179
1 INTRODUCTION
Sunscreencosmeticsareagroupofcosmeticproducts
that is particularly importantforhuman health. The
mainfunctionofsunscreenproductsistoprotectthe
skin from the biological effects of exposure to UV
radiation(sunburn,photodermatoses, pigmentations,
skinphotoaging,precancerouschangesandcancer)[1,
7,13,
15].Sunscreenproductsareeffectivemainlydue
to the content of UV filters (physical and chemical),
whichabsorb, reflector scatterUV radiation. Annex
VIoftheRegulationoftheEuropeanParliamentand
oftheCounciloftheEuropeanUnionof30November
2009 on cosmetic products contains a total of
32
sunscreensubstancesallowedincosmeticproducts,of
which only 4 are inorganic substances: titanium
dioxide,titaniumdioxideintheformofnanoparticles,
zincoxide,zinc in the form of nanocomponents.UV
filters are also used in plastics, food packaging,
textiles, paints, detergents, adhesives and other
industrial products to protect
materials from the
harmfuleffectsof UV radiation. SomeUV filtersare
controversial. Their estrogenic, allergenic, irritating,
photosensitizing and phototoxic effects were
describedintheliterature[17].Recently,theharmful
effectsofUVfiltersonthemarineenvironmenthave
beenmentionedmoreandmoreoften[5,19].
Twomainwaysof
introducingUVfiltersintothe
environmentaredescribedintheliterature:
5. A direct route resulting from human activity. UV
filters are released into the environment by
washingofftheskinandwashingoffclothing.
6. Indirect way, through industrial activity, sewage,
runoffandhouseholduse.
Evaluation of Consumers' Awareness of the Impact
of UV Filters on Marine Ecosystems
A.Wilczyńska&M.Engler‐Jastrzębska
GdyniaMaritimeUniversity,Gdynia,Poland
ABSTRACT: Increased public awareness of the negative effects of excessive exposure to UV radiation and
concernsabouttheriskofskincancercauseagrowinginterestinsunscreenproducts.Thisisespeciallytruein
tropicalcountrieswhereexposuretoultravioletradiationemittedbythesunis
greater.TheglobaluseofUV
filtersresultsintheappearance ofanewclass ofenvironmentalpollution. This situationraisesconsiderable
concerns about the quality of the environment and the impact of these compounds on humans and other
organisms.Thereforetheaimofourstudywastoexaminingconsumersʹ
awarenessofthethreatstothemarine
environment, with particular emphasis on sunscreen substances (UV filters). The quantitative research was
carriedoutonagroupof287respondents,usingtheproprietaryquestionnairethatincludedquestionsabout
impactofselectedUV filtersonmarineecosystems.Respondents werealsoaskedabouttheirconcern
about
marine environmental issues and actions they take to minimize their negative impact on the marine
environment. The findings indicate that Polish consumers possess moderate awareness of marine
environmentalissuesandlowawarenessofimpactofUVfiltersonmarineecosystems.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 18
Number 1
March 2024
DOI:10.12716/1001.18.01.18
180
UVfilters,aftergettingintothesewageendupin
thesewagetreatmentplant,butsomeofthemcanbe
transported to the sludge due to their high
lipophilicity and poor biodegradability. This sludge
can be used in agriculture, which is associated with
the risk of groundwater contamination. Part
of the
treated wastewater containing UV filters or their
residues will be discharged into natural water
reservoirs and bioaccumulated there. Therefore UV
filters have been detected in many elements of the
natural environment, including: sewage treatment
plants, surface waters, river and sewage sediments,
seawatersamplescollectedaroundtheworld,fish,as
well as human milk and placenta. Studies confirm
their presence in various concentrations in marine
organisms: mussels, octopuses, crabs and fish fillets
andotherpartsoffish.UFfilterscanbetoxictothem:
accumulate in their tissues, limit their growth,
damage the immune and reproductive systems,
damage DNA, have
endocrine effects, etc. [4, 5, 11,
21].Scientificstudiesalsoindicatean increaseinthe
numberofvirusesinmarinebacterioplanktondueto
the presence of UV filters in sea water, as well as a
modification of the biogeochemical cycle of carbon,
nitrogen and phosphorus [8]. By promoting viral
infectionssunscreens
mayalsocausecoralbleaching
[9].OfparticularconcernisthetendencyofUVfilters
toaccumulateinthefoodchainandthepossibilityof
transferring them to humans through nutrition [2].
