User login
Although it has been . DiNardo and Downs point out that BP-3 has been linked to contact and photocontact allergies in humans and implicated as a potential endocrine disruptor. They add that it can yield deleterious by-products when reacting with chlorine in swimming pools and wastewater treatment plants and can cause additional side effects in humans who ingest fish.1 This column will focus on recent studies, mainly on the role of benzophenones in sunscreen agents that pose considerable risks to waterways and marine life, with concomitant effects on the food chain.
Environmental effects of BPs and legislative responses
Various UV filters, including BP-3, octinoxate, octocrylene, and ethylhexyl salicylate, are thought to pose considerable peril to the marine environment.2,3 In particular, BP-3 has been demonstrated to provoke coral reef bleaching in vitro, leading to ossification and deforming DNA in the larval stage.3,4
According to a 2018 report, BP-3 is believed to be present in approximately two thirds of organic sunscreens used in the United States.3 In addition, several studies have revealed that detectable levels of organic sunscreen ingredients, including BP-3, have been identified in coastal waters around the globe, including Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands.4-8
A surfeit of tourists has been blamed in part, given that an estimated 25% of applied sunscreen is eliminated within 20 minutes of entering the water and thought to release about 4,000-6,000 tons/year into the surrounding coral reefs.9,10 In Hawaii in particular, sewage contamination of the waterways has resulted from wastewater treatment facilities ill-equipped to filter out organic substances such as BP-3 and octinoxate.10,11 In light of such circumstances, the use of sunscreens containing BP-3 and octinoxate have been restricted in Hawaii, particularly in proximity to beaches, since Jan. 1, 2021, because of their apparent environmental impact.10
The exposure of coral to these compounds is believed to result in bleaching because of impaired membrane integrity and photosynthetic pigment loss in the zooxanthellae that coral releases.9,10 Coral and the algae zooxanthellae have a symbiotic relationship, Siller et al. explain, with the coral delivering protection and components essential for photosynthesis and the algae ultimately serving as nutrients for the coral.10 Stress endured by coral is believed to cause algae to detach, rendering coral more vulnerable to disease and less viable overall.10
In 2016, Downs et al. showed that four out of five sampled locations had detectable levels of BP-3 (100 pp trillion) with a fifth tested site measured at 19.2 pp billion.4
In 2019, Sirois acknowledges the problem of coral bleaching around the world but speculates that banning sunscreen ingredients for this purpose will delude people that such a measure will reverse the decline of coral and may lead to the unintended consequence of lower use of sunscreens. Sirois adds that a more comprehensive investigation of the multiple causes of coral reef bleaching is warranted, as are deeper examinations of studies using higher concentrations of sunscreen ingredients in artificial conditions.12
In the same year, Raffa et al. discussed the impending ban in Hawaii of the two sunscreen ingredients (BP-3 and octinoxate) to help preserve coral reefs. In so doing, they detailed the natural and human-induced harm to coral reefs, including pollution, fishing practices, overall impact of global climate change, and alterations in ocean temperature and chemistry. The implication is that sunscreen ingredients, which help prevent sun damage in users, are not the only causes of harm to coral reefs. Nevertheless, they point out that concentration estimates and mechanism studies buttress the argument that sunscreen ingredients contribute to coral bleaching. Still, the ban in Hawaii is thought to be a trend. Opponents of the ban are concerned that human skin cancers will rise in such circumstances. Alternative chemical sunscreens are being investigated, and physical sunscreens have emerged as the go-to recommendation.13
Notably, oxybenzone has been virtually replaced in the European Union with other UV filters with broad-spectrum action, but the majority of such filters have not yet been approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration.3
