Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainable Sunscreens: A Challenge Between Performance, Animal Testing Ban, and Human and Environmental Safety

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sunscreens in Coastal Ecosystems

Part of the book series: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry ((HEC,volume 94))

Abstract

The light and warmth of the sun are among the key parameters for the development of many higher life forms on Earth. As light intensity changes within seasons, organisms including mankind have evolved measures to regulate especially UV light intensity to the skin by additional pigmentation, hair, or even feathers. Nowadays, due to increased UV light intensity, change of human movement pattern, and leisure activities, additional sun protection is required. Besides clothes, sunscreen formulations are used to protect human skin from both UV A and UV B radiation. In modern sunscreens, the majority of UV filters are based on organic substances. Aromatic ring structures, high octanol, and low water solubility as well as appropriate chemical stability are needed to meet the criteria of high UV absorbance, sufficient oil solubility, and photostability during the application phase of the sunscreen product. Although naturally occurring substances may provide similar UV absorbance, the lack of chemical stability typically prevents them from being used in such cosmetic products. The high log Pow (typically in the range of 3–6) implies that these substances may accumulate in organisms and thus may cause a threat to top predators. Existing experimentally derived data on various UV filters demonstrate that the bioaccumulation potential remains clearly below critical thresholds (i.e., bioconcentration factor (BCF) is <2,000 and biomagnification factor (BMF) is <1). Due to the direct environmental release of sunscreen products and their UV filters into lakes, rivers, and coastal areas and the overall good environmental stability, chronic aquatic studies are needed to evaluate the substance intrinsic toxicity on various trophic aquatic levels. This is already reflected by the existing European chemical legislation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, REACH), which recommends long-term toxicity tests instead of short-term for poorly degradable and poorly water-soluble substances. Furthermore, this regulation also takes into account that additional environmental compartments may be impacted by such type of chemicals and thus requires additional data on soil- and sediment-dwelling organisms at a higher tonnage level.

However, besides all given environmental awareness to UV filters in sunscreen products, human and thus consumer safety remains as highest priority. By saying this, in the EU every UV filter used as cosmetic ingredient requires approval by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). For the human safety assessment, appropriate information on higher-tier endpoints such as repeated dose toxicity or reproduction toxicity is mandatory in case of significant systemic uptake. However, in contrast to lower-tier tests (such as eye irritation or dermal toxicity), those complex studies cannot be replaced by available in vitro or in silico methods at this time. On the other hand, the existing animal testing ban hinders industry to develop innovative new UV filters since SCCS approval will not be granted due to the lack of relevant data for the safety assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Powers JM, Murphy JEJ (2019) Sunlight radiation as a villain and hero: 60 years of illuminating research. Int J Radiat Biol 95(7):1043–1049

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gonzaga ER (2009) Role of UV light in photodamage, skin aging, and skin cancer: importance of photoprotection. Am J Clin Dermatol 10(Supplement 1):19–24

    Google Scholar 

  3. Auerswald L, Freier U, Lopata A, Meyer B (2008) Physiological and morphological colour change in Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba: a field study in the Lazarev Sea. J Exp Biol 211(24):3850–3858

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dunlap WC, Chalker BE, Bandaranayake WM, Wu Won JJ (1998) Nature’s sunscreen from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Int J Cosmet Sci 20(1):41–51

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nybakken L, Solhaug KA, Bilger W, Gauslaa Y (2004) The lichens Xanthoria elegans and Cetraria islandica maintain a high protection against UV-B radiation in Arctic habitats. Oecologia 140(2):211–216

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gotz T, Windhovel U, Boger P, Sandmann G (1999) Protection of photosynthesis against ultraviolet-B radiation by carotenoids in transformants of the cyanobacterium synechococcus PCC7942. Plant Physiol 120(2):599–604

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Heldt H-W (1996) Pflanzenbiochemie, 1st edn. Spektrum, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kootstra A (1994) Protection from UV-B-induced DNA damage by flavonoids. Plant Mol Biol 26(2):771–774

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gordon HT, Bauernfeind JC (1982) Carotenoids as food colorants. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 18(1):59–97

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaidbey KH, Kligman AM (1978) Sunburn protection by longwave ultraviolet radiation-induced pigmentation. Arch Dermatol 114(1):46–48

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kohli I, Sakamaki T, Dong Tian W, Moyal D, Hamzavi IH, Kollias N (2019) The dynamics of pigment reactions of human skin to ultraviolet A radiation. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 17:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  12. Scheuer C, Pommergaard HC, Rosenberg J, Gögenur I (2014) Melatonin’s protective effect against UV radiation: a systemic review of clinical and experimental studies. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 30(4):180–188

