- 1 Trends in Australians’ sun protection behaviours
- 2 Clothing
- 3 Sunscreen
- 4 Hats
- 5 Shade
- 6 Sunglasses
- 7 Window tinting
- 8 References
Figure 1: A combination of the five sun protection measures is recommended: Slip on clothing, Slop on SPF30 or higher sunscreen, Slap on a hat, Seek shade and Slide on sunnies.
Images provided by Cancer Council Australia.
Sun protection in the form of clothing, sunscreen, broad brimmed hats, shade and sunglasses is recommended during times when the UV (ultraviolet) Index reaches 3 and above. This is the threshold at which UV radiation can damage skin, according to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Safe Work Australia also recommends sun protection for workers who spend extended periods of time outdoors, even on days when the UV Index is below 3.
Infants and toddlers (up to 4 years of age) are particularly vulnerable to UV radiation-induced changes in the skin due to lower levels of melanin and a thinner stratum corneum (the outermost layer of skin). Therefore, limiting sun exposure and using clothing cover while outdoors is recommended for infants and toddlers regardless of skin type. Very young babies (less than 6 months of age) absorb more of any chemical applied to the skin than occurs for adults. For this reason, the Australasian College of Dermatologists does not recommend widespread and regular use of chemical sunscreens for babies less than six months of age. However, to date there have been no documented reports of harmful side effects that have occurred as a result of sunscreen absorption among babies.
Sun protection is recommended at all ages, as skin cancer risk is reduced at whichever age sun protection is used. High sun exposure in the first 10 years of life more than doubles melanoma risk, while intense, intermittent sun exposure (for example, in the form of sunbathing vacations) during each decade up to 29 years of age, increases risk of melanoma by over one-and-a-half times. Every additional decade of high sun exposure or solarium use increases the risk of melanoma. The risk of melanoma is reduced by reducing recreational sun exposure at any age.
A nationally representative survey of Australian adolescents’ and adults’ sun protection in 2010-11 found that on a summer weekend:
- The most commonly used sun protective behaviour by adolescents was use of sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of at least 15+ (37%), followed by ¾ length or longer leg-cover (28%)
- Less than one-quarter of adolescents reported that they wore a hat, cap or visor (23%), or sunglasses (24%) or were mostly in the shade while outdoors (21%)
- Adults’ sun protection compliance was generally better than that of adolescents
- The most common sun protective behaviours among adults were wearing sunglasses (57%), wearing a hat, cap or visor (45%) and wearing ¾ length or long leg-cover (44%)
- Similar to adolescents, 36% of adults reported wearing sunscreen on the weekend that they were outdoors.
Trends in Australians’ sun protection behaviours
For trends in Australians' sun protection behaviours since 2003-04, see here.
One of the best barriers between skin and the sun is clothing. Sun protective clothing includes long pants and collared, long-sleeved shirts, which cover as much skin as possible. Clothing can provide protection by absorbing and reflecting UV radiation that strikes the surface of the fabric. Ultraviolet Protection Factor (UPF) ratings are based on how much UV radiation passes through non-stretched, dry material. The UPF represents the factor by which UV radiation exposure is reduced (e.g. a garment with UPF 50 allows one-fiftieth of UV radiation to pass through it). UPF for clothing ranges from 15 to 50+ with ratings above 40 offering "excellent" levels of protection by blocking out ≥97.5% of UV radiation. In Australia, UV-protective clothing has to meet the Australian and New Zealand 1996 Standard, which specifies that garments must be lab-tested by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) in order to display a UPF label.
Fabrics do not need to be UPF rated to provide protection from UV. When wearing garments that do not have a UPF label, light weight, closely woven and dark coloured clothing is recommended. Designs that maximise body coverage - for example shirts with long sleeves and collars - are also recommended.
