{"kind":"ingredients","count":41,"attribution":{"source":"Reef Label","url":"https://reeflabel.com","dataReviewed":"2026-09-23","terms":"https://reeflabel.com/terms/","cite":"https://reeflabel.com/guide/cite/","methodology":"https://reeflabel.com/guide/methodology/","notice":"Free to use with attribution: name Reef Label and link the page you used. Verdicts are computed from published ingredient lists against the enacted text of each rule; they are reference information, not legal advice."},"ingredients":[{"id":"zinc-oxide","name":"Zinc Oxide","category":"mineral-uv-filter","aliases":["zinc oxide","zinc oxide (non-nano)","non-nano zinc oxide","uncoated zinc oxide","ci 77947","zno"],"casNumber":"1314-13-2","wikidata":"Q190077","fdaStatus":"GRASE. Allowed under the CARES Act deemed final order (OTC000006), which carried over the 1999 monograph; one of two filters FDA's proposed orders (2019, restated 2021) would keep GRASE. Max 25%.","euStatus":"Approved (Annex VI), max 25%; nano form approved with conditions, not for sprays.","protection":"Broad spectrum — UVB and both UVA-II and UVA-I.","reefEvidence":"low","summary":"A mineral filter that sits on the skin and scatters and absorbs UV across the full UVA/UVB range. It is the only active ingredient permitted under the mineral-only ordinances on Maui and the Big Island (along with titanium dioxide).","reefNotes":"A 2018 laboratory study by Corinaldesi and colleagues found that uncoated zinc oxide nanoparticles caused severe, fast bleaching in Acropora corals by disrupting the coral's symbiosis with its algae, while the two modified titanium dioxide forms tested alongside them did not cause bleaching. The National Academies (2022) reports the zinc oxide exposure as 6,300 μg/L of uncoated 20–200 nm particles, with bleaching after 48 hours, and describes the documented impact of zinc oxide on corals as minimal, citing only that study. In seawater zinc oxide dissolves, and the Academies says its toxicity in marine tests does not depend on particle size or shape and has been attributed to dissolved zinc ions; it also concludes zinc oxide is more toxic to aquatic organisms than titanium dioxide. We found no coral study of coated zinc oxide: in microalgae, silane-coated nanoparticles released less zinc than uncoated ones and one of the two coatings was less growth-inhibiting (Yung et al. 2017), but the Academies notes a silane coating gave greater acute toxicity to the marine copepod Tigriopus japonicus. For comparison with the lab dose, the Academies cites measurements at French Mediterranean beaches of 10–15 μg/L zinc oxide in the surface layer and 1–3 μg/L in the water column, while noting that zinc oxide from sunscreen is hard to tell apart from other uses and natural sources of the material. It also says knowledge gaps remain for marine species, and that coral data are limited because standard toxicity tests do not cover endpoints such as bleaching.","sources":[{"title":"FDA 2019 Proposed Sunscreen Rule (84 FR 6204)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/26/2019-03019/sunscreen-drug-products-for-over-the-counter-human-use"},{"title":"Corinaldesi et al. 2018, Science of the Total Environment 637-638: Impact of inorganic UV filters contained in sunscreen products on tropical stony corals (Acropora spp.)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29801220/"},{"title":"National Academies (2022), ch. 6: Review of studies on the effects of UV filters in aquatic environments","url":"https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26381/chapter/8"},{"title":"National Academies (2022), ch. 4: Fate, Transport, and Potential Exposure in the Environment","url":"https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26381/chapter/6"},{"title":"National Academies (2022), ch. 8: Conclusions and recommendations","url":"https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26381/chapter/10"},{"title":"Yung et al. 2017, Scientific Reports: Physicochemical characteristics and toxicity of surface-modified zinc oxide nanoparticles to freshwater and marine microalgae","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5698420/"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/621 amending Annex VI to the Cosmetics Regulation","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0621"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen (content current as of 10 Sept 2026)","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU allows zinc oxide as a UV filter at up to 25%, but Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/621 of 21 April 2016 says it may not be used in applications that could expose the user's lungs by inhalation. The Commission's stated reason was the view of its safety committee (SCCS) that nano zinc oxide in spray products could not be considered safe, a concern the SCCS limited to sprays that could reach the lungs.","related":["titanium-dioxide","nanoparticles","oxybenzone","avobenzone"],"humanSafety":{"summary":"The FDA has proposed, but not finalized, that sunscreens with zinc oxide at up to 25% are generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE), and it does not set different conditions for nano-sized and larger particles. EU and Australian reviewers also found no skin-safety concern for nano zinc oxide as used on skin, while the EU bars any use that could lead to inhalation, such as sprays.","points":["FDA status: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are the only two sunscreen filters FDA has proposed as GRASE (2019 proposed rule, restated in the 2021 proposed order), at concentrations up to 25%. This is still a proposal. FDA's September 2026 final order only removed PABA and trolamine salicylate, and the other proposals are left to later orders.","Nano vs non-nano (US): FDA does not propose different conditions for nano zinc oxide. Its proposal rests on evidence that zinc oxide, including nano-scale particles, does not penetrate into or through human skin to any great extent, and that any minimal penetration does not cause adverse health effects.","Absorption and skin reactions: in the stable-isotope studies FDA reviewed, nanoscale zinc oxide led to minimal zinc absorption, orders of magnitude below daily dietary intake. FDA found low irritation, sensitization, photoallergenicity and phototoxic potential. No dermal carcinogenicity studies exist, and FDA considered them unnecessary given the minimal skin penetration.","Nano vs non-nano (EU): the SCCS concluded that nano zinc oxide meeting set specifications, at up to 25% in sunscreens, can be considered not to pose a risk of adverse effects after dermal application. EU law (Regulation 2016/621) lists non-nano and nano zinc oxide separately and allows only nano forms that meet defined requirements, including a median particle size above 30 nm, water solubility below 50 mg/L and uncoated or listed coatings.","Inhalation: both EU entries carry the condition that zinc oxide not be used in applications that may expose the lungs by inhalation, and the SCCS said nano zinc oxide in sprays could not be considered safe. In a 90-day rat inhalation study the SCCS set a no-effect level of 0.3 mg/m3 and said the data did not resolve its concerns about lung exposure.","Australia: the TGA's 2017 review of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles in sunscreens found that most studies show they do not penetrate, or only minimally penetrate, the skin's outer layers. It concluded that on current evidence neither is likely to cause harm when used as sunscreen ingredients."],"sources":[{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"FDA 2019 Proposed Sunscreen Rule (84 FR 6204)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/26/2019-03019/sunscreen-drug-products-for-over-the-counter-human-use"},{"title":"SCCS (2013, revised 2014): Addendum to opinion SCCS/1489/12 on zinc oxide (nano form)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/revision-addendum-opinion-sccs148912-zinc-oxide-nano-form-s76_en"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/621 amending Annex VI to the Cosmetics Regulation","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0621"},{"title":"TGA (Australia) 2017: Literature review on the safety of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens","url":"https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/publication/corporate-reports/literature-review-safety-titanium-dioxide-and-zinc-oxide-nanoparticles-sunscreens"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-14"},"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/zinc-oxide/","bannedIn":[]},{"id":"titanium-dioxide","name":"Titanium Dioxide","category":"mineral-uv-filter","aliases":["titanium dioxide","titanium dioxide (non-nano)","non-nano titanium dioxide","ci 77891","tio2"],"casNumber":"13463-67-7","wikidata":"Q193521","fdaStatus":"GRASE. Allowed under the CARES Act deemed final order (OTC000006), which carried over the 1999 monograph; FDA's proposed orders (2019, restated 2021) would keep it GRASE. Max 25%.","euStatus":"Approved (Annex VI), max 25%; nano form approved with conditions, not for sprays.","protection":"Strong UVB and UVA-II; weaker in long-wave UVA-I, so usually paired with zinc oxide.","reefEvidence":"low","summary":"A mineral filter often combined with zinc oxide. Permitted under every mineral-only sunscreen ordinance we track. Note that it also appears in color cosmetics as a pigment (CI 77891), which counts as an inactive ingredient there.","reefNotes":"The National Academies' 2022 review found only minimal studies of mineral sunscreen ingredients on corals. In a 17-day lab test, Caribbean star coral (Montastraea faveolata) exposed to nano-TiO2 at 0.1 and 10 mg/L expelled its symbiotic algae in every colony without any deaths, and a stress-gene signal seen on day 2 was no longer statistically different by day 7 (Jovanović and Guzmán, 2014). Corinaldesi et al. (2018) tested two coated TiO2 grades used in commercial sunscreens on Acropora corals and saw minimal change to the coral-algae relationship and no bleaching, while uncoated zinc oxide bleached them severely. For aquatic life more broadly, the National Academies committee put the acute protective concentration (HC5) for nano-TiO2 at 3,961 µg/L, but its curve mixes fresh and saltwater species and the committee called saltwater data lacking; toxicity can climb under UV light, as in one daphnid test where the 48-hour EC50 fell from 29,700 to 1,200 µg/L after UVA exposure. The review also says coatings can lower reactive-oxygen production but can dissolve in water, leaving a nearly uncoated particle. Telling sunscreen titanium apart from naturally occurring titanium in field samples remains a research gap.","sources":[{"title":"FDA 2019 Proposed Sunscreen Rule (84 FR 6204)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/26/2019-03019/sunscreen-drug-products-for-over-the-counter-human-use"},{"title":"National Academies (2022): Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments","url":"https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26381"},{"title":"National Academies (2022), chapter 3: sources, settings and receptors","url":"https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26381/chapter/5"},{"title":"National Academies (2022), chapter 6: review of studies on effects of UV filters","url":"https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26381/chapter/8"},{"title":"Jovanović and Guzmán 2014, Environ Toxicol Chem: nano-TiO2 and Caribbean reef-building coral","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24677278/"},{"title":"Corinaldesi et al. 2018, Sci Total Environ: inorganic UV filters and Acropora corals","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29801220/"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/63 (E 171)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R0063"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/850","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0850"},{"title":"Court of Justice of the EU press release 99/25","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-08/cp250099en.pdf"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"SCCS/1617/20 (inhalation)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/titanium-dioxide-tio2-used-cosmetic-products-lead-exposure-inhalation_en"},{"title":"SCCS/1583/17 (nano TiO2 sprays)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/titanium-dioxide-nano-form-uv-filter-sprays_en"},{"title":"SCCS/1661/23 (2024 scientific advice)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/scientific-advice-titanium-dioxide-tio2-casec-numbers-13463-67-7236-675-5-1317-70-0215-280-1-1317-80_en"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU removed titanium dioxide (E 171) from its authorised food additives after EFSA concluded in 2021 that a genotoxicity concern could not be ruled out; Regulation (EU) 2022/63 let foods made under the old rules stay on sale until 7 August 2022 and then until their date of minimum durability, and it keeps the substance provisionally authorised as a colour in medicines. For cosmetics, a separate law, Regulation (EU) 2021/850 (applying from 1 October 2021), limited inhalable titanium dioxide powder to loose face powder (25%) and hair aerosol spray (1.4% for consumers), after a 2019 EU classification of the powder as a suspected carcinogen by inhalation. The EU courts annulled that classification (General Court 2022, Court of Justice 1 August 2025).","related":["zinc-oxide","nanoparticles","avobenzone"],"humanSafety":{"summary":"Regulators treat titanium dioxide differently depending on how it is used. The EU banned it as a food additive (E 171) in 2022 because EFSA could not rule out genotoxicity, but that regulation covers food; cosmetics and sunscreens are governed by separate EU law, where it stays an approved UV filter at up to 25%, with limits where it could be inhaled. The FDA has proposed (not finalised) that sunscreens with up to 25% titanium dioxide are safe and effective.","points":["EU food ban: after EFSA's 2021 opinion, Regulation (EU) 2022/63 removed E 171 from the EU list of authorised food additives (effective from 7 February 2022). EFSA said a genotoxicity concern could not be ruled out. The regulation amends the food additive law only; titanium dioxide remains provisionally allowed as a colour in medicines.","EU cosmetics and sunscreen: titanium dioxide is listed as a UV filter in the Cosmetics Regulation at up to 25% (entry 27, with the nano form under entry 27a). The EU's 2021 amendment limits inhalable powder to loose face powder and hair aerosol spray, and the nano form may not be used in applications that may expose the lungs by inhalation.","Sprays and inhalation: the SCCS (2020) judged a typical hair aerosol spray with 25% pigmentary titanium dioxide not safe for consumers or hairdressers, and safe at up to 1.4% (consumers) and 1.1% (hairdressers). For nano-form titanium dioxide in sunscreen sprays, the SCCS (adopted January 2018) said the data were insufficient to assess safety. In 2024 it said these inhalation conclusions stand.","FDA status: GRASE was proposed in 2019 for titanium dioxide in sunscreens at up to 25%, because it is insoluble and does not meaningfully cross the skin. It remains a proposal; the FDA's September 2026 final order only covered PABA and trolamine salicylate. For sunscreen sprays, the FDA proposed particle-size limits, and said sprays with particles under 5 micrometres (including nanoscale ingredients) would not qualify.","Classification: the EU's 2019 'suspected carcinogen by inhalation' label for fine titanium dioxide powder was annulled by the EU courts (final ruling 1 August 2025).","Oral cosmetics: in 2024 the SCCS said the evidence could not exclude genotoxicity for almost all titanium dioxide grades used in oral cosmetic products, such as oral-care products."],"sources":[{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/63: food additive titanium dioxide (E 171)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R0063"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/850: cosmetics, titanium dioxide (Annexes III, IV, VI)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0850"},{"title":"SCCS (2020): Titanium dioxide used in cosmetic products that lead to exposure by inhalation (SCCS/1617/20)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/titanium-dioxide-tio2-used-cosmetic-products-lead-exposure-inhalation_en"},{"title":"SCCS (2018): Titanium dioxide (nano form) as UV-filter in sprays (SCCS/1583/17)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/titanium-dioxide-nano-form-uv-filter-sprays_en"},{"title":"SCCS (2024): Scientific advice on titanium dioxide (SCCS/1661/23)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/scientific-advice-titanium-dioxide-tio2-casec-numbers-13463-67-7236-675-5-1317-70-0215-280-1-1317-80_en"},{"title":"FDA 2019 Proposed Sunscreen Rule (84 FR 6204)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/26/2019-03019/sunscreen-drug-products-for-over-the-counter-human-use"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"Court