User login
Hypochlorous Acid: A Multipurpose New Addition to the Military Med Bag?
Hypochlorous Acid: A Multipurpose New Addition to the Military Med Bag?
Exogenously, hypochlorous acid (HOCl) is a powerful oxidizing agent formed from chlorine dissolved in water. Within the body, it is part of the immune response, created by activated leukocytes, which form HOCl from hydrogen peroxide and chloride. HOCl has been used as a disinfectant in wound care due to its antimicrobial properties via inhibition of DNA synthesis, protein synthesis, and decreased adenosine triphosphate production. It specifically targets bacteria by blocking bacterial cell wall synthesis and decreasing DNA replication.1
During the COVID-19 pandemic, HOCl was recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a disinfectant.2 HOCl can be purchased from a supplier, though its major limitation is its shelf life. The main environmental factors affecting its stability are sunlight exposure, temperatures > 25 °C, and air exposure. HOCl is stable and most potent when the pH falls between 3.5 and 5.5.3 It is best stored in a cool, dark environment to maintain efficacy for 2 weeks. Rossi-Fedele et al found that when exposed to sunlight, chlorine reduction starts on day 4, whereas solutions kept in dark storage remained more stable, with this process starting after day 14.4
HOCl can also be made on-site via a machine, which ranges in price from a portable version costing < $200 to a large commercial option that can cost $7000 to $25,000. HOCl is produced by mixing noniodinated salt and water, and using electrolysis, which generally takes less than 10 minutes before it is ready for use.2 Given the cost and nonreusable nature of disinfecting wipes, HOCl may be more worthwhile for economic and disposal purposes in the long term.
Different concentrations of HOCl are readily available commercially. Because topical application of 1% HOCl may cause skin irritation, solutions with lower concentrations have been developed including Vashe (0.03% HOCl; SteadMed), PhaseOne (0.025% HOCl solution; IHT), OCuSOFT (0.02% HOCl; OCuSOFT), Bruder (0.02% HOCl; Bruder Healthcare), Acuicyn (0.01% HOCl solution in dilute saline; Sonoma Pharmaceuticals), and Avenova (0.01% HOCl solution; NovaBay Pharmaceuticals).5
Aside from its surface utility, HOCl has been researched for its beneficial effects on skin. HOCl has been shown to be helpful intraoperatively and postoperatively in improving adverse effects (AEs) after hair restoration, including erythema and pruritus, and in optimizing healing by reducing inflammation, likely due to its antimicrobial properties and ability to promote oxygenation.6 Bucko et al demonstrated that Microcyn scar gel (with HOCl) was a superior nonirritating, nontoxic method of not only improving scar appearance (vascularity, scar height, and pliability) but also reducing scar symptoms of pain and pruritus in comparison to 100% silicone scar gel (traditional application used to improve scarring).7 Zhang et al demonstrated that HOCl consistently improved symptom relief of blepharitis, including meibomian gland, eyelash, and eyelid redness, irritation, and appearance in comparison as well as were better tolerated in comparison to traditional recommendations of eyelid compresses and wash (tea tree oil, diluted baby shampoo, and topical antibiotics).8 In children with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, Majewski et al compared a traditional bleach bath with a body wash containing hypochlorite (NaOCl; hypochlorous acid in alkaline aqueous solution). The body wash proved to be more convenient (showering vs 10-minute bath) and significantly improved symptoms while reducing the need for topical corticosteroids (common treatment modality for atopic dermatitis).9
The skin is the body’s primary defense against both dermatologic and respiratory infections. The face is especially vulnerable to microbes via airborne or environmental transmission, mechanical irritation, and touch. In the military environment, personal protective equipment (PPE) or uniform items may increase the risk of dermatologic conditions such as allergic or irritant dermatitis, infection, and friction blisters.
In a literature review of 312 dermatologic articles published between 2002 and 2022, Singal and Lipner found that among deployed soldiers serving in hot and dry climates, dermatitis and eczematous conditions were the most common, whereas bacterial and fungal conditions were most common in hot and humid settings. In the nondeployed setting, dermatitis and eczematous, acne, and fungal infections were the most common skin conditions. This is reflected by the unique circumstances that service members face at home and while deployed, when they may be more vulnerable to developing new or worsening chronic skin conditions depending on the environment (access to shelter, humid vs dry environments), and decreased access or time for hygiene (shared quarters at home in barracks or on deployment). Occupation-related conditions also play a large role in military dermatologic conditions.10
Dever et al noted the unique risks and exposures in the environment itself (plants, arthropods) as well as uniform items (protective gear) that carry an increased risk of friction irritation and dermatitis. Occupational exposures commonly associated with irritant contact dermatitis include alcohols, oils, fuel, disinfectants, and solvents. Chemicals in military uniforms themselves (eg, formaldehyde resins, disperse dyes, and chromate-containing dyes) also have the potential to cause allergic contact dermatitis, which can be challenging to address given the emphasis on uniformity and standards.11 PPE also may exacerbate rosacea and acne.
Some pathologies are associated specifically with bacteria, such as Cutibacterium acnes, as seen in acne vulgaris. Colonization of bacteria on the face may create biofilms that are difficult to detect, may be resistant to antibiotic therapy, and are implicated in other dermatologic conditions, such as persistent wounds, atopic dermatitis, and candidiasis.12
Biofilm and antibiotic resistance already pose a risk to patient care, but the unique environmental conditions and exposures of military settings can amplify this risk in the military population.13 Using HOCl in austere environments or the field for wound care may help reduce microbial load and the subsequent need for systemic antibiotics which carry the risk of gastrointestinal AEs and resistance.1
An optimized healing rate would support operational objectives by enabling service members to remain on full duty and avoid medications, which may prevent them from special duty, such as aviation. Sakarya et al found that HOCl solution enhanced wound healing in contrast with povidone-iodine (PI), while a study by Dharap et al discussed how HOCl provided major improvement in ulcer wound size (and infection), as well as significant reduction of inflammation.13
Anagnostopoulos et al studied the efficacy of 0.01% HOCl vs other disinfectants (5% PI, 4% chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] and 70% isopropyl alcohol [IPA]) against common skin organisms, including methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis. The study found that HOCl had at least equal if not greater efficacy to PI, CHG, and IPA depending on the bacterial strain, demonstrating immediate bactericidal effects.14
Furthermore, HOCl has been shown to be useful in suturing and wound closure by reducing microbial load when soaked gauze is placed in wound beds prior to closure, while not harming surrounding tissue.15 This would be especially advantageous for military health care when specialist follow-up would be delayed or to prevent infection risk while en route to higher care. Aside from its disinfectant strength, it’s also well tolerated. HOCl studies on human tissue demonstrate its efficacy to prevent irritation and AEs while also preventing infection and promoting wound healing.
