ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2025
Endocrine and Reproductive Health Considerations of Sunscreen UV Filters: Insights from a Comprehensive Review 2014-2024.
Review in Current environmental health reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Organic Sunscreens-Biological Activity from an Enzymatic Perspective.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hybrid Herbal-Synthetic Sunscreen Formulations: Boosting SPF With Hippophae Rhamnoides and Sapindus Mukorossi Extracts.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Subcytotoxic Exposure to Avobenzone and Ethylhexyl Salicylate Induces microRNA Modulation and Stress-Responsive PI3K/AKT and MAPK Signaling in Differentiated SH-SY5Y Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewChemical (organic) ultraviolet (UV) filters-carbon-based compounds widely used in sunscreen formulations-are essential for protecting against harmful UV radiation. However, emerging evidence over the last decade (2014-2024) has raised concerns regarding their potential endocrine-disrupting effects, environmental persistence, and bioaccumulation. This comprehensive review evaluates the endocrine, reproductive, and developmental health impacts of organic UV filters, with a focus on benzophenone derivatives such as BP-3, BP-2, and 4-OHBP. RECENT
findingsThe analysis incorporates data from 75 studies identified through PRISMA-guided screening of epidemiological and human research. Findings reveal significant hormonal disruptions, including reduced testosterone levels in adolescent males, altered thyroid hormones in pregnant women, and associations with delayed pubertal development in boys and early menarche in girls. Mixed exposures to multiple UV filters, frequently occurring in real-world scenarios, demonstrate cumulative and complex effects, particularly on thyroid hormone levels and reproductive health. In men, benzophenones are associated with decreased sperm quality and motility, while in women, their impact on ovarian reserve and fertility outcomes appears less pronounced. Prenatal exposure studies show mixed outcomes, ranging from reduced neonatal size and gestational age to increased placental-to-birth weight ratios. This review underscores the dual nature of organic UV filters, emphasizing their importance in photoprotection while highlighting the need for a balanced approach to safety evaluations. Future research should prioritize long-term cohort studies, assessments of mixed exposure effects, and the development of safer alternatives. Addressing these challenges is crucial for mitigating risks to human health and the environment while maintaining the protective benefits of sunscreens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.