of Justice of the EU press release 99/25 (1 August 2025), France v CWS Powder Coatings","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-08/cp250099en.pdf"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-14"},"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/titanium-dioxide/","bannedIn":[]},{"id":"oxybenzone","name":"Oxybenzone","category":"chemical-uv-filter","aliases":["oxybenzone","benzophenone-3","benzophenone 3","bp-3","bp3","2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone"],"casNumber":"131-57-7","wikidata":"Q518114","fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 6% in the US.","euStatus":"Restricted (since 2022): max 6% in face, hand and lip products (excluding sprays), 2.2% in body products including sprays, 0.5% in other products (Regulation (EU) 2022/1176).","protection":"UVB and UVA-II.","reefEvidence":"high","summary":"The most widely regulated sunscreen chemical in the world, and the ingredient that started the reef-safe movement. Banned for sale in Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Aruba, Palau and Thailand's national parks.","reefNotes":"Downs et al. (2016) exposed larvae of the coral Stylophora pistillata and cells from seven coral species to oxybenzone and reported deformity, bleaching and DNA damage, with toxicity higher in light: the 24-hour larval LC50 was 139 µg/L in light against 779 µg/L in darkness, and the deformity EC20 was 6.5 µg/L in light. The same paper measured oxybenzone at 0.8 to 19.2 µg/L at Hawaiian sites and 75 µg/L to 1.4 mg/L in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Vuckovic et al. (2022) found a sea anemone and a mushroom coral convert oxybenzone into glucoside conjugates that were strong photo-oxidants, and anemones without algal symbionts died at higher rates, which the authors say suggests greater risk to bleached corals. A survey of 19 Oahu sites (Mitchelmore et al. 2019) found oxybenzone in seawater below 10 ng/L at 12 sites and up to 136 ng/L at Waikiki, with 6.6 to 241 ng/g dry weight in coral tissue. A 2021 review of the coral literature found most near-reef UV-filter concentrations in the ng/L range and coral effects reported from µg/L to mg/L, with wide variation in test design, and the National Academies (2022) put the highest measured water concentrations of oxybenzone and similar filters at 1 to 10 µg/L, most below 1 µg/L. The National Academies did not carry out a risk characterization and called for a U.S. EPA ecological risk assessment, noting that coral endpoints such as bleaching have no standard test methods. Lopes et al. (2026) exposed brown mussels (Perna perna) in the laboratory to benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone) at 0.2 and 2 µg/L for 96 hours at pH 8.1, 7.6 and 7.3; hemocyte viability fell after exposure, most at pH 7.3, and glutathione (GSH) levels and glutathione S-transferase (GST) activity were higher, particularly in the gills. In acidified conditions, lipid peroxidation was higher in gill and digestive gland tissue, to a degree that differed with the oxybenzone concentration, and the authors' multivariate analysis found pH to be the main influence on the biomarker responses.","sources":[{"title":"Downs et al. 2016, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (PubMed record)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26487337/"},{"title":"National Academies (2022): Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments","url":"https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26381"},{"title":"National Academies (2022), Summary chapter","url":"https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26381/chapter/2"},{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2019, Science of the Total Environment: UV-filters in Hawaii seawater, sediment and coral tissue (PubMed record)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30904653/"},{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2021, Environ Toxicol Chem: critical review of organic UV filter risk to corals","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33528837/"},{"title":"Vuckovic et al. 2022, Science: oxybenzone glucoside conjugates in anemones and corals","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35511969/"},{"title":"Hawaii Act 104 (2018), Session Laws","url":"https://data.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/sessionlaws/Years/SLH2018/SLH2018_Act104.pdf"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1176","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1176/oj/eng"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1176 (oxybenzone and octocrylene in Annex VI), Official Journal","url":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1176/oj"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"},{"title":"Lopes et al. 2026, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Interactive effects of ocean acidification and benzophenone-3 on mussel physiology (PubMed record)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42805361/"}],"whyRegulated":"Hawaii's Act 104 (2018) bars sales of sunscreen containing oxybenzone or octinoxate without a prescription from 1 January 2021; the legislature found these chemicals cause coral mortality, bleaching and genetic damage and stated the aim of preserving coral reefs. The EU cut oxybenzone limits in Regulation 2022/1176 (7 July 2022) for human-health reasons, after its scientific committee found 6% in body creams and sprays not safe, with products meeting the old limits allowed on the market until 28 January 2023. In the US, FDA has proposed that sunscreens with oxybenzone lack enough data to be classed as safe and effective, which it says is not a finding that they are unsafe.","related":["octinoxate","octocrylene","avobenzone"],"humanSafety":{"summary":"Regulators differ by use. The EU found oxybenzone safe at 6% in face and hand products but not in body sunscreens at that level, and Australia's TGA recommends tighter limits. The US FDA lists it among 12 filters needing more data and says that is not a finding that they are unsafe. Blood-level studies show it is absorbed and persists, and whether it affects hormones in people is unresolved.","points":["FDA: oxybenzone is one of 12 US sunscreen filters proposed as lacking enough data to be classed as safe and effective. The FDA says this is not a conclusion that they are unsafe.","Absorption: in an FDA-run trial of 48 adults (Matta et al., JAMA 2020), oxybenzone peak blood levels were 258.1 ng/mL after lotion and 180.1 ng/mL after aerosol spray. That is far above the 0.5 ng/mL level the FDA uses to decide whether extra safety studies are needed, and levels stayed above it in more than half of participants for 21 days. The authors said the results do not mean people should stop using sunscreen.","EU SCCS (2021): 6% oxybenzone was judged safe in face cream, hand cream and lipsticks but not in body creams and sprays, where 2.2% was judged safe. The EU adopted these limits in 2022. The SCCS called the evidence that oxybenzone is an endocrine disruptor inconclusive and at best equivocal, and said it needs further investigation.","Australia's TGA (2025) found a margin of safety below the satisfactory 100 for whole-body use at the current 10% maximum, and recommended restricting concentrations and use. Margins were above 100 for adults in most face and hand scenarios, but not for twice-daily use all year on head and hands, or for whole-family scenarios.","Endocrine questions: the TGA said the data show potential endocrine effects but are not adequate to classify oxybenzone as an endocrine disruptor. It cited rat studies with reduced anogenital distance in male pups and delayed follicle development in females. A systematic review it cites found no adverse effect on fertility, fetal growth or neurodevelopment, but found associations with thyroid hormone, testosterone, kidney function and pubertal timing that need more study.","Skin reactions: the TGA review notes oxybenzone is the second most frequent photo contact allergen among UV filters in a European patch-test study."],"sources":[{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"Matta et al. 2020, JAMA: effect of sunscreen application on plasma concentration of active ingredients","url":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2759002"},{"title":"SCCS (2021): Opinion on Benzophenone-3, SCCS/1625/20","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/benzophenone-3_en"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1176","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1176/oj/eng"},{"title":"TGA (Australia) 2025: Safety review of seven active sunscreen ingredients (page)","url":"https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/publication/corporate-reports/safety-review-seven-active-sunscreen-ingredients"},{"title":"TGA (Australia) 2025: Safety review of seven active sunscreen ingredients (PDF)","url":"https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-04/safety-review-seven-active-sunscreen-ingredients.pdf"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-14"},"lastReviewed":"2026-10-15","lede":"The most widely regulated sunscreen chemical in the world, and the ingredient that started the reef-safe movement.","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/oxybenzone/","bannedIn":["hawaii-state","us-virgin-islands","palau","aruba","guam","northern-mariana-islands","thailand-national-parks","bonaire","us-national-park-service","key-west"]},{"id":"octinoxate","name":"Octinoxate","category":"chemical-uv-filter","aliases":["octinoxate","ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate","octyl methoxycinnamate","2-ethylhexyl 4-methoxycinnamate","omc","ehmc","octylmethoxycinnamate"],"casNumber":"5466-77-3","wikidata":"Q739648","fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 7.5% in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%.","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"high","summary":"A UVB filter banned alongside oxybenzone in nearly every jurisdiction with a sunscreen law, including Hawaii's original 2018 statute.","reefNotes":"In experiments with Acropora coral fragments, Danovaro et al. (2008) tested individual UV filters and found that octinoxate, benzophenone-3, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor and butylparaben each caused complete bleaching, while octocrylene and ethylhexyl salicylate had little or no effect. A 2021 critical review judged that study of limited use for octinoxate, because the concentrations the corals received are unclear. In a 7-day test on adult Seriatopora caliendrum and Pocillopora damicornis (He et al. 2019), octinoxate alone caused death and bleaching only at 1000 µg/L, and only in S. caliendrum. Diluted sunscreen wash-off water containing about 422 µg/L of octinoxate killed 66.7 to 83.3% of S. caliendrum and 33.3 to 50% of P. damicornis, and the authors concluded other sunscreen ingredients may raise the bioavailability of the active filters and worsen toxicity. The 2021 review found octinoxate had been tested on corals in only two studies, and a preliminary risk screening ranked it highest among the filters compared, with median risk quotients below 1 but some sites above 1. The National Academies (2022) put the highest measured water concentrations for several filters, octinoxate included, at 1 to 10 µg/L, with most measurements below 1 µg/L.","sources":[{"title":"Danovaro et al. 2008, Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections (PMC full text)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2291018/"},{"title":"He et al. 2019, Environmental Pollution: toxicological effects of two organic UV filters and a related sunscreen product in adult corals (PubMed abstract record)","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=30458376&rettype=abstract&retmode=text"},{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2021, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: a critical review of organic UV filter exposure, hazard, and risk to corals","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"},{"title":"National Academies 2022: Review of fate, exposure, and effects of sunscreens in aquatic environments (highlights)","url":"https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/26381/A01305--HLs_Fate+Exposure_Sunscreen.pdf"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"FDA's 2021 proposed order lists octinoxate among 12 sunscreen filters that are not yet recognised as safe and effective because more data is needed.","related":["oxybenzone","octocrylene","avobenzone"],"humanSafety":{"summary":"The FDA lists it among 12 filters that need more data, and says that is a request for data, not a finding that they are unsafe.","points":["FDA: octinoxate is one of 12 sunscreen filters proposed in 2021 as not yet generally recognised as safe and effective because more data is needed. FDA says this is not a conclusion that they are unsafe. Its September 2026 final order removed only PABA and trolamine salicylate; the other proposals are left to future orders.","EU SCCS (2025, SCCS/1671/24): found octinoxate is endocrine-active, with estrogenic and weak anti-androgenic activity in vitro and in vivo. It nonetheless gave the opinion that octinoxate is safe at up to 10% in sunscreen, face, hand and lip products, including for children. Its remit did not cover environmental safety."],"sources":[{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"SCCS (European Commission) 2025: Opinion on Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate (EHMC), SCCS/1671/24","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/sccs-opinion-ethylhexyl-methoxycinnamate-ehmc-cas-no-5466-77-383834-59-7-ec-no-226-775-7629-661-9_en"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-14"},"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/octinoxate/","bannedIn":["hawaii-state","us-virgin-islands","palau","guam","northern-mariana-islands","thailand-national-parks","bonaire","us-national-park-service","key-west"]},{"id":"octocrylene","name":"Octocrylene","category":"chemical-uv-filter","aliases":["octocrylene","2-ethylhexyl 2-cyano-3,3-diphenylacrylate","octocrilene"],"casNumber":"6197-30-4","wikidata":"Q424805","fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 10% in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%; 9% in propellant sprays (Regulation (EU) 2022/1176).","protection":"UVB and short UVA; commonly used to stabilize avobenzone.","reefEvidence":"moderate","summary":"Widely used to stabilize avobenzone. Banned in the US Virgin Islands, Guam and Palau, and excluded by mineral-only rules on Maui and the Big Island. Hawaii's legislature has tried to add it to the statewide ban (SB 132 in 2021, SB 748 in 2024), but both bills died.","reefNotes":"In the main coral study, Stien et al. (2019) exposed adult Pocillopora damicornis to octocrylene at 5, 50, 300 and 1,000 µg/L, and most polyps were closed at 300 µg/L and above. The coral turned octocrylene into fatty-acid conjugates that built up in its tissue and showed higher levels of 15 acylcarnitines, which the authors link to abnormal fatty-acid metabolism and mitochondrial dysfunction; a 2022 follow-up found the same pattern in a second species, Stylophora pistillata. A 2025 lab study on Symbiodinium, the alga that lives inside corals, found octocrylene less toxic than octinoxate, with cell viability and metabolic activity affected at the higher concentrations. For scale, the lowest concentration in the coral study was 5 µg/L, while a 2025 review reports a geometric mean of 37 ng/L (0.037 µg/L) in marine surface water at recreational sites, and notes that sampling methods differed widely between studies. Stien et al. caution that field measurements may be large underestimates, because octocrylene is converted into other forms in the organism. The National Academies (2022) found enough data to build acute risk curves only for oxybenzone, octinoxate, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide; octocrylene was not on that list.","sources":[{"title":"Stien et al. 2019, Analytical Chemistry: octocrylene accumulates in Pocillopora damicornis (PubMed; replaces the earlier DOI link, which did not resolve)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30516955/"},{"title":"Thorel et al. 2022, Chem Res Toxicol: octocrylene in Stylophora pistillata (PubMed)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36318224/"},{"title":"Almeida et al. 2025, Ecotoxicol Environ Saf: octinoxate and octocrylene on Symbiodinium sp. (PubMed)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41038028/"},{"title":"Gouin 2025, Integr Environ Assess Manag: environmental occurrence of octocrylene, critical review (PubMed)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41307320/"},{"title":"National Academies 2022: Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments (Summary)","url":"https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26381/chapter/2"},{"title":"Act No. 8185 (US Virgin Islands), signed copy","url":"https://islandgreenliving.