Dirty Cleanser
Dirty Cleanser
Dirty Cleanser
Assessment of Microplastics
in Cosmetics
About Toxics Link
Acknowledgement
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Satish Sinha, Associate
Director, Toxics Link, who guided and supported us through the entire
research process and provided us with his invaluable comments and
suggestions in shaping the study. We are also grateful to Mr. Ravi Agarwal,
Director, Toxics Link, for his continued guidance and encouragement.
Our sincere thanks are also due to all team members of Toxics Link for their
valuable inputs and suggestions.
MICROPLASTICS IN COSMETICS 7
MICROBEADS IN COSMETICS 9
Nanoplastics in cosmetics 10
Major emission pathways to oceans 12
Effects of microbeads on aquatic organisms 15
Effect of microplastics on humans 18
Sustainable Development Goals 19
32.55 - 130.92 μm
for facewash, scrub and bodywash
These small plastic beads or microbeads are solid particles, composed of mix-
tures of specific polymers and functional additives and are less than 5 mm in
diameter. Microbeads, a relatively cheap ingredient, are added to a range of
products, including rinse-off cosmetics, personal care and cleaning products.
This is included as an abrasive or exfoliant, a bulking agent, to prolong shelf-life
of the products, or for the controlled release of active ingredients.
According to the UN, there are the drain and are not captured by most wastewater treatment systems from
as many as where it reaches our rivers, lakes, and oceans. These tiny plastics persist in the
environment, causing massive damage to marine life, the environment and
51 trillion microplastics human health. This is due to their composition, ability to adsorb toxins and
potential to move up the marine food chain.
particles in the seas, 500
times more than the stars in
Since microplastics have begun catching the attention of researchers, environ-
mentalists and governments globally, there have been some efforts to address
The current research is focused on assessing the presence of microbeads in personal care products and cosmetics in India,
because the public domain has limited information on this.
MICROPLASTICS
Microplastics are a source of terrestrial and aquatic contamination and may be
found in soils1, surface waters2, lagoons, estuaries, coastal shorelines, regions of the
sea, Arctic freshwater, ice and the ocean3. Based on size, residue of plastics can be
divided into nano (<0.1μm), micro (5mm to 0.1μm), meso (5mm to 25mm), and macro
(>25mm).Microplastics can also be found in different shapes such as fibres, frag-
ments, foam, flakes and shaft4. Both size and shape dictate the fate and degradation
of microplastics in the environment.
For example, cosmetic
formulations may contain
Based on origin, microplastics can be divided into two categories -- primary and
secondary. Synthetically manufactured plastic pellets, beads, nurdles, fibres, and
powders for commercial purposes are considered to be primary microplastics. 0.5–5% primary micro-
plastics, and a single-use
may release approximately
4,500–94,500 microbeads.
1. Huang, Y., Liu, Q., Jia, W., Yan, C., & Wang, J. (2020). Agricultural plastic mulching as a source of microplastics in the terrestrial
environment. Environmental Pollution, 260, 114096.
2. Fischer, E. K., Paglialonga, L., Czech, E., &Tamminga, M. (2016). Microplastics pollution in lakes and lake shoreline sediments–a case
study on Lake Bolsena and Lake Chiusi (central Italy). Environmental pollution, 213, 648-657.
3. Fang, C., Zheng, R., Zhang, Y., Hong, F., Mu, J., Chen, M., & Bo, J. (2018). Microplastics contamination in benthic organisms from the
Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Chemosphere, 209, 298-306.
4. Su, L., Nan, B., Hassell, K. L., Craig, N. J., & Pettigrove, V. (2019). Microplastics biomonitoring in Australian urban wetlands using a
common noxious fish (Gambusia holbrooki). Chemosphere, 228, 65-74.
Secondary microplastics are the breakdown products of bigger plastic particles from fishing gears, ships, aquaculture and
recreational activities. The process of breaking down plastic trash might be physical, chemical or biological over time, due to
the loss of structural integrity7. The formation of microplatics in the ocean is greatly influenced by a combination of environ-
mental factors such as (1) solar ultra-violet radiation that facilitates oxidative degradation of polymers and causes it to lose
mechanical strength, (2) mechanical abrasion such as wind, wave, ocean current, animal bite, human activity that can break
the polymer further into smaller fragments. This process is called ‘weathering’ and tends to occur in decreasing order of
plastics float in water, in the mid-water column and in the sediment.
