Shirt designs for sun protection.

Introduction

Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from the sun is an environmental hazard that cannot be avoided by workers, athletes, and others who enjoy the outdoors. One frequent outcome of excessive or repeated UVR exposure is skin cancer. The American Cancer Society reports that the incidence of skin cancer has increased at a rate of 3 percent per year since 1981 (American Cancer Society, 2004). Skin cancer often requires costly treatment, including surgery, and may cause facial or other disfigurement, if not death from melanoma, its most dangerous form.

Most educational programs on skin cancer prevention stress use of sunscreen lotion and cover-up clothing to limit UVR exposure Knowledge of the skin cancer risk and effectiveness of sunscreen and cover-up clothing does not, however, always translate into sun protection behaviors. Suntanning, a behavior that often causes skin damage, remains a popular lifestyle choice in the United States because many people believe that a suntan makes them attractive to others (Cokkinides et al., 2001; Hanley, Pierce, & Gayton, 1996; Keesling & Friedman, 1987: Reynold et al., 1996).

Some manufacturers and retail firms, recognizing the UVR hazard, have identified a niche-market opportunity in apparel designed specifically for sun protection. Both garments and fabrics are being offered through catalogs and via the Internet (L.L. Bean, 2004; Schakowsky, 2004; Sun Precautions, 2004; Textile Outfitters, 2004).

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) established a ranking and labeling system for manufacturers to use if their apparel products pass certain Ultraviolet Protective Factor (UPF) testing standards (American Society for Testing and Materials, 2003). UPF testing is a scientific way of rating fabrics by their UVR-blocking capacity. This labeling system is similar to the familiar SPF (Sun Protection Factor) ratings for sunscreen lotions (Stone, 2002). The total design of a garment, however--not just the quality of its fabric--is important for sun safety because fabric UPF cannot help if the garment leaves skin exposed.

If one assumes that attractiveness in design is important to consumer acceptance of protective cover-up clothing, it follows that an understanding of preferred clothing features might improve chances of cover-up clothing being accepted. To learn more about consumer attitudes and preferences with respect to sun-protective shirts, the authors conducted a survey during an lowa State University Extension sun-safety exhibit held at the 2002 Farm Progress Show in Alleman, lowa, September 24-26, 2002. The exhibit had both educational and research objectives. The educational objectives were to help people learn about signs of skin cancer, become aware of sun-protective behaviors, and make wise choices for sun-safe shirts. The research objectives were 1) to document consumer attitudes, risk understanding, and behaviors with respect to sun safety and 2) to define consumer preferences for protective shirt design and labeling. This article relates to the research objectives.

Literature Review

Clothing Design for Sun Protection

Studies of aesthetic and functional design and effectiveness of sun protection clothing other than hats is fairly limited. Aesthetic design preferences of specific consumer groups have been investigated with varying objectives and the findings have often been reported in relation to the demographic characteristics of the samples, but no preferences have been identified in relation to sun-protective clothing other than hats (Abraham-Murali, Kane, & Staples, 2001; Eckman, 1997; Feather, Ford, & Gerr, 1996; Hogge, Baer, & Kang-Park, 1988; Radeloff, 1991; Spruiell & Jernigan, 1982).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Hats have been studied primarily in relation to military personnel, farm workers, or youth whose occupations or activities require being outdoors and entail exposure to UVR. In 1989, Keeling, Kraus, Pathak, and Sober compared baseball caps with full-brim jungle-fatigue hats for military use. They found that the full-brim hat gave greater protection for the chin, cheek, ears, and neck (1989). Diffy and Cheeseman (1992) studied 28 hat styles and their effectiveness in sheltering from ultraviolet exposure. They reported that those with a wide brim, of greater than 7.5 cm, provided reasonable protection.

Lee, Marlenga, and Miech (1995), of the Wisconsin National Farm Medicine Center, studied comfort, maneuverability, appearance style, color, and cost of 11 hats with a sample of eight farmers. They found no perfect hat, but recommended against baseball caps.

