Advertisement

Environmental Risk Assessment of Sunscreens

Chapter
  • 167 Downloads
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 94)

Abstract

The sunscreens are complex products for protecting the skin of UV radiation. These products contain active ingredients organic and inorganic UV filters. The release of some of these components can provoke negative effects to aquatic ecosystems. The UV filters have shown to be present in environmental compartments (freshwater, wastewater, groundwater, seawater, sediment, and sand) and to be ubiquitous, motivated by the use in other applications. To assess the environmental risk of these products implies to know exposure conditions and toxic effects in order to establish the risk quotient. This is calculated as the ratio between predicted environmental concentration (PEC) or measured environmental concentration (MEC) and predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC). The organic compounds that presented higher risk were benzophenone-3, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, and 4-methylbenzylidene camphor. Nevertheless, this risk is depending on the location and environmental compartment. The lack of a database concentration of inorganic nanoparticles (TiO2 and ZnO) makes difficult to carry out a realistic assessment of environmental risk, although using modeled data an approach was carried out. The results evidenced that certain risk can be related to the release of these nanomaterials from sunscreens, although a refinement will be necessary to reduce the uncertainties. Finally, some gaps of information have been identified in order to get a more realistic environmental risk assessment. Thus, the toxicity of the mixture of sunscreens compounds under realistic conditions and the improvement of the knowledge of their mode of actions could be the next steps.

Keywords

Agglomerations Biocidal Estuarine ecosystems Herbicides Nanomaterials Phytoplankton Sunscreens 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to the projects CTM2016-75908-R funding by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (MINECO) and FEDER funds and the Junta de Andalucía PAIDI, Excellence Research Group RNM306 for their support.

