cosmetics

Article
An Exploratory Study of Consumers’ Knowledge and Attitudes
about Lignin-Based Sunscreens and Bio-Based
Skincare Products
Nežka Sajinčič 1 , Oihana Gordobil 1, *, Amy Simmons 1 and Anna Sandak 1,2

1 InnoRenew CoE, 6310 Izola, Slovenia; nezka.sajincic@innorenew.eu (N.S.);

amy.simmons@innorenew.eu (A.S.); anna.sandak@innorenew.eu (A.S.)
2 Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Primorska,
6000 Koper, Slovenia
* Correspondence: oihana.gordobil@innorenew.eu

Abstract: Daily consumption of synthetic sunscreens is harmful to the environment and consumers’
health, so greener alternatives need to be produced. Lignin is a multifunctional and widely available
biopolymer that can replace several ingredients, but its dark color and low sun protection limit its
perceived usefulness. With a survey made for this study, we explored the knowledge and attitudes
of 230 consumers towards lignin-based sunscreen, their motives and barriers to purchase it, and
how it relates to their environmental and health consciousness. Participants were also asked about
their sunscreen habits, their familiarity with the environmental and health impacts of skincare, their



perceptions of bio-based ingredients in general, and their skincare product purchasing decisions.


Those who are more familiar with environmental issues have a positive attitude towards bio-based
Citation: Sajinčič, N.; Gordobil, O.; ingredients, are accustomed to purchasing more environmentally friendly skincare, and are likelier
Simmons, A.; Sandak, A. An to be interested in a lignin product. Consumers are welcoming towards a natural, healthy, and
Exploratory Study of Consumers’
environmentally friendly sunscreen alternative but are worried about the lower SPF. Because organic
Knowledge and Attitudes about
is perceived as luxurious, they are concerned about its price, and some are apprehensive about its
Lignin-Based Sunscreens and
pigmentation. While a lignin-based sunscreen at this stage of development is unlikely to take on
Bio-Based Skincare Products.
the role of primary sunscreen on warm, sunny days, it may be more useful as a general-purpose,
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78. https://
doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics8030078
everyday product that can offer some protection, moisture, and coverage.

Academic Editor: Isabel Martins de Keywords: attitude; bio-based ingredients; environmental concern; green cosmetics; health con-
Almeida sciousness; human factors; knowledge; lignin sunscreen; preference; skincare

Received: 28 July 2021

Accepted: 24 August 2021
Published: 27 August 2021 1. Introduction
The use of cosmetics and personal care products has grown exponentially across all
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral genders in recent decades, reaching a global market value of USD 380.2 billion in 2019,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
which is expected to grow to USD 463.5 billion by 2027 [1]. The personal care market is
published maps and institutional affil-
largely driven by skin and sun care products aimed at beautifying, preventing skin from
iations.
imperfections, and protecting skin against the damaging effect of ultraviolet (UV) rays.
Currently, chemical active ingredients in skin and sun care products are perceived
to be of concern from both environmental and health perspectives. For instance, some
preservatives, antioxidants, and UV filters have been shown to bioaccumulate in aquatic
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. ecosystems and living organisms and to cause endocrine disruption, originating adverse
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. effects on fecundity and reproduction in several organisms [2,3]. Therefore, there is an
This article is an open access article urgent need to develop innovative, environmentally friendly, and healthier alternatives to
distributed under the terms and
the current synthetic ingredients in skin and sun care formulations. Several researchers are
conditions of the Creative Commons
already striving to replace fossil-based additives with bio-based alternatives, considering
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
phytochemicals such as polyphenols and natural pigments (i.e., lycopene carotenoid) due
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
to their protective properties against photodamage and skin aging for this purpose [4].
4.0/).

Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics8030078 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cosmetics

Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 2 of 20

Lignocellulosic biomass has recently been recognized as a source of bio-based ingredi-

ents: ingredients derived in whole or in part from renewable (non-petroleum) materials,
such as plants and animals. Recent research into the diverse functional and bioactive
properties of lignin polymers has led to increased interest in this bio-sourced compound
for skincare applications such as sunscreens [5]. Lignin is the only high molecular weight
polyphenolic compound on Earth present in the cell walls of plants and trees. It is usually
generated as an undervalued by-product from kraft-pulping operations, the global method
for pulp manufacture, producing more than 100 million tons of kraft lignin annually world-
wide [6]. The lignin structure contains a variety of functional groups capable of absorbing
UV radiation. Unlike most chemical UV filters, lignin acts as a broad-spectrum sunblock,
protecting against both UVA and UVB radiation [7]. It is also a non-toxic compound with
antioxidant and antimicrobial properties relevant to skincare products [8]. Although the
potential of lignin as a natural active ingredient is promising, there are still some technical
limitations that hinder its high-value application in skincare, such as its dark brown color
and low sun protection factor (SPF). Different types of lignin have been tested as an addi-
tive in pure creams, providing an SPF of no more than 10 by adding up to 10% lignin [7].
Recently, some strategies have been investigated, such as chemical modification and parti-
cle size reduction, which improved sun protection performance and color reduction [9].
However, further research is needed to achieve appropriate UV-blocking performance and
avoid degradation during its service life.
Ultimately, it is the consumers who drive the market. As the public becomes in-
creasingly aware of the environmental and health issues caused by the production and
daily consumption of skincare and sunscreen products, greener alternatives appear to
be a compelling option. However, when introducing any kind of novelty, it is not only
external factors such as the product’s functionality, price, or other features that matter,
but human factors also play an important role [10]. While a lignin-based sunscreen may
be a well-rounded replacement for several synthetic ingredients, it is not yet known how
potential users would perceive such a product. For this reason, the study aimed to explore
several psychological constructs that may be related to consumers’ decision-making pro-
cess and purchasing behavior regarding a sunscreen containing lignin in the context of
other bio-based skincare products and people’s sun-related behaviors.

1.1. Sunscreens
Before looking at people’s views of lignin, we were interested in exploring their
behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes regarding sunscreens. In general, studies have shown
that sunscreen use is still low. While people with lighter skin types use sunscreen more
often, men, people of color, those with lower education levels or lower incomes, and
individuals with less sun-sensitive skin report using sunscreen less frequently and with
lower SPF [11,12]. Similarly, another study reported that women were more likely to use
sunscreen, reapply it during the day, and reapply it after swimming, but there were no
differences between genders in skin health-related knowledge and tanning motives [13].
People are generally well informed about the effects of sun exposure, have positive attitudes
towards sun protection, and use sunscreen with an SPF of at least 15 [14]. When participants
were asked what prevents them from using sunscreen frequently, they often cited aesthetic
and sensory properties of the sunscreen, suggesting that how the product looks and feels is
important to consumers [15].

1.2. Attitude, Knowledge, and Behavior in Relation to Green Skincare Products

Researchers have long paid attention to consumer attitudes, defined as the extent
to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of an object, behavior, or
concept [16] because of their propensity to predict and influence behavior [17]. Individuals
who have a positive attitude toward a product, its ingredients, or its meaning are more
likely to purchase and use the product than those who are apprehensive towards it.
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 3 of 20

Attitude towards the environment or the tendency to evaluate the natural environ-
ment with a certain level of (un)favorableness [18] has been extensively researched and
has been shown to be a critical factor in predicting pro-environmental behavioral inten-
tions [19]. Health consciousness, which represents a person’s awareness, concern, and
willingness to do something about one’s health [20], has also begun to attract attention as a
potential determinant of greener consumption [21], as people perceive organic products
as a healthier choice [22]. For instance, research has shown that people who are more
conscious about both the environment and their own health are likelier to have a more
positive attitude and purchase eco-friendly, organic, and self-protective products [23–28].
Literature focusing on green cosmetics and skincare products in particular shows similar
results; concerns about the environment and human health predicted a more positive
attitude towards green skincare, which in turn predicted purchase intention [21,29,30].
However, some studies report that attitudes toward health and the environment are not
strong enough motives to influence consumers’ purchase intention and attitudes toward
eco-friendlier products [31–33].
Furthermore, an extensive review on green purchasing behavior found that knowledge
about environmental issues and eco-products is the most studied variable and one of
the most influential factors affecting purchase intention and behavior, both directly and
indirectly, by influencing consumers’ attitudes [31,34–36]. A recent study showed that
while there were no differences between males and females in purchase intention and
familiarity with environmental issues, female consumers showed more concern for the
environment and were more familiar with eco-products [35].
However, how do consumers view green cosmetics and what are their main motiva-
tions for buying them? A qualitative study examining knowledge and attitudes towards
green cosmetics among UK female consumers found that participants defined green cos-
metics as safe, containing natural ingredients, and environmentally friendly. They not only
considered the environmental impact of cosmetics’ ingredients but also their packaging
and production process. They also showed that strong supportive attitudes towards green
cosmetics were associated with better familiarity with green cosmetics. However, they
mostly associated green cosmetics with luxury and a higher price [37]. Another study
using a word association approach showed that Japanese women perceived plant-based
cosmetics as gentle and safe to use but also expensive and having slower, gradual results,
with some even concerned about possible adverse effects [38]. Price was found to be a
main barrier to buying organic cosmetics [33]. A survey that looked at the motivations
for buying organic cosmetics revealed three main motives, in this order: personal health
benefits, product quality, and environmental protection [39].

1.3. Objectives
Based on all these findings, it is essential to explore people’s familiarity with and
attitudes towards a lignin-based sunscreen, and this is imperative before it is launched
on the market. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no studies investigating
people’s relationship with lignin-based sunscreens, so our main objective was to explore
how potential consumers perceive such a product, whether they are familiar with lignin at
all, whether they would be willing to purchase it, and what their drivers and barriers to
doing so are. We also wanted to learn more about people’s sunscreen usage patterns and
their views on bio-based ingredients, skincare, the environment, and health, which may
help inform the design process of a lignin-based sunscreen and how to more specifically
promote healthier sun-related behaviors. Although the study is primarily exploratory in
nature, based on the literature, we expect that greener purchasing choices and willingness
to purchase lignin are positively associated with familiarity and supportive attitudes
toward bio-based ingredients for skincare, the environment, and health consciousness.
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 4 of 20

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
A convenience sample of 230 people completed the survey in full (M = 34.99 years,
SD = 11.35, 72.17% female, 25.22% male; see (Table S1). Participants belonged predomi-
nantly to the authors’ social networks. To be eligible, respondents had to be of legal age
and able to understand and write English or Slovenian. A total of 138 (60%) respondents
filled out the survey in Slovenian. A total of 93.04% of the subjects were European (156 or
67.83% participants indicated their citizenship as Slovenian, 20 or 8.70% were from Spain),
8 or 3.48% were from North America, 6 or 2.61% were from Asia, 4 participants did not
disclose their citizenship, and 1 subject each was from Australia and South America (0.43%).
Participation was voluntary and subjects received no compensation.

2.2. Ethical Consideration

After a welcome message with a brief explanation of the study, participants had the
opportunity to read an informed consent form (Document S2), which informed them of the
purpose and procedure of the study, their rights, risks, and data management. Before being
led to the survey, subjects had to confirm that they had read the document and understood
its contents by ticking the option, “Yes, I agree with collecting my data”.