Gozukucuk and Cakiroglu studied the use of HOCl as a skin disinfectant before neonatal circumcision and demonstrated fewer adverse effects compared with the more commonly used PI. Neonates treated with PI prior to circumcision resulted in greater postoperative edema and increased duration of wound healing compared with infants treated with HOCl.16 Furthermore, studies have shown that PI can lead to irritant dermatitis or chemical burns if not properly dried or if it becomes pooled because of occlusion dressings.17
Aside from its indicated use for infection or wound care, anti-inflammatory properties of HOCl also may be beneficial for off-label use in preventing flareups of chronic conditions as well as for treating symptoms while awaiting specialist evaluation. This might be the case during US-based training exercises, in remote locations without nearby dermatologists, or during virtual care because of internet constraints. For chronic conditions such as rosacea or atopic dermatitis, which research has shown are related to mast cell activation and degranulation and cytokine release, HOCl has been shown to reduce histamine, neutrophil-generated leukotrienes, in addition to interleukin-6 and interleukin-2 to improve symptoms by reducing inflammation.18
Limitations of HOCl to explore would be extending its shelf life, exploring its various forms (eg, spray, topical) and storage limitations, and training of the machine and materials needed to be made in-house if not purchased. There are also no official guidelines for clinicians to recommend HOCl to patients, and research should be expanded on its use in humans, though it generally is well tolerated without AEs. HOCl has the potential to be a potent, nontoxic, inexpensive tool in med bags or at austere clinics to help maintain a sterile space for procedures, prevent infection while rendering care, and help with exacerbations or prevent flare-ups of chronic conditions such as psoriasis, acne, and atopic dermatitis while specialist care is pending.
- Natarelli N, et al. Hypochlorous acid: applications in dermatology. J Integr Dermatol. December 22, 2022. Accessed March 2, 2026. https://www.jintegrativederm.org/article/56663-hypochlorous-acid-applications-in-dermatology
- Block MS, Rowan BG. Hypochlorous acid: a review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78:1461-1466. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2020.06.029
- Menta N, Vidal SI, Friedman A. Hypochlorous acid: a blast from the past. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23:909-910.
- Rossi-Fedele G, Dogramaci E, Steier L, et al. Some factors influencing the stability of Sterilox®, a super-oxidised water. Br Dent J. 2011;210:E23. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.143
- Tran AQ, Topilow N, Rong A, et al. Comparison of skin antiseptic agents and the role of 0.01% hypochlorous acid. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41:1170-1175. doi:10.1093/asj/sjaa322
- Stough D. Topical stabilized super-oxidized hypochlorous acid for wound healing in hair restoration surgery: a real-time usage-controlled trial evaluating safety, efficacy, and tolerability. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22:1191-1196. doi:10.36849/JDD.7172
- Bucko AD, Draelos Z, Dubois JC, Jones TM. A doubleblind, randomized study to compare Microcyn scar management hydrogel, K103163, and Kelo-cote scar gel for hypertrophic or keloid scars. Dermatologist. 2015;23:113-122.
- Zhang H, Wu Y, Wan X, et al. Effect of hypochlorous acid on blepharitis through ultrasonic atomization: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):1164. doi:10.3390/jcm12031164
- Majewski S, Bhattacharya T, Asztalos M, et al. Sodium hypochlorite body wash in the management of Staphylococcus aureus-colonized moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019;36:442-447. doi:10.1111/pde.13842
- Singal A, Lipner SR. A review of skin disease in military soldiers: challenges and potential solutions. Ann Med. 2023;55:2267425. doi:10.1080/07853890.2023.2267425
- Dever TT, Walters M, Jacob S. Contact dermatitis in military personnel. Dermatitis. 2011;22:313-319. doi:10.2310/6620.2011.11024
- Nowbuth AA, Armstrong J, Cloete T, et al. A potential benefit of hypochlorous acid-facial sanitisation: a review. Preprints. 2021. doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0129.v2
- Gold MH, Andriessen A, Bhatia AC, et al. Topical stabilized hypochlorous acid: the future gold standard for wound care and scar management in dermatologic and plastic surgery procedures. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020;19:270-277. doi:10.1111/jocd.13280
- Anagnostopoulos AG, Rong A, Miller D, et al. 0.01% hypochlorous acid as an alternative skin antiseptic: an in vitro comparison. Dermatol Surg. 2018;44:1489-1493. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000001594
- Odom EB, Mundschenk MB, Hard KA, et al. The utility of hypochlorous acid wound therapy in wound bed preparation and skin graft salvage. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:677e-678e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005359
- Gozukucuk A, Cakiroglu B. Comparison of hypochlorous acid and povidone-iodine as a disinfectant in neonatal circumcision. J Pediatr Urol. 2022;18:341.e1-341.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.03.011
- Borrego L, Hernández N, Hernández Z, et al. Povidoneiodine-induced postsurgical irritant contact dermatitis localized outside of the surgical incision area: report of 27 cases and a literature review. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55:540- 545. doi:10.1111/ijd.12957
- Del Rosso JQ, Bhatia N. Status report on topical hypochlorous acid: clinical relevance of specific formulations, potential modes of action, and study outcomes. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2018;11:36-39.
Exogenously, hypochlorous acid (HOCl) is a powerful oxidizing agent formed from chlorine dissolved in water. Within the body, it is part of the immune response, created by activated leukocytes, which form HOCl from hydrogen peroxide and chloride. HOCl has been used as a disinfectant in wound care due to its antimicrobial properties via inhibition of DNA synthesis, protein synthesis, and decreased adenosine triphosphate production. It specifically targets bacteria by blocking bacterial cell wall synthesis and decreasing DNA replication.1
During the COVID-19 pandemic, HOCl was recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a disinfectant.2 HOCl can be purchased from a supplier, though its major limitation is its shelf life. The main environmental factors affecting its stability are sunlight exposure, temperatures > 25 °C, and air exposure. HOCl is stable and most potent when the pH falls between 3.5 and 5.5.3 It is best stored in a cool, dark environment to maintain efficacy for 2 weeks. Rossi-Fedele et al found that when exposed to sunlight, chlorine reduction starts on day 4, whereas solutions kept in dark storage remained more stable, with this process starting after day 14.4
HOCl can also be made on-site via a machine, which ranges in price from a portable version costing < $200 to a large commercial option that can cost $7000 to $25,000. HOCl is produced by mixing noniodinated salt and water, and using electrolysis, which generally takes less than 10 minutes before it is ready for use.2 Given the cost and nonreusable nature of disinfecting wipes, HOCl may be more worthwhile for economic and disposal purposes in the long term.
