Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 18 (2020) 100347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/scp

Determination of sun protection factor of vegetable and fruit extracts using

UV–Visible spectroscopy: A green approach
Tanya Sharma , Vinika Tyagi , Megha Bansal *
Department of Chemistry, Manav Rachna University, Faridabad, HR, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Acute and chronic exposure to ultraviolet radiation leads to variety of changes in skin. For skin protection from
SPF deleterious effects of sunlight, sunscreen products are used in various forms having chemical and physical filters.
Vegetable extract These chemical formulations have adverse effects in chronic condition. Thus, involvement of herbal extracts
Fruit extract
could be of great choice owing to their specific radiation absorbing capacity. The rationale of this study was to
Herbal formulation
UV–Vis spectroscopy
determine the sun protection factor (SPF) of commonly consumed vegetables and fruits and compare it with that
of a synthetic compound (Dibenzalacetone) and assess their efficacy as protecting ultraviolet (UV) radiations.
Five vegetable samples namely Potato, Beetroot, Eggplant, Cucumber and Tomato and five fruit sample Banana,
Papaya, Green Grapes, Black Grapes and Orange Fruits were examined for their SPF values at different tem­
perature (7 ◦ C, 25 ◦ C, 45 ◦ C) and pH (2, 7, 10) conditions. The photoprotective activity was recorded using
spectrophotometric method and calculations were done using Mansur equation. Among all vegetable used the
SPF of eggplant was found to be highest 14.37 at 25 ◦ C and pH 7 while among fruits orange was found to be best
at same conditions. It shows the possibility to use these extracts as a sunscreen in pharmaceutical preparations.

1. Introduction
The ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is divided mainly into three regions:
ultraviolet A (UV-A, 315–400 nm), ultraviolet B (UV–B, 280–315 nm)
and ultraviolet C (UV–C, 100–280 nm) (Polonini et al., 2011). These
UVR when reaches the skin initiates various morphological and chem­
ical reactions which can eventually leads to malignant transformation of
the skin cells (Balogh et al., 2011). As the wavelength of UVA is longer in
comparison to UVB, it can penetrate deeper through the skin (Tuchinda
et al., 2006). It is also reported to induce delayed pigment darkening,
delayed tanning, photoaging, oxidative damage and skin cancer
(Almahroos M, Kurban, 2004; Young, 2003).
To protect the skin of these harmful radiations, various sunscreens
were introduced. Sunscreen can be an expanded foam lotion, whipped
lotion or gel lotion that absorbs (chemical sun block) or reflects (phys­
ical sun block) some of the UV radiations and helps protect against
sunburn or suntan (Hubbard et al., 2018). Chemical sun blocks uses
specific filters and block entry of different wavelength of UV radiations.
Most synthetic chemicals blocks only UVB radiations and very few are
able to block UVA thus, the best sunscreen is the combination of physical
and chemical both sun blocks. The primary active constituents in
physical sun blocks are usually zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide
(TiO2) which reflects most of the UV rays including both UVA and UVB
rays. However, these chemicals are harmful for our skin in case of
continuous application (Tyagi et al., 2016). It has also been reported
that ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticles causes enhanced oxidative DNA dam­
age by excessive production of Reactive Oxygen species (ROS) (Tyagi
et al., 2016).
There has been growing interest is assessing the antioxidant activity
of plant derived products and utilization of natural antioxidants in skin
care cosmetic products. Herbal extracts used in various medicines
contain vitamins, alkaloids, flavonoids, phenolic acids and terpenoids
thus, serves as a potential agent to use in various pharmaceutical
products for skin benefit including sunscreens (Dweck, 2002). Genera­
tion of reactive oxygen species is the prime destroying factor of skin cells
post UV exposure thus a potential antioxidant is required to protect skin
naturally. Now a days pharmaceutical companies use variety of natural
products for skin protection from UV radiations including squalane,
peptides, and nucleotides (Tyagi et al., 2016).
Thus, the objective of present study was to determine SPF values of
vegetables and fruits which are used extensively in routine diet. We
investigated UV absorption capacity of five vegetables Potato (Solanum

