Content uploaded by Klaus Rettinger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Klaus Rettinger on Dec 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
02
2016
english
08
08/16 | Volume 142 | Thannhausen, August 9, 2016
K. Rettinger, B. Huber
Microplastic Particles in Cosmetic Products –
Impact on the Environment?
powered by
personal care |
sofwjournal | 142 | 08/1628
environment protection
1. Introduction
Cosmetic products represent products used daily and which
are intended to clean the human body, perfume, change the
appearance, correct body odours, protect and keep in good
condition. This results in a diversity of products which are dif-
ferent in terms of their composition. The main product groups
include, for instance, products for skin and hair cleaning such
as soaps, shower gels and shampoos. They also include deco-
rative products (makeup, lipsticks), products with certain pro-
tective functions such as skin protection products, sunscreens,
toothpastes or perfumes, deodorants and antiperspirants. Sub-
stance groups which frequently occur in cosmetics products
such as soaps and surfactants, alcohols, oils and waxes, inor-
ganic pigments and of course water are generally considered
as “The” main components of many cosmetic products.
Cosmetic products and their ingredients have been strictly regu-
lated in a uniform manner throughout the EU since 1976. The
current regulations are the EC Cosmetics Regulation 1223/2009
concerning the safety of consumers and the REACH Regulation
1907/2006 concerning the impact on the environment.
The current debate concerning the presence of microplastic in
the marine environment has caused some criticism regarding the
effectiveness of existing regulatory instruments to satisfactorily
restrict the release of plastic used in cosmetic products to the
environment, where they are blamed to cause direct harm or
negatively contribute to the accumulation of plastic in the envi-
ronment. Here we provide a summary of the ongoing issue with
a particular emphasis on the composition and product safety of
cosmetic products and the perspective of the cosmetics industry.
2. Plastic Ingredients in Cosmetic Products – Materials
Plastic ingredients used in cosmetic products do not repre-
sent typical and widely used ingredients, whereby their use
is restricted to a select number of novel functional uses in
niche products. They are, for instance, used in several prod-
ucts for body or face cleaning, if these products are to have
a special peeling effect – or if skin cleansing products are de-
signed to remove heavy duty soiling in an industrial environ-
ment. The plastic ingredients used for this scrubbing function
are most commonly referred to as plastic microbeads. In the
past, plastic microbeads were also used in a few speciality
toothpastes. Microbeads made of polyethylene are by far the
most frequent application, but in addition polyurethane, EVA
(ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer) etc. are or were used.
The advantages of using plastic microbeads for scrubbing and
exfoliating functionality are: plastic microbeads have a soft
peeling effect, associated with a good skin tolerance. They
have a broad range of positive properties, they are chemically
inert substances, odourless, non-sensitising and non-irritat-
ing. In addition, they boast a large number of technological
benefits as documented by the following.
Plastic microbeads: technological advantages
• Performance, particle size and roughness are easily
adjustable with good quality control,
• Smooth surface, no cutting angles and edges,
• Technologically simple to handle,
• Favourable physical/chemical properties,
• Microbiologically uncomplicated,
• Constant product quality concerning particle size
and physical hardness,
Microplastic Particles in Cosmetic Products –
Impact on the Environment?
K. Rettinger, B. Huber*
abstract
Recently there has been increasing concern regarding the release and accumulation of synthetic plastic materials in the
marine environment. An important component of the issue concerns the occurrence and relative abundance of micro-
plastic particles. In this context cosmetic products are mentioned as one of the primary sources of microplastic, although
there is increasing scientific evidence that now suggests that the relative fraction of the contribution from cosmetic prod-
ucts is quantitatively small. Nonetheless, the cosmetics industry faces this issue, and the manufacturers of the cosmetic
products concerned are endeavouring to minimise the discharge of plastic particles into the environment.
This article is based on a presentation given at the 49th ESSENER CONFERENCE for Water and Waste Management, and is printed in similar form
(in German language) in the Proceedings of the 49th Essener Conference. (as contribution No 23/1-9), ISBN 978-3-938996-45-4
personal care
|
08/16 | 142 | sofwjournal 29
environment protection
• Do not clog the drain,
• Improves the cleaning effect of the product,
• No (negative) influence on product stability.
