Talk:Oxybenzone

Suggestions for expanding safety and controversy section
I have a suggestion for adding to the section on safety and controversy. Oxybenzone can also inhibit thioredoxin reductase, which is an enzyme that helps protect against oxidative damage in the skin. More information on this topic can be found in this review article: http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.bc.edu/science/article/pii/S1011134401002354 CiKay (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice article! To improve it a bit, maybe you could cite some studies linking/correlating oxybenzone to coral bleaching. Environdisruptersbad (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section
The controversy section appears to me to be too biased. It start citing two studying which support the use of oxybenzone. Just after it mention the study from the EWG which is barely mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.143.135 (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a common theme in sunscreen related articles. I don't know why but there seems to be a lobby that edits everything sunscreen related to imply that the sunscreen causes cancer. Look at the sunscreen and follow links for any chemical mentioned there for evidence. I don't know what can be done about this. Mtpaley (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I cant resist. "Already in 1993 the use of oxybenzone had been strongly criticized, based on its similarity to benzophenone". Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greasy_Pole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see more information about the "coral controversy" and why exactly is is controversial; I also feel like it needs more information to back up the facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridget1957 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Benzophenone
I have issues with this "Oxybenzone is a derivative of benzophenone, which can attack DNA when illuminated.[vague] It generates strand breaks and various photoproducts.[11] Already in 1993 the use of oxybenzone had been strongly criticized, based on its similarity to benzophenone.[11]"

for 3 reasons:

'X is a derivative of Y'. Is this relevant? The list of Y's is endless.

The second sentance '...strand breaks...' is this referring to Oxybenzone or benzophenone? The reference supplied is about Padimate O which neither Oxybenzone or benzophenone.

'Already in 1993 the use of oxybenzone had been strongly criticized, based on its similarity to benzophenone'. Bad grammar and invalid reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for expanding page
For part of a course on environmental disruptors of disease at Boston College an assignment is to expand a wikipedia page. We plan to expand this article using this breakdown. We will use info that is already posted as well as other sources listed below. We want to make the controversy section more neutral because it appears to currently be very biased.


 * 1) chemical background
 * 2) history
 * use:
 * 1) common products
 * 2) how it’s used
 * 3) substitute chemicals
 * 4) Studies (either organized by year or by effect)
 * 5) in vitro
 * 6) in vivo
 * 7) human studies
 * 8) potential harmful effects
 * 9) controversy
 * 10) government regulations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehringb (talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Benzophenone
I have issues with this "Oxybenzone is a derivative of benzophenone, which can attack DNA when illuminated.[vague] It generates strand breaks and various photoproducts.[11] Already in 1993 the use of oxybenzone had been strongly criticized, based on its similarity to benzophenone.[11]"

for 3 reasons:

'X is a derivative of Y'. Is this relevant? The list of Y's is endless.

The second sentance '...strand breaks...' is this referring to Oxybenzone or benzophenone? The reference supplied is about Padimate O which neither Oxybenzone or benzophenone.

'Already in 1993 the use of oxybenzone had been strongly criticized, based on its similarity to benzophenone'. Bad grammar and invalid reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Refs
This is actually a bigger issue than this page but I need a discussion about references. There is a reference to http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/src-swb110606.php. I have nothing against this ref but it is to a thesis not to a published paper. Does this make it a viable ref for a encyclopedia? Mtpaley (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's been defended and published, it may be assumed to be fully vetted by the candidate's advisory committee. Cmprince (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This thesis was defended in 2006, you may find the abstract and the full frame here: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/721?locale=en Sbash71 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Review 1:
Overall, the article for Oxybenzone is very interesting and informative. The authors did a great job of being unbiased, presenting the facts, and providing opinions on the safety concerns without taking sides. There are some minor changes that would make the article even better for any readers.
 * In the introduction the authors mention that oxybenzone is found in sunscreen, and then briefly mention other products containing oxybenzone. The rest of the article only focuses on its use in sunscreen. Perhaps a whole section could be spent on the various uses of oxybenzone in order to better inform readers of what they should potentially look out for.
 * added a section on the uses of oxybenzone, and will try to add even more information about the products it is used in


 * It could be helpful, to those with a chemistry background, to include more in the production section on how exactly oxybenzone is produced. As in what are the building blocks of the molecules and possibly the mechanisms behind the formation.
 * added some information regarding two mechanisms on how oxybenzone is produced.