Microplastic
5. Nizzetto, L., Futter, M., & Langaas, S. (2016). Are agricultural soils dumps for microplastics of urban origin.
6. Prata, J. C. (2018). Airborne microplastics: consequences to human health. Environmental pollution, 234, 115-126.
7. Rocha-Santos, T., & Duarte, A. C. (2015). A critical overview of the analytical approaches to the occurrence, the fate and the behavior
of microplastics in the environment. TrAC Trends in analytical chemistry, 65, 47-53.
8. Patil, A., & Ferritto, M. S. (2013). Polymers for personal care and cosmetics: Overview. Polymers for Personal Care and Cosmetics, 3-11.
9. European Chemicals Agency Annex XV Restriction Report (2019) Proposal for a Restriction. Substance Name(s): Intentionally Added
Microplastics. Ver 1.2. Helsinki, Finland.
10. Guerranti, C., Martellini, T., Perra, G., Scopetani, C., & Cincinelli, A. (2019). Microplastics in cosmetics: Environmental issues and needs
for global bans. Environmental toxicology and pharmacology, 68, 75-79. HA workshop 30-31st May 2018 Intentionally added micro-
plastics to products Break-out session: Cosmetics.
11. Yurtsever, M., 2019a. Glitters as a source of primary microplastics: an approach to environmental responsibility and ethics. J. Agric.
Environ. Ethics 32, 459–478.
Both rinse-off and leave-on cosmetics’ formulations may also contain microplas-
tics as encapsulators for fragrances13.
12. European Chemicals Agency, 2020a. Opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment and Opinion of the Committee for Socio-eco-
nomic Analysis on an Annex XV dossier proposing restrictions of the manufacture, placing on the market or use of a substance within
the EU. Helsinki, Finland.
13. Yurtsever, M., 2019b. Tiny, shiny, and colorful microplastics: are regular glitters a significant source of microplastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
146, 678–682.
were rarely used until the a toothpaste, where even milder cleansing is needed, the size of microbeads is
early 1990s
up to 100 times smaller than those used in other cosmetics21. The quantity of
microbeads can vary from 0.05 to 12% of the final product22,23.
24. Raj, S., Jose, S., Sumod, U. S., & Sabitha, M. (2012). Nanotechnology in cosmetics: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of pharmacy
& bioallied sciences, 4(3), 186.
25. Zacharopopoulou O., Varvaresou A. (2012). Nanotechnology in cosmetology Epitheorese Klin. Farmakol. Farmakokinet., 30 (1) pp. 51-
54.
26. Hernandez, L.M., Yousefi, N., Tufenkji, N., 2017. Are there nanoplastics in your personal care products. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett.
27. Toussaint, B., Raffael, B., Angers-Loustau, A., Gilliland, D., Kestens, V., Petrillo, M., RioEchevarria, I.M., Van den Eede, G., 2019. Review
of micro- and nanoplastic contamination in the food chain. Food Addit. Contam. Part A Chem. Anal. Control Expo. Risk Assess. 36 (5),
639–673.
22 Trimethylsiloxysilicate (silicone resin) Film formation (e.g., colour cosmetics, skincare, suncare)
Microplastics from PCPs have been identified in the environment all around the world. However, the information in this
regard is limited. To obtain a large picture of the contribution of PCPs to the current microplastics pollution, microplastics
release in different countries has been estimated, based on their emissions per capita via consumption of PCPs and the pop-
ulation28. Another 2012 study29 estimated that an average consumer (5ml per person) in the UK could release 4,594 to 94,500
microbeads. A Chinese study34 estimated that 10,000 to 1,00,000 microbeads were rinsed off in Hong Kong in a single use..
28. Sun, Q., Ren, S. Y., & Ni, H. G. (2020). Incidence of microplastics in personal care products: An appreciable part of plastic pollution.
Science of the Total Environment, 742, 140218.
29. Napper, I. E., Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2015). Characterisation, quantity and sorptive properties of microplastics
extracted from cosmetics. Marine pollution bulletin, 99(1-2), 178-185.