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: megha@mru.edu.in (M. Bansal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2020.100347
Received 26 June 2020; Received in revised form 10 October 2020; Accepted 31 October 2020
Available online 10 November 2020
2352-5541/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
T. Sharma et al. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 18 (2020) 100347

tuberosum), Beetroot (Beta vulgaris), Eggplant (Solanum melongena), Cu­ recorded at 593 nm. Trolox was used as standard, and the results were
cumber (Cucumis sativus) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and five expressed as μmol Trolox/g wet weight of fruit or vegetable.
fruits Banana (Musa acuminate), Papaya (Carica papaya), Green Grapes
(Vitis vinifera), Black Grapes (Vitis vinifera), Orange (Citrus X sinensis). In
2.6. Sun protection factor (SPF) of the aqueous extract
addition we also determined total phenolic content and antioxidant
potential of above mentioned fruits and vegetables. The SPF value of
The aqueous extract of fruits and vegetables were diluted 1:1 with
these extracts were determined at various pH and temperature and
distilled water before analysis. The SPF was calculated according to the
compared with synthetic compound dibenzalacetone which is used as an
methodology described by Mansur et al. (1986). The absorbance of
ingredient in sunscreens as it blocks harmful UV rays of the sun. Its SPF
samples were measured in UV-B wavelength range (290–320 nm), with
value is around 40. The Royal Society of Chemistry suggests that the
5-nm increments and three determinations were made at each point. The
chemical structure of dibenzalacetone makes it highly stable and hence,
SPF was calculated by applying the Mansur equation:
ideal for uses in sunscreens however, it is toxic in nature and irritant to
eyes, skin and human respiratory tract (Huck and Leigh, 2010). ∑
320
SPF = CF × EE(λ) × I(λ) × Abs(λ)
290
2. Materials and methods
where.
2.1. Materials
CF = correction factor (10),
Ethanol and dibenzalacetone and gallic acid were purchased from EE = erythemogenic effect of radiation with wavelength,
Merck (India). The 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and the I = solar intensity spectrum,
Folin–Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Abs (λ) = spectrophotometric absorbance values at wavelength.
(St. Louis, MO). Five vegetable samples Potato, Beetroot, Eggplant,
Cucumber and Tomato and five fruit sample Banana, Papaya, Green The values of EE (λ) x I(λ) are constant according to Sayre et al.
Grapes, Black Grapes and Orange were purchased from local market of (1979).
Faridabad. Vegetables and fruits were selected for uniform size, color
and level of external ripeness. All chemicals used in the experiments
2.7. Statistical analysis
were of analytical grade, and deionized water was used in the
experiments.
The analyses were performed in triplicate, and the results are
expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Differences were
2.2. Preparation of extract considered significant when p < 0.05. Multiple comparisons between
more than two groups were performed with one-way ANOVA followed
Fruits and vegetable each weighing 100 g were grounded separately by Tukey’s test.
in mortar pestle in fresh condition. The grounded biomass was subjected
to thorough maceration in distilled water. The extractions were carried
3. Results
out at intervals of 48 h. The aqueous extract was filtered through a
vacuum filter and the filtrate was stored at 4 ◦ C for further studies.
3.1. Antioxidant potential of selected vegetables and fruits

