Wednesday, 21 April 2021 09:08

For SPF’s Sake

Written by  

A classic debate between skin care professionals has always been over sun protection factor. With the insurmountable plethora of sunscreen products on the market, skin care professionals have tested and shared their recommendations for decades. When it comes to physical versus chemical sun protectant factor, the true winner from our recent Instagram poll was clear. With a whopping 83% of the votes for physical sunscreen, the true winner was revealed. Only 17% of skin care professionals voted chemical-based sunscreens as the way to go. 

While skin care professionals should already know that not all sunscreen protectants are created equal, a quick breakdown can refresh one’s ideas on sun protection factor.Physical sunscreens contain active mineral ingredients, like titanium or zinc oxide. These types of sunscreens are less likely to clog pores; however, some can cause a heavy filmy to appear on darker complexions. On the other hand, chemical sunscreens absorb into the skin fully (unlike physical which sits on top of the skin).The downfall of chemical-based sunscreens is their ability to block out ultraviolet rays like their physical-based counterparts

Overall, both types share benefits and most skin care professionals recommend a combination of both or some form that enables the profits of both. Sunscreens are plentiful in the industry of skin carebut choosing the right one for a client can require research, trial and error, and dedication to protect clients’ skin from sun damage and the like. Whichever sunscreen preference is preferred is up to the professional, no matter what an Instagram poll says. Want to be included in this monthly poll? Follow DERMASCOPE on Instagram and stay up-to-date on DERMASCOPE’s Instagram Stories to vote monthly!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Want to read more?

Subscribe to one of our monthly plans to continue reading this article.

Login to post comments

Skin Care Blogs

Scope This

body { overflow-y: auto; } html, body { min-width: unset; }