Microplastics in personal care and cosmetics products get washed directly According to a study done in
into household drains and transported to WWTP. These microplastics can pass 2015 in China
through WWTPs to oceans due to their small size. The specific size of screens
to remove the microparticles in WWTPs are not fully effective. WWTPs have
~39 tonnes of microplastics
are released into the
been identified as one of the potential contributors for microplastics into the
marine environment. Cheung and Fok34 suggested that WWTPs contributed
over 80% of microplastics to the aquatic environment due to incomplete remov-
environment every year from
the consumption of shower
al. The remaining ~20% can be attributed to direct emissions (~18.2% from cities
and ~0.5% from rural areas)35. Many studies have indicated that traditional
WWTP technologies may not completely remove microplastics36.
gel alone.
30. Worldometers (2019). Available online at: http://www.worldometers.info/world population/world-population-projections/ (Accessed
February 20, 2019).
31. Lei, K., Qiao, F., Liu, Q., Wei, Z., Qi, H., Cui, S., & An, L. (2017). Microplastics releasing from personal care and cosmetic products in
China. Marine pollution bulletin, 123(1-2), 122-126.
32. European Chemicals Agency Annex XV Restriction Report. Proposal for a Restriction. Substance Name(s): Intentionally Added Micro-
plastics. Ver 1.2. Helsinki, Finland..
33. Yurtsever, M. (2019). Glitters as a source of primary microplastics: an approach to environmental responsibility and ethics. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32(3), 459-478.
34. Cheung, P. K., &Fok, L. (2017). Characterisation of plastic microbeads in facial scrubs and their estimated emissions in Mainland China.
Water research, 122, 53-61.
35. Browne, M. A., Crump, P., Niven, S. J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., & Thompson, R. (2011). Accumulation of microplastics on
shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental science & technology, 45 (21), 9175-9179.
36. Fendall, L. S., & Sewell, M. A. (2009). Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine
pollution bulletin, 58(8), 1225-1228.
Sewage generation from urban centres in India is estimated at approximately 72,368 MLD, as reported in Table 2. There are
1,631 STPs (including proposed STPs) with a total capacity of 36,668 MLD covering 35 States/UTs. Out of 1,631 STPs, 1,093
STPs are operational, 102 are non-operational, 274 are under construction and 162 STPs are proposed for construction50. As
per the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), only 38% sewage is being treated in the STP, which means that 62% sewage is
left untreated. Though STPs may be able to capture some proportion of microplastics, some amount of plastic microbeads in
untreated sewage will remain undetected and will not be captured.
37. Waller, C. L., Griffiths, H. J., Waluda, C. M., Thorpe, S. E., Loaiza, I., Moreno, B., ... & Hughes, K. A. (2017). Microplastics in the Antarctic
marine system: an emerging area of research. Science of the total environment, 598, 220-227
38. Cheung, P. K., &Fok, L. (2017). Characterisation of plastic microbeads in facial scrubs and their estimated emissions in Mainland China.
Water research, 122, 53-61.
39. Habib, R. Z., Thiemann, T., & Al Kendi, R. (2020). Microplastics and wastewater treatment plants—a review. Journal of Water Resource
and Protection, 12(01).
40. Wei, Y., Van Houten, R. T., Borger, A. R., Eikelboom, D. H., & Fan, Y. (2003). Minimization of excess sludge production for biological
wastewater treatment. Water research, 37(18), 4453-4467.
41. Murphy, F., Ewins, C., Carbonnier, F., & Quinn, B. (2016). Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the
aquatic environment. Environmental science & technology, 50(11), 5800-5808.
42. Apedaile, E. (2001). A perspective on biosolids management. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 12(4), 202-204.
43. Lundin, M., Olofsson, M., Pettersson, G. J., &Zetterlund, H. (2004). Environmental and economic assessment of sewage sludge han-
dling options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41(4), 255-278.
44. Seo, Y., (2013). Current MSW Management and Waste-to-energy Status in the Republic of Korea. Columbia University, New York.
45. A. Andersen, (2002). Disposal and Recycling Routes for Sewage Sludge—Part 1–Sludge Use Acceptance Report Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, UK
46. Fytili, D., & Zabaniotou, A. (2008). Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old and new methods—A review. Renewable and
sustainable energy reviews, 12(1), 116-140.
47. Kress, N., Shoham-Frider, E., & Galil, B. S. (2016). Twenty-two years of sewage sludge marine disposal monitoring in the Eastern Medi-
terranean Sea: Impact on sediment quality and infauna and the response to load reduction. Marine pollution bulletin, 110(1), 99-111.