Sunscreen is one of the most common methods of sun protection. SunSmart recommends SPF 30 (or higher) broad spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen. Sunscreens are lotions, creams, gels or aerosols that prevent UV-induced skin damage. Sunscreens protect against UV radiation through the use of filters, either inorganic/physical or organic/chemical, that absorb within the UV range. Inorganic filters are composed of minerals - most commonly the metal oxides titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, which screen both UVA and UVB. Organic/chemical filters are composed of various compounds such as cinnamates (UVB filter), oxybenzone (UVA) and terephtalylidenedicamphor sulfonic acid (a UVA and UVB filter). Sunscreen formulations composed primarily of inorganic/physical filters do not penetrate as deeply into the skin, however, this makes them less likely to cause irritation/sensitisation.
Sunscreen should be stored below 30C and not used past expiry date. Sunscreen should be used in conjunction with other sun protection such as staying in the shade, wearing covering clothing, a broad-brimmed hat and sunglasses.
Regular sunscreen use is a cost-effective approach to skin cancer prevention. An intervention promoting regular sunscreen use to prevent skin cancer showed that it would save the government money and only impose a small cost on society as a whole for these improved health outcomes. According to the economic evaluation, if all relevant parties were committed, the sunscreen initiative would cost the Australian government an outlay of AUD$4224 per skin cancer prevented over a 5-year period, or AUD$1.03 per person annually.
Sun protection factor
The higher a sunscreen’s sun protection factor (SPF) the more UVB radiation it filters. Sunscreens labelled broad-spectrum are also protective against UVA.
The SPF of a sunscreen is determined as the ratio of time taken for a minimal erythema (a perceptible reddening of the skin) to appear when 2mg/cm2 sunscreen is applied, in comparison to the time it takes to reach the minimal erythemal dose (MED) without sunscreen. As such, SPF is only a measure of protection under idealised laboratory conditions and against UVB radiation (the wavelength primarily responsible for erythema). SPF does not take into account UVA or immunosuppression spectra.
Properly applied, (the ‘teaspoon rule’ of 2mg/cm2) SPF30 sunscreens filter out 96.7% of UVB, while SPF50 filters out 98%. Despite an increase in protection level, SPF50+ sunscreen must continue to be reapplied every two hours to maintain the optimum level of protection, and used in conjunction with other sun protection (clothing, hats, shade, and sunglasses).
Sunscreens that are proven to be protective against both UVB and UVA are referred to as broad-spectrum. Broad-spectrum protection is now a requirement for primary and secondary sunscreens regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The level of UVA protection must match the level of UVB protection.
The 2012 Standard replaced the ‘per cent transmission test’ for UVA protection with the ISO 24443 procedure, which involves prolonged irradiation of sunscreen to ensure photo-stability (i.e. minimal degradation during sun exposure), and requires that UVA is absorbed uniformly throughout the UVA spectrum (n.b. this uniformity requirement also applies to SPF/UVB radiation).
The TGA regulates primary sunscreens as well as some secondary sunscreens (i.e. cosmetics containing sunscreen agents that are at least SPF15). Sunscreens with an SPF rating of 4 and above are listed on the Australian Register of the TGA. Products can only be listed on the register if they comply with the Australian/New Zealand Standard for sunscreen products (AS/NZS 2604:2012).
Under the new standard (AS/NZS 2604:201218) effective 9 November 2012, sunscreens meeting TGA testing standards may be labelled as SPF50+, whereas previously SPF30+ was the highest level of protection manufacturers were able to claim. Sunscreens labelled between SPF15-SPF29 may no longer claim to be 'high protection', as this category is now assigned to sunscreens between SPF30-50. Only SPF50+ sunscreens may be labelled 'very high protection'. Sunscreens regulated by the TGA must provide broad-spectrum protection against UVA as well as UVB radiation. UVA protection testing is also more stringent, with improved accuracy and reproducibility through use of the ISO 24443 in-vitro procedure.