Farm show visitors who tried on five different hats (Stone, 1999) felt it was very important that hats have a wide brim, be lightweight and washable, be made of sun-blocking material, and have ventilation holes. Farmers were less likely than others to believe that the color or logo of a hat was important. Most agreed that their friends would like a Tropical, Outback, or Boonie style hat with a brim, but did not like a back-flap design (a baseball cap with attached shoulder shade).

Delong, LaBat, Gahring, Nelson, and Leung (1999) examined the outcomes of an educational intervention program designed to foster sun-protective awareness and behaviors among young adolescents. Specific hats were used as stimuli to identify participants' degree of like/dislike, perception of sun protection benefits, and intention to wear the hats. The youths' intentions to wear sun hats were more strongly related to their degree of like/dislike of the hat than to their knowledge of its sun protection.

Stone, Hanna, Guo, and Imerman (2001) reported on a limited wear study of pesticide applicators who wore a Boonie, a baseball cap, and a baseball-cap with a Tyvek[R] cover for field activities. They concluded that headgear satisfaction was strongly influenced by human factors and fashion norms. The applicators preferred baseball caps because everyone else wore them and because the caps stayed on, providing reliable shade from the sun for the nose and forehead.

Stone, Kim, Branson, and Peksoz (2003) reported a wear study of two experimental hat designs and found that wearers judged the hats effective for sun protection, but did not feel comfortable in them or like their appearance. Opinions expressed were similar to those previously reported by Stone et al. (2001).

Fabrics for Sun Protection

A growing literature exists concerning the effects of fabrics, finishes, and laundering on UVR transmission. Studies of the effects of fiber content and fabric properties on UVR transmission include those by Capjack. Davis, and Kerr (1994); Crews, Kachman, and Beyer (1999); Davis, Capjack, Kerr, and Fedosejevs (1997); and Stanford, Georgouras, and Pailthorpe (1995a). The effects of dyes, ultraviolet absorbers, and repeated laundering on fabric properties also have been demonstrated repeatedly (Davis et al., 1997; Eckhardt & Rohwer, 2000; Stanford et al., 1995a. Stanford, Georgouras, & Pailthorpe, 1995b; Zhou & Crews, 1998). Essentially, the fiber content, the closeness of the weave or knit (fabric porosity) and the chemical treatments, whether dyes or ultraviolet absorbers, affect the transmission of UVR by a fabric. Cotton, although the least protective if untreated, is most often used in summer-weight clothing because of its absorbency and comfort.

A few studies have investigated jerseyknit T-shirts, focusing on their ability to block UVR and the effects of laundering (Gelsor, Sigernes, Gjessing, & Kochbach, 2001; Jevtic, 1990; Kim, Stone, Crews, Shelley, & Hatch, 2004; Stanford et al., 1995a 1995b). Kim and co-authors found that the UPF of knit fabrics could be improved by repeated laundering with consumer laundry products that contained UV absorbers or UV brighteners (see sidebar on page 51). These studies, however, do not address consumer attitudes, risk understanding, or behaviors with respect to sun-safe shirts as items of protective clothing or preferences for design and labeling of shirts.

This report summarizes consumer attitudes, risk understanding, and behaviors with respect to sun safety and examines preferences for design features and labeling of sun-safe shirts. The findings may constitute useful insights for employers who provide uniforms, health care advisers, educators, and others who may offer educational programs for their employees or the public.

Methods

A sun-safety survey, "How Shady Is Your T-Shirt?", was conducted at the 2002 Farm Progress Show Exhibit in Alleman, Iowa. The project and questionnaire were reviewed by the Human Subjects Review Committee of Iowa State University and approved with the understanding that responses from people under 19 years of age would be discarded. Any exhibit visitor had an opportunity to complete a questionnaire and participate in the survey. Each participant who did so received free educational materials on sun safety and a chance to win a free long-sleeve shirt in an instant-winner drawing. This process resulted in responses from 1,508 adults who will be referred to as participants in the remainder of this manuscript.