2.3. Total phenolic contents To assess antioxidant potential of selected fruits and vegetables total
phenolic content, DPPH radical values and FRAP assay was done. The
It was determined as prescribed by Singleton and Rossi (1965). The results of total phenolic contents (Table 1) in the selected fruits and
aqueous extract was mixed with 1:10 diluted Folin–Ciocalteu reagent. vegetables showed significant variation. Among different fruits the total
After 5 min, saturated sodium carbonate solution was added and incu­ phenolic content ranged from 40.56 ± 1.07 (green grapes) to 132.53 ±
bated in dark for 2 h at room temperature. The absorbance was recorded 1.45 mg GAE/100 g FW (orange). However, in vegetables it ranged from
at 760 nm. Gallic acid was used as standard, results were expressed as 50.15 ± 0.42 (cucumber) to 290.71 ± 0.64 (egg plant). Highest phenolic
mg of gallic acid equivalents (mg GAE) per 100 g FW of vegetable or content were observed in orange and eggplant.
fruit.
Table 1
2.4. DPPH free radical scavenging assay Total phenol content, DPPH radical and FRAP values in various vegetables and
fruits used in the study.
The free radical scavenging activity was measured using 2,2- Vegetables Total Phenolic Content DPPH value FRAP value (μmol
diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazil (DPPH) assay (Cai et al., 2003). The absor­ (mg GAE/100 g FW) (μmol VC/g) Trolox/g)
bance were measured at 518 nm and reported as percent antioxidant
Beetroot 220.2 ± 0.4 20.14 ± 1.20 2.69 ± 0.01
activity (AA) using the following formula: Eggplant 290.71 ± 0.64 31.23 ± 0.45 4.33 ± 0.04
Tomato 70.94 ± 0.23 18.16 ± 0.39 2.10 ± 0.05
AA% = [(absorbance of the control − absorbance of the sample)/absorbance of Cucumber 50.15 ± 0.42 15.12 ± 1.01 2.07 ± 0.01
the control] × 100. Potato 68.50 ± 0.20 17.04 ± 0.47 2.11 ± 0.04
Fruits
Banana 60.26 ± 1.45 22.70 ± 0.16 2.95 ± 0.05
Orange 132.53 ± 1.45 59.66 ± 0.20 3.85 ± 0.05
Papaya 90.29 ± 1.20 45.03 ± 0.52 4.15 ± 0.04
2.5. Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay Green 40.56 ± 1.07 20.11 ± 0.10 2.10 ± 0.06
Grapes
The ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay was performed Black 73.00 ± 0.18 32.10 ± 0.72 3.40 ± 0.05
according to the procedure described by Benzie and Strain (1996). Grapes
Briefly, freshly prepared FRAP reagent was warmed in a water bath at Values represented as mean ± SE (n = 3).
37 ◦ C before use. Warmed FRAP reagent was mixed with aqueous Abbreviations used: DPPH-2,2-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazil; FRAP- Ferric
extract, incubated for 2h at room temperature and the absorbance was reducing antioxidant power.

2
T. Sharma et al. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 18 (2020) 100347

The DPPH radical values of vegetables and fruits are also shown in
Table 1. All vegetable and fruits have high antioxidant capacity however
among fruits DPPH radical activity was found to be lowest in green
grapes (20.11 ± 0.10) and highest in orange (59.66 ± 0.20). Among
vegetables it was lowest in cucumber (15.12 ± 1.01) and highest in
eggplant (31.23 ± 0.45).
The FRAP assay is also used to assess antioxidant potential. This
assay is based on reduction of Fe3+ to Fe2+. When this reduction takes
place in the presence of 2,4,6-trypyridyl-s-triazine, a colored complex
with Fe2+ is formed which shows absorption at 593 nm. Among selected
fruits highest values of FRAP assay was found in papaya (4.15 ± 0.04)
while in vegetables it was highest in eggplant (4.33 ± 0.04).

3.2. Effect of temperature on SPF values of vegetables and fruits

Fig. 2. Effect of temperature on SPF values of fruit extracts.
Fig. 1 represents the SPF values of different vegetables which were
compared with dibenzalacetone at different temperatures. The
maximum SPF was shown by vegetables at room temperature i.e. 25 ◦ C.
It is evident from the data that beetroot and potato are highly affected by
temperature variation. The SPF value of beetroot and Potato has
markedly diminished at 7 ◦ C and 45 ◦ C respectively. However, SPF
values of cucumber and tomato remained steady at these temperatures.
Highest SPF value was observed for eggplant at room temperature, while
lowest for cucumber. All the vegetables showed least value at 7 ◦ C.
Fig. 2 indicates the effect of temperature on various fruit extracts.
Banana, papaya and orange have not shown significant changes in SPF
values with temperature variation while black grapes and green grapes
have shown slight variation at different temperature. Orange showed
maximum SPF value at 25 ◦ C and 7 ◦ C whereas papaya showed least
value at all temperatures.

