from damaging exposure to sunlight. The currently estimated volume production of UV

Overview

This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.

Key numbers

The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:

• concentrations ranging from 2 to 25% (Table 1). However, only two are inorganic (titanium
• tion and concentration steps. Additionally, in most cases (approximately 90%), liquid
• Table 1. List of compounds that can be allowed as organic UV filters in cosmetic products according to the European Union
• or foundations containing insoluble compounds). The achieved high recoveries (Table 2),
• amounting from 80 to 113%, confirm the effectiveness of these procedures.
• mobile phase: gradient R: 98.5–102.2%
• BP-4, BP-3, ODP, OMC, Cream, lotion, lipstick, LOQ: 4–340 ng L−1
• ethanol (7:3; v/v) as the supporting R: 9.7–106%
• mobile phase: methanol/water R: 99.67–101%
• EMC, BDM, HS, EHS, mobile phase: gradient R: 90.91–109.98%
• cream fused-silica; R: 90.4–107.4%
• BP-3, EMC, OC, EHS, Cream, lipstick, blemish LOQ: no data
• mobile phase: gradient methanol/0.1%
• mobile phase: gradient R: 97.5–103.2%
• CO2 /methanol/water/ammonium RSD: 0.7–1.6%
• mobile phase: acetonitrile/0.25% R: 88.1–104.7%
• mobile phase: acetonitrile/0.5%
• BP-6, BP-4, OC, PABA, Cream, nail polish, type of column: SLB-5 ms; LOQ: 0.009–1.9 µg g−1
• mobile phase: cyclohexanediethyl R: 95–105%
• BP-6, BDM, BP-4, PMDSA, Lipsticks, hair gel, cream, LOQ: 0.0013–0.1 µg g−1
• mobile phase: gradient methanol/0.1%
• mobile phase: gradient R: 99.2–104.8%
• is urine (~61%), in Biological
• dealing with(~5%),
• UVsaliva (~8%)
• urine (~61%),on the analysis
• Other matrices such as milk (~7%), tissues (~5%), and nail, semen, or saliva
• have been widely determined in all types of biological samples. Other UV filters that have (~8%) have
• microextraction (~25%) techniques have been used (Figure 2). Extraction techniques
• include liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) (~28%), solid‐phase extraction (SPE) (~28%), fabric
• sorptive extraction (FPSE) (~5%), as well as the less frequently used accelerated
• the extraction (~75%) andmicroporous
• injection solid‐phase (~28%), solid-phase
• Quick, (~28%), fabric phase
• Safe(FPSE) (~5%), as well as
• (USAD‐SPE) (each ~2%).matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD); sequential in-
• samples, the contribution of microextraction methods was only about 7%. Microextraction
• techniques include the dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) (~10%), as well as
• microextraction (VADLLME) (each of them accounts for ~2%) (Figure 3).
• samples, the contribution of microextraction methods was only about 7%. Microextraction
• techniques include the dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction (DLLME) (~10%), as well
• of them accounts for ~2%) and microextraction

Methods (brief)

• analytical methods that enable the determination of those compounds in cosmetic samples to ensure
• user safety, as well as in biological fluids and tissues samples, to obtain more information regarding
• samples. It focused on sample preparation, analytical techniques, and analytical performance (limit
• Keywords: analytical methodologies; cosmetics products; human samples; organic ultraviolet filters;
• Cosmetic Products and Human sample preparation
• Samples. Molecules 2021, 26, 4780.
• on human health and their potential bioaccumulation, such biological samples as urine,
• velopments related to the determination of UV filters in cosmetic samples and biological
• fluids and tissues, with special emphasis on sample preparation and analytical techniques,
• 2. Analytical Methods for UV Filter Determination in Cosmetic Samples
• 2.1. Sample Preparation
• Cosmetic sample preparation depends on sample type, target analytes, and the tech-
• nique that is to be used. In general, the preparation of a cosmetic sample does not require
• a complex pre-treatment sample. This is because the UV filter content in the cosmetic
• samples is at a sufficiently high level for the sample treatment not to require the extrac-
• The initial preparation of the sample consists of dissolving a cosmetic sample in a
• furan). The step of dissolving the cosmetic sample may be preceded by homogenisation.
• dure may include sonicating the sample for a few minutes (5–30 min, 40 ◦ C) (10,13–33),

Implications

This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.

Wiki pages this source may touch

• Fish — marine, non-predatory (sardines, anchovies, salmon, cod)
• Shellfish (shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, oysters, mussels)
• Baby Sunscreen, Mineral (ZnO + TiO2)
• Mercury

Verification notes

• Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing wiki/sources/ pages before creation.
• Full-PDF read: pdftotext -layout was run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written.
• Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
• Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
• HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.

Update history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.