3. Safety for Human Health when Used in Cosmetic Products
The safety for human health is a core concern of the cosmetics
industry. It is ensured through the general safety requirements
under cosmetics legislation (EC Regulation 1223/2009). The
latter applies to plastic materials themselves and possible ancil-
lary components. Quality features are defined in supply speci-
fications to this end and a safety assessment is made by safety
assessors and/or toxicologists. The requirements to be met by
the safety assessment and the qualification of the safety as-
sessor are currently covered by Article 10 of the EC Cosmetics
Regulation and Annex 1 to that Regulation. A detailed over-
view of the basic requirements in terms of the safety assess-
ments that have been applied for some time is provided, for
instance, by a review article by Mildau et al, (2007). A summary
of the data concerning the assessment of health effects of cos-
metic products are also described in an article by Walther et al.
“Chemie für die Schönheit – aber sicher (Chemistry for Beauty
– but safe)”, GDCh News Issue 5/2015 and in an article by Dr.
Cornelia Walther on the online platform haut.de.
The human health safety assessment can be checked within
the framework of the product information file by the market
surveillance authorities.
We feel confident that plastic microbeads used in cosmetic in-
gredients have complied with regulatory safety assessments,
and have therefore been used in a safe manner for consum-
ers. BfR (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment) has
confirmed the safety of plastic microbeads made of polyeth-
ylene in an opinion and a Q&A document published on the
internet (BfR 1+2, 2014).
4. Impact on the Environment
The impact of plastic microbeads on the environment is as a
rule independent from whether the materials originate from
cosmetic products or other sources. For instance, plastic mi-
crobeads from cosmetic products cannot be distinguished
from plastic materials from other sources. In Chapter 4.1
the quantitative fraction of plastic microbeads from cosmet-
ic products is considered; Chapters 4.2–6 include a general
consideration, for the above mentioned reasons, of different
environmental aspects concerning microplastic particles –
without any distinction in terms of source.
4.1. Quantification of the Share of Cosmetic Products
As already mentioned, the environmental impact of cosmet-
ic products and/or their ingredients is covered, as a matter of
principle, by the REACH Regulation. A general overview of the
composition of cosmetic products, their typical ingredients as
well as considerations on the environmental impact of cosmet-
ic products, is provided in an article by Tolls et al. (2009).
With particular respect to the risks of microplastic particles in
the environment, there are various technical challenges that
need to be considered when interpreting the results of eco-
toxicological tests in relation to concentrations reported in
the environment.
The contribution of cosmetic products to the overall issue of
microplastic in the marine environment has been presented
in a technical article by experts from the cosmetics industry in
2015 (Gouin et al.), and summarized here:
• The total tonnage of plastic microbeads in the EU in cosmetic
products amounted to approximately 4,000 t/year in 2012.
• The contribution of plastic microbeads from cosmetic prod-
ucts, relative to the amount of plastic debris estimated to be
emitted to the North Sea represents approximately between
0.1 to 1.5% to the total amount.
• Given the public statements by a number of companies to
voluntarily discontinue the use of plastic microbeads in their
products, the relative contribution is believed to already be
considerably lower, becoming negligible in the near future.
• Communication regarding activities aimed at voluntarily taking
action on the potential issue of microplastic pollution through
the publication of the results of the Cosmetics Europe survey in
the SOFW Journal is illustrative of the genuine desire of the cos-
metics industry to provide factual information about this topic.
It is notable that the results of the Cosmetics Europe survey,
summarized above, are consistent with estimates of use by
the Cosmetics Industry reported in a publication by Bannick
et al., in 2015 (for Germany, 500 t/year) as well as an expert
opinion which was prepared by the Nova Institute on behalf
of the Federal German Environmental Agency and published
in September 2015 (UBA Texts 64/2015).
An assessment on the scientific status by the consultancy ser-
vice provider ECT on microplastic particles in the environment
entitled “Sources, Behaviour and Fate, Uptake and Effects in
Organisms with a Special Focus on Microplastic Particles from
Cosmetic Products (literature study in English; Duis and Co-
ors, 2016)” resulted in the following core findings:
As is generally known, there are different sources for the dis-
charge of plastics and/or microplastics into the environment,
so-called primary and secondary sources. This is explained in
more detail in the following overview.