Under the 2012 standard, continued sale of already registered sunscreens labelled as SPF30+ is permitted indefinitely. Some sunscreens labelled SPF30+ may offer SPF50+ levels of sun protection, however these products must undergo re-testing to be re-branded SPF50+. Newly-registered SPF30+ sunscreens must pass the new broad-spectrum test.
Prior to applying sunscreen, check and follow the use-by date stated on the packaging and store sunscreen below 30°C.
Most people apply far less sunscreen than is recommended by manufacturers. As a result, sunscreen users achieve an SPF of between 50-80% less than that specified on the product label., In order to achieve the specified SPF, people should apply 2mg sunscreen to each square centimetre of exposed skin. This equates to approximately 35mL (seven teaspoons) per application for an adult. Some researchers have recommended that people apply slightly more than this: 45mL in the form of nine teaspoons (5mL each); one teaspoon of sunscreen applied to the face/head/neck, two teaspoons for the torso, one teaspoon to each arm/forearm and two teaspoons to each leg.
Sunscreen needs to be applied 20 minutes before going outside and reapplied every two hours thereafter. Reapplication of sunscreen 15-30 minutes after going outdoors may also be beneficial, as people are not likely to apply the required amount of sunscreen upon first application. 
According to a simulation study, typical sunscreen application - less than the recommended amount (3-6mL per body part) and non-uniformly application - will often result in sunburn and skin damage.
No sunscreen provides full protection. Therefore sunscreen should always be used in combination with other sun protection measures – clothing, broad-brimmed hats, shade and sunglasses.
Evidence of efficacy
When applied properly, sunscreen protects against sunburn and tanning. In an experiment irradiating melanocytes and keratinocytes in Caucasian participants, sunscreen was shown to completely block the effects of DNA damage after exposure to 2 MED of solar-simulated UV radiation.
Randomised studies conducted in Nambour, Queensland have shown that when sunscreen is used regularly, it is effective in reducing melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), but not basal cell carcinoma (BCC).
However, it has been argued that a significant reduction in BCC risk was not evident in Green and colleagues’ 1999 randomised controlled trial, due to the critical period for BCC risk being earlier in life than the age at which the intervention occurred. In addition, the long time lag between sun exposure and developing BCC as compared with the 4.5 end-point and eight-year extended study follow-up may have been insufficient. That a non-significant decrease in BCC risk was found is likely indicative of an association with sunscreen use. Further, the sunscreen used in the study likely lacked in stable UVA coverage compared with current sunscreen formulations, with the basal skin layer being most vulnerable to UVA radiation. This suggests another possible reason why a significant BCC risk reduction was not observed.
Routine sunscreen use has been associated with a reduction in melanoma risk. However, there are barriers to sunscreen efficacy such as incorrect application by either applying less than the recommended amount or applying in a non-uniform layer, failing to reapply or sunscreen removal caused by water or abrasion. It has also been reported that sunscreen use may encourage extended sun exposure among sunbathers and increases the risk of skin cancer when used in in this way.
Nano, as opposed to micro-particle metal oxide (TiO2 and ZnO) ‘physical’ sunscreens, are less opaque when spread on skin, eliminating this as a barrier to sunscreen use by being more cosmetically acceptable. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide based sunscreens are also less likely to cause skin irritation and sensitisation.
The current weight of evidence suggests that topically applied (insoluble) titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles do not reach skin cells; rather, they remain on the surface and outer layer of the skin and therefore the risk they pose is negligible. However, it is likely that sunscreen nanoparticles can penetrate the stratum corneum (outermost layer of skin) if applied to damaged skin. Incidental ingestion, as from a sunscreen spray, is likely to present more of a risk than topical absorption. However, a recent study suggests nanoparticles may not have the capacity for systemic absorption (i.e. circulation throughout the body). A recent study has shown that a small amount of ZnO nanoparticles can penetrate human skin. However, 50-60% of these are dissolved in as little as 24 hours as a part of a cell-mediated immune response before they reach the bloodstream.
