The History of Sunscreen Filters
What We Got Wrong (and Right)
Introduction
Sunscreen filters have come a long way since their early days, yet they still carry a controversial reputation — and for good reason. Many of the chemical filters introduced between the 1930s and 1980s were developed without consideration for reef safety, hormonal impact, or long-term exposure. At the time, sunscreens weren’t even regulated as medicines.
This blog unpacks sunscreen filters through a generational lens, exploring how far we’ve come in terms of safety, efficacy, and transparency. If you’ve ever wondered why some filters are banned, why others are trusted, or which ones truly protect you — this is for you.
1st Gen Chemical Filters
Experimental & Early Commercial UV Filters
1890 – 1935
These were experimental and early commercial UV absorbers developed between 1890 and 1935. None of the filters from this period are currently used as approved active ingredients in modern SPF-rated formulations.
2nd Gen Chemical Filters
The Era That Gave Sunscreens a Bad Name
1935 - 1985
This period saw the introduction of Sunscreen Filters that revolutionized sun protection but also later became the source of widespread controversy.
In 1935, there was no regulatory framework for sunscreen safety, and filters were not evaluated for environmental or hormonal impacts. SPF products were largely unregulated, and no one was testing for coral reef safety or endocrine disruption at that time.
| Why This Generation Became Controversial |
|---|
| Reef safety wasn’t a concept — filters like oxybenzone and octinoxate were formulated without knowledge of their impact on marine life. |
| Hormone-related risks were unknown — many filters were later found to show endocrine activity in lab studies, sparking consumer concern. |
| As science evolved, concerns around systemic absorption, environmental toxicity, and photodegradation became harder to ignore. |
A Pivotal Turning Point: When SPF Became Regulated
This led to global regulatory bodies stepping in and redefining how sunscreens were treated:
| Region | Sunscreen Regulation Enacted |
|---|---|
| Australia | Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) – regulated SPF products as medicines since 1986 |
| European Union | EU Cosmetics Regulation (EC 76/768, then 1223/2009) – active UV filters restricted and approved via Annex VI |
| United States | FDA OTC Monograph for Sunscreen – first formalized in 1999, after decades of voluntary submission |
These reforms required that all UV filters be toxicologically tested, photostability assessed, and maximum allowable concentrations established.
What Remains from This Era?
Many filters from this generation were archived, but some survived the regulatory overhaul. Today, the following filters are still approved and used — albeit with revised concentration limits and safety thresholds:
| Filter Name | INCI Name | Max Dose | Type | UV Range | UV Coverage | Reef Safe | Hormone Disruptors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Octinoxate | Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate | 10% | Chemical | 280 - 320 nm | UVB | ❌ No | No |
| Octocrylene | Octocrylene | 10% | Chemical | 280 – 320 nm | UVB (some UVA II) | ❌ No | No |
| Ensulizole | Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid | 4% | Chemical | 280 – 320 nm | UVB | ❌ No | No |
| Octisalate | Ethylhexyl Salicylate | 5% | Chemical | 280 – 320 nm | UVB | ❌ No | No |
| Homosalate | Homosalate | 15% | Chemical | 295 – 315 nm | UVB | ❌ No | No |
| Oxybenzone | Benzophenone-3 | 10% | Chemical | 280 – 350 nm | UVA + UVB | ❌ No | No |
| Avobenzone | Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane | 5% | Chemical | 320 – 400 nm | UVA | ❌ No | No |
The chemical filters above range in molecular weight from approximately 228 to 361 g/mol, and studies have confirmed that they can penetrate the skin barrier to some extent, resulting in detectable levels in the bloodstream.
However, despite this absorption, these filters remain approved and considered safe when used within regulated concentrations. For individuals seeking alternatives with minimal skin penetration, mineral-based sunscreens—such as those containing zinc oxide or titanium dioxide— or 3rd Generation Filters offer a reassuring option, as they act primarily as physical barriers and remain on the skin’s surface.
It’s important to understand that systemic absorption does not inherently equate to harm. Regulatory authorities like the FDA and TGA base sunscreen safety decisions on detailed toxicological evaluations and established exposure thresholds.
