Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ozone Depletion, Ultraviolet Radiation, Climate Change and Prospects For A Sustainable Future
Ozone Depletion, Ultraviolet Radiation, Climate Change and Prospects For A Sustainable Future
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0314-2
Changes in stratospheric ozone and climate over the past 40-plus years have altered the solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation condi-
tions at the Earth’s surface. Ozone depletion has also contributed to climate change across the Southern Hemisphere. These
changes are interacting in complex ways to affect human health, food and water security, and ecosystem services. Many adverse
effects of high UV exposure have been avoided thanks to the Montreal Protocol with its Amendments and Adjustments, which
have effectively controlled the production and use of ozone-depleting substances. This international treaty has also played an
important role in mitigating climate change. Climate change is modifying UV exposure and affecting how people and ecosys-
tems respond to UV; these effects will become more pronounced in the future. The interactions between stratospheric ozone,
climate and UV radiation will therefore shift over time; however, the Montreal Protocol will continue to have far-reaching ben-
efits for human well-being and environmental sustainability.
W
arnings that Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer could losses to the emissions of CFCs and other ozone-depleting sub-
be at risk from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other stances5 and, at least over Antarctica, unique atmospheric condi-
anthropogenic substances were first issued by scientists tions during winter that lead to ozone depletion6,7.
in the early 1970s1,2. Soon thereafter (in 1985), large losses of strato- In response to the initial concerns about the potentially deleteri-
spheric ozone were reported over Antarctica3 with smaller but more ous effects of elevated surface solar ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B;
widespread erosion of stratospheric ozone found over much of the 280–315 nm) resulting from ozone depletion, the international
rest of the planet4. Subsequent studies clearly linked these ozone community began mobilizing in 1977 to recognize the importance
1
Department of Biological Sciences and Environment Program, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA. 2Department of Biology, Miami
University, Oxford, OH, USA. 3National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
4
Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions, School of Earth, Atmosphere and Life Sciences & Global Challenges Program, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. 5National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA. 6Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster
University, Lancaster, UK. 7Food Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 8Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 9Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland. 10Centre for
Atmospheric Chemistry, School of Earth, Atmosphere and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. 11Department
of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. 12National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research,
Central Otago, New Zealand. 13Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA. 14Faculty of Agronomy and IFEVA-CONICET, University
of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 15Biospherical Instruments Inc., San Diego, CA, USA. 16School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 17QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland, Australia. 18Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh
Medical School, Edinburgh, UK. 19Centre for Dermatology Research, The University of Manchester and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester,
UK. 20Centre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden. 21Department of Biological Sciences, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA. 22The Institute for Global Risk Research, Bethesda, MD, USA. 23Ptersa Environmental Consultants, Faerie Glen,
South Africa. 24Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 25Department of Forest, Rangeland,
and Fire Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA. 26Department of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
27
Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany. 28Finnish Meteorological Institute R&D/Climate Research, Helsinki, Finland.
29
School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 30Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bengaluru,
India. 31Organismal and Evolutionary Biology, Vikki Plant Science Centre, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 32Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne,
Australia. 33Department of Marine Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden. 34CIESIN, Columbia University, New Hartford, CT, USA.
35
Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 36St. John’s Institute of Dermatology,
King’s College London, London, UK. 37US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, USA. 38These authors contributed equally: Paul W. Barnes,
Craig E. Williamson, Robyn M. Lucas, Sharon A. Robinson, Sasha Madronich, Nigel D. Paul. *e-mail: pwbarnes@loyno.edu
Box 1 | The three assessment panels supporting the Montreal and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are non-
Protocol ozone-depleting substitutes for CFCs16. HFCs are potent green-
house gases, and limiting emissions of these compounds could
There are three panels under the Montreal Protocol to assess further reduce global temperatures as much as 0.5 °C by the end
various aspects of stratospheric ozone depletion. These three of this century17. This Amendment has thus further broadened and
panels have complementary charges. The Scientific Assessment strengthened the scope of the Montreal Protocol, adding to an effec-
Panel assesses the status of the depletion of the ozone layer tive international treaty that not only addresses stratospheric ozone
and relevant atmospheric science issues. The Technology and depletion, but is doing more to mitigate global climate change than
Economic Assessment Panel provides technical and economic any other human action so far18–20.