SomescientificstudiesalsoindicatethatUVfilterscan
befoundinhumansecretions:breastmilk,urineand
plasma[16,18].
The presence of UV‐protective substances in the
environment requires constant monitoring and
analysis of their impact on the environment and
humanhealth,andthisisonlypossiblewhenpeople
consciouslyusesuchpreparations.Thereforetheaim
of or study wasto examining consumersʹawareness
of the threats
to the marine environment, with
particular emphasis on sunscreen substances (UV
filters).
2 METHODSANDSTUDYPOPULATION
The study was conducted in January 2023 using a
questionnaire made available to respondents using
the CAWI (Computer Assisted Web Interview)
technique.Thequestionnairewasdisseminatedviae‐
mail and social networking sites
with a link to the
online survey. The selection of the research sample
waspurposeful‐thestudycoveredPolishconsumers
who are using sunscreen products at least
occasionally. The survey used substantive, filtering
and metric questions. Mostly closed questions were
usedintheform of adisjunctivecafeteria,oneopen
question
wasproposedtoidentifythegreatestthreats
to the marine environment. The research had three
primaryobjectives:
1. examiningconsumers’ awareness of threats tothe
marineenvironment,withparticularemphasison
sunscreens(UVfilters);
2. analysisofthe sources used toobtaininformation
ontheimpactofUV‐protectivesubstances
onthe
marineenvironment;
3. examining the impact of concern for the marine
environment on pro‐ecological behaviour and
activities undertaken by respondents‐in the
contextofusingsunscreen.
Thequestionnaireusesscalesadaptedfromstudies
by Easman et al. [12] and statements made by the
authorsbased on currentknowledge
in the scope of
thediscussedtopic.
The results were presented as the number and
shareofanswerstoparticularquestionsinthestudied
population.
The respondents constituted a group of the 287
adult consumers, 14% of respondents declared that
they use sunscreen products occasionally, 49 %‐
sometimes, 21.5%‐in
the summer and during
holidays,therest ‐allyearround.92%ofthisgroup
werewomen,8%men.Theywerepeopleofdifferent
ages:peopleaged18‐25accountedfor42.5%,36%of
the respondents were in the age group of 26 to 35
years old and over 35 years old
were 21.5 % of the
peoplesurveyed.The respondentsalsohaddifferent
education (higher – 50%, secondary – 43.2%,
vocational – 5.6% and primary – 1.2%) and place of
residence (city – 41.5%, rural – 58.5%). Over 68% of
respondentsdeclaredanincomegreaterthanorequal
tothenational
average.
3 RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
The first two questions asked to the respondents
concernedthetypeofsunscreenproductstheychoose
and the fact that when buying these products, they
pay attention to their harmful effects on the
environment. The vast majority of respondents
(64.5%)indicatedthattheydonotpay
attentiontothe
type of filters. The fewest of them choose (2%)
products containing organic chemical filters, the
others indicated products containing natural (9%),
inorganic(mineral)filters(11%)aswellasorganicand
inorganicfilters(13.5%).Lessthan7%ofrespondents,
whenpurchasingsunscreens,alwayspayattentionto
their impact
on the environment, almost 1/5 of
respondentsnever pay attentiontothis aspect. Over
15%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheyareunableto
verify what kind of filters contain the sunscreen
productstheybought.Itisworthnotingthatmostof
them also declared that when buying sunscreen
products, they do
not pay attention to the type of
filters.Thisprovesnotonlythelowawarenessofthe
surveyed group of consumers about the potential
effectsofsunscreenproductsontheenvironment,but
also a verylow level of knowledge about sunscreen
productsthemselves.
Answering the next question, respondents were
asked
tospecifythedegreeoftheirconcernregarding
the pollution of the marine environment. Only 9
people (3% of the respondents) indicated that they
were not interested in the problem of marine
environmentpollutionatall,andhalfofthesurveyed
respondentsindicatedthattheywerehighlyandvery
highly concerned
about the problem of marine
environment pollution. Others expressed moderate
interestinmarinepollutionissues.Respondentswere
alsoaskedwhat actionsthey takeoutof concernfor
181
the marine environment. Their answers to this
questionarepresentedinFig.1Accordingtothedata
obtained, most respondents (204) care about proper
wastesegregationandplasticrecycling.Theseresults
indicate that they realize that the most important
problem of marine environment pollution is the
increasing contamination of
plastics and
microplastics. Only a quarter of respondents, when
buyingsunprotectionproducts,payattentiontotheir
safety.Almost20%ofrespondentsdeclaredthatthey
payattentiontoplacesofspendingholidaysandrest.