Food chain implications
BP-3 and other UV filters have been investigated for their effects on fish and mammals. Schneider and Lim illustrate that BP-3 is among the frequently used organic UV filters (along with 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, octocrylene, and octinoxate [ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate]) found in most water sources in the world, as well as multiple fish species.2 Cod liver in Norway, for instance, was found to contain octocrylene in 80% of cod, with BP-3 identified in 50% of the sample. BP-3 and octinoxate were also found in white fish.2,14 In laboratory studies, BP-3 in particular has been found in high concentrations in rainbow trout and Japanese rice fish (medaka), causing reduced egg production and hatchlings in females and increased vitellogenin protein production in males, suggesting potential feminization.2,15
Schneider and Lim note that standard wastewater treatment approaches cannot address this issue and the presence of such contaminants in fish can pose dangerous ramifications in the food chain. They assert that, despite relatively low concentrations in the fish, bioaccumulation and biomagnification present the potential for chemicals accumulating over time and becoming more deleterious as such ingredients travel up the food chain. As higher-chain organisms absorb higher concentrations of the chemicals not broken down in the lower-chain organisms, though, there have not yet been reports of adverse effects of biomagnification in humans.2
BP-3 has been found by Brausch and Rand to have bioaccumulated in fish at higher levels than the ambient water, however.1,2,16 Schneider and Lim present these issues as relevant to the sun protection discussion, while advocating for dermatologists to continue to counsel wise sun-protective behaviors.2
Conclusion
While calls for additional research are necessary and encouraging, I think human, and likely environmental, health would be better protected by the use of inorganic sunscreens in general and near or in coastal waterways. In light of legislative actions, in particular, it is important for dermatologists to intervene to ensure that patients do not engage in riskier behaviors in the sun in areas facing imminent organic sunscreen bans.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. DiNardo JC and Downs CA. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018 Feb;17(1):15-9.
2. Schneider SL and Lim HW. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan;80(1):266-71.
3. Yeager DG and Lim HW. Dermatol Clin. 2019 Apr;37(2):149-57.
4. Downs CA et al. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2016 Feb;70(2):265-88.
5. Sánchez Rodríguez A et al. Chemosphere. 2015 Jul;131:85-90.
6. Tovar-Sánchez A et al. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 5;8(6):e65451.
7. Danovaro R and Corinaldesi C. Microb Ecol. 2003 Feb;45(2):109-18.
8. Daughton CG and Ternes TA. Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Dec;107 Suppl 6:907-38.
9. Danovaro R et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Apr;116(4):441-7.
10. Siller A et al. Plast Surg Nur. 2019 Oct/Dec;39(4):157-60.
11. Ramos S et al. Sci Total Environ. 2015 Sep 1;526:278-311.
12. Sirois J. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Jul 15;674:211-2.
13. Raffa RB et al. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2019 Feb;44(1):134-9.
14. Langford KH et al. Environ Int. 2015 Jul;80:1-7.
15. Coronado M et al. Aquat Toxicol. 2008 Nov 21;90(3):182-7.
16. Brausch JM and Rand GM. Chemosphere. 2011 Mar;82(11):1518-32.
Although it has been . DiNardo and Downs point out that BP-3 has been linked to contact and photocontact allergies in humans and implicated as a potential endocrine disruptor. They add that it can yield deleterious by-products when reacting with chlorine in swimming pools and wastewater treatment plants and can cause additional side effects in humans who ingest fish.1 This column will focus on recent studies, mainly on the role of benzophenones in sunscreen agents that pose considerable risks to waterways and marine life, with concomitant effects on the food chain.
