Toxic effects of UV filters from sunscreens on coral reefs revisited: regulatory aspects for “reef safe” products

Environmental Sciences Europe

Mechtild Petersen-Thiery¹  Sascha Pawlowski²  Mareen Moeller³  Ingo B. Miller³  Matthias Y. Kellermann³  Samuel Nietzer³  Peter J. Schupp⁴ 

[1] BASF Personal Care and Nutrition GmbH, E-EMC/QR, Product Stewardship & EHS Data Management, Rheinpromenade 1, 40789, Monheim, Germany;BASF SE, GBP/RA, Z 570, Carl-Bosch-Str. 38, 67056, Ludwigshafen, Germany;Environmental Biochemistry Group, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Schleusenstr. 1, 26382, Wilhelmshaven, Germany;Environmental Biochemistry Group, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Schleusenstr. 1, 26382, Wilhelmshaven, Germany;Helmholtz Institute for Functional Marine Biodiversity at the University of Oldenburg (HIFMB), Ammerländer Heerstr. 231, 26129, Oldenburg, Germany;

关键词: Coral toxicity;    Ecotoxicology;    UV filters;    Standardization;    Reef safe;    Sunscreen;    Regulation;    Coral reef;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12302-021-00515-w

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundTropical coral reefs have been recognized for their significant ecological and economical value. However, increasing anthropogenic disturbances have led to progressively declining coral reef ecosystems on a global scale. More recently, several studies implicated UV filters used in sunscreen products to negatively affect corals and possibly contribute to regional trends in coral decline. Following a public debate, bans were implemented on several organic UV filters and sunscreen products in different locations including Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Palau. This included banning the widely used oxybenzone and octinoxate, while promoting the use of inorganic filters such as zinc oxide even although their toxicity towards aquatic organisms had been documented previously. The bans of organic UV filters were based on preliminary scientific studies that showed several weaknesses as there is to this point no standardized testing scheme for scleractinian corals. Despite the lack of sound scientific proof, the latter controversial bans have already resulted in the emergence of a new sunscreen market for products claimed to be ‘reef safe’ (or similar). Thus, a market analysis of ‘reef safe’ sunscreen products was conducted to assess relevant environmental safety aspects of approved UV filters, especially for coral reefs. Further, a scientifically sound decision-making process in a regulatory context is proposed.ResultsOur market analysis revealed that about 80% of surveyed sunscreens contained inorganic UV filters and that there is a variety of unregulated claims being used in the marketing of ‘reef safe’ products with ‘reef friendly’ being the most frequently used term. Predominantly, four organic UV filters are used in ‘reef safe’ sunscreens in the absence of the banned filters oxybenzone and octinoxate. Analysis of safe threshold concentrations for marine water retrieved from existing REACH registration dossiers could currently also safeguard corals.ConclusionThere is a substantial discrepancy of treatments of organic versus inorganic UV filters in politics as well as in the ‘reef safe’ sunscreen market, which to this point is not scientifically justified. Thus, a risk-based approach with equal consideration of organic and inorganic UV filters is recommended for future regulatory measures as well as a clear definition and regulation of the ‘reef safe’ terminology.

【 授权许可】

CC BY