Asimilarnumberofrespondentsindicatedthatthey
didnottakeanyactionoutofconcernfor
themarine
environment.
Figure1. Number of indications of actions resulting from
careforthemarineenvironment.Source:ownresearch
Comparison of respondentsʹ degree of concern
withbehavioursandactionsresultingfromconcernof
the marine environment may allow to assess the
presenceofaʺgapbetweenvalueandactionʺ,which
occurswhenindividualsdeclareahighlevelofcare,
buttheiropinionsdonottranslateintopro‐ecological
activities
[3]. The vast majority of respondents who
indicated that they were highly and very concerned
about the pollution of the marine environment also
indicatedthattheytookvariousactionstoprotectthis
environment. Only a few people declared that they
didnottakeanysuchactions.Itcanthereforebe
said
thatPolishconsumersareawareofthevariousthreats
tothemarineenvironmentandactivelyactagainstits
furtherpollution.
Thentherespondentshadtoself‐assessthelevelof
knowledge about the harmful effects of sunscreen
filters. Almost half of them (43.9%) described this
levelaslow,andonly
1.5%‐ashigh.Inordertoverify
the state of knowledge of respondents about the
impactofUVfiltersonthemarineenvironment,they
wereaskedtoindicatewhethertheyagreedwiththe
statements regarding UV filters. The respondentsʹ
answersarepresentedinTable1.Almosthalfofthem
were
unable to indicate whether UV filters have a
positiveimpactonthemarineenvironment,andonly
40%indicatedthatthisimpactisnegative.Over60%
ofrespondentswereunabletoindicatewhetherornot
safe are natural substances with photoprotective
propertiesforthemarineenvironment.Lessthanhalf
of the respondents
indicated that UV filters can
contaminate bathing water, accumulate in aquatic
organismsandhaveatoxiceffectonthem.Mostofthe
respondentswereunabletorespondtomoredetailed
questions regarding the impact of UV filters on the
marine environment. Summing up the respondentsʹ
answers, it should be noted
that most of them had
little idea about the harmful effects of UV filters on
the marine environment and marine organisms,
whichconfirmedthecomplianceoftheirdeclarations
about knowledge about the harmful effects of
sunscreen filters. Unfortunately, due to the lack of
publications on this subject, we cannot determine
whether
the lack of knowledge about the harmful
effects of UV filters on the marine environment is
widespread.
Table1.Respondentsʹknowledgeoftheimpactofselected
UVfiltersonmarineecosystems[%ofindications]
________________________________________________
StatementsYes No Idonot
know
________________________________________________
UVfiltershaveapositiveimpacton 13 40 47
themarineenvironment
Sunscreenproductshaveanegative 49 12 39
impactonthequalityofnatural
bathingwater
Chemical/organicfilterscanbe 58.5 7.5 34
Harmfultoaquaticecosystems
UVfilterscanbioaccumulateinfish, 48 9 43
whichare
theneatenbyhumans
UVfiltersarereleasedintothe 57.5 10 32.5
environmentbywashingofftheskin
andwashingoffclothing
UVfiltersaretoxictocoralsand 38 4 58
marinelife
UVfiltersaffectthehormonalbalance, 38.5 5.5 56
developmentandreproductionof
manymarine
organisms
Mineralfiltersintheformof22.3 13.2 64.5
nanoparticlesaresafeforthemarine
environment
Naturalsubstanceswith32 5 63
photoprotectivepropertiesaresafe
forthemarineenvironment
________________________________________________
Source:ownresearch
Respondents were also asked to list the biggest
threats to the marine environment. The most
frequentlymentionedthreatswerelitter,inparticular,
plastics‐these were indicated by more than half of
the respondents. This confirms our earlier
observations that for this group the most important
problem of marine environment pollution is
the
increasing contamination with plastics. This is
becauserecentlytheharmfulimpactofmicroplastics
andnanoplastics on marineenvironmenthave been
widelyresearchedanddiscussed[6,10,20].Inorder
to counteract this phenomenon, the commonly
recommendedactionsaretoreducetheconsumption
of plastics, especially single‐use plastics,
and to
recycleplastics.Adozenorsorespondentseachlisted
general human activities, overfishing, chemical
pollution,oilandpetroleumproductsspills,maritime
transportandsewageinflow.Noneoftherespondents
mentioned eutrophication‐the most important
ecological problem of the Baltic Sea, or the
acidification of sea waters. Several respondents
indicated
that they do not know what are the main
threatstothemarineenvironment.
