In the shadow of the Cosmetic Directive — Inconsistencies in EU environmental hazard classification requirements for UV-filters

Sobek, Anna; Bejgarn, Sofia; Rudén, Christina; Molander, Linda; Breitholtz, Magnus

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.074

Cited by 26 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In accordance with their chemical composition (Sobek et al, 2013) suggested that sunscreens should be labeled according to the European Union CLP regulation (classification, labeling and packaging; EC 1272/ 2008). Therefore sunscreens with ingredients that could be a risk for the marine environment (e.g.…”

Section: The Role Of Sunscreens As Source Of Pollutants Into Coastal mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are sunscreens a new environmental risk associated with coastal tourism?

Sánchez-Quiles

Tovar-Sánchez

2015

Environment International

192

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world coastal-zone population and coastal tourism are expected to grow during this century. Associated with that, there will be an increase in the use of sunscreens and cosmetics with UV-filters in their formulation, which will make coastal regions worldwide susceptible to the impact of these cosmetics. Recent investigations indicate that organic and inorganic UV-filters, as well as many other components that are constituents of the sunscreens, reach the marine environment--directly as a consequence of water recreational activities and/or indirectly from wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) effluents. Toxicity of organic and inorganic UV filters has been demonstrated in aquatic organism. UV-filters inhibit growth in marine phytoplankton and tend to bioaccumulate in the food webs. These findings together with coastal tourism data records highlight the potential risk that the increasing use of these cosmetics would have in coastal marine areas. Nevertheless, future investigations into distribution, residence time, aging, partitioning and speciation of their main components and by-products in the water column, persistence, accumulation and toxicity in the trophic chain, are needed to understand the magnitude and real impact of these emerging pollutants in the marine system.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Sunscreens As Source Of Pollutants Into Coastal mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are sunscreens a new environmental risk associated with coastal tourism?

Sánchez-Quiles

Tovar-Sánchez

2015

Environment International

192

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the effects and consequences of their presence is a growing subject of discussion. Sobek et al (2013) presented evidence in inconsistencies in EU environmental hazard classification requirements for UV-filters. Because the Cosmetic Directive (Directive, 1998) does not include any requirements on conducting environmental risk assessments (ERAs), the list of approved UV-filters may include substances with environmentally hazardous properties.…”

Section: Toxicity and Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The European regulation on classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) of substances and mixtures is not used in UV-filters. However, if it was used, 12 of the 26 individual UV-filters approved for use in cosmetics would meet the CLP classification as 'hazardous to the aquatic environment' (Sobek et al, 2013). Of these 12 compounds, 4 would be classified according to the highest toxicity category, and the others would not be classified for lack of information (Sobek et al, 2013).…”

Section: Toxicity and Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in analytical methods and occurrence of organic UV-filters in the environment — A review

Ramos

Homem

Alves

et al. 2015

Science of The Total Environment

263

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UV-filters are a group of compounds designed mainly to protect skin against UVA and UVB radiation, but they are also included in plastics, furniture, etc., to protect products from light damage. Their massive use in sunscreens for skin protection has been increasing due to the awareness of the chronic and acute effects of UV radiation. Some organic UV-filters have raised significant concerns in the past few years for their continuous usage, persistent input and potential threat to ecological environment and human health. UV-filters end up is wastewater and because wastewater treatment plants are not efficient in removing them, lipophilic compounds tend to sorb onto sludge and hydrophilics end up in river water, contaminating the existing biota. To better understand the risk associated with UV-filters in the environment a thorough review regarding their physicochemical properties, toxicity and environmental degradation, analytical methods and their occurrence was conducted.Higher UV-filter concentrations were found in rivers, reaching 0.3 mg/L for the most studied family, the benzophenone derivatives. Concentrations in the ng to µg/L range were also detected for the paminobenzoic acid, cinnamate, crylene and benzoyl methane derivatives in lake and sea water.Although at lower levels (few ng/L), UV-filters were also found in tap and groundwater. Swimming pool water is also a sink for UV-filters and its chlorine by-products, at the µg/L range, highlighting the benzophenone and benzimidazole derivatives. Soils and sediments are not frequently studied, but concentrations in the µg/L range have already been found especially for the benzophenone and crylene derivatives. Aquatic biota is frequently studied and UV-filters are found in the ng/g-dw range with higher values for fish and mussels. It has been concluded that more information regarding UVfilter degradation studies both in water and sediments is necessary and environmental occurrences should be monitored more frequently and deeply. SEHSDT -sequential extraction with high-speed dispersion tool; SLE -solid-liquid extraction; SPEsolid-phase extraction; SPF -sun protection factor; SPLE -selective pressurized liquid extraction;SPMDs -semipermeable membrane devices; SPME -solid phase microextraction; TD -thermal desorption; TCE -tetrachloroethylene; THF -tetrahydrofuran; Tl -toluene; UPLC -ultraperformance liquid chromatography; USE -ultrasound extraction; UV -ultraviolet; WTP -water treatment plant; WWTP -wastewater treatment plant 4