2.3. Materials
The cross-sectional survey was designed specifically for this study based on an exten-
sive literature review. The constructed instrument consisted of 26 questions (1 open-ended)
divided into 5 sections: (a) use of skincare and sunscreen products (7 questions), (b) attitude
towards skincare and sunscreen products (2), (c) knowledge and perception of (bio-based)
ingredients and their effects (7), (d) attitude towards lignin (3), and (e) socio-demographic
data (7).
Most questions had multiple choices or a 5-point Likert-type rating scale (e.g., never
to always, strongly disagree to strongly agree). To reduce respondent confirmation bias
and increase the construct validity of the scale, some items were phrased inversely [40]
and all questions contained at least one of the following response options: “Do not know,”
“Not relevant” (or equivalent), and “Prefer not to answer.”
The first section asked about users’ behaviors, preferences, and experiences. First,
respondents rated how frequently they use various skincare products in general and how
frequently they use and reapply sunscreen in specific conditions. In terms of sunscreens,
respondents were asked to indicate the SPF they use on their face and body on sunny and
cloudy days and whether their sunscreen provides protection from UVA, UVB, or both
types of radiations. In addition, respondents indicated whether they prefer a cream or lotion
consistency and whether they have ever had an adverse reaction to a skincare product.
Next, from 10 listed properties of sunscreen (e.g., price, brand, novelty), respondents
had to select those relevant to them when buying a product and rank them by importance.
In the following question, they rated their level of agreement with seven statements that
covered their attitudes toward skincare and sun-related concepts.
The third section of the survey consisted of seven types of questions. The first in-
cluded 11 statements about perceptions of chemicals and their effects and attitudes toward
skincare and health. The next allowed respondents to indicate whether they had ever
heard that synthetic ingredients in sunscreens were harmful to marine life and to choose
the sources of this information (e.g., TV, friends and family, research institute). They were
then asked if they avoid any ingredients in skincare products; how familiar they are with
lignin, bio-based ingredients, biopolymers, and the information that natural biopolymers
can be obtained from renewably sourced leftover materials from industry; and if they
would like to know more about bio-based ingredients for skincare products. The next
question contained 11 pairs of words (e.g., traditional–innovative, unsafe–safe, affordable–
luxurious); participants had to choose one word from the pair that they associated more
with the term “bio-based”. The section concluded with ten statements about people’s
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 5 of 20

perceptions of bio-based ingredients in skincare, which respondents rated based on their

level of agreement.
The following block of questions explored the subjects’ attitudes towards lignin and
its use in skincare. Similar to the previous example, participants chose one word from
six pairs of words that they felt was more related to lignin. Based on a brief description
of lignin, its advantages and disadvantages, respondents then rated their willingness to
purchase a skincare product containing this ingredient and were asked to describe their
reasons for doing so with an open-ended question.
Finally, sociodemographic data were collected, including age, gender, education level,
occupation, country of residence, and subjective socioeconomic status. Using a description
and picture, participants also indicated their skin type.
Two versions of the survey were developed, one in English (see Document S1) and
one in Slovenian. The survey was first developed and reviewed in English with the help of
a native speaker. Then, two native Slovenian speakers with a good command of English
and the terminology of the survey content contributed to the translation of the instrument
into Slovenian. One translated the survey from the source language to the target language
and the other compared and reviewed the two versions for inconsistencies to assess the
adequacy of the Slovenian instrument.

2.4. Data Collection and Analysis

The survey was created using the 1ka survey tool (Faculty of Social Sciences, Univer-
sity of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia) and distributed online. Data collection took place
from January to April 2021 by distributing links to the survey via Facebook, LinkedIn,
Twitter, Messenger, Slack, and email. Subjects from the authors’ social networks were
further encouraged to recruit other participants by sharing the link to the survey on their
social networks. The average time to complete the survey was 14 min.
Data analysis was performed using R 4.0 (A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing, http://www.r-project.org/index.htm l (accessed on 29 April 2021) and jamovi
1.6 (The Jamovi Project, https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 29 April 2021). By averaging
scores on related single items, we constructed more general constructs. A total of 6 items
were used to construct a total measure of Skincare use (ω = 0.83), 6 for Sunscreen use
(ω = 0.89), 11 items Attitude (ω = 0.70), 4 for Buying behavior (ω = 0.79), 11 for Knowledge
(ω = 0.48), and 3 for Familiarity with bio-based ingredients (ω = 0.79) (Table S2). Prior
to analysis, the inverted items were reverse coded. Ranked answers were also reverse
coded to ensure that the most important attributes received the highest scores. Open-ended
responses were sorted into categories by the first author based on content themes and
checked by the other authors. A response with more than one theme was sorted into all
relevant categories.
In addition to descriptive statistics (frequencies, measures of central tendency, and
variability), Mann–Whitney U test and Spearman rs correlations were used throughout the
analysis because the assumptions of parametric tests were not met for most of the outcomes
analyzed. Due to multiple comparisons, the likelihood of a Type I error (incorrectly
rejecting a null hypothesis at a statistically significant level) is increased. Since this study is
exploratory, no correction was used to mitigate false positives, so caution should be used
when interpreting the results.

3. Results
3.1. Sunscreen Use and Preferences
To understand the needs and behaviors of potential users, we first asked them about
their sunscreen habits and preferences. The most frequently used skincare products are
face moisturizers and cleansers, followed by sunscreen for the face and body, while the
least used products were body moisturizers and anti-ageing products (Table 1). Less than
9% of the respondents reported never using sunscreen for their face or body, and 31% use
sunscreen on their face rarely, 27% sometimes, 18% often, and 15% more than 90% of the
 least used products were body moisturizers and anti-ageing products (Table 1). Less than
9% of the respondents reported never using sunscreen for their face or body, and 31% use
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 6 of 20
sunscreen on their face rarely, 27% sometimes, 18% often, and 15% more than 90% of the
time. On the other hand, only 6% use body sunscreen most of the time, while 40% wear it
rarely, 33.5% sometimes, and 12% often.
time. On the other hand, only 6% use body sunscreen most of the time, while 40% wear it
Table 1. Descriptive statistics
rarely, 33.5% of items and
sometimes, and total
12% score
often.for skincare and sunscreen use.
M SD Mdn IQR
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of items and total score for skincare and sunscreen use.
Frequency of Using Skincare Products 2.92 0.96
Moisturizer on the face 3.65
M 1.49
SD 4
Mdn 2–5
IQR
Cleanser
Frequency of Using Skincare Products 3.33
2.92 1.62
0.96 4 2–5
Sunscreen
Moisturizeron onthe
the face
face 3.01
3.65 1.20
1.49 34 2–4
2–5
SunscreenCleanser
on the body 3.33
2.66 1.62
0.99 34 2–5
2–3
Sunscreen on
Moisturizer on the
theface
body 3.01
2.55 1.20
1.19 23 2–4
2–3
Sunscreen on the body 2.66 0.99 3 2–3
Repair or anti-ageing products (antioxidants,
Moisturizer on the bodyserums, exfoliators, etc.) 2.31
2.55 1.39
1.19 22 1–3
2–3
Frequency
Repair or anti-ageing products (antioxidants,in
of Using Sunscreen Products Specific
serums, Conditions
exfoliators, etc.) 2.92
2.31 1.01
1.39 2 1–3
At the beach
Frequency of Using Sunscreen Products in Specific Conditions 4.38
2.92 1.08
1.01 5 4–5
On warmAt thesunny
beach days 4.38
3.51 1.08
1.26 45 4–5
3–4
On warm sunny days 3.51 1.26 4 3–4
During recreation (e.g., jogging, cycling, walking, hiking) 3.00 1.31 3 2–4
During recreation (e.g., jogging, cycling, walking, hiking) 3.00 1.31 3 2–4
During outdoor
During domestic
outdoor domestic chores
chores(e.g.,
(e.g.,lawn mowing,snow
lawn mowing, snowremoval,
removal, gardening)
gardening) 2.29
2.29 1.31
1.31 22 1–3
1–3
During outdoor
During outdoorjob-related
job-relatedtasks
tasks (e.g., constructionwork,
(e.g., construction work, delivery)
delivery) 2.12
2.12 1.37
1.37 22 1–3
1–3
OnOncloudy
cloudy days
days 2.05
2.05 1.20
1.20 22 1–3
1–3

When
Whenasked
askedabout
about thethe use
use of sunscreen in different
sunscreen in differentconditions,
conditions,subjects
subjectsreported
reportedusing
us-
ing it most
it most often
often at beach
at the the beachand and on warm
on warm sunnysunny
days.days.
While While 10% they
10% said said never
they never or
or rarely
rarely use sunscreen at the beach, nearly 85% use it always or often. Similarly,
use sunscreen at the beach, nearly 85% use it always or often. Similarly, almost 60% wear almost 60%
wear sunscreen
sunscreen oftenoften or always
or always on warm
on warm sunnysunny
days,days,
but 21%but rarely
21% rarely or never
or never do. Ondo.the
Onother
the
other
hand,hand, 70% never
70% never or rarely or wear
rarelysunscreen
wear sunscreen
on cloudy ondays,
cloudy
anddays,
62% do andso62%
whendoperforming
so when
performing
outdoor work outdoor work oractivities.
or domestic domestic activities.
People
Peoplereapply
reapply their sunscreen
sunscreenmost
mostoften
oftenatatthethe beach
beach andand in the
in the mountains,
mountains, but
but least
least
oftenoften on normal
on normal daysdays (Figure
(Figure 1). 1).

At the beach 1% 7% 17% 46% 28% 2%

In the mountains 7% 23% 26% 31% 7% 6%

When spending half a day or more outdoors 4% 25% 34% 26% 6% 4%

On a normal day 5% 36% 29% 12% 17% 2%

Not relevant Never Once Multiple times After swimming or sweating Don’t know

Figure
Figure1.1.Frequency
Frequencyofofsunscreen
sunscreenreapplication
reapplicationininvarious
variouscircumstances.
circumstances.

We
Wealso
alsoasked
askedrespondents
respondentsabout
aboutthethe SPF
SPF they
they use
use (Figure
(Figure 2).
2). While
Whileabout
about3% 3%ofof
participants
participantsdid
didnot
notknow
knowwhat
whatSPF
SPFthey
theygenerally
generallyuse,
use,on
onwarm
warmand
andsunny
sunnydays,
days,people
people
preferred
preferredsunscreen
sunscreenwith
withan
anSPF
SPFofof50
50ororhigher
higherforforthe
theface.
face. While
Whileon oncloudy
cloudydays,
days,the
the
majority
majorityofofrespondents
respondentsdiddidnot
notuse
usesunscreen,
sunscreen,people
peoplepreferred
preferredan anSPF
SPFofofatatleast
least15
15for
for
both
boththeir
theirface
faceand
andbody
bodyininaavariety
varietyofofcircumstances.
circumstances.
Cosmetics 2021,8,8,78
Cosmetics2021, x FOR PEER REVIEW 77 of 20
21

On the face on warm sunny days 7% 5% 21% 28% 36% 3%

On the face on cloudy days 43% 7% 13% 16% 18% 3%

On the rest of the body on warm sunny days 10% 7% 28% 28% 24% 4%

On the rest of the body on cloudy days 57% 6% 10% 16% 9% 3%

I do not use sunscreen SPF lower than 15 SPF 15-29 SPF 30-49 SPF 50 and higher Don’t know
Figure 2.
Figure 2. SPF used
used in
in various
various circumstances.
circumstances.

