The article title is misleading. A non misleading title would be: “common sunscreen chemical filters may become more toxic when zinc oxide is present” The pap

The article title is misleading. A non misleading title would be: “common sunscreen chemical filters may become more toxic when zinc oxide is present” The paper was evaluating the effect of zinc oxide on these chemicals: > Octisalate (INCI: Octyl salicylate; CAS: 118-60-5) was purchased from TCI Chemicals. DHHB (INCI: Diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate; CAS: 302776-68-7; received as UVINUL® A PLUS) and Bisoctrizole (INCI: Methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol; CAS: 103597-45-1; received as TINOSORB® M, a 50% aqueous suspension of the UV-filter) And also solvated them in DMSO, while being hand wavy about the potential interactions of dmso like functioning as a carrier agent, instead claiming because dmso is safe for the fish in isolation it won’t change the study… their study is claiming evaluating things in isolation is misleading and yet they do exactly that. Ughhhh And I’m not an animal chemical effect specialist, but are zebra fish embryos really that representative of human skin exposure? That said, further analysis does need done on mixed sunscreens. Even though I think this paper has issues, hopefully it spurs more and better research. And it does show that mixed sunscreen chemicals may cause more degradation of the organic components, so that definitely needs follow up studies.