Region — International. Neutral scientific reference — not offered for sale here.
Cart · 0
Set region
Vallydia
ExploreShopToolsJournalTrust
Explore  /  Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3)
Research reference — not for sale

Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3)

C
lead outcome
Overall as a sunscreen UV filter
grades vary by outcome ↓
Small molecule (non-peptide)
also called — benzophenone-3 · BP-3 · 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone · Escalol 567 · INCI: Benzophenone-3
UV filter (organic)UVB protectionendocrine-activity concernenvironmental concern

Status: reference entry — not for sale. Neutral scientific reference only. No application instructions are published here; concentration figures are regulatory ceilings, not usage advice.

In brief

Oxybenzone (INCI benzophenone-3) is the most controversial UV filter in circulation, and the controversy is genuinely two-sided. Against it: it is the most systemically absorbed of the common filters — detected in 97% of Americans in CDC biomonitoring, and above the FDA's 0.5 ng/mL threshold in maximal-use testing; it shows oestrogen-mimicking activity in laboratory studies; and a 2016 study found it genotoxic to coral larvae and acting as a skeletal endocrine disruptor, with measured environmental concentrations at some sites overlapping the effect range. Those findings drove bans in Hawaii, Key West, the US Virgin Islands, Palau, Aruba and Bonaire, and the American Academy of Pediatrics advises avoiding it in children. In its defence: the coral studies underlying those bans have been criticised in the peer-reviewed literature for significant experimental design flaws — unverified exposure concentrations, inadequate controls, limited environmental relevance — though that critique carries BASF affiliations of its own. Human endocrine harm at real-world exposure has not been demonstrated; the FDA's requested follow-up studies remain incomplete. And on reefs, dermatology reviews are clear that climate change is the dominant driver, with sunscreen a local-scale contributor at most — while zinc oxide nanoparticles have their own coral-bleaching data, so "mineral means reef-safe" does not hold either.

Legal standing, by region
European Union
Permitted up to 6%, under review

Listed in Annex VI of the EU Cosmetics Regulation at a maximum of 6%, with ongoing review of endocrine effects.

United Kingdom
Permitted up to 6%

Retained EU cosmetics framework; equivalent to the EU position.

United States
OTC drug — permitted up to 6%, Category III

Permitted at up to 6%. Category III ("insufficient data") in the FDA's 2019 proposed order; the FDA's own absorption findings triggered a call for carcinogenicity and reproductive studies that have not been completed. **Banned at state and territory level:** Hawaii (sales, effective 2021), Key West, and the US Virgin Islands (sale *and use*, March 2020, alongside octinoxate and octocrylene).

International
Permitted but increasingly restricted

Japan up to 5%; Australia up to 10%; Canada up to 6%. **Banned in Palau** (from January 2020, among ten filters), **Aruba** (import, sale and production, July 2020) and **Bonaire**. Travellers to these destinations may find oxybenzone products unavailable or confiscated.

Evidence, by outcome
How we grade →

An honest grade per outcome — drawn from the evidence, not any catalogue. Hype and undemonstrated marketing claims grade low.