When asked about the type of protection protection their sunscreen

sunscreen usually
usually has,
has, more
more than
than aa
third (34.5%) did not know,
know, no no one chose UVB, 5.4% indicated UVA, UVA, andand 60.1%
60.1% said
said their
their
sunscreen provided
provided protection
protection from
from both
both UVAUVAand andUVB
UVBrays.
rays.
Participants were
werealso
alsoasked
askedabout
about their
their preferred
preferred type
type of sunscreen.
of sunscreen. A of
A total total of
50.9%
50.9% indicated
indicated a preference
a preference for lotion
for lotion sunscreens,
sunscreens, 29.7%29.7% preferred
preferred creams, creams,
17.1%17.1%
had nohad no
pref-
preference,
erence, andand 2.3%2.3%
did did
not not
know know if they
if they havehave a preference.
a preference.
One-third of participants reported avoiding
One-third of participants reported avoiding certain certain ingredients
ingredients in in their
their skincare.
skincare.
Parabens (15 participants) and perfumes (13) were mentioned
Parabens (15 participants) and perfumes (13) were mentioned most frequently, most frequently, followed by
followed
aluminum
by aluminum andandsodium
sodiumlaureth sulfate
laureth (6); alcohol,
sulfate oxybenzone,
(6); alcohol, oxybenzone, petroleum, and titanium
petroleum, and tita-
dioxide (5); microplastics and silicones (4); and essential oils, formaldehyde,
nium dioxide (5); microplastics and silicones (4); and essential oils, formaldehyde, PEG, PEG, and
sulphates (3). Other ingredients mentioned were animal-based ingredients,
and sulphates (3). Other ingredients mentioned were animal-based ingredients, nanopar- nanoparticles,
non-natural ingredients,
ticles, non-natural palm oil,
ingredients, palmandoil,
preservatives (2) and aloe
and preservatives vera,aloe
(2) and ammonium chloride,
vera, ammonium
antiperspirants, chemicals in general, corticosteroids, EDTA, glycerol, glycerin,
chloride, antiperspirants, chemicals in general, corticosteroids, EDTA, glycerol, glycerin, octocrylene,
phthalates,
octocrylene,pore-clogging ingredients, retinol,
phthalates, pore-clogging sulfuricretinol,
ingredients, acid, sun-protective
sulfuric acid,filters in general,
sun-protective
methicone, and triclosan (1).
filters in general, methicone, and triclosan (1).
A total of 13.9% of respondents reported having had an allergic or irritant reaction to
A total of 13.9% of respondents reported having had an allergic or irritant reaction to
a skincare product, while 3.5% did not know.
a skincare product, while 3.5% did not know.
3.2. Knowledge and Awareness Related to Sunscreen, Health, Environment, and
3.2. Knowledge
Bio-Based and Awareness Related to Sunscreen, Health, Environment, and Bio-Based
Skincare
Skincare
Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with 11 statements to find out
how Participants
knowledgeable weretheyasked
weretoaboutrate sunscreen
their level use,
of agreement
ingredientswith 11 statements
in skincare products,to find
and
out how
their knowledgeable
relationship they were
to our health andabout sunscreen
environment. Touse, ingredients
ensure in skincare the
greater objectivity, products,
items
and their
were relationship
distributed acrosstothe oursurvey,
health and and four
environment. To ensure
of them (marked greater
with an *) objectivity,
were inverted, the
items were
meaning distributed
they represented across
a falsetheclaim.
survey, and four of them (marked with an *) were in-
verted,
As meaning they represented
Figure 3 shows, inaccurateaitems false claim.
such as “Solar radiation is harmless” (M = 2.04,
SD = 1.37, Mdn = 1, IQR = 1–3), “Havingsuch
As Figure 3 shows, inaccurate items a tanasis“Solar
healthy”radiation is harmless”
(M = 2.23, S = 0.92,(M Mdn= 2.04,
= 2,
SD ==1.37,
IQR 2–3),Mdn
and =“Chemicals
1, IQR = 1–3), from “Having
skincarea products
tan is healthy” (M = 2.23,
are harmless S = 0.92, Mdn
to ecosystems” (M= =2, 2.31,
IQR
= 2–3),
SD andMdn
= 1.23, “Chemicals
= 2, IQR = from
1–3)skincare products
had the highest are harmless
levels to ecosystems”
of disagreement, meaning(M = 2.31, SD
respondents
= 1.23, Mdn them
recognized = 2, IQR = 1–3) had
as untrue. the highestmost
Participants levels of disagreement,
agreed meaning
with statements suchrespondents
as “Use of
sunscreens
recognized themcan prevent
as untrue. sunburns,
Participantsskin damage,
most agreed skinwith
ageing and skinsuch
statements cancer” (M of
as “Use = 4.44,
sun-
SD = 0.85,
screens Mdn
can = 5, IQR
prevent = 4–5), “Chemicals
sunburns, skin damage, canskincause dermatological
ageing side effects”
and skin cancer” (M = SD
(M = 4.44, 4.25,
=
SD = 0.65, Mdn = 4, IQR = 4–5), “Synthetic UV filters, antioxidants
0.85, Mdn = 5, IQR = 4–5), “Chemicals can cause dermatological side effects” (M = 4.25, SD and preservatives
are common
= 0.65, Mdn = 4,ingredients
IQR = 4–5),in“Synthetic
skincare”UV (M filters, SD = 0.65, Mdn
= 4.09,antioxidants = 4, IQR = 4–5),
and preservatives and
are com-
“Ingredients
mon ingredients frominskincare
skincare” and (Msunscreen
= 4.09, SDproducts
= 0.65, Mdnare being continuously
= 4, IQR = 4–5), andreleased into
“Ingredients
the
from environment”
skincare and(M = 4.03, SD
sunscreen products Mdn
= 0.80, are = 4, IQR
being = 4–5). Participants
continuously released intoappeared to be
the environ-
well
ment” informed about
(M = 4.03, SD =current
0.80, Mdnguidelines
= 4, IQRand evidence
= 4–5). on the relationship
Participants appeared tobetween skincare,
be well informed
sun
aboutcare, human
current health, and
guidelines andthe environment
evidence (M = 3.87, SDbetween
on the relationship = 0.39). skincare,
However,sun almost
care,half
hu-
of the sample did not know that chemicals from skincare products
man health, and the environment (M = 3.87, SD = 0.39). However, almost half of the sample have been detected in
human fluids, such as urine, semen, breast milk, and the bloodstream
did not know that chemicals from skincare products have been detected in human fluids, (M = 3.86, SD = 0.80,
Mdn
such = IQR =semen,
as4,urine, 3–4), indicating
breast milk, a knowledge gap.
and the bloodstream (M = 3.86, SD = 0.80, Mdn = 4, IQR
= 3–4), indicating a knowledge gap.
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 8 of 20
Cosmetics 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

Cosmetics 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

Use of sunscreens can prevent sunburns, skin damage, skin
5%3% 90% 2%
ageing and skin cancer.
Chemicals can cause can
Use of sunscreens dermatological
prevent sunburns,side effects (skin allergies
skin damage, skin
5%3%1%7% 90% 87% 2% 5%
ageing orand
irritation).
skin cancer.
Synthetic UV filters, antioxidants and preservatives
Chemicals can cause dermatological side effects (skin allergies are
2% 5%
1%7% 69%
87% 23%
5%
common ingredients in skincare.
or irritation).
Ingredients from
Synthetic UVskincare and sunscreen
filters, antioxidants products areare
and preservatives being
4% 10%
2% 5% 69% 67% 23% 19%
continuously
common released into the
ingredients environment.
in skincare.
Ingredients
Chemicals from
from skincare
skincare and sunscreen
products tend toproducts
accumulateare being
in living
4% 10%
6% 10% 67%
58% 19%27%
continuously released into the environment.
organisms.
Chemicals from skincare products tend to accumulate
Chemicals from skincare products have been detected in6% 10%in living
2%12% 58%
39% 27%
47%
organisms.
human fluids.
Chemicals from skincare products have been detected in
Skincare products help fluids. 2%12%
to fight the effects of ageing. 10% 15% 39% 69% 47% 7%
human
*The official
Skincare recommendation
products help to fightisthe
to always useageing.
effects of a broad-10% 15% 69% 7%
17% 17% 45% 22%
spectrum sunscreen with SPF 50 or higher.
*The official recommendation is to always use a broad-
17% 17% 45% 22%
spectrum
*Chemicals from skincaresunscreen
productswith
areSPF 50 or higher.
harmless to ecosystems. 60% 11% 17% 13%
*Chemicals from skincare products are harmless to ecosystems. 60% 11% 17% 13%
*Having a tan is healthy. 58% 30% 8%4%
*Having a tan is healthy. 58% 30% 8%4%
*Solar radiation is harmless. 73% 7% 18%1%
*Solar radiation is harmless. 73% 7% 18%1%
(Strongly) disagree Neither agree nor disagree (Strongly) agree Don't know
(Strongly) disagree Neither agree nor disagree (Strongly) agree Don't know
Figure
Figure 3. Knowledgeitems
3. Knowledge itemswith
with answer
answer distribution
distributionfrom highest
from to lowest
highest levellevel
to lowest of agreement (* represent
of agreement a false claim).
(* represent a false claim).
Figure 3. Knowledge items with answer distribution from highest to lowest level of agreement (* represent a false claim).
Subjects were
Subjects werealsoalsoasked
asked if and where
if and theythey
where havehave
heardheard
that research has shown
that research has that
shown that
Subjectsingredients
synthetic were also asked
are if and where
harmful to they have
corals and heard marine
other that research
life has shown
(Figure that
4).4).A total ofof 63.9%
synthetic
synthetic
ingredients
ingredients
are harmful to corals and other marine life (Figure A total
63.9%
said said
they had hadare
theyknown harmful
known
about aboutto corals
this this and other marine
information.
information.
lifethem
Mostofof
Most them
(Figure 4). A about
learned
learned
total ofit from
about it from social
63.9% said they had known about this information. Most of them learned about it from
social media (f = 73), television (f = 66), and researchers or research institutes (f = 65).
media
social (f = (f73),
media television
= 73), television(f(f = 66),and
= 66), andresearchers
researchers or research
or research institutes
institutes (f = 65). (f = 65).

On social media 73
On social media 73
On the television 66
On the television 66
From
From researchers/research
researchers/research institutes
institutes 65 65
No,I have
No, I have never
never heard
heard about
about thisthis before
before 55 55
OnOn a news
a news page
page 52 52
OnOn a blog
a blog on on
thethe Internet
Internet 48 48
I do
I do notnot know/remember
know/remember 34 34
From friends
From and/or
friends family
and/or family 31 31
On On
the the
radio
radio 17 17
From relevant
From official/government
relevant bodies
official/government bodies 8 8
Other
Other 6 6 Frequency
Frequency
Figure
Figure4.4.
Frequency of reported
Frequency sourcesource
of reported of information (n = 455). (n = 455).
of information
Figure 4. Frequency of reported source of information (n = 455).

