[Coral-List] Hawaii bans sunscreens deemed harmful to coral reefs

Sat May 12 10:02:07 EDT 2018

Thanks for the clarifications Emilie. Since you seem familiar with the
literature, I have a couple of quick question. Was there any study that
showed damage caused by sunscreen on actual reefs (i.e.: not in lab
conditions)? What about water quality tests. was there a study that showed
that sunscreen chemical concentration on a reef is actually high enough to
damage corals?

I ask because every study I saw was done in a lab, and every estimate
of sunscreen
chemical concentration was done based on the estimated number of tourists
in the water, not water quality tests.

Thank you,

Luiz

*Luiz A. Rocha, PhD*
Associate Curator and Follett Chair of Ichthyology
California Academy of Sciences
p. 415.379.5370
f.  415.379.5731
LRocha at calacademy.org
Academic Website
<https://www.calacademy.org/staff/ibss/ichthyology/luiz-a-rocha>

55 Music Concourse Drive
Golden Gate Park
San Francisco, CA 94118

Twitter <https://twitter.com/CoralReefFish> | Instagram
<https://www.instagram.com/coralreeffish/>

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Emilie Johnsen <emiliejohnsen2 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Thank you so much for providing that new report! I am a recent graduate of
> Nova Southeastern University's Oceanographic Center (Dania Beach, FL).
> Coincidental to the recent news, my capstone investigated the toxicological
> effects of commercial sunscreens on corals and other reef organisms in
> addition to a pilot study involving Coral Restoration Foundation's
> sunscreen exposure to* A. cervicornis*. There is a lot of information
> regarding sunscreen toxicity that the public (science community, even) does
> not know. I wish articles and social media posts would be more accurate...
> Anyway, below is the summary of my investigation (with the guidance of Dr.
> Esther Peters and Dr. Joshua Feingold) to add to that report:
>
> Based on the review of 40 studies involving the exposure of commercial
> sunscreens to various marine organisms:
>
>    -  Chemical UV filters can be toxic, but it depends on many factors :
> species, individual health, environmental factors, and the UV filter being
> tested, among others (based on 13/40 studies). Additionally, toxicity
> depends on how much of the chemical is being exposed, how much is absorbed
> by the organism, and the organism's ability to expel and/or detoxify the
> toxicant. Whether or not there are any physicochemical reactions between
> chemical UV filters and seawater is poorly studied. Currently, their
> toxicity is only considered dose-dependent with influences from
> environmental conditions.
>
>    -  Mineral UV filters are also considered toxic, but the reasoning is
> more complex. Based on 28/40 studies, mineral ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticle
> toxicity is not only dose-dependent like chemical UV filters, but their
> physicochemical effects in seawater also make them a threat to various
> marine life. These physicochemical reactions include dissociation of
> mineral oxides into free-metal ions, photoreactivity, and aggregation into
> sediments. In some cases, free Zn2+ and Ti2+ was considered more toxic,
> especially for marine phytoplankton. (Free metal ions can actually inhibit
> manganese uptake which is vital for phytoplankton growth!) Interestingly,
> in addition to the influence of environmental factors on mineral UV filter
> toxicity, particle size was also a huge factor. This is why many
> "reef-safe" brands will advertise the use of "non-nano" mineral UV filters.
> Metal oxide nanoparticles have toxic capabilities, but a couple studies
> indicate that non-nanoparticles ( > 100 nm) can actually be more toxic to
> certain filter feeders due to higher uptake concentration (D'Agata *et
> al*.,
> 2014), while some crustaceans and fish struggle with bioavailability (Wong*
> et al*., 2010). Despite this, it does appear that--compared to chemical UV
> filters and mineral nanoparticles-- non-nano mineral UV filters are most
> promising to best reduce (albeit not completely eliminate) toxicity to
> marine organisms.
>
> Furthermore, there are no current regulations that enforce the integrity of
> sunscreen advertisement claims. Many brands will claim themselves as
> "eco-friendly", but there is nothing but their word to actually back it up.
> (See the brand "Reef-Safe" as a perfect example.) I therefore applaud
> Hawaii in their efforts to ban certain sunscreen chemicals, however it is
> just the tip of the iceberg. Our oceans face a plethora of issues under the
> name of climate change, but we all must remember...chemical pollution is
> one of the hierarchal problems here, and it is disguised in many forms.
>
> Best,
>
> Emilie Johnsen
>
> Master's Recipient, 2018
> Nova Southeastern University's Halmos College of Natural Sciences and
> Oceanography
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Liz Wood <ewood at f2s.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear listers,
> >
> > To add to the on-going debate about sunscreens I would like to draw your
> > attention to a briefing on this issue posted on the International Coral
> > Reef
> > Initiative website in February 2018, prior to the implementation of the
> > ban
> > in Hawaii.
> >
> > https://www.icriforum.org/sites/default/files/ICRI_Sunscreen.pdf
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Liz Wood
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Douglas Fenner
> > Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2018 1:28 PM
> > To: coral list
> > Subject: [Coral-List] Hawaii bans sunscreens deemed harmful to coral
> reefs
> >
> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-bans-sunscreens-deemed-
> > harmful-054453351.html
> >
> > Open-access.
> >
> > Hawaii approves bill banning sunscreen believed to kill coral reefs.
> >
> > https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/02/
> > 607765760/hawaii-approves-bill-banning-sunscreen-
> > believed-to-kill-coral-reefs
> >
> > Open-access.
> >
> > No, your sunscreen isn't killing the world's coral reefs.
> >
> > https://mashable.com/2015/11/10/sunscreen-killing-coral-
> > reefs/?utm_campaign=Mash-BD-Synd-Yahoo-Science-Full&utm_
> > cid=Mash-BD-Synd-Yahoo-Science-Full#45AuyLkru5qH
> >
> > Open-access.
> >
> > Cheers, Doug
> >
> > --
> > Douglas Fenner
> > Contractor for NOAA NMFS Protected Species, and consultant
> > PO Box 7390
> > Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA
> >
> > New online open-access field guide to 300 coral species in Chagos, Indian
> > Ocean
> > http://chagosinformationportal.org/corals
> >
> > Even without El Nino, 2017 temperatures soared.
> >
> > http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/even-without-el-
> > ni-o-2017-temperatures-still-soared?utm_campaign=news_
> > weekly_2018-01-19&et_rid=17045989&et_cid=1800664
> >
> > Coral reefs are bleaching too frequently to recover
> > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/the-
> > global-scourge-on-coral-reefs/549713/?utm_source=atlfb
> >
> > How to save the "tropical rainforests" of the ocean
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/
> > 01/09/coral-reefs/?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.80ce291c546b
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>