3.3. Effect of pH on SPF values of vegetables and fruits

Fig. 3. Effect of pH on SPF values of vegetable extracts.

Fig. 3 illustrates how SPF values of all vegetables were affected at

different pH. Beetroot and potato showed the highest SPF at pH-7 and
the value were declined at pH-2 and pH-10 respectively. The SPF values
of cucumber and tomato was not much varied with pH. Eggplant showed
highest SPF value at pH 7 which decreased significantly at pH 10.
Fig. 4 mentioned the effect of pH on SPF values of different fruit
extracts. The SPF value of banana remained almost stable at different
pH. However, the SPF value of all other fruits has varied at different pH
with maximum variation in orange. The least SPF value was shown by
papaya at pH-2 and the highest by Orange at pH-7. SPF value of green
grapes was highest at pH 10.
Dibenzalacetone showed maximum SPF at 45 ̊C and pH7. The
maximum SPF was found in dibenzalacetone i.e. 39.98 followed by or­
ange i.e. 37.5 and eggplant i.e. 14.73.

Fig. 4. Effect of pH on SPF values of fruit extracts.

3.4. Comparison of SPF values of eggplant and orange with

dibenzalacetone

It is clear from Figs. 5 and 6 that SPF value of dibenzalacetone were

not much affected by temperature and pH variation. SPF value of orange
was very close to dibenzalacetone and not significantly affected by
temperature variation however decreased significantly at alkaline pH.
SPF value of eggplant was found to be lower in comparison to orange
and dibenzalacetone and affected by temperature and pH variations.

4. Discussion

Vegetables and fruits have numerous health benefits and are good
sources of flavonoids, phenolics, carotenoids and anthocyanins (Cieslik
Fig. 1. Effect of temperature on SPF values of vegetable extracts.