More
More generally,
generally,participants rated their
participants rated familiarity
their with (1) bio-based
familiarity (1)ingredients oringredients or
More generally, participants rated their familiarity with with
(1) bio-basedbio-based
ingredients or
substances of natural origin for skincare (M = 2.23, SD = 0.61, Mdn = 2, IQR = 1–3); (2) the
substances
substances of of natural
naturalorigin
origin forfor skincare
skincare (M (M SD =SD
= 2.23,
= 2.23, 0.61, =Mdn
= Mdn
0.61, 2, IQR = 2, IQR (2)
= 1–3); = 1–3);
the (2) the
notion that natural biopolymers, defined as large molecules from plants or animals, can
notion
notion
also
that natural
that natural
be obtained
biopolymers,
biopolymers,
from renewable
defined
sourceddefined
as large
leftoversas
molecules
large
and molecules
waste
from plants
from industryfrom or
(Mplants
animals,
= 1.78, SD
can
or animals, can
also
also be
be obtained
obtained from
from renewable
renewable sourced leftovers
sourced and
leftoverswaste
and from
wasteindustry
= 0.77, Mdn = 2, IQR = 1–2); and (3) the fact that biopolymers from nature can be used as from (M = 1.78,
industry SD
(M = 1.78,
SD= 0.77, Mdn
= 0.77,
ingredients = skincare
Mdn
for 2, IQR
= 2, =IQR1–2);
and = and
sun1–2);(3)and
the (3)
protection fact thatfact
the
products biopolymers
(Mthat SDfrom
= 0.76,nature
biopolymers
= 1.86, Mdn from=can be used
2, nature
IQR = can as be used
as ingredients for skincare and sun protection products (M = 1.86, SD = 0.76, =Mdn = 2,
ingredients
1–2). The for
majority skincare
of and
participants sun protection
reported that products
they were (M
not = 1.86,
familiar SD
with = 0.76,
the Mdn
topics = 2,
(Fig- IQR
1–2).
ure 5),=The majority
which may of be
participants reported thatmore
theytechnical
were notterms
familiar with the topics (Fig-
IQR 1–2). The also
majority a consequence of using
of participants reported that they werein the
not items.
familiar with the topics
ure 5), which may also be a consequence of using more technical terms in the items.
(Figure 5), which may also be a consequence of using more technical terms in the items.
When asked if they would like more information about bio-based ingredients for
skincare products, more than two-thirds answered yes (68.7%), 18.3% were not interested,
and 13% were unsure, conveying a general interest in the topic.
Cosmetics
Cosmetics 2021,
Cosmetics 2021, 8,
2021, 8, xxx FOR
8, FOR PEER
FOR PEER REVIEW
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 999 of
of 21
of 21
21

When
When asked
When asked ifif
asked if they
they would
they would like
would like more
like more information
more information about
information about bio-based
about bio-based ingredients
bio-based ingredients for
ingredients for
for
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 9 of 20
skincare products,
skincare products,
skincare more
products, more than
more than two-thirds
than two-thirds answered
two-thirds answered yes
answered yes (68.7%),
yes (68.7%), 18.3%
(68.7%), 18.3% were
18.3% were not
were not interested,
not interested,
interested,
and
and 13%
13% were
were unsure,
unsure, conveying
conveying a
a general
general interest
interest in
in the
the
and 13% were unsure, conveying a general interest in the topic. topic.
topic.

Bio-based
Bio-based ingredients
Bio-based ingredients for
ingredients for skincare
for skincare
skincare 10%
10%
10% 56%
56%
56% 31%
31%
31% 3%
3%
3%
Biopolymers
Biopolymers from
Biopolymers from nature
from nature can
nature can be
can be used
be used as
used as an
as an ingredient
an ingredient
ingredient 33%
33%
33% 37%
37%
37% 20%
20%
20% 10%
10%
10%
for
for skincare
skincare and
and sun
sun protection
protection products
products
for skincare and sun protection products
Natural
Natural biopolymers
Natural biopolymers can
biopolymers can be
can be obtained
be obtained from
obtained from renewable
from renewable
renewable 38%
38%
38% 32%
32%
32% 19%
19%
19% 11%
11%
11%
sourced
sourced leftover and waste materials from the industry
sourced leftover
leftover and
and waste
waste materials
materials from
from the
the industry
industry
Never
Never heard
Never heard about
heard about it
about it
it III have
have heard
have heard about
heard about it
about it
it III am
am familiar
am familiar with
familiar with the
with the topic
the topic
topic Don't
Don't know
Don't know
know
Figure
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Self-assessed
Self-assessed familiarity
familiarity with
with bio-based
bio-based ingredients.
ingredients.
Figure 5.5. Self-assessed
Self-assessed familiarity
familiarity with
with bio-based
bio-based ingredients.
ingredients.
3.3.
3.3. Buying
3.3.
3.3. Buying Behavior
Buying
Buying Behavior and
Behavior
Behavior and
and Preferences
and Preferences
Preferences for
Preferences for
for Bio-Based
for Bio-Based
Bio-Based Skincare
Bio-BasedSkincare Products
SkincareProducts
Skincare Products
Products
Next,
Next, we
Next,
Next, we
we explored
we explored
explored the
explored the
the sample’s
the sample’s
sample’s purchasing
sample’s purchasing
purchasing behavior
purchasing behavior
behavior and
behavior and preferences
andpreferences
and preferencesfor
preferences for bio-based
forbio-based
for bio-based
bio-based
skincare
skincare
skincare products
products using
using four
four
four items
items
items (Figure
(Figure
(Figure 6).
6).
6). About
About
About 60%
60%
skincare products using four items (Figure 6). About 60% of the participants agreed or
products using 60% of
of
of the
the
the participants
participants
participants agreed
agreed
agreed or
or
or
strongly
strongly
strongly agreed
agreed
strongly agreed that
agreed thatthat they
they
that they usually
usually
they usually
usually checkcheck
check the
check thethe ingredients
ingredients
the ingredients
ingredientsbeforebefore
before buying
buying
beforebuying products
products
buyingproducts
products(M (M
(M =
= 3.58,
3.58,
(M== 3.58,
3.58,
SD
SD ==
SD = 1.15,
1.15,Mdn
1.15,
1.15, Mdn==
Mdn
Mdn = 4,
4, IQR
=
4, IQR
4,
IQR === 3–4)
IQR 3–4)
= 3–4)
3–4) and
andand
and that
that they
that they are
that
they are willing
they
are willing to
to pay
are willing
willing to payto
pay more
payfor
more
more for aaa bio-based
more
for bio-based
bio-based product
product
for a bio-based
product
(M
(M === 3.64,
product
(M (MSD
3.64,
3.64, SD
SD= =3.64,
== 0.96,
0.96,SD
0.96, Mdn
Mdn
Mdn === 4,
= 0.96, 4, IQR
4, Mdn==
IQR
IQR ==3–4).
3–4).
4, IQR
3–4). About
About half
half of
= 3–4).
About half of respondents
of respondents
About tend
tend to
half of respondents
respondents tend to already
to tendbuy
already
already buy
to
buy
natural
natural skincare products (M = 3.44, SD = 1.11, Mdn = 3.5, IQR = 3–4) and plan to do so in
natural
already skincare
skincare
buy naturalproducts
products
skincare (M(M == 3.44,
3.44,
products SD
SD
(M =
==1.11,
1.11,
3.44, Mdn
Mdn
SD ==
= 3.5,
3.5,
1.11, IQR
IQR
Mdn ===3–4)
3–4)
3.5, and
and
IQR plan
plan
= 3–4)to
to do
do
and so
so
planin
in
the
the
to dofuture
future
so in(M
(M
the== 3.60,
3.60,
future SD
SD
(M ===0.94,
0.94,
3.60, Mdn
Mdn
SD == 4,
4, IQR
IQR
0.94, =
Mdn= 3–4).
3–4).
= 4,In
InIQRgeneral,
general,
= 3–4).
the future (M = 3.60, SD = 0.94, Mdn = 4, IQR = 3–4). In general, at least half of the sample at
at least
least
In half
half
general, of
of the
the
at sample
sample
least half
pays
of theattention
pays
pays attention
sample pays
attention to
to the
to the
the origin
origin of
attention
origin oftoingredients
of the origin when
ingredients
ingredients when
of buying
buying skincare
ingredients
when buying skincare products
products
when buying
skincare products (M
(M === 3.54,
skincare
(M 3.54, SD
SD ===
products
3.54, SD
0.85).
(M =
0.85).
0.85). 3.54, SD = 0.85).

III am
am willing
am willing to
willing to pay
to pay more
pay more for
more for aa
for a bio-based
bio-based skincare
bio-based skincare product
skincare product ifif
product if itit
it
12%
12%
12% 22%
22%
22% 62%
62%
62% 4%
4%
4%
is
is free
free of
of chemicals.
chemicals.
is free of chemicals.
III will
will buy
will buy skincare
buy skincare products
skincare products containing
products containing mainly
containing mainly bio-based
mainly bio-based
bio-based 9%
9%
9% 29%
29%
29% 50%
50%
50% 12%
12%
12%
ingredients
ingredients in
in the
the future.
future.
ingredients in the future.
III usually
usually check
usually check the
check the ingredients
the ingredients of
ingredients of the
of the products
the products when
products when buying
when buying it.
buying it.
it. 19%
19%
19% 18%
18%
18% 60%
60%
60% 3%
3%
3%
III tend
tend to
tend to buy
to buy skincare
buy skincare products
skincare products with
products with ingredients
with ingredients of
ingredients of natural
of natural
natural 18%
18%
18% 30%
30%
30% 48%
48%
48% 3%
3%
3%
origin.
origin.
origin.
(Strongly)
(Strongly) disagree
(Strongly) disagree
disagree Neither
Neither agree
Neither agree nor
agree nor disagree
nor disagree
disagree (Strongly)
(Strongly) agree
(Strongly) agree
agree Don't
Don't know
Don't know
know
Figure
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Buying
6. Buying related
Buying related items
related items with
items with answer
with answer distribution
answerdistribution
distribution from
distributionfrom
from highest
fromhighest
highest to
highestto lowest
tolowest
to level
lowestlevel
lowest of
levelof
level agreement.
ofagreement.
of agreement.
agreement.

Respondents
Respondents also also ranked
ranked various
various attributes
attributes of
of sunscreens
sunscreensby bytheir
by theirimportance
their importancewhen
importance when
when
Respondents also ranked various attributes of sunscreens by their importance when
deciding to buy the product. The most important deciding factors were quality, price, and
deciding to buy the product. The most important deciding factors were quality, price, and
deciding to buy the product. The most important deciding factors were quality,
quality, price,
price, and
and
texture,
texture,
texture, closely
closely
closelyfollowed
followed
followed by
by
bynatural
natural
naturalingredients
ingredients
ingredients (Figure
(Figure
(Figure7). The
7).
7). least
The
The important
least
least important
importantqualities of
qualities
qualities
texture, closely followed by natural ingredients (Figure 7). The least important qualities
sunscreens
of
of sunscreens
sunscreenswere
were
weretheir novelty,
their
their color,
novelty,
novelty, andand
color,
color, packaging.
and packaging.
packaging.
of sunscreens were their novelty, color, and packaging.

Quality
Quality
Quality 1643
1643
1643
Price
Price
Price 1447
1447
1447
Texture
Texture
Texture 1341
1341
1341
Ingredients
Ingredients being
being natural
Ingredients being natural
natural 1294
1294
1294
Fragrance
Fragrance
Fragrance 1122
1122
1122
Brand
Brand
Brand 1035
1035
1035
Vegan/cruelty-free
Vegan/cruelty-free
Vegan/cruelty-free 972
972
972
Packaging
Packaging
Packaging 944
944
944
Colour
Colour
Colour 844
844
844
Novelty
Novelty of
Novelty of the
of the product
the product
product 678
678
678
Sum
Sum
Sum
Figure 7. Sum of the ranked properties of sunscreen from most to least important.
 Cosmetics 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21

Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 10 of 20

Figure 7. Sum of the ranked properties of sunscreen from most to least important.