Sunscreen formulas and their components are regulated through the TGA. In 2013, the TGA updated their review of the scientific literature in relation to the use of nanoparticle TiO2 and ZnO sunscreens. As in the previous review, it was determined that antioxidant compounds/coatings used in sunscreen prevent TiO2 from generating reactive oxygen species (ROS), and that TiO2 and ZnO do not penetrate the skin to a degree where they pose a health risk.  However, further research is required on the health effects of free radicals, which may be generated by coated nanoparticles in the presence of chlorinated water.
The US Department of Health and Human Services’ ‘Twelfth Report on Carcinogens’ lists compounds that have been proven to cause cancer. This list is updated frequently and has never included the chemicals found in sunscreen, including TiO2 and ZnO.
Adequate vitamin D
Regular use of sunscreen when the UV Index reaches three or above should not greatly decrease vitamin D levels over time. Although sunscreens could almost entirely block the solar-induced production of cutaneous pre-vitamin D3 on theoretical grounds or if administered under strictly controlled conditions, in practice they have not been shown to do so. This is mainly due to inadequacies in their application to the skin and because people using sunscreens may also expose themselves to more sun than non-sunscreen users. In addition, it is thought that vitamin D synthesis requires only modest doses of sunlight to be effective and most people get sufficient UV exposure from incidental outdoor exposure.
A broad-brimmed hat with a brim of at least 7.5cm, which shades the face, ears and neck, can block more than 50% of UV radiation to the eyes. Bucket hats with a brim of at least 6cm and legionnaire-style hats with a flap covering the neck are also recommended. Baseball caps are not recommended as they leave the ears, cheeks and back of the neck exposed.
The brim width on bucket hats for children should be suitable for the size of their head and shade their face well (minimum of 5 cm as a guide).
Built, natural and portable shade are all recommended for sun protection during peak UV radiation times. Shade is one of the most effective forms of sun protection as it blocks the majority of incidental radiation (direct, non-scattered radiation). Shade structures often reduce UV exposure by up to 75%. Shade structures with a protection factor (PF) of 15 (blocking 93% of UV radiation) or above offer optimal protection against ambient solar UVR (PF is the protection factor representing the ratio of UVR measured in open sun vs. under shade).
Shade, however, does not provide 100% protection. Some of the sun's UV can still reach a person in the shade via reflection off surrounding surfaces. As a rule of thumb, if you can see the sky, you are less than fully protected. It is therefore recommended to always combine shade with clothing, a broad-brimmed hat, sunglasses and sunscreen.
Exposure to UV radiation over long periods can lead to serious damage to the eyes. If practical, try to protect the eyes all year using sunglasses. The amount of UV reaching the eyes does not correlate well with UV levels, which measure UV reaching an unobstructed horizontal plane, and is instead highly dependent on unique geometry of the ocular region.
Overexposure to UV radiation can cause short-term eye damage in the form of mild irritation, acute photokeratitis (sunburn of the cornea), inflammation, excessive blinking and photophobia (difficulty looking at strong light). Chronic over-exposure may lead to permanent damage such as squamous cell cancers on the conjunctiva, skin cancer around the eyes and eyelids, and possibly some varieties of ocular melanoma (although evidence remains inconclusive). Other long-term damage to the eyes may include cataracts, macular degeneration, pterygium (an overgrowth of the conjunctiva on to the cornea), and climatic droplet keratopathy (cloudiness of the cornea).
Wearing a broad-brimmed hat can reduce UV radiation exposure to the eyes by 50%. Wearing both a broad-brimmed hat and sunglasses that meet Australian Standard can reduce UV radiation exposure to the eyes by up to 98%.
Sunglasses should meet the Australian Standard AS1067:2003 for sunglasses (lens categories 2, 3 or 4) and have an eye protection factor (EPF) of 9 or 10 or be labelled UV400. Darker-tinted lenses reduce glare, but level of tinting does not indicate the level of UV protection. Wearing close-fitting, wrap-around sunglasses is recommended, as 40% of UV reaching the eye is due to peripheral light.