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SignedToxicSunscreenLaw.pdf"},{"title":"Public Law 38-5 (Guam Legislature)","url":"https://guamlegislature.gov/38th_Guam_Legislature/Public_Laws_38th/Public%20Law%2038-5.pdf"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1176 (oxybenzone and octocrylene in Annex VI), Official Journal","url":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1176/oj"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen (content current as of 10 Sept 2026)","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"The US Virgin Islands (Act 8185, signed July 2019) bans selling or distributing sunscreens containing it from March 30, 2020, and Guam's Public Law 38-5 (signed April 12, 2025) bans importing products that contain it, with the ban taking effect 180 days after enactment. These laws cite harm to coral and other marine life.","related":["avobenzone","oxybenzone","octinoxate"],"humanSafety":{"summary":"The US FDA lists it among 12 filters that need more data, which it says is not a finding that they are unsafe. The separate finding is benzophenone, a hazardous impurity that is present in octocrylene sunscreens and rose with time and temperature in lab testing; EU rules require it to be kept at trace level.","points":["FDA: octocrylene is one of 12 US sunscreen filters the 2021 proposed order classes as lacking enough data to be called safe and effective. FDA says this is not a conclusion that they are unsafe.","Absorption: in a randomized trial (Matta et al., JAMA 2020), octocrylene peaked at 7.8 ng/mL after lotion and 6.6 ng/mL after aerosol spray, above the 0.5 ng/mL level at which FDA guidance asks for more toxicology studies, and the level was passed after a single application on day 1. The authors said the results do not mean people should stop using sunscreen.","EU: the SCCS (opinion adopted March 2021) found octocrylene safe at up to 10% in cosmetics used individually, but not at 10% or above in propellant sprays when combined with other products, so the EU cut the spray limit to 9% (Regulation 2022/1176). The SCCS saw some signs of endocrine effects in some in vivo studies but said the evidence was not strong enough to set a limit based on them.","Benzophenone: Downs et al. (2021) found benzophenone in sixteen octocrylene sunscreens at 6 to 186 mg/kg when new and 9.8 to 435 mg/kg after six weeks of simulated aging, and also in the pure octocrylene ingredient. Foubert et al. (2021) found it in all 28 octocrylene products tested, rising with time and temperature. The SCCS calls benzophenone a hazardous impurity and degradation product to be kept at trace levels. Both studies measured benzophenone levels in the products.","Skin reactions: the SCCS says reported contact allergy cases are negligible given how widely octocrylene is used, and that photoallergy is strongly linked to earlier photoallergy to topical ketoprofen."],"sources":[{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"Matta et al. 2020, JAMA: sunscreen application and plasma concentration of active ingredients (PubMed)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31961417/"},{"title":"Matta et al. 2019, JAMA: sunscreen under maximal use conditions (PubMed)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31058986/"},{"title":"SCCS opinion on octocrylene (SCCS/1627/21), European Commission","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/2928185b-f8b7-474e-937a-052a90a90970_en"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1176 (EUR-Lex)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R1176"},{"title":"Downs et al. 2021, Chem Res Toxicol: benzophenone accumulates from octocrylene degradation (PubMed)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33682414/"},{"title":"Foubert et al. 2021, Contact Dermatitis: benzophenone in octocrylene sunscreens and cosmetics (PubMed)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33763894/"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-14"},"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","lede":"Widely used to stabilize avobenzone. Hawaii's legislature has tried to add it to the statewide ban (SB 132 in 2021, SB 748 in 2024), but both bills died.","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/octocrylene/","bannedIn":["us-virgin-islands","palau","guam"]},{"id":"avobenzone","name":"Avobenzone","category":"chemical-uv-filter","aliases":["avobenzone","butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane","parsol 1789","4-tert-butyl-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane"],"casNumber":"70356-09-1","wikidata":"Q2775914","fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 3% in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 5%.","protection":"Long-wave UVA-I — the main UVA filter in most US chemical sunscreens.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"The primary UVA filter in US chemical sunscreens. It is still legal under Hawaii's statewide law. Bills to ban it there failed in 2021 and 2024. It is not allowed on Maui or the Big Island, where only mineral actives are permitted, and it is banned in Palau.","reefNotes":"In a 5-week lab test on the coral Stylophora pistillata (Fel et al. 2019), avobenzone only reduced photosynthetic efficiency of the coral's algae at a nominal 1000 µg/L or more (87 µg/L measured), and the highest dose tested (5000 µg/L nominal, 520 µg/L measured) killed the coral pieces. In a 7-day test on Pocillopora damicornis (Clergeaud et al. 2023), metabolite changes suggesting stress on the coral's algae appeared from 300 µg/L, and the coral converted most of the avobenzone it absorbed into derivatives that a computer model predicts are more toxic than avobenzone itself. An earlier study from the same group found no coral inflammation markers at 1 mg/L. A 2021 review judged that coral toxicity data for organic UV filters are limited, with test designs that make results unreliable, and that it is too early to say whether reef concentrations cause harm.","sources":[{"title":"Fel et al. 2019, Coral Reefs: photochemical response of Stylophora pistillata to some sunscreen ingredients","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-018-01759-4"},{"title":"Clergeaud et al. 2023, Metabolites: fate of avobenzone in coral tissue and its effect on coral metabolome","url":"https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1989/13/4/533"},{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2021, Environ Toxicol Chem: critical review of organic UV filter exposure, hazard and risk to corals","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"},{"title":"US National Park Service: Protect Yourself, Protect the Reef","url":"https://www.nps.gov/articles/protect-yourself-and-protect-the-reef.htm"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen (content current as of 10 Sept 2026)","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"humanSafety":{"summary":"Regulators in the EU and Australia class avobenzone as low risk at up to 5%. The US allows 3% while the FDA waits for more safety data. The FDA's \"insufficient data\" label is a request for data, not a finding that avobenzone is unsafe.","points":["FDA: avobenzone is one of 12 US sunscreen filters that lack enough data to be classed as safe and effective (proposed 2019, restated 2021). The FDA says this is not a conclusion that they are unsafe, and it still recommends using sunscreen.","Absorption: in two FDA-run trials (Matta et al., JAMA 2019 and 2020), avobenzone reached blood levels above 0.5 ng/mL on the first day of use. Above that level the FDA asks manufacturers for more toxicology studies. The authors said the results do not mean people should stop using sunscreen.","Australia's TGA (2025) reviewed avobenzone at 5% and calculated a margin of safety of 183. A margin of 100 or more counts as satisfactory for long-term use. Lab data hinted at hormone (endocrine) effects, but the TGA found them too weak to show harm in people and asked for more research.","Skin reactions: the TGA review notes that clinical data show avobenzone is a rare allergen and photoallergen."],"sources":[{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"Matta et al. 2019, JAMA: systemic absorption of sunscreen active ingredients","url":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2733085"},{"title":"Matta et al. 2020, JAMA: systemic absorption after single and repeated application","url":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2759002"},{"title":"TGA (Australia) 2025: Safety review of seven active sunscreen ingredients","url":"https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/publication/corporate-reports/safety-review-seven-active-sunscreen-ingredients"}],"reviewed":"2026-09-24"},"whyRegulated":"The US National Park Service names avobenzone, with oxybenzone and octinoxate, as an ingredient to avoid and recommends sunscreens with only zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. This is guidance for visitors, not a legal ban.","alternatives":["zinc-oxide","titanium-dioxide"],"related":["oxybenzone","octocrylene","octinoxate","homosalate"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","lede":"The primary UVA filter in US chemical sunscreens. It is still legal under Hawaii's statewide law, and bills to ban it there failed in 2021 and 2024.","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/avobenzone/","bannedIn":["palau","us-national-park-service"]},{"id":"homosalate","name":"Homosalate","category":"chemical-uv-filter","aliases":["homosalate","homomenthyl salicylate","3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexyl salicylate"],"casNumber":"118-56-9","wikidata":"Q2260189","fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 15% in the US.","euStatus":"Restricted to 7.34% in face products only (2022).","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A UVB filter common in US sport sunscreens. Banned in Palau, where its regulations name it. Not named in any other reef law we track, but it is not a mineral active, so products containing it fail mineral-only rules on Maui and the Big Island.","reefNotes":"In a 2020 metabolomics study (Stien et al., Scientific Reports), Pocillopora damicornis fragments exposed for 7 days at up to 1,000 µg/L showed no change in their overall metabolite profile, though polyps in the 1 mg/L group were closed at the end of the test while control polyps were not, and the authors said homosalate needed further investigation. A 2021 review of the reef literature (Mitchelmore et al.) reported that a 2019 Hawaii monitoring study found homosalate in coral tissue, with the highest median tissue levels of the filters measured alongside ethylhexyl salicylate. The same review put median UV filter concentrations near reefs at or below about 100 ng/L. Separately, only two studies reported homosalate above 1,000 ng/L in reef water, and one of them recovered under 11% of homosalate in its analysis, so those readings are uncertain. The review concluded that there is limited evidence that organic UV filters are significantly harming reefs, but also said it would be premature to conclude they are not.","sources":[{"title":"EU SCCS Opinion on Homosalate (SCCS/1622/20), final version 24-25 June 2021","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/homosalate_en"},{"title":"SCCS Opinion on Homosalate, full text (sccs_o_244)","url":"https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/default/files/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_244.pdf"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/2195 of 10 November 2022 (homosalate restriction), EUR-Lex","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2195/oj/eng"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"Matta et al. 2020, JAMA: effect of sunscreen application on plasma concentration of sunscreen active ingredients","url":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2759002"},{"title":"TGA (Australia) 2025: Safety review of seven active sunscreen ingredients","url":"https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/publication/corporate-reports/safety-review-seven-active-sunscreen-ingredients"},{"title":"Stien et al. 2020, Scientific Reports: A unique approach to monitor stress in coral exposed to emerging pollutants","url":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66117-3"},{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2021, Environ Toxicol Chem: A critical review of organic ultraviolet filter exposure, hazard, and risk to corals","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"},{"title":"Systematic review of toxicity thresholds of chemical pollutants for tropical reef-building corals (Environmental Evidence, 2023)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11378836/"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU restricted homosalate on human-health grounds: after the SCCS opinion of 24-25 June 2021 found it not safe as a UV filter at up to 10%, Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/2195 of 10 November 2022 limited it to 7.34% in face products other than propellant sprays, with non-compliant products barred from the EU market from 1 January 2025 (1 July 2025 for products already on sale). The SCCS assessment did not cover environmental safety. In the US, FDA's 2021 proposed order lists homosalate among sunscreen filters that need additional data before they can be classed as generally recognized as safe and effective, which FDA says is not a finding that they are unsafe.","related":["octisalate","octocrylene","oxybenzone","avobenzone"],"humanSafety":{"summary":"The EU's scientific committee (SCCS) concluded in 2021 that homosalate at 10% was not safe and that 0.5% was, mainly because the safety margin calculated from an oral rat study was too low at higher concentrations. The EU now caps it at 7.34% in face products, applying from 2025. The SCCS called the evidence that it disrupts hormones inconclusive. The FDA lists it as lacking enough data, a request for data rather than a finding of harm, and Australia's TGA recommended restricting it too.","points":["EU SCCS opinion (SCCS/1622/20, adopted 24-25 June 2021): not safe as a UV filter at up to 10%, and safe up to a maximum of 0.5% in the final product.","How the SCCS got there: it took a LOAEL of 60 mg/kg bw/day from an oral rat reproduction/developmental screening study, and calculated a margin of safety of 6.3 for daily sunscreen lotion at 10% (dermal exposure only). It worked back from a target margin of 100, which implied no more than 0.63% homosalate in the final product.","Endocrine concern: the SCCS called the evidence for endocrine-disrupting properties inconclusive and at best equivocal. It saw indications of possible effects in some studies but not enough to set an endocrine-based safety limit.","EU law: SCCS advice of 2 December 2021 found 7.34% safe in face cream and pump spray. Regulation (EU) 2022/2195 (10 November 2022) limits homosalate to 7.34% in face products other than propellant sprays. Non-compliant products cannot be placed on the EU market from 1 January 2025 or made available from 1 July 2025.","Absorption: in a 2020 randomized trial (Matta et al., JAMA) of 48 healthy participants, homosalate reached average peak blood levels of 23.1, 17.9 and 13.9 ng/mL with aerosol, nonaerosol and pump sprays. All six ingredients tested were above the FDA's 0.5 ng/mL threshold after one application, and homosalate stayed above it in 55% of participants until day 21. The authors said the results do not mean people should stop using sunscreen.","Population exposure: In a 2026 human biomonitoring study (Ebert et al., Environmental Science & Technology) of 187 pooled urine samples (100 individuals per pool, about 18,700 people) collected in Australia from 2012 to 2023, concentrations of the cis-homosalate metabolite HMS-CA5 and the trans-homosalate metabolite tHMS-CA rose over the period and were higher in children (15 and under) than in adolescents and adults, and 80% of children's pools exceeded the German Human Biomonitoring Commission's HBM-I guidance value for HMS-CA5 and 53% exceeded its HBM-II value (0.16 and 0.49 µg/L for men and children), while no pool exceeded either value for tHMS-CA.","Authors' caveats and conclusion: The samples were surplus pathology specimens, 92% from Queensland, that the authors describe as not statistically representative of the Australian population; they say pooling precludes assessment of individuals and that their findings do not allow the risks of cis- and trans-homosalate to be differentiated, and they conclude that homosalate's maximum permitted concentration in sunscreens should be regulated more strictly, potentially with a focus on children's products.","FDA: homosalate is one of the sunscreen filters FDA says need additional data to be classed as generally recognized as safe and effective. FDA states