 * The subsections "In Vitro studies", "In Vivo studies", and "Human studies" contain no wikilinks. These subsections mention many scientific terms and processes that may not be well understood by the average reader. For readers to truly comprehend what they are reading about it would be helpful to wikilink some of those terms. The readers could then read about that term on the separate wikipage and use the knowledge to better understand the oxybenzone article. Some examples include estrogenic, anti-androgenic, photoallergic contact dermitis, in vitro, in vivo, and liliphilic (I assume lipophilic, because I could not find liliphilic anywhere on the internet).
 * This is a very valid point, I made sure to go through and and added several wikilinks. It is a typo it should in fact be lipophilic, and I added a wikilink that redirects to Lipophilicity


 * In the subsections "In Vitro studies" and "In Vivo studies" it is mentioned how the estrogenic potential of oxybenzone is insignificant because of metabolism. There is no background to this information, it is merely mentioned that oxybenzone is broken down metabolically. How is it broken down though? What specifically breaks it down? What are the metabolites and are they potentially dangerous? It is good to know that oxybenzone is considered safe in vivo because of this, but it would be easier to believe if there was more information on what exactly was happening.
 * added a section about the metabolism of oxybenzone, what two of the metabolites are, and the process by which the metabolites are formed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbash71 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Finally, it could be clearer where the potential danger lies. It is brought up that the concern is over the effects on human hormones, and it is briefly talked about in terms of estrogenic potential and competitive binding of estrogen. Despite those points, it is never made clear how exactly this could effect humans. What would be the result of the competitive binding of estrogen? Would this affect reproductive development? Even though it is made clear that studies show that the in vivo effects would be insignificant, if there is controversy over the chemical than readers should be informed of what could potentially be the harmful effects concerning the reproductive hormones.
 * We discussed this topic as a group, and we felt that for the oxybenzone page it was sufficient to mention that the possible harm is that it studies have shown the estrogenic and anti-androgenic effects of oxybenzone. Estrogenic and anti-androgenic have been wikilinked if the reader is interested in these topics Sbash71 (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the article is very good, this is more of nitpicking. I did fix a couple punctuation and other minor errors, in addition to adding a wikilink. If there is anything unclear about the peer review just let me know. Custodim (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your comments and suggestions they were really helpful Sbash71 (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction
I think your introduction is great! It is very informative and gives me a good look at many of the important details of the chemical without being two overwhelming. A few things I would change:
 * 1) I would move the sentence "The molecule was first synthesized in 1906, but the method for commercial production was not patented until 1975" so that it is either the second sentence or at least somewhere where it does not break up your discussion of photoprotection.
 * 2) I would also rephrase the last sentence "Despite the photoprotection...", which sounds a bit awkward, to say something like "Despite its photoprotective qualities...".
 * 3) I also think that you could remove the word "much" from that same sentence.
 * 4) When wikilinking a word, always wikilink the first time that word appears in the article. "Photoprotective' actually appears earlier in the paragraph but it has been wikilinked in the last sentence.


 * I agree with the placement of the sentence I changed it and made it the second sentence. I rephrased the last sentence to read "despite the photoprotection" and am debating removing the "much" or changing it to "considerable." I wikilinked the first time photoprotective was mentioned in the parapgrah and redirected it to photoprotection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.208.36 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Structure and electronic structure
This is a very detailed paragraph! I like that the information that you have in here and am glad that your included information about how this compound elicits photoprotection.
 * 1) You might consider renaming this section. It was not about what I expected it to be from the title. While there are some elements of discussion about the structure of the molecule, you seem to focus more on its chemical mechanism of photoprotection and its absorption than the molecule itself. Perhaps you could name it after one of those topics instead.
 * 2) "Absorbs" is wikilinked here in the first sentence but it actually appears earlier in "apsorption" in the introduction paragraph, where it might be more helpful.
 * 3) you might consider wikilinking "phosphoresce" (which seems to be a typo, did you mean phosphorescence?)