Glass used in buildings
While glass thickness affects UV radiation transmission, other characteristics such as type and colour of glass should be considered. UVB radiation is completely blocked by most types of glass. The degree of UVA transmission depends largely on the type of glass. A study investigating UVA transmission through different types of building glass, found that laminated glass completely blocked UVA, while highest transmission was observed for annealed glass (74.3%) and tempered glass (71.6%).
Glass in vehicles
Laminated glass, required for windshield glass in vehicles sold in Australia, offers better UVA protection than tempered glass, which is used in car rear and side windows. Laminated glass filters out all UVB and over 80% of UVA radiation (equivalent to UPF50+), transmitting only 2.5% of UV radiation. Tempered glass side windows only block 21% of total UVR, but glass treated with a UV-absorbing window film blocks 99.6%.
- Allinson S, Asmuss M, Baldermann C, Bentzen J, Buller D, Gerber N, et al. Validity and use of the UV index: report from the UVI working group, Schloss Hohenkammer, Germany, 5-7 December 2011. Health Phys 2012 Sep;103(3):301-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850235.
- Safe Work Australia. Guide on Exposure to Solar Ultraviolet Radiation (UVR). Canberra Australia; 2013.
- Paller AS, Hawk JL, Honig P, Giam YC, Hoath S, Mack MC, et al. New insights about infant and toddler skin: implications for sun protection. Pediatrics 2011 Jul;128(1):92-102 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21646256.
- Guitera, PA. A-Z of skin: Sun protection and sunscreens. [homepage on the internet] Rhodes, Australia: Australasian College of Dermatologists; 2016 [cited 2016 Feb 19]. Available from: https://www.dermcoll.edu.au/atoz/sun-protection-sunscreens/.
- Armstrong BK. How sun exposure causes skin cancer: An epidemiological perspective In: Hill D, Elwood JM, English D. Prevention of Skin Cancer. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004. p. 89-116.
- Kricker A, Armstrong BK, Goumas C, Litchfield M, Begg CB, Hummer AJ, et al. Ambient UV, personal sun exposure and risk of multiple primary melanomas. Cancer Causes Control 2007 Apr;18(3):295-304 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17206532.
- Veierød MB, Adami HO, Lund E, Armstrong BK, Weiderpass E. Sun and solarium exposure and melanoma risk: effects of age, pigmentary characteristics, and nevi. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010 Jan;19(1):111-20 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056629.
- Volkov A, Dobbinson S, Wakefield M, Slevin T. Seven-year trends in sun protection and sunburn among Australian adolescents and adults. Aust N Z J Public Health 2013 Feb;37(1):63-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23379808.
- Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. Resource guide for UV protective products. Yallambie, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2003.
- Standards Australia, Standards New Zealand. Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4399 (Sun protective clothing - Evaluation and classification). Sydney, Australia; 1996.
- Gies P. Photoprotection by clothing. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2007 Dec;23(6):264-74 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17986066.
- Gies PH, Roy CR, Toomey S, McLennan A. Protection against solar ultraviolet radiation. Mutat Res 1998 Nov 9;422(1):15-22 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9920424.
- Gies PH, Roy CR, McLennan A, Toomey S. Clothing and protection against solar UVR: current status. Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia 1998;5(2): S8-S11.
- González S, Fernández-Lorente M, Gilaberte-Calzada Y. The latest on skin photoprotection. Clin Dermatol 2008 Nov;26(6):614-26 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18940542.
- Osterwalder U, Sohn M, Herzog B. Global state of sunscreens. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2014 Apr;30(2-3):62-80 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24734281.
- Cross SE, Innes B, Roberts MS, Tsuzuki T, Robertson TA, McCormick P. Human skin penetration of sunscreen nanoparticles: in-vitro assessment of a novel micronized zinc oxide formulation. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2007;20(3):148-54 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17230054.