this is not a conclusion that they are unsafe.","Australia's TGA (2025) recommended restricting homosalate's permitted concentration and use. Its margin of safety was below 100 for general body use at the maximum permitted concentration, and above 100 for face-and-hands-only use at 2.7% to 11.4%, depending on product type. It said the endocrine data were not adequate to conclude causality in humans."],"sources":[{"title":"EU SCCS Opinion on Homosalate (SCCS/1622/20), final version 24-25 June 2021","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/homosalate_en"},{"title":"SCCS Opinion on Homosalate, full text (sccs_o_244)","url":"https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/default/files/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_244.pdf"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/2195 of 10 November 2022 (homosalate restriction), EUR-Lex","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2195/oj/eng"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"Matta et al. 2020, JAMA: effect of sunscreen application on plasma concentration of sunscreen active ingredients","url":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2759002"},{"title":"TGA (Australia) 2025: Safety review of seven active sunscreen ingredients","url":"https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/publication/corporate-reports/safety-review-seven-active-sunscreen-ingredients"},{"title":"Ebert et al. 2026, Environmental Science & Technology: Assessing UV Filter Exposure in Queensland, Australia: Human Biomonitoring Evidence Highlighting Homosalate in Children","url":"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6c09445"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-15"},"lastReviewed":"2026-10-15","lede":"A UVB filter common in US sport sunscreens. Palau is the only reef law we track that names it.","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/homosalate/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"octisalate","name":"Octisalate","category":"chemical-uv-filter","aliases":["octisalate","ethylhexyl salicylate","octyl salicylate","2-ethylhexyl salicylate"],"casNumber":"118-60-5","wikidata":"Q27160526","fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 5% in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 5%.","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A weak UVB filter found in many 'reef-friendly' chemical formulas. Legal under Hawaii state law, but not under mineral-only rules.","reefNotes":"Stien et al. (2020) exposed the hexacoral Pocillopora damicornis to solar filters, including ethylhexyl salicylate (ES), which the paper's compound table lists under the name octisalate. ES raised one steroid (compound 14) at 50 µg/L and triggered a stress or inflammatory response at 300 µg/L and above. The authors say ES may have caused partial bleaching at 1 mg/L, but this is unconfirmed. Mitchelmore et al. (2019) sampled 19 sites around Oahu, Hawaii, where octisalate ranked second in surface water after homosalate and level with homosalate in coral tissue. The authors describe Oahu surface seawater levels as parts-per-trillion. ES effects were reported in the lab at 50 µg/L.","sources":[{"title":"Stien et al. 2020, Scientific Reports: A unique approach to monitor stress in coral exposed to emerging pollutants (doi 10.1038/s41598-020-66117-3)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7295770/"},{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2019, Science of the Total Environment: Occurrence and distribution of UV-filters and other anthropogenic contaminants in coastal surface water, sediment, and coral tissue from Hawaii (doi 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.116)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30904653/"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"In its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), the FDA proposed that sunscreens containing octisalate are not GRASE because additional data is needed. The FDA says this proposal is not a conclusion that octisalate is unsafe.","related":["homosalate","oxybenzone","octocrylene"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","lede":"A weak UVB filter found in many 'reef-friendly' chemical formulas. Legal under Hawaii state law.","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/octisalate/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"enzacamene","name":"4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor (Enzacamene)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","aliases":["4-methylbenzylidene camphor","enzacamene","4-mbc","4mbc","methylbenzylidene camphor"],"casNumber":"36861-47-9","wikidata":"Q4637174","fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Banned in the EU: products containing it cannot be placed on the market from 1 May 2025, or made available from 1 May 2026 (Regulation (EU) 2024/996).","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"moderate","summary":"A UVB filter used outside the US. Banned in Palau and Thailand's marine national parks, and phased out of the EU.","reefNotes":"Danovaro et al. (2008) is the main coral study: in sealed bags on Acropora fragments, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor was one of four sunscreen ingredients (with butylparaben, octinoxate and oxybenzone) that caused complete bleaching at very low doses, while octocrylene, ethylhexyl salicylate and avobenzone had little or no effect. For 4-MBC the doses were 33 µL/L (Red Sea, bleaching from 24 hours) and 50 µL/L (Andaman Sea, 95% bleaching by 62 hours), given as volumes rather than measured concentrations. A 2021 critical review said the design could not control temperature, oxygen, light or flow, reported only nominal volume-based doses, and that no usable toxicity threshold could be taken from the paper. The authors themselves said their sunscreen dose contained more UV filter than most natural waters. In two surveys of coral tissue reviewed in 2021, median 4-MBC was below the detection limit in both, with detections in 21% of samples in one survey (up to 32 ng/g). We found no other coral toxicity study of 4-MBC on its own, and the same review called any firm conclusion about UV filter risk to corals premature.","sources":[{"title":"Danovaro et al. 2008, Environmental Health Perspectives (NIH PMC copy)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2291018/"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/996, Official Journal L, 4.4.2024","url":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/996/oj"},{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2021, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: A critical review of organic UV filter exposure, hazard and risk to corals (two authors are from the Personal Care Products Council)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"}],"related":["oxybenzone","octinoxate","octocrylene"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","whyRegulated":"The EU banned 4-MBC in cosmetics through Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/996 (3 April 2024): products containing it cannot be placed on the EU market from 1 May 2025, and cosmetic products containing it cannot be made available on the EU market from 1 May 2026. The reason given was a potential risk to human health (endocrine disruption and unresolved genotoxicity) from the SCCS opinion, not reef damage.","humanSafety":{"summary":"The European Commission banned 4-MBC in cosmetics on human-health grounds after its scientific committee (SCCS) could not rule out genotoxicity and found sufficient evidence of thyroid and estrogen-system effects. The animal-study effects it cites appeared at the dose levels given below, and the SCCS did not assess reef effects.","points":["SCCS opinion SCCS/1640/21 (adopted 29 April 2022): it could not conclude 4-MBC is safe up to the then-permitted 4%, because the data were insufficient to evaluate potential genotoxicity, and it could not derive a maximum safe concentration.","Endocrine disruption: the SCCS found sufficient evidence that 4-MBC may act as an endocrine disruptor with effects on both the thyroid and estrogen systems. Evidence for effects on the androgen system came only from in vitro tests.","Dose context: in animal studies, estrogen-system effects appeared at 100 mg/kg bw/day and above, and oral thyroid effects at 50 mg/kg bw/day and above (NOAEL 25 mg/kg bw/day)."],"sources":[{"title":"SCCS (European Commission) opinion SCCS/1640/21 on 4-Methylbenzylidene camphor (4-MBC), adopted 29 April 2022","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/4-methylbenzylidene-camphor-4-mbc_en"},{"title":"SCCS/1640/21 final opinion on 4-MBC (full text, PDF)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-08/sccs_o_262.pdf"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-14"},"lede":"A UVB filter used outside the US, and phased out of the EU.","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/enzacamene/","bannedIn":["palau","thailand-national-parks"]},{"id":"ensulizole","name":"Ensulizole","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q7181424","aliases":["ensulizole","phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid","2-phenylbenzimidazole-5-sulfonic acid","pbsa"],"fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 4% in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 8%.","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A water-soluble UVB filter used in light facial sunscreens.","reefNotes":"A 2021 review of coral samples reports that neither of two studies found median phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid (ensulizole) above detection limits. A 2023 Frontiers paper cites Baltic Sea measurements of 1.0 to 170 ng/L for PBSA. In a 2021 study, ensulizole was more toxic to mussels at 10 µg/L than at 100 µg/L. In a 2022 Scientific Reports study, pure ensulizole strongly reduced photosymbiont activity in the foraminifer Heterostegina depressa at concentrations up to 200 mg/L. A 2023 zebrafish study found that exposure to 20 µg/L caused a slight decrease in the female gonadosomatic index.","sources":[{"title":"Coral UV filter review: A Critical Review of Organic Ultraviolet Filter Exposure, Hazard, and Risk to Corals (Environ Toxicol Chem, 2021; PMC8048829)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"},{"title":"Frontiers in Marine Science 2023: Life cycle exposure to 2-phenylbenzimidazole-5-sulfonic acid disrupts reproductive endocrine system and induces transgenerational adverse effects in zebrafish","url":"https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1283816/full"},{"title":"Biomarker-based assessment of sublethal toxicity of organic UV filters (ensulizole and octocrylene) in a sentinel marine bivalve Mytilus edulis (Sci Total Environ 2021; PMID 34329935)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34329935/"},{"title":"Photosynthetic performance of symbiont-bearing foraminifera Heterostegina depressa affected by sunscreens (Sci Rep 2022; PMID 35177723)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35177723/"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"In its 2021 proposed order, the FDA did not propose generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) status for ensulizole, because it said more data are needed. The FDA says this proposal does not mean ensulizole is unsafe.","related":["octocrylene","avobenzone","octinoxate"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/ensulizole/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"ecamsule","name":"Ecamsule (Mexoryl SX)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q5332142","aliases":["ecamsule","terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid","mexoryl sx"],"fdaStatus":"Approved in the US only in specific L'Oréal formulations via new drug application (2006).","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%.","protection":"UVA-II.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A photostable UVA filter owned by L'Oréal, found in some La Roche-Posay products.","reefNotes":"A 2019 study by Fel et al. tested ecamsule on Stylophora pistillata coral in the laboratory. The coral's symbiotic algae were the measured organism, and the photosynthetic efficiency of those algae was the endpoint. In the tests, ecamsule showed no toxicity at nominal concentrations up to 5000 µg/L. Its measured water concentrations matched the nominal doses because it dissolves in water. A 2021 critical review of organic UV filters and corals cites this study for the 5000 µg/L figure and notes that a single endpoint makes it premature to rank the filters against each other. The review also says that overall conclusions on UV filter toxicity to corals are limited by the small amount of data.","sources":[{"title":"Fel et al. (2019), Photochemical response of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata to some sunscreen ingredients (Coral Reefs)","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-018-01759-4"},{"title":"A Critical Review of Organic Ultraviolet Filter Exposure, Hazard, and Risk to Corals (PMC8048829)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"},{"title":"FDA proposed order: Over-the-Counter Sunscreen Drug Products, Regulatory Status of Ecamsule (Federal Register, 25 Feb 2015)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/02/25/2015-03883/over-the-counter-sunscreen-drug-products-regulatory-status-of-ecamsule"}],"whyRegulated":"In 2015 the FDA proposed that ecamsule at up to 10 percent is not generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) and is misbranded in over-the-counter sunscreens, because the available data were insufficient. The FDA said the data submitted were not enough to assess ecamsule's dermal safety, including its potential to cause irritation and sensitization.","related":["avobenzone","drometrizole-trisiloxane","ethylhexyl-triazone"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/ecamsule/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"meradimate","name":"Meradimate","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q15269714","aliases":["meradimate","menthyl anthranilate"],"fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 5% in the US.","euStatus":"Not approved.","protection":"UVA-II.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A rarely used US UVA filter.","reefNotes":"No coral, larval or other marine toxicity study of meradimate was found in the sources we reviewed, so lab doses cannot be compared with real-world levels. A 2021 critical review of organic UV filters and corals lists meradimate in its ingredient table. The sources read do not report measured seawater or coral concentrations for it.","sources":[{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"A Critical Review of Organic Ultraviolet Filter Exposure, Hazard, and Risk to Corals (Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2021; doi:10.1002/etc.4948)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"The FDA's 2021 proposed sunscreen order put meradimate in its not-GRASE group because the public record lacked enough data, and FDA says this is not a conclusion that the ingredient is unsafe. The order is still a proposal, and FDA says it will address the other proposals in future orders.","related":["avobenzone","ecamsule","padimate-o"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/meradimate/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"padimate-o","name":"Padimate O","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q6628390","aliases":["padimate o","padimate-o","ethylhexyl dimethyl paba","octyl dimethyl paba"],"fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 8% in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 8%.","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A PABA derivative that is now rarely used.","reefNotes":"Giraldo et al. (2017) tested OD-PABA (octyl dimethyl PABA), another name for padimate O, on three marine organisms: the microalga Isochrysis galbana, the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis and the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus. The authors reported EC10 values of 26.5 to 127 µg/L for OD-PABA and called the toxicity remarkable. They judged the risk from OD-PABA low (risk quotient 0.007), and the risk from octocrylene, which they tested alongside it, remarkable (0.27). A 2017 field survey in Hong Kong measured padimate O in coral tissue.","sources":[{"title":"Giraldo et al. 2017, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology: Ecotoxicological evaluation of OD-PABA and octocrylene (PubMed 28391487)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28391487/"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"National Academies (2022), Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments, Appendix D Table D.3 (padimate O in coral tissue)","url":"https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26381/chapter/14"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"In the US, FDA's 2021 proposed order said padimate O is not GRASE because more data are needed, and FDA states that this is not a finding that it is unsafe.","alternatives":["zinc-oxide","titanium-dioxide"],"related":["octocrylene","aminobenzoic-acid"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/padimate-o/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"sulisobenzone","name":"Sulisobenzone","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q7636301","aliases":["sulisobenzone","benzophenone-4","benzophenone 4","bp-4"],"fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 10% in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 5%.","protection":"UVB and UVA-II.