The introductory questions in the questionnaire concerned the participants' usual behaviors and practices related to sun exposure. These questions were based on previous work (Stone, 1999). They were answered either on a five-point agreement scale (strongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, strongly disagree) or on a frequency scale (always, usually, sometimes, seldom, never). Next, the questionnaire asked about the participant's preferences with respect to eight shirt-design features, fiber content, fabric type, pattern, style, sleeve, neck, weight, and color. These features were selected because they were representative of garments available in catalogs or retail stores, or because they affected UVR transmission through fabrics, or both. Participants were asked to mark their favorite option among several alternatives for each feature. For example, with fiber content, the options were cotton, rayon, ramie, nylon, polyester, acrylic, cotton/polyester blend, rayon/polyester blend, and other (with blank to fill in).

A five-point agreement scale also was used to gather participants opinions about whether shirts should be labeled with respect to fiber content, care, UPF, colorfastness (resistance to color fading), and finishes (flame resistant, soil resistant, or permanent press). Fiber content and permanent-care labels have been required by the Federal Trade Commission of the United States for apparel for many years (Stone, 2003; Federal Trade Commission, 2003a, 2003b). Labels about the other characteristics are not currently and have not been required on garments.

Demographic questions addressed education, gender, residence, age, and occupation, which was an open-ended question. The occupations reported by the participants were first classified according to the Census 2002 Occupation Index and then categorized into two groups: a) farmers and agriculture-related occupations and b) occupations not directly related to agriculture.

Chi-squares were calculated to assess the relationship of participants' design preferences with their demographic characteristics. A Chi-square with a p-value of <.001 was regarded as significant.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

The age groups, gender, occupation (farm versus nonfarm), and residence of survey participants are shown in Figure 1 The mean age of participants was 52. Survey respondents were fairly evenly split with respect to gender, residence, and occupation. Although the perception is that farm shows such as the Farm Progress Show attract primarily rural people, these results show that a broader spectrum of the population attended the event in 2002.

Attitudes, Risk Understandings, and Behaviors

Participants varied in their responses to attitude and behavior questions (Table 1). Forty-five percent could not avoid the sun because of their occupations. Most agreed that being in the sun improved their mood and made them feel relaxed. Their understanding of the relationship of sun exposure to skin cancer was good, in that four-fifths agreed or strongly agreed that skin cancer increased with age and was associated with sunburn in childhood. Most disagreed that the benefit of a tan exceeds the health risk, but nearly 40 percent agreed or were uncertain. Over two-thirds reported that they usually or always applied sunscreen and wore sunglasses, but 46 percent said they seldom or never wore a long-sleeve shirt, a protection that is more convenient than sunscreen.

Favorite Design Features

Table 2 shows the adult participants' preferences for sun-safe shirt design features by percentages. Most participants (81 percentage) preferred sun shirts of cellulosic fiber content (cotton or rayon), although untreated cotton has been identified as the least sun-protective fiber (Crew, Kachman, & Beyer, 1999; Davis et al., 1997; Eckhardt & Rohwer, 2000).

T-shirt knit and chambray fabrics were the ones that most participants preferred. Sixty-one percent of the participants preferred medium-weight fabric, and 32 percentage preferred lightweight fabrics.

Most of the participants preferred plain rather than patterned fabrics. With regard to color, most favored light or medium colors rather than dark colors.

A greater number of participants preferred a casual style rather than classic or other styles for sun shirts. They preferred short sleeves, even though short sleeves leave the arms exposed to the UV rays of the sun, so that sunscreen would be needed. Participants selected crew neck (38 percent), collar (31 percent) and v-neck (18 percent) as their favorite neckline styles.