 * removed the wikilink from absorb in this paragraph and instead wikilinked the first time "apsorption" appears in the article. yes it is supposed to be phosphoresence good catch! and again I added a wikilink here. We will try to think of a better title for this section, don't want it to be misleading!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.208.36 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Production
This is a short paragraph and, while this is not necessarily the most important aspect of your topic, maybe you could add information about who produces it and how it is made?


 * added some information on the process of manufacturing as well as a major uses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.208.36 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Safety and Controversy
I really like your introduction to this section because it is very balanced in approaching health hazards from many perspectives. It is also very clearly written and contains the information that people would want to know if researching about the health of oxybenzone.
 * 1) I might change the sentence "Studies have proven that by topical application of sunscreen, oxybenzone is absorbed through the skin and excreted in urine." I would remove the italicizing because it seems to emphasize this data more than the other data in a way that might seem biased. Maybe you could say something to the effect of "Other studies have shown (not proven) that topical..."
 * 2) I like that you mentioned the political aspect of the debate because it directs people to where each argument is coming from. I noticed that you only specifically cite an argument from the environmental working group. Why do other researchers think oxybenzone's effect is insignificant?


 * I agree the wording of the sentence seems a little skewed so I changed it from "studies have proven" to "studies have shown." We specifically cite the EWG because they have a significant article showing the dangers, most of the studies are still uncertain about the harm of ozybenzone.

In vitro studies
For a very biological and scientific section of the article, this is very clearly written and could be understand by people with many backgrounds. Great job!
 * 1) I would remove the word "clearly" from the first sentence as it gives undue emphasis.
 * 2) Could you expand on what these estrogenic/anti-androgenic effects were? What did the breast cancer researchers actually see? In a sentence or two, what did they do in the study?
 * 3) Maybe "photogeneration", in the second paragraph, would be a good word to wikilink. I like that in this paragraph you differentiate between oxybenzone on its own and in a sunscreen mixture.
 * 4) I think you might have a typo sentence in the third paragraph "Comparison of in vitro and in vivo estrogenic activity of UV filters in fish. Toxicol Sci 90(2): 349-361." Other than that, this is a great, well-informed and well-written paragraph.


 * I removed "clearly" so as to avoid emphasizing any one thing. I expanded on the breast cancer research a little bit, but this paper is actually very complicated and difficult to understand so I kept it simple! I added a wikilink to "photogeneration" but since there is no wikipage for this created I ended up removing it. I addressed the typo in the third paragraph.

In vivo studies
It is clear that you actually read and evaluated the full research papers in this paragraph and I'm sure readers will appreciate that!
 * 1) You might mention in the first sentence that the in vivo study was in rats (the first time this is written is in the second sentence and it seems to be assumed that the reader already knows this).


 * it's under the subheading of in vivo so we thought that it was clear that this study was in vivo. But if it didn't seem clear to you then other readers might also think the same thing so we added it in the first sentence for super clarification!

Human Studies
Very clear!
 * 1) Could you wikilink "photoallergenic" and "dermatitis"?
 * 2) I believe there is a typo in the last sentence of the second paragraph. "liliphilic" should be "lipophilic", I think
 * 3) I might remove the sentence "However, the most effective means of appraising the effects and risk of topically applied oxybenzone are from human clinical trials" I do not think it is necessary and it sounds like you might be taking a stance on the research. Maybe you could say "The studies that have been done in vitro and in vivo draw attention to the possible effects oxybenzone might have on reproductive hormones produced within the human body. To test this, a human study was performed by several researchers in 2004..."
 * 4) In the last paragraph, your opening sentence "All of these studies were only performed on adults," conflicts with the information in your second sentence, which states that there was a study on children 6 and up. You could say that "Most studies were performed on adults" or simply leave this sentence out altogether and proceed with your information about the difference between children and adults.