OutcomeEvidence base · effectGrade
Overall as a sunscreen UV filter
Read the rows below for the split: the concerns are graded D where the evidence is substantial-but-unsettled, not where harm is demonstrated. No row shows proven real-world human harm, and the coral evidence is itself methodologically contested. The C is the honest weighting of the whole — and better-profiled filters now exist.
Oxybenzone is an effective UVB / short-UVA filter (grade B, next row) with a forty-year history, but it carries the heaviest concern file of the common filters: the highest systemic absorption of any (detected in ~97% of the US population), oestrogen-mimicking activity in laboratory systems, and the coral findings that drove bans across several jurisdictions. Every one of those is real; every one is also genuinely contested on how much it means for real-world human or environmental harm. The overall grade weighs a competent filter against the weight and breadth of those unresolved concerns. · An effective but superseded filter that has attracted more regulatory action and more open safety questions than any other in common use.
C
UVB and short-UVA protection
"Partial broad-spectrum" is the operative phrase — it does not reach long UVA (UVA-I), so it never substitutes for avobenzone, DHHB or zinc oxide. Its historical prevalence reflects when it was approved, not superiority over newer filters.
A benzophenone derivative absorbing across roughly 290-350 nm — UVB and short-wave UVA (UVA-II). One of the few organic filters offering partial broad-spectrum coverage from a single molecule, which is why it became so widely used. · Effective UVB protection with partial UVA-II coverage.
B
Systemic absorption
The usual qualification applies — **detection is not harm, and the 0.5 ng/mL figure is a regulatory trigger, not a danger threshold**. But oxybenzone is the filter where this argument is weakest, because the exposure is both higher and more widespread than for any other, and because the follow-up carcinogenicity and reproductive studies the FDA called for have not been completed.
The highest absorption of the common filters. In the FDA's maximal-use plasma study (JAMA 2020), oxybenzone was among four filters exceeding the 0.5 ng/mL threshold that triggers additional safety testing. A 2008 CDC biomonitoring study detected it in **97% of Americans tested**, across both sexes and ages 6-70 — a level of population exposure unmatched by other filters. · Readily absorbed and near-universally detectable in the US population.
D
Endocrine activity
The gap between "shows oestrogenic activity in a cell assay" and "disrupts human endocrine function at real-world exposure" is large, and the human data are associational rather than causal. What has changed the practical picture is not proof of harm but **institutional caution**: the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends avoiding oxybenzone in children (higher surface-area-to-weight ratio, developing endocrine systems), and many clinicians advise avoidance in pregnancy. Those are precautionary positions, and they are reasonable ones — but they are not the same as demonstrated harm.
Oxybenzone shows oestrogen-mimicking activity in laboratory studies, and a body of work examines endocrine-disrupting effects of UV filters as a class. A systematic review of human and animal studies on benzophenone-3 and reproductive toxicity exists (Ghazipura et al., Reprod Toxicol 2017), as do studies reporting placental transfer and associations with birth outcomes. · Demonstrated hormonal activity in vitro and in animal models; human relevance not established.
D
Coral toxicity — the evidence
**This evidence is seriously contested on methodological grounds**, and an honest entry has to say so. A 2022 paper on standardising coral bioassays states that the studies underlying the bans showed "significant flaws in the experimental design due to a lack of validated and standardized testing methods" — specifically citing lack of analytical verification of exposure concentrations, inadequate controls, and lack of environmental relevance. Note the counter-caveat too: that critique includes authors affiliated with **BASF**, a major UV filter manufacturer, which is a material conflict of interest. Neither side of this dispute is disinterested.
Downs CA, et al. Toxicopathological effects of the sunscreen UV filter oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) on coral planulae and cultured primary cells, and its environmental contamination in Hawaii and the US Virgin Islands. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2016;70(2):265-288. Findings: oxybenzone is a photo-toxicant (effects worse in light); it transformed coral planulae from motile to deformed sessile states; it acted as a **skeletal endocrine disruptor**, inducing ossification that encased the planula in its own skeleton; and it was genotoxic, with DNA lesions increasing with concentration. LC50 in light at 24 h: 139 µg/L. Deformity EC20 at 24 h: 6.5 µg/L in light. Measured contamination: 75 µg/L to 1.4 mg/L in the US Virgin Islands, 0.8-19.2 µg/L at Hawaiian sites. · Concentration-dependent coral toxicity and bleaching in laboratory settings, with environmental concentrations at some sites overlapping the effect range.
D
Coral toxicity — the attribution question
This is where the public conversation goes furthest wrong. Banning oxybenzone may reduce a local stressor on already-fragile reefs, which is defensible policy. Treating it as *the* reason reefs are dying is not supported, and "reef-safe mineral sunscreen" is a marketing claim rather than an established fact — zinc oxide nanoparticles have their own coral-bleaching data.
Dermatology reviews are explicit that **climate change is the largest driver of coral bleaching**, and that the sunscreen link rests on laboratory-based studies. Separately, controlled work found that **zinc oxide nanoparticles caused coral bleaching while titanium dioxide nanoparticles did not** — so "mineral" is not automatically reef-safe. · Sunscreen is a local-scale contributor at most; warming is the systemic cause.
—
Contact and photocontact allergy
As with octocrylene, this is the best-established human adverse effect and receives far less attention than the endocrine and reef debates.
Oxybenzone and avobenzone are described as the leading causes of photocontact allergy among UV filters, though the absolute frequency is low. · A real, uncommon sensitisation risk.
—
Disclosure

Vallydia sells its own cosmetic serums, and some ingredients graded here belong to the same categories as those products. Grades are drawn from the published evidence by the method we publish, and applied to our own ingredients on the same terms — our copper-peptide serum is graded no more kindly than the peptides it competes with. We disclose the interest so you can weigh it.

