Cited by 84Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicalsPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

Co-occurrence of musk fragrances and UV-filters in seafood and macroalgae collected in European hotspots

Open access
Cunha, S.C., Fernandes, J.O., Vallecillos, L., Cano-Sancho, G., Domingo, J.L., Pocurull, E., Borrull, F., Maulvault, A.L. +4 more·2015·Environmental Research

Abstract

In the last decades, awareness regarding personal care products (PCP), i.e. synthetic organic chemicals frequently used in cosmetic and hygienic products, has become a forward-looking issue, due to their persistency in the environment and their potential multi-organ toxicity in both human and wildlife. Seafood is one of the most significant food commodities in the world and, certainly, one of the most prone to bioaccumulation of PCP, what can consequently lead to human exposure, especially for coastal population, where its consumption is more marked. The aim of this work was to evaluate the co-occurrence of musk fragrances and UV-filters in both seafood and macroalgae collected in different European hotspots (areas with high levels of pollution, highly populated and near wastewater treatment plants). Despite the fact that UV-filters were detected in three different kind of samples (mussel, mullet, and clam), in all cases they were below the limit of quantification. Galaxolide (HHCB) and tonalide (AHTN) were the musk fragrances most frequently detected and quantified in samples from the European hotspots. Cashmeran (DPMI) was also detected in most samples but only quantified in two of them (flounder/herring and mullet). The highest levels of HHCB and AHTN were found in mussels from Po estuary.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envres.2015.05.003

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • UV filters have dangerous and noxious effects on diverse aquatic species including mussels, algae, crustaceans, corals, sea urchins, fish, and dolphins.

    “Recently, several studies revealed the dangerous and noxious effects of UV filters towards diverse aquatic species, such as mussels [14,52,53], algae [54], crustaceans [55], corals [56,57,58,59], sea urchins [16], fish [60,61,62], and even in dolphins [63].”

    From UV Filters: Challenges and Prospects (2022) · cites this paper as [54]

    The available passages are bibliographic information and keywords (the section labeled “Abstract,” page not given), not findings about harmful effects. Searches for toxicity and for the listed aquatic species found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed effects of UV filters. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cunha, S. C., Fernandes, J. O., Vallecillos, L., Cano-Sancho, G., Domingo, J. L., Pocurull, E., Borrull, F., Maulvault, A. L., Ferrari, F., Fernandez-Tejedor, M., Van den Heuvel, F., & Kotterman, M.
Affiliations
  • Universidade do Porto (PT)
  • Universitat Rovira i Virgili (ES)
  • Institut de Recerca Biomèdica Catalunya Sud (ES)
  • Portuguese Sea and Atmosphere Institute (PT)
  • Aeiforia (Italy) (IT)
  • Wageningen Marine Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Cunha, S.C.
Venue
Environmental Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
143
Issue
Pt B
Pages
65-71
ISSN
0013-9351 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W269403986
Cited by
84
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Union Seventh Framework Programme (311820)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Keywords
musk fragrances, UV filters, personal care products, seafood, seaweed, bioaccumulation, human exposure, galaxolide, tonalide, mussels, wastewater treatment plants, coastal pollution
MeSH terms
Animals, Environmental Monitoring, Europe, Fishes, Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Perfume, Seaweed, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sunscreening Agents, Reproducibility of Results, Seafood, Bivalvia, Tandem Mass Spectrometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review