3.4.Attitude
3.4. Attitudetowards
towardsBio-Based
Bio-BasedIngredients
Ingredients
Elevenitems
Eleven itemswere
wereused
usedtotomeasure
measureparticipants’
participants’ attitudes
attitudes towards
towards bio-based
bio-based ingre-
ingredi-
dients, five of which represented an inclination towards naturally and
ents, five of which represented an inclination towards naturally and sustainably sourced sustainably sourced
ingredients(Figure
ingredients (Figure8).8). Attitude
Attitudetowards
towardsbio-based
bio-basedingredients,
ingredients,in ingeneral,
general,waswaspositive
positive
(M==3.64,
(M 3.64,SDSD==0.47).
0.47). The
The highest-rated
highest-rated items items referred
referred to tothe
theimportance
importanceof ofingredient
ingredient
sourcingand
sourcing and sustainable
sustainable production (M ==4.42, 4.42,SDSD==0.62,
0.62,MdnMdn= =4, 4,
IQRIQR= 4–5), valorization
= 4–5), valoriza-
of agricultural
tion of agriculturalwaste as ingredients
waste as ingredients being innovative
being innovative(M =(M 4.06, SD = SD
= 4.06, 0.86,= Mdn
0.86, =Mdn4, IQR
= 4,=
4–5), and the positive environmental impact of bio-based skincare products
IQR = 4–5), and the positive environmental impact of bio-based skincare products (M = 4.04, (M = 4.04, SD
= 0.85,
SD Mdn
= 0.85, Mdn = 4, IQR
= 4, IQR== 4–5).
4–5).InIncontrast,
contrast,participants
participantsagreed
agreed the
the least with
with the
the statement
statement
thatthey
that theyprefer
preferconventional
conventionalingredients
ingredientsover overbio-based
bio-basedingredients
ingredients(M (M==2.12,
2.12,SDSD==0.88,
0.88,
Mdn== 2, IQR ==2–3),
Mdn 2–3),being
beingapprehensive
apprehensivetowards towardsskincare
skincareofof brownish
brownish color (M(M
color = 2.35, SD
= 2.35,
SD
= 1.08, Mdn
= 1.08, Mdn 2, IQR
= 2,=IQR = 2–3), andand
= 2–3), the inability of bio-based
the inability of bio-basedingredients to replace
ingredients synthetic
to replace syn-
thetic
ones (Mones (M =SD
= 2.38, 2.38, SD =Mdn
= 1.06, 1.06,= Mdn
2, IQR = 2, IQR =Three-fourths
= 2–3). 2–3). Three-fourths of participants
of participants are worriedare
worried about the environmental impact of synthetic ingredients
about the environmental impact of synthetic ingredients (M = 3.99, SD = 0.89, Mdn = 4, (M = 3.99, SD = 0.89,
Mdn
IQR == 4, IQRbut
4–5) = 4–5)
alsobut also perceive
perceive that bio-based
that bio-based skincare skincare products
products are more
are more expensive
expensive (M =
(M
4.01, SD =SD
= 4.01, 0.69, Mdn Mdn
= 0.69, = 4, =IQR
= 4, IQR = 4).
4). In In addition,
addition, one-fifth
one-fifth of respondents
of respondents didknow
did not not know how
how bio-based
bio-based ingredients
ingredients compared
compared to synthetic
to synthetic onesones in terms
in terms of functionality
of functionality (M (M = 2.53,
= 2.53, SD
SD = 0.96,
= 0.96, Mdn Mdn 3, IQR
= 3,=IQR = 2–3).
= 2–3).

In addition to the origin of the ingredients, a sustainable way of

5% 91% 3%
their production is also important.
Obtaining bio-based ingredients from agricultural waste is
4% 14% 69% 13%
innovative.
The use of bio-based ingredients in skincare products would
3% 16% 74% 7%
have a positive impact on the environment.
*Skincare products with bio-based ingredients are usually more
2% 14% 74% 10%
expensive than synthetics.

The environmental impact of synthetic ingredients concerns me. 7% 16% 76% 2%

Skincare products containing bio-based ingredients are

6% 20% 66% 8%
healthier for my skin than products with synthetic ingredients.
*Good functionality/performance is what matters, not the origin
34% 34% 30% 3%
of the ingredients.
*Artificially made/synthetic ingredients are more efficient than
38% 32% 10% 20%
natural ingredients.

*Plant-derived ingredients cannot replace synthetic ingredients. 57% 20% 15% 7%

*I would not want to use skincare/suncare products that are

55% 23% 13% 9%
brownish in colour.
*I prefer conventional chemical ingredients over bio-based
68% 21% 6% 5%
ingredients.

(Strongly) disagree Neither agree nor disagree (Strongly) agree Don't know

Figure8.8.Attitude
Figure Attitudeitems
itemswith
withanswer
answerdistribution
distributionfrom
fromhighest
highesttotolowest
lowestlevel
levelofofagreement
agreement(*(*represent
representaafalse
falseclaim).
claim).

We
Wealso
also checked
checked participants’ interest in
participants’ interest inskincare
skincare(M (M= =3.91, SDSD
3.91, = 1.00,
= 1.00, Mdn Mdn
= 4, =IQR
4,
IQR = 3–5), attitude towards their health (M = 3.84, SD = 0.77, Mdn = 4, IQR
= 3–5), attitude towards their health (M = 3.84, SD = 0.77, Mdn = 4, IQR = 3–4), and the= 3–4), and the
environment
environment(M 4.37,SD
(M==4.37, 0.80, Mdn
SD== 0.80, 5, IQR
Mdn == 5, IQR = 4–5), using
= 4–5), using one
one item
item for
for each.
each.
Subsequently,
Subsequently, subjects were presented with pairs of conflicting adjectivesand
subjects were presented with pairs of conflicting adjectives andhad
hadtoto
choose the one they associated more with the term “bio-based” (Figure 9).
choose the one they associated more with the term “bio-based” (Figure 9). About half About half of theof
sample thinks of “bio-based” as traditional, while the other half thinks it is innovative.
the sample thinks of “bio-based” as traditional, while the other half thinks it is innovative. A
similar proportion of respondents also believe that bio-based is better for the environment
than for their own health. More than 85% of the participants consider bio-based to be
Cosmetics 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21

Cosmetics 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21

Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 A similar proportion of respondents also believe that bio-based is better for the environ-
11 of 20
ment than for their own health. More than 85% of the participants consider bio-based to
A similar proportion of respondents also believe that bio-based is better for the environ-
be safe, derived from plants, of lower toxicity, organic, environmentally friendly, high
ment than for their own health. More than 85% of the participants consider bio-based to
quality, and effective.
be safe,
safe, derived
derived fromfrom plants,
plants, of lower
of lower toxicity,
toxicity, organic,
organic, environmentally
environmentally friendly,friendly, high
high quality,
quality, and
and effective.effective.

Figure 9. Proportion of selected adjectives for “bio-based”.

Figure9.9. Proportion
Attitude Proportion
3.5.Figure ofselected
of
towards Ligninselectedadjectives
adjectivesfor
and Lignin-Based for“bio-based”.
“bio-based”.
Sunscreen
3.5. Finally, towards
3.5. Attitude
Attitude we were
towards interested
Lignin
Lignin and in how familiar
and Lignin-Based
Lignin-Based participants were with lignin and how
Sunscreen
Sunscreen
they Finally,
would perceive a lignin-based sunscreen. First, 39% said theywith had never andheard of
Finally, we
we were
were interested
interested in in how
how familiar
familiar participants
participants were were with lignin
lignin and how how
lignin
they before the study, 26% said they had heard of it but did not know much about of it,
they would
would perceive
perceive aa lignin-based
lignin-based sunscreen.
sunscreen. First,
First, 39%
39% said
said they
they had
had never
never heard
heard of
26%
ligninwere familiar with it, and 9% were not sure.
lignin before
beforethethestudy,
study,26% 26% said they
said theyhad heard
had of itofbut
heard did did
it but not know
not knowmuch aboutabout
much it, 26% it,
were Figure
familiar10with
showsit, the selection
and 9% were of
notadjectives
sure. that participants felt best represented lig-
26% were familiar with it, and 9% were not sure.
nin. More
Figure thanshows
80% of subjects perceive ligninthatas being derivedfelt from plants, safe, renew-
Figure1010 showsthe theselection
selectionofofadjectives
adjectives thatparticipants
participants best
felt represented
best represented lignin.
lig-
able,
More and
thanof80%
natural
of origin,perceive
subjects and more thanas60%
lignin believe
being derived it isfrom
affordable
plants, and
safe,industrially
renewable,
nin. More than 80% of subjects perceive lignin as being derived from plants, safe, renew-
available.
and of natural origin, and more than 60% believe it is affordable and industrially available.
able, and of natural origin, and more than 60% believe it is affordable and industrially
available.

“lignin”.
Figure 10. Proportion of selected adjectives for “lignin”.

Figure
In 10. Proportion
the final
final part of selected adjectives forwere
“lignin”.
In the part of
of the
the study,
study, participants
participants were presented
presented with
with aa brief
brief description
description of of
lignin, its production, and the properties of a sunscreen that would contain
lignin, its production, and the properties of a sunscreen that would contain this ingredient this ingredient
In theasked
and were
were final part of the study, participants
sucha were presented with a brief description of
and asked ififthey
they would
would purchase
purchase such a product.
product. While
While 3.5%3.5% would
would notnotbuybuy a
a lig-
lignin, its
lignin-based production,
sunscreen, and
and the properties
2.6% of
wereunsure, a sunscreen
unsure,18.3%
18.3%said that would
said“maybe”, contain
“maybe”,23.5%
23.5%said this ingredient
said “probably”,
“probably”,
nin-based sunscreen, and 2.6% were
and 52.2%
and were asked
wouldifbuythey would purchase such a product. While 3.5% would not buy their
a lig-
and 52.2% would buy it. An open-ended
it. An open-ended question
question collected
collected participants’
participants’ reasons
reasons forfor their
nin-based
decision and sunscreen,
and gathered and 2.6% were unsure, 18.3% said “maybe”, 23.5% said “probably”,
decision gathered 169 169 responses,
responses, which
which were were coded
coded into
into categories.
categories. Generally,
Generally, the the
and 52.2% fell would buy it.groups—reasons
An open-ended question collected participants’ reasons for
to their
responses fell into two groups—reasons to buy (231 responses) and reasons notnot
responses into two to buy (231 responses) and reasons to buy buy
(90
decision
(90 and gathered
responses). 169 responses, which were coded into categories. Generally, the
responses). BothBoth include
include six general
six general categories,
categories, which which aredivided
are later later divided
into more into more
specific
responses
specific fell into (Table
categories two groups—reasons
2). to buy (231 responses) and reasons not to buy (90
categories (Table 2).
responses). Both include six general categories, which are later divided into more specific
categories (Table 2).
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 12 of 20

Table 2. Categories of responses to “Can you briefly describe your thoughts and reasons for (not) wanting to buy
this product?”.