Total treatment
Sewage Installed Operational treat-
Proposed ca- capacity (in MLD)
States / UTs generation capacity ment
pacity (in MLD) including planned /
(in MLD) (in MLD) capacity (in MLD)
proposed
Andaman &
23 0 0 0 0
Nicobar Islands
Globally, concerns about the impacts of these microplastics on marine and freshwater ecosystems have been raised. Mi-
croplastics, once released into the environment, persist for a long time before getting fully decomposed and re-enters the
bio-geochemical cycles. Microplastics have been shown to induce negative impacts on the health of various marine or-
ganisms. The possibilities of microplastics getting transferred in the food chain and biomagnification of toxins present in
microplastics are also predicted, which may directly induce toxicity in human beings through seafood. Microbeads used in
cosmetics are responsible for a significant proportion of the human-made solid waste in aquatic environments and hence
impacts the marine life.
From the scientific literature, the effects seen are either primarily driven by physical effects (i.e., effects resulting from block-
ages, external/internal attachment, etc.) and/or it may be due to the presence of residual chemicals (chemicals present when
the microbeads are synthesised) and/or adsorb pollutants (e.g., persistent organic pollutants or POPs), pesticides, etc., which
are adsorbed in later life-cycle stages). Where physical effects are the primary driver for effects, no significant differences
were seen between freshwater and marine organisms.
49. Batistella, L., Silva, V., Suzin, R. C., Virmond, E., Althoff, C. A., Moreira, R. F., & José, H. J. (2015). Gaseous emissions from sewage
sludge combustion in a moving bed combustor. Waste Management, 46, 430-439.
• Uptake: Microbeads are readily taken up by a variety of organisms, including fish, mussels and several types of zooplank-
ton50 and, in many cases, organisms removed microbeads over time through faeces.
• Translocation: Microbeads translocation from the gastrointestinal tract into the organism has also been confirmed; for
example, Rosenkranz et al,51 found rapid uptake and depuration of microbeads in Daphnia magna but also found the pres-
ence of microbeads in the Daphnia lipid storage droplets. In addition, Von Moos et al.52 found that microbeads can also be
internalised from tissues into cells by measuring the presence of microbeads in the intestine, lumina of the digestive gland
and digestive epithelial cells of blue mussels.
• Food-web transfer: Setala et al53, reported that microbeads could transfer across food webs by feeding microbead-contain-
ing zooplankton to mysid shrimp and confirming the presence of beads after 3 hours of incubation.
• Long-term impact: There is limited information on the long-term effects of microbeads. A multigenerational study in cope-
pods conducted by Lee et al54 found that 0.5 μm polystyrene microbeads caused mortality of nauplii and copepodites in the
first generation at a concentration of 12.5 μg/mL and in the second generation at 1.25 μg/mL. In the same study, the develop-
mental delay was measured at 25 μg/mL for 0.5μm microbeads.
• Direct effects: A study conducted by Nobre55 noted direct effects in a 24-hour study on the embryonic development (likely
from residual chemicals in the microbead during production) of sea urchins exposed to as-produced and beach-sourced
microbeads (20% by volume microbeads). In a 9-day study by Cole et al,56 in copepods, the impedance of feeding behaviour
led to decreased reproductive output. Similar findings have been shown recently in Hyalellaazteca with decreased body
growth and reproduction due to feeding impedance. For spherical polyethylene and fibres microbeads. Another study ac-
cessing the impacts on feeding behaviour by Carlos de Sa 57 indicated a colour-specific uptake where red and black microbe-
ads significantly impeded feeding behaviour relative to white microbeads.
• Cellular and sub-cellular effects: A research study was conducted by Rochman et al58 on pollutant adsorption in Japanese
medaka and found that microbeads with and without pollutant adsorption caused stress in the liver as determined by
glycogen depletion, fatty vacuolation, and single cell necrosis. In a follow-up study by the same authors (2014) in the same
organisms, and following 2-month exposure from plain and pollutant-modified microbeads, there was altered gene expres-
sion in male fish (from pollutant-modified microbeads) and female fish (from both modified and unmodified microbeads)57.
Results of the follow-up study concluded that the capability of inducing an endocrine-disrupting effect both from modified
and unmodified microbeads. However, it is unclear in this study whether the effects from the unmodified microbeads were
from only the particle and/or residual chemicals from manufacturing.