information to the Parties on alternative technologies to replace Below, we highlight key findings from the most recent Quadrennial
ozone-depleting substances. The Environmental Effects Assess- Assessment by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP)
ment Panel (EEAP) considers the full range of potential effects of of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which
stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation and the interactive reports on the state of the science on the environmental effects of
effects of climate change on human health, aquatic and terrestrial stratospheric ozone depletion and consequent changes in UV radia-
ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, air quality, and materials for tion at the Earth’s surface, and the interactive effects of climate change.
construction and other uses. Additional information on these We specifically consider the policy and societal implications of these
panels, including their most recent assessments, can be found on effects, and address the multiple ways by which the Montreal Protocol
the website of the UNEP Ozone Secretariat (https://ozone.unep. is contributing to environmental sustainability and to human health
org/science/overview). and well-being. Given the accelerating pace of climate change21, we
also consider the increasing role that climate change is playing in
influencing exposure of humans and other organisms to UV radia-
tion, how stratospheric ozone depletion is itself contributing to cli-
of stratospheric ozone to life on Earth, and to develop and imple- mate change, and the various ways in which climate change is affecting
ment policies to preserve the integrity of the ozone layer8. Of par- how plants, animals and ecosystems respond to UV radiation. Thus,
ticular concern was the possibility that exposure to high levels of as mandated by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, we consider a
UV-B would increase the incidence of skin cancer and cataracts in wide range of the environmental effects that are linked to changes in
humans, weaken people’s immune systems, decrease agricultural stratospheric ozone, climate and solar UV radiation. Our findings
productivity, and negatively affect sensitive aquatic organisms and address many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
ecosystems. The policy solution that emerged to address strato- (Fig. 1). More in-depth information on the environmental effects of
spheric ozone depletion was the 1985 Vienna Convention for the stratospheric ozone depletion can be found elsewhere22–28. By focus-
Protection of the Ozone Layer. This convention was followed by ing on the interactions between stratospheric ozone, UV radiation
the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone and climate, the collated EEAP Assessment complements those of the
Layer, which was negotiated to control the consumption and pro- Scientific Assessment Panel12 and the UN Intergovernmental Panel
duction of anthropogenic substances that deplete ozone. on Climate Change29 to provide a comprehensive assessment on the
causes and consequences of global changes in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Montreal Protocol and UNEP EEAP
The Montreal Protocol was the first multilateral environmental Stratospheric ozone, climate change and UV radiation
agreement by the United Nations to achieve universal ratification Stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change interact through
(197 Parties by 2008). Since its inception, this international accord direct and indirect pathways that can have consequences for food
has been amended and adjusted a number of times by the member and water security, human well-being and ecosystem sustainabil-
Parties of the Montreal Protocol. The Parties base their decisions on ity (Figs. 1 and 2). Climate change can modify the depletion of
scientific, environmental, technical and economic information pro- stratospheric ozone by perturbing temperature, moisture, and wind
vided by three assessment panels (Box 1). All three panels provide full speed and direction in the stratosphere and troposphere30. Certain
assessment reports to the Parties every 4 years (quadrennial reports) greenhouse gases (such as N2O and CH4) also modify the chemistry
and shorter, periodic updates in the intervening years as needed. that regulates ozone levels12. Conversely, it is now clear that ozone
The implementation of the Montreal Protocol has successfully depletion is directly contributing to climate change across much of
prevented the uncontrolled global depletion of the stratospheric the Southern Hemisphere by altering atmospheric circulation pat-
ozone layer and associated large increases in surface UV-B radia- terns in this part of the globe31, which affect weather conditions,
tion9–12 (Box 2). Concentrations of chlorine and bromine from sea surface temperatures, ocean currents and the frequency of wild-
long-lived ozone-depleting substances have been declining in the fires in multiple regions32–36. These ozone-driven changes in climate
stratosphere since the late 1990s12. Although considerable seasonal are in turn exerting impacts on the terrestrial and aquatic ecosys-
ozone depletion over Antarctica (the ‘ozone hole’) has occurred tems in this region24,25,37,38 (Box 3). In the Northern Hemisphere,
annually since the 1980s, there have been small but noteworthy pos- similar but smaller effects of ozone depletion on climate may exist27,
itive trends in total column ozone in Antarctica in spring over the but year-to-year variability in the meteorology is greater than in the
period 2001–201312. Global mean total ozone is projected to recover Southern Hemisphere, and there are no reports as yet linking these
to pre-1980 levels by the middle of the twenty-first century, assum- changes to environmental impacts.