Relationships to Demographic Characteristics

Design preferences of participants for fabric choice, neckline design, and sleeve length were significantly related to more than one demographic characteristic. Table 3 shows that fabric preference was significantly related to age and employment status. The majority of participants in all age groups preferred T-shirt knit fabrics; however, those who were younger were more likely to prefer T-shirt knits, whereas those who were older were more apt to prefer chambray or other fabrics. Although a higher percentage of both employed and retired participants preferred T-shirt knits to other fabric types, retired participants were significantly more likely to prefer the T-shirt knit than the employed.

Table 4 shows that neckline preference differed significantly by age, gender, and employment status. Older participants were more likely to prefer a collar than younger ones. Of the participants 19 to 34 years of age, 52 percent preferred a crew neck, compared with 26 percent of the 65-and-older age group. The crew-neck style was preferred by both males (41 percent) and females (36 percent), but significantly more men than women chose the collar as their favorite neckline (37 percent males, 27 percent females). Retired participants were more likely to prefer a crew-neck style (41 percent), whereas those who were employed were more likely to prefer a collar (39 percent).

Table 5 shows that sleeve preference differed significantly with gender and occupation. Short sleeves were preferred by 58 percent of the males but by just 48 percent of the females. The women (20 percent) were more likely than men (11 percent) to prefer three-quarter-length sleeves.

The preference for shirt style was significantly related to educational level. Although over 70 percent of all age groups preferred the casual style, significantly more of those with college or graduate degrees preferred classic styles.

Opinions About Shirt Labeling

Over 80 percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that sun-safe shirts should have labels concerning care and fiber content. Currently this information is required for shirt labels at the point of purchase (Federal Trade Commission, 2003a, 2003b; Stone, 2003).

With regard to other labeling, 80 percent or more of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that sun-safe shirts should be labeled with UPF, colorfastness, and finishes applied, such as flame or soil resistance and permanent press. These labels are provided voluntarily by some manufacturers, but are not required by any federal law or trade practice rules.

Discussion

Participants' attitudes toward sun safety varied, but most seemed to understand the risks associated with UVR and to understand that the likelihood of skin cancer increases with age and a history of sunburn in childhood. Their self-reported behaviors with respect to use of sunscreen, short-sleeve shirts, and sunglasses, however, suggest that many of them are not very much worried about their long-term risk of ill effects from UVR. Failure to be aware of the importance of sun protection and to take precautions has the long-term consequence that the public will bear increased health costs when various UVR-related ailments have to be treated. Further educational efforts are needed if the trend toward increasing incidence of skin cancer is to be reversed.

In terms of sun protection, certain design preferences expressed by participants, such as short sleeves, low necklines, and lightweight cotton fabrics, are not the best choices. The results suggest that the participants' concerns about attractiveness and comfort exceeded concern about sun protection or that they were not aware of better choices. Failure to select the most protective features suggests that people still do not understand the effect of design and fabric choice on sun protection. Fortunately, if cotton is selected, its UPF can be increased through application of UV absorbers or use of detergents with optical brighteners during laundering (Stone, 2003).

The design preferences expressed for sun-safe shirts are similar to the characteristics of shirts for general use available the current marketplace. Casual-style, solid-color, knit shirts with a crew neck or collar and long sleeves are readily available in retail stores, catalogs, and online. People can make somewhat protective choices if they wish.

Labeling of shirts for UPF is still not common among manufacturers. If a consumer wishes to buy such merchandise, a considerable search may be needed. Most of the participants in this survey thought that information about UPF, colorfastness, and finishes applied, such as flame or soil resistance and permanent press, should be put on shirt labels.

UPF labeling would certainly benefit consumers who wish to protect themselves with cover-up clothing. It will come, however, at some cost to manufacturers--first for the testing, then for the accurate inclusion of the label itself. To the extent that clothing producers are willing to provide this information, they may have a competitive advantage and recoup their higher production costs. Voluntary labeling seems more desirable than mandatory labeling because of the further costs government regulation would incur.

