Before a spray tan, ask how the salon will protect your whole eye area, lips and other mucous membranes, and prevent you from inhaling or swallowing the mist. FDA permits dihydroxyacetone (DHA) as a color additive for external cosmetic use, but has not approved its use as an all-over booth spray. The agency says industry has not submitted the safety data needed to support those exposure routes. This uncertainty is a reason to ask about exposure prevention; it does not establish that a session will cause lung disease. FDA explains the distinction here.
A retail cream or lotion lets you more easily avoid the excluded areas without spraying the product into the air. Neither application method makes the resulting color a substitute for sunscreen. If a salon cannot explain how it addresses the exposure questions, choosing another facility or a non-spray format is a reasonable decision.
What FDA permits: external cosmetic use of DHA
DHA creates color by reacting with amino acids near the skin surface. Its permitted use is set out in 21 CFR 73.2150: it may be used to color the body in externally applied cosmetics, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice. That listing concerns the color additive and its conditions of use. It does not mean FDA has approved every finished tanning formula, salon or application method.
The definition of external application excludes the lips and body surfaces covered by mucous membrane. The separate definition of the eye area extends beyond the eyeball to the eyebrows, surrounding skin, eyelids and lashes, and tissues within the orbital boundary. These definitions appear in 21 CFR 70.3(v) and (s). FDA applies them to DHA and states that DHA is not permitted for use in the eye area.
| Exposure area or route | Boundary relevant to your appointment |
|---|---|
| External body surfaces | DHA is permitted as a cosmetic color additive within its listed conditions of use. |
| Lips and mucous membranes | Excluded from the regulatory definition of external application. |
| Whole eye area | DHA is not permitted here; closing the eyes leaves eyelid skin within this excluded area. |
| Breathing in or swallowing mist | FDA asks consumers to request measures that prevent these internal exposures. |
For a consumer, the useful distinction is where the product goes. A statement about an ingredient’s permitted skin use cannot answer whether a particular spray session protects the eyes or airways. Likewise, the fact that a formula is described as natural or professional does not answer the route-of-exposure questions.
Why all-over misting has not been approved
FDA’s Sunless Tanners & Bronzers page says that avoiding exposure to the eye area, lips, mucous membranes or internal tissues may be difficult during an all-over booth spray. Its explanation for the unapproved use is missing safety data submitted for review. The page does not identify an approved nose filter, lip balm or eyewear combination that makes a booth session an approved use.
This distinction has both regulatory and evidence consequences. FDA says using a color additive outside its permitted conditions makes a cosmetic adulterated under the law. That statement should not be converted into a claim that every spray-tanning business is banned, or into proof that every exposed customer will be injured. The agency’s consumer advice is to prevent the unapproved exposures.
The FDA Tanning Products page also says DHA should not be inhaled, swallowed or exposed to the relevant mucosal and eye areas because the risks, if any, are unknown. A previous session without symptoms cannot fill that evidence gap. The practical question remains whether the planned application can keep the product away from those routes.
Three questions to ask before a spray session
FDA sets out three protection questions for commercial facilities using DHA sprays or mists. The following checklist adapts the wording of its cosmetics page for a conversation with the salon:
How will you protect the entire eye area, including the surrounding skin?
How will you keep the product off my lips and all surfaces covered by mucous membrane?
How will you prevent internal exposure from breathing in or swallowing the product?
On the cosmetics page, FDA says that a no answer means the consumer is not protected from the unapproved use. Its Tanning Products page asks a related set of questions that also explicitly mentions the nose, mouth and ears, and advises finding another salon if any answer is no. Read the original FDA questions before booking so the facility can address the scope of protection rather than just the appearance of the tan.
Ask for an explanation of the measures used and the areas they cover. If the only answer is to close your eyes, follow up about eyelid skin and the surrounding area, which are themselves within FDA’s boundary. If you are told to hold your breath, follow up about preventing inhalation during the session. These are ways to apply FDA’s questions, not a validated do-it-yourself protection protocol.
Do not treat a list of accessories as proof that the questions have been answered. The cited sources do not establish that a particular nose plug, balm, shield or ventilation arrangement prevents every excluded exposure. Avoid improvising protective equipment or assuming a technician’s reassurance changes the additive’s authorized uses. You can decline or postpone a session if the explanation leaves you uncertain.
