4.7 Article

Zinc-metal-organic frameworks with tunable UV diffuse-reflectance as sunscreens

期刊

JOURNAL OF NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12951-022-01292-1

关键词

Sunscreens; Metal-organic frameworks; UV; Diffuse-reflectance; ZIF-8

资金

  1. National Natural Science foundation of China [31971321, 81801815, 32001007, 31901002]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2020A1515010826]
  3. Guangzhou Science, Technology and Innovation Commission [202002030498]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that ZIF-8 could potentially serve as a safe and effective substitute for sunscreens, with a wide range of applications. Metal-organic frameworks may also be a novel source for the development of more effective and safe UV filters.
Background: UV exposure continues to induce many health issues, though commercial sunscreens are available. Novel UV filters with high safety and efficacy are urgently needed. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) could be a suitable platform for UV filter development, due to their tunable optical, electrical, and photoelectric properties by precise controlled synthesis. Results: Herein, four zinc-based MOFs with various bandgap energies were chose to investigate their optical behaviors and evaluate their possibility as sunscreens. Zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 (ZIF-8) was found to possess the highest and widest UV reflectance, thereby protecting against sunburn and DNA damage on mouse skin and even achieving a comparable or higher anti-UV efficacy relative to the commercially available UV filters, TiO2 or ZnO, on pig skin, a model that correlates well with human skin. Also, ZIF-8 exerted appealing characteristics for topical skin use with low radical production, low skin penetration, low toxicity, high transparency, and high stability. Conclusion: These results confirmed ZIF-8 could potentially be a safe and effective sunscreen surrogate for human, and MOFs could be a novel source to develop more effective and safe UV filters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据