Then the respondents were asked to indicate
which of the following phenomena has the greatest
negative impact on the marine environment (on a
scalefrom1‐noinfluenceto5‐veryimportant).As
182
theTable2belowshows,forrespondentsthegreatest
threats are oil spills, litter and the possibility of
entanglement of marine animals. Renewable energy
devices and noise were considered the least
important.PollutionwithUVfilterswasrankedthird
from the bottom and was rated as slightly more
inconvenient
than noise. Our results are comparable
to those obtained by Easman et al. [12] when
comparingpublicawarenessofmarineenvironmental
threats and conservation efforts with the assumed
well informed, professional sample. According to
them members of the public surveyed identified oil
spillsasthegreatestthreattothemarineenvironment,
whileprofessionalsidentifiedoverfishingandplastic
packaging as the greatest threat. Climate changes
featured frequently in responses from professionals
andwasinthetopthreemostfrequentresponses,but
justtwopublicrespondentsmentionedthisterm[12].
Table2.Scaleofnegativeimpactonthemarineenvironment
accordingtotherespondents[numberofindicationsand
averageratings]
________________________________________________
TypeofthreatAssessmentofthe Rating
threatlevel
________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
________________________________________________
Oilspills4 6 18 54 205 4,57
Drillingandminingraw 15 46 96 91 39 3,32
materialsfromtheseabed
Overfishing12 23 112 83 57 3,52
PollutionwithUVfilters 23 64 124 49 27 2,97
Climatechanges9 26 87 74 91 3,73
Renewableenergy 50 66
 85 61 25 2,80
devices
Noise34 77 101 56 19 2,82
Entanglementand 8 7 47 67 158 4,25
ingestionoflitterby
animals
________________________________________________
Source:ownresearch
It can be said that the awareness of surveyed
consumers about the threats to the marine
environment is moderate, perhaps this is due to the
fact that they get the knowledge mainly from
television,socialmediaand the Internet.Onlyafew
of them derive such knowledge from books and
scientific
journalsor ecologicalorganizations (Figure
2).
Figure2. Sources of knowledge on threats to the marine
environment.Source:ownresearch
Such results are not surprising. As the study by
Gelcichetal.[14]Europeancitizensprimarilyrelyon
television(82%)andtheInternet (61%)assourcesof
informationaboutmarineimpacts.Theyshowedthat
the level of concern regarding marine impacts is
closelyassociatedwiththelevelofinformednessand
that
pollution and overfishing are two areas
prioritizesbythepublicforpolicydevelopment.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The overall impression is that our respondents have
very general awareness of marine environmental
issues,however,lessthanhalfofthemwereawareof
the harmful effects of UV filters on the marine
environment. More
than half respondents declared
thattheyarehighlyconcernedabouttheproblemsof
marine environment pollution and takes actions
relatedtoreducingtheadverseimpactonthemarine
environment. The most mentioned treats to the
marine environment were oil spills, litter and the
possibility of entanglement of marine animals. But
just
few of them was able to correctly indicate the
harmful impact of UV filters on marine organisms.
Probablyit is because theavailability of information
onharmfulimpactofUVfiltersislimited‐thistopic
israrelycoveredonTVandsocialmedia.Experience
in marine‐related activities and knowledge
about
harmful impact of UV filters are important in
fostering awareness of the threats to the marine
environment, which then translates into consumers’
behaviour.Consumereducationisessentialtoensure
that they consider the environmental impact of
sunscreen use and to enable consumers to make
informed choices about the products they
use and
how they are used. Therefore it is important to
disseminateinformationaboutharmfulimpactofUV
filters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
WewouldliketothanktheGdyniaMaritimeUniversityfor
providingfundsforthisstudy,PZ01/WZNJ/2023
REFERENCES
[1]Baron, E. D., Stevens, S.R. Sunscreens and immune
protection,BJDermatol,2022,146,6,933‐937.
[2]Binelli A., Provini A. Risk for human health of some
POPsduetofishfromLakeIseo.EcotoxicolEnvironSaf,
2004, 58:139–145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2003.09.014
[3]Blake J. Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’ in
environmental policy:tensions between national policy
andlocalexperience.LocalEnviron,1999,4,257‐278.
[4]Cadena‐Aizaga M. I., Montesdeoca‐Esponda S., Torres‐
Padrón M.E., Sosa‐Ferrera Z., Santana‐Rodríguez J.J.