Different concentrations of HOCl are readily available commercially. Because topical application of 1% HOCl may cause skin irritation, solutions with lower concentrations have been developed including Vashe (0.03% HOCl; SteadMed), PhaseOne (0.025% HOCl solution; IHT), OCuSOFT (0.02% HOCl; OCuSOFT), Bruder (0.02% HOCl; Bruder Healthcare), Acuicyn (0.01% HOCl solution in dilute saline; Sonoma Pharmaceuticals), and Avenova (0.01% HOCl solution; NovaBay Pharmaceuticals).5
Aside from its surface utility, HOCl has been researched for its beneficial effects on skin. HOCl has been shown to be helpful intraoperatively and postoperatively in improving adverse effects (AEs) after hair restoration, including erythema and pruritus, and in optimizing healing by reducing inflammation, likely due to its antimicrobial properties and ability to promote oxygenation.6 Bucko et al demonstrated that Microcyn scar gel (with HOCl) was a superior nonirritating, nontoxic method of not only improving scar appearance (vascularity, scar height, and pliability) but also reducing scar symptoms of pain and pruritus in comparison to 100% silicone scar gel (traditional application used to improve scarring).7 Zhang et al demonstrated that HOCl consistently improved symptom relief of blepharitis, including meibomian gland, eyelash, and eyelid redness, irritation, and appearance in comparison as well as were better tolerated in comparison to traditional recommendations of eyelid compresses and wash (tea tree oil, diluted baby shampoo, and topical antibiotics).8 In children with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, Majewski et al compared a traditional bleach bath with a body wash containing hypochlorite (NaOCl; hypochlorous acid in alkaline aqueous solution). The body wash proved to be more convenient (showering vs 10-minute bath) and significantly improved symptoms while reducing the need for topical corticosteroids (common treatment modality for atopic dermatitis).9
The skin is the body’s primary defense against both dermatologic and respiratory infections. The face is especially vulnerable to microbes via airborne or environmental transmission, mechanical irritation, and touch. In the military environment, personal protective equipment (PPE) or uniform items may increase the risk of dermatologic conditions such as allergic or irritant dermatitis, infection, and friction blisters.
In a literature review of 312 dermatologic articles published between 2002 and 2022, Singal and Lipner found that among deployed soldiers serving in hot and dry climates, dermatitis and eczematous conditions were the most common, whereas bacterial and fungal conditions were most common in hot and humid settings. In the nondeployed setting, dermatitis and eczematous, acne, and fungal infections were the most common skin conditions. This is reflected by the unique circumstances that service members face at home and while deployed, when they may be more vulnerable to developing new or worsening chronic skin conditions depending on the environment (access to shelter, humid vs dry environments), and decreased access or time for hygiene (shared quarters at home in barracks or on deployment). Occupation-related conditions also play a large role in military dermatologic conditions.10
Dever et al noted the unique risks and exposures in the environment itself (plants, arthropods) as well as uniform items (protective gear) that carry an increased risk of friction irritation and dermatitis. Occupational exposures commonly associated with irritant contact dermatitis include alcohols, oils, fuel, disinfectants, and solvents. Chemicals in military uniforms themselves (eg, formaldehyde resins, disperse dyes, and chromate-containing dyes) also have the potential to cause allergic contact dermatitis, which can be challenging to address given the emphasis on uniformity and standards.11 PPE also may exacerbate rosacea and acne.
Some pathologies are associated specifically with bacteria, such as Cutibacterium acnes, as seen in acne vulgaris. Colonization of bacteria on the face may create biofilms that are difficult to detect, may be resistant to antibiotic therapy, and are implicated in other dermatologic conditions, such as persistent wounds, atopic dermatitis, and candidiasis.12
Biofilm and antibiotic resistance already pose a risk to patient care, but the unique environmental conditions and exposures of military settings can amplify this risk in the military population.13 Using HOCl in austere environments or the field for wound care may help reduce microbial load and the subsequent need for systemic antibiotics which carry the risk of gastrointestinal AEs and resistance.1
An optimized healing rate would support operational objectives by enabling service members to remain on full duty and avoid medications, which may prevent them from special duty, such as aviation. Sakarya et al found that HOCl solution enhanced wound healing in contrast with povidone-iodine (PI), while a study by Dharap et al discussed how HOCl provided major improvement in ulcer wound size (and infection), as well as significant reduction of inflammation.13
Anagnostopoulos et al studied the efficacy of 0.01% HOCl vs other disinfectants (5% PI, 4% chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] and 70% isopropyl alcohol [IPA]) against common skin organisms, including methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis. The study found that HOCl had at least equal if not greater efficacy to PI, CHG, and IPA depending on the bacterial strain, demonstrating immediate bactericidal effects.14
Furthermore, HOCl has been shown to be useful in suturing and wound closure by reducing microbial load when soaked gauze is placed in wound beds prior to closure, while not harming surrounding tissue.15 This would be especially advantageous for military health care when specialist follow-up would be delayed or to prevent infection risk while en route to higher care. Aside from its disinfectant strength, it’s also well tolerated. HOCl studies on human tissue demonstrate its efficacy to prevent irritation and AEs while also preventing infection and promoting wound healing.
Gozukucuk and Cakiroglu studied the use of HOCl as a skin disinfectant before neonatal circumcision and demonstrated fewer adverse effects compared with the more commonly used PI. Neonates treated with PI prior to circumcision resulted in greater postoperative edema and increased duration of wound healing compared with infants treated with HOCl.16 Furthermore, studies have shown that PI can lead to irritant dermatitis or chemical burns if not properly dried or if it becomes pooled because of occlusion dressings.17
Aside from its indicated use for infection or wound care, anti-inflammatory properties of HOCl also may be beneficial for off-label use in preventing flareups of chronic conditions as well as for treating symptoms while awaiting specialist evaluation. This might be the case during US-based training exercises, in remote locations without nearby dermatologists, or during virtual care because of internet constraints. For chronic conditions such as rosacea or atopic dermatitis, which research has shown are related to mast cell activation and degranulation and cytokine release, HOCl has been shown to reduce histamine, neutrophil-generated leukotrienes, in addition to interleukin-6 and interleukin-2 to improve symptoms by reducing inflammation.18
Limitations of HOCl to explore would be extending its shelf life, exploring its various forms (eg, spray, topical) and storage limitations, and training of the machine and materials needed to be made in-house if not purchased. There are also no official guidelines for clinicians to recommend HOCl to patients, and research should be expanded on its use in humans, though it generally is well tolerated without AEs. HOCl has the potential to be a potent, nontoxic, inexpensive tool in med bags or at austere clinics to help maintain a sterile space for procedures, prevent infection while rendering care, and help with exacerbations or prevent flare-ups of chronic conditions such as psoriasis, acne, and atopic dermatitis while specialist care is pending.