As reports on the Ultraviolet Index become routine with local television weather reports, consumers will likely become more aware of the need for sun protection. They may demand or be more willing to pay more for UPF-labeled clothing. Clothing manufacturers have an opportunity to identify and serve this niche market by having their fabrics tested and labeled with UPF. Employers will have a continuing opportunity to provide sun-safe clothing for outdoor workers, and labeling will be an asset to decision making about uniforms.

Also as clothing manufacturers and apparel educators consider their markets and their audiences, they should be aware that consumer preferences do vary with the demographic characteristics of buyers. Sun-safe shirt producers may need to develop different products to target different market segments. For example, different neck designs may be needed to attract customers of different ages.

Age is an important demographic because childhood UV exposure increases the risk of adult skin cancer. Educational programs about sun protection are important for all ages, but it is especially so for parents of small children. Parents are in a good position to foster the adoption of sun-protective behaviors by their children and to provide sun-safe clothing to prevent childhood exposure.

While this study identified sun-safe shirt preferences for several design features, a limitation of the findings is that there was no way to consider combinations of features that might be selected or the reasons for the choices expressed. The brevity of the questionnaire--necessary for the setting in which it was administered--reduced the number of explanatory variables that could be presented. For example, there was no way to determine if those who preferred white cotton shirts knew that the UPF of those shirts could be improved through washing with most regular home laundry detergents that contain a brightener, as determined by Kim and co-authors (2004) and explained by Stone (2003).

Conclusions

The study reported here confirmed that many people understand the long-term risk of UVR exposure, but do not routinely take precautions to avoid it by using sun-protective clothing. Design features identified as favorites for sun-protective shirts were significantly related to differences in demographic characteristics of age, education, gender, occupation, and employment status. Over 80 percent favored UPF labeling as well as other consumer labeling on shirts. In short, the sun-safe shirt design most preferred can be summarized as a casual-style, solid-color, knit shirt with a crew neck or collar. While most preferred short sleeves, long sleeves offer greater protection and should continue to be encouraged for those who need to be outdoors between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., when the UVR from the sun is most intense. Further educational programs are needed to foster understanding of ways to increase the UPF of cotton fabrics and adoption of cover-up shirt designs.

TABLE 1 Attitudes, Risk Understandings, and Behaviors in Percentages
(n = 1508)

Attitudes*                     SA      A        U          D       SD

Being in the sun improves      20.3    49.6     18.5        9.1     2.6
  my mood.
I feel more attractive when     7.9    31.6     25.9       26.4     8.2
  I have a suntan.
I feel more relaxed when I am  13.8    40.9     22.4       18.6     4.2
  in the sun than indoors.
I can't avoid the sun because  18.1    27.8      9.1       29.0    16.1
  of my occupation.

Risk Understandings*           SA      A        U          D       SD

Sunburn in childhood           56.4    31.3     10.3        1.5     0.5
  increases skin cancer risk.
The risk of skin cancer        46.9    36.1     13.0        2.98    1.1
  increases with age.
For me, the benefit of a tan    7.8    12.3     18.2       35.5    26.1
  exceeds the health risk.

Behaviors                      Always  Usually  Sometimes  Seldom  Never

Apply sunscreen before going   35.5    26.1     18.0        9.6     9.1
  outdoors.
Wear short-sleeve or            7.9    31.6     25.9       26.4     8.2
  sleeveless T-shirt.
Wear a long-sleeve shirt.       6.1    11.3     36.6       30.0    16.0
Wear sunglasses.               35.5    26.8     18.5        9.9     9.3

*SA = strongly agree, A = agree, U = uncertain, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree.