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A benzophenone-family filter. Also used in small amounts in cosmetics to protect product color, where it appears in the inactive list.","reefNotes":"The coral study found for sulisobenzone (BP-4) is He et al. 2019, which tested four benzophenone filters on larvae and adults of two coral species, Pocillopora damicornis and Seriatopora caliendrum, at 0.1–1000 μg/L. None of the compounds tested affected P. damicornis larvae at the concentrations tested. The authors' risk assessment named BP-3, BP-1 and BP-8 as high or medium risk to corals, and BP-4 was not among them. The EU's SCCS opinion, dated 27 March 2024, states that it did not assess the environmental safety of benzophenone-4.","sources":[{"title":"He et al. 2019, Science of the Total Environment 651: 2391-2399, 'Comparative toxicities of four benzophenone ultraviolet filters to two life stages of two coral species' (DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.148; abstract read via PubMed 30336428)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30336428/"},{"title":"SCCS Final Opinion on benzophenone-4 (CAS 4065-45-6), SCCS/1660/23, final version 27 March 2024","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/3784d1dc-0a4b-4177-ac2c-0a426f68de7d_en?filename=sccs_o_283.pdf"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"In the US, FDA's 2021 proposed order (OTC000008) carries over the substance of its 2019 proposal and treats sulisobenzone as not GRASE because the public record lacks enough safety data; FDA says this is not a conclusion that the ingredient is unsafe, and it has not yet finalized the proposal. The EU caps sulisobenzone at 5% in sunscreen.","related":["oxybenzone","dioxybenzone"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/sulisobenzone/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"dioxybenzone","name":"Dioxybenzone","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q2533641","aliases":["dioxybenzone","benzophenone-8","benzophenone 8"],"fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 3% in the US.","euStatus":"Not approved.","protection":"UVB and UVA-II.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A benzophenone-family filter rarely used today.","reefNotes":"He et al. (2019) tested dioxybenzone (BP-8) on larvae and adults of two coral species at 0.1 to 1000 μg/L. BP-1 and dioxybenzone caused settlement failure, bleaching and mortality in Seriatopora caliendrum larvae at a lowest observed effect concentration of 10 μg/L or more, and no compound affected Pocillopora damicornis larvae. Overall, BP-1 and BP-8 were more toxic to both species than oxybenzone (BP-3) and sulisobenzone (BP-4), and the toxicity ranking matched bioaccumulation, with BP-8 highest. The coral tests used two species.","sources":[{"title":"He et al. 2019, Science of the Total Environment 651:2391-2399 (doi 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.148), PubMed record","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30336428/"},{"title":"FDA, Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use (proposed rule, Federal Register, 2019)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2019/02/26/2019-03019.html"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen (content current as of 10 Sept 2026)","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"FDA's 2019 proposed rule placed dioxybenzone in Category III because the public record lacks sufficient data to support a positive GRASE determination.","related":["oxybenzone","sulisobenzone"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/dioxybenzone/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"cinoxate","name":"Cinoxate","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q2319112","aliases":["cinoxate"],"fdaStatus":"Insufficient data: not GRASE under FDA's 2019 proposal, restated in its 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), until more safety data are submitted. Still a proposal as of September 2026. Max 3% in the US.","euStatus":"Not approved.","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A cinnamate UVB filter that is essentially no longer used.","reefNotes":"Limited data.","sources":[{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products, consolidated text of 1 May 2025 (EU Publications Office)","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bb517d56-2a9c-11f0-8a44-01aa75ed71a1.0007.02/DOC_1"},{"title":"21 CFR 352.10, Sunscreen active ingredients (eCFR; ensulizole, meradimate, octinoxate and octisalate appear under their revised names in the stayed 2002 amendment)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-352.10"}],"whyRegulated":"FDA's 2021 proposed order (OTC000008), which restates its 2019 proposal, does not treat cinoxate as generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) because more data are needed, and FDA says this is not a conclusion that cinoxate is unsafe. The EU allows only UV filters listed in Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, and cinoxate is not on that list.","related":["octinoxate","amiloxate","oxybenzone"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/cinoxate/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"trolamine-salicylate","name":"Trolamine Salicylate","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q7845153","aliases":["trolamine salicylate","triethanolamine salicylate"],"fdaStatus":"Removed from the OTC sunscreen monograph by FDA final order OTC000008-1 (10 September 2026). The CARES Act sets the effective date no earlier than one year after issuance. FDA knows of no US sunscreen containing it.","euStatus":"Not approved as a UV filter.","protection":"Weak UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"Removed from the US OTC sunscreen monograph by an FDA final order in September 2026, as a sunscreen active.","reefNotes":"No reef study of this ingredient was found in our review of primary sources. FDA's 2026 order states that a sunscreen containing it is not GRASE.","sources":[{"title":"FDA, Notice of availability: final order OTC000008-1, amending OTC Monograph M020 to remove PABA and trolamine salicylate (Federal Register, 2026-09-11, Doc. 2026-18551)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2026/09/11/2026-18551.html"},{"title":"FDA, Proposed rule: Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use (Federal Register, 2019-02-26, Doc. 2019-03019)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2019/02/26/2019-03019.html"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen (content current as of 10 Sept 2026)","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"}],"whyRegulated":"FDA proposed in February 2019 that trolamine salicylate is not GRASE for sunscreen, citing the anticoagulant effects of salicylic acid and the risk of salicylate toxicity. On September 11, 2026, FDA published notice of final order OTC000008-1, which removes trolamine salicylate from the sunscreen monograph.","alternatives":["zinc-oxide","titanium-dioxide"],"related":["octisalate","homosalate","aminobenzoic-acid"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/trolamine-salicylate/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"aminobenzoic-acid","name":"PABA (Aminobenzoic Acid)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q284959","aliases":["aminobenzoic acid","para-aminobenzoic acid","paba","4-aminobenzoic acid"],"fdaStatus":"Removed from the OTC sunscreen monograph by FDA final order OTC000008-1 (10 September 2026). The CARES Act sets the effective date no earlier than one year after issuance. FDA knows of no US sunscreen containing it.","euStatus":"Banned in cosmetics (2009).","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A legacy UVB filter no longer found in mainstream sunscreens.","reefNotes":"No study of PABA itself on corals or other reef organisms was found in this run. Danovaro et al. (2008, Environmental Health Perspectives) selected seven compounds typically present in sunscreens for single-ingredient tests on Acropora spp. corals. Among the compounds tested, butylparaben, ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, benzophenone-3 and 4-methylbenzylidene camphor caused complete bleaching even at very low concentrations. The UV filters the study names as standard test compounds do not include PABA, so its results cannot be applied to PABA directly. Whether PABA affects reef organisms is therefore unknown from the sources reviewed.","sources":[{"title":"Commission Directive 2008/123/EC amending Directive 76/768/EEC (UK legislation archive copy of EU text)","url":"https://legislation.gov.uk/eudr/2008/123/2020-01-31/data.xht"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"},{"title":"Danovaro et al. 2008, Environ Health Perspect 116(4):441-447: Sunscreens Cause Coral Bleaching by Promoting Viral Infections","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2291018/"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU removed PABA from its permitted UV filter list, after its scientific committee found the safety dossier did not meet current standards. On 10 September 2026 the US FDA issued a final order removing PABA and trolamine salicylate from the OTC sunscreen monograph, saying the risks of these ingredients in sunscreen outweigh their benefits.","related":["trolamine-salicylate","padimate-o"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/aminobenzoic-acid/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"bemotrizinol","name":"Bemotrizinol (Tinosorb S)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q4885134","aliases":["bemotrizinol","bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine","tinosorb s","bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (bemt)"],"fdaStatus":"Added to the US OTC sunscreen monograph at up to 6% by an FDA final order (OTC000039) issued June 10, 2026, effective August 9, 2026. The requesting company (DSM) has 18 months of marketing exclusivity from that date.","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%.","protection":"Broad spectrum UVB + UVA.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A modern, photostable broad-spectrum filter long used in Europe, Asia and Australia and permitted in US sunscreens since 2026. Banned in Palau, where its regulations name it. Not named in any other reef law we track, and not a mineral active.","reefNotes":"A 2020 study found no effect from bemotrizinol (BEMT) on the brine shrimp Artemia salina or the microalga Tetraselmis sp., even at 2 mg/L. A 2022 sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) study found that sunscreens with only MBBT, DHHB, BEMT or EHT as UV filters were more eco-compatible than products with other filters or ingredients. BEMT was measured in seawater at bathing sites in the Western Mediterranean in summer 2022. A 2026 survey of fishing-port sediment in Dalian, China, listed BEMT, named UV-627 in that paper, among compounds identified as ecological risk compounds. In a 2025 study, microbes in Toulon Harbor sediment did not degrade BEMT in microcosms.","sources":[{"title":"Effect of 10 UV Filters on the Brine Shrimp Artemia salina and the Marine Microalga Tetraselmis sp. (Toxics, 2020)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32290111/"},{"title":"Assessing the eco-compatibility of new generation sunscreen products through a combined microscopic-molecular approach (Environ Pollut, 2022)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36152716/"},{"title":"Targeted and untargeted discovery of UV filters and emerging contaminants with environmental risk assessment on the Northwestern Mediterranean coast (Mar Pollut Bull, 2025)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39824136/"},{"title":"Unveiling pollution of benzophenone and triazine-derived ultraviolet filters in fishing-port sediment (Ecotoxicol Environ Saf, 2026)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42759459/"},{"title":"Marine sediments microbes degrade a limited repertoire of organic UV filters (Environ Sci Pollut Res, 2025)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40782226/"},{"title":"Federal Register 2026-11578: Amending Over-the-Counter Monograph M020 (June 10, 2026)","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-06-10/html/2026-11578.htm"},{"title":"FDA OTC Monographs: Final Administrative Order OTC000039 (bemotrizinol)","url":"https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/omuf/index.cfm?event=OrderDetail&orderid=OTC000039"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA's regulatory actions on OTC sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"}],"whyRegulated":"FDA's June 10, 2026 final order caps bemotrizinol at 6 percent and sets conditions on concentration, combinations and dosage forms. The order followed a September 23, 2024 request from DSM Nutritional Products, which asked FDA to find the ingredient generally recognized as safe and effective.","related":["ethylhexyl-triazone","bisoctrizole","diethylamino-hydroxybenzoyl-hexyl-benzoate"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","lede":"A modern, photostable broad-spectrum filter long used in Europe, Asia and Australia and permitted in US sunscreens since 2026. Palau is the only reef law we track that names it.","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/bemotrizinol/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"bisoctrizole","name":"Bisoctrizole (Tinosorb M)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q4918369","aliases":["bisoctrizole","methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol","tinosorb m","methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol (nano)"],"fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%.","protection":"Broad spectrum.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A particulate organic filter used outside the US.","reefNotes":"No coral or coral-symbiont study of bisoctrizole was found, and the EU SCCS opinion states that it does not address environmental effects of MBBT. A 2020 study in Toxics found bisoctrizole (MBBT) had no effect on the microalga Tetraselmis sp. or the brine shrimp Artemia salina, even at 2 mg/L. A 2022 Environmental Pollution study tested six whole sunscreen formulations on sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) embryos, not bisoctrizole alone, and found that products whose only filters were MBBT, DHHB, BEMT or EHT were more eco-compatible than those with other filters or additives. A 2024 study in the same journal found that a sunscreen with only new-generation organic filters, bisoctrizole among them, did not affect sea urchins. In a 2021 zebrafish test, embryos exposed to sediment spiked at 10 µg/g for 96 hours included bisoctrizole as one of four filters tested, with benzophenone-3 the more toxic of the four. Bisoctrizole (UV-360) was detected in North and Baltic Sea sediments in a 2018 study, where the authors estimated a negligible impact on benthic organisms, and it did not degrade in wastewater sludge over 120 days in a 2022 study, which the authors attribute to limited bioavailability.","sources":[{"title":"SCCS opinion SCCS/1546/15 (revision of 25 June 2015) on methylene-bis-(benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol), nano form","url":"https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_168.pdf"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/885 of 20 June 2018 amending Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (EUR-Lex, Official Journal L 158/1)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32018R0885"},{"title":"Toxics 2020: Effect of 10 UV Filters on the Brine Shrimp Artemia salina and the Marine Microalga Tetraselmis sp.","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32290111/"},{"title":"Environmental Pollution 2022: Assessing the eco-compatibility of new generation sunscreen products (sea urchin)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36152716/"},{"title":"Environmental Pollution 2024: Inorganic UV filter-based sunscreens labelled as eco-friendly threaten sea urchin populations","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38703981/"},{"title":"Chemosphere 2018: Environmental occurrence and hazard of organic UV stabilizers and UV filters in North and Baltic Sea sediment","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30145417/"},{"title":"Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2021: Exposure to four chemical UV filters through contaminated sediment (zebrafish)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33555472/"},{"title":"Science of the Total Environment 2022: Degradation capacity of WWTP sludge enrichment cultures towards organic UV filters","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35189223/"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU caps bisoctrizole at 10% under entry 23 of Annex VI, and Regulation (EU) 2018/885 added nano-form entry 23a with a bar on inhalation uses after the SCCS reported severe inflammatory effects of microfine MBBT in the respiratory tract.","related":["bemotrizinol","ethylhexyl-triazone","diethylamino-hydroxybenzoyl-hexyl-benzoate"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/bisoctrizole/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"drometrizole-trisiloxane","name":"Drometrizole Trisiloxane (Mexoryl XL)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q5308268","aliases":["drometrizole trisiloxane","mexoryl xl"],"fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 15%.","protection":"UVB + UVA-II.