The Comparison of Sun Protection Factor 30 Persistence Between Inorganic and Organic Sunscreen in Swimmers: Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term sun exposure is one of the risks faced by outdoor swimmers and can cause sunburn. Using sunscreen is one way to prevent sunburn; however, physical activity can trigger sweat, friction, and water washing that can interfere with sunscreen efficacy and decrease its sun protection factor (SPF). Sunscreens are classified into inorganic and organic based on their filter. Organic sunscreen has a better bond to the skin than inorganic sunscreen, which forms a barrier above the skin layer that makes removing it easier. Organic sunscreen lasts longer than inorganic sunscreen when used in physical activities, but it has a limited spectrum, is more photolabile, and is more allergenic. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the persistency of SPF 30 between inorganic and organic sunscreens on the back area after 1.5 hours of swimming. METHODS: This study is a randomized, split-body, double-blind clinical trial to evaluate the persistency of SPF 30 of the inorganic versus organic sunscreens in swimmers. Randomization was done to allocate the participants into treatment groups. Each participant received inorganic and organic sunscreen treatments applied to the back area. The research participants were swimmers from the Cikini swimming pool and Bina Taruna swimming pool, both in Jakarta, Indonesia. RESULTS: A total of 22 swimmers were enrolled in this study. The analysis showed no significant difference between the SPF of the two sunscreens before swimming (P=.22). After swimming, the SPF levels of both sunscreens decreased: the inorganic sunscreen decreased from a median of 27 (range 23-47) to 12.3 (range 8-19), and the organic sunscreen decreased from a median of 30 (range 24-47) to 9.9 (range 6-19), which was statistically significant (P<.001). When comparing the SPF of inorganic and organic sunscreens after swimming, there was a statistically significant difference in the decrease in SPF levels between the two groups (P=.02), which indicated a better SPF persistence for inorganic sunscreens when compared to organic sunscreens. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in the SPF levels of inorganic and organic sunscreens after 1.5 hours of swimming, with better persistence in inorganic sunscreens compared to organic sunscreens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04618536; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04618536. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/42504.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".