• Primary sources: release microplastic particles directly in the
environment (including abrasion of plastic materials): spe-
cial cosmetic products (70% > 450 nm), industrial cleaning
agents, abrasion of car tyres, addition of drilling fluids for oil
and gas production, etc.
personal care |
sofwjournal | 142 | 08/1630
environment protection
• Secondary sources: by discharge of macroplastic particles in the
environment, then fragmentation: e.g. civilisation refuse not
properly discharged, illegal rubbish dumps, fishery and aquacul-
ture, ship and other protective coatings, synthetic textiles, etc.
4.2 Behaviour in Waste Water Treatment Plants of
Microplastics from all Sources
First assessments proceed on the assumption of a removal of
> 90% of the microplastic particles in waste water treatment
plants (Mintenig et al., 2014).
4.3 Bioavailability and Effects in Organisms Caused
by Microplastic Particles
The scientific statements given in chapters 4.3 to 4.6 of this
article are mainly based on the above mentioned review work
of the scientific service provider ECT Oekotoxikologie, which
is mainly published in a review article Duis and Coors, (2016).
• Ingestion of microplastic particles by biological organisms:
·
In most cases only uptake in the intestinal tract and rapid excretion
· Field trials: uptake in marine organisms, but quantities in-
gested are low
· Observations of transfer in the food chain, e.g. shell
crab, report significantly slower excretion processes
· Ingestion of microplastic particles can results in secondary
effects, largely due to reduction in food intake, which im-
pact: energy reserves, reproduction rate, and growth
• No indication of bioaccumulation or biomagnification
•
Less data on ecotoxicity: so far almost exclusively marine organ-
isms investigated – usually under extreme exposure scenarios un-
der laboratory controlled conditions (e.g. very high concentrations)
· LOECs (water) higher by a factor ≈ 104 as a maximum con-
centration at the water surface and in the water column
· LOECs (sediment) higher than maximum concentration on
the seabed, but lower than maximum concentration on
the beach surface
4.4 Accumulation of Contaminants
• Strong accumulation of hydrophobic contaminants in mi-
croplastic particles, however: in the event of normalisation
of the distribution coefficients to the content of organic car-
bon, the differences are seen to be minor when comparing
between the accumulation of hydrophobic contaminants in
plastics and sediment
•
Microplastic particles as a vector for the transport of sorbed con-
taminants in organisms: probably only relevant to a limited extent:
· Contaminants sorb predominantly to organic carbon in
suspended matter and sediment
· In the event of a high affinity of the contaminants to plas-
tics: low release of the contaminants in the organism
4.5 Summary of the Status from a Scientific Point of
View of the Environmental Impact of Microplastic
Particles
• Discharge of microplastic particles into the environment
· First assessments: plastic microbeads from cosmetic prod-
ucts represent a limited contribution to the overall amounts
of plastic debris in the marine environment (specifically
fragmentation of larger plastic debris represents the domi-
nant source of microplastic in the environment).
· The ecotoxicity and transport of contaminants is probably
less relevant for the environment.
In the current debate there are still the following knowledge
gaps:
• Quantification of the relevance of different discharge pathways
• Size distribution in the environment
(mainly small microplastic and nanoplastic particles)
• Standardisation of analytical methods
• Systematic studies on the removal mechanisms
in waste water treatment plants
• Occurrence and effects in fresh water and, more particularly,
in the soil
• Establishment of co-ordinated evaluation concepts
• Improved interpretation regarding the physical toxicity asso-
ciated with exposure to microplastic particles relative to other
particles that organisms might encounter in the environment.
Key to the issue of better managing exposure of micro- and
macro-plastic in the environment is the development of strat-
egies to reduce the discharge of plastic debris on a broader
and global basis.
The study by the service provider ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH
mentioned here is currently published in a review article (Duis
and Coors, 2016).