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A L'Oréal filter used in European formulations.","reefNotes":"Fel et al. (2019) tested drometrizole trisiloxane, which the paper calls Mexoryl XL, on the coral Stylophora pistillata.","sources":[{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2021, A Critical Review of Organic Ultraviolet Filter Exposure, Hazard, and Risk to Corals, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 40(4):967-988","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"},{"title":"FDA, Federal Register Vol. 75 No. 105 (2 June 2010): Drometrizole Trisiloxane Eligibility for Potential Inclusion in Sunscreen Monograph; Request for Safety, Effectiveness, and Environmental Data (Docket FDA-2003-N-0196)","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-06-02/pdf/2010-13001.pdf"}],"whyRegulated":"In June 2010 the FDA found drometrizole trisiloxane eligible for its US sunscreen monograph at up to 15 percent, but asked for safety, effectiveness and environmental data before deciding whether it can be classed as GRASE. Under FDA rules, a product containing it may not be marketed as an OTC drug in the US unless it has an approved new drug or abbreviated new drug application.","related":["ethylhexyl-triazone","ecamsule"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/drometrizole-trisiloxane/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"ethylhexyl-triazone","name":"Ethylhexyl Triazone (Uvinul T 150)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q2455834","aliases":["ethylhexyl triazone","octyl triazone","uvinul t 150"],"fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 5%.","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A strong UVB filter used outside the US.","reefNotes":"Stien et al. (2020) exposed the hexacoral Pocillopora damicornis to ethylhexyl triazone, starting at 1000 µg/L and testing lower doses only when an effect appeared. Metabolomic profiling found no effect on coral metabolism at any tested dose. Apel et al. (2018) quantified it in surface sediments of the North and Baltic Seas at up to 2.0 ng/g dry weight and estimated a negligible hazard to sediment-dwelling organisms. In freshwater tests, Lavorgna et al. (2024) recorded a lethal median concentration in rotifers in the tens of mg/L and sub-chronic effects in ostracods at an EC50 of 210 µg/L. Chlorination produced byproducts that were more toxic: DBP1 had an EC50 of 9 µg/L in ostracods.","sources":[{"title":"Stien et al. 2020, Scientific Reports: A unique approach to monitor stress in coral exposed to emerging pollutants","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7295770"},{"title":"Apel, Joerss & Ebinghaus 2018, Chemosphere 212:254-261: Environmental occurrence and hazard of organic UV stabilizers and UV filters in the sediment of European North and Baltic Seas","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30145417/"},{"title":"Lavorgna et al. 2024, Sci Total Environ: Ethylhexyl triazone sunscreen and its disinfection byproducts obtained after chlorine treatment: Ecofriendliness or ecotoxicity? (doi 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177279)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39481572/"}],"related":["bemotrizinol","octocrylene","avobenzone"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/ethylhexyl-triazone/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"iscotrizinol","name":"Iscotrizinol (Uvasorb HEB)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q6079473","aliases":["iscotrizinol","diethylhexyl butamido triazone","uvasorb heb"],"fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%.","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A UVB filter used outside the US.","reefNotes":"No coral toxicity study was found. In a 2020 study, iscotrizinol (DBT) had no effect on the marine microalga Tetraselmis sp. or the brine shrimp Artemia salina, even at 2 mg/L. A 2026 study found that DBT caused less than 10% growth inhibition in Chlorella vulgaris when tested alone at up to 15 mg/L, and that triazine filters including DBT were markedly less toxic to Daphnia magna than three non-triazine filters. A 2026 chronic test on Chlorella found no statistically significant effect from the triazine filters, and the authors suggest the exposure regimes were inadequate to show measurable effects. In 2022, DBT averaged 34 ng/g dry weight in suspended particulate matter from German waters, and its concentration rose at all monitored Rhine stations from 2005 to 2022.","sources":[{"title":"Toxics 2020: Effect of 10 UV Filters on the Brine Shrimp Artemia salina and the Marine Microalga Tetraselmis sp. (PubMed record)","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=32290111&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml"},{"title":"Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2026: Acute toxicity of novel triazine-based UV filters towards Chlorella vulgaris and Daphnia magna (PubMed record)","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=41411795&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml"},{"title":"Bioresource Technology 2026: Chronic toxicity of triazine-based and non-triazine UV filters toward Chlorella vulgaris (PubMed record)","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42508666&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml"},{"title":"Environmental Pollution 2026: Long-term trends and patterns of legacy and emerging cosmetic UV filters in German waters (PubMed record)","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42134527&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml"}],"alternatives":["zinc-oxide","titanium-dioxide"],"related":["ethylhexyl-triazone","bemotrizinol","diethylamino-hydroxybenzoyl-hexyl-benzoate"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/iscotrizinol/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"diethylamino-hydroxybenzoyl-hexyl-benzoate","name":"DHHB (Uvinul A Plus)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q5275146","aliases":["diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate","uvinul a plus","dhhb"],"fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%.","protection":"UVA-I.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A photostable UVA filter used in Europe and Asia.","reefNotes":"No peer-reviewed study of DHHB's effects on coral or other reef species was found in this research. The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety's 2025 opinion on DHHB is about human health and sets a limit for a phthalate contaminant.","sources":[{"title":"SCCS scientific advice on the safety of DHHB (S83), SCCS/1678/25, final version 26 June 2025 (full opinion PDF)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/0bb2a0be-ba7c-4a1f-96df-d57d18c1316f_en?filename=sccs_o_299.pdf"}],"whyRegulated":"In June 2025 the EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety set a maximum of 260 ppm for DnHexP, a phthalate contaminant in DHHB. DnHexP is already banned in cosmetics, and the committee set 1 ppm as the target for it in DHHB. DHHB remains authorised under entry 28 of Annex VI, and the committee's limit assumes use up to 10%.","lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/diethylamino-hydroxybenzoyl-hexyl-benzoate/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"polysilicone-15","name":"Polysilicone-15 (Parsol SLX)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q7226938","aliases":["polysilicone-15","polysilicone 15","parsol slx"],"fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%.","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A silicone-based UVB filter used outside the US.","reefNotes":"No peer-reviewed study of polysilicone-15 in corals, reef fish or other marine organisms turned up in PubMed, and a search pairing its names with coral, reef, marine and aquatic terms returned no records. PubMed returns four records for its names: two skin-allergy reports (Suzuki et al. 2022; Sarre et al. 2014), an in vitro sun-protection study (Couteau et al. 2007) and a LactMed entry on sunscreens and breastfeeding. The Couteau study measured SPF in a lab, not effects on marine life.","sources":[{"title":"PubMed E-utilities search: polysilicone-15, Parsol SLX or polysilicone 15 in title/abstract","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esearch.fcgi?db=pubmed&term=(polysilicone-15%5BTitle%2FAbstract%5D+OR+%22Parsol+SLX%22%5BTitle%2FAbstract%5D+OR+%22polysilicone+15%22%5BTitle%2FAbstract%5D)&retmode=json"},{"title":"PubMed E-utilities search: Parsol SLX or polysilicone-15 with coral, reef, marine or aquatic","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esearch.fcgi?db=pubmed&term=(Parsol+SLX+OR+polysilicone-15)+AND+(coral+OR+reef+OR+marine+OR+aquatic)&retmode=json"},{"title":"PubMed records 41730063, 35306675, 24450826, 17663193 (E-utilities efetch)","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=41730063,35306675,24450826,17663193&rettype=abstract&retmode=text"}],"related":["oxybenzone","homosalate"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/polysilicone-15/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"amiloxate","name":"Amiloxate (IMC)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q17012246","aliases":["amiloxate","isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate","isoamyl methoxycinnamate"],"fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%.","protection":"UVB.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A cinnamate UVB filter used outside the US.","reefNotes":"Mitchelmore et al. (2019) found amiloxate below the limit of detection in sediment at sites near coral reefs, as tabulated in a 2021 critical review of UV filters and corals. A 2025 study of Polish freshwater recreational lakes found it among the main contributors to moderate cumulative risk, with localized high-risk values at Kryspinów, but those sites were freshwater, not reef. In a controlled off-site experiment with surface water in natural light, O’Malley et al. (2021) estimated a 6.6 hour half-life for amiloxate. No coral toxicity study of amiloxate was found in the sources read for this entry, so its effect on corals is unknown.","sources":[{"title":"O'Malley et al. 2021, Sci Total Environ 754:142373 (PubMed record)","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=33254898&rettype=abstract&retmode=text"},{"title":"Stolecka et al. 2025, Water Res 279:123423 (PubMed record)","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=40056475&rettype=abstract&retmode=text"},{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2021, Environ Toxicol Chem: critical review of organic UV filter exposure, hazard and risk to corals (PMC)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"},{"title":"FDA: Questions and answers on FDA regulatory actions on over-the-counter sunscreen","url":"https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/questions-and-answers-fdas-regulatory-actions-over-counter-sunscreen"}],"alternatives":["zinc-oxide","titanium-dioxide"],"related":["octinoxate","octocrylene"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/amiloxate/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"tris-biphenyl-triazine","name":"Tris-Biphenyl Triazine (Tinosorb A2B)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q15731461","aliases":["tris-biphenyl triazine","tris biphenyl triazine","tinosorb a2b"],"fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Approved (nano), max 10%.","protection":"UVB + UVA-II.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A newer particulate filter approved in the EU.","reefNotes":"A 2026 screening study of nine cosmetic UV filters included tris-biphenyl triazine (TBT). Under a conservative exposure scenario, the predicted water and sediment concentration ratios were acceptable for TBT. A separate 2026 acute test on algae and water fleas covered three other triazine filters (BEMT, DBT and EHT), and this filter was not among them. No measured coral or reef-species toxicity study for this filter appeared in the searches run.","sources":[{"title":"Integr Environ Assess Manag 2026: New Approach Methodologies in aquatic hazard and risk assessment of cosmetic UV filters (doi:10.1093/inteam/vjag121)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42503170/"},{"title":"Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2026: Acute toxicity of novel triazine-based UV filters towards Chlorella vulgaris and Daphnia magna (doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.119584)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41411795/"}],"related":["bemotrizinol","diethylamino-hydroxybenzoyl-hexyl-benzoate","ethylhexyl-triazone"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/tris-biphenyl-triazine/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"bisdisulizole-disodium","name":"Bisdisulizole Disodium (Neo Heliopan AP)","category":"chemical-uv-filter","wikidata":"Q4917278","aliases":["bisdisulizole disodium","disodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate","neo heliopan ap"],"fdaStatus":"Not approved in the US.","euStatus":"Approved, max 10%.","protection":"UVA-II.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A water-soluble UVA filter used outside the US.","reefNotes":"Bisdisulizole disodium is the same substance as disodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate (DPDT), a water-soluble sunscreen UV filter. Dalton et al. (2024) studied DPDT on the surface of a human skin mimic and wrote that the high-energy photons released as it relaxes can be detrimental to human health. Leon et al. (2008) proposed an in vitro method for estimating how much DPDT is absorbed through skin. The reef evidence is thin.","sources":[{"title":"Mitchelmore et al. 2021, Environ Toxicol Chem: critical review of organic UV filter exposure, hazard and risk to corals (Table 1 lists bisdisulizole disodium as disodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8048829/"},{"title":"Dalton J, et al. 2024. Evaluating the Fluorescence Quenching of Troxerutin for Commercial UV Sunscreen Filters. ACS Phys Chem Au 4(6):750-760 (PMID 39634638)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39634638/"},{"title":"Leon Z, et al. 2008. Reversed-phase ion-interaction chromatographic method for in-vitro estimation of the percutaneous absorption of water-soluble UV filters. Anal Bioanal Chem 391(3):859-66 (PMID 18365182)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18365182/"}],"related":["ensulizole","sulisobenzone"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/bisdisulizole-disodium/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"triclosan","name":"Triclosan","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q408646","aliases":["triclosan"],"fdaStatus":"Banned from US consumer antiseptic washes (2016).","euStatus":"Restricted to specific products at max 0.3%.","protection":"None — antimicrobial.","reefEvidence":"moderate","summary":"An antimicrobial named in Palau's reef-toxic chemical list. Rarely found in sunscreen today.","reefNotes":"A 2024 study in the Journal of Hazardous Materials exposed the coral Porites lutea to triclosan for 96 hours. It found no bleaching even at 100 µg/L, but the density of the symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) was 19-52% lower than in controls, their chlorophyll a was 19.9-45.6% lower, and the coral's antioxidant enzyme activity dropped. Gene-expression changes (942 genes at 0.5 µg/L, 1,077 at 100 µg/L) touched immune and reproductive pathways. This is one species in a short lab exposure, so how it plays out on real reefs is not established. The authors conclude that environmentally relevant levels can affect the coral. A 2024 survey of Sanya, China found triclosan in over 80% of 40 coral polyp, algae and sediment samples, and a 2011 review describes triclosan as highly toxic to