TABLE 2 Design Feature Preferences in Percentages

Design Feature  Percentage

Fiber content (n = 1337)
  Cellulose     81.4
  Blend         14.3
  Synthetic      4.3
Fabric type (n = 1431)
  T-shirt knit  61.0
  Chambray      18.2
  Other         20.8
Weight (n = 1484)
  Medium        61.3
  Light         32.1
  Heavy          6.7
Color (n = 1478)
  Light         38.8
  Medium        35.3
  White         19.6
  Dark           6.4
Pattern (n = 1457)
  Plain         70.9
  Patterned     29.1
Style (n = 1464)
  Casual        79.7
  Classic       13.0
  Other          7.3
Sleeve (n = 1459)
  Short         52.8
  Long          28.9
  3/4           15.3
  Sleeveless     3.0
Neck (n = 1456)
  Crew neck     38.3
  Collar        31.4
  V-neck        18.2
  Other         12.1

TABLE 3 Relationship of Fabric Preference to Demographic Characteristics
in Percentages

Demographic Characteristic  T-Shirt Knit (%)  Chambray (%)  Others* (%)

Age group (n = 1431) (a)
19-34                       86.5               4.5           9.0
35-44                       66.9              13.8          19.3
45-54                       62.2              18.9          18.9
55-64                       57.6              19.1          23.3
>65                         43.5              28.1          28.4

Employment status (n = 1300) (b)
Employed                    47.4              28.2          24.4
Retired                     64.4              15.6          20.0

(a) [chi square] = 97.26; df = 8; p [less than or equal to] .001.
(b) [chi square] = 30.63; df = 2; p [less than or equal to] .001.
*Others included: oxford, other knit, and other woven.

TABLE 4 Relationship of Neckline Preferences to Age, Sex, and Employment
in Percentages

                                           Collar  V-neck  All
Demographic Characteristic  Crew-neck (%)  (%)     (%)     Others (%)

Age (a) (n = 1456)
19-34                       52.9           12.1    23.6     9.2
35-44                       44.9           27.2    15.9    10.1
45-54                       41.4           32.5    15.1     8.9
55-64                       34.7           38.6    15.9     7.8
>65                         25.7           36.5    22.8    11.1

Gender (b) (n = 1341)
Female                      36.1           27.3    18.3    18.8
Male                        41.3           37.3    16.9     4.0

Employment status (c)
Employed                    28.6           38.8    20.9    11.7
Retired                     41.0           29.1    17.9    12.0

(a) [chi square] = 72.59; df = 12; p [less than or equal to] .001.
(b) [chi square] = 64.40; df = 3; p [less than or equal to] .001.
(c) [chi square] = 16.35; df = 3; p [less than or equal to] .001.

TABLE 5 Relationship of Sleeve Preference to Gender and Occupation in
Percentages

                                                 3/4 Length  Sleeveless
Demographic Characteristic  Short (%)  Long (%)  (%)         (%)

Gender (n = 1351) (a)
Female                      48.2       29.8      19.5        2.5
Male                        57.6       28.2      10.6        3.5

Occupation (n = 1366) (b)
Farm *                      49.5       32.7      12.4        5.4
Nonfarm                     54.3       26.8      16.7        2.2

(a) [chi square] = 23.93; df = 3; p [less than or equal to] 0.001.
(b) [chi square] = 17.33; df = 3; p [less than or equal to] 0.001.
*Farm includes farm-related occupations.

Acknowledgements: This study was supported by the USDA NC-170 Regional Research Project Number 2599 in the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station and by Iowa State University Extension. Ames, Iowa 50011.

REFERENCES

Abraham-Murali, L., Kane, W., & Staples, C. (2001). Perceptual criteria and attributes used for evaluation of clothing by women using wheelchairs. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 93, 727-733.

American Cancer Society. (2004). Cancer facts & figures 2004. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF_finalPWSecured.pdf (31 Jan. 2005

American Society for Testing and Materials. (2003). D6603-00 Standard guide for labeling of UV-protective textiles: ASTM Standards, 07.02. http://www.astm.org (1 Mar. 2004).

Capjack, L., Davis, S., & Kerr, N. (1994). Textiles and UV [Ultraviolet] radiation. Canadian Textile Journal, 111(3), 14.