Exogenously, hypochlorous acid (HOCl) is a powerful oxidizing agent formed from chlorine dissolved in water. Within the body, it is part of the immune response, created by activated leukocytes, which form HOCl from hydrogen peroxide and chloride. HOCl has been used as a disinfectant in wound care due to its antimicrobial properties via inhibition of DNA synthesis, protein synthesis, and decreased adenosine triphosphate production. It specifically targets bacteria by blocking bacterial cell wall synthesis and decreasing DNA replication.1
During the COVID-19 pandemic, HOCl was recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a disinfectant.2 HOCl can be purchased from a supplier, though its major limitation is its shelf life. The main environmental factors affecting its stability are sunlight exposure, temperatures > 25 °C, and air exposure. HOCl is stable and most potent when the pH falls between 3.5 and 5.5.3 It is best stored in a cool, dark environment to maintain efficacy for 2 weeks. Rossi-Fedele et al found that when exposed to sunlight, chlorine reduction starts on day 4, whereas solutions kept in dark storage remained more stable, with this process starting after day 14.4
HOCl can also be made on-site via a machine, which ranges in price from a portable version costing < $200 to a large commercial option that can cost $7000 to $25,000. HOCl is produced by mixing noniodinated salt and water, and using electrolysis, which generally takes less than 10 minutes before it is ready for use.2 Given the cost and nonreusable nature of disinfecting wipes, HOCl may be more worthwhile for economic and disposal purposes in the long term.
Different concentrations of HOCl are readily available commercially. Because topical application of 1% HOCl may cause skin irritation, solutions with lower concentrations have been developed including Vashe (0.03% HOCl; SteadMed), PhaseOne (0.025% HOCl solution; IHT), OCuSOFT (0.02% HOCl; OCuSOFT), Bruder (0.02% HOCl; Bruder Healthcare), Acuicyn (0.01% HOCl solution in dilute saline; Sonoma Pharmaceuticals), and Avenova (0.01% HOCl solution; NovaBay Pharmaceuticals).5
Aside from its surface utility, HOCl has been researched for its beneficial effects on skin. HOCl has been shown to be helpful intraoperatively and postoperatively in improving adverse effects (AEs) after hair restoration, including erythema and pruritus, and in optimizing healing by reducing inflammation, likely due to its antimicrobial properties and ability to promote oxygenation.6 Bucko et al demonstrated that Microcyn scar gel (with HOCl) was a superior nonirritating, nontoxic method of not only improving scar appearance (vascularity, scar height, and pliability) but also reducing scar symptoms of pain and pruritus in comparison to 100% silicone scar gel (traditional application used to improve scarring).7 Zhang et al demonstrated that HOCl consistently improved symptom relief of blepharitis, including meibomian gland, eyelash, and eyelid redness, irritation, and appearance in comparison as well as were better tolerated in comparison to traditional recommendations of eyelid compresses and wash (tea tree oil, diluted baby shampoo, and topical antibiotics).8 In children with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, Majewski et al compared a traditional bleach bath with a body wash containing hypochlorite (NaOCl; hypochlorous acid in alkaline aqueous solution). The body wash proved to be more convenient (showering vs 10-minute bath) and significantly improved symptoms while reducing the need for topical corticosteroids (common treatment modality for atopic dermatitis).9
The skin is the body’s primary defense against both dermatologic and respiratory infections. The face is especially vulnerable to microbes via airborne or environmental transmission, mechanical irritation, and touch. In the military environment, personal protective equipment (PPE) or uniform items may increase the risk of dermatologic conditions such as allergic or irritant dermatitis, infection, and friction blisters.
In a literature review of 312 dermatologic articles published between 2002 and 2022, Singal and Lipner found that among deployed soldiers serving in hot and dry climates, dermatitis and eczematous conditions were the most common, whereas bacterial and fungal conditions were most common in hot and humid settings. In the nondeployed setting, dermatitis and eczematous, acne, and fungal infections were the most common skin conditions. This is reflected by the unique circumstances that service members face at home and while deployed, when they may be more vulnerable to developing new or worsening chronic skin conditions depending on the environment (access to shelter, humid vs dry environments), and decreased access or time for hygiene (shared quarters at home in barracks or on deployment). Occupation-related conditions also play a large role in military dermatologic conditions.10
Dever et al noted the unique risks and exposures in the environment itself (plants, arthropods) as well as uniform items (protective gear) that carry an increased risk of friction irritation and dermatitis. Occupational exposures commonly associated with irritant contact dermatitis include alcohols, oils, fuel, disinfectants, and solvents. Chemicals in military uniforms themselves (eg, formaldehyde resins, disperse dyes, and chromate-containing dyes) also have the potential to cause allergic contact dermatitis, which can be challenging to address given the emphasis on uniformity and standards.11 PPE also may exacerbate rosacea and acne.
Some pathologies are associated specifically with bacteria, such as Cutibacterium acnes, as seen in acne vulgaris. Colonization of bacteria on the face may create biofilms that are difficult to detect, may be resistant to antibiotic therapy, and are implicated in other dermatologic conditions, such as persistent wounds, atopic dermatitis, and candidiasis.12
Biofilm and antibiotic resistance already pose a risk to patient care, but the unique environmental conditions and exposures of military settings can amplify this risk in the military population.13 Using HOCl in austere environments or the field for wound care may help reduce microbial load and the subsequent need for systemic antibiotics which carry the risk of gastrointestinal AEs and resistance.1
An optimized healing rate would support operational objectives by enabling service members to remain on full duty and avoid medications, which may prevent them from special duty, such as aviation. Sakarya et al found that HOCl solution enhanced wound healing in contrast with povidone-iodine (PI), while a study by Dharap et al discussed how HOCl provided major improvement in ulcer wound size (and infection), as well as significant reduction of inflammation.13
Anagnostopoulos et al studied the efficacy of 0.01% HOCl vs other disinfectants (5% PI, 4% chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] and 70% isopropyl alcohol [IPA]) against common skin organisms, including methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis. The study found that HOCl had at least equal if not greater efficacy to PI, CHG, and IPA depending on the bacterial strain, demonstrating immediate bactericidal effects.14
Furthermore, HOCl has been shown to be useful in suturing and wound closure by reducing microbial load when soaked gauze is placed in wound beds prior to closure, while not harming surrounding tissue.15 This would be especially advantageous for military health care when specialist follow-up would be delayed or to prevent infection risk while en route to higher care. Aside from its disinfectant strength, it’s also well tolerated. HOCl studies on human tissue demonstrate its efficacy to prevent irritation and AEs while also preventing infection and promoting wound healing.