Reasons to Buy Reasons Not to Buy

Broad Category Specific Category f Broad Category Specific Category f
Protects the environment 54 Performance SPF too low 35
Natural, bio-based, a substitute for Cast when applied to skin, may look
Sustainability 47 13
synthetic materials uneven
Color
Plant-based, vegan 5 Color may stain clothes 6
Contributing to a good cause 1 The color of the cream is unpleasant 5
Need more information from
Better for my health 20 Need 6
reputable sources
Human health additional
Distrust in the extraction methods
Safe 11 information 4
and substances
Better alternative to mineral filters, Need other people’s
6 1
nanotechnology, preservatives ratings/recommendations
Innovative utilization of leftovers and
16 Product’s Suitability for skin 10
by-products
Innovation characteristics
Wide availability 8 Unpleasant smell 1
Novel, “cool” 5 Price Too expensive 5
Good performance, broad-spectrum 25 No interest Does not care about sunscreen 4
Performance
Longer shelf life 1
Does not care about the cream color 15
Color
Brown color is even better 4
Price If the price is right 13

Sustainability reasons were most frequently cited as a motive for purchasing a lignin-
based sunscreen (107 responses). Protecting the environment and substituting synthetic
ingredients with bio-based and vegan alternatives were seen as major benefits; one respon-
dent even mentioned that buying such a product would make them feel like they were
contributing to a good cause.
Another important category of responses can be summarized as caring for our health
(37). People believed that a lignin-based sunscreen would be better for their health and
thought it was safer; one participant specifically mentioned that they trusted the product if
it was approved by the European Union. Some consider it a great alternative to several
controversial ingredients such as mineral filters, preservatives, and nanoparticles:
“ . . . I have used less and less sunscreen in recent years, as I believe that modern
nanoparticle creams harm our skin more than sun radiation. With a product like this I
might change my habits.”
Twenty-nine participants were intrigued by the innovation aspect of the sunscreen and
found utilizing the widely available industry leftovers and by-products to be innovative,
“cool”, and something new and original. One participant went further and wrote:
“Additional use of by-products should be the standard.”
Twenty-six people cited the product’s performance as an incentive to buy, specifi-
cally that lignin is a broad-spectrum sun-blocker, antioxidant, and also a preservative,
which means it could have a longer shelf life. Another theme that emerged among the
responses was the sunscreen’s color (19). While some stated that they would not mind the
cream’s color, others said that a brownish color was actually better, as it can make the skin
look tanned.
In the last class of responses, the importance of price was cited. Some felt that a 20–25%
increase in price was justifiable, but others expected these products to be the same or even
lower in price than traditional sunblocks since lignin is a by-product.
On the other hand, some participants were skeptical about the potential of lignin-
based sunscreens. Most of them were concerned about the low SPF and indicated that it
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 13 of 20

would have to be higher (30, 50, PA++++) for them to consider buying the product (35
responses), especially for people with fair skin. As one respondent put it:
“I would definitely buy this product if it would protect me from UV rays. . . . However,
the low SPF would be a reason not to buy it. I am prone to sunburns, so my skin requires
higher SPF. Succeeding in improving SPF would definitely make me more interested in
the product.”
Three participants elaborated on this, saying that they would not use a lignin-based
sunscreen at the beach, but would consider wearing it on a less sunny day around town,
especially if sun protection was not its main or only purpose:
“If it is a product that has an additional purpose of sun protection (but it is not its main
purpose), I might consider it. It seems to me that the protective factor is too small.”
One parent also pointed out that the low SPF was not suitable for children:
“Due to the low protection factor, I would use it for myself, because I don’t have such
sensitive skin, and for my son, who has sensitive skin and is exposed to the sun longer
due to sports, I would like it to have higher protection.”
Twenty-four participants highlighted the brownish color of the cream as one of the
main reasons why they would not buy a lignin sunscreen. While most of them were
concerned that it would look uneven and leave a cast on their skin, others thought it
would stain their clothes. Five participants specifically mentioned that they did not like
the pigmentation of the product itself; one said it reminded them of feces, and one said
they would only consider the cream if it was light brown.
Another portion of respondents felt they did not have enough information to make
a decision. Some would wait for additional research and long-term data from reputable
institutions; one also expressed interest in hearing other people’s reviews and recommen-
dations before trying it for themselves. In addition, some mentioned that they would be
suspicious of the sustainability of lignin extraction or the methods used to achieve a higher
SPF. In the words of one participant:
“ . . . one ingredient does not influence my purchasing decision. INCI (International
Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients) doesn’t tell me much because it matters how the
whole formula was designed. In addition, natural/biological origin does not mean greater
sustainability, as it is necessary to look holistically at how it is with the extraction of
substances, storage, formulation, stabilization, etc.”
One notable reason people had concerns about purchasing the lignin-based product
is the higher price, especially compared to other products with natural ingredients, and
worries that it would not be suitable for their skin, citing issues such as pore-clogging,
excessive sweating, skin not being able to “breathe”, a potential allergen, or an unpleasant
odor. Finally, some individuals indicated that they would not purchase the sunscreen
because they were not interested in sun care in general.
Overall, the findings from the open-ended question can be succinctly summarized by
this participant’s comment:
“ . . . I am excited about healthier and environmentally friendly products, but functional-
ity and big differences in price come first.”

3.6. Relationships
Finally, we aimed to explore the associations between different constructs (Table 3).
The significant relationships ranged from weak to moderate. While some of them were
expected, such as a positive link between attitudes towards the environment and bio-based
ingredients (rs = 0.46 p < 0.001), between frequency of skincare and sunscreen use (rs = 0.58
p < 0.001), and between interest in skincare and skincare (rs = 0.50 p < 0.001) and sunscreen
use (rs = 0.26 p < 0.001), some correlations, or lack thereof, were more surprising.
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 14 of 20

In general, more health-conscious respondents were more interested in skincare

(rs = 0.29 p < 0.001) and were also more likely to use sun care products (rs = 0.20 p = 0.003).
Participants who were more familiar with the use and production of bio-based products
were also more likely to have positive attitudes toward the environment (rs = 0.24 p < 0.001)
and bio-based ingredients in skincare (rs = 0.27 p < 0.001).
People were likelier to engage in environmentally friendlier purchasing behaviors in
terms of skincare if they had a positive attitude towards bio-based ingredients (rs = 0.52
p < 0.001) and the environment (rs = 0.37 p < 0.001), avoided specific ingredients (rs = 0.31
p < 0.001), and were more familiar with bio-based ingredients in general (rs = 0.28 p < 0.001).
As predicted, intention to purchase bio-based skincare in the future is most strongly
associated with prior green purchasing behavior (rs = 0.57 p < 0.001) and a positive attitude
towards bio-based ingredients (rs = 0.63 p < 0.001). Individuals who are more likely to
intend to buy greener in the future are more health- (rs = 0.20 p < 0.001) and environmentally
(rs = 0.35 p < 0.001) conscious, have an interest in skincare (rs = 0.24 p < 0.001) and bio-based
products (rs = 0.28 p < 0.001), and are more likely to avoid certain ingredients (rs = 0.23
p < 0.001).
A similar trend can be observed with lignin. Individuals who have made more
environmentally conscious purchasing decisions in the past (rs = 0.29 p < 0.001) and
intend to do so in the future (rs = 0.31 p < 0.001) are more likely to purchase a lignin-
based sunscreen, as are individuals with more positive attitudes toward the environment
(rs = 0.26 p < 0.001) and other bio-based ingredients (rs = 0.43 p < 0.001). There were
no significant associations between wanting to try a lignin-based sunscreen and concern
for health (rs = −0.04 p = 0.548) or interest in skincare (rs = −0.06 p = 0.340). The more
people know about lignin, the more likely they are to buy a product containing it (rs = 0.24
p < 0.001), but familiarity with lignin itself is more pronounced among those who know
more about bio-based ingredients (rs = 0.54 p < 0.001), have a positive attitude toward them
(rs = 0.15 p = 0.027), buy greener options (rs = 0.22 p = 0.001), and will do so in the future
(rs = 0.20 p = 0.008).
In terms of socio-demographics, participants with higher education are more familiar
with lignin (rs = 0.37 p < 0.001) and bio-based ingredients, their production from industrial
waste, and their use in skincare (rs = 0.28 p < 0.001). People with darker skin types use less
sunscreen than people with lighter skin (rs = −0.25 p < 0.001).

Table 3. Spearman rs correlations.

FL BL Know FBB PB PI BBA HA EA SI SU SunU

Familiarity lignin —
Buy lignin 0.24 *** —
Knowledge −0.08 0.14 * —
Familiarity bio-based 0.54 *** 0.13 * −0.10 —
Purchase behavior 0.22 ** 0.29 *** 0.15 * 0.28 *** —
Purchase intention 0.20 ** 0.31 *** 0.13 0.28 *** 0.57 *** —
Bio-based attitude 0.15 * 0.43 *** 0.27 *** 0.16 * 0.52 *** 0.63 *** —
Health attitude 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.13 * 0.17 * 0.20 ** 0.06 —
Environment. attitude 0.05 0.26 *** 0.24 *** 0.09 0.37 *** 0.35 *** 0.46 *** 0.11 —
Skincare interest −0.04 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.20 ** 0.24 *** 0.03 0.29 *** 0.07 —
Skincare use −0.15 * −0.08 0.03 −0.05 0.03 0.03 −0.09 0.24 *** −0.05 0.50 *** —
Sunscreen use −0.07 −0.08 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.00 −0.06 0.20 ** 0.02 0.26 *** 0.58 *** —
Ingredient avoidance −0.07 0.10 0.20 ** 0.01 0.31 *** 0.23 *** 0.13 0.06 0.18 ** 0.18 ** 0.15 * 0.22 ***

Note. Significant results in bold. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. FL—familiarity lignin, BL—buy lignin, Know—knowledge, FBB—
familiarity bio-based, PB—purchase behavior, PI—purchase intention, BBA—bio-based attitude, HA—health attitude, EA—environmental
attitude, SI—skincare interest, SU—skincare use, SunU—sunscreen use.

We also tested for possible differences between participants identifying as female

and male using a Mann–Whitney U test (Table 4). Five undisclosed respondents and one
non-binary respondent were not included in this analysis because they were too few to
form a comparable group.
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 15 of 20

Table 4. Significant differences between subjects who identify as women and men.

