MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402527236 · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124953

Are UV filters better together? A comparison of the toxicity of individual ultraviolet filters and off-the-shelf sunscreens to Daphnia magna

2024· article· en· W4402527236 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron Boyd, S. C. Martin, Tamzin A. Blewett

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Pollution · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDaphnia magnaToxicityUltravioletEnvironmental chemistryDaphniaBranchiopodaEnvironmental scienceUltraviolet radiationCladoceraChemistryBiologyToxicologyZoologyOptoelectronicsRadiochemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organic ultraviolet filters (UVFs) are known to contaminate many aquatic ecosystems, with much environmental contamination attributed to the use of UVF-containing skin care products such as sunscreens during aquatic recreation. Most studies addressing the impact of sunscreen contamination have focused on the effects of UVFs under the assumption that they are the primary contaminants of concern from sunscreen pollution; however, the extent to which the toxicity of UVFs is representative of the environmental impacts of the whole sunscreen mixture is unknown. To address this knowledge gap, this study compared the mixture toxicity of five off-the-shelf sunscreen spray products containing the UVFs avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene and oxybenzone to the toxicity of each UVF in isolation to the freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna . It was found that sunscreen toxicity was not proportional to their total UVF content, as the sunscreen containing the fewest UVFs was approximately equivalent to the sunscreen with the most UVFs, causing ≥90 % mortality and inhibiting all daphnid reproduction over 21 d exposures. Sunscreen toxicity was typically lower than expected when compared to the toxicity of each individual UVF within the mixture, as some sunscreens causing ≤20 % mortality contained octocrylene and/or oxybenzone at concentrations exceeding those which caused 90 % mortality during exposure to the UVF alone. Despite sunscreens causing large impairments in reproduction, growth and metabolism, poor correlations existed between the severity of most sublethal endpoints with respect to the measured UVF content of each sunscreen. Overall, these results indicate that potential antagonistic relationships between sunscreen ingredients can greatly reduce the toxicity of UVFs, creating more uncertainty regarding the level of threat that UVFs pose to the environment as a result of sunscreen contamination. • UV filter toxicity alone is used to estimate sunscreen contamination effects. • D. magna sensitivity to 5 sunscreen mixtures and isolated UV filters was compared. • Sunscreen toxicity correlated poorly with total UV filter concentrations. • UV filters were more toxic alone than sunscreens of equivalent concentrations. • Antagonistic mixture effects may be reducing sunscreen toxicity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental PollutionSame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207