## 4 Discussion  
Some studies reported the possible negative impact of UV filters in the human body because UV filters have the ability to penetrate the skin and reach the blood circulation, triggering concerns. Regarding organic UV filters, particularly benzophenone and cinnamate derivatives, their presence in urine and blood samples has been detected [92]. Regarding inorganic filters, it was reported that nanoparticles remain in the stratum corneum without penetrating into the skin [19].  
The potential endocrine disruption of UV filters in biological samples have been reported in several studies [14; 93; 94]. The possible endocrine disrupting effects resulting from UV filters exposure in human embryos has been studied [13] showing that the frequency of detection of UV filters (benzophenone derivatives) varied between 17% and 100%. Benzophenone-4 (BP-4) was the UV filter that tended to accumulate in the placenta the most among these types of compounds (concentrations between 0.25 ng/g and 5.41 ng/g) [13].  
Other negative effects of UV filters on cytotoxicity, behavioral changes, and neurotoxicity have been studied using in vivo models [95; 96; 97; 98; 99; 100; 101; 102].  
Aromatic ketones have appeared in benzophenone and dibenzoylmethane derivatives, possibly being the most toxic filters (toxic and allergic reactions) [103], and also because of the photoisomerization process leading to the formation of toxic and reactive photodegradation products [104].  
The chemical structure of other UV filters such as cinnates, octocrylene [105], and camphor derivatives seems to be implicated in their toxic effects and reactions with skin proteins producing skin sensitization reactions and allergic contact dermatitis [106]. The toxicity range of different compound used in organic/inorganic filters is shown in Table 3.  
It seems that natural compounds from plants as potential sunscreen ingredients are the safest and the most effective UV filters. When these compounds are compared to synthetic products, they have higher UV assimilation and antioxidant capacities. The long-term effects of new substances are not studied before they are used. From time to time, new evidence appears relating to substances that we considered innocuous and end up being either modified or prohibited after years of use.  
One of the objectives of the Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 30 November 2009 is to ensure that cosmetic products are safe under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use. In particular, a rationale based on the balance between risks and benefits should not serve as a justification for a risk to human health. Chapter X of the aforementioned regulation on application measures and additional provisions says that when there is a potential risk to human health derived from the use of substances in cosmetic products that must be addressed at Community level, the Commission may make changes to their use in order to adapt them to scientific and technical progress.  
Recently, the Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1176 of 7 July 2022 was published which modifies Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the use of certain ultraviolet filters in cosmetic products, by modifying the safe concentrations of the filters 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone/oxybenzene or benzophenone-3 and 2-cyano-3,3-diphenylacrylic acid 2-ethylhexyl ester/9 ctocrylene or octocrylene.