Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 846

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

In vitro and in vivo estrogenicity of UV screens.

Open access
Schlumpf, M, Cotton, B, Conscience, M, Haller, V, Steinmann, B, Lichtensteiger, W·2001·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Ultraviolet (UV) screens are increasingly used as a result of growing concern about UV radiation and skin cancer; they are also added to cosmetics and other products for light stability. Recent data on bioaccumulation in wildlife and humans point to a need for in-depth analyses of systemic toxicology, in particular with respect to reproduction and ontogeny. We examined six frequently used UVA and UVB screens for estrogenicity in vitro and in vivo. In MCF-7 breast cancer cells, five out of six chemicals, that is, benzophenone-3 (Bp-3), homosalate (HMS), 4-methyl-benzylidene camphor (4-MBC), octyl-methoxycinnamate (OMC), and octyl-dimethyl-PABA (OD-PABA), increased cell proliferation with median effective concentrations (EC(50)) values between 1.56 and 3.73 microM, whereas butyl-methoxydibenzoylmethane (B-MDM) was inactive. Further evidence for estrogenic activity was the induction of pS2 protein in MCF-7 cells and the blockade of the proliferative effect of 4-MBC by the estrogen antagonist ICI 182,780. In the uterotrophic assay using immature Long-Evans rats that received the chemicals for 4 days in powdered feed, uterine weight was dose-dependently increased by 4-MBC (ED(50 )309mg/kg/day), OMC (ED(50) 935 mg/kg/day), and weakly by Bp-3 (active at 1,525 mg/kg/day). Three compounds were inactive by the oral route in the doses tested. Dermal application of 4-MBC to immature hairless (hr/hr) rats also increased uterine weight at concentrations of 5 and 7.5% in olive oil. Our findings indicate that UV screens should be tested for endocrine activity, in view of possible long-term effects in humans and wildlife.

Overview

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 · 10.1289/ehp.01109239

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 846

Metadata

Authors
Schlumpf, M., Cotton, B., Conscience, M., Haller, V, Steinmann, B., & Lichtensteiger, W.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2001-03
Volume
109
Issue
3
Pages
239-244
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2018380507
Cited by
846
References
0
FWCI
20.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: In vitro and in vivo estrogenicity of UV screens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.01109239
The paper
Schlumpf, M., Cotton, B., Conscience, M., Haller, V, Steinmann, B., & Lichtensteiger, W. (2001). In vitro and in vivo estrogenicity of UV screens. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.01109239

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.