Environmental effects of BPs and legislative responses
Various UV filters, including BP-3, octinoxate, octocrylene, and ethylhexyl salicylate, are thought to pose considerable peril to the marine environment.2,3 In particular, BP-3 has been demonstrated to provoke coral reef bleaching in vitro, leading to ossification and deforming DNA in the larval stage.3,4
According to a 2018 report, BP-3 is believed to be present in approximately two thirds of organic sunscreens used in the United States.3 In addition, several studies have revealed that detectable levels of organic sunscreen ingredients, including BP-3, have been identified in coastal waters around the globe, including Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands.4-8
A surfeit of tourists has been blamed in part, given that an estimated 25% of applied sunscreen is eliminated within 20 minutes of entering the water and thought to release about 4,000-6,000 tons/year into the surrounding coral reefs.9,10 In Hawaii in particular, sewage contamination of the waterways has resulted from wastewater treatment facilities ill-equipped to filter out organic substances such as BP-3 and octinoxate.10,11 In light of such circumstances, the use of sunscreens containing BP-3 and octinoxate have been restricted in Hawaii, particularly in proximity to beaches, since Jan. 1, 2021, because of their apparent environmental impact.10
The exposure of coral to these compounds is believed to result in bleaching because of impaired membrane integrity and photosynthetic pigment loss in the zooxanthellae that coral releases.9,10 Coral and the algae zooxanthellae have a symbiotic relationship, Siller et al. explain, with the coral delivering protection and components essential for photosynthesis and the algae ultimately serving as nutrients for the coral.10 Stress endured by coral is believed to cause algae to detach, rendering coral more vulnerable to disease and less viable overall.10
In 2016, Downs et al. showed that four out of five sampled locations had detectable levels of BP-3 (100 pp trillion) with a fifth tested site measured at 19.2 pp billion.4
In 2019, Sirois acknowledges the problem of coral bleaching around the world but speculates that banning sunscreen ingredients for this purpose will delude people that such a measure will reverse the decline of coral and may lead to the unintended consequence of lower use of sunscreens. Sirois adds that a more comprehensive investigation of the multiple causes of coral reef bleaching is warranted, as are deeper examinations of studies using higher concentrations of sunscreen ingredients in artificial conditions.12
In the same year, Raffa et al. discussed the impending ban in Hawaii of the two sunscreen ingredients (BP-3 and octinoxate) to help preserve coral reefs. In so doing, they detailed the natural and human-induced harm to coral reefs, including pollution, fishing practices, overall impact of global climate change, and alterations in ocean temperature and chemistry. The implication is that sunscreen ingredients, which help prevent sun damage in users, are not the only causes of harm to coral reefs. Nevertheless, they point out that concentration estimates and mechanism studies buttress the argument that sunscreen ingredients contribute to coral bleaching. Still, the ban in Hawaii is thought to be a trend. Opponents of the ban are concerned that human skin cancers will rise in such circumstances. Alternative chemical sunscreens are being investigated, and physical sunscreens have emerged as the go-to recommendation.13
Notably, oxybenzone has been virtually replaced in the European Union with other UV filters with broad-spectrum action, but the majority of such filters have not yet been approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration.3
Food chain implications
BP-3 and other UV filters have been investigated for their effects on fish and mammals. Schneider and Lim illustrate that BP-3 is among the frequently used organic UV filters (along with 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, octocrylene, and octinoxate [ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate]) found in most water sources in the world, as well as multiple fish species.2 Cod liver in Norway, for instance, was found to contain octocrylene in 80% of cod, with BP-3 identified in 50% of the sample. BP-3 and octinoxate were also found in white fish.2,14 In laboratory studies, BP-3 in particular has been found in high concentrations in rainbow trout and Japanese rice fish (medaka), causing reduced egg production and hatchlings in females and increased vitellogenin protein production in males, suggesting potential feminization.2,15
Schneider and Lim note that standard wastewater treatment approaches cannot address this issue and the presence of such contaminants in fish can pose dangerous ramifications in the food chain. They assert that, despite relatively low concentrations in the fish, bioaccumulation and biomagnification present the potential for chemicals accumulating over time and becoming more deleterious as such ingredients travel up the food chain. As higher-chain organisms absorb higher concentrations of the chemicals not broken down in the lower-chain organisms, though, there have not yet been reports of adverse effects of biomagnification in humans.2
BP-3 has been found by Brausch and Rand to have bioaccumulated in fish at higher levels than the ambient water, however.1,2,16 Schneider and Lim present these issues as relevant to the sun protection discussion, while advocating for dermatologists to continue to counsel wise sun-protective behaviors.2
Conclusion
While calls for additional research are necessary and encouraging, I think human, and likely environmental, health would be better protected by the use of inorganic sunscreens in general and near or in coastal waterways. In light of legislative actions, in particular, it is important for dermatologists to intervene to ensure that patients do not engage in riskier behaviors in the sun in areas facing imminent organic sunscreen bans.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. DiNardo JC and Downs CA. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018 Feb;17(1):15-9.