Gozukucuk and Cakiroglu studied the use of HOCl as a skin disinfectant before neonatal circumcision and demonstrated fewer adverse effects compared with the more commonly used PI. Neonates treated with PI prior to circumcision resulted in greater postoperative edema and increased duration of wound healing compared with infants treated with HOCl.16 Furthermore, studies have shown that PI can lead to irritant dermatitis or chemical burns if not properly dried or if it becomes pooled because of occlusion dressings.17
Aside from its indicated use for infection or wound care, anti-inflammatory properties of HOCl also may be beneficial for off-label use in preventing flareups of chronic conditions as well as for treating symptoms while awaiting specialist evaluation. This might be the case during US-based training exercises, in remote locations without nearby dermatologists, or during virtual care because of internet constraints. For chronic conditions such as rosacea or atopic dermatitis, which research has shown are related to mast cell activation and degranulation and cytokine release, HOCl has been shown to reduce histamine, neutrophil-generated leukotrienes, in addition to interleukin-6 and interleukin-2 to improve symptoms by reducing inflammation.18
Limitations of HOCl to explore would be extending its shelf life, exploring its various forms (eg, spray, topical) and storage limitations, and training of the machine and materials needed to be made in-house if not purchased. There are also no official guidelines for clinicians to recommend HOCl to patients, and research should be expanded on its use in humans, though it generally is well tolerated without AEs. HOCl has the potential to be a potent, nontoxic, inexpensive tool in med bags or at austere clinics to help maintain a sterile space for procedures, prevent infection while rendering care, and help with exacerbations or prevent flare-ups of chronic conditions such as psoriasis, acne, and atopic dermatitis while specialist care is pending.
- Natarelli N, et al. Hypochlorous acid: applications in dermatology. J Integr Dermatol. December 22, 2022. Accessed March 2, 2026. https://www.jintegrativederm.org/article/56663-hypochlorous-acid-applications-in-dermatology
- Block MS, Rowan BG. Hypochlorous acid: a review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78:1461-1466. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2020.06.029
- Menta N, Vidal SI, Friedman A. Hypochlorous acid: a blast from the past. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23:909-910.
- Rossi-Fedele G, Dogramaci E, Steier L, et al. Some factors influencing the stability of Sterilox®, a super-oxidised water. Br Dent J. 2011;210:E23. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.143
- Tran AQ, Topilow N, Rong A, et al. Comparison of skin antiseptic agents and the role of 0.01% hypochlorous acid. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41:1170-1175. doi:10.1093/asj/sjaa322
- Stough D. Topical stabilized super-oxidized hypochlorous acid for wound healing in hair restoration surgery: a real-time usage-controlled trial evaluating safety, efficacy, and tolerability. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22:1191-1196. doi:10.36849/JDD.7172
- Bucko AD, Draelos Z, Dubois JC, Jones TM. A doubleblind, randomized study to compare Microcyn scar management hydrogel, K103163, and Kelo-cote scar gel for hypertrophic or keloid scars. Dermatologist. 2015;23:113-122.
- Zhang H, Wu Y, Wan X, et al. Effect of hypochlorous acid on blepharitis through ultrasonic atomization: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):1164. doi:10.3390/jcm12031164
- Majewski S, Bhattacharya T, Asztalos M, et al. Sodium hypochlorite body wash in the management of Staphylococcus aureus-colonized moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019;36:442-447. doi:10.1111/pde.13842
- Singal A, Lipner SR. A review of skin disease in military soldiers: challenges and potential solutions. Ann Med. 2023;55:2267425. doi:10.1080/07853890.2023.2267425
- Dever TT, Walters M, Jacob S. Contact dermatitis in military personnel. Dermatitis. 2011;22:313-319. doi:10.2310/6620.2011.11024
- Nowbuth AA, Armstrong J, Cloete T, et al. A potential benefit of hypochlorous acid-facial sanitisation: a review. Preprints. 2021. doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0129.v2
- Gold MH, Andriessen A, Bhatia AC, et al. Topical stabilized hypochlorous acid: the future gold standard for wound care and scar management in dermatologic and plastic surgery procedures. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020;19:270-277. doi:10.1111/jocd.13280
- Anagnostopoulos AG, Rong A, Miller D, et al. 0.01% hypochlorous acid as an alternative skin antiseptic: an in vitro comparison. Dermatol Surg. 2018;44:1489-1493. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000001594
- Odom EB, Mundschenk MB, Hard KA, et al. The utility of hypochlorous acid wound therapy in wound bed preparation and skin graft salvage. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:677e-678e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005359
- Gozukucuk A, Cakiroglu B. Comparison of hypochlorous acid and povidone-iodine as a disinfectant in neonatal circumcision. J Pediatr Urol. 2022;18:341.e1-341.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.03.011
- Borrego L, Hernández N, Hernández Z, et al. Povidoneiodine-induced postsurgical irritant contact dermatitis localized outside of the surgical incision area: report of 27 cases and a literature review. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55:540- 545. doi:10.1111/ijd.12957
- Del Rosso JQ, Bhatia N. Status report on topical hypochlorous acid: clinical relevance of specific formulations, potential modes of action, and study outcomes. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2018;11:36-39.
- Natarelli N, et al. Hypochlorous acid: applications in dermatology. J Integr Dermatol. December 22, 2022. Accessed March 2, 2026. https://www.jintegrativederm.org/article/56663-hypochlorous-acid-applications-in-dermatology
- Block MS, Rowan BG. Hypochlorous acid: a review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78:1461-1466. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2020.06.029
- Menta N, Vidal SI, Friedman A. Hypochlorous acid: a blast from the past. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23:909-910.
- Rossi-Fedele G, Dogramaci E, Steier L, et al. Some factors influencing the stability of Sterilox®, a super-oxidised water. Br Dent J. 2011;210:E23. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.143
- Tran AQ, Topilow N, Rong A, et al. Comparison of skin antiseptic agents and the role of 0.01% hypochlorous acid. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41:1170-1175. doi:10.1093/asj/sjaa322
- Stough D. Topical stabilized super-oxidized hypochlorous acid for wound healing in hair restoration surgery: a real-time usage-controlled trial evaluating safety, efficacy, and tolerability. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22:1191-1196. doi:10.36849/JDD.7172
- Bucko AD, Draelos Z, Dubois JC, Jones TM. A doubleblind, randomized study to compare Microcyn scar management hydrogel, K103163, and Kelo-cote scar gel for hypertrophic or keloid scars. Dermatologist. 2015;23:113-122.