ing full compliance with the Montreal Protocol12. Depletion of stratospheric ozone leads to increased UV-B radia-
Although carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are the tion at the Earth’s surface27 that can then directly affect organisms and
dominant greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, most of the their environment. Because of the success of the Montreal Protocol,
ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol present-day increases in UV-B radiation (quantified as clear-sky UV
(CFCs and others) are also potent greenhouse gases that contribute Index) due to stratospheric ozone depletion have been negligible in the
to global warming14. Modelling studies indicate that in the absence tropics, small (5–10%) at mid-latitudes and large only in Antarctica.
of the Montreal Protocol, global mean temperatures would have As stratospheric ozone recovers over the next several decades12, the
risen more than 2 °C by 2070 owing to the warming effects from clear-sky noon-time UV Index is expected to decrease (for example,
ozone-depleting substances alone15. The adoption of the Kigali by 2–8% at mid-latitudes depending on season and precise location,
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 2016 limits the production and by 35% during the Antarctic October ozone ‘hole’27,39).
There are a number of published models addressing the implica- based on the model in ref. 11. The range of maxima given shows
tions and potential outcomes of the ‘World Avoided’ due to the pre-1980 data versus 2065 data.
Montreal Protocol9. All point to progressive loss of stratospheric Combining these models of ozone and UV radiation with
ozone that would have accelerated over time and extended to affect the understanding of the links between exposure to excessive
the entire planet by the second half of this century. For example, UV radiation and the risk of skin cancers has allowed some
the Goddard Earth Observing System chemistry-climate model estimates of the incidence of skin cancer in the World Avoided.
(GEOSCCM) World Avoided simulation11 used here assumes that Different studies have considered different timescales and/or
ozone-depleting substances continue to increase by 3% per year, different geographical regions, but all conclude that the successful
beginning in 1974. This collapse in the total global ozone column implementation of the Montreal Protocol will have prevented
would have resulted in clear-sky UV Index (UVI) values increas- many millions of cases of skin cancers. For example, a report by
ing sharply after 2050 at most latitudes (see figure) with extreme the United States Environmental Protection Agency13 showed
values of 20 becoming commonplace by 2065 over almost all in- that when compared with a situation of no policy controls, full
habited areas of the planet, and as high as 43 in the tropics11, more implementation of the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments
than four times the UVI that is currently considered ‘extreme’ by is expected to avoid more than 280 million cases of skin cancer,
the World Health Organization. The graphs show calculated sur- about 1.6 million skin cancer deaths, and more than 45 million
face monthly (grey lines) and annual mean (red line) UVI values cases of cataract in the United States for people born between 1890
for clear skies at different latitudes without the Montreal Protocol, and 2100.