Women (n = 166) Men (n = 58)

Item U p d
Mdn IQR Mdn IQR
Cleanser 1920 <0.001 0.59 4 3–5 1 1–3
Moisturizer on the face 1437 <0.001 0.70 5 4–5 2 1–3
Moisturizer on the body 1700 <0.001 0.64 3 2–4 1 1–2
Repairing/anti-ageing 2080 <0.001 0.57 2 1–4 1 1
Sunscreen on the face 2487.5 <0.001 0.48 3 2–4 2 2–3
Sunscreen on the body 2812.5 <0.001 0.42 3 2–3 2 2–3
General skincare use 1010 <0.001 0.79 3.33 2.83–3.83 2 1.33–2.33
Frequency of sunscreen use on warm sunny days 2983.5 <0.001 0.38 4 3–5 3 2–4
Frequency of sunscreen use on cloudy days 3196.5 <0.001 0.32 2 1–3 1 1–2
Frequency of sunscreen use at the beach 3209 <0.001 0.32 5 5 4 4–5
Frequency of sunscreen use during recreation 3055.5 <0.001 0.35 3 2–4 2 1–3
Frequency of sunscreen use during domestic chores 3653 0.015 0.21 2 1–3 2 1–2
General sunscreen use 2961.5 <0.001 0.38 3 2.33–3.83 2.42 2–2.83
On the face on cloudy days (reapplication) 3621 0.040 0.18 2 0–3 0 0–2.75
On a normal day (reapplication) 3548 0.005 0.24 2 1–3 1 1–2
At the beach (reapplication) 3589.5 0.011 0.21 3 3–4 3 2–3
When spending half a day or more outdoors (reapplicat.) 3619.5 0.019 0.20 2 1–3 2 1–3
Skincare interest 3066 <0.001 0.35 4 4–5 4 3–4
Environmental attitude 3680 0.011 0.20 5 4–5 4 3.75–5
In addition to the origin of the ingredients, a sustainable way of
3385 0.004 0.23 5 4–5 4 4–5
their production is also important.
Good functionality/performance is what matters, not the origin of
3487.5 0.015 0.21 3 2–4 3 3–4
the ingredients.
I tend to buy skincare products with ingredients of natural origin. 3520.5 0.023 0.20 4 3–4 3 2–4
Bio-based purchase intention 2911.5 0.035 0.19 4 3–4 3 3–4
Lignin familiarity 2994 0.001 0.27 2 1–2 2 1–3
Natural biopolymers can also be obtained from renewable sourced
2760 0.002 0.27 2 1–2 2 1–3
leftover and waste from the industry
Would you like to have more information about bio-based
2675 0.002 0.21 1 1 1 1–2
ingredients for skincare products?

While there were some differences at the behavioral level, there were not many
significant differences in the attitude, preference, or knowledge items. The most noticeable
differences were in the frequency of use of various skincare products, including sunscreen
in different situations. In general, respondents identifying as female were more likely to
use sunscreen (Mf = 3.10, SDf = 0.99; Mm = 2.42, SDm = 0.81) and other skincare products
(Mf = 3.28, SDf = 0.78; Mm = 1.93, SDm = 0.70) than their male counterparts, but there were
no differences in sunscreen use for outdoor occupational tasks (U = 3810.5, p = 0.407) and
in the mountains (U = 3846, p = 0.357) or in preference for type of sunscreen (U = 4147,
p = 0.407).
Women also reported having a greater interest in skincare (U = 3066, p < 0.001; Mdnf = 4,
IQRf = 4–5; Mdnm = 4, IQRm = 3–4) and were slightly more environmentally conscious.
They rated higher the view that protecting and preserving the environment should take
priority over economic growth and development (U = 3680, p = 0.011; Mdnf = 5, IQRf = 4–5;
Mdnm = 4, IQRm = 3.75–5) and that both the origin and sustainable production of ingredients
are important (U = 3385, p = 0.004; Mdnf = 5, IQRf = 4–5; Mdnm = 4, IQRm = 4–5), while
they were less likely to agree that good functionality or performance is key, rather than the
origin of ingredients (U = 3487.5, p = 0.015; Mdnf = 3, IQRf = 2–4; Mdnm = 3, IQRm = 3–4).
In addition, female respondents also tended to buy skincare products with ingredients
of natural origin more often (U = 3520.5, p = 0.023; Mdnf = 4, IQRf = 3–4; Mdnm = 3,
IQRm = 2–4) and believe that they will continue to do so in the future (U = 2911.5, p = 0.035;
Mdnf = 4, IQRf = 3–4; Mdnm = 3, IQRm = 3–4). Women scored significantly higher on the
summary variable “Conscious buying behavior” (U = 3480, p = 0.002; Mdnf = 3.5, IQRf = 3–4;
Mdnm = 3, IQRm = 2.25–3.75).
Male respondents, on the other hand, were more familiar with lignin (U = 2994,
p = 0.001; Mdnf = 2, IQRf = 1–2; Mdnm = 2, IQRm = 1–2) and the fact that natural biopolymers
can also be derived from renewable sourced leftover and waste materials from industry
(U = 2760, p = 0.002; Mdnf = 2, IQRf = 1–2; Mdnm = 2, IQRm = 1–2) and were more interested
in learning more about bio-based ingredients for skincare products (U = 2675, p = 0.002;
Mdnf = 1, IQRf = 1; Mdnm = 1, IQRm = 1–2). However, there were no significant differences
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 16 of 20

between genders in their desire to purchase a skincare product containing lignin (U = 4232.5,
p = 0.339).

4. Discussion
As the consumption of skincare and sunscreen products increases, their environmental
and health effects are compelling the development of more environmentally friendly
alternatives. Lignin is an abundant and multifunctional natural polymer that can act as
a broad-spectrum sunblock, antioxidant, and preservative and is usually a by-product
of pulp manufacturing [7,8], meaning it can replace and mitigate the impact of several
synthetic ingredients in sunscreens. However, the aesthetic and functional performance
of lignin-based sunscreens is limited in some respects, such as in terms of lower SPF
and dark color as a result of pigmentation. This article, therefore, explored consumers’
familiarity, views, attitudes, and motivations towards lignin-based sunscreens and other
sustainability-related issues and solutions in the context of skincare products.
In general, people are well informed about the effects of sun exposure, the current
guidelines and benefits of sunscreens, and the environmental impact of synthetic skincare
ingredients. Similar to other relevant research, most respondents considered bio-based
ingredients to be safe, environmentally friendly, effective, of higher quality, and luxuri-
ous [37,38]. However, participants were less informed that some chemicals from skincare
products tend to accumulate in living things and have already been detected in human
fluids. One in three were unfamiliar with the possibilities of using natural biopolymers for
sunscreens and that they can be derived from residual and waste materials from industry;
however, most were interested in receiving more information on the topic of bio-based
ingredients for skincare products. The results also show that most respondents are un-
familiar with lignin or have only heard of it but perceive it as a safe, renewable, natural,
and affordable ingredient. Individuals who know more about other bio-based ingredients,
their production and use, were also more likely to be familiar with lignin. While a quarter
reported familiarity with lignin, the generalizability of this finding is questionable because
the sample was not representative and included acquaintances of the authors. Three out of
four people are open to trying a lignin-based sunscreen and were interested in a healthier
and more environmentally friendly sunscreen option. This alternative is especially appeal-
ing to those who have a positive attitude toward bio-based ingredients, value the natural
environment, and help protect it by purchasing greener skincare solutions.
Although the correlations were weak or modest at best, our results build on previous
findings [21,23,25–28,34–36] and show that knowledge, attitudes toward the environment
and bio-based ingredients, past green purchasing behavior, and intention to buy green
and lignin skincare are all positively related. However, contrary to our predictions, health
consciousness had the weakest associations with sustainable purchasing behavior and
intention to purchase and a non-significant relationship with knowledge and willingness
to buy lignin-based sunscreens, suggesting that consumers may not perceive lignin-based
sunscreens and other bio-based skincare products as healthier choices for them [31,32].
Another possible explanation for these results is the use of a single-item measurement rather
than a validated scale. In contrast to previous research [35], we also found some differences
related to gender. Not only were women more likely to use skincare and sunscreen and,
as expected, more interested in skincare [11,12], but they also expressed more sustainable
purchasing behavior and higher purchase intentions when buying skincare products
compared to their male counterparts. However, those who identified as males and also
individuals with higher education were more knowledgeable about lignin and other natural
biopolymers and were also more interested in learning more about them.
To gain a deeper insight into consumers’ thoughts and emotions about lignin, we
identified several drivers of interest in purchasing a sunscreen based on lignin. In previous
research, protection of the environment, health benefits, and product quality emerged as
the three main motives for buying organic cosmetics [39]. The most frequently mentioned
motives in our case were similarly related to protecting the environment, being an innova-
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 17 of 20

tive solution by valorizing by-products, offering full protection against UVA and UVB rays,
and being a healthier alternative to other ingredients commonly used in cosmetics. In fact,
one in three participants mentioned avoiding some ingredients in their skincare, including
preservatives (e.g., parabens), mineral and chemical UV filters (e.g., titanium dioxide and
oxybenzone), surfactants (e.g., sodium laureth sulfate), and non-natural or animal-based
ingredients, for which lignin can be a great alternative. One participant specifically men-
tioned that they consider conventional sunscreens harmful, and a lignin-based alternative
would convince them to use this type of sun protection more often.
On the other hand, there were also some reservations about buying sunscreens based
on lignin, the main reason being that an SPF value of 10 is too low to meet the needs of most
participants. Similar to reports from previous research, people wear sunscreen most often
at the beach, on warm sunny days, and during recreation, and they use a broad-spectrum
sunscreen with an SPF of at least 15 or higher [13,14], with some having even higher
expectations. This means that the lignin product cannot be used as a sunscreen for stronger
sun exposure and for people who spend a lot of time outdoors or have sun-sensitive skin,
such as people with fair skin and children. However, there are some alternative options.
Participants mentioned that the limited SPF may not be an issue if the main purpose of
the skincare product is different, such as moisturizing or anti-aging, meaning that the
sunscreen acts as an addition or is intended for daily use on cloudy days when higher
levels of protection are not desired.
Another barrier to the acceptance of a lignin-based sunscreen is its sensory charac-
teristics, particularly its brown color. Although color, along with product novelty, turned
out to be one of the least important features when choosing a skincare product, and some
even believe that it makes the skin look tanner, people were still concerned about whether
it would look uneven on the skin or whether the pigmentation would stain their clothes.
Some were put off by the color of the product itself, stating that a brownish color would
look unpleasant and unhygienic. These findings are consistent with previous studies that
cited aesthetic and sensory properties as one of the most common reasons for infrequent
sunscreen use [15]. However, the pigmentation opens up the possibility of developing and
marketing the lignin product as a multifunctional tinted solution, bronzer, or other makeup
product, especially for dark-skinned individuals, that provides sun protection in addition
to coverage.
Another problem mentioned by the participants was that they did not have enough
reliable information about lignin and its extraction, formulation, and stabilization, as well
as the sustainability of all the processes involved in the development of the product. Since
familiarity with the topic is associated with a greater chance of sustainable purchasing
behavior, consumers need to be provided with transparent and detailed information when
lignin is introduced to the market. Social media, television broadcasts, and research
institutions have emerged as particularly useful communication channels that should be
used to convey information and educate the public.
Finally, price appears to play a key role in skincare product purchase intentions.
While some individuals felt that a lignin sunscreen would be an affordable option due
to the wide availability of the biopolymer, others seemed to believe that it would be
too expensive. Quality and price were found to be the most influential attributes in
skincare product purchase decisions, which is reflected in both our results and previous
research [33]. However, some people are willing to spend a little more on healthier and
environmentally friendlier options. Affordable prices are therefore a great incentive to
promote healthier and environmental friendlier purchasing decisions among people from
all locations and incomes.
The findings of the study are limited by having used a convenience and non-representative
sample. It includes a low number of subjects, many of whom are part of the authors’ social
networks, are highly educated, and are potentially more informed about lignin and have
greater concerns about the environment than the general population. The sample also lacks
individuals with darker skin types, who should be included in further studies, as they may
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 18 of 20

have fewer concerns about a pigmented sunscreen. Another limitation of the study is its
instrument and the lack of a validation study—although the survey was constructed by the
authors based on an extensive literature review, it is not a validated instrument, i.e., it has
not been psychometrically tested for validity, reliability, and sensitivity, and some constructs
have low reliability. In addition, constructs such as attitude towards the environment,
health consciousness, and interest in skincare were measured using single-item measures.
In the future, valid multiple-item scales such as the Environmental Attitudes Inventory [18]
should be used to capture such constructs. In addition, due to the high number of items
measured, some results may be significant due to chance. As this is the first study to
measure attitudes towards a lignin-based sunscreen, its scope was mainly exploratory and
descriptive, but as the literature on this topic grows, more rigorous statistical methods need
to be applied. Subsequently, the use of a theoretical framework such as Ajzen’s Theory of
Planned Behavior [41] would allow researchers to more systematically and comparably
determine and understand the factors that influence consumers’ green purchasing decisions.
Finally, as this was a survey-based study, respondents formed their intentions to buy a
lignin-based sunscreen based only on a description provided by the authors, meaning they
were not familiar with the actual sensory characteristics of the product. Future studies
should perform sensory panel studies to better understand how consumers feel about
this innovation.