References

  1. 1.
    Madalinski G, Godat E, Alves S et al (2008) Direct introduction of biological samples into a LTQ-Orbitrap hybrid mass spectrometer as a tool for fast metabolome analysis. Anal Chem 80:3291–3303.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac7024915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Osterwalder U, Herzog B (2009) Lim HW, Draelos ZD (eds) Clinical guide to sunscreens and photoprotection (basic and clinical dermatology). Informa HealthCare, New York, p 300Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rallo R, France B, Liu R et al (2011) Self-organizing map analysis of toxicity-related cell signaling pathways for metal and metal oxide nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 45:1695–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sánchez-Quiles D, Tovar-Sánchez A (2015) Are sunscreens a new environmental risk associated with coastal tourism? Environ Int 83:158–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Molins-Delgado D, Díaz-Cruz MS, Barceló D (2016) Ecological risk assessment associated to the removal of endocrine-disrupting parabens and benzophenone-4 in wastewater treatment. J Hazard Mater 310:143–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.02.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonzaga ER (2009) Role of UV light in photodamage, skin imaging and skin cancer: importance of photoprotection. Am J Clini Dermatol 10:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geoffrey K, Mwangi AN, Maru SM (2019) Sunscreen products: rationale for use, formulation development and regulatory considerations. Saudi Pharm J.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2019.08.003
  8. 8.
    Rodríguez-Romero A, Ruiz-Gutiérrez G, Viguri JR, Tovar-Sánchez A (2019) Sunscreens as a new source of metals and nutrients to coastal waters. Environ Sci Technol 53:10177–10187.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Care SUN, Thi BUY, Hoang X, Popa I (2014) Innovation in inorganic UV filters in sunscreen. Househ Pers Care Today 9:35–39Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    US Food and Drug Administration HHS (2019) Sunscreen drug products for over-the-counter human use. Proposed rule. Fed Regist 84:6204–6275Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Directive of the EU Parliament (2009) Regulation (EC) no 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on cosmetic products L 342/59Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sobek A, Bejgarn S, Rudén C et al (2013) In the shadow of the cosmetic directive - inconsistencies in EU environmental hazard classification requirements for UV-filters. Sci Total Environ 461–462:706–711.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooke DN, Burns JS, Crookes MJ (2008) UV-filters in cosmetics – prioritisation for environmental assessmentGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramos S, Homem V, Alves A, Santos L (2016) A review of organic UV-filters in wastewater treatment plants. Environ Int 86Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fagervold SK, Rodrigues AMS, Rohée C et al (2019) Occurrence and environmental distribution of 5 UV filters during the summer season in different water bodies. Water, Air, Soil Pollut 3. in pressGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tanwar S, Di Carro M, Ianni C, Magi E (2015) Occurrence of PCPs in natural waters from Europe BT - personal care products in the aquatic environment. In: Diaz-Cruz MS, Barceló D (eds) Personal care products in the aquatic environment. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–71Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poiger T, Buser HR, Balmer ME et al (2004) Occurrence of UV filter compounds from sunscreens in surface waters: regional mass balance in two Swiss lakes. Chemosphere 55:951–963.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.01.012
  18. 18.
    Rodríguez AS, Sanz MR, Rodríguez JRB (2015) Occurrence of eight UV filters in beaches of Gran Canaria (Canary Islands). An approach to environmental risk assessment. Chemosphere 131:85–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.02.054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sun Q, Lv M, Li M, Yu C-P (2015) Personal care products in the aquatic environment in ChinaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernot MJ, Justice JR (2015) Survey of personal care products in United States. In: Silvia Díaz-Cruz M, Barceló D (eds) Personal care products in the aquatic environment, p 95Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    da Silva CP, Emídio ES, de Marchi MRR (2015) The occurrence of UV filters in natural and drinking water in São Paulo State (Brazil). Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:19706–19715.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5174-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2009) Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Technol 43:9216–9222.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es9015553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tovar-Sánchez A, Sánchez-Quiles D, Basterretxea G et al (2013) Sunscreen products as emerging pollutants to coastal waters. PLoS One 8.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065451
  24. 24.
    Laborda F, Bolea E, Cepriá G et al (2016) Detection, characterization and quantification of inorganic engineered nanomaterials: a review of techniques and methodological approaches for the analysis of complex samples. Anal Chim Acta 904:10–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2015.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gondikas AP, von der Kammer F, Reed RB et al (2014) Release of TiO2 nanoparticles from sunscreens into surface waters: a one-year survey at the old Danube recreational Lake. Environ Sci Technol 48:5415–5422.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es405596yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sanchis J, Jiménez-lamana J, Abad E et al (2020) Bearing nanoparticles in the Besòs and Ebro rivers nanoparticles in the Besòs and Ebro rivers.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05996
  27. 27.
    Richardson SD, Ternes TA (2014) Water analysis: emerging contaminants and current issues. Anal Chem 86:2813–2848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitchelmore CL, He K, Gonsior M et al (2019) Occurrence and distribution of UV-filters and other anthropogenic contaminants in coastal surface water, sediment, and coral tissue from Hawaii. Sci Total Environ 670:398–410.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsui MMP, Lam JCW, Ng TY et al (2017) Occurrence, distribution, and fate of organic UV filters in coral communities. Environ Sci Technol 51:4182–4190.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Galamgam J, Chen R, Morrison L et al (2019) No aloha for sunscreen – an analysis of the risks-benefits balance of sunscreen on human health and the environment. J Am Acad Dermatol 81:AB246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2019.06.1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Corinaldesi C, Marcellini F, Nepote E et al (2018) Impact of inorganic UV filters contained in sunscreen products on tropical stony corals (Acropora spp.). Sci Total Environ:637–638.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.108