30
Latitude: 75° N Latitude: 45° N Latitude: 15° N
Range of maxima: 2.51 to 11.6 Range of maxima: 8.27 to 23.6 Range of maxima: 14.1 to 36.5
25
20
UVI
15
10
30
Latitude: 75° S Latitude: 45° S Latitude: 15° S
Range of maxima: 3.17 to 30.5 Range of maxima: 9.45 to 29.2 Range of maxima: 15.1 to 43.4
25
20
UVI
15
10
0
2000 2050 2000 2050 2000 2050
Year Year Year
Independent of stratospheric ozone variations, climate change cloud cover, with some regions becoming cloudier and others less
is increasingly contributing to changes in incident surface UV-B cloudy41. Increased cloud cover generally tends to reduce UV radia-
radiation27,40 (Fig. 2). Unlike stratospheric ozone depletion, these tion at the Earth’s surface, but effects vary depending on the types
effects driven by climate change modify the amount of surface solar of clouds42 and their position relative to that of the Sun43. Aerosols28
radiation not just in the UV-B but also in the ultraviolet-A (UV-A; reduce and scatter UV radiation; the type and amounts of aerosols
315–400 nm) and visible (400–700 nm) parts of the spectrum. in the atmosphere are affected by volcanic activity, the emissions
These changes are important, as many of the environmental and of air pollutants, the frequency and extent of wildfires and dust
health effects caused by UV-B radiation can be either ameliorated or storms, and other factors, many of which are affected by climate
accentuated, to varying degrees, by UV-A and visible radiation23–25. change26,27,44. In heavily polluted areas (such as southern and eastern
Future changes in incident surface solar UV radiation (UV-B and Asia), improvements in air quality resulting from measures to con-
UV-A) will depend strongly on changes in aerosols (solid and liquid trol the emissions of air pollutants are expected to increase levels
particles suspended in the atmosphere), clouds and surface reflec- of UV radiation to near pre-industrial levels (that is, before exten-
tivity (for example, snow and ice cover). Climate change is altering sive aerosol pollution); the extent of these changes is contingent on
Biogeochemistry
and biodiversity
Human health
and air quality
Contaminants
and materials
Exposure to UV
and climate change
Water quality
Agriculture and and fisheries
food production
Fig. 1 | The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) addressed by the UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel 2018 Quadrennial Report.
The findings from the Assessment are summarized in this paper according to five major topics (in circles). These address 11 of the 17 United Nations SDGs
(in numbered squares): 2, zero hunger; 3, good health and well-being; 6, clean water and sanitation; 7, affordable and clean energy; 9, industry, innovation
and infrastructure; 11, sustainable cities and communities; 12, responsible consumption and production; 13, climate action; 14, life below water; 15, life on
land; and 17, partnerships for the goals. Credit: SDG icons, United Nations (UN/SDG).
the degree to which future emissions of air pollutants are curtailed. versus outdoors, and under shade structures. The exposure of
High surface reflectance from snow or ice cover can enhance inci- the skin or eyes to UV radiation further depends on the use of
dent UV radiation because some of the reflected UV radiation is sun protection such as clothing or sunglasses; the UV radiation
scattered back to the surface by aerosols and clouds in the atmo- dose received by cells and tissues within the skin is influenced
sphere. Consequently, climate-change-driven reductions in ice or by pigmentation of the skin and use of sunscreens23. Warmer
snow cover, which are occurring in polar regions and mountains, temperatures and changing precipitation patterns resulting
are likely to decrease surface UV radiation in these areas27. At the from climate change will alter patterns of exposure to sunlight46,
same time, this will increase the UV exposure of soils and waters but the direction and magnitude of this effect will vary glob-
that are no longer covered by snow or ice. ally. Many animals, such as insects, fish and birds, can sense UV
radiation and use this ‘visual’ information to avoid exposure to
UV radiation exposure and climate change prolonged periods of high UV radiation47,48.
The direct effects of UV radiation on organisms, including humans, • In response to climate change, many animals and plants are migrat-
and on materials depend on levels of exposure to UV radiation. This ing or shifting their ranges to higher latitudes and elevations49,50,
is determined by several factors, including many that are influenced while increases in exposure to UV radiation lead zooplankton to
by climate change (Fig. 2). Importantly, these climate-change-driven migrate into deeper waters51–54. Because of the natural gradients
effects can result in either increases or decreases in exposures to in solar UV radiation that exist with latitude, altitude and water
solar UV radiation, depending on location, time of year and other depth25,27, these shifts in distributions will expose organisms to
circumstances. Some of the most important regulators of exposure conditions of UV radiation to which they are unaccustomed.
to UV radiation are as follows. • Climate change is altering phenology, including plant flower-
ing, spring bud-burst in trees, and emergence and breeding of
• Behaviour: the exposure of individual humans to UV radia- animals49,55. As solar UV radiation varies naturally with seasons,
tion ranges from one-tenth of, to ten times, the average for the such alterations in the timing of critical life-cycle events will
population45, depending on the time that people spend indoors affect exposures to UV radiation.
