Authors : Sakshi D. Galande; Bhagyashri S. Bhure

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 3 - March

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4kaa4ak3

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/4tvy763d

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26mar027

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Sunscreens protect the skin from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation, preventing sunburn, photoaging, and skin cancer. They work by absorbing or scattering UV light, with different formulations available as creams, lotions, gels, and sprays. For optimal protection, sunscreens should be used in adequate amounts, re-applied frequently, and combined with other sun-protective measures like seeking shade and wearing protective clothing. Abstract on making sunscreen using neem typically describes the formulation and evaluation of a natural, herbal-based sunscreen product that utilizes the inherent photoprotective and antioxidant properties of Azadirachta indica (neem). The primary objective is to develop a safe, effective, and natural alternative to synthetic chemical sunscreens, often by combining neem with other herbal ingredients like Aloe vera, tulsi, and cucumber to enhance the protective and soothing effects on the skin. A study evaluated the sunscreen potential of various medicinal plants, including Azadirachta indica, Ocimum sanctum, Centella asiatica, and Hibiscus rosa sinensis, using a spectrophotometric method. The in vitro method was used for preliminary evaluation of sun protective potential. The results indicated that hydroalcoholic extracts from all tested plants demonstrated sun protective potential. Azadirachta indica hydroalcoholic extract showed higher sun protection efficiency compared to the other plants evaluated. The study also found that the photo-protective effect was concentrationdependent. Formulations combining neem with other herbs like Aloe vera and beetroot were developed and evaluated for their UV protective properties. Creams containing neem oil have shown higher in vitro SPF (Sun Protection Factor) values than some commercial creams, revealing neem as an alternative for producing multifunctional sunscreens.Neem is also recognized for additional beneficial properties in skincare, including anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, and anti-aging effects, which make it a valuable ingredient in dermocosmetic products. Murraya koenigii (L.) Spreng, colloquially known as meethi neem, kari patta or curry leaves belongs to the Rutaceae. The plant isrenowned in various traditional system of medicine for its peculiar aroma and therapeutic significance. The plants prosper well in tropical and subtropical climates M. koenigii is significantly used in Indian culinary and complementary system of medicine tomitigate various disorder. UV-radiation perceived as major cause that vitiate the intuitive nature and function of skin. UV-radiationmay cause detrimental effect to the usual characteristics of human skin. UV-filters or sunscreens are the agent that could help toassuage the deleterious effect of UV radiation by absorbing and tempering the harmfulness to a major extent. The present study supports the sun protective efficacy of Murraya koenigii in concentration dependent manner that could broad cosmeceutical horizonof Murraya koenigii. There is a need to grow more and more curry leaves because they are widely used in industries for their best medicinal qualities asan anti-diabetic, antioxidant,antimicrobial, anti - inflammatory, hepatoprotective, antihypercholesterolemic, etc. and for preparing cosmetics.

References :