- Zhang H, Wu Y, Wan X, et al. Effect of hypochlorous acid on blepharitis through ultrasonic atomization: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):1164. doi:10.3390/jcm12031164
- Majewski S, Bhattacharya T, Asztalos M, et al. Sodium hypochlorite body wash in the management of Staphylococcus aureus-colonized moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019;36:442-447. doi:10.1111/pde.13842
- Singal A, Lipner SR. A review of skin disease in military soldiers: challenges and potential solutions. Ann Med. 2023;55:2267425. doi:10.1080/07853890.2023.2267425
- Dever TT, Walters M, Jacob S. Contact dermatitis in military personnel. Dermatitis. 2011;22:313-319. doi:10.2310/6620.2011.11024
- Nowbuth AA, Armstrong J, Cloete T, et al. A potential benefit of hypochlorous acid-facial sanitisation: a review. Preprints. 2021. doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0129.v2
- Gold MH, Andriessen A, Bhatia AC, et al. Topical stabilized hypochlorous acid: the future gold standard for wound care and scar management in dermatologic and plastic surgery procedures. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020;19:270-277. doi:10.1111/jocd.13280
- Anagnostopoulos AG, Rong A, Miller D, et al. 0.01% hypochlorous acid as an alternative skin antiseptic: an in vitro comparison. Dermatol Surg. 2018;44:1489-1493. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000001594
- Odom EB, Mundschenk MB, Hard KA, et al. The utility of hypochlorous acid wound therapy in wound bed preparation and skin graft salvage. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:677e-678e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005359
- Gozukucuk A, Cakiroglu B. Comparison of hypochlorous acid and povidone-iodine as a disinfectant in neonatal circumcision. J Pediatr Urol. 2022;18:341.e1-341.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.03.011
- Borrego L, Hernández N, Hernández Z, et al. Povidoneiodine-induced postsurgical irritant contact dermatitis localized outside of the surgical incision area: report of 27 cases and a literature review. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55:540- 545. doi:10.1111/ijd.12957
- Del Rosso JQ, Bhatia N. Status report on topical hypochlorous acid: clinical relevance of specific formulations, potential modes of action, and study outcomes. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2018;11:36-39.
Hypochlorous Acid: A Multipurpose New Addition to the Military Med Bag?
Hypochlorous Acid: A Multipurpose New Addition to the Military Med Bag?
Sunscreen Access and Skin Cancer Prevention: Availability at the Marine Corps Exchange
Sunscreen Access and Skin Cancer Prevention: Availability at the Marine Corps Exchange
Military service members are at high risk for skin cancer due to unique occupational and environmental exposures, particularly in the aviation community, in which high-altitude flying, prolonged outdoor aircraft maintenance, physical training, field exercises, and deployments limit access to shade and opportunities for sunscreen reapplication. During deployment or field operations, service members may operate in environments with limited access to SPF products, particularly if sunscreen is not included among personal items.
Research on sun protection strategies and skin cancer risk factors in military personnel is critical to improving prevention, particularly given the higher incidence of melanoma in this population. A 2010 retrospective tumor registry review from the Department of Defense and the National Cancer Institute found higher melanoma rates in military personnel compared with the general population among individuals aged 45 to 49 years (33.62 vs 27.49), 50 to 54 years (49.76 vs 32.18), and 55 to 59 years (178.48 vs 39.17).1
This article discusses barriers to sun protection in military populations, evaluates sunscreen availability in military exchanges, and considers implications for policy and prevention.
Barriers to Sun Protection and Sunscreen Use
According to Rosenberg et al,2 the cause of higher rates of skin cancer among military service members may be multifactorial, including financial barriers to sunscreen use, limited education on photodamage, and insufficient emphasis on sun protection during demanding operational or training activities. Veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom who were surveyed about UV exposure and sunscreen indicated that 23% (49/211) received education about skin cancer but less than 30% (60/211) used sunscreen consistently during deployment due to lack of access, which has been reported previously.3 Sunscreen adherence also may be reduced in this population due to factors such as skin irritation, cost, poor cosmetic acceptability, and lower utilization among male service members. In their literature review of 9 publications pertaining to skin cancer risk through December 2016, Riemenschneider et al1 noted that male service members comprised 85% of the US military in 2014, and men statistically have lower rates of sunscreen use than women.
Sunscreen Availability and Product Analysis in Military Exchanges
Sunscreen is an important component of skin care for skin cancer prevention. More consistent use has been noted in households with annual incomes of $60,000 or higher.4 Sunscreen product availability has not been evaluated in the military community. Exchange stores are military equivalents of commercial chain stores where service members can purchase tax-free items. The Marine Corps Exchange (MCX) operates on 18 large active-duty bases worldwide. Patrons include active-duty service members from any branch, veterans, and family members. Officials from the MCX headquarters approve and maintain items sold on base. Although product availability may vary by location, standardization is maintained through vendor agreements influenced by customer demand and includes both exchange-branded and private-label products.5
In a review of 96 sunscreen products at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point MCX, 62.5% (60/96) met American Academy of Dermatology guideline criteria (SPF ≥30, broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection, and water resistance of 40-80 minutes).6 Of all products, 79.1% (76/96) were SPF 30 or higher, 76.0% (73/96) were water-resistant, and all provided broad-spectrum protection. Lotion formulations comprised 62.5% (60/96), and the mean price per ounce was $11.96. Opportunities for product expansion include increased availability of options for sensitive skin, as mineral sunscreens comprised 14.6% (14/96) of products; greater variety of products marketed to men, which accounted for 5.2% (5/96); and improved representation for service members with skin of color, as tinted formulations comprised 2.1% (2/96).6
Implications for Policy and Operational Readiness
Given these data, future studies should evaluate sunscreen purchasing behaviors among US service members to determine MCX utilization and whether product selection is driven by active-duty demand or broader consumer purchasing patterns. If product offerings are driven by the civilian customer base, this may result in a lack of tailored options for military service members who are most at risk for high UV exposure. If the MCX does not meet the needs of service members adequately or is inaccessible due to cost or inventory limitations, it highlights a weakness in skin cancer prevention.
Future research should explore not only sunscreen purchasing behavior among service members but also barriers to access and compliance with sun protection measures, as these insights are critical for informing effective policy that balances personal responsibility with institutional support. This could help with advocacy efforts for more effective, readily available options on base. It also could strengthen the argument for alternative strategies to complement sunscreen use, such as a sunscreen allowance, inclusion of sunscreen with provided uniforms and equipment, patient education, work breaks, sun-protective uniform items, and designated shade areas at work.6
Final Thoughts
Policy changes such as routine provision of sunscreen through supply chains, issuing sunscreen with uniforms, or providing a sunscreen stipend could remove financial and logistical barriers to consistent use of sunscreen in military populations. These measures could be impactful during field operations, deployments, and training in austere environments, where commercial purchasing options are limited and UV exposure is high. A proactive approach to sun safety could demonstrate a commitment to preserving the current health and operational readiness of active-duty service members while reducing future financial burdens of skin disease and helping promote wellness in this population during retirement. As with ear protection, uniforms, and eyewear, sunscreen should be considered a standard component of operational readiness.