algae.","sources":[{"title":"Liang et al. 2024, J Hazard Mater: triclosan toxicity to coral Porites lutea (PubMed abstract)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39368358/"},{"title":"Ge et al. 2024, Environ Pollut: parabens, bisphenols and triclosan in coral polyps, algae and sediments, Sanya","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39209051/"},{"title":"Dann & Hontela 2011, J Appl Toxicol: triclosan environmental exposure, toxicity and mechanisms of action","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21462230/"},{"title":"Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/110: triclosan not approved for product-type 1","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016D0110"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014 (cosmetics Annex V triclosan restriction)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0358"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/996 (cosmetics Annexes, triclosan entry 25)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202400996"},{"title":"SCCS/1643/22 opinion on triclocarban and triclosan in cosmetics","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/safety-triclocarban-and-triclosan-substances-potential-endocrine-disrupting-properties-cosmetic_en"},{"title":"Federal Register 2016: Safety and Effectiveness of Consumer Antiseptics (final rule, 81 FR 61106)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/06/2016-21337/safety-and-effectiveness-of-consumer-antiseptics-topical-antimicrobial-drug-products-for"},{"title":"FDA: Consumer Antiseptic Wash Final Rule Questions and Answers","url":"https://www.fda.gov/media/106652/download"}],"whyRegulated":"The European Commission decided on 27 January 2016 not to approve triclosan as a biocide for human-hygiene products after the assessed scenarios showed unacceptable environmental risks. Its human-health restrictions in the US and EU are covered under humanSafety.","related":["triclocarban","methylparaben","phenoxyethanol"],"humanSafety":{"summary":"Regulators in the US and EU have restricted triclosan for human-use reasons. The FDA took it out of consumer antibacterial hand and body washes because the data did not show it was safe for daily long-term use or better than plain soap. The EU allows it only in a short list of cosmetic products at up to 0.3%, and tightened that list in 2024. The FDA action rests on missing safety and benefit data, not on a finding that ordinary use harms people.","points":["FDA: a final rule published 6 September 2016 (81 FR 61106) found that triclosan and 18 other ingredients are not generally recognized as safe and effective for consumer antiseptic washes. It took effect 6 September 2017, and products with these ingredients need a new drug approval or reformulation.","FDA reasoning: the agency said available data were insufficient to establish the safety of long-term daily use, and insufficient to show any added benefit over nonantibacterial soap and water. It also cited animal data suggesting changes in thyroid, reproductive and developmental systems.","FDA scope: the rule covers only consumer hand and body washes, not other antiseptic categories.","EU 2014: Regulation 358/2014 replaced the old blanket 0.3% limit. Triclosan stayed allowed at 0.3% in toothpaste, hand soaps, body soaps and shower gels, non-spray deodorants, face powders and blemish concealers, and nail-cleaning products, and at 0.2% in mouthwash. Compliant products only from 30 October 2014 (placed on market) and 30 July 2015 (made available).","EU 2022 advice: the SCCS (SCCS/1643/22, October 2022) judged triclosan safe as a preservative at the Annex V levels in dermally applied cosmetics except body lotions. It found toothpaste at 0.3% safe on its own but not in combination for children under 3, and mouthwash not safe for children even on its own.","EU 2024: Regulation 2024/996 (3 April 2024) kept the 0.3% limit for the listed product types, removed mouthwash, barred triclosan in toothpaste for children under 3, and added labelling. Non-compliant products could be placed on the market until 31 December 2024 and sold through until 31 October 2025.","EU biocides: in 2016 the Commission declined to approve triclosan for human-hygiene biocidal products, citing environmental risk rather than human health."],"sources":[{"title":"Federal Register 2016: Safety and Effectiveness of Consumer Antiseptics (final rule, 81 FR 61106)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/06/2016-21337/safety-and-effectiveness-of-consumer-antiseptics-topical-antimicrobial-drug-products-for"},{"title":"FDA: Consumer Antiseptic Wash Final Rule Questions and Answers","url":"https://www.fda.gov/media/106652/download"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0358"},{"title":"SCCS/1643/22 opinion on triclocarban and triclosan in cosmetics","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/safety-triclocarban-and-triclosan-substances-potential-endocrine-disrupting-properties-cosmetic_en"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/996","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202400996"},{"title":"Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/110","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016D0110"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-14"},"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/triclosan/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"triclocarban","name":"Triclocarban","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q416579","aliases":["triclocarban","trichlorocarbanilide"],"fdaStatus":"Removed from OTC consumer antiseptic hand and body washes (final rule published 6 September 2016, effective 6 September 2017). It is not a sunscreen rule.","euStatus":"Restricted, max 0.2%.","protection":"None — preservative/antimicrobial.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"An antimicrobial named in Palau's list of reef-toxic chemicals. It is rare in sunscreen.","reefNotes":"Torres et al. (2016) found a no-observed-effect concentration of 0.256 µg/L for triclocarban in sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) embryos, against 100 µg/L for zebrafish, and the authors say triclocarban affected embryo development at environmentally relevant concentrations. Zhao et al. (2025) exposed Rana taihangensis tadpoles to 5, 15 and 45 µg/L and found reduced body condition in all treated groups. Duan et al. (2025) exposed black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) to 1 and 10 µg/L for 14 days; diversity changes in the gut microbiota were not statistically significant, but Bacteroidetes and Tenericutes shifted significantly. In the field, Sarkar et al. (2025) found triclocarban in 48.41% of water samples from East Kolkata's sewage-fed wetlands and up to 1.24 µg/g in fish from floodplain wetlands, and Wu et al. (2025) identified it as posing ecological risk in Guangdong surface waters. A PubMed search found no coral study, so coral-specific risk is unknown.","sources":[{"title":"Torres et al. 2016, Int J Mol Sci: embryo bioassays of 4-MBC, propylparaben and triclocarban (sea urchin and zebrafish)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27775672/"},{"title":"Zhao et al. 2025, Front Microbiol: triclocarban and Rana taihangensis tadpoles","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41472804/"},{"title":"Duan et al. 2025, Biology: intestinal microbiota of Penaeus monodon after triclocarban exposure","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41300332/"},{"title":"Sarkar et al. 2025, Sci Total Environ: phenolic micropollutants in Indian freshwater","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41124909/"},{"title":"Wu et al. 2025, Huan Jing Ke Xue: biocides in Guangdong surface water","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41093398/"},{"title":"FDA final rule, Safety and Effectiveness of Consumer Antiseptics (Federal Register, 6 Sep 2016)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2016/09/06/2016-21337.html"},{"title":"Federal Register API record for 2016-21337 (citation 81 FR 61106)","url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/documents/2016-21337.json"},{"title":"PubMed search: triclocarban AND coral (no records)","url":"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esearch.fcgi?db=pubmed&term=triclocarban+coral&retmax=20&retmode=json"}],"whyRegulated":"FDA's 2016 final rule (81 FR 61106, effective September 6, 2017) found triclocarban not generally recognized as safe and effective for consumer antiseptic washes, so washes containing it are misbranded. FDA said the safety record for triclocarban was incomplete when it finalised the rule.","related":["triclosan","phenoxyethanol","methylparaben"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/triclocarban/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"methylparaben","name":"Methylparaben","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q229987","aliases":["methylparaben","methyl paraben","methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate"],"fdaStatus":"Permitted.","euStatus":"Permitted, max 0.4% (single ester).","protection":"None — preservative.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A common preservative named in Palau's reef-toxic chemical list.","reefNotes":"No study that tested methylparaben on corals turned up in this research. The nearest coral result, Danovaro et al. 2008, found complete bleaching of Acropora corals with butylparaben, a different paraben; methylparaben is not among the compounds they list as causing bleaching. In a marine copepod (Tigriopus japonicus), the acute LC50 of methylparaben was 29,754 µg/L for males and 38,183 µg/L for females (Kang et al. 2019), lower toxicity than ethylparaben or propylparaben. In the freshwater water flea Daphnia magna (Lee et al. 2017), the 21-day reproduction no-effect concentration was 1 mg/L, and UV light made methylparaben more harmful.","sources":[{"title":"EU SCCS Opinion on Methylparaben (SCCS/1652/23, final Dec 2023, corrigendum Feb 2024)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/sccs_o_276_final.pdf"},{"title":"FDA: Parabens in Cosmetics","url":"https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/parabens-cosmetics"},{"title":"Danovaro et al. 2008, Environ Health Perspect: Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2291018/"},{"title":"Kang et al. 2019, Chemosphere: Effects of methylparaben, ethylparaben, and propylparaben on life parameters and sex ratio in the marine copepod Tigriopus japonicus","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30947048/"},{"title":"Lee et al. 2017, Ecotoxicology: Phototoxicity and chronic toxicity of methyl paraben and 1,2-hexanediol in Daphnia magna","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27866342/"}],"related":["ethylparaben","propylparaben","butylparaben","phenoxyethanol"],"humanSafety":{"summary":"The EU's scientific committee (SCCS, 2023, corrigendum 2024) judged methylparaben safe as a cosmetic preservative at up to 0.4% on its own, or 0.4% within a 0.8% ester mixture, after weighing endocrine concerns. The FDA has no paraben-specific preservative rule and says it has no information showing that parabens as used in cosmetics affect human health.","points":["EU limit: the SCCS found methylparaben safe up to 0.4% (as acid) alone, and up to 0.4% in a mixture of esters totalling no more than 0.8% (Annex V, entry 12 of the Cosmetics Regulation).","Margin of safety: for a worst-case aggregate exposure of 0.671 mg/kg bw/day across all cosmetic categories, the SCCS calculated a margin of safety of 557. Values above 100 were treated as safe.","Hormone effects: the SCCS saw weak estrogenic activity in some lab assays, only at high concentrations, and signs of anti-androgenic activity in rat studies at high oral doses (reduced anogenital distance in male pups at the top dose). It said human data do not show adverse effects.","Data gap: no valid human skin-absorption study exists, so the SCCS assumed 50% absorption and said a well-performed absorption study could further support its conclusion.","Skin: the SCCS considers methylparaben not irritating to skin or eyes and not a skin sensitiser.","FDA: it has no special rules for cosmetic preservatives and says it has no information that parabens as used in cosmetics affect human health, while it keeps reviewing studies. It will advise the public if it finds a hazard.","Scope: the SCCS assessment covers human safety only; it did not assess environmental safety."],"sources":[{"title":"EU SCCS Opinion on Methylparaben (SCCS/1652/23, final Dec 2023, corrigendum Feb 2024)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/sccs_o_276_final.pdf"},{"title":"FDA: Parabens in Cosmetics","url":"https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/parabens-cosmetics"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-14"},"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/methylparaben/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"ethylparaben","name":"Ethylparaben","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q229976","aliases":["ethylparaben","ethyl paraben"],"fdaStatus":"Permitted.","euStatus":"Permitted, max 0.4%.","protection":"None — preservative.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A preservative named in Palau's reef-toxic chemical list.","reefNotes":"A 2018 survey examined personal care product chemicals in surface water of coral reefs in Kenting National Park, Taiwan. It tested five preservatives, including ethylparaben, in seawater and river water from eight beaches and two river estuaries. A 2025 study in Water Research found that seawater speeds up the sunlight-driven transformation of ethylparaben. Nitro-products formed in seawater and estuarine water in that study, and the authors predict they are more persistent and more toxic to marine organisms than ethylparaben. That toxicity result is a model prediction, not a measured effect on coral.","sources":[{"title":"Kung et al. 2018, Sci Total Environ 635:1302-1307: Survey of selected personal care products in surface water of coral reefs in Kenting National Park, Taiwan","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29710583/"},{"title":"Gao et al., Water Res 290:125127 (online 9 Dec 2025; issue 15 Feb 2026): Coupled nitrogen-pollutant photochemistry: Marine nitration of ethylparaben and formation of toxic nitro-products","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41391249/"}],"related":["methylparaben","propylparaben","butylparaben","phenoxyethanol"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/ethylparaben/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"propylparaben","name":"Propylparaben","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q511627","aliases":["propylparaben","propyl paraben"],"fdaStatus":"Permitted.","euStatus":"Restricted, max 0.14%.","protection":"None — preservative.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A paraben preservative.","reefNotes":"Lee et al. 2018 tested four parabens on Daphnia magna, a freshwater crustacean, and reported an LC50 of 21.1 mg/L for propylparaben, with toxicity rising as the alkyl chain got longer. These are lab results for a non-reef species.","sources":[{"title":"Lee et al. 2018, Toxicities of Four Parabens and Their Mixtures to Daphnia magna and Aliivibrio fischeri, Environmental Health and Toxicology 33(4)","url":"http://eaht.