Document Type

Poster Presentation

Publication Date

4-3-2018

Abstract

Ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun damages the DNA of our skin cells which could potentially lead to development of skin cancer (Mahroos, Yaar, Phillps, Bhawan, & Gilchrest, 2002). Sunscreen is used to protect our skin from this damage. The two most commonly used sunscreens are physical and chemical sunscreens. Physical sunscreens, also referred to as mineral sunscreens, work by sitting on top of your skin and reflecting UV light, whereas chemical sunscreens penetrate the skin and absorb UV light. There are many different brands of these sunscreens in the market. We hypothesized that the physical sunscreens would serve as better protection than the chemical sunscreens due to their high cost and natural ingredients. Brands that we used that represent physical sunscreens were Badger and Goddess Garden. Brands of chemical sunscreens were Aveeno, Hawaiian Tropic, and Up & Up Target Sports. All the sunscreens were creamy and had an SPF of 30. On average, the physical sunscreens were two times more expensive than chemical sunscreens. To test our hypothesis, we used the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli) as a model organism and exposed it to UV light while using the various sunscreens for protection. We then counted the survival rate of the E.coli colonies that were exposed. Our results demonstrated that there was no statistical significance in sunscreen protection. We concluded that physical sunscreens are not worth their price.

Conference/Symposium

Lynn University Arts and Sciences Student Symposium

City/State

Boca Raton, Florida

Department

College of Arts and Sciences

Comments

Poster presentation given at the Arts and Sciences Student Symposium at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL.


Share

COinS