Cokkinides, V.E., Johnston-Davis, K. Weinstock, M., O'Connell, M.C. Kalsbeek, W., Thun, M.J., & Wingo, P.A. (2001). Sun exposure and sun-protection behaviors and attitudes among U.S. youth, 11 to 18 years of age. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory. 33(3), 141-152.

Crews, P.C., Kachman, S., & Beyer, A.G. (1999). Influences on UVR transmission of undyed woven fabrics. Textile Chemist and Colorist, 31(5), 17-26.

Davis, S., Capjack, L., Kerr, N., & Fedosejevs, R. (1997). Clothing protection from ultraviolet radiation: Which fabric is most effective? International Journal of Dermatology, 36(5), 374-379.

Delong, M., LaBat, K., Gahring, S., Nelson, N., & Leung, L. (1999). Implication of an educational intervention program designed to increase young adolescents' awareness of hats for sun protection. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 17(2), 73-83.

Diffy, B.L., & Cheeseman, J. (1992). Sun protection with hats. British Journal of Dermatology, 127(1), 10-12.

Eckhardt, C., & Rohwer, H. (2000). UV protector for cotton fabrics. Textile Chemist and Colorist & American Dyestuff Reporter, 32(4), 21-23.

Eckman, M. (1997). Attractiveness of men's suites: The effect of aesthetic attributes and consumer characteristics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15(4), 193-202.

Feather, B., Ford, S., & Gerr, D. (1996). Female collegiate basketball players' perceptions about their bodies, garment fit and uniform design preferences. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 14(1), 22-29.

Federal Trade Commission. (2003a). Textile, wool, fur, and apparel matters. www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/textilejump.htm (23 Mar. 2004).

Federal Trade Commission (2003b). Threading your way through the labeling requirements under the textile and wool acts. www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/publs/buspubs/thread.htm/ (5 Apr. 2004).

Gelsor, N., Sigemes, F., Gjessing, Y., & Kocbach, L. (2001). The T-shirt/UV experiment in Tibet. http://fred.unis.no/tibet/Tshirt (23 Mar. 2004).

Hanley, J.M., Pierce, J.L., & Gayton, W.F. (1996). Positive attitudes towards suntanning and reported tendency to engage in lifestyle behaviors that increase risk of skin cancer. Psychological Reports, 79(2), 417-418.

Hogge, V.E., Baer, M., & Kang-Park, J. (1988). Clothing for elderly and non-elderly men: A comparison of preferences, perceived availability and fitting problems. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6(4), 47.

Jevtic, A.P. (1990). The sun protective effect of clothing, including beachwear. Australian Journal of Dermatology, 31(1), 5-7. Keesling, B., & Friedman, H.S. (1987). Psychosocial factors in sunbathing and sunscreen use. Health Psychology, 6(5), 477-493.

Keeling, J.H., Kraus, E.W., Pathak, M., & Sober, A.J. (1989). Hats: Design and protection from ultraviolet radiation. Military Medicine, 154(5), 250-255.

Kim, J., Stone, J., Crews, P., Shelley, M., & Hatch, K. (2004). Improving knit fabric UPF using laundry consumer products: A comparison of results using two instruments. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33(2), 141-158.

L.L. Bean, Inc. (2004). Casual clothing pathfinder shirt [Online catalog], http://www.llbean.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay? categoryld=36049&parentCategory=4432&cat4=1001&storeld=1&catalogld=1&langld=-1&feat=ssdpa1001 (1 Mar. 2004).

Lee, B.C., Marlenga, B., & Miech, D.J. (1995). Farmers' caps and hats project. In H.H. Duffy, J.A. Dosman, K.M. Semchuk, S.A. Olenchock, & A. Senthilselvan (Eds.). Agricultural Health and Safety Workplace, Environment, Sustainability (pp. 535-539). New York: CRC Press.

Radeloff, D.J. (1991). Psychological types, color attributes, and color preferences of clothing, textiles, and design students. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(3), 59-67.