50. Imhof, H. K., Sigl, R., Brauer, E., Feyl, S., Giesemann, P., Klink, S., & Laforsch, C. (2017). Spatial and temporal variation of macro-, meso-and
microplastics abundance on a remote coral island of the Maldives, Indian Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 116(1-2), 340-347.
51. Rosenkranz, P., Chaudhry, Q., Stone, V., & Fernandes, T. F. (2009). A comparison of nanoparticle and fine particle uptake by Daphnia
magna. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal, 28(10), 2142-2149.
52. Von Moos, N., Burkhardt-Holm, P., & Köhler, A. (2012). Uptake and effects of microplastics on cells and tissue of the blue mussel Mytilus
edulis L. after an experimental exposure. Environmental science & technology, 46(20), 11327-11335.
53. Setälä, O., Fleming-Lehtinen, V., & Lehtiniemi, M. (2014). Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environmental
pollution, 185, 77-83.
54. Song, Y. K., Hong, S. H., Jang, M., Han, G. M., Rani, M., Lee, J., & Shim, W. J. (2015). A comparison of microscopic and spectroscopic iden-
tification methods for analysis of microplastics in environmental samples. Marine pollution bulletin, 93(1-2), 202-209.
55. Nobre, C. R., Santana, M. F. M., Maluf, A., Cortez, F. S., Cesar, A., Pereira, C. D. S., &Turra, A. (2015). Assessment of microplastics toxicity to
embryonic development of the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Marine pollution bulletin, 92(1-2), 99-104.
56. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T. S. (2015). The impact of polystyrene microplastics on feeding, function
and fecundity in the marine copepod Calanus helgolandicus. Environmental science & technology, 49(2), 1130-1137.
57. de Sá, L. C., Luís, L. G., &Guilhermino, L. (2015). Effects of microplastics on juveniles of the common goby (Pomatoschistusmicrops): con-
fusion with prey, reduction of the predatory performance and efficiency, and possible influence of developmental conditions. Environ-
mental pollution, 196, 359-362.
58. Rochman, C. M., Hoh, E., Kurobe, T., Teh, S. J. (2013). Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress.
Scientific reports, 3
According to the United Nations, at least 800 species worldwide are affected
by marine debris, and as much as 80% of that litter is plastic. According to The
Living Planet Report 2014, the Living Planet Index (LPI) for marine population,
which measures trends in 5,829 populations of 1,234 mammal, bird, reptile and
fish species, showed a decline of 49 per cent between 1970 and 2012.
at least 800 species world- (mussels and oysters) and crustaceans (prawns)61.
wide are affected by marine Since microplastics are considered to be a complex and diverse suite of contam-
of that litter is plastic. humans to the physical and chemical toxicities of microplastics. Most investi-
gations have studied trophic transfer and bioaccumulation of POPs, though the
studies on PPCP compounds, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and metals are
scarce65.
59. Browne, M. A., Niven, S. J., Galloway, T. S., Rowland, S. J., Thompson, R. C. (2013). Microplastics moves pollutants and additives to
worms, reducing functions linked to health and biodiversity. Current Biology, 23(23), 2388-2392
60. Napper, I. E. Thompson, R. C. (2015). Characterisation, Quantity and Sorptive Properties of Microplastics Extracted From Cosmetics.
Marine Pollution Bulletin (in press). CHECK FONT
61. Barboza, L. G. A., Vethaak, A. D., Lavorante, B. R., Lundebye, A. K., &Guilhermino, L. (2018). Marine microplastics debris: An emerging
issue for food security, food safety and human health. Marine pollution bulletin, 133, 336-348.
62. Liebezeit, G., &Liebezeit, E. (2014). Synthetic particles as contaminants in German beers. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part
A, 31(9), 1574-1578.
63. Seth, C. K., &Shriwastav, A. (2018). Contamination of Indian sea salts with microplastics and a potential prevention strategy.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(30), 30122-30131.
64. Rochman, C. M., Brookson, C., Bikker, J., Djuric, N., Earn, A., Bucci, K., & Hung, C. (2019). Rethinking microplastics as a diverse
contaminant suite. Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 38(4), 703-711.
65. EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain) Statement on the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics
in food, with particular focus on seafood EFSA J., 14 (6) (2016), pp. 4501-4531
66. Carbery, M., O’Connor, W., & Palanisami, T. (2018). Trophic transfer of
microplastics and mixed contaminants in the marine food web and
implications for human health. Environment international, 115, 400-409.