4.6 Summary of Environmental Impacts in Respect of
Microplastic Particles from Various Sources –
Viewpoint of IKW
The facts concerning the environmental impact can be sum-
marized as follows:
Microplastic particles can get into the environment through
different discharge pathways, whereby the fragmentation
of larger plastic parts is probably the most relevant source
in terms of volume. As a result of the persistence of most
plastics in the environment, an increase in concentrations in
the environment is to be expected, unless there is a global
counteraction. As far as statements on the actual negative
(eco) toxicological effects are concerned, it is, however, neces-
sary to consider in detail how the corresponding studies were
conducted and what they exactly prove. As far as we can see
personal care
|
08/16 | 142 | sofwjournal 31
environment protection
so far, investigations in the water phase do not prove as a rule
any negative effects in concentrations which are relevant for
the environment, at best for beach surfaces in certain hotspots.
Also as far as the theory whether microplastic particles act as a
vector for the transport of contaminants is concerned, it must
be checked very precisely how the corresponding studies were
conducted and whether adequate negative and positive con-
trols were available and a comparison with the accumulation in
another organic mass in the medium was made (humic acids,
etc.). As far as we know, there is no evidence for either an ex-
cessive accumulation of contaminants in microplastic particles
under conditions close to reality nor is there any clear evidence
to show that a transport and subsequent release of contami-
nants is actually carried out under conditions close to reality.
5. Alternative Materials for Microplastic Particles
in Cosmetic Products
Many manufacturers of cosmetic products have declared on
a voluntary basis and independently from one another that
they will discontinue in future the use of plastic microbeads in
wash-off products (such as peelings) and replace them by al-
ternative substances. This was also reflected by findings from
talks to German environmental authorities, in particular the
Federal Ministry of the Environment (BMU and BMUB) and
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (UBA).
Cosmetics Europe, the European Confederation of the Cos-
metics Industry, recommends to its member to replace solid
plastic particles in wash-off products (such as peelings) by al-
ternative substances by 2020.
Cosmetics Europe, 21.10.2015: “In view of the public concerns
expressed over plastic debris in the marine environment, and
given the availability of alternative materials, Cosmetics Europe
recommends its membership to discontinue, in wash-off cos-
metic products placed on the market as of 2020: The use of
synthetic, solid plastic particles used for exfoliating and cleans-
ing that are non-biodegradable in the marine environment.”
We, therefore, know that already today many manufacturers are
working on a reformulation of the products and/or have met
this requirement. Possible alternative materials are shown below:
What are the Possible Alternatives?
Conceivable and partially used already are sand or other miner-
al substances, wood flour, walnut shells, waxes, cellulose, etc.
Benefits:
• “natural”
• degradable
Disadvantages:
• possibly high abrasion
• sedimentation or clogging of tube caps etc (sand)
• difficult to handle in microbiological terms (wood flour, fruit shells)
• in the event of waxes, possibly lack of stability of the
particles in the production process (shear forces, heat)
• limited range of application
Current discussions with the environmental authorities show
that degradability must also be considered for alternative sub-
stances.
A reformulation of cosmetic products is, however, a complex
and difficult process during which different essential aspects
need to be taken into account, as shown below:
A Reformulation is a Complex Process which Encompasses:
• Safety (e.g. skin tolerance)
• Environmental compatibility
• Stability
• Product performance
• Price/economic efficiency
• Availability/quality
6. Summary and Current Status from the Viewpoint of the
Cosmetics Industry
The use of plastic microbeads in cosmetic products has always
been in compliance with the safety requirements defined un-
der cosmetics legislation.
Concerning a possible environmental impact, it has been
shown that the use of plastic microbeads in cosmetic products
represent only a very small proportion to the total amount of
plastic debris emitted to the marine environment. Scientific
investigations show that the contribution to the total dis-
charge of plastic in the North Sea, is between 0.1 and 1.5%.
This is, for instance, consistent with observations reported in
a study of the German Federal Environmental Agency. Plastic
microbeads from cosmetic products that enter waste water
treatment systems, are predominantly removed by sorption
and filtrations processes, as part of the treatment system.
The cosmetics industry collects and uses the scientific infor-
mation on microplastic particles. As an Association we are,
therefore, actively engaged in discussions with environmental
authorities.
The substitution of plastic microbeads is a complex procedure.