OrganicUVfiltersinmarine environments: An update
of analytical methodologies, occurrence and
distribution. Trends Environ Anal Chem, 2020,
25,
e00079,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teac.2019.e00079
[5]Chatzigianni M., Pavlou P., Siamidi A., Vlachou M.,
VarvaresouA.,PapageorgiouS.Environmentalimpacts
due to the use of sunscreen products: a mini‐review.
Ecotoxicology, 2022, 31, 1331–1345,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646‐022‐02592‐w
[6]Cook C. R., Halden, R. U. Chapter 20‐Ecological and
health issues of
plastic waste, in: T. M. Letcher, (Ed.),
183
PlasticWasteandRecycling,AcademicPress,2020,513‐
527.
[7]ChristensenL.UltravioletPhotobiologyinDermatology.
SpringerLink,2017,996,89‐104.
[8]Danovaro R., Bongiorni L., Corinaldesi C., Giovannelli
D., Damiani E., Astolfi P., Greci L., Pusceddu A.
Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral
infections.Environ HealthPerspect,2008,
116,441–447,
doi:10.1289/ehp.10966
[9]DanovaroR.,CorinaldesiC.Sunscreenproductsincrease
virusproductionthroughprophageinductioninmarine
bacterioplankton.MicrobEcol,2003,10.1007/s00248‐002‐
1033‐0
[10]Delia Ojinnaka, Mame Marie Aw. Micro and Nano
Plastics: A Consumer Perception Study on the
Environment,Food SafetyThreatandControl Systems.
Biomed
J Sci & Tech Res, 2020, 31(2),
http://dx.doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2020.31.005064.
[11]de Miranda L.L.R., Harvey K.E., Ahmed A., Harvey
S.C. UV filter pollution: current concerns and future
prospects. Environ Monit Assess, 2021, 193, 840,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661‐021‐09626‐6
[12]EasmanE.S.,AbernethyK. E., Godley B. J. Assessing
public awareness of
marine environmental threats and
conservationefforts.MarinePolicy,2018,87,234‐240.
[13]Ebisz M., Brokowska M. Szkodliwe oddziaływanie
promieniowania ultrafioletowego na skórę człowieka.
HygieaPublicHealth,2015,50(3),467‐473.
[14]Gelcich S., Buckleyb P. , Pinnegarb J.K., Chilversc J.,
LorenzonicI., Terryd G., Guerreroa M., Castillaa J.C.,
Valdebenitoa A., Duarte C.M. Public awareness,
concerns,andprioritiesaboutanthropogenicimpactson
marineenvironments.PNAS,2014,111(42)15042‐15047,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417344111
[15]GreinertR.EuropeanCodeagainstCancer4thEdition:
Ultraviolet radiation and cancer. Elsevier, 2015, 39, 75‐
83.
[16]JanjuaN.R.,KongshojB.,AnderssonA.‐M.,WulfH.C.
Sunscreens
in human plasma and urine after repeated
whole‐body topical application. J Eur Acad Dermatol
Venereol, 2008, 22, 456–461. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐3083.2007.02492.x
[17]Lorquin F., Lorquin J., Claeys‐Bruno M., Rollet M.,
Robin M., Di Giorgio C., Piccerelle P. (2021),
LignosulfonateisanefficientSPFbooster:Applicationto
eco‐friendly sunscreen
formulations, Sustainable Chem
Pharmacy, 2021, 24, 100539 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2021.100539
[18]NgocL.T.N.,TranV.V.,MoonJ.‐Y.,ChaeM.,Park D.,
LeeY.‐C.Recenttrendsofsunscreencosmetic:anupdate
review. Cosmetics, 2019, 6, 64.
https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics6040064
[19]Schneider,S.L.,&Lim,H. W.Reviewofenvironmental
effects of
oxybenzone and other sunscreen active
ingredients.JAmericanAcademyofDermatology,2019,
80(1),266–271.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.033
[20]Rios Mendoza L.M., Karapanagioti H., Álvarez N.R.
Micro(nanoplastics)inthemarineenvironment:Current
knowledge and gaps. Current Res. Article in
EnvironmentalScience&Health,2018,1,47‐51.
[21]Wang,J.,Pan,L.,Wu,S.,
Lu,L.,Xu,Y.,Zhu,Y.,Guo,
M., Zhuang, S. Recent Advances on Endocrine
Disrupting Effects of UV Filters. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health, 2016, 13(8), 782.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13080782