Presence of (micro)plastics in food packaging, agricultural soils, fruits and vegetables, fish and shellfish posing
potential risks to human health through ingestion.
Presence of (micro)plastics in humans and fetus via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure of microplastics
in packed food products, foodstuff, and air.
Incineration of (micro)plastic waste used in waste-to-energy systems contributes to greenhouse gas emissions,
release of atmospheric pollution, and is unsustainable.
Innovation is required for sustainable bio-based alternatives to fossil fuel–based plastics to help contributing to a
circular economy.
Exports of plastic waste from developed to developing countries have been considered waste pollution transfer.
Indiscriminate disposal of plastics in countries with inadequate waste management systems is choking critical
urban infrastructure.
Greenhouse gases are emitted at every step of the plastic life cycle, from production to transportation to waste
disposal.
Extraordinary efforts are required to reduce emissions of (micro)plastics to marine and freshwater ecosystems.
67. Tony R. Walker, (Micro)plastics and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry,
Volume 30, 2021,
To address this gap, Toxics Link has conducted a primary study to access the
presence of microbeads in PCCPs. This is further to an earlier small assessment
done by the organisation. The primary goal of this study is to assess the pres-
ence of microbeads in PCCPs and also to understand the possibility of push-
ing the stakeholders to minimise its usage. This is in line with the SDG goals,
mainly Sustainable Development Goal 14: Life below water. It calls upon states
to prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular
from land-based activities, including marine debris, by 2025.
Objectives in details
Figure 2: Cosmetics samples; (A) face wash samples (F1-F19), (B) scrubs samples (S1-S7); body wash (B1-B9)
Briefly, 20g of each sample was added to a 500-ml beaker with 400 ml of MiliQwater (water that has been purified using resin
filters and deionised to a high degree by a water purification system) in triplicate. MQ water was boiled prior to addition of
the sample. The solution was stirred (670 rpm) on a hot plate at 75°C to achieve a heterogeneous solution. It was then stirred
properly to achieve a heterogeneous solution. Vigorous sample agitation was avoided during extraction to prevent foaming.
The solution was allowed to settle for ≥1 h to precipitate74. Next, the solution was filtered through Whatman filter paper by
using vacuum filtration pump. Filtration was facilitated by gently rinsing the beaker with MQ water to ensure complete
transfer of the sample. After settling for >1 h in the scintillation vial, the excess alcohol was carefully removed using a Pasteur
pipette and the vials were placed in an oven at 80°C overnight to evaporate any residual liquid. Samples were then weighed
to quantify the mass of plastic particles captured on each sieve size.
Materials on the filter papers were observed under a Nikon SMZ18 stereozoom microscope with attached Nikon DS-F2.5
camera and 1X (0.75 – 13.5 zoom) for plastics resembling particles based on their size, colour, shape and structure. The NIS-El-
ements D 5.20.00 software was used for quantification and identification of microplastics-slike particles. The microbeads
were photographed and its size, colour and shape were noted. Finally, microbeads were selected from each sample for further
identification of polymer type by µ-FTIR instrument.
Estimation of microbeads
µ-FTIR analysis
The composition of MPs in each filter paper was identified by using Micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µ-FTIR)
with advanced imaging and microscopy (AIM). The specification of FTIR were as follows; made of Shimadzu, IR tracer and
AIM view software, spectrum resolution 16cm1; number of scans: 100 per sample; mirror used for background correction and
advanced AIM correction. Blank filter was examined to check the air-borne contamination. The test spectra obtained was
compared with the known library spectra for the reference.
The samples were analysed by using Micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR, Model: Shimadzu) attached with
Advanced Imaging & Microscopic in the reflectance mode. Mirror was used for background correction (using Lab solution
software) before the particle polymer detection. The IR light hits the sample from above and reflects back to the detector;
thus, spectra are produced for that particular MP sample. It is observed between the mid infrared regions i.e. 700- 4500 cm-1
with 100 scans per sample with resolution 16cm-1. µ- FTIR analysis of MPs in AIM viewer software for the polymer detection.
Here the samples are analysed for the polymer identification using AIM software.
Selection of the aperture for the selected MP particle and a background scan is run which is followed by sample scan of
the selected aperture.