Ozone
depletion
and recovery
Climate change
Clouds, aerosols,
ice and snow cover
Phenology, behaviour,
migration, dissolved
UV organic matter Warming,
radiation precipitation,
extreme weather
Exposure to UV radiation
Food Water
security security
Human
action
Ozone-depleting Greenhouse
substances gases
Fig. 2 | Links between stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation and climate change. These links have consequences for the environment, food and
water security, human well-being and the sustainability of ecosystems. Direct effects are shown as solid lines with feedback effects indicated by double
arrows. Important effects driven by human action are shown as dashed lines. The climate change map indicates surface temperature anomalies for
February 2017 compared with the base period of 1951–1980101,102. The image of stratospheric ozone shows total ozone over Antarctica for 6 September
2000, reproduced from ref. 103, NASA Earth Observatory. Additional information on data used for this image is provided by NASA Ozone Watch104.
Climate change world map reproduced from refs. 101,102, NASA GISTEMP data.
• Modifications in vegetation cover (for example, from drought, Environmental effects of changing exposure to UV
fire, pest-induced die-back of forest canopies or invasion of Changes in exposure to solar UV radiation have the potential to
grasslands by shrubs) driven by changes in climate and land use affect materials, humans and many other organisms in ways that
alter the amount of sunlight and UV radiation reaching many have consequences for the health and well-being of people, and
ground-dwelling terrestrial organisms56. the sustainability of ecosystems (Fig. 1). Below we highlight
• Reductions in snow and ice cover and the timing of some of these effects as identified in the recent UNEP EEAP
melt driven by climate change are modifying surface UV reflec- Quadrennial Assessment.
tance and increasing the penetration of UV radiation into rivers,
lakes, oceans and wetlands in temperate, alpine and polar regions57. Impacts on human health and air quality. Higher exposure to
Additionally, increases in extreme weather events (for exam- solar UV radiation increases the incidence of skin cancers and other
ple, heavy rainfall and floods) lead to greater input of dissolved UV-induced human diseases such as cataracts23. Although increases
organic matter and sediments into coastal and inland waters that in the incidence of skin cancer over the last century seem largely
can reduce the clarity of water and exposure of aquatic organisms attributable to changes in behaviour that increase exposure to UV
to UV radiation25,58. In contrast, in some lakes and oceans where radiation, these changes highlight how susceptible some human pop-
climate warming is leading to shallower mixing depths, exposure ulations would have been to uncontrolled depletion of stratospheric
to UV radiation in the surface mixed layer is increasing25. ozone. Skin cancer is the most common cancer in many developed
Stratospheric ozone depletion has been a dominant driver of of terrestrial ecosystems has increased with warmer and wetter
changes in summer climate in the Southern Hemisphere over the conditions, whereas productivity in East Antarctica has responded
later part of the twentieth century, moving the winds and associ- negatively to cooling and drying37.
ated latitudinal bands of high and low rainfall further south29–36,38. Although our understanding of the extent of these impacts
As a result, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including agricul- has improved considerably in the past several years, there
ture, have been affected in several ways24,25. are likely to be many other impacts that have not yet been
For instance, the productivity of the Southern Ocean is quantified. Actions under the Montreal Protocol have moderated
changing; decreasing over much of the ocean, but increasing in these climatic and subsequent ecosystem changes, by limiting
other areas. More productive areas already support increased stratospheric ozone depletion as well as reducing greenhouse
growth, survival and reproduction of sea birds and mammals gases. Without the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments,
including albatross, several species of penguins and elephant seals. similar climatic changes would probably have become manifest
Regional increases in oceanic productivity are likely to support across the globe and would have been more extreme in the
increased fisheries. In contrast, warmer sea surface temperatures Southern Hemisphere. As the ozone ‘hole’ recovers, some of
related to these climate shifts may be correlated with declines in these effects may be reversed.
kelp beds in Tasmania and corals in Brazil25. Icons show the location and types of organisms or environmental
On land, changing patterns of rainfall have resulted in factors influenced by ozone-driven climate change, and the arrows
increased agricultural productivity in some regions (for example, show the direction of these effects. Icons reproduced courtesy
southeastern South America) and drought conditions in others of Andrew Netherwood. Globe image showing atmospheric
(for example, Chile)24. Drier conditions have resulted in increased circulation patterns and map of Southern Hemisphere adapted
salinity in lakes and changed lake fauna in East Antarctica and from ref. 38, Wiley. Ozone hole over Antarctica, September 2006,
the eastern Andes24,25. On the Antarctic Peninsula, productivity courtesy of NASA Ozone Watch.