What the Danish booth-air measurements show
A Danish Environmental Protection Agency investigation published in 2006 measured DHA in airborne droplets during three application scenarios. Sampling was performed at mouth and nose height and in rooms adjacent to treatment booths. This provides evidence of airborne DHA under those tested conditions, rather than a measurement of how much each customer’s lungs retained.
| Tested setting in Denmark | Sampling period | Measured DHA in air |
|---|---|---|
| Closed automatic booth | 16 seconds and 14 seconds | 115 and 238 µg/L, respectively |
| Open automatic booth | About 35 seconds | 3.3 and 17 µg/L in separate measurements |
| Manual turbine application | 210 seconds | 0.8 µg/L |
| Adjacent rooms after three treatments | About 30 minutes | 0.29 and 0.50 µg/L at the two locations |
The unit µg/L means micrograms per liter of sampled air. It is a concentration, not a dose per person. Estimating an inhaled dose would also require information about breathing volume, exposure time and any effective exposure controls. Estimating a dose deposited in the lung adds further uncertainties. The table therefore cannot be used to calculate your personal lung dose or a probability of illness.
The sampling periods also should not be read as continuous spray times. For example, the open booth used two three-second spraying periods, while collection covered roughly 35 seconds in the booth. Different sampling durations and different equipment make a simple concentration ranking an incomplete comparison of total exposure. The lower concentration measured during manual treatment does not establish that all manual spray tans are safe.
The investigators sampled droplets below approximately 12 micrometers in diameter. Separate particle-size measurements, available only for the closed booth, found many particles below 10 micrometers during application. A nose filter used during manual spraying was visibly colored by bronzer afterward. That observation shows product reached the filter; it does not demonstrate its DHA filtration efficiency or prove complete protection.
The report calls the concentrations minimum estimates because some DHA may have passed through the collection system without reacting. It was a small investigation of equipment and practices in Denmark two decades ago, not a survey of present-day US salons. It supports asking about airborne exposure but cannot certify or disqualify a modern facility by booth type, price or marketing description. The adjacent-room results also do not establish that a particular ventilation rule was violated.
Reported reactions and the limits of the health evidence
FDA reports receiving consumer accounts of rashes and, mainly with spray booths, coughing, dizziness and fainting. It explicitly says the cause is uncertain: an ingredient or combination of ingredients, an allergic reaction, a pre-existing condition or an unrelated factor may have been involved. The FDA report summary supplies neither an incidence rate nor proof that DHA alone caused these events.
Reports of symptoms can identify concerns that deserve attention, but they cannot tell you the likelihood of a reaction at your appointment. The absence of a denominator, verified diagnosis and confirmed cause prevents that calculation. Conversely, uncertainty about the cause is not a reason to disregard symptoms after a session.
A mouse inhalation study by Hernandez and colleagues examined biological effects under controlled conditions. Published online in December 2024, with a June 2025 collection date, it used A/J mice and nose-only exposure to DHA in saline. Acute experiments tested 5, 130 and 600 micrograms. Protein in fluid recovered from the lungs increased at one hour at all tested doses; by 24 hours it had returned to control levels. Inflammatory cell counts and tissue injury scores increased at the two higher doses.
In repeated exposure experiments using 5 micrograms, six days on and one day off over two weeks, the investigators found increased lung-fluid protein and cells in males. Female mice showed reduced alveolar density, higher injury scores and increased collagen deposition consistent with fibrosis. These findings give a biological reason for caution. They are findings in an experimental mouse model, not diagnoses in salon customers.
The highest dose was selected using European spray-tanning exposure estimates; other doses drew on estimated vaping exposures. The paper cites estimated booth inhalation amounts of 0.21–0.6 milligrams per session, while acknowledging a lack of quantitative data on actual inhaled DHA doses. Matching an estimated mass across a human and a mouse does not establish equivalent tissue exposure or risk. The two-week design and absence of female lung-function testing further limit the conclusions. The authors call for longer and additional dose studies.
Taken together, the human reports and animal results support caution about exposure routes. They do not establish that DHA spray tanning causes pulmonary fibrosis in people, quantify a safe frequency, or show the long-term risk of an occasional session. The strongest practical advice in these sources remains FDA’s request to prevent eye, mucosal and internal exposure.