  32. 32.
    Ruszkiewicz JA, Pinkas A, Ferrer B et al (2017) Neurotoxic effect of active ingredients in sunscreen products, a contemporary review. Toxicol Rep 4:245–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2017.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sánchez-Quiles D, Tovar-Sánchez A (2014) Sunscreens as a source of hydrogen peroxide production in coastal waters. Environ Sci Technol 48:9037–9042.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es5020696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lewicka ZA, Yu WW, Oliva BL et al (2013) Photochemical behavior of nanoscale TiO2 and ZnO sunscreen ingredients. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem 263:24–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2013.04.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sendra M, Sánchez-Quiles D, Blasco J et al (2017) Effects of TiO2 nanoparticles and sunscreens on coastal marine microalgae: ultraviolet radiation is key variable for toxicity assessment. Environ Int 98:62–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.09.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Haynes VN, Ward JE, Russell BJ, Agrios AG (2017) Photocatalytic effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on aquatic organisms – current knowsledge and suggestions for future research. Aquat Toxicol 185:138–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2017.02.012 PMID - 28213304
  37. 37.
    EU T (2003) European Union. Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of the commission directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances directive 98/8/. Ispra (Italy)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    OECD (1992) Report of the OECD workshop on the extrapolation of laboratory aquatic toxicity data on the real environment. Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD), ParisGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Larsen J (2003) Basic concepts and terminology used to describe the combined action of chemicals in mixtures. In: Combined actions and interactions of chemicals mixtures. The toxicological effects of exposure to mixture of industrial and environmental chemicalsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rodea-Palomares I, Petre A, Boltes K, Al E (2010) Application of the combination index (CI)-isobologram equation to study the toxicological interactions of lipid regulators in two aquatic bioluminescent organisms. Water Res 44:427–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Corcoll N, Yang J, Backhaus T et al (2019) Copper affects composition and functioning of microbial communities in marine biofilms at environmentally relevant concentrations. Front Microbiol 10:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.03248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shao Y, Chen Z, Hollert H et al (2019) Toxicity of 10 organic micropollutants and their mixture: implications for aquatic risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 666:1273–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Backhaus T (2014) Medicines, shaken and stirred: a critical review on the ecotoxicology of pharmaceutical mixtures. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser B Biol Sci 369:1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Godoy A, Kummrow F (2017) What do we know about the ecotoxicology of pharmaceutical and personal care product mixtures? A critical review. Environ Sci Technol 47:1453–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heys K, Shore R, Pereira M et al (2016) Risk assessment of environmental mixture effects. RSC Adv 6:47844–47857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rodea-Palomares I, Gonzalez-Pleiter M, Martin-Betancor K et al (2015) Additivity and interactions in Ecotoxicity of pollutant mixtures: some patterns, conclusions, and open questions. Toxics 3:342–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Van Gestel C, Jonker M, Kammenga J et al (2011) Mixture toxicity. Linking approaches from ecological and human toxicology. SETAC Press and CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schnell S, Bols N, Barata C, Porte C (2009) Single and combined toxicity of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) on the rainbow trout liver cell line RTL-W1. Aquat Toxicol 93:244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Coors A, Weisbrod B, Schoknecht U et al (2014) Predicting acute and chronic effects of wood preservative products in Daphnia magna and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata based on the concept of concentration addition. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:382–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Coors A, Vollma P, Heim J et al (2018) Environmental risk assessment of biocidal products: identification of relevant components and reliability of a component-based mixture assessment. Environ Sci Eur 30:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kortenkamp A, Backhaus T, Faust M (2009) State of the art report on mixture toxicity. Final reportGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Puckowski A, Stolte S, Wagil M, Al E (2017) Mixture toxicity of flubendazole and fenbendazole to Daphnia magna. Int J Hyg Environ Health 220:575–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sigurnjak M, Ukić Š, Cvetnić M et al (2020) Combined toxicities of binary mixtures of alachlor, chlorfenvinphos, diuron and isoproturon. Chemosphere 240:124973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cedergreen N, Christensen A, Kamper A et al (2008) A review of independent action compared to concentration addition as reference models for mixtures of compounds with different molecular target sites. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1621–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Backhaus T, Altenburger R, Arrhenius Å et al (2003) The BEAM-project: prediction and assessment of mixture toxicities in the aquatic environment. Cont Shelf Res 23:1757–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Backhaus T, Blanck H, Faust M (2010) Hazard and risk assessment of chemical mixtures under REACH. State of art, gaps and options for improvement. Swedish Chem AgencyGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sbriz L, Aquino MR, de Rodriguez NMA et al (1998) Levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons and trace metals in bivalves and nearshore sediments from the Dominican Republic. Mar Pollut Bull 36:971–979.