2. Schneider SL and Lim HW. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan;80(1):266-71.
3. Yeager DG and Lim HW. Dermatol Clin. 2019 Apr;37(2):149-57.
4. Downs CA et al. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2016 Feb;70(2):265-88.
5. Sánchez Rodríguez A et al. Chemosphere. 2015 Jul;131:85-90.
6. Tovar-Sánchez A et al. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 5;8(6):e65451.
7. Danovaro R and Corinaldesi C. Microb Ecol. 2003 Feb;45(2):109-18.
8. Daughton CG and Ternes TA. Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Dec;107 Suppl 6:907-38.
9. Danovaro R et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Apr;116(4):441-7.
10. Siller A et al. Plast Surg Nur. 2019 Oct/Dec;39(4):157-60.
11. Ramos S et al. Sci Total Environ. 2015 Sep 1;526:278-311.
12. Sirois J. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Jul 15;674:211-2.
13. Raffa RB et al. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2019 Feb;44(1):134-9.
14. Langford KH et al. Environ Int. 2015 Jul;80:1-7.
15. Coronado M et al. Aquat Toxicol. 2008 Nov 21;90(3):182-7.
16. Brausch JM and Rand GM. Chemosphere. 2011 Mar;82(11):1518-32.
Although it has been . DiNardo and Downs point out that BP-3 has been linked to contact and photocontact allergies in humans and implicated as a potential endocrine disruptor. They add that it can yield deleterious by-products when reacting with chlorine in swimming pools and wastewater treatment plants and can cause additional side effects in humans who ingest fish.1 This column will focus on recent studies, mainly on the role of benzophenones in sunscreen agents that pose considerable risks to waterways and marine life, with concomitant effects on the food chain.
Environmental effects of BPs and legislative responses
Various UV filters, including BP-3, octinoxate, octocrylene, and ethylhexyl salicylate, are thought to pose considerable peril to the marine environment.2,3 In particular, BP-3 has been demonstrated to provoke coral reef bleaching in vitro, leading to ossification and deforming DNA in the larval stage.3,4
According to a 2018 report, BP-3 is believed to be present in approximately two thirds of organic sunscreens used in the United States.3 In addition, several studies have revealed that detectable levels of organic sunscreen ingredients, including BP-3, have been identified in coastal waters around the globe, including Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands.4-8
A surfeit of tourists has been blamed in part, given that an estimated 25% of applied sunscreen is eliminated within 20 minutes of entering the water and thought to release about 4,000-6,000 tons/year into the surrounding coral reefs.9,10 In Hawaii in particular, sewage contamination of the waterways has resulted from wastewater treatment facilities ill-equipped to filter out organic substances such as BP-3 and octinoxate.10,11 In light of such circumstances, the use of sunscreens containing BP-3 and octinoxate have been restricted in Hawaii, particularly in proximity to beaches, since Jan. 1, 2021, because of their apparent environmental impact.10
The exposure of coral to these compounds is believed to result in bleaching because of impaired membrane integrity and photosynthetic pigment loss in the zooxanthellae that coral releases.9,10 Coral and the algae zooxanthellae have a symbiotic relationship, Siller et al. explain, with the coral delivering protection and components essential for photosynthesis and the algae ultimately serving as nutrients for the coral.10 Stress endured by coral is believed to cause algae to detach, rendering coral more vulnerable to disease and less viable overall.10
In 2016, Downs et al. showed that four out of five sampled locations had detectable levels of BP-3 (100 pp trillion) with a fifth tested site measured at 19.2 pp billion.4
In 2019, Sirois acknowledges the problem of coral bleaching around the world but speculates that banning sunscreen ingredients for this purpose will delude people that such a measure will reverse the decline of coral and may lead to the unintended consequence of lower use of sunscreens. Sirois adds that a more comprehensive investigation of the multiple causes of coral reef bleaching is warranted, as are deeper examinations of studies using higher concentrations of sunscreen ingredients in artificial conditions.12