Trade names shown here (for example Matrixyl, Argireline, Syn-Ake) are the property of their respective owners and are used only to identify the ingredient under discussion. Their appearance implies no affiliation with, or endorsement by, the proprietor.

Evidence changes

Get notified if this changes

We track new research and update these grades as the evidence moves. Leave your email and we'll tell you if the evidence for Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3) changes - nothing else.

One ingredient, one purpose. No marketing, no sharing. Unsubscribe anytime. See our privacy policy.

Identity

Oxybenzone — INCI name benzophenone-3, abbreviated BP-3 — is an organic UV filter of the benzophenone family, absorbing UVB and short-wave UVA across roughly 290-350 nm. It has been in sunscreens and personal care products for over forty years.

⚠️ Three closely related names appear throughout this section of the register and are constantly confused. Oxybenzone is benzophenone-3, this entry. Benzophenone is the parent compound, and the degradation product discussed on the octocrylene card. Avobenzone is an unrelated dibenzoyl methane derivative. They are different substances.

Note also that benzophenone-3 sits in a numbered series — BP-1, BP-2, BP-4 and others exist as separate ingredients.

Why it became controversial

Oxybenzone occupies a peculiar position: it is an effective filter with a long history, and it has attracted more regulatory action than any other. Three separate lines of concern converged.

Absorption. It is the most systemically absorbed of the widely used filters. The FDA's maximal-use study found it above the 0.5 ng/mL plasma threshold that triggers requirements for carcinogenicity and reproductive testing. More strikingly, CDC biomonitoring detected it in 97% of Americans tested, across both sexes and ages 6 to 70 — reflecting its use not only in sunscreen but in hundreds of other cosmetic products.

Endocrine activity. It mimics oestrogen in laboratory assays, and a systematic review of human and animal reproductive-toxicity studies exists. Placental transfer has been reported. This is why the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends avoiding it in children — higher surface-area-to-body-weight ratio, developing endocrine systems — and why many clinicians extend that advice to pregnancy.

Coral. The 2016 Downs study found oxybenzone genotoxic to coral larvae, acting as a skeletal endocrine disruptor that induced ossification encasing the planula in its own skeleton, with toxicity worse in light. Effects appeared at low concentrations — deformity EC20 of 6.5 µg/L at 24 hours — and measured contamination at some sites (75 µg/L to 1.4 mg/L in the US Virgin Islands) sat well above them.

Legislators responded. Hawaii banned sales; the US Virgin Islands banned sale and use; Palau, Aruba, Bonaire and Key West followed.

Reading the evidence honestly

This is the entry where the difference between "evidence exists" and "the question is settled" matters most, in both directions.

The case against oxybenzone is not fabricated. Its absorption is genuinely higher and more widespread than any other filter's. Its endocrine activity in laboratory systems is real. The coral findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal and replicated in direction by other work. Anyone dismissing all of this as scaremongering is not reading the literature.

But the coral evidence is contested on serious methodological grounds. A 2022 paper on standardising coral bioassays states plainly that the studies underlying the bans showed "significant flaws in the experimental design due to a lack of validated and standardized testing methods for corals" — naming the absence of analytical verification of exposure concentrations, inadequate controls, and lack of environmental relevance. That is a substantive scientific objection, not a public-relations line. It also carries BASF author affiliations — a major UV filter manufacturer — which is a material conflict of interest that should be visible. Neither side of this dispute is disinterested: the original study's lead author directs an environmental advocacy laboratory, and the principal critique comes partly from industry.

The attribution question is where public understanding fails hardest. Dermatology reviews state directly that climate change is the largest driver of coral bleaching, with sunscreen a local-scale contributor at most. Removing a local stressor from an already-stressed reef is defensible policy even under uncertainty. Presenting sunscreen as a primary cause of reef decline is not supported by the evidence.