 * can never have to many wikilinks! added one to both, the one for photallergenic redirects to Photodermatitis which is also known as photoallergy. it should in fact be lipophilic! What we are trying to convey is that it is difficult to asses the risk of ozybenzone because when people use it they are not ingesting it orally, just applying it on their skin. So the best way to asses the risk is to have people apply it but I reworded the sentence a bit per your suggestions! The first sentence above is referring to the aforementioned studies which weren't all done on adults so I changed it to read "most." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbash71 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Regulation
This is interesting information and including this world view really improves the quality of the article. I also like your table!

Other
I noticed at the bottom of the page that there is a banner saying that the article has not yet been added to any categories. It might help the page get more hits if you categorize it!


 * added it to sunscreening agents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbash71 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

General
Overall, I think it is an extremely clear and well-researched page. Excellent job, I really enjoyed reading your work!

Row131er (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! Thanks for a thoughtful review Sbash71 (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Review 3
Overall the article is successful at highlighting the ambiguity over the dangers that Oxybezone presents. Thanks for the great comments and suggestions! Sbash71 (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction
It's a clear and concise section. However, I would recommend using this space to give the whole page a bigger overview, so that from reading the introduction, I could anticipate the sections that you later elaborate. Currently the information offered in this section is very specific (the absportion profile, when it was synthesized, its chemical properties). I think it's good to introduce the chemical information in the introduction, but maybe focus less on it. This information seems most fitting in the structure/electronic structure. Since most of the article focuses on the chemical's safety, I think you should include more about the controversy than the one sentence at the end of the introduction. Maybe mention the concern over its hormonal effects.
 * Bulleted list item added a bit about controversy at the end. I think it's necessary to talk about the chemical part in the intro too, because not everyone is looking at this page purely because of the controversy Dehringb (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Structure and electronic structure
You do a good job of describing why this molecule is good at absorbing energy. My only complaint about this section is your reference to the triplet-triplet absorption spectrum. There's explanation about what that is, and no link to another page. I'm left confused as to what exactly you're referencing. Also, as I said before, maybe some of the information about its absorption profile in the introduction would be better situated here.
 * As a group we appreciate the critique but believe the information about absorption spectrum is better fitted as it is now.

Production
Only suggestion is elaborating more on the plants. That's an interesting point, and makes me wonder what plants actually produce this chemical.


 * Added more information about where it is produced and two methods on how it is manufactured — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbash71 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Safety and Controversy
The first sentence is good, as it sets up the whole section nicely. I removed the "However" from the beginning of the second sentence, because it didn't make sense. The first part of this section seems like its an introduction that highlights the controversy surrounding the chemical. That's good, but my main suggestion would be to make it little less specific when it comes to experiment statistics. In particular the sentences that talk about the topic application of sunscreen. I think you can talk about this in your later subsections, and more generally talk about the research described in the subsections.
 * we discussed this as a group and we think the two statistics appropriately contribute to the paragraph, and that specificity is not necessarily a bad thing.

In vitro
Good. Only thing is you mention the other chemicals that oxybenzone interacts with. It would be nice to see that expanded a little more. Has there been more research into oxybenzone activity with these chemicals. It just seems important that it might cause cell damage with the chemicals that we find in sunscreen.
 * wikilink free radicals
 * wikilink the other chemicals that oxybenzone interacts with


 * Added wikilinks to free radicals and the other chemicals. We believe the paragraph about interactions that might lead to free radicals is sufficient but we appreciate the critique Sbash71 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

in vivo studies
Good. I would add a comparison to the 1500 mg number. How much bigger is it?
 * wikilink estrogen


 * added information about another study that determined the average dose for human topical application. Estrogenic has already been wikilinked another review mentioned it as well!