Alternative substances must first be tested in terms of safety,
efficacy, environmental compatibility and product stability so
that they can meet these requirements. Apart from develop-
ment work, this presupposes the conduct of comprehensive
tests. The manufacturers of cosmetic products work intensely
on defining solutions and ensure that safe and appropriate
alternatives are available on the market for many applica-
tions. Cosmetics Europe, the European Confederation of the
personal care |
sofwjournal | 142 | 08/1632
environment protection
IKW Internet Position Paper (ongoing update): http://www.ikw.org/ikw-english/
beauty-care-topics/all/plastics-in-cosmetic-products/ (last access 17.6.2016)
Mildau et al.(2007): G. Mildau, A. Burkhard, J. Daphi-Weber, J. Große-Damhues,
J. Jung, B. Schuster, C. Walther: “Basic Requirements for Safety Assessments of
Cosmetic Products”; SOFW Journal 6-2007, p 16 ff
Mintenig S, Int-Veen I, Löder M, Gerdts G. Mikroplastik in ausgewählten Kläranla-
gen des Oldenburgisch-Ostfriesischen Wasserverbandes (OOWV) in Niedersachsen.
Probenanalyse mittels Mikro-FTIR Spektroskopie. Final report for the OOWV Helgo-
land: Alfred-Wegener-Institut; 2014.
Tolls et al 2009: Tolls J, Berger H, Klenk A, Meyberg M, Müller R, Rettinger K, Steber
J (2009): Environmental safety aspects of personal care products – a European per-
spective. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28: 2485-2489
UBA texts 64/2015: Sources of microplastics relevant to marine protection in
Germany. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/sources-of-micropla-
stics-relevant-to-marine (last access 17.06.2016)
Walther et al. GDCH-Nachrichten 5/2015, S. 533ff, Chemie für die Schönheit – aber
sicher. http://www.ikw.org/fileadmin/content/downloads/Sch%C3%B6nheitspfle-
ge/Chemie_f%C3%BCr_die_Sch%C3%B6n-
heit_-_aber_sicher.pdf
Walther, Cornelia – haut.de – Expertenrat
– Sicherheitsbewertung und Kontrolle kos-
metischer Produkte http://www.haut.de/
sicherheitsbewertung-und-kontrolle-kosmeti-
scher-produkte/
Cosmetics Industry, therefore, recommends to its members to
discontinue the use of synthetic, solid plastic particles used
for exfoliating and cleansing that are non-biodegradable in
the marine environment, by 2020. We know that already to-
day many manufacturers have met these challenges. Many
manufacturers had already decided, by way of precaution, to
rework products that contain plastic microbeads accordingly.
The manufacturers of cosmetic products actively work to ensure
that products available to the consumers are safe for humans and
the environment. They meet this obligation throughout the world
within the framework of comprehensive statutory regulations.
Literature
Bannick et al., „Kunststoffe in der Umwelt“, Korrespondenz Wasserwirtschaft 2015
(8), Nr. 1, S. 49 ff.2015, a
BfR: Internet Position Papers (last access: 17.06.2016): Questions and answers on micro-
plastics http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/questions-and-answers-on-microplastics.pdf
Polyethylene containing microplastic particles: health risk resulting from the use of
skin cleansing and dental care products is unlikely
http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/polyethylene-containing-microplastic-particles.pdf
Cosmetics Europe, https://www.cosmeticseurope.eu/news-a-events/statements/
68-cosmetics-europe-issues-recommendation-on-plastic-micro-particles.html (last ac-
cess 17.6.2016)
Duis K. and Coors A., Environ Sci Eur (2016) 28:2, “Microplastics in the aquatic and ter-
restrial environment: sources (with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and
effects”. DOI: 10.1186/s12302-015-0069-y , http://www.enveurope.com/content/28/1/2
Gouin et al., „Use of Micro-Plastic Beads in Cosmetic Products in Europe and Their Esti-
mated Emissions to the North Sea Environment“, 2015 SOFW-Journal 3-2015, 40-46
contact
*Dr. Klaus Rettinger | krettinger@ikw.org
Birgit Huber | bhuber@ikw.org
The German Cosmetic, Toiletry, Perfumery
and Detergent Association
Mainzer Landstraße 55
60329 Frankfurt am Main | Germany