And "mineral means reef-safe" does not survive contact with the data. Controlled work found zinc oxide nanoparticles caused coral bleaching, while titanium dioxide nanoparticles did not. The reef-safe label is a marketing category, not a scientific one.

On human harm: the honest position is unresolved rather than either exonerated or condemned. Oxybenzone is absorbed at levels the FDA considered sufficient to require further study; that further study has not been completed; laboratory endocrine activity is established; human harm at real-world exposure is not demonstrated. Precautionary avoidance in children and pregnancy is a reasonable response to that uncertainty, and it is what most professional bodies advise.

The practical footnote. Better filters now exist. Bemotrizinol, DHHB and ethylhexyl triazone outperform oxybenzone on spectrum, photostability and absorption, and much of the market has already moved. Whatever one concludes about the controversies, there is diminishing reason to choose oxybenzone specifically — which is a more useful conclusion than either side of the argument tends to offer.

Chemical identifiers

Cross-reference identifiers for the authoritative external databases — not a recipe, and nothing about how to use it.

PubChem CID4632
InChIKeyDXGLGDHPHMLXJC-UHFFFAOYSA-N
SMILESCOC1=CC(=C(C=C1)C(=O)C2=CC=CC=C2)O

via PubChem exact-name match (oxybenzone / benzophenone-3 / 2-hydroxy-4- methoxybenzophenone, CID 4632; C14H12O3); CAS 131-57-7. Distinct from benzophenone (the parent compound and octocrylene degradation product), from avobenzone (a dibenzoyl methane derivative), and from the other numbered benzophenones (BP-1, BP-2, BP-4) — only BP-3 is this entry. · high confidence

Sources — 6 cited
01Downs CA, Kramarsky-Winter E, Segal R, et al. Toxicopathological effects of the sunscreen UV filter, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), on coral planulae and cultured primary cells and its environmental contamination in Hawaii and the US Virgin Islands. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2016;70(2):265-288.
02Miller IB, et al. Towards the development of standardized bioassays for corals: acute toxicity of the UV filter benzophenone-3 to scleractinian coral larvae. Toxics. 2022;10(5):244 (PMC9146638) — methodological critique of the studies underlying the bans; note BASF author affiliations.
03Matta MK, et al. Effect of sunscreen application on plasma concentration of sunscreen active ingredients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020.
04Ghazipura M, McGowan R, Arslan A, Hossain T. Exposure to benzophenone-3 and reproductive toxicity: a systematic review of human and animal studies. Reprod Toxicol. 2017;73:175-183.
05Suh S, et al. Sunscreen safety: a review of recent studies on humans and the environment. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2020 — includes the finding that ZnO nanoparticles, but not TiO2 nanoparticles, caused coral bleaching under controlled conditions.
06Calafat AM, Wong LY, Ye X, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Concentrations of the sunscreen agent benzophenone-3 in residents of the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(7):893-897.
Updated 2026-07-25 (the EU review of endocrine effects is ongoing, and more jurisdictions continue to legislate — re-check both regulatory status and any completed FDA follow-up studies)

Grades reflect the published evidence, not our interest. No dosing, reconstitution, or administration is published for research compounds — that restraint is deliberate.

Related compounds
OctocryleneC
Small molecule (non-peptide)
AvobenzoneB
Small molecule (non-peptide)
Zinc OxideA
Small molecule (non-peptide)
Vallydia

A neutral reference and a lawful-lane shop. Information for those who seek it — never promotion.

Region — International
ExploreRegisterThe Register — full indexCategoriesTrust & COAHow we gradeOpen data
ShopCosmetic peptidesJournalQuizzes
TermsPrivacyCookiesReturnsShippingImprint

This site provides neutral scientific reference and sells only products lawful in your region. Nothing here is medical advice, a recommendation, or an offer to supply unapproved medicines. No dosing or administration is published for research compounds. Cosmetic peptides per Regulation (EC) 1223/2009. Unapproved injectable peptides are neither sold nor advertised in the EU (Directive 2001/83/EC, Title VIII). © 2026 Vallydia.