- Riemenschneider K, Liu J, Powers JG. Skin cancer in the military: a systematic review of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer incidence, prevention, and screening among active duty and veteran personnel. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:1185-1192. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.11.062
- Rosenberg A, Cho S. We can do better at protecting our service members from skin cancer. Mil Med. 2022;187:311-313. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac198
- Powers JG, Patel NA, Powers EM, et al. Skin cancer risk factors and preventative behaviors among United States military veterans deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:2871-2873. doi:10.1038/jid.2015.238
- Tahir S, Ihebom D, Garcia E, et al. Sunscreen access, availability, and quality in dollar store chains. J Am Acad of Dermatol. 2024;90:1284-1285. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2024.02.018
- mymcx.com. Published 2025. Accessed May 15, 2025. https://www.mymcx.com/
- American Academy of Dermatology Association. How to select a sunscreen. Accessed April 23, 2026. https://www.aad.org/public/everyday-care/sun-protection/shade-clothing-sunscreen/how-to-select-sunscreen.
- Anderson S, Zhang S, Crotty A, et al. Bridging the knowledge-action gap in skin cancer prevention among US military personnel. Cutis. 2025;115:146-149. doi:10.12788/cutis.1207
Military service members are at high risk for skin cancer due to unique occupational and environmental exposures, particularly in the aviation community, in which high-altitude flying, prolonged outdoor aircraft maintenance, physical training, field exercises, and deployments limit access to shade and opportunities for sunscreen reapplication. During deployment or field operations, service members may operate in environments with limited access to SPF products, particularly if sunscreen is not included among personal items.
Research on sun protection strategies and skin cancer risk factors in military personnel is critical to improving prevention, particularly given the higher incidence of melanoma in this population. A 2010 retrospective tumor registry review from the Department of Defense and the National Cancer Institute found higher melanoma rates in military personnel compared with the general population among individuals aged 45 to 49 years (33.62 vs 27.49), 50 to 54 years (49.76 vs 32.18), and 55 to 59 years (178.48 vs 39.17).1
This article discusses barriers to sun protection in military populations, evaluates sunscreen availability in military exchanges, and considers implications for policy and prevention.
Barriers to Sun Protection and Sunscreen Use
According to Rosenberg et al,2 the cause of higher rates of skin cancer among military service members may be multifactorial, including financial barriers to sunscreen use, limited education on photodamage, and insufficient emphasis on sun protection during demanding operational or training activities. Veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom who were surveyed about UV exposure and sunscreen indicated that 23% (49/211) received education about skin cancer but less than 30% (60/211) used sunscreen consistently during deployment due to lack of access, which has been reported previously.3 Sunscreen adherence also may be reduced in this population due to factors such as skin irritation, cost, poor cosmetic acceptability, and lower utilization among male service members. In their literature review of 9 publications pertaining to skin cancer risk through December 2016, Riemenschneider et al1 noted that male service members comprised 85% of the US military in 2014, and men statistically have lower rates of sunscreen use than women.
Sunscreen Availability and Product Analysis in Military Exchanges
Sunscreen is an important component of skin care for skin cancer prevention. More consistent use has been noted in households with annual incomes of $60,000 or higher.4 Sunscreen product availability has not been evaluated in the military community. Exchange stores are military equivalents of commercial chain stores where service members can purchase tax-free items. The Marine Corps Exchange (MCX) operates on 18 large active-duty bases worldwide. Patrons include active-duty service members from any branch, veterans, and family members. Officials from the MCX headquarters approve and maintain items sold on base. Although product availability may vary by location, standardization is maintained through vendor agreements influenced by customer demand and includes both exchange-branded and private-label products.5
In a review of 96 sunscreen products at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point MCX, 62.5% (60/96) met American Academy of Dermatology guideline criteria (SPF ≥30, broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection, and water resistance of 40-80 minutes).6 Of all products, 79.1% (76/96) were SPF 30 or higher, 76.0% (73/96) were water-resistant, and all provided broad-spectrum protection. Lotion formulations comprised 62.5% (60/96), and the mean price per ounce was $11.96. Opportunities for product expansion include increased availability of options for sensitive skin, as mineral sunscreens comprised 14.6% (14/96) of products; greater variety of products marketed to men, which accounted for 5.2% (5/96); and improved representation for service members with skin of color, as tinted formulations comprised 2.1% (2/96).6
Implications for Policy and Operational Readiness
Given these data, future studies should evaluate sunscreen purchasing behaviors among US service members to determine MCX utilization and whether product selection is driven by active-duty demand or broader consumer purchasing patterns. If product offerings are driven by the civilian customer base, this may result in a lack of tailored options for military service members who are most at risk for high UV exposure. If the MCX does not meet the needs of service members adequately or is inaccessible due to cost or inventory limitations, it highlights a weakness in skin cancer prevention.
Future research should explore not only sunscreen purchasing behavior among service members but also barriers to access and compliance with sun protection measures, as these insights are critical for informing effective policy that balances personal responsibility with institutional support. This could help with advocacy efforts for more effective, readily available options on base. It also could strengthen the argument for alternative strategies to complement sunscreen use, such as a sunscreen allowance, inclusion of sunscreen with provided uniforms and equipment, patient education, work breaks, sun-protective uniform items, and designated shade areas at work.6
Final Thoughts
Policy changes such as routine provision of sunscreen through supply chains, issuing sunscreen with uniforms, or providing a sunscreen stipend could remove financial and logistical barriers to consistent use of sunscreen in military populations. These measures could be impactful during field operations, deployments, and training in austere environments, where commercial purchasing options are limited and UV exposure is high. A proactive approach to sun safety could demonstrate a commitment to preserving the current health and operational readiness of active-duty service members while reducing future financial burdens of skin disease and helping promote wellness in this population during retirement. As with ear protection, uniforms, and eyewear, sunscreen should be considered a standard component of operational readiness.
Military service members are at high risk for skin cancer due to unique occupational and environmental exposures, particularly in the aviation community, in which high-altitude flying, prolonged outdoor aircraft maintenance, physical training, field exercises, and deployments limit access to shade and opportunities for sunscreen reapplication. During deployment or field operations, service members may operate in environments with limited access to SPF products, particularly if sunscreen is not included among personal items.
Research on sun protection strategies and skin cancer risk factors in military personnel is critical to improving prevention, particularly given the higher incidence of melanoma in this population. A 2010 retrospective tumor registry review from the Department of Defense and the National Cancer Institute found higher melanoma rates in military personnel compared with the general population among individuals aged 45 to 49 years (33.62 vs 27.49), 50 to 54 years (49.76 vs 32.18), and 55 to 59 years (178.48 vs 39.17).1
This article discusses barriers to sun protection in military populations, evaluates sunscreen availability in military exchanges, and considers implications for policy and prevention.