3
T. Sharma et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of SPF values of Dibenzalacetone with orange and eggplant
at different temperature. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 6. Comparison of SPF values of Dibenzalacetone with orange and eggplant
at different pH. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
et al., 2006; Trappey et al., 2005). Phenolic contents of any plants are
directly related to their antioxidant properties. Phenolic compounds act
as potential reducing agents and free radical scavengers by donating
hydrogen atoms (Wojdylo et al., 2007). In the present study presence of
significantly good amount of phenolics in the vegetables and fruits may
contribute to their antioxidant properties. The molecules present in any
sunscreen acts as a bulletproof vest, which either absorb, scatter or
reflect UV radiations. It has been reported that there is a strong corre­
lation between SPF and phenolic compounds (Yasmeen and Gupta,
2016). In the present work the high SPF value of eggplant and orange
may be due to their high phenolic content. The antioxidant property of
various phenolics largely depends on their chemical structure as well.
The natural antioxidants present in vegetable and fruits extracts also
inhibit condition of oxidative stress. In the present study we determined
antioxidant potential of extracts by DPPH radical assay.
Sun protection factor is a numeric value which determines effec­
tiveness of any formulation/extract for protecting harmful effects of UV
radiations. The main principle of sun protection factor is to prevent skin
from UV-A and UV-B rays. The sun protection factor can be expressed as
‘minimal erythemal dose’(MED) which is the length of time we can leave
our skin uncovered in sun after applying sunscreen without getting
burnt (Panchal et al., 2015). SPF can be expressed as the ratio of MED
when a person uses sunscreen to the MED when the same person does
not use sunscreen.
SPF = MED for skin with sunscreen/ MED for skin without sunscreen
To protect skin from deleterious effects of UV radiations the formu­
lation must have good SPF number should absorb between 290 and 400
4
Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 18 (2020) 100347
nm range (Suva, 2019). In the present study it was found that SPF values
of beetroot and eggplant was 12.83 and 14.37 respectively at RT and pH
7. The SPF value of orange was found to be 37.40 which were very close
to dibenzalacetone. Orange due to their high amount of vitamin c help
skin to protect from UV rays via transcriptional mechanisms of nf-κb and
mapk signaling (Naik and Desai, 2019; Akubue and Mittal, 1982).
Eggplant contains a derivative of the anthocyanidin delphinidin called
nasunin, which interferes with the hydroxyl radical-generating system
in the body and provide significant protection against them (Noda,
2000). Carotenoids like β carotene and lycopene are considered to
protect against these processes and hence prevents skin damage
(Chanchal and Swarnlata, 2009). Anthocyanin which belongs to the
flavonoid group is present in eggplant. It strongly absorbs UV radiations
at 270 nm–290nm. UV absorption of Anthocyanins increases by acyla­
tion with aromatic organic acids in 310 nm–320nm therefore preventing
the hazardous effects of UV radiations. It has been reported that due to
presence of high amounts of flavonoids and phenolics there is an in­
crease in the SPF value in the plant extracts such as D. moldavica and V.
tricolor with SPF activity of 24.79 and 25.69 (Khazaeli and Mehrabani,
2008). Similarly in the present study we observed high SPF value in
eggplant and orange exracts wing to their high phenolic content.
Another study conducted by Mishra and his coworkers has stated that
flavonoids and phenolics have excellent antioxidant and photo­
protective properties (Mishra et al., 2012).
Grapes and their extracts contains significant amount of resveratrol
(Counet et al., 2006) which is a potent antioxidant. It was reported that
topical application of resveratrol resulted in a significant decrease in
UVB-generation of H2O2 and inhibition of skin edema. Long-term studies
have demonstrated that topical application with resveratrol resulted in
inhibition of UVB-induced tumor incidence and delay in the onset of skin
tumorigenesis (Baumann, 2009). In the present study the SPF value of
black grapes extracts was found to be 6.45.
It suggests that these vegetables and fruits extracts may absorb UV
radiation and provide skin protection. The nutrients present in plant
extracts fight against free radical damage caused by exposure of skin to
UV radiation and reduces intensity of sunburn. There has been much
attention in the recent years to assess utilization of natural substances in
sunscreens (Polonini et al., 2011). According to Anvisa (2012), SPF
greater than or equal to 6 can be used in cosmetic products thus, in the
present study beetroot, eggplant, orange and black grapes were found to
be potential to be used is sunscreens. However, the SPF values were
found to be pH and temperature dependent. The variation in pH toward
acidic and alkaline caused sharp decrease in SPF value of beetroot and
orange however, it was marginally affected for eggplant. Bayliak et al.
(2016) also reported decreased antioxidant activity of plant extracts in
alkaline medium which could be attributed to significant changes in free
radical scavenging mechanism.
In general, sunscreens contains various chemicals that have specific
absorbance in a specific region of UV spectrum however, it is desired
that sunscreen should have wide range of spectrum. As plants extracts
contains wide range of natural compounds such as betanin, anthocy­
anin, proanthocyanidin, polyphenols, lycopene, starch, vitamin C,
vitamin E, vitamin K, Carotenoids with a full range of UV absorbing
capability thus they can be suitable to use in sunscreen (Table 2, Fig. 7).
There are many synthetic sunscreens, available however, if it is prepared
with natural ingredients the consumer acceptability increases. In addi­
tion to providing protection from UV radiation they provide several
other benefits to skin related problems (Mbanga et al., 2015). Thus, it is
necessary to screen for the total phenolic content phenolics content of
the selected vegetable and fruits and assess their antioxidant properties
to prepare topical sunscreen formulations from these extracts. Thus it is
further suggested that more studies are required with orange and
eggplant to find out their potential as effective sun protective agent.
T. Sharma et al. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 18 (2020) 100347

Table 2
Presence of various chemical constituents in herbal extracts.
Herbal Extract Polyphenols (Flavonoids) Vitamins Phytonutrients (carotenoids)

