New Mexoplex and nanoparticles in sunscreens

I haven’t been using chemical sunscreens for awhile and as a matter of fact, have stopped looking at products in that category. But I found a La Roche Posay pamphlet in one of the pockets of my bag and after taking a quick glance, realized that the company has introduced a new filter system called Mexoplex in their Anthelois range, which is a brand new synergistic combination of Mexoryl and Tinosorb together with Eldew, a photostablilizing oil. The new range has been introduced for awhile now but it completely miss my radar until now.

Higher PPD rating
According to the company, this makes Anthelios more effective in UVB/UVA protection with a PPD rating of 38 (an increase of 10points over the previous formula). On top of this, chemical filters in the formula are reduced by 15% making it very suitable even for the most sensitive skin.

Extremely photostable
I’m kinda excited by this new filtering system because I’ve highlighted both Mexoryl and Tinosorb as effective sunscreen ingredients in my post on the best and safest sunscreen ingredients. Eldew is something new to me though and I could not find too much information about this ingredient.

Suitable for those with sun intolerance
This range is non-perfumed and paraben free and is designed to protect skin against UV rays and meet the needs of patients prone to sun intolerance. Anyway, when I checked out the range at the counter, I could not see much highlight on Mexoplex on the actual products or maybe it was so inconspicuous, I just missed the info. Anyway, the range can be considered if you do not mind chemical sunscreens because of the high level of protection; it’s one of the brands I’ll purchase for my husband.

Nanoparticles are not quite as harmful
In another sunscreen related news, nano-sized particles in sunscreens have been in the news again. These particles are made of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide and hence, it applies to most of us who use mineral sunscreens. This time, an article published in the weekly newsmagazine of the American Chemical Society named Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) has revealed the effects of nano-sized particles that have been used in sunscreen products and its benefits outweigh the “theoretical risks” caused by them. (source)

Not so fast
Yet, scientists continue to worry that these nanoparticles, which are measured in nanometers, might be dangerous to human health. They say these particles have fundamentally different physical, biological and chemical properties than their larger counterparts. (source)

My stand
I know some of you are keen to try sunscreens with nanoparticles because they basically offer better coverage without any traces of whitecast. Recently, I was also asked about my stand regarding this issue. Well, I’ve used sunscreens with nano-size particles but I no longer use them for the simple reason that there are plenty of alternatives. I mean if the ingredient is controversial and I have choices, why do I need to take chances?

© copyright notice


  1. says

    The nano zinc oxide issue is one of few that have been (or need to be) laid to rest, as there is now an impressive body of research demonstrating that they do not, in fact, get into the blood stream. I know this is still controversial, but unfortunately, i think it’s more about our general (and deserved) skepticism whenever the beauty industry claims anything is safe that, theoretically, might not be. But here is one example of an ingredient that actually has been studied extensively.

    More importantly, nano zinc oxide provides better coverage than non-nano, because of the smaller size. I wrote a piece on this very topic, in the hopes that we might be able to move past this issue and onto the many, many other safety concerns that exist in the beauty industry today.

    but I do wish more of these other sunscreens, like the ones you talk about in this piece, were available in the U.S.! Until that’s the case, I’m afraid nano zinc oxide is likely the safest of all options in America. Except, of course, for shade and UV protective clothing.

    • sesame says

      Thanks Terri! I was searching for that article because I think you pointed it out to me in one of my posts or on Facebook. It’s good you link it here. Actually, that article allayed some of my doubts but like I mentioned, because I have other choices so I’ll skip those with nanoparticles for now. But I maybe more open to testing new products with such ingredients in future. And another thing is, I’ve found a little whitecast works well for me because it’s like a makeup base.

      Mexoplex sounds very incredible right? I thought La Roche Posay is available in US already? Probably this range is still new so you probably have to wait for awhile. If I understand correctly, Tinosorb and Mexoryl XL have not been approved by FDA as yet right?

  2. says

    I totally agree with you. Although there is conflicting information on nanoparticles, they build up in your system. There is a lot of information emerging on them, and I choose to avoid them in the case that it turns out that they are really are harmful.
    Mary last post is: Honeybee Gardens JobaColors eye liners: an overview

    • sesame says

      Yeah, cos at the moment, I have some good choices to turn to so I can do without them for now.

  3. Rana says

    Alittle off topic…The Marie Veronique Face Screen has some ingredients that worry me. For one, Sea Buckthorn Oil, which contains very high levels of Vitamins A & C which are both photosensitive. Also, another ingredient is Japanese Honeysuckle which is quite controversial as well. Pai, a skincare co, makes it a point not to use it. I feel like as soon as you think you’ve found a “perfect” product, some unknown controversial ingredient pops out of nowhere. lol It’s quite annoying.

    • sesame says

      I have discussed about Japanese Honeysuckle here: Like I mentioned, I don’t think the alternatives to parabens are perfect ones and so it depends on one’s threshold and concerns. The same applies to the other ingredients.

      As for MVO Facescreen, I have not stopped to analyse sea buckthorn oil the way you did but all I know is that I’ve used it for about 2 years and my skin looks good without new spots (apart from the acne marks) so it must be doing something right for me.

  4. Ozana says

    For information: La Roche Posay, althought they may use new or innovative filter systems, also use Denatured Alcohol in high percentage in almost all their sunscreen. Even in the New range Anthelios, this alcohol is at the 4th place on the ingredients list and in the Kids range at the 6th place. And that means a lot of alcohol. Denatured alcohol can be extremely drying and irritating to skin, as well as capable of generating free radical damage, and it can stimulate nerve endings in the skin, causing inflammation that encourages excess oil production at the base of the pore (source: . So why they put this in the suncreen I do not know.

    • sesame says

      This is very typical of most chemical sunscreens and yes, LRP is big on alcohol. That’s why I don’t want to use this on a daily basis. But they’re good for that occasional need when you head outdoors.

  5. Anne says

    There have been a lot of issues when it comes to stabilizing Tinosorb. LRP would probably state the Eldew is one of the stabilizing ingredients, but please for once let an independant source come up with proper studies/research, instead of the publications/research projects ‘straight out of LRP’s/Loreal’s stable’ that have been published to support LRP’s claims about their own brand the past decades. In what way is it guaranteed that LRP managed to do what seemed so difficult thusfar: stabilizing Tinosorb effectively? LRP is off my list for now, unless, years from now, Tinosorb would have a more proven trackrecord when it comes to – particularly ‘photostable’ – protection. As to the issue about nano-particles and ‘laying it to rest': it is way too early to close off discussion and argumentation about such an important issue. There are several research studies being done in Korea currently that point in a different direction – that nano-particles might after all have safety issues. It’s too early to draw any conclusions, either positive or negative, obviously, but also too early to ‘lay it to rest’, when the future (if proper research will continue/is conducted) will hopefully tell us more. Some research will contradict other publications, etc, that is inherent to science, however, decades of properly conducted research, will give us a more complete indication ‘what the deal is’ when it comes to nano-particles and their use in cosmetic products. Up until then speculation is logical, being a customer using these products and trying to do the best possible thing for your health/wellbeing, and trying to close argumentation/discussion off, is ununderstandable. It is like denying the flux, progression and change in science.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>