- Gordon LG, Scuffham PA, van der Pols JC, McBride P, Williams GM, Green AC. Regular sunscreen use is a cost-effective approach to skin cancer prevention in subtropical settings. J Invest Dermatol 2009 Dec;129(12):2766-71 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19536149.
- Standards Australia, Standards New Zealand. Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZ 2604 (Sunscreen products - evaluation and classification). Sydney, Australia; 2012.
- Young AR, Boles J, Herzog B, Osterwalder U, Baschong W. A sunscreen's labeled sun protection factor may overestimate protection at temperate latitudes: a human in vivo study. J Invest Dermatol 2010 Oct;130(10):2457-62 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20535128.
- Schneider J. The teaspoon rule of applying sunscreen. Arch Dermatol 2002 Jun;138(6):838-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056975.
- Therapeutic Goods Administration. Australian regulatory guidelines for OTC medicines: Sunscreens. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing; 2003.
- Diffey BL. People do not apply enough sunscreen for protection. BMJ 1996 Jan 1 [cited 1996 Oct 12] Abstract available at http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7062/942.1.
- Stokes R, Diffey B. How well are sunscreen users protected? Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 1997 Oct;13(5-6):186-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9542755.
- Schalka S, dos Reis VM, Cucé LC. The influence of the amount of sunscreen applied and its sun protection factor (SPF): evaluation of two sunscreens including the same ingredients at different concentrations. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2009 Aug;25(4):175-80 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614894.
- Isedeh P, Osterwalder U, Lim HW. Teaspoon rule revisited: proper amount of sunscreen application. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2013 Feb;29(1):55-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23281699.
- Diffey BL. When should sunscreen be reapplied? J Am Acad Dermatol 2001 Dec;45(6):882-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11712033.
- Odio MR, Veres DA, Goodman JJ, Irwin C, Robinson LR, Martínez J, et al. Comparative efficacy of sunscreen reapplication regimens in children exposed to ambient sunlight. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 1994 Jun;10(3):118-25 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7947191.
- Pissavini M, Diffey B. The likelihood of sunburn in sunscreen users is disproportionate to the SPF. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2013 Jun;29(3):111-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23651270.
- Hacker E, Boyce Z, Kimlin MG, Wockner L, Pollak T, Vaartjes SA, et al. The effect of MC1R variants and sunscreen on the response of human melanocytes in vivo to ultraviolet radiation and implications for melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res 2013 Nov;26(6):835-44 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23962207.
- Green AC, Williams GM, Logan V, Strutton GM. Reduced melanoma after regular sunscreen use: randomized trial follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2011 Jan 20;29(3):257-63 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21135266.
- Green A, Williams G, Neale R, Hart V, Leslie D, Parsons P, et al. Daily sunscreen application and betacarotene supplementation in prevention of basal-cell and squamous-cell carcinomas of the skin: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999 Aug 28;354(9180):723-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10475183.
- van der Pols JC, Williams GM, Pandeya N, Logan V, Green AC. Prolonged prevention of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin by regular sunscreen use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006 Dec;15(12):2546-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17132769.
- Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Bajdik CD, Fincham S, Coldman AJ, McLean DI, et al. Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic skin cancer. I. Basal cell carcinoma. Arch Dermatol 1995 Feb;131(2):157-63 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7857111.
- Chesnut C, Kim J. Is there truly no benefit with sunscreen use and Basal cell carcinoma? A critical review of the literature and the application of new sunscreen labeling rules to real-world sunscreen practices. J Skin Cancer 2012;2012:480985 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22649734.
- Agar NS, Halliday GM, Barnetson RS, Ananthaswamy HN, Wheeler M, Jones AM. The basal layer in human squamous tumors harbors more UVA than UVB fingerprint mutations: a role for UVA in human skin carcinogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004 Apr 6;101(14):4954-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15041750.
- Tewari A, Sarkany RP, Young AR. UVA1 induces cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers but not 6-4 photoproducts in human skin in vivo. J Invest Dermatol 2012 Feb;132(2):394-400 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21975824.