Global Bans and Restrictions on 2nd Generation UV Filters
| UV Filter | Countries/Regions with Bans or Restrictions | Reason for Ban/Restriction |
|---|---|---|
| Oxybenzone | Hawaii (banned since 2021), Palau (2020), Thailand (marine parks), Aruba, Bonaire, Mexico (nature reserves), EU (restricted to 2.2% in body products, 6% in facial products) | Coral reef toxicity, high systemic absorption, endocrine disruption concerns |
| Octinoxate | Hawaii, Palau, Thailand (marine parks), Aruba, Bonaire, Mexico (nature reserves), EU (approved up to 10%) | Coral reef damage, potential hormone disruption |
| Octocrylene | Palau, Thailand (marine parks), EU (restricted to 10%) | otential degradation into benzophenone, allergenic potential, reef impact |
| Avobenzone | Palau, Thailand (marine parks) | Environmental concerns; limited reef safety data |
| Homosalate | EU (restricted to 7.34% in face products) | Suspected endocrine disruptor; under safety reassessment |
| Octisalate | Palau, Thailand (marine parks) | Environmental concern; contributes to cumulative reef impact |
3rd Gen Chemical Filters
Reef Smart Advanced Chemical Filters
1985 to Present
A new wave of advanced chemical UV filters were introduced to address the growing concerns surrounding earlier-generation filters. These modern filters were designed with superior photostability, broad-spectrum UVA + UVB coverage, low skin absorption, and increased environmental awareness in mind. These filters represent a shift toward efficacy with safety — engineered to stay on the skin, resist breakdown in sunlight, and reduce systemic exposure.
Many are large-molecule filters that don’t penetrate the bloodstream and are less likely to interfere with hormones. While they are widely used in countries with progressive sunscreen regulations (EU, Australia, Korea, Japan), most are still not approved in the United States. The United states hasn't approved a new sunscreen filter since 1991
| Filter Name | INCI Name | Max Dose | Type | UV Range | UV Coverage | Reef Safe | Hormone Disruptors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parsol SLX | Polysilicone-15 | 10% | Chemical | 280 - 320 nm | UVB + UVA II | ✅ Yes | No |
| Tinosorb S | Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine | 10% | Chemical | 290 – 400 nm | UVA + UVB | ✅ Yes | No |
| Tinosorb M | Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol | 10% | Hybrid (absorbs + scatters) | 280 – 400 nm | UVA + UVB | ✅ Yes | No |
| Uvinul T 150 | Ethylhexyl Triazone | 5% | Chemical | 290 – 320 nm | UVB | ✅ Yes | No |
| Uvinul A Plus | Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate | 10% | Chemical | 320 – 400 nm | UVA | ✅ Yes | No |
| Bisoctrizole | Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol | 10% | Hybrid (particulate) | 280 – 400 nm | UVA + UVB | ✅ Yes | No |
| Bemotrizinol | Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine | 10% | Chemical | 280 – 400 nm | UVA + UVB | ✅ Yes | No |
All of the filters listed above have molecular weights well above 500 Da, which is widely recognized as the threshold beyond which dermal absorption becomes extremely limited. These filters are specifically designed to remain on the skin’s surface, forming a stable and photoprotective film that resists degradation. Backed by multiple in vitro and in vivo studies, they have been shown to exhibit minimal to no systemic absorption, making them particularly well-suited for sensitive skin and safe for daily use.
Mineral Filters + Oxides
Mineral sunscreen filters have an exceptional safety record, backed by over a century of use in cosmetics. Unlike chemical filters, no single chemical UV filter currently matches the long-established safety profile of mineral ingredients. This isn’t to suggest chemical filters are unsafe; rather, it highlights that mineral filters have consistently demonstrated their reliability in providing effective UV protection without adverse effects on the body.
| Filter Name | INCI Name | Max Dose | Type | UV Range | UV Coverage | Reef Safe | Hormone Disruptors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zinc Oxide | Zinc Oxide | No Limit | Mineral | 290 – 400 nm | UVA + UVB | ✅ Yes | No |
| Titanium Dioxide | Titanium Dioxide | 25% | Mineral | 280 – 400 nm | UVB + some UVA | ✅ Yes | No |
| Iron Oxides | CI 77491 (Red), CI 77492 (Yellow), CI 77499 (Black) | NA | Iron Oxides | ~400–500 nm | Visible (HEV Blue Light) | ✅ Yes | No |
Conclusion
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque.
Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sit amet ultrices mauris ipsum a justo.
Nullam consectetuer, risus at eleifend lacinia, felis tellus adipiscing diam, sed elementum dolor augue vel nisi. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Pellentesque suscipit.