Skin-level laboratory research answers a different question. Jung and colleagues’ study was published online in 2007 and in a 2008 journal issue. In pig-skin samples treated outside the body with a 20% DHA solution for 40 minutes before UV testing, the authors reported more than 180% additional free-radical generation compared with untreated samples. This was a high-concentration experiment measuring a laboratory endpoint, not a clinical study of aging, cancer or sunburn after ordinary product use. It cannot set a safe waiting interval before sun exposure.
Lotion versus booth: choosing how the product is applied
FDA specifically identifies retail creams and lotions as products intended for the permitted external application. It says consumers can easily avoid inhaling them or applying them to the eye area or mucous membranes. This is a practical advantage when you want to control where the product goes. It is not a guarantee that every formula suits every person, or permission to apply it to excluded areas.
| Decision point | Retail cream or lotion | All-over booth spray |
|---|---|---|
| Control of placement | Applied by hand to selected skin areas | Mist can reach areas beyond the intended skin surface |
| Inhalation issue | Does not require spraying into the air | FDA asks for measures to prevent inhalation |
| Meaning of the FDA listing | External use fits the intended application described by FDA | All-over booth misting has not been approved |
| Sun protection | Color does not replace sunscreen | Color does not replace sunscreen |
The color develops through a reaction in the outer skin layer that produces pigments called melanoidins. DermNet’s reference on DHA describes color beginning around an hour, becoming most evident at 8–24 hours and lasting roughly three to ten days. It also lists dryness, irritation and contact dermatitis, and says penetration beyond the outer layer remains uncertain. These points do not support describing topical DHA as biologically inert or claiming absorption is impossible.
DermNet advises caution with spray formulations for people with underlying lung disease because inhaled DHA may irritate pulmonary tissues. If that applies to you, discuss the planned exposure with your clinician. The evidence does not provide a universally suitable booth protocol or make a specific accessory a substitute for that conversation.
For routine application guidance, the American Academy of Dermatology’s self-tanner page covers preparation, working in sections, handwashing and drying. It does not evaluate spray-booth protection. Follow the product’s labeling, and do not treat instructions aimed at a more even cosmetic finish as evidence that inhalation is safe. If another aesthetic appointment is planned, tell that clinic about self-tanner use; our guide to laser hair removal with a recent tan addresses that separate scheduling discussion.
A DHA tan does not replace sun protection
The appearance of a tan is not evidence of protection from UV radiation. FDA says sunless tanning products may provide sun protection only if they contain sunscreen ingredients and carry SPF labeling. Any protection comes from the sunscreen component used as directed, not from the lasting brown color. Most sunless sprays and lotions do not contain sunscreen.
FDA also explains that tanning preparations without sunscreen must carry a warning under 21 CFR 740.19. Its substance is that the product does not prevent sunburn and repeated unprotected exposure can increase skin aging, skin cancer and other harms even without burning. The laboratory radical findings above do not supply a clinical risk multiplier; this labeling warning is enough to reject the idea of using cosmetic color as sun protection. See FDA’s explanation of the required warning.
AAD advises continuing daily sunscreen with SPF 30 or higher, broad-spectrum protection and water resistance after using self-tanner. Read and follow the sunscreen’s own directions rather than assuming visible color extends its protection. For help interpreting that label, see what water-resistant sunscreen means.
Salon responsibility and ingredient questions
FDA distinguishes product responsibility from salon practice. Firms and individuals marketing cosmetics are responsible for safety under labeled or customary use and for proper labeling. FDA can act against violations; professional administration in salons is generally overseen by state and local health authorities. This national guidance does not establish a particular state’s licensing, inspection or ventilation requirements.
There is also an ingredient-disclosure distinction. FDA says the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires ingredient declarations on retail cosmetics but does not apply to products used exclusively by professionals, including booth solutions. This does not establish that every salon withholds ingredients or that the solution is safe. Ask the facility for the product name and complete ingredient information, especially if you have known sensitivities. If it cannot supply useful information, that is an unresolved question for your decision. FDA discusses both responsibilities and disclosure here.
If symptoms occur, seek medical advice for a persistent rash or cough, and urgent care for breathing difficulty or fainting. Do not deliberately repeat exposure to test the cause. FDA’s sunless-tanner page links to its cosmetic-product complaint instructions; use that route to report a suspected reaction and keep any available product and appointment details. A report records a possible association and does not itself establish which ingredient was responsible.
Sources
Regulatory sources establish the permitted-use boundaries. The Danish report measures airborne exposure; the laboratory papers examine possible biological effects. DermNet is a secondary clinical reference, and AAD provides patient application guidance.