cell y
Hadle
Subtropical dry-zone
ce rrel
ll
Fe
se
au
Seals Albatross Coral Lobster Fish Plankton Kelp Westerly ar
Pol ll
op
o p
jetstream ce Tr
Ozone depletion and
greenhouse gas increase
Wetter
Windier
Drier
Warmer
Cooler
7
countries with predominantly light-skinned populations23. Stratospheric ozone depletion is expected to increase these num-
Melanoma accounts for less than 5% of skin cancers, but it has a bers by a few percent60 when integrated over a lifetime. Much larger
much higher mortality rate than other skin cancers and accounts for increases in skin cancer incidence would already be occurring in the
about 60,000 deaths worldwide each year. Exposure to UV radiation absence of the Montreal Protocol11,13 (Box 2).
accounts for 60–95% of the risk of developing cutaneous malignant Exposure to UV radiation contributes to the development of cat-
melanoma in light-skinned populations; globally, around 168,000 aract, the leading cause of impaired vision worldwide (12.6 million
new melanomas in 2012 were attributable to ‘excess’ exposure to were blind and 52.6 million were visually impaired because of
UV radiation (above that of a historical population with minimal cataract in 2015)61. This is a major health concern particularly in
exposure), corresponding to 76% of all new melanoma cases59. low income countries with often high ambient UV radiation and
of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide77,78. plasticizers and stabilizers) for plastic materials and wood coatings,
Climate-change-driven increases in droughts, wildfires, and thaw- but continued research and development is required to further com-
ing of permafrost soils have the potential to increase photodegra- bat harsher weathering resulting from climate change.
dation26,79, thereby fuelling a positive feedback on global warming; Some compounds being used as substitutes for CFCs, such as
however, the scale of this effect remains an important knowledge gap. hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), HFCs and hydrofluoroolefins
Species of aquatic and terrestrial organisms differ in their toler- (HFOs), are known to degrade to trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) in the
ances to UV radiation, and these differences can lead to alterations atmosphere. TFA is a strong acid, and in sufficiently large concen-
in the composition and diversity of ecological communities under trations could negatively affect organisms. Because no sinks in the
conditions of elevated UV radiation24,25. UV radiation also modifies atmosphere have been identified, concern has been raised about its
herbivory and predator–prey interactions, which then alters trophic potential accumulation over time in sensitive environments (such as
interactions, energy transfer and the food webs in ecosystems80. At salt lakes, wetlands and vernal pools). Large natural sources of TFA
present, changes in regional climate, caused in part by ozone deple- have been invoked to explain high TFA concentrations in deep oce-
tion, are threatening the habitat and survival of a number of species anic waters89 that have had no contact with atmospheric gases for
found only in the Southern Hemisphere. These include plants grow- several millennia. Anthropogenic sources include pesticides, phar-
ing in the unique high-elevation woodlands of the South American maceuticals and industrial reagents. Current estimates indicate that
Altiplano81, and moss and other plant communities in Antarctica37. any incremental TFA burden from the CFC substitutes would be
At the same time, the ozone-driven changes in climate are enhanc- minor compared with the other natural and anthropogenic sources,
ing the reproductive success of some marine birds and mammals and the overall TFA concentrations (from all sources) are expected
(Box 3)24,25. To what extent the Montreal Protocol has specifically to remain well below levels harmful to the environment90.
contributed to the maintenance of biodiversity in ecosystems is
unknown, but losses in species diversity in aquatic ecosystems are Conclusions and knowledge gaps
known to be linked to high exposure to UV radiation, which can The Montreal Protocol has prevented the global depletion of strato-
then lead to a decline in the health and stability of these systems44. spheric ozone and consequently large-scale increases in solar UV-B
radiation. Changes in the ozone layer over the next few decades are
Impacts on contaminants and materials. Solar UV radiation plays expected to be variable, with increases (recovery) likely at polar and
a critical role in altering the toxicity of contaminants25,26. Exposure mid-latitudes and decreases possible in the tropics12. The return
to UV radiation increases the toxicity of contaminants such as pes- of total column ozone to 1980 levels is expected to occur in the
ticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to aquatic organisms 2030s and 2050s over mid-latitudes in the Northern and Southern
but, more commonly, results in the formation of less toxic break- Hemispheres, respectively, and around the 2060s in Antarctica12,91,92.
