Search

Objective: The aim of this work was to review the principals of environmental hazard and risk assessment (ERA) of cosmetic UV filters registered under EU REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). Furthermore, effects as obtained from non‐standardized testing methods and organisms from scientific literature were compared against the predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs) as derived based on standardized test methods for the various environmental compartments under REACH. Methods: The REACH dossiers at the ECHA webpage were screened for available information related to basic physico–chemical data (i.e. water solubility, octanol–water partitioning coefficient), PNECs and associated data (data basis, assessment factors (AFs)). Scientific literature was screened for available ecotoxicity data and the adverse effect levels were compared against the derived PNECs under REACH. Current approaches for environmental risk assessments of UV filters were evaluated for its applicability for a direct release scenario. Results: Under REACH, PNECs were derived for all hazardous UV filters. Although, PNECs were often derived for various environmental compartments (i.e. freshwater, marine water, sediment, soil), results from literature focused on aquatic data. Effects as observed within scientific literature matches in principle with the hazardous profile of the UV filters. Effects levels both on the acute and the chronic toxicity as retrieved from the non‐standardized test organisms (literature) were above the derived PNECs under REACH. Currently, ERAs performed for cosmetic UV filters under REACH are solely tonnage driven and thus do not fully capture the use in sunscreens and associated leisure activities. Conclusion: Existing EU REACH regulation is considered as sufficient to evaluate the environmental safety of UV filters used in sunscreens. To cover the direct release of UV filters due to various leisure activities into the aquatic freshwater and marine environment, an additional application‐based ERA is considered necessary. For UV filters used in sunscreens, derived PNECs under REACH were evaluated against results from per reviewed scientific literature. This evaluation revealed that the PNECs derived from standard testing methods are protective for the environment. Existing environmental risk assessments as carried out under REACH in principal are fit for purpose, however may require some improvements related to the direct release of UV filter into the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organic solvents are often used in aquatic toxicity tests to facilitate the testing of hydrophobic or poorly water-soluble substances such as ultraviolet (UV) filters, pesticides, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Knowledge of intrinsic effects (i.e., measured as standardized and non-standardized endpoints) of such carrier solvents in non-standardized organisms (i.e., corals), is critical to regulatory processes. Therefore, we exposed the reef-building coral Montipora digitata to the most commonly used carrier solvents ethanol, methanol, dimethyl sulfoxide, and dimethylformamide in the range of 10–100 µL L−1 for 16 days. The effects on mortality, photobiological, morphological, and oxidative stress markers were evaluated. In our study, all solvents resulted in significant morphological and/or oxidative stress responses, but not in mortality. Moreover, ethanol led to a rapid increase in turbidity, thus questioning its suitability as a carrier solvent in aquatic studies in general. Based on our observations, we could rank the solvent effects as follows: dimethylformamide < dimethyl sulfoxide ≈ methanol ≤ ethanol, with dimethylformamide showing the least and ethanol the most pronounced effects. We conclude that the use of solvents in toxicity studies with corals, particularly by examining non-standardized (e.g., morphological, physiological) endpoints, should be taken with caution and requires further elaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coral reefs have been declining globally at a historically unprecedented rate. Ultraviolet (UV) filters used in sunscreens may contribute to this decline at local scales, which has already led to bans on various organic UV filters in some regions. However, the underlying studies for these bans demonstrated significant flaws in the experimental design due to a lack of validated and standardized testing methods for corals. This study aimed to investigate options for the development of a standard acute toxicity test for the larval stage of scleractinian corals. Planula larvae of two brooding (Leptastrea purpurea and Tubastraea faulkneri) and two spawning (Acropora digitifera and A. millepora) species were exposed to the organic UV filter benzophenone-3 (BP3) for 48 h under static conditions. We observed interspecific variations in toxicity, with A. digitifera being the most sensitive (LC50 = 0.75 µg L−1) and T. faulkneri the least sensitive (LC50 = 2951.24 µg L−1) species. Inhibition of settlement was found to be a useful endpoint leading to an EC50 of 1.84 µg L−1 in L. purpurea larvae. Although the analytical challenges of measuring lipophilic substances in small volume test setups remain, the here applied test design and selected endpoints are suitable for further validation and subsequent standardization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ultraviolet (UV) filters used in sunscreens are among the anthropogenic substances that may enter the marine environment by both indirect (via wastewater) and direct pathways (leisure activities). Owing to the recent global decline in coral population, the impact of those UV filters on the coral health is currently under increased investigation. First results from scientists suggest that some of the filters may be toxic to various coral life stages, but an initial cross comparison with existing data from other freshwater organisms does not indicate that corals are specifically more susceptible to UV filters than other standard species. In fact, the available data leading to this conclusion is still vague and based on toxicity and bioaccumulation tests with corals, which are both still at the research stage. To facilitate a proper hazard assessment, robust experimental procedures for coral ecotoxicological studies are considered mandatory. In other words, additional steps should be taken to standardize and validate such new test systems to generate reliable results, which then can be used in regulatory decision making. Furthermore, to facilitate a more detailed and site‐specific environmental risk assessment in the marine area, an application‐based exposure scenario must be developed. Until these data and tools become available, environmental hazard and risk assessments may be carried out using existing data from freshwater organisms and existing tonnage‐based exposure scenarios as a potential surrogate. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:926–939. © 2021 SETAC KEY POINTS: UV filters are key ingredients in sunscreens, with a similar function but decidedly different in their physicochemical properties and environmental hazard profiles.Environmental risk assessments of UV filters are currently based on toxicity data from standard test organisms (i.e., algae, Daphnia, fish) and tonnage‐based exposure scenarios, making it difficult to assess their impacts on corals.Results indicate that this approach could also safeguard corals, although uncertainty exists linked to data quality and scenarios used.Standardized coral toxicity tests and application‐based exposure scenarios would certainly help to clarify existing uncertainties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]