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pawlowski S (2007) Haltungstipps und Haltungsfehler bei der Pflege terrestrischer Sumpfschildkröten am Beispiel der Gelbrandscharnierschildkröte Cuora flavomarginata ssp. (Gray, 1863). Elaphe 15(4):43–52

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sato M, Ishikura R, Oshima N (2004) Direct effects of visible and UVA light on pigment migration in erythrophores of Nile tilapia. Pigment Cell Res 17(5):519–524

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. de Galvez MV, Aquilera J, Bernabo JL, Sanchez-Roldan C, Herrera-Ceballos E (2015) Human hair as a natural sun protection agent: a quantitative study. Photochem Photobiol 91(4):966–970

    Google Scholar 

  16. de Paula Correa M, Ceballos JC (2010) Solar ultraviolet radiation measurements in one of the most populous cities of the world: aspects related to skin cancer cases and vitamin D availability. Photochem Photobiol 86(2):438–444

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grant WB, Holick MF (2005) Benefits and requirements of vitamin D for optimal health: a review. Altern Med Rev 10(2):94–111

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ohnaka T (1993) Health effects of ultraviolet radiation. Ann Physiol Anthropol 12(1):1–10

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Loomis WF (1967) Skin-pigment regulation of vitamin-D biosynthesis in man. Science 157(3788):501–506

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mahé E, Correa MP, Godin-Beekmann S, Haeffelin M, Jegou F, Saiag P, Beauchet A (2013) Evaluation of tourists’ UV exposure in Paris. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 27(3):e294–e304

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ruppert L, Ofenloch R, Surber C, Diepgen T (2016) Occupational risk factors for skin cancer and the availability of sun protection measures at German outdoor workplaces. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 89(6):1009–1015

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zuba EB, Francuzik W, Malicki P, Osmola-Mankowska A, Jenerowicz D (2016) Knowledge about ultraviolet radiation hazards and tanning behavior of cosmetology and medical students. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat 24(1):73–77

    Google Scholar 

  23. Andrey M (1999) Enjoying the sun well protected. Ther Umsch 56(6):287–299

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gambichler T, Dissel M, Altmeyer P, Rotterdam S (2010) Evaluation of sun awareness with an emphasis on ultraviolet protection by clothing: a survey of adults in Western Germany. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 24(2):155–162

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Welfare AIoHa (2016) Skin cancer in Australia. AIHW, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  26. Alonso FT, Garmendia ML, Bogado ME (2010) Increased skin cancer mortality in Chile beyond the effect of ageing: temporal analysis 1990 to 2005. Acta Derm Venereol 90(2):141–146

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rocholl M, Ludewig M, Skudlik C, Wilke A (2018) Occupational skin cancer: prevention and recommendations for UV protection as part of the treatment approved by the public statutory employers’ liability insurance. Hautarzt 69(6):462–470

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Moyal DD, Fourtanier AM (2008) Broad-spectrum sunscreens provide better protection from solar ultraviolet-simulated radiation and natural sunlight-induced immunosuppression in human beings. J Am Acad Dermatol 58(5 (Suppl. 2)):S149–S154

    Google Scholar 

  29. Osterwalder U, Sohn M, Herzog B (2014) Global state of sunscreens. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 30(2–3):62–80

    Google Scholar 

  30. OECD (1992) Test No. 301: readily biodegradability. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals, 1st edn. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  31. Delinasios GJ, Karbaschi M, Cooke M, Young AR (2018) Vitamin E inhibits the UVAI induction of “light” and “dark” cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, and oxidatively generated DNA damage, in keratinocytes. Sci Rep 8(1):423

    Google Scholar 

  32. Herzog B (2012) Photoprotection of human skin. In: Albini A (ed) Photochemistry, vol 40. RCS Publishing, The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 245–273

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cole C, Shyr T, Ou-Yan H (2016) Metal oxide sunscreens protect skin by absorption, not by reflection or scattering. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 32:5–10

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Landemann J, Meinke MC, Schanzer S, Albrecht S, Zastrow L (2017) New aspects in the development of sunscreening agents. Hautarzt 68(5):349–353

    Google Scholar 

  35. Velasco MV, Sarruf FD, Salgado-Santos IM, Haroutiounian-Filho CA, Kaneko TM, Baby AR (2008) Broad spectrum bioactive sunscreens. Int J Pharmacol 363(1–2):50–57