A B C D E K α carotenoid β Carotenoid Lycopene

Tomato ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ – ✓ ✓
Potato ✓ – ✓ ✓ – – – – ✓ –
Cucumber ✓ ✓ – ✓ – – ✓ – ✓ –
Beetroot ✓ – ✓ ✓ – – – – ✓ –
Eggplant ✓ – ✓ ✓ – – ✓ ✓ ✓ –
Banana ✓ – ✓ ✓ – – – ✓ ✓ –
Orange ✓ – – ✓ – – – – ✓ ✓
Papaya ✓ – – ✓ – ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓
Green grapes ✓ ✓ – ✓ – – ✓ – ✓ –
Black grapes ✓ ✓ – ✓ – – ✓ – ✓ –

Fig. 7. Structures of few major antioxidant compounds present in fruits and vegetables.

5. Conclusion Declaration of competing interest

Total phenolic content, DPPH radical and FRAP values were
considerably good for eggplant among vegetable extracts and orange
among fruit extracts. These parameters were directly correlated with the
high SPF values of these extracts as well. Eggplant and orange extracts
showed very high SPF value at RT and pH 7 which could be due to their
phenolic contents and their scavenging effects on DPPH. Thus these
extracts could be of greater significance in preventing harmful effects of
UV radiations and can be used in sunscreen formulations. Further
studies should be directed towards the extensive tropical application of
these extracts under various conditions of time duration, temperature,
light intensity and finding out specific mechanisms. It is also important
to find out in which form the formulation will be stable and shows the
best effects.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
Authors thank Prof. (Dr.) I.K. Bhat, Vice Chancellor of MRU for
financial assistance, support and encouragement.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scp.2020.100347.

Statement of human and animal rights References

This article does not contain any studies with human and animal
subjects performed by any of the authors and complied with all ethical
standards.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tanya Sharma: Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Writing -
original draft. Vinika Tyagi: Writing - review & editing, Visualization,
Writing - original draft. Megha Bansal: Conceptualization, Investiga­
tion, Resources, Supervision.
Akubue, P.I., Mittal, G.C., 1982. Clinical evaluation of a traditional herbal practice in
Nigeria: a preliminary report. J. Ethnopharmacol. 6 (3), 355–359.
Almahroos, M., Kurban, A.K., 2004. Ultraviolet carcinogenesis in nonmelanoma skin
cancer. Part I: incidence rates in relation to geographic locations and in migrant
populations. Skinmed 3, 29–35.
Anvisa, 2012. Guia para avaliação de segurança de produtos cosméti-cos. Agência
Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, Brasília, DF. Disponível em. http://www.anvisa.
gov.br.
Balogh, T.S., Velasco, M.V.R., Pedrial, C.A., Kaneko, T.M., 2011. Proteção à radiaç
ãoultravioleta: recursos disponíveis na atualidade em fotoproteção. An. Bras. Der-
matol. 86, 732–742.
Baumann, L., 2009. Antioxidants. Cosmetic Dermatology: Principle and Practice. Chap.,
34, second ed. McGraw Hill Professional Inc, New York.
Bayliak, M.M., Burdyliuk, Nadia I., Lushchak, V.I., 2016. Effects of pH on antioxidant and
prooxidant properties of common medicinal herbs. Open Life Sci. 11 (1), 55–71.

