A burning issue: The effect of organic ultraviolet filter exposure on the behaviour and physiology of Daphnia magna
Abstract
Ultraviolet (UV) filters are compounds utilized in many manufacturing processes and personal care products such as sunscreen to protect against UV-radiation. These highly lipophilic compounds are emerging contaminants of concern in aquatic environments due to their previously observed potential to bioaccumulate and exert toxic effects in marine ecosystems. Currently, research into the toxic effects of UV filter contamination of freshwater ecosystems is lacking, thus the present study sought to model the effects of acute and chronic developmental exposures to UV filters avobenzone, oxybenzone and octocrylene as well as a mixture of these substances in the freshwater invertebrate, Daphnia magna, at environmentally realistic concentrations. Median 48-hour effect and lethal concentrations were determined to be in the low mg/L range, with the exception of octocrylene causing 50% immobilization near environmental concentrations. 48-hour acute developmental exposures proved to behaviourally impair daphnid phototactic response; however, recovery was observed following a 19-day post-exposure period. Although no physiological disruptions were detected in acutely exposed daphnids, delayed mortality was observed up to seven days post-exposure at 200 μg/L of avobenzone and octocrylene. 21-day chronic exposure to 7.5 μg/L octocrylene yielded complete mortality within 7 days, while sublethal chronic exposure to avobenzone increased Daphnia reproductive output and decreased metabolic rate. 2…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Avobenzone and octocrylene at 200 μg/L reduce Daphnia magna ability to detect or respond to light stimuli.
“Avobenzone (11) (200 µg/L) and octocrylene (30) (200 µg/L) affected the crustacean Daphia magna by reducing its ability to detect or respond to light stimuli, thus highlighting some behavioural changes [95].”
From UV Filters: Challenges and Prospects (2022) · cites this paper as [95]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 74 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- Boyd, A., Stewart, C. B., Philibert, D. A., How, Z. T., El-Din, M. G., Tierney, K. B., & Blewett, T. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Boyd, Aaron
- ORCID
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 750
- Pages
- 141707
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3049550044
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Alberta
- Helmholtz-Alberta Initiative
- Canada First Research Excellence Fund
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
- 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
- Keywords
- UV filters, avobenzone, benzophenone-3, octocrylene, Daphnia magna, sunscreen contaminants, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, immobilization, metabolic rate, reproductive output, delayed mortality, sublethal effects, freshwater invertebrates, chemical mixtures
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Daphnia, Sunscreening Agents, Ultraviolet Rays, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Ecosystem
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