R SUN CARE 91
Mineral UV filters to decrease marine toxicity
Blanca Motos-Pérez, Irene Zaldívar – ADP Cosmetics Alberto Katsumiti, Felipe Goñi de Cerio – GAIKER Technology Centre
ABSTRACT
Sunscreen mitigates the adverse effects of the sun, including erythema, wrinkles, photoageing, pigment darkening, DNA damage and so on. These products, clearly necessary for health care, should not compromise respect for the environment. To analyze the sustainability, we should
consider the entire life cycle of cosmetic products - including their design, manufacture, use, and ultimate disposal. The impact of the release of chemicals into the environment can be reduced by selecting cosmetic ingredients. In the case of filters, the bioaccumulation in
the aquatic food chain and harmful effects on aquatic organisms has been described,1,2
and
several chemical UV filters have been banned, mainly in wildlife areas. The development of safer and more eco-friendly sunscreens is encouraged. Mineral filters, such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are globally-approved and generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE I) by the FDA. Combining mineral filters allows for broad UV spectrum protection (from UVB and UVA radiations), with no penetration into the skin. Beyond UV radiation, visible light induced pigmentation can be minimized when using tinted sunscreen containing iron oxides
www.personalcaremagazine.com
(compared to untinted sunscreen).3,4 The risk of damage caused by UV and
visible light depends on the skin phototype. The use of mineral filters or pigments that combine titanium dioxide or iron oxides in their composition to protect from UV-Vis-IR radiation, with an average size higher than 100nm, has been described.5 In this context, the objective of this work
was to assess the environmental hazard of different mineral filters. Here we present the evaluation of the ecotoxicity of mineral filters as a function of particle size, chemical composition and combinations and their comparison with a chemical filter as a reference.
Filters characterization The study was focused on mineral filters of different composition and size (INCI in brackets): ZnO (zinc oxide), nano-ZnO (zinc oxide), TiO2 (titanium dioxide), US (Zinc Oxide, Titanium Dioxide, Silica), UT (Titanium Dioxide, Silica), UTM (Titanium Dioxide, CI-77492, Silica, CI-77491, CI-77499). The chemical UV filter EHMC (ethylhexyl
methoxycinnamate) was chosen as a reference. The particle size distribution of the filters was confirmed by scanning electron microscopy
The impact of the release of chemicals into the environment can be reduced by selecting cosmetic ingredients. In the case of UV filters, the bioaccumulation in the aquatic food chain and harmful effects on aquatic organisms is known. In this context, the objective of this work was to evaluate the aquatic toxicity of several mineral filters selected according to their chemical composition (titanium dioxide, zinc oxide), particle size (lower and higher than 100nm) and combinations (titanium dioxide, silica and zinc oxide or iron oxides UT, US, UTM) that allow improved functionalities as efficiency or colour. We performed the luminescent bacteria test and the Artemia sp. nauplii immobilization test. Mineral filters were characterized using SEM-EDX (particles’ size, shape and composition) and ICP-MS (dissolution in seawater). Toxicity results were: EHMC >> nano-ZnO > ZnO > TiO2 > US > UTM ≥ UT. The chemical filter EHMC was the most toxic. The higher toxicity of nano zinc oxide compared to ZnO filter (>100nm) was related to the release of Zn into the aquatic environment. The combinations US, UT, UTM (particle size> 100 nm), with lesser impact on marine life, can be used for the development of safer and sustainable cosmetic formulations.
coupled with energy dispersive X-ray (SEM- EDX) to determine the size and shape of particles and also an approximate composition. Particles of around 210-290 nm in size for
ZnO sample (70% Zn, 30% O) and particles of around 79-90 nm in size for nano-ZnO (65wt.% Zn, 35% O) were observed. Spherical particles of about 176 to 180 nm in size were found in TiO2 sample (39.3% Ti, 61% O). Particles with sizes varying from 160 to 740
nm were distinguished in US (47.8% Zn, 5.8% Ti, 0.5% Si, 46.0% O), UT (29.2% Ti, 0.5% Si, 70.3% O) and UTM (2.7% Fe, 27.2% Ti, 0.5% Si,
August 2025 PERSONAL CARE
C
N
E
I
L
E
A
B
T
G
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114