The spectra are produced for the selected MP particles
The spectra obtained are matched with the FTIR polymer library for the confirmation of the specific polymer in the
particle, which is already mentioned below the spectra.
The figures given below also show the polymer library with other possible matching spectra with their respective scores;
thus we chose the highest matching score for our final results.
Figure 8:
Poly acrylic acid
Figure 9: Ethylene
vinyl alcohol
68. Woodall, L. C., Gwinnett, C., Packer, M., Thompson, R. C., Robinson, L. F., & Paterson, G. L. (2015). Using a forensic science approach
to minimize environmental contamination and to identify microfibres in marine sediments. Marine pollution bulletin, 95(1), 40-46
69. Wesch, C., Elert, A. M., Wörner, M., Braun, U., Klein, R., & Paulus, M. (2017). Assuring quality in microplastics monitoring: About the
value of clean-air devices as essentials for verified data. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1-8
35
Total of from personal care and cosmetics products (Face
wash, Scrub, and Body wash) were analysed to
samples assess microbeads presence.
4 19
5 9
5 7
FACEWASH BODYWASH SCRUB
(F1, F2, F6, F8) (B1, B2, B3, B7, B9) (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5)
Sample Non-polymer
Name Polymer in other forms MP beads
ID beads
Acrilonitrile
F1 Clean & Clear Aqua splash face wash
film
F2 Himalayan oil clear lemon face wash PE
Figure 12: Number of polymer beads extracted per 20g of sample in face wash, body wash and scrub. (UC: uncountable)
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
F1 F2 F6 F8 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 B1 B2 B3 B7 B9
The three maximum weight of the beads extracted per 20g of the samples were 0.85g in NYKAA BODY SCRUB (S5) followed
by 0.69g in NEUTROGENA SCRUB (S2) and 0.54g in CLEAN & CLEAR SCRUB (S4). In contrast, lowest weight of 0.012g per 20g
in HIMALAYAN FACE WASH (F2), 0.087g per 20g in CLEAN & CLEAR FACE WASH (F1) and 0.09g per 20g was obtained for
DOVE BODY WASH (B9) sample as reported in Figure 13. Microbeads may appear insignificant in terms of weight. However,
considering the minuscule particle sizes, the quantity of microbeads emitted could be huge. As a result, microbead emissions
could increase the density of microplastics in the aquatic environment dramatically.
Figure 13: Weight of both polymer and non-polymer microbeads in all samples
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
F1 F2 F6 F8 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 B1 B2 B3 B7 B9
The results were further analysed to check category wise microplastics occurrence.
Out of 19 face wash samples included in the study, plastic polymers were found in 10 samples. Among them, four samples,
namely F1, F2, F6 & F8, have microplastics or plastic microbeads, and six other samples revealed the presence of polymers in
other forms. One of the samples, LAKME FACEWASH (F6), contained both polymer and non-polymer microbeads.
Among the sample detected with microbeads, as can be seen from Figure 11, the highest number of beads, i.e., 4,258 beads per
20g, were found in LAKME FACEWASH (F6). The lowest number of beads was detected in CLEAN & CLEAR AQUA FACE-
WASH (F1) with 238 per 20g of sample. The largest recorded abundance and mass of microplastics measured in PCPs globally
is 31,10,000 particles/g for facial cleansers from Slovenia70.
Among face washes, the maximum microbead weight of 0.27g/20g was estimated in PEARS FACEWASH (F8), while the low-
est weight 0.01296g/20g were found in HIMALAYAN FACE WASH (F2) as shown in Figure 13.
70. Chang, M. (2015). Reducing microplastics from facial exfoliating cleansers in wastewater through treatment versus consumer product
decisions. Marine pollution bulletin, 101(1), 330-333.
Acriloni-
red
Clean & Clear trile film
F1 Spherical 0.087 238
face wash Acriloni-
green
trile film
Himalayan face
F2 PE Spherical 0.01296 blue 316
wash
Everyuth face
F3 Absence Absence Absence Absence
wash
Poly acrylic
F4 Nivea face wash Absence - - -
acid
Garnier face
F5 Absence Absence Absence Absence Absence
wash
Neutrogena Polyvinyl
F15 Absence Absence Absence Absence Absence
facewash alcohol
Lotus herbal
F16 Absence Absence Absence Absence Absence
facial
Patanjali
F18 Absence Absence Absence Absence Absence
facewash
In the case of