Barriers to Sun Protection and Sunscreen Use
According to Rosenberg et al,2 the cause of higher rates of skin cancer among military service members may be multifactorial, including financial barriers to sunscreen use, limited education on photodamage, and insufficient emphasis on sun protection during demanding operational or training activities. Veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom who were surveyed about UV exposure and sunscreen indicated that 23% (49/211) received education about skin cancer but less than 30% (60/211) used sunscreen consistently during deployment due to lack of access, which has been reported previously.3 Sunscreen adherence also may be reduced in this population due to factors such as skin irritation, cost, poor cosmetic acceptability, and lower utilization among male service members. In their literature review of 9 publications pertaining to skin cancer risk through December 2016, Riemenschneider et al1 noted that male service members comprised 85% of the US military in 2014, and men statistically have lower rates of sunscreen use than women.
Sunscreen Availability and Product Analysis in Military Exchanges
Sunscreen is an important component of skin care for skin cancer prevention. More consistent use has been noted in households with annual incomes of $60,000 or higher.4 Sunscreen product availability has not been evaluated in the military community. Exchange stores are military equivalents of commercial chain stores where service members can purchase tax-free items. The Marine Corps Exchange (MCX) operates on 18 large active-duty bases worldwide. Patrons include active-duty service members from any branch, veterans, and family members. Officials from the MCX headquarters approve and maintain items sold on base. Although product availability may vary by location, standardization is maintained through vendor agreements influenced by customer demand and includes both exchange-branded and private-label products.5
In a review of 96 sunscreen products at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point MCX, 62.5% (60/96) met American Academy of Dermatology guideline criteria (SPF ≥30, broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection, and water resistance of 40-80 minutes).6 Of all products, 79.1% (76/96) were SPF 30 or higher, 76.0% (73/96) were water-resistant, and all provided broad-spectrum protection. Lotion formulations comprised 62.5% (60/96), and the mean price per ounce was $11.96. Opportunities for product expansion include increased availability of options for sensitive skin, as mineral sunscreens comprised 14.6% (14/96) of products; greater variety of products marketed to men, which accounted for 5.2% (5/96); and improved representation for service members with skin of color, as tinted formulations comprised 2.1% (2/96).6
Implications for Policy and Operational Readiness
Given these data, future studies should evaluate sunscreen purchasing behaviors among US service members to determine MCX utilization and whether product selection is driven by active-duty demand or broader consumer purchasing patterns. If product offerings are driven by the civilian customer base, this may result in a lack of tailored options for military service members who are most at risk for high UV exposure. If the MCX does not meet the needs of service members adequately or is inaccessible due to cost or inventory limitations, it highlights a weakness in skin cancer prevention.
Future research should explore not only sunscreen purchasing behavior among service members but also barriers to access and compliance with sun protection measures, as these insights are critical for informing effective policy that balances personal responsibility with institutional support. This could help with advocacy efforts for more effective, readily available options on base. It also could strengthen the argument for alternative strategies to complement sunscreen use, such as a sunscreen allowance, inclusion of sunscreen with provided uniforms and equipment, patient education, work breaks, sun-protective uniform items, and designated shade areas at work.6
Final Thoughts
Policy changes such as routine provision of sunscreen through supply chains, issuing sunscreen with uniforms, or providing a sunscreen stipend could remove financial and logistical barriers to consistent use of sunscreen in military populations. These measures could be impactful during field operations, deployments, and training in austere environments, where commercial purchasing options are limited and UV exposure is high. A proactive approach to sun safety could demonstrate a commitment to preserving the current health and operational readiness of active-duty service members while reducing future financial burdens of skin disease and helping promote wellness in this population during retirement. As with ear protection, uniforms, and eyewear, sunscreen should be considered a standard component of operational readiness.
- Riemenschneider K, Liu J, Powers JG. Skin cancer in the military: a systematic review of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer incidence, prevention, and screening among active duty and veteran personnel. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:1185-1192. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.11.062
- Rosenberg A, Cho S. We can do better at protecting our service members from skin cancer. Mil Med. 2022;187:311-313. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac198
- Powers JG, Patel NA, Powers EM, et al. Skin cancer risk factors and preventative behaviors among United States military veterans deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:2871-2873. doi:10.1038/jid.2015.238
- Tahir S, Ihebom D, Garcia E, et al. Sunscreen access, availability, and quality in dollar store chains. J Am Acad of Dermatol. 2024;90:1284-1285. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2024.02.018
- mymcx.com. Published 2025. Accessed May 15, 2025. https://www.mymcx.com/
- American Academy of Dermatology Association. How to select a sunscreen. Accessed April 23, 2026. https://www.aad.org/public/everyday-care/sun-protection/shade-clothing-sunscreen/how-to-select-sunscreen.
- Anderson S, Zhang S, Crotty A, et al. Bridging the knowledge-action gap in skin cancer prevention among US military personnel. Cutis. 2025;115:146-149. doi:10.12788/cutis.1207
- Riemenschneider K, Liu J, Powers JG. Skin cancer in the military: a systematic review of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer incidence, prevention, and screening among active duty and veteran personnel. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:1185-1192. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.11.062
- Rosenberg A, Cho S. We can do better at protecting our service members from skin cancer. Mil Med. 2022;187:311-313. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac198
- Powers JG, Patel NA, Powers EM, et al. Skin cancer risk factors and preventative behaviors among United States military veterans deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:2871-2873. doi:10.1038/jid.2015.238
- Tahir S, Ihebom D, Garcia E, et al. Sunscreen access, availability, and quality in dollar store chains. J Am Acad of Dermatol. 2024;90:1284-1285. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2024.02.018
- mymcx.com. Published 2025. Accessed May 15, 2025. https://www.mymcx.com/
- American Academy of Dermatology Association. How to select a sunscreen. Accessed April 23, 2026. https://www.aad.org/public/everyday-care/sun-protection/shade-clothing-sunscreen/how-to-select-sunscreen.
- Anderson S, Zhang S, Crotty A, et al. Bridging the knowledge-action gap in skin cancer prevention among US military personnel. Cutis. 2025;115:146-149. doi:10.12788/cutis.1207
Sunscreen Access and Skin Cancer Prevention: Availability at the Marine Corps Exchange
Sunscreen Access and Skin Cancer Prevention: Availability at the Marine Corps Exchange
Practice Points
- Military service members face increased UV exposure from occupational and deployment conditions, but sunscreen use is limited by logistical, educational, and behavioral barriers.
- Sunscreen availability in military exchanges partially meets dermatologic guidelines, highlighting opportunities to expand tailored options and integrate sun protection into operational readiness policy.