5
T. Sharma et al.
Benzie, I.F.F., Strain, J.J., 1996. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a
measure of antioxidant power: the FRAP assay. Anal. Biochem. 239, 70–76.
Cai, Y., Sun, M., Corke, H., 2003. Antioxidant activity of betalains from plants of
theAmaranthaceae. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51, 2288–2294.
Chanchal, D., Swarnlata, S., 2009. Herbal photoprotective formulations and their
evaluation. Open Nat. Prod. J. 2, 71–76.
Cieslik, E., Greda, A., Adamus, W., 2006. Contents of polyphenols in fruit and vegetables.
Food Chem. 94, 135–142.
Counet, C., Callemien, D., Collin, S., 2006. Chocolate and cocoa: new sources of trans-
resveratrol and trans-piceid. Food Chem. 98, 649–657.
Dweck, A.C., 2002. Herbal medicine for the skin their chemistry and effects on skin and
mucous membranes. Pers. Care. Mag. 3, 19–21.
Hubbard, G., Kyle, R.G., Neal, R.D., Marmara, V., Wang, Z., Dombrowski, S.U., 2018.
Promoting sunscreen use and skin self-examination to improve early detection and
prevent skin cancer: quasi-experimental trial of an adolescent psycho-educational
intervention. BMC Publ. Health 18, 666.
Huck, L.A., Leigh, W.J., 2010. A better sunscreen: structural effect on spectral properties.
J Chem. Educ. 87 (12), 1384–1387.
Khazaeli, P., Mehrabani, M., 2008. Screening of sun protective activity of the ethyl
acetate extracts of some medicinal plants. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. (IJPR) 7, 5–9.
Mansur, J.S., Breder, M.N., Mansur, M.C., Azulay, R.D., 1986. Determinacao do fator de
protecao solar por espectrofotometria. An. Bras. Dermatol. 61, 121–124.
Mbanga, L., Mpiana, P.T., Mbala, M., Ilinga, L., Ngoy, B., Mvingu, K., 2015. Comparative
in vitro sun protection factor (SPF) values of some herbal extracts found in Kinshasa
by Ultraviolet Spectrophotometry. J. Phy. Chem. Sci. 2, 1–6.
Mishra, A., Mishra, A., Chattopadhyay, P., 2012. Assessment of in vitro sun protection
factor of Calendula officinalis L. (Asteraceae) essential oil formulation. J. Young
Pharm. 4, 17–21.
Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 18 (2020) 100347
Naik, S.N., Desai, S., 2019. Estimation and comparison of hydro-alcoholic and water
extract for sun protection factor Activity from naturally available Resources. Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Nat. Res. 21 (1), 66–79.
Noda, Y., 2000. Antioxidant activity of nasunin, an anthocyanin in eggplant peels.
Toxicology 148, 119–123.
Panchal, C., Sapkal, E., Paradkar, L., Patil, A., Padhiar, J., Patel, A., 2015. Comparison
and determination of SPF of some citrus fruit juices. Int. J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 6 (1),
31–34.
Polonini, H.C., Raposo, N.R.B., Brandão, M.A., 2011. Fotoprotetores naturais no con-
texto da saúde pública brasileira. Revista de APS 14, 216–233.
Singleton, V.L., Rossi, J.A., 1965. Colorimetry of total phenolics with
phosphomolybdic–phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 16, 144–158.
Suva, M.A., 2019. Evaluation of sun protection factor of Zingiber officinale roscoe extract
by ultraviolet spectroscopy method. J. PharmaSciTech 3 (2), 22–29.
Trappey II, A., Bawadi, H.A., Bansode, R.R., Losso, J.N., 2005. Anthocyanin profile of
mayhaw (Cretaegus opaca). Food Chem. 91, 665–671.
Tuchinda, C., Srivannaboon, S., Lim, W.H., 2006. Photoprotection by window glass,
automobile glass and sunglasses. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 54, 845–854.
Tyagi, N., Srivastava, S.K., Arora, S., Omar, Y., Ijaz, Z.M., AL-Ghadhban, A., et al., 2016.
Comparative analysis of the relative potential of silver, zinc-0xide and titanium-
dioxide nanoparticles against UVB-induced DNA damage for the prevention of skin
carcinogenesis. Canc. Lett. 383 (1), 53–61.
Wojdylo, A., Oszmianski, J., Czemerys, R., 2007. Antioxidant activity and phenolic
compounds in 32 selected herbs. Food Chem. 105 (3), 940–949.
Yasmeen, S., Gupta, P., 2016. In vitro demonstration of Dalbergia sissoo (Indian rosewood)
methanolic extracts as potential agents for sun screening and Dan nick prevention.
Int. J. Pharm. Pharmaceut. Sci. 8, 175–181.
Young, A.R., 2003. Are broad-spectrum sunscreens necessary for immunoprotection?
J. Invest. Dermatol. 121, 9–10.