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.5620/eht.e2018018"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) No 1004/2014 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (legislation.gov.uk copy)","url":"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/1004/data.html"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU restricts propylparaben under Commission Regulation (EU) No 1004/2014. It caps the sum of the individual concentrations of butylparaben and propylparaben at 0,14 % (as acid) and bars use in leave-on products for the nappy area of children under three; the regulation applies from 16 April 2015.","related":["methylparaben","ethylparaben","butylparaben"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/propylparaben/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"butylparaben","name":"Butylparaben","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q3302873","aliases":["butylparaben","butyl paraben"],"fdaStatus":"Permitted.","euStatus":"Restricted, max 0.14%.","protection":"None — preservative.","reefEvidence":"moderate","summary":"A preservative banned in Thailand's marine national parks and named in Palau's list.","reefNotes":"In Danovaro et al. (2008), single sunscreen ingredients were added to Acropora coral branches, and butylparaben, tested at 0.5% (a level set from the concentrations allowed in sunscreens), caused complete bleaching, as did octinoxate, oxybenzone and 4-MBC. Octocrylene and ethylhexyl salicylate had little or no effect in the same tests. In a five-week experiment on Stylophora pistillata (Fel et al., Coral Reefs 2019), butylparaben at 100 µg/L cut the photosynthetic efficiency of the corals' symbiotic algae by 25%, while 10 µg/L produced no such decline and ethylparaben had no adverse effect. The Fel authors say more is needed on in situ concentrations and on individual and combined effects.","sources":[{"title":"Danovaro et al. 2008, Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections, Environmental Health Perspectives","url":"https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.10966"},{"title":"Fel et al. 2019, Photochemical response of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata to some sunscreen ingredients, Coral Reefs","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-018-01759-4"},{"title":"Notification of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (Thailand), Royal Gazette 3 Aug 2021","url":"https://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2564/E/175/T_0001.PDF"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) No 1004/2014 amending Annex V to the Cosmetics Regulation","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R1004"}],"whyRegulated":"Thailand's national parks department banned sunscreens containing butylparaben, oxybenzone, octinoxate or 4-MBC in a notification issued 24 June 2021 and published in the Royal Gazette on 3 August 2021 (in force the next day), citing general academic evidence that sunscreen chemicals harm coral larvae and reproduction and cause bleaching. The EU limit is a consumer-safety rule, not a reef one: Regulation 1004/2014, applying from 16 April 2015, caps butylparaben and propylparaben at 0.14% (as acid, summed).","related":["propylparaben","methylparaben","benzylparaben","isobutylparaben"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/butylparaben/","bannedIn":["palau","thailand-national-parks"]},{"id":"benzylparaben","name":"Benzylparaben","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q27116155","aliases":["benzylparaben","benzyl paraben"],"fdaStatus":"Permitted.","euStatus":"Banned in cosmetics (2014).","protection":"None — preservative.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A paraben named in Palau's reef-toxic chemical list.","reefNotes":"In 2018, a survey of Kenting National Park in Taiwan detected benzylparaben in seawater and river water (Kung et al. 2018). The abstract gives no benzylparaben concentration and names methylparaben and propylparaben as the main preservatives in seawater. In a 7-day chronic test, the water flea Ceriodaphnia dubia produced fewer offspring at the lowest concentration tested, 0.04 mg/L (Terasaki et al. 2015). Nile tilapia held for eight weeks at 5 to 50 ng/L developed an antioxidant response and triglyceride accumulation, which the authors link to environmentally related levels (Lin et al. 2022). The 2008 coral bleaching study by Danovaro et al. named butylparaben, not benzylparaben.","sources":[{"title":"Kung et al. 2018, Science of the Total Environment: survey of personal care products in Kenting National Park coral reef waters","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29710583/"},{"title":"Terasaki et al. 2015, Environmental Toxicology: chronic toxicity of parabens and their chlorinated by-products in Ceriodaphnia dubia","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24376163/"},{"title":"Lin et al. 2022, Aquatic Toxicology: toxic effects of waterborne benzylparaben on Nile tilapia","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35623196/"},{"title":"Danovaro et al. 2008, Environmental Health Perspectives: Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2291018"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0358"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU prohibited benzylparaben in cosmetic products from 30 October 2014 under Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014, which lists it in Annex II.","related":["butylparaben","methylparaben","ethylparaben","phenoxyethanol"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/benzylparaben/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"phenoxyethanol","name":"Phenoxyethanol","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q418038","aliases":["phenoxyethanol","2-phenoxyethanol"],"fdaStatus":"Permitted.","euStatus":"Permitted, max 1%.","protection":"None — preservative.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A very common paraben alternative. Named in Palau's reef-toxic chemical list, which catches many products that are otherwise mineral-only.","reefNotes":"A 2021 Daphnia magna reproduction test found no effect on growth or reproduction at 46.9 mg/L, which the author describes as far above the levels measured in Japanese urban rivers. Kimura et al. (2014) measured up to 14,000 ng/L of phenoxyethanol at Japanese river sites.","sources":[{"title":"Mano 2021, Chronic toxicity of 2-phenoxyethanol to Daphnia magna (Jpn J Environ Toxicol 24:48-52)","url":"https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jset/24/0/24_240204/_article"},{"title":"Kimura et al. 2014, Occurrence of preservatives and antimicrobials in Japanese rivers (Chemosphere 107:393)","url":"https://hero.epa.gov/reference/12140896/"},{"title":"SCCS (2016): Final version of the opinion on Phenoxyethanol in cosmetic products (Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.11.007)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/11505b68-6f8c-438c-b46c-ba3d51470f2b_en?filename=rtp_122016b.pdf"},{"title":"ANSM (France), 2019 decision on leave-on cosmetics containing phenoxyethanol (updated 2021)","url":"https://ansm.sante.fr/actualites/les-produits-cosmetiques-non-rinces-contenant-du-phenoxyethanol-ne-doivent-pas-etre-utilises-sur-les-fesses-des-enfants-de-3-ans-ou-moins"}],"related":["methylparaben","propylparaben","triclosan"],"humanSafety":{"summary":"The EU's scientific committee on consumer safety (SCCS) judged phenoxyethanol safe as a cosmetic preservative at up to 1%, including for children. France's medicines agency (ANSM), which had earlier pushed for tighter limits for under-threes, now requires a label warning against using leave-on products containing it on the bottoms of children aged 3 or under.","points":["EU limit: phenoxyethanol is allowed as a preservative in cosmetics at a maximum of 1%. The SCCS (2016) considered it safe at that level.","The SCCS put the margin of safety for children at about 50 and said this covers their possibly higher exposure. Its opinion looked only at cosmetics, not other sources of exposure.","France, 2012: after a risk assessment, ANSM recommended capping phenoxyethanol at 0.4% in cosmetics for children under three and not using it on the nappy area. The SCCS's 2016 opinion came to a different conclusion at 1%.","France, 2019: as a precaution, ANSM decided that leave-on cosmetics containing phenoxyethanol must carry a label saying they cannot be used on the bottoms of children aged 3 or under. For other products for that age group, the 1% limit applies."],"sources":[{"title":"SCCS (2016): Final version of the opinion on Phenoxyethanol in cosmetic products (Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.11.007)","url":"https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/11505b68-6f8c-438c-b46c-ba3d51470f2b_en?filename=rtp_122016b.pdf"},{"title":"ANSM (France), 2019 decision on leave-on cosmetics containing phenoxyethanol (updated 2021)","url":"https://ansm.sante.fr/actualites/les-produits-cosmetiques-non-rinces-contenant-du-phenoxyethanol-ne-doivent-pas-etre-utilises-sur-les-fesses-des-enfants-de-3-ans-ou-moins"}],"reviewed":"2026-10-14"},"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/phenoxyethanol/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"microplastics","name":"Microplastics (plastic microbeads)","category":"other","wikidata":"Q6839919","aliases":["polyethylene","polypropylene","nylon-12","nylon-6","polymethyl methacrylate","polystyrene","microbeads"],"fdaStatus":"Rinse-off plastic microbeads banned in the US (Microbead-Free Waters Act, 2015).","euStatus":"Intentionally added microplastics restricted (2023).","protection":"None — texture/film.","reefEvidence":"moderate","summary":"Solid plastic particles used for texture. Named in some reef rules and flagged by marine-protection guidance. Our checker flags the common plastic polymers by name; many other synthetic polymers are not microplastics.","reefNotes":"Hall et al. (2015) report for the first time that reef-building corals ingest microplastics, and they found microplastics in reef water near inshore reefs on the Great Barrier Reef. In feeding trials, corals consumed up to about 50 micrograms of plastic per square centimetre per hour, at rates similar to their intake of plankton and Artemia nauplii. The ingested particles stayed in the coral gut cavity wrapped in tissue, and the authors suggest high concentrations could impair coral health. Plankton tows near inshore reefs found microplastics at low concentrations at every sampling location, and the particles resembled those used in marine paints and fishing floats. Napper et al. (2015) studied polyethylene microbeads taken from several cosmetic exfoliants, estimated that 4,594 to 94,500 could be released in a single use, and called such exfoliants a potentially important, yet preventable, source of marine microplastic.","sources":[{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 amending Annex XVII to REACH (synthetic polymer microparticles, entry 78), EUR-Lex","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023R2055"},{"title":"Hall, Berry, Rintoul, Hoogenboom (2015), Microplastic ingestion by scleractinian corals, Marine Biology 162(3):725-732, doi:10.1007/s00227-015-2619-7 (abstract read at JCU repository)","url":"https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/38971/"},{"title":"Napper, Bakir, Rowland, Thompson (2015), Characterisation, quantity and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics, Marine Pollution Bulletin, doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.029 (PubMed record)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26234612/"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU restricts synthetic polymer microparticles in REACH Annex XVII as entry 78, set by Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 of 25 September 2023. The restriction bans placing these microparticles on the market at 0.01% by weight or more where they are present to confer a sought-after characteristic. Rinse-off products are covered from 17 October 2027 and leave-on products from 17 October 2029, and the Commission estimated a cumulative emission reduction of approximately 500,000 tonnes of microplastics over 20 years.","related":["nanoparticles","titanium-dioxide","zinc-oxide"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/microplastics/","bannedIn":[]},{"id":"nanoparticles","name":"Nanoparticles (nano-sized minerals)","category":"other","aliases":["(nano)"],"fdaStatus":"Not separately regulated.","euStatus":"Must be labelled '(nano)' in the ingredient list.","protection":"—","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"Mineral filters milled below 100 nm. EU labels must mark them '(nano)'. US labels usually do not disclose particle size, so 'non-nano' claims come from the brand, not the label.","reefNotes":"Corinaldesi et al. (2018) exposed Acropora spp. corals to uncoated nano zinc oxide and to two modified titanium dioxide forms in laboratory experiments. Uncoated zinc oxide caused severe, fast bleaching by disrupting the symbiosis between the coral and its algae (zooxanthellae). The same zinc oxide also acted directly on the symbiotic algae. The two titanium dioxide forms caused minimal changes to the symbiosis and no bleaching, which the authors judged more eco-compatible than zinc oxide. This entry rests on that one study of one coral genus.","sources":[{"title":"Corinaldesi et al. 2018, Science of the Total Environment (DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.108; PubMed 29801220)","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29801220/"},{"title":"Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products (EUR-Lex)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1223"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/621, entries 30 and 30a of Annex VI (EUR-Lex)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0621"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1143, entry 27a of Annex VI (EUR-Lex)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R1143"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU permits nano zinc oxide and nano titanium dioxide at up to 25% in cosmetics, but not in applications that may expose the end-user's lungs to them by inhalation. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 says there is \"inadequate information on the risks associated with nanomaterials\", requires nano ingredients to be followed by 'nano' in brackets, and requires notification of nano cosmetics six months before sale, though not for nano UV filters. Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/621 added zinc oxide (nano) to Annex VI in 2016.","related":["zinc-oxide","titanium-dioxide"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/nanoparticles/","bannedIn":[]},{"id":"isobutylparaben","name":"Isobutylparaben","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q27237117","aliases":["isobutylparaben","isobutyl paraben"],"fdaStatus":"Permitted in cosmetics.","euStatus":"Banned in cosmetics (2014).","protection":"None — preservative/antimicrobial.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A paraben preservative named in Palau's list of reef-toxic chemicals.","reefNotes":"Danovaro et al. (2008) tested butylparaben on Acropora corals and found it caused complete bleaching even at very low concentrations. Isobutylparaben is not among the ingredients the study reported as causing bleaching, so its effect on coral is unknown from this source.","sources":[{"title":"Danovaro et al. 2008, Environmental Health Perspectives: Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections (PMC2291018)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2291018/"},{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014 of 9 April 2014 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (EUR-Lex)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014R0358"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU prohibited isobutylparaben in cosmetics in 2014 under Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014 of 9 April 2014, because industry submitted little safety data, so the SCCS could not evaluate its human risk, and it might be used as an antimicrobial.","related":["butylparaben","isopropylparaben","propylparaben","benzylparaben"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/isobutylparaben/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"isopropylparaben","name":"Isopropylparaben","category":"preservative","wikidata":"Q15426255","aliases":["isopropylparaben","isopropyl paraben"],"fdaStatus":"Permitted in cosmetics.","euStatus":"Banned in cosmetics (2014).","protection":"None — preservative/antimicrobial.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"A paraben preservative named in Palau's list of reef-toxic chemicals.","reefNotes":"No reef study of this ingredient was found in our review of primary sources.","sources":[{"title":"Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014 of 9 April 2014 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (EUR-Lex, OJ L 107, 10.4.2014)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014R0358"}],"whyRegulated":"The EU prohibits isopropylparaben in cosmetics under Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014. The regulation says industry supplied limited or no safety data, so the human risk could not be evaluated, and from 30 July 2015 only compliant cosmetic products may be made available on the EU market.","related":["isobutylparaben","propylparaben","butylparaben"],"lastReviewed":"2026-10-14","url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/isopropylparaben/","bannedIn":["palau"]},{"id":"skin-protectant","name":"Skin protectant actives (petrolatum, dimethicone, etc.)","category":"skin-protectant","aliases":["petrolatum","white petrolatum","dimethicone","allantoin","lanolin","zinc acetate"],"fdaStatus":"Approved skin protectant actives under the FDA OTC skin protectant monograph (21 CFR 347).","euStatus":"Cosmetic ingredients; not UV filters.","protection":"None — these protect chapped lips and skin, not UV.","reefEvidence":"limited","summary":"Some SPF lip balms list a skin protectant such as petrolatum or dimethicone as a second active ingredient. These are not sunscreen filters, so they don't affect any reef law — including mineral-only rules.","reefNotes":"Not the subject of any reef-protection law.","sources":[{"title":"21 CFR Part 347 — Skin Protectant Drug Products","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-347"}],"url":"https://reeflabel.com/ingredients/skin-protectant/","bannedIn":[]}]}