1. Boyd AS, Naylor M, Cameron GS, et al. The effects of chronic sunscreen use on the histologic changes of dermatoheliosis. J Am AcadDermatol. Dec 1995; 33(6):941-6
2. DeBuys HV, Levy SB, Murray JC, et al. Modern approaches to photo protection. Dermatol Clin. Oct 2000; 18(4):577-90
3. Diffey BL and Grice J. The influence of sunscreen type on photo protection. Br J Dermatol. Jul 1997; 137(1):103-5.
4. Dromgoole SH and Maibach HI. Sunscreening agent intolerance: contact and photo contact sensitization and contact urticaria. J AmAcad Dermatol. Jun 1990; 22(6):1068-78.
5. Fotiades J, Soter NA and Lim HW. Results of evaluation of 203 patients for photosensitivity in a 7.3- year period. J Am Acad Dermatol. Oct 1995; 33(4):597602.
6. Mithal BM and Saha RNA. Hand book of cosmetics, first edition, reprint-2007, Vallabh Prakashan, Delhi 122-124.
7. Gasparro FP, Mitchnick M and Nash JF. A review of sunscreen safety and efficacy. Photochem Photobiol. Sep 1998; 68(3):243-56.
8. Kaidbey KH. The photo protective potential of the new super potent sunscreens. J Am Acad Dermatol. Mar 1990; 22(3):449-52.
9. Kullavanijaya P and Lim HW. Photo protection. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jun 2005; 52(6):937-58; quiz 959-62.
10. Levy SB. How high the SPF? Arch Dermatol. Dec 1995; 131(12):1463-4.
11. Moloney FJ, Collins S and Murphy GM. Sunscreens: safety, efficacy and appropriate use. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2002; 3(3):185-91.
12. Naylor MF and Farmer KC. The case for sunscreens. A review of their use in preventing actinic damage and neoplasia. Arch Dermatol. Sep 1997; 133(9):114654.
13. Boyd AS, Naylor M, Cameron GS, et al. The effects of chronic sunscreen use on the histologic changes of dermatoheliosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. Dec 1995; 33(6):941-6
14. DeBuys HV, Levy SB, Murray JC, et al. Modern approaches to photo protection. Dermatol Clin. Oct 2000; 18(4):577-90.
15. Diffey BL and Grice J. The influence of sunscreen type on photo protection. Br J Dermatol. Jul 1997; 137(1):103-5.
16. Dromgoole SH and Maibach HI. Sunscreening agent intolerance: contact and photo contact sensitization and contact urticaria. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jun 1990; 22(6):1068-78.
17. Fotiades J, Soter NA and Lim HW. Results of evaluation of 203 patients for photosensitivity in a 7.3- year period. J Am Acad Dermatol. Oct 1995; 33(4):597602.
18. Kaidbey KH. The photo protective potential of the new super potent sunscreens. J Am Acad Dermatol. Mar 1990; 22(3):449-52.
19. Roy A, Sahu RK, Mutlam M, Deshmukh VK, Dwivedi J, Jha AK. In vitro Techniques to Assess the Proficiency of Skin Care Cosmetic.
20. Jangde R, Herbal Sunscreen: An overview ., vol. 2, Res J Top Cosmet Sci, 2011.
21. S. M., “The efficacy and safety of sunscreen,” CMAL , vol. 50, p. 192, 2020.
22. D. EA, “Determination of SPF,” Brazilian J Pharma Sci, vol. 3, p. 40, 2004.
23. D. MM, “Developement of Evaluation of Herbal Sunscreen,” Pharmacogn J., vol. 01, p. 09, 2017.
24. W. SQ, “Current Status of Sunscreen,” J Am Acad Dermatol, vol. 2, p. 56, 2007.
25. W. G, “Prevention of Basal cells and Squamous Cell,” a Ranomised Controlled trial, p. 354, 1999.
26. Kim, S. , Jang, J. E. , Kim, J. , Lee, Y. I. , Lee, D. W. , Song, S. Y. and Lee, J. H. 2017. Enhanced barrier functions andAntiinflammatory effect of cultured coconut extract on human skin. Food and Chemical Toxicology 106(Part A):367-375.
27. Killedar SG. Formulation and in vitro evaluation of gel for SPF Determination and free radical scavenging activity of turpentine and Lavender oil. Pharma Innov J. 2018;7(3):85–90
28. Sabale V, Vora S. Formulation and evaluation of microemulsion-based Hydrogel for topical delivery. Int J PharmInvestig. 2012;2(3):140–9.
29. N esseem D. Formulation of sunscreens with enhancement sun Protection factor response based on solid lipidnanoparticles. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2011;33:70–9.
30. Boyd AS, Naylor M, Cameron GS, et al. The effects of chronic sunscreen use on the histologic changes of dermatoheliosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. Dec 1995; 33(6):941-6
31. DeBuys HV, Levy SB, Murray JC, et al. Modern approaches to photo protection. Dermatol Clin. Oct 2000; 18(4):577-90.
32. Diffey BL and Grice J. The influence of sunscreen type on photo protection. Br J Dermatol. Jul 1997; 137(1):103-5.
33. Dromgoole SH and Maibach HI. Sunscreening agent intolerance: contact and photo contact sensitization and contact urticaria. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jun 1990; 22(6):1068-78.
34. Fotiades J, Soter NA and Lim HW. Results of evaluation of 203 patients for photosensitivity in a 7.3- year period. J Am Acad Dermatol. Oct 1995; 33(4):597-602.
35. Mithal BM and Saha RNA. Hand book of cosmetics, first edition, reprint-2007, Vallabh Prakashan, Delhi 122-124.
36. Gasparro FP, Mitchnick M and Nash JF. A review of sunscreen safety and efficacy. Photochem Photobiol. Sep 1998; 68(3):243-56.
37. Kaidbey KH. The photo protective potential of the new super potent sunscreens. J Am Acad Dermatol. Mar 1990; 22(3):449-52.
38. Kullavanijaya P and Lim HW.  Photo protection. J Am Acad Dermatol. Jun 2005; 52(6):937-58; quiz 959-62.
39. Levy SB. How high the SPF?  Arch Dermatol. Dec 1995; 131(12):1463-4.
40. Moloney FJ, Collins S and Murphy GM. Sunscreens: safety, efficacy and appropriate use. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2002; 3(3):185-91.
41. Naylor MF and Farmer KC. The case for sunscreens. A review of their use in preventing actinic damage and neoplasia. Arch Dermatol. Sep 1997; 133(9):1146-54.