- Lazovich D, Vogel RI, Berwick M, Weinstock MA, Warshaw EM, Anderson KE. Melanoma risk in relation to use of sunscreen or other sun protection methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011 Dec;20(12):2583-93 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22016471.
- Diffey B. Sunscreens: expectation and realization. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2009 Oct;25(5):233-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19747240.
- Diffey BL. Sunscreens: use and misuse. Comprehensive Series in Photosciences 2001;3: 521-34.
- Wright MW, Wright ST, Wagner RF. Mechanisms of sunscreen failure. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001 May;44(5):781-4 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11312424.
- Autier P, Boniol M, Doré JF. Sunscreen use and increased duration of intentional sun exposure: still a burning issue. Int J Cancer 2007 Jul 1;121(1):1-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17415716.
- Autier P. Sunscreen abuse for intentional sun exposure. Br J Dermatol 2009 Nov;161 Suppl 3:40-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19775356.
- Thompson SC, Jolley D, Marks R. Reduction of solar keratoses by regular sunscreen use. N Engl J Med 1993 Oct 14;329(16):1147-51 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8377777.
- Hughes MC, Williams GM, Baker P, Green AC. Sunscreen and prevention of skin aging: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2013 Jun 4;158(11):781-90 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23732711.
- Smijs TG, Pavel S. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens: focus on their safety and effectiveness. Nanotechnol Sci Appl 2011;4:95-112 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24198489.
- Diffey BL, Grice J. The influence of sunscreen type on photoprotection. Br J Dermatol 1997 Jul;137(1):103-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9274634.
- Schilling K, Bradford B, Castelli D, Dufour E, Nash JF, Pape W, et al. Human safety review of "nano" titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. Photochem Photobiol Sci 2010 Apr;9(4):495-509 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20354643.
- Therapeutic Goods Administration. Literature review on the safety of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing; 2013 Available from: http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/sunscreens-nanoparticles-review-2013.htm.
- Nohynek GJ, Lademann J, Ribaud C, Roberts MS. Grey goo on the skin? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and sunscreen safety. Crit Rev Toxicol 2007 Mar;37(3):251-77 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17453934.
- James SA, Feltis BN, de Jonge MD, Sridhar M, Kimpton JA, Altissimo M, et al. Quantification of ZnO nanoparticle uptake, distribution, and dissolution within individual human macrophages. ACS Nano 2013 Dec 23;7(12):10621-35 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24187959.
- Therapeutic Goods Administration. A review of the scientific literature on the safety of nanoparticulate titanium dioxide or zinc oxide in sunscreens. [homepage on the internet] Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing; 2009 [cited 2010 Sep 1]. Available from: http://www.tga.health.gov.au/npmeds/sunscreen-zotd.htm.
- Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 2011.
- Marks R, Foley PA, Jolley D, Knight KR, Harrison J, Thompson SC. The effect of regular sunscreen use on vitamin D levels in an Australian population. Results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Dermatol 1995 Apr;131(4):415-21 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7726582.
- Norval M, Wulf HC. Does chronic sunscreen use reduce vitamin D production to insufficient levels? Br J Dermatol 2009 Oct;161(4):732-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19663879.
- Norman AW. Sunlight, season, skin pigmentation, vitamin D, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D: integral components of the vitamin D endocrine system. Am J Clin Nutr 1998 Jun;67(6):1108-10 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9625080.
- Gies P, Javorniczky J, Roy C, Henderson S. Measurements of the UVR protection provided by hats used at school. Photochem Photobiol 2006 May;82(3):750-4 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16483247.
- Taylor HR. The biological effects of UV-B on the eye. Photochem Photobiol 1989 Oct;50(4):489-92 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2687903.
- Parsons PG, Neale R, Wolski P, Green A. The shady side of solar protection. Med J Aust 1998 Apr 6;168(7):327-30 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9577442.