show abstract

“…The basic division may be drawn between the regulations that refer to CLP classification, namely, Toy Safety Directive (EC 2009a), REACH (restrictions) (EC 2006), Waste Framework Directive (EC 2008c), and those that do not have a link to CLP, namely, RoHS (EC 2011), Water Framework Directive (EC 2000), Sewage Sludge Directive (EEC 1986), occupational regulations (EC 2017), cosmetics regulations (EC 2009b), food regulations (EC 2002), and pharmaceutical regulations (Molander and Rudén 2011;Molander et al 2012;Sobek et al 2013). The basic division may be drawn between the regulations that refer to CLP classification, namely, Toy Safety Directive (EC 2009a), REACH (restrictions) (EC 2006), Waste Framework Directive (EC 2008c), and those that do not have a link to CLP, namely, RoHS (EC 2011), Water Framework Directive (EC 2000), Sewage Sludge Directive (EEC 1986), occupational regulations (EC 2017), cosmetics regulations (EC 2009b), food regulations (EC 2002), and pharmaceutical regulations (Molander and Rudén 2011;Molander et al 2012;Sobek et al 2013).…”

Section: Gaps In the Regulatory Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present study clearly visualizes connections and gaps between the different instruments in the EU chemical management. The basic division may be drawn between the regulations that refer to CLP classification, namely, Toy Safety Directive (EC 2009a), REACH (restrictions) (EC 2006), Waste Framework Directive (EC 2008c), and those that do not have a link to CLP, namely, RoHS (EC 2011), Water Framework Directive (EC 2000), Sewage Sludge Directive (EEC 1986), occupational regulations (EC 2017), cosmetics regulations (EC 2009b), food regulations (EC 2002), and pharmaceutical regulations (Molander and Rudén 2011;Molander et al 2012;Sobek et al 2013). This kind of situation calls for further development.…”

Section: Gaps In the Regulatory Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is It Safe to Paint Your Wall White? A Case Study on Titanium Dioxide Classification

Kähkönen

2019

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is in the process of being classified as a suspected carcinogenic substance (Carc 2). The present case study probes the outcomes of this potential classification in terms of the reduction of hazardous exposure to TiO2 due to its classification. Furthermore, the case study examines the elements that are causing ambiguity during the classification process. This study was conducted by walking through the process from the present exposure to TiO2 to the hazard assessment associated with TiO2 exposure, to the regulatory classification process, and to practical outcomes affecting TiO2 usage. Finally, the impact of the classification on exposure, which was originally considered potentially hazardous, is evaluated. The case study shows that TiO2 classification as a carcinogen will not directly reduce respiratory exposure to TiO2, which was the original reason for the classification. Instead, the classification will lead to restrictions on recycling. Moreover, the classification will have an impact on certain solid artifacts and liquid mixtures for which hazardous exposure was not detected. Altogether, the present case raises questions concerning hazard communications associated with the Carc 2 classification; treatment of poorly soluble low toxicity (PSLT) particles and nanoparticles in the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) classifications; and use of human exposure studies for the purposes of chemical regulations. Based on the present study, the following recommendations are made: the final decision on the TiO2 classification should be reconsidered together with those of other PSLT particles and take into account extensive developments in the field of nanoscience. Furthermore, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) should develop state‐of‐the‐art guidance on how to use the available human exposure data. Finally, the authorities that are in charge of European Union chemicals management are advised to further develop the regulatory network to utilize the information generated in REACH processes as efficiently as possible and to verify that the connections between the regulations result in the intended outcome. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:1–12. © 2019 SETAC

show abstract

In the shadow of the Cosmetic Directive — Inconsistencies in EU environmental hazard classification requirements for UV-filters

Cited by 26 publications

References 9 publications

Are sunscreens a new environmental risk associated with coastal tourism?

Are sunscreens a new environmental risk associated with coastal tourism?

Advances in analytical methods and occurrence of organic UV-filters in the environment — A review

Is It Safe to Paint Your Wall White? A Case Study on Titanium Dioxide Classification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About