A growing awareness of the risks associated with skin exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation over the past decades has led to increased use of sunscreen cosmetic products leading the introduction of new chemical compounds in the marine environment. Although coastal tourism and recreation are the largest and most rapidly growing activities in the world, the evaluation of sunscreen as source of chemicals to the coastal marine system has not been addressed. Concentrations of chemical UV filters included in the formulation of sunscreens, such as benzophehone 3 (BZ-3), 4-methylbenzylidene camphor (4-MBC), TiO₂ and ZnO, are detected in nearshore waters with variable concentrations along the day and mainly concentrated in the surface microlayer (i.e. 53.6–577.5 ng L^-1 BZ-3; 51.4–113.4 ng L^-1 4-MBC; 6.9–37.6 µg L^-1 Ti; 1.0–3.3 µg L^-1 Zn). The presence of these compounds in seawater suggests relevant effects on phytoplankton. Indeed, we provide evidences of the negative effect of sunblocks on the growth of the commonly found marine diatom Chaetoceros gracilis (mean EC₅₀ = 125±71 mg L^-1). Dissolution of sunscreens in seawater also releases inorganic nutrients (N, P and Si forms) that can fuel algal growth. In particular, PO₄³⁻ is released by these products in notable amounts (up to 17 µmol PO₄³⁻ g⁻¹). We conservatively estimate an increase of up to 100% background PO₄³⁻ concentrations (0.12 µmol L^-1 over a background level of 0.06 µmol L^-1) in nearshore waters during low water renewal conditions in a populated beach in Majorca island. Our results show that sunscreen products are a significant source of organic and inorganic chemicals that reach the sea with potential ecological consequences on the coastal marine ecosystem.

Dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction is one of the most widely used microextraction techniques currently in the analytical chemistry field, mainly due to its simplicity and rapidity. The operational mode of this approach has been constantly changing since its introduction, adapting to new trends and applications. Most of these changes are related to the nature of the solvent employed for the microextraction. From the classical halogenated solvents (e.g., chloroform or dichloromethane), different alternatives have been proposed in order to obtain safer and non‐pollutants microextraction applications. In this sense, low‐density solvents, such as alkanols, switchable hydrophobicity solvents, and ionic liquids were the first and most popular replacements for halogenated solvents, which provided similar or better results than these classical dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction solvents. However, despite the good performances obtained with low‐density solvents and ionic liquids, researchers have continued investigating in order to obtain even greener solvents for dispersive liquid‐liquid microextraction. For that reason, in this review, the evolution over the last five years of the three types of solvents already mentioned and two of the most promising solvent alternatives (i.e., deep eutectic solvents and supramolecular solvents), have been studied in detail with the purpose of discussing which one provides the greenest alternative.