EcoSun Pass: A Tool to Evaluate the Ecofriendliness of UV Filters Used in Sunscreen Products

Overview

Journal Int J Cosmet Sci

Specialty Dermatology

Date 2020 Dec 8

PMID 33289148

Citations 6

Authors

S Pawlowski

B Herzog

M Sohn

M Petersen-Thiery

S Acker

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Sunscreens play a major role in the EU sun protection strategy in order to prevent humans from UV light-induced skin damage. In recent years, the demand for high-quality sunscreen products including aspects of broad range and photostability of the UV protection, showing good spreadability onto human skin and excellent sensorial properties during and after application has increased. Environmental aspects are considered. Sunscreens are complex compositions, with UV filters being the key element in the formulations reaching up to about 30% in content in the final product. Some of these ingredients, however, may be regarded as hazardous for the aquatic environment. Nevertheless, the aquatic ecosystem represents only a single environmental compartment, which may be impacted by UV filters. Therefore, the EcoSun Pass (ESP) tool was developed in order to assess the overall environmental impact of UV filters in combination with its efficacy (Sun Protection Factor, SPF and UVA Protection Factor, UVA-PF).

Methods: For that purpose, at first 24 of the EU-approved UV filters for sunscreen applications were evaluated for their environmental hazard profiles. Nine example UV filter compositions representing both SPF 30 and 50 were evaluated for ecofriendliness using the ESP tool.

Results: The results revealed that two out of four SPF 30 compositions are considered as ecofriendly. Likewise, from the SPF 50 two out of five did meet the criteria for ecofriendliness. Furthermore, the results showed that most ecofriendly example formulations have also the lowest overall UV filter content in the product, based on the use of highly innovative and least hazardous UV filters.

Conclusion: These results demonstrate that the tool is applicable to various formulations being present on the market and thus allows for a selection of most ecofriendly and efficient UV filters to be used in sunscreens.

Citing Articles

Acute toxicity assessment of nine organic UV filters using a set of biotests.

Marcin S, Aleksander A Toxicol Res. 2023; 39(4):649-667.

PMID: 37779587 PMC: 10541396. DOI: 10.1007/s43188-023-00192-2.

Investigating the use of titanium dioxide (TiO) nanoparticles on the amount of protection against UV irradiation.

Ghamarpoor R, Fallah A, Jamshidi M Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):9793.

PMID: 37328531 PMC: 10275892. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37057-5.

Gas Phase Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds Arising from the Application of Sunscreens.

Yeoman A, Shaw M, Ward M, Ives L, Andrews S, Lewis A Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(11).

PMID: 37297548 PMC: 10252547. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20115944.

Process Optimization of Phytoantioxidant and Photoprotective Compounds from Carob Pods ( L.) Using Ultrasonic Assisted Extraction Method.

Ayad R, Ayad R, Bourekoua H, Lefahal M, Makhloufi E, Akkal S Molecules. 2022; 27(24).

PMID: 36557933 PMC: 9783530. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27248802.

Sporopollenin Microcapsule: Sunscreen Delivery System with Photoprotective Properties.

Tampucci S, Tofani G, Chetoni P, Di Gangi M, Mezzetta A, Paganini V Pharmaceutics. 2022; 14(10).

PMID: 36297476 PMC: 9609628. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14102041.

References

Surdu S, Fitzgerald E, Bloom M, Boscoe F, Carpenter D, Haase R . Occupational exposure to ultraviolet radiation and risk of non-melanoma skin cancer in a multinational European study. PLoS One. 2013; 8(4):e62359. PMC: 3634731. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062359. View

Kunz P, Galicia H, Fent K . Comparison of in vitro and in vivo estrogenic activity of UV filters in fish. Toxicol Sci. 2006; 90(2):349-61. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfj082. View

Andrey M . [Enjoying the sun well protected]. Ther Umsch. 1999; 56(6):287-9. DOI: 10.1024/0040-5930.56.6.287. View

Balmer M, Buser H, Muller M, Poiger T . Occurrence of some organic UV filters in wastewater, in surface waters, and in fish from Swiss Lakes. Environ Sci Technol. 2005; 39(4):953-62. DOI: 10.1021/es040055r. View

Schneider S, Lim H . Review of environmental effects of oxybenzone and other sunscreen active ingredients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018; 80(1):266-271. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.033. View

Arukwe A, Eggen T, Moder M . Solid waste deposits as a significant source of contaminants of emerging concern to the aquatic and terrestrial environments - a developing country case study from Owerri, Nigeria. Sci Total Environ. 2012; 438:94-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.039. View

Saling P . Assessing Industrial Biotechnology Products with LCA and Eco-Efficiency. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2019; 173:325-357. DOI: 10.1007/10_2019_102. View

Langford K, Reid M, Fjeld E, Oxnevad S, Thomas K . Environmental occurrence and risk of organic UV filters and stabilizers in multiple matrices in Norway. Environ Int. 2015; 80:1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.03.012. View

Kaiser D, Sieratowicz A, Zielke H, Oetken M, Hollert H, Oehlmann J . Ecotoxicological effect characterisation of widely used organic UV filters. Environ Pollut. 2012; 163:84-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.12.014. View

10.

Osterwalder U, Sohn M, Herzog B . Global state of sunscreens. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014; 30(2-3):62-80. DOI: 10.1111/phpp.12112. View

11.

Kameda Y, Kimura K, Miyazaki M . Occurrence and profiles of organic sun-blocking agents in surface waters and sediments in Japanese rivers and lakes. Environ Pollut. 2011; 159(6):1570-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.055. View

12.

Rocholl M, Ludewig M, Skudlik C, Wilke A . [Occupational skin cancer : Prevention and recommendations for UV protection as part of the treatment approved by the public statutory employers' liability insurance]. Hautarzt. 2018; 69(6):462-470. DOI: 10.1007/s00105-018-4171-0. View

13.

Danovaro R, Bongiorni L, Corinaldesi C, Giovannelli D, Damiani E, Astolfi P . Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections. Environ Health Perspect. 2008; 116(4):441-7. PMC: 2291018. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.10966. View

14.

Klimisch H, Andreae M, Tillmann U . A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1997; 25(1):1-5. DOI: 10.1006/rtph.1996.1076. View

15.

Krutmann J, Passeron T, Gilaberte Y, Granger C, Leone G, Narda M . Photoprotection of the future: challenges and opportunities. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020; 34(3):447-454. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.16030. View

16.

LHaridon J, Martz P, Cheneble J, Campion J, Colombe L . Ecodesign of cosmetic formulae: methodology and application. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018; 40(2):165-177. DOI: 10.1111/ics.12448. View

17.

Fisch K, Waniek J, Schulz-Bull D . Occurrence of pharmaceuticals and UV-filters in riverine run-offs and waters of the German Baltic Sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017; 124(1):388-399. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.057. View

18.

Alonso F, Garmendia M, Bogado M . Increased skin cancer mortality in Chile beyond the effect of ageing: Temporal analysis 1990 to 2005. Acta Derm Venereol. 2010; 90(2):141-6. DOI: 10.2340/00015555-0787. View

19.

Ruppert L, Ofenloch R, Surber C, Diepgen T . Occupational risk factors for skin cancer and the availability of sun protection measures at German outdoor workplaces. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2016; 89(6):1009-15. DOI: 10.1007/s00420-016-1138-2. View