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(98)00097-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Junghans M (2004) Studies on combination effects of environmentally relevant toxicants. Bremen (Germany)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ra J, Lee B, Chang N, Kim S (2006) Estimating the combined toxicity by two-step prediction model on the complicated chemical mixtures from wastewater treatment plant effluents. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:2107–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mwense M, Wang X, Buontempo F et al (2004) Prediction of noninteractive mixture toxicity of organic compounds based on fuzzy set method. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:1763–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rider C, LeBlanc G (2005) An integrated addition and interaction model for assessing toxicity of chemical mixtures. Toxicol Sci 87:520–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wang B, Yu G, Huang J et al (2009) Tiered aquatic ecological risk assessment of organochlorine pesticides and their mixture in Jiangsu reach of Huaihe River, China. Environ Monit Assess 157:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Xing L, Sun J, Liu H, Yu H (2012) Combined toxicity of three chlorophenols 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol and pentachlorophenol to Daphnia magna. J Environ Monit 14:1677–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Altenburger R, Nendza M, Schuurmann G (2003) Mixture toxicity and its modeling by quantitative structure-activity relationships. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1900–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Valerio LJ (2009) In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 241:356–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Molins-Delgado D, Gago-Ferrero P, Díaz-Cruz MS, Barceló D (2016) Single and joint ecotoxicity data estimation of organic UV filters and nanomaterials toward selected aquatic organisms. Urban groundwater risk assessment. Environ Res 145:126–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.11.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ma B, Lu G, Liu F et al (2016) Organic UV filters in the surface water of Nanjing, China: occurrence, distribution and ecological risk assessment. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 96:530–535.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-015-1725-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tang Z, Han X, Li G et al (2018) Occurrence, distribution and ecological risk of ultraviolet absorbents in water and sediment from Lake Chaou and its inflowing rivers, China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 164:540–547.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.08.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kim S, Choi K (2014) Occurrences, toxicities, and ecological risks of benzophenone-3, a common component of organic sunscreen products: a mini-review. Environ Int 70:143–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.05.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sang Z, Leung KSY (2016) Environmental occurrence and ecological risk assessment of organic UV filters in marine organisms from Hong Kong coastal waters. Sci Total Environ 566–567:489–498.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kim KY, Ekpeghere KI, Jeong HJ, Oh JE (2017) Effects of the summer holiday season on UV filter and illicit drug concentrations in the Korean wastewater system and aquatic environment. Environ Pollut 227:587–595.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Allinson M, Kameda Y, Kimura K, Allinson G (2018) Occurrence and assessment of the risk of ultraviolet filters and light stabilizers in Victorian estuaries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:12022–12033.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1386-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Schaap I, Slijkerman DME (2018) An environmental risk assessment of three organic UV-filters at Lac Bay, Bonaire, Southern Caribbean. Mar Pollut Bull 135:490–495.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.07.054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Capela D, Vila M, Llompart M et al (2019) Footprints in the sand – assessing the seasonal trends of volatile methylsiloxanes and UV-filters. Mar Pollut Bull:9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.01.021
  75. 75.
    Apel C, Joerss H, Ebinghaus R (2018) Environmental occurrence and hazard of organic UV stabilizers and UV filters in the sediment of European north and Baltic seas. Chemosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.08.105
  76. 76.
    Pintado-Herrera MG, Combi T, Corada-Fernández C et al (2017) Occurrence and spatial distribution of legacy and emerging organic pollutants in marine sediments from the Atlantic coast (Andalusia, SW Spain). Sci Total Environ 605–606:980–994.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gottschalk F, Lassen C, Kjoelholt J et al (2015) Modeling flows and concentrations of nine engineered nanomaterials in the Danish environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:5581–5602.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120505581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Maurer-Jones MA, Gunsolus IL, Murphy CJ, Haynes CL (2013) Toxicity of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Anal Chem 85:3036–3049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Johnson AC, Bowes MJ, Crossley A et al (2011) An assessment of the fate, behaviour and environmental risk associated with sunscreen TiO2 nanoparticles in UK field scenarios. Sci Total Environ 409:2503–2510.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.03.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Aruoja V, Sihtmäe M, Mortimer M et al (2015) Toxicity of 12 metal-based nanoparticles to algae, bacteria and protozoa. Environ Sci Nano 2:630–644.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EN00057BCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wang J, Wang W-X (2014) Significance of physicochemical and uptake kinetics in controlling the toxicity of metallic nanomaterials to aquatic organisms. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 15:573–592.  https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A1400109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sendra M, Moreno-Garrido I, Yeste MP et al (2017) Toxicity of TiO2, in nanoparticle or bulk form to freshwater and marine microalgae under visible light and UV-A radiation. Environ Pollut 227:39–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.053 PMID - 28454020
  83. 83.
    Sendra M, Pintado-Herrera MG, Aguirre-Martínez GV et al (2017) Are the TiO2 NPs a “Trojan horse” for personal care products (PCPs) in the clam Ruditapes philippinarum? Chemosphere 185:192–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.07.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Ciencias Marinas de Andalucía (CSIC), Campus Río San Pedro, Puerto RealCádizSpain
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas de Vigo (CSIC), VigoPontevedraSpain

Personalised recommendations