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Radice M, Manfredini S, Ziosi P, Dissette V, Buso P, Fallacara A, Vertuani S (2016) Herbal extracts, lichens and biomolecules as natural photo-protection alternatives to synthetic UV filters. A systematic review. Fitoterapia 114:144–162

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Stephens TJ, Herndon JH Jr, Colon LE, Gottschalk RW (2011) The impact of natural sunlight exposure on the UVB-sun protection factor (UVB-SPF) and UVA protection factor (UVA-PF) of a UVA/UVB SPF 50 sunscreen. J Drugs Dermatol 10(2):150–155

    Google Scholar 

  38. Klimova Z, Hojerova J, Berankova M (2015) Skin absorption and human exposure estimation of three widely discussed UV filters in sunscreens – in vitro study mimicking real-life consumer habits. Food Chem Toxicol 83:237–250

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hoekstra PF, O’Hara TM, Pallant SJ, Solomon KR, Muir DC (2002) Bioaccumulation of organochlorine contaminants in bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) from Barrow, Alaska. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 42(4):497–507

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Matthies M, Solomon K, Vighi M, Gilmann A, Tarazona JV (2016) The origin and evolution of assessment criteria for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Environ Sci Process Impacts 18(9):1114–1128

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. OECD (2012) Test No. 305: bioaccumulation in fish: aqueous and dietary exposure. OECD Guidelines for testing of chemicals, 2nd edn. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  42. ECHA (2017) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter R.11: PBT/vPvB assessment. Version 3.0 edn. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  43. Canada Go (2000) Persistence and bioaccumulation regulations. Canada Gazette 22(Part II):134

    Google Scholar 

  44. Arnot JA, Pawlowski S, Champ S (2018) A weight-of-evidence approach for the bioaccumulation assessment of triclosan in aquatic species. Sci Total Environ 618:1506–1518

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Arnot JA, Gobas FAPC (2003) A generic QSAR for assessing the bioaccumulation potential of organic chemicals in aquatic food webs. QSAR Comb Sci 22:337–345

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Arnot JA, Meylan W, Tunkel J, Howard PH, Mackay D, Bonnell M, Boethling RS (2009) A quantitative structure-activity relationship for predicting metabolic biotransformation rates for organic chemicals in fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 28(6):1168–1177

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Radke K, Champ S, Pfrommer E, Schulte S (2008) UV absorbers – of concern according to REACh? SOFW J 134(11):2–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. FAO (2018) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018 – meeting the sustainable development goals. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  49. Geyer HJ, Scheunert I, Bruggemann R, Matthies M, Steinberg CEW, Zitko V, Kettrup A, Garrison W (1998) The relevance of aquatic organisms’ lipid content to the toxicity of lipophilic chemicals: toxicity of lindane to different fish species. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 28(1):53–70

    Google Scholar 

  50. Fent K (2003) Ökotoxikologie, 2nd edn. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  51. Peng X, Fan Y, Jin J, Xiong S, Liu J, Tang C (2017) Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of ultraviolet absorbents in marine wildlife of the Pearl River Estuarine, South China Sea. Environ Pollut 225:55–65

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Gago-Ferrero P, Diaz-Cruz MS, Barcello D (2015) UV filters bioaccumulation in fish from Iberian river basins. Sci Total Environ 518–519:518–525

    Google Scholar 

  53. Gago-Ferrero P, Alonso MB, Bertozzi CP, Marigo J, Barbosa L, Cremer M, Secchi ER, Azevedo A, Lailson-Brito J Jr, Torres JPM, Malm O, Eljarrat E, Diaz-Cruz MS, Barcelo D (2013) First determination of UV filters in marine mammals. Octocrylene levels in Franciscana dolphins. Environ Sci Technol 47:5619–5625

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Chiaia-Hernandez AC, Ashauer R, Moest M, Hollingshaus T, Jeon J, Spaak P, Hollender J (2013) Bioconcentration of organic contaminants in Daphnia resting eggs. Environ Sci Technol 47:10667–10675

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Buser H-R, Balmer ME, Schmid P, Kohler M (2006) Occurrence of UV filters 4-methylbenzylidene camphor and octocrylene in fish from various Swiss rivers with inputs from wastewater treatment plants. Environ Sci Technol 40:1427–1431

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Balmer ME, Buser H-R, Müller MD, Poiger T (2005) Occurrence of some organic UV filters in wastewater, in surface waters, and in fish from Swiss lakes. Environ Sci Technol 39:953–962