In the same year, Raffa et al. discussed the impending ban in Hawaii of the two sunscreen ingredients (BP-3 and octinoxate) to help preserve coral reefs. In so doing, they detailed the natural and human-induced harm to coral reefs, including pollution, fishing practices, overall impact of global climate change, and alterations in ocean temperature and chemistry. The implication is that sunscreen ingredients, which help prevent sun damage in users, are not the only causes of harm to coral reefs. Nevertheless, they point out that concentration estimates and mechanism studies buttress the argument that sunscreen ingredients contribute to coral bleaching. Still, the ban in Hawaii is thought to be a trend. Opponents of the ban are concerned that human skin cancers will rise in such circumstances. Alternative chemical sunscreens are being investigated, and physical sunscreens have emerged as the go-to recommendation.13
Notably, oxybenzone has been virtually replaced in the European Union with other UV filters with broad-spectrum action, but the majority of such filters have not yet been approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration.3
Food chain implications
BP-3 and other UV filters have been investigated for their effects on fish and mammals. Schneider and Lim illustrate that BP-3 is among the frequently used organic UV filters (along with 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, octocrylene, and octinoxate [ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate]) found in most water sources in the world, as well as multiple fish species.2 Cod liver in Norway, for instance, was found to contain octocrylene in 80% of cod, with BP-3 identified in 50% of the sample. BP-3 and octinoxate were also found in white fish.2,14 In laboratory studies, BP-3 in particular has been found in high concentrations in rainbow trout and Japanese rice fish (medaka), causing reduced egg production and hatchlings in females and increased vitellogenin protein production in males, suggesting potential feminization.2,15
Schneider and Lim note that standard wastewater treatment approaches cannot address this issue and the presence of such contaminants in fish can pose dangerous ramifications in the food chain. They assert that, despite relatively low concentrations in the fish, bioaccumulation and biomagnification present the potential for chemicals accumulating over time and becoming more deleterious as such ingredients travel up the food chain. As higher-chain organisms absorb higher concentrations of the chemicals not broken down in the lower-chain organisms, though, there have not yet been reports of adverse effects of biomagnification in humans.2
BP-3 has been found by Brausch and Rand to have bioaccumulated in fish at higher levels than the ambient water, however.1,2,16 Schneider and Lim present these issues as relevant to the sun protection discussion, while advocating for dermatologists to continue to counsel wise sun-protective behaviors.2
Conclusion
While calls for additional research are necessary and encouraging, I think human, and likely environmental, health would be better protected by the use of inorganic sunscreens in general and near or in coastal waterways. In light of legislative actions, in particular, it is important for dermatologists to intervene to ensure that patients do not engage in riskier behaviors in the sun in areas facing imminent organic sunscreen bans.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. DiNardo JC and Downs CA. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018 Feb;17(1):15-9.
2. Schneider SL and Lim HW. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Jan;80(1):266-71.
3. Yeager DG and Lim HW. Dermatol Clin. 2019 Apr;37(2):149-57.
4. Downs CA et al. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2016 Feb;70(2):265-88.
5. Sánchez Rodríguez A et al. Chemosphere. 2015 Jul;131:85-90.
6. Tovar-Sánchez A et al. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 5;8(6):e65451.
7. Danovaro R and Corinaldesi C. Microb Ecol. 2003 Feb;45(2):109-18.
8. Daughton CG and Ternes TA. Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Dec;107 Suppl 6:907-38.
9. Danovaro R et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Apr;116(4):441-7.
10. Siller A et al. Plast Surg Nur. 2019 Oct/Dec;39(4):157-60.
11. Ramos S et al. Sci Total Environ. 2015 Sep 1;526:278-311.
12. Sirois J. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Jul 15;674:211-2.
13. Raffa RB et al. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2019 Feb;44(1):134-9.
14. Langford KH et al. Environ Int. 2015 Jul;80:1-7.
15. Coronado M et al. Aquat Toxicol. 2008 Nov 21;90(3):182-7.
16. Brausch JM and Rand GM. Chemosphere. 2011 Mar;82(11):1518-32.