Gambichler T, Avermaete A, Bader A, Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K
Department of Dermatology, Ruhr-University of Bochum, Gudrunstr. 56, D-44791 Bochum, Germany.
Br J Dermatol. 2001 Mar;144(3):484-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2001.04072.x.
Apart from sunscreen lotions, clothing provides protection from acute and chronic sun damage. Therefore, it is very important to know the ultraviolet (UV) protection factor (UPF) of textiles, in particular of lightweight summer clothing. Usually, the UPF of a textile is determined by spectrophotometric assessment of the UV transmission (in vitro method).
To compare the relationship between in vitro tests and in vivo tests of UPF using solar simulators for determination of the minimal erythema dose (MED), applied to 30 different summer textiles.
Thirty summer textiles were spectrophotometrically assessed, and UPFs were calculated with respect to the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) erythemal action spectrum.1 Based on the in vitro UPFs 'on skin' and 'off skin', in vivo testing was performed using a solar simulator for the determination of the MEDunprotected and MEDprotected.
The UPFs obtained from in vivo 'on skin' testing were significantly (r = 0.95; P < 0.001) lower than the predicted in vitro UPFs. This disparity was also confirmed by chromometric assessment of the MED testing; the erythemal responses measured after textile protection were significantly (P < 0.001) higher than those obtained without protection. However, the in vivo 'off skin' UPFs did not significantly (r = 0.98; P > 0.05) differ from the in vitro UPFs; comparison of the chromometrically assessed erythemal responses was also insignificant (P > 0.05).
The different correlation between in vitro and in vivo measurements of the UPF may be due to the optical-geometrical properties of textiles and the different amount of direct and diffuse radiation passing through the spaces between the yarns. As spectrophotometric measurements of a textile may generally yield lower UPFs than those obtained under average field conditions, the in vitro test method provides 'safe' UPF values representing a 'worst-case scenario'. In contrast to in vitro testing, in vivo methods are much more expensive and time-consuming. Thus, with respect to practicality, spectrophotometric measurements seem to be most suitable for the evaluation of UV protection of textiles.
除防晒乳液外，衣物也能提供针对急性和慢性晒伤的防护。因此，了解纺织品尤其是轻薄夏季衣物的紫外线（UV）防护系数（UPF）非常重要。通常，纺织品的UPF通过紫外线透过率的分光光度评估来确定（体外测试方法）。
使用太阳模拟器测定最小红斑剂量（MED），比较30种不同夏季纺织品的UPF体外测试与体内测试之间的关系。
对30种夏季纺织品进行分光光度评估，并根据国际照明委员会（CIE）红斑作用光谱计算UPF。基于体外“在皮肤上”和“不在皮肤上”的UPF，使用太阳模拟器进行体内测试，以确定未受保护的MED和受保护的MED。
体内“在皮肤上”测试获得的UPF显著低于预测的体外UPF（r = 0.95；P < 0.001）。MED测试的色度评估也证实了这种差异；纺织品防护后测得的红斑反应显著高于未防护时（P < 0.001）。然而，体内“不在皮肤上”的UPF与体外UPF无显著差异（r = 0.98；P > 0.05）；色度评估的红斑反应比较也无显著差异（P > 0.05）。
UPF体外和体内测量之间不同的相关性可能归因于纺织品的光学几何特性以及穿过纱线间空隙的直射和漫射辐射量不同。由于纺织品的分光光度测量通常可能产生比平均现场条件下更低的UPF，体外测试方法提供了代表“最坏情况”的“安全”UPF值。与体外测试相比，体内方法成本更高且耗时更长。因此，就实用性而言，分光光度测量似乎最适合评估纺织品的紫外线防护。