down products. For example, UV-B radiation transforms the most Tropical column ozone is not expected to recover to 1980 levels by
toxic form of methyl mercury to forms that are less toxic, reduc- 2100, with some models predicting declining stratospheric ozone
ing the accumulation of mercury in fish82. Although the degrada- beginning in 2050 at these latitudes12. However, these negative
tion of many pollutants and water-borne pathogens by solar UV ozone deviations are projected to be small (<2%) and would, in
radiation is affected by changes in stratospheric ozone, other factors the worst-case scenario, result in increases in surface UV-B radia-
such as dissolved organic matter are more important in regulating tion of less than 2.5%27. Thus, because of the Montreal Protocol, we
penetration of UV radiation into water, and hence photodegra- have averted a ‘worst-case’ scenario of stratospheric-ozone destruc-
dation of these pollutants26. Advances in modelling are allowing tion, prevented the resultant high levels of UV-B radiation at the
improved quantification of the effects of global changes on the fate Earth’s surface, and so avoided major environmental and health
of aquatic pollutants. impacts (Box 2).
Sunscreens are in widespread use, including in cosmetics, as We are confident in our qualitative predictions of the envi-
part of the approach to UV protection for humans. They wash into ronmental effects that have been avoided as a result of the imple-
coastal and inland waters, with potential effects on these aquatic mentation of the Montreal Protocol. However, quantification of
ecosystems. The toxicity of artificial sunscreens to corals83, sea many of the environmental benefits resulting from the success of
urchins84, fish85 and other aquatic organisms, has led Palau, the State the Montreal Protocol remains a challenge. The same knowledge
of Hawaii and the city of Key West in Florida, USA, to ban the use of gaps that constrain modelling of most environmental effects in
some sunscreens. Similar legislation is under consideration by the the ‘World Avoided’ scenario also constrain quantification of the
European Union86. potential impacts of any current or future threats to the ozone layer.
Microplastics (defined as plastic particles under 5 mm) are now At present, no quantitative estimates are available on the effects of
ubiquitous in the world’s oceans and pose an emerging serious the recently reported unexpected increases in emissions of CFC-1193
threat to marine ecosystems, with many organisms now known to on stratospheric ozone, UV radiation or the environment. However,
ingest them87. Formed by the UV-induced degradation of plastics were such unexpected emissions to persist and increase in the
exposed to sunlight, microplastics occur in up to 20% or more of future, or new threats emerge, environmental and health impacts
fish marketed globally for human consumption88. Although the could be substantial. Other threats to the integrity of the strato-
toxicity of microplastics is unknown, higher temperatures and spheric ozone layer include ‘geoengineering’ activities proposed for
increased exposure to UV radiation accelerate the fragmentation of combating warming caused by greenhouse gases, which could have
plastics, potentially threatening food and water security. consequences for UV radiation. In particular, proposals to inject
Until very recently, plastics used in packaging and building sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce solar radiation at the
materials were selected and optimized on the basis of durability Earth’s surface94 would likely reduce stratospheric ozone at most lat-
and performance22. However, the present focus on increased sus- itudes. The combined effect of increased scattering by the aerosols
tainability, with the trend towards ‘green’ buildings, now requires and reduced absorption by ozone would then lead to complex net
such choices to be environmentally acceptable as well. This includes changes in surface UV-B radiation27,95–97.
the increased use of wood, which can be renewable, carbon-neutral Meeting the challenge of improving quantification of the envi-
and low in embodied energy compared with plastics. Many of these ronmental effects of future changes in stratospheric ozone requires
materials are vulnerable to accelerated ageing when exposed to UV addressing several key gaps in current knowledge. First, we need a
radiation. At present, industrial activities are aimed at identifying better understanding of the fundamental responses of humans and
and developing safer, effective and ‘greener’ additives (colorants, other species to UV radiation, particularly how organisms respond