Reynold, K.D., Blaum, J.M., Jester, P.M., Weiss, H., Soong, S., & Diclemente, R. J. (1996). Predictors of sun exposure in adolescents in a southeastern U.S. population. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19(6), 409-415.

Schakowsky, H. (2004). Live in the sun longer. http://www.spffabrics.com/contact.html (1 Mar. 2004).

Spruiell, P.R., & Jernigan, M. (1982). Clothing preferences of older women: Implications for gerontology and the American clothing industry. Educational Gerontology, 8, 485-492.

Stanford, D.G., Georgouras, K.E., & Pailthorpe, M.T. (1995a). Sun protection by a summer-weight garment: The effect of washing and wearing. The Medical Journal of Australia, 162(17), 422-425.

Stanford, D.G., Georgouras, K.E., & Pailthorpe. M.T. (1995b). The effect of laundering on the sun protection afforded by a summer weight garment. Journal of the Europcan Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 5(1), 28-30.

Stone, J. (2003). Consumer choices: Using textile labels (Rev. Pm-733). Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/pubs/cl.htm (10 Mar. 2004).

Stone, J. (2002). How shady is your t-shirt? (Pm-1916). http://www.extension.iastate.edu/pubs/cl.htm (30 Aug. 2003).

Stone, J.F. (1999). Hats for sun protection. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 91(1), 86-91.

Stone, J.F., Kim, J., Branson, D.H., & Peksoz, S. (2003). An exploratory study of experimental sun hat designs. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing Industry, 5(6), 565-573.

Stone, J.F., Hanna, M., Guo, C., & Imerman, P. (2001). Protective headgear for Midwestern agriculture: A limited wear study. Journal of Environmental Health, 63(7), 15-19.

Sun Precautions. (2004). Medical solutions for sun sensitive and sun sensible people. http://www.sunprecautions.com/cgi-bin/sgdynamo.exe? HTNAME=_home.htm (1 Mar. 2004).

Textile Outfitters. (2003). Solarweave. http://www.justmakeit.com/fabrics/sun_protect/solar.html (1 Mar. 2004).

Zhou, Y., & Crews, P.C. (1998). Effect of optical brighteners and repeated home launderings on UV transmission through fabrics. Textile Chemist and Colorist, 30(11), 19-24.

RELATED ARTICLE: UPF Improved by Home Laundering

Recent research has shown that the UPF of white discount-store knit shirts can be significantly improved by laundering in detergents that include ultraviolet brighteners or absorbers in their formulations. The products used for this research were Tide[R], Wisk[R], Rit Whitener and Brightener[R], and SunGuard[TM], Whether UPF was measured with a Cary spectrophotometer or an ISO-UV meter, all laundering treatments were found to increase the UPF after the first wash. The UPFs of both the cotton jersey knit and the 50 percent cotton/50 percent polyester pique knit increased significantly.

Repeated laundering of five or 10 washes with these detergents or additives further increased the UPF to 40 or above for "excellent" protection as specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials. The researchers suggest that these results should apply to other fabrics. They suggest that consumers may find laundering with these products to be an easy and inexpensive method of increasing the UPF of summer-weight fabrics and rendering them more protective against the sun's ultraviolet radiation.

These findings are extremely relevant for outdoor workers and parents of small children, given the association of childhood sunburn with adultonset skin cancer. Unless the clothing is designed to actually cover the skin, however, it is not helpful. The complete story on this research can be found in the Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal (Kim, Stone, Crew, Shelley, & Hatch, 2004).

Reference

Kim, J., Stone, J., Crews, P., Shelley, M., & Hatch, K. (2004). Improving knit fabric UPF using consumer laundry products; A comparison of results using two instruments. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33(2), 141-158.

Janis F. Stone, Ph.D.

Kun Song, M.S.

Janis F. Stone, Ph.D.

Corresponding Author: Kun Song. Research Assistant, College of Human Sciences, Iowa State University, LeBaron Hall, Ames, IA 50010. E-mail: [e-mail].