Human studies
Good. I liked the point about the children. Something I wasn't thinking about while I was reading the page, and it was positioned nicely in the argument.
 * wikilink FDA and the International Dermal Institute


 * Thanks! FDA was actually wikilinked later it in the article but since it is mentioned for the first time in this paragraph I switched them. There is no wikipedia page for the International Dermal Institute, there is one for Dermoloigica but I'm not sure if they are one in the same.

Regulation
I like the table. Maybe a sentence before it would be nice. I'm guessing the oxybenzone permitted refers to how much of it is permitted in a product. Also, since you only mention 6 countries, it makes me wonder about the other countries. Is there no regulation or discussion? If that's the case it might be good to say that in the first sentence.
 * wikilink some of the organizations - like SCCP and the swedish ones. Just make sure they got links.
 * Added wikilinks to all the organizations that had wikipedia pages. We felt that the set up of this section makes it very clear that these countries have current regulations concerning oxybenzone, an extra sentence seemed a bit redundant. Sbash71 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

General Comments
I think overall you did a good job with the page. I was left wondering what alternatives there are to oxybenzone, and if they're any safer. Maybe a sentence would be good in the safety section. In general the flow was good.
 * Added a sentence about alternatives at the end of the safety and controversy intro paragraph, but we don't feel it's necessarily or possible to delve into oxybenzone's chemical relationship with every other active ingredient out there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehringb (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a neutral article
I have added the POV tag to this article because I think it is completely unbalanced. The article focusses way too much on potential hazards of the use of oxybenzone. More text is devoted to this than to everything else combined. Yet oxybenzone has been approved for use by regulatory agencies in North America, Europe, Asia, etc. - essentially all the industrial word. For such regulatory approval to even exist there must be a positive risk/benefit ration. But the benefits of oxybenzone use are nowhere to be found in this article. This is a preposterously unbalanced presentation. It reads as if it was written entirely by someone whose only interest is the potential toxicology. ChemNerd (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I also think that the article is not very good. Together with several related topics, this article was hijacked by a college class focused on dangers of certain chemicals.  The students did know any chemistry and as experience shows, it is easier to write in a negative vs neutral manner   If you want to repair their impact, I would be glad to help.  --Smokefoot (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical error
In the first paragraph it should say "is readily soluble" instead of "are readily soluble". --bellre 1 February 2015

Suggestion
Article could be expanded more to include potential developmental consequences of oxybenzone. --User:bellre 2 February 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Try to follow Wikipedia guidelines: Generally citations should be to reviews and books, especially if you are not a real expert on the subject (i.e., if you are a student).  WP:SECONDARY. When discussing biomedical information, you must adhere to WP:MEDRS: ONLY books and reviews in reputed sources (not websites, typically).  Best wishes. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Classmate Comments 2/2/2015
Hello, I think you have done a pretty good job on your article, although there are some things that could be fixed.One of the things that I think you do well is keep the focus of the article on the compound itself, rather than the controversy that might arise from the compound. This keeps the article unbiased, at least at the beginning. I also like that you give the trade names of the compound Oxybenzone so more people can understand, but i think it would be good to hyperlink these names that could lead to who produces these compounds.

I think the subsection of your entry title "Production" could be seriously expanded. You hyperlink to the "Friedel-Crafts reaction" but even a basic explanation of the production should be on this page, as it is critically important to the product and its effects. I think it could also be important to talk about what companies heavily produce the product in this section, as it is a compound used in some important consumer products.

If someone has flagged your page for not being neutral, maybe it's because you hinted at the controversy associated with this compound in the "uses" section which should be strictly about how the product is intentionally used.

Another issue is that you claim that EWG says oxybenzone is not effective, but reading the article of your citation, I believe you have misread the point. The EWG study shows that many sunscreen products are ineffective OR contain these ingredients. You also note studies that show the compound's ability to easily enter into the body, but you do not provide any information or data that leads anyone to believe the compound produces adverse effects within the body.