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Bachelot M, Li Z, Munaron D, Le Gall P, Casellas C, Fenet H, Gomez E (2012) Organic UV filter concentrations in marine mussels from French coastal regions. Sci Total Environ 420:273–279

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Pawlowski S, Lanzinger AC, Dolich T, Fuessl S, Salinas ER, Zok S, Weiss B, Hefner N, Van Sloun P, Hombeck H, Klingelmann E, Peterse-Thiery M (2019) Evaluation of the bioaccumulation of octocrylene after dietary and aqueous exposure. Sci Total Environ 672:669–679

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Müller WA (1998) Tier- und Humanphysiologie, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  60. Eisenbrand G, Metzler M, Hennecke FJ (2005) Toxikologie, 3rd edn. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  61. Commission E (2006) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  62. Union E (2012) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (text with EEA relevance). Off J Eur Union L 167:1–123. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/528/oj

    Google Scholar 

  63. Union E (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Off J Eur Union L 309:1–50. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj

    Google Scholar 

  64. OECD (2000) No. 23: guidance document on aquatic toxicity testing of difficult substances and mixtures. OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment, 1st edn. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/20745761

  65. Gurtovenko AA, Anwar J (2007) Modulating the structure and properties of cell membranes: the molecular mechanism of action of dimethyl sulfoxide. J Phys Chem B 111(35):10453–10560

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. ECHA (2017) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment – Chapter R.7b: endpoint specific guidanc. Version 4.0 edn. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  67. Moore MT, Huggett DB, Gillespie WB Jr, Rodgers JH Jr, Cooper CM (1998) Comparative toxicity of chlordane, chlorpyrifos, and aldicarb to four aquatic testing organisms. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 34(2):152–157

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Gouldin KH, Adams N (1985) The effects of pesticides on algae. Rev Environ Health 5(3):199–253

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ferrando MD, Andreu-Moliner E, Fernandes-Casalderrey A (1992) Relative sensitivity of Daphnia magna and Brachionus calyciflorus to five pesticides. J Environ Sci Health B 27(5):511–522

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Sanderson H, Thomsen M (2007) Ecotoxicological quantitative structure-activity relationships for pharmaceuticals. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 79(3):331–335

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Cronin MT (2017) (Q)SARs to predict environmental toxicities: current status and future needs. Environ Sci Process Impacts 19(3):213–220

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. (SCCS) SCoCS (2018) The SCCS notes of guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation, 10th edn. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  73. Raffa RB, Pergolizzi JV Jr, Taylor R Jr, Kitzen JM (2019) Sunscreen bans: coral reefs and skin cancer. J Clin Pharm Ther 44(1):134–139

    Google Scholar 

  74. Commission E (2003) Technical guidance document on risk assessment, Part II. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  75. Fel JP, Lacherez C, Bensetra A, Mezzache S, Beraud E, Leonard M, Allemand D, Ferrier-Pages C (2019) Photochemical response of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata to some sunscreen ingredients. Coral Reefs 38:109–122

    Google Scholar 

  76. Danovaro R, Bongiorni L, Corinaldesi C, Giovannelli D, Damiani E, Astolfi P, Greci L, Pusceddu A (2008) Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections. Environ Health Perspect 116(4):441–447

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Stephanie Acker (BASF Grenzach GmbH) and Lars Hareng and Johanna Waldmann (BASF SE) for providing useful comments and support to this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Product Safety, BASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany

    Sascha Pawlowski

  2. BASF Personal Care and Nutrition GmbH, Monheim am Rhein, Germany

    Mechtild Petersen-Thiery

Authors
  1. Sascha Pawlowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mechtild Petersen-Thiery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sascha Pawlowski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Coastal Management, Institute of Marine Sciences of Andalusia (CSIC), Cádiz, Spain

    Antonio Tovar-Sánchez

  2. Department of Ecology and Coastal Management, Institute of Marine Sciences of Andalusia (CSIC), Cádiz, Spain

    David Sánchez-Quiles

  3. Department of Ecology and Coastal Management, Institute of Marine Sciences of Andalusia (CSIC), Cádiz, Spain

    Julián Blasco

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pawlowski, S., Petersen-Thiery, M. (2020). Sustainable Sunscreens: A Challenge Between Performance, Animal Testing Ban, and Human and Environmental Safety. In: Tovar-Sánchez, A., Sánchez-Quiles, D., Blasco, J. (eds) Sunscreens in Coastal Ecosystems. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 94. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2019_444

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation