50 with a filter concentration of about 10-12% (shocking and impressive), while here we typically need around 19-22%, and of course it has to be natural. They can use elastomers and ultra-satin silicone powders, freely combine 2–3 different acrylate thickeners (formula stability, pleasant sensoriallity, an even protective layer), and PEG-based emulsifiers that can support even the most demanding composition. And then I get a request asking if I can make something exactly the same… but different 😀

It needs to be said clearly: most Korean SPF cosmetics are NOT natural. We cannot “just replace” ingredients with natural alternatives and expect the same sensory performance, and on top of that for a low cost. That would be like doing a pirouette in the splits - only a few can pull that off 🤸

If it were really that easy, wouldn’t we have already done it?

It is sad that Korean cosmetics are forgiven so much more, and I miss the days when you could freely add just a pinch of dimethicone to a formula… life was much easier for a technologist back then ☺️