5. Conclusions
Overall, this work provides the first exploration of the consumers’ perceptions of a
lignin-based sunscreen in the context of other bio-based skincare ingredients, and it is the
first study to examine lignin from a psychological perspective. The results of the study have
implications for the development and marketing of an innovative and sustainable bio-based
sunscreen prototype. While people seem intrigued by the idea of a sustainable and healthier
sunscreen alternative, not many know about lignin. In addition to a positive attitude
toward the environment and bio-based ingredients in general, sufficient information about
the product is associated with a greater intention to buy it, so efforts should be made to
educate the public about lignin and its production. We identified several concerns and
opportunities that consumers view as significant in a lignin-based sunscreen and suggested
ways to design a product that promotes healthier sun-related behaviors in a more targeted
and sustainable manner. At this point, a sunscreen based on lignin cannot achieve a high
enough SPF to offer adequate protection from UV rays on its own. For this reason, it is
more realistic to create an all-in-one product that provides some coverage and protection
from oxidative and sun damage.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/

10.3390/cosmetics8030078/s1, Document S1: Questionnaire in English, Document S2: Informed
Consent Statement in English; Table S1: Socio-demographic data; Table S2: Data dictionary of
numerical variables that were merged or single items representing a construct.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.S., O.G., A.S. (Amy Simmons) and A.S. (Anna Sandak);
methodology, N.S., O.G., A.S. (Amy Simmons) and A.S. (Anna Sandak); software, N.S.; validation,
N.S., O.G., A.S. (Amy Simmons) and A.S. (Anna Sandak); formal analysis, N.S.; investigation, N.S.,
O.G., A.S. (Amy Simmons) and A.S. (Anna Sandak); resources, N.S., O.G., A.S. (Amy Simmons)
and A.S. (Anna Sandak); data curation, N.S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.S. and O.G.;
writing—review and editing, N.S., O.G., A.S. (Amy Simmons) and A.S. (Anna Sandak); visualization,
N.S.; supervision, A.S. (Anna Sandak); project administration, N.S., O.G., A.S. (Amy Simmons) and
A.S. (Anna Sandak); funding acquisition, N.S., O.G., A.S. (Amy Simmons) and A.S. (Anna Sandak).
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The study is part of the InnoRenew project (Horizon2020 Widespread-2-Teaming program,
grant agreement 739574) and was supported by the Republic of Slovenia (investment funding from
the Republic of Slovenia and the European Regional Development Fund) and infrastructural ARRS
program IO-0035. Oihana Gordobil is grateful for the financial support received from the European
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 19 of 20

Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action
for development of the BIO4CARE project (grant number 101023389).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study as
it did not include any ethical issues.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available in a Zenodo open data
repository at https://zenodo.org/record/5126564#.YPpx2Y4zYuU.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chouhan, N.; Vig, H.; Deshmukh, R. Cosmetics Market by Category, Gender, and Distribution Channel: Global Opportunity Analysis
and Industry Forecast, 2021–2027; Allied Market Research: Maharashtra, India, 2021.
2. Juliano, C.; Magrini, G.A. Cosmetic ingredients as emerging pollutants of environmental and health concern. A mini-review.
Cosmetics 2017, 4, 11. [CrossRef]
3. Shinn, H. The Effects of Ultraviolet Filters and Sunscreen on Corals and Aquatic Ecosystems: Bibliography; National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; ISBN 0024401502277. Available online: https://10.25923/hhrp-xq11
(accessed on 7 June 2021).
4. Franco, L.; Marchena, A.; Rodríguez, A. Skin Health Properties of Lycopene and Melatonin. J. Dermatol. Ski. Sci. 2021, 3, 26–29.
[CrossRef]
5. Österberg, M.; Sipponen, M.H.; Mattos, B.D.; Rojas, O.J. Spherical lignin particles: A review on their sustainability and applications.
Green Chem. 2020, 22, 2712–2733. [CrossRef]
6. Bajwa, D.S.; Pourhashem, G.; Ullah, A.H.; Bajwa, S.G. A concise review of current lignin production, applications, products and
their environment impact. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 139, 111526. [CrossRef]
7. Qian, Y.; Qiu, X.; Zhu, S. Sunscreen performance of lignin from different technical resources and their general synergistic effect
with synthetic sunscreens. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 4029–4035. [CrossRef]
8. Gordobil, O.; Olaizola, P.; Banales, J.M.; Labidi, J. Lignins from agroindustrial by-products as natural ingredients for cosmetics:
Chemical structure and in vitro sunscreen and cytotoxic activities. Molecules 2020, 25, 1131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Widsten, P.; Tamminen, T.; Liitiä, T. Natural Sunscreens Based on Nanoparticles of Modified Kraft Lignin (CatLignin). ACS Omega
2020, 5, 13438–13446. [CrossRef]
10. Popovic, I.; Bossink, B.A.G.; van der Sijde, P.C. Factors influencing consumers’ decision to purchase food in environmentally
friendly packaging: What do we know and where do we go from here? Sustainability 2019, 11, 7197. [CrossRef]
11. Holman, D.M.; Berkowitz, Z.; Guy, G.P.; Hawkins, N.A.; Saraiya, M.; Watson, M. Patterns of sunscreen use on the face and other
exposed skin among US adults. J. Am. Dermatol. 2015, 73, 83–92.e1. [CrossRef]
12. Falk, M.; Anderson, C.D. Influence of age, gender, educational level and self-estimation of skin type on sun exposure habits and
readiness to increase sun protection. Cancer Epidemiol. 2013, 37, 127–132. [CrossRef]
13. Cervinka, R.; Moshammer, H. Gender aspects of recreational sun-protective behavior: Results of a representative, population-
based survey among Austrian residents. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2015, 32, 11–21. [CrossRef]
14. Cercato, M.C.; Ramazzotti, V.; Sperduti, I.; Asensio-Pascual, A.; Ribes, I.; Guillén, C.; Nagore, E. Sun Protection Among Spanish
Beachgoers: Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour. J. Cancer Educ. 2015, 30, 4–11. [CrossRef]
15. Hewitt, J.P. Sunscreen Formulation: Optimising Aesthetic Elements for Twenty-First-Century Consumers. In Principles and
Practice of Photoprotection; Wang, S.Q., Lim, H.W., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 289–302.
[CrossRef]
16. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol.
2000, 11, 1–33. [CrossRef]
17. Ajzen, I.; Cote, N.G. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In Attitudes and Attitude Change; Crano, W.D., Prislin, R., Eds.;
Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2008; pp. 289–311.
18. Milfont, T.L.; Duckitt, J. The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environ-
mental attitudes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 80–94. [CrossRef]
19. Jaiswal, D.; Kant, R. Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers.
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 60–69. [CrossRef]
20. Kaynak, R.; Ekşi, S. Effects of Personality, Environmental and Health Consciousness on Understanding the Anti-consumptional
Attitudes. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 114, 771–776. [CrossRef]
21. Liobikienė, G.; Bernatonienė, J. Why determinants of green purchase cannot be treated equally? The case of green cosmetics:
Literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 109–120. [CrossRef]
22. Hall, M.C.; Hall, M.C. The Marketing of Organic Products: An Instrumental/Symbolic Perspective. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2008, 4446,
1–11. [CrossRef]
Cosmetics 2021, 8, 78 20 of 20

23. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Intention to purchase organic food among young consumers: Evidences from a developing nation. Appetite
2016, 96, 122–128. [CrossRef]
24. Hao, Z.; Chenyue, Q. Impact of environmental and health consciousness on ecological consumption intention: The moderating
effects of haze and self-competence. J. Consum. Aff. 2021, 1–14. [CrossRef]
25. Alzubaidi, H.; Slade, E.L.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Examining antecedents of consumers’ pro-environmental behaviours: TPB extended
with materialism and innovativeness. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 685–699. [CrossRef]
26. Kim, H.Y.; Chung, J.E. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 40–47.
[CrossRef]
27. Sadiq, M.; Adil, M.; Paul, J. An innovation resistance theory perspective on purchase of eco-friendly cosmetics. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 2021, 59, 102369. [CrossRef]
28. Wijekoon, R.; Sabri, M.F. Determinants that influence green product purchase intention and behavior: A literature review and
guiding framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6219. [CrossRef]
29. Hsu, C.L.; Chang, C.Y.; Yansritakul, C. Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned
behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 145–152.
[CrossRef]
30. Chin, J.; Jiang, B.C.; Mufidah, I.; Persada, S.F.; Noer, B.A. The investigation of consumers’ behavior intention in using green
skincare products: A pro- environmental behavior model approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3922. [CrossRef]
31. Shimul, A.S.; Cheah, I.; Khan, B.B. Investigating Female Shoppers’ Attitude and Purchase Intention toward Green Cosmetics in
South Africa. J. Glob. Mark. 2021, 1–20. [CrossRef]
32. Tarkiainen, A.; Sundqvist, S. Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. Br. Food J.
2005, 107. [CrossRef]
33. Moser, A.K. Consumers’ purchasing decisions regarding environmentally friendly products: An empirical analysis of German
consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 31, 389–397. [CrossRef]
34. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2015,
3, 128–143. [CrossRef]
35. Hojnik, J.; Ruzzier, M.; Ruzzier, M.K. Transition towards sustainability: Adoption of eco-products among consumers. Sustainability
2019, 11, 4308. [CrossRef]
36. Hojnik, J.; Ruzzier, M.; Manolova, T.S. Sustainable development: Predictors of green consumerism in Slovenia. Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1695–1708. [CrossRef]
37. Lin, Y.; Yang, S.; Hanifah, H.; Iqbal, Q. An Exploratory Study of Consumer Attitudes Toward Green Cosmetics in the UK Market.
Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 71. [CrossRef]
38. Yano, Y.; Kato, E.; Ohe, Y.; Blandford, D. Examining the opinions of potential consumers about plant-derived cosmetics:
An approach combining word association, co-occurrence network, and multivariate probit analysis. J. Sens. Stud. 2019, 34, e12484.
[CrossRef]
39. Cervellon, M.-C.; Rinaldi, M.-J.; Wernerfelt, A.-S. How Green is Green? Consumers’ understanding of green cosmetics and their
certifications. In Proceedings of the 10th International Marketing Trends Conference, Paris, France, 20–22 January 2011.
40. Weijters, B.; Baumgartner, H.; Schillewaert, N. Reversed item bias: An integrative model. Psychol. Methods 2013, 18, 320–334.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]