- Gies P, Makin J, Dobbinson S, Javorniczky J, Henderson S, Guilfoyle R, et al. Shade provision for toddlers at swimming pools in Melbourne. Photochem Photobiol 2013 Jul;89(4):968-73 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23565839.
- Sasaki H, Sakamoto Y, Schnider C, Fujita N, Hatsusaka N, Sliney DH, et al. UV-B exposure to the eye depending on solar altitude. Eye Contact Lens 2011 Jul;37(4):191-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21670696.
- Cullen AP. Photokeratitis and other phototoxic effects on the cornea and conjunctiva. Int J Toxicol 2002 Nov;21(6):455-64 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12537642.
- Sun EC, Fears TR, Goedert JJ. Epidemiology of squamous cell conjunctival cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997 Feb;6(2):73-7 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9037556.
- Ng J, Coroneo MT, Wakefield D, Di Girolamo N. Ultraviolet radiation and the role of matrix metalloproteinases in the pathogenesis of ocular surface squamous neoplasia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008 Dec;49(12):5295-306 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18641285.
- Tucker MA, Shields JA, Hartge P, Augsburger J, Hoover RN, Fraumeni JF Jr. Sunlight exposure as risk factor for intraocular malignant melanoma. N Engl J Med 1985 Sep 26;313(13):789-92 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4033707.
- Lindgren G, Diffey BL, Larkö O. Basal cell carcinoma of the eyelids and solar ultraviolet radiation exposure. Br J Ophthalmol 1998 Dec;82(12):1412-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9930273.
- Vajdic CM, Kricker A, Giblin M, McKenzie J, Aitken JF, Giles GG, et al. Artificial ultraviolet radiation and ocular melanoma in Australia. Int J Cancer 2004 Dec 10;112(5):896-900 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15386378.
- Vajdic CM, Kricker A, Giblin M, McKenzie J, Aitken J, Giles GG, et al. Sun exposure predicts risk of ocular melanoma in Australia. Int J Cancer 2002 Sep 10;101(2):175-82 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12209995.
- Pane AR, Hirst LW. Ultraviolet light exposure as a risk factor for ocular melanoma in Queensland, Australia. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2000 Sep;7(3):159-67 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11035552.
- Roberts JE. Ultraviolet radiation as a risk factor for cataract and macular degeneration. Eye Contact Lens 2011 Jul;37(4):246-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21617534.
- Chalam KV, Khetpal V, Rusovici R, Balaiya S. A review: role of ultraviolet radiation in age-related macular degeneration. Eye Contact Lens 2011 Jul;37(4):225-32 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21646979.
- Gray RH, Johnson GJ, Freedman A. Climatic droplet keratopathy. Surv Ophthalmol 1992 Jan;36(4):241-53 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1549808.
- Standards Australia, Standards New Zealand. Australian Standard AS 1067 (Sunglasses and fashion spectacles). Sydney, Australia; 2003.
- Sliney DH. How light reaches the eye and its components. Int J Toxicol 2002 Nov;21(6):501-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12537646.
- Almutawa F, Vandal R, Wang SQ, Lim HW. Current status of photoprotection by window glass, automobile glass, window films, and sunglasses. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2013 Apr;29(2):65-72 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23458389.
- Turnbull DJ, Parisi AV, Kimlin MG. Vitamin D effective ultraviolet wavelengths due to scattering in shade. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2005 Sep;96(5):431-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16005208.
- Duarte I, Rotter A, Malvestiti A, Silva M. The role of glass as a barrier against the transmission of ultraviolet radiation: an experimental study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2009 Aug;25(4):181-4 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614895.
- Vehicle Safety Standards, Department of Infrastructure and Transport. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 8/01 - Safety Glazing Material) 2005. Canberra, Australia: Department of Infrastructure and Transport; 2011 Available from: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011C00115.
- Gies P, Roy CR, Wang Z. Ultraviolet radiation protection factors for clear and tinted automobile windscreens. Radiation Protection in Australia 1992;10(4): 91-4.