Finally, it seems that many of your regulatory statistics were out of date, but they have since been updated to the best of my knowledge.

Overall very nice Job Sincerely, GV1330 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)GV1330
 * I disagree. The Friedel Crafts reaction in this case is completely routine.  If one want students to expand the description this reaction type, do so at Friedel Crafts reaction.  Students are typically unable to gain reliable insights into industrial practices, such reviews on such satisfying WP:SECONDARY.   Regarding listing of manufacturers, there is zero interest in listing the manufacturers. One could notice that manufacturers are rarely indicated in any chemistry article in Wikipedia.  Overall, this article has been hammered by previous groups of students, perhaps it is time to find a new topic.  --Smokefoot (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Good sources for students
Dear students, two major reviews have appeared on this topic, you are encouraged to draw your content from and cite them unless you are a real expert on this area (per the advice WP:SECONDARY): These are the kinds of references that Wikipedia seeks, not specialized stuff that only a real expert can understand. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Burnett, M. E., Wang, S. Q., "Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review", Photodermatol., Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2011, 27, 58. This review is currently (Feb, 2015) cited in the article.  It would be a gold mine of information for students.
 * Bagheri, H., Lhiaubet, V., Montastruc, J. L., Chouini-Lalanne, N., "Photosensitivity to ketoprofen: mechanisms and pharmacoepidemiological data", Drug Saf. 2000, 22, 339. This highly cited review may also be a promising source.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Update toxicology controversy
There continue to be papers published on the toxicity/safety of oxybenzone. Time perhaps to update the article and review NPOV. I don't have time for it right now, but here's a media link that looks like it hyperlinks to some reputable journals—JAMA for one. https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/is-oxybenzone-bad-in-sunblock-confusion-surrounds-this-uv-blocking-chemical --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"14H12O3" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 14H12O3. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Student work: burn it down and start over
It is likely that most of this article was written by students as part of homework, unsupervised by experienced editors. Such homework projects almost produce inferior articles.

Here are the 6 most cited reviews from the previous 5 years: only one is cited.
 * Schaider, L. A.; Rodgers, K. M.; Rudel, R. A. Review of Organic Wastewater Compound Concentrations and Removal in Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 7304-7317. doi 10.1021/acs.est.6b04778
 * Schneider, S. L.; Lim, H. W. Review of environmental effects of oxybenzone and other sunscreen active ingredients. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019, 80, 266-271. doi 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.033
 * Ghazipura, M.; McGowan, R.; Arslan, A.; Hossain, T. Exposure to benzophenone-3 and reproductive toxicity: A systematic review of human and animal studies. Reprod. Toxicol. 2017, 73, 175-183. doi 10.1016/j.reprotox.2017.08.015
 * Mao, F.; He, Y.; Gin, K. Y.-H. Occurrence and fate of benzophenone-type UV filters in aquatic environments: a review. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2019, 5, 209-223. doi 10.1039/c8ew00539g
 * Schneider, S. L.; Lim, H. W. Review of inorganic ultraviolet filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. Photodermatol., Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2019, 35, 442-446. doi 10.1111/phpp.12439
 * DiNardo, J. C.; Downs, C. A. Dermatological and environmental toxicological impact of the sunscreen ingredient oxybenzone/benzophenone-3. J Cosmet Dermatol 2018, 17, 15-19.

The article is supposed to be built around secondary sources. Maybe we should burn down this thing and start over.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The safety and environmental sections sorely need a rewrite or replacement. Keeping it neutral will be a challenge as in the past, but sticking with secondary sources should help. This review is a bit older but highly cited and thorough. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

PubPeer
For anyone who doesn't have the PubPeer extension, there are comments disputing one of the papers that claims environmental effects: https://pubpeer.com/publications/E3A59C5143AF504D4577F5D710C39A and one that claims cancer effects: https://pubpeer.com/publications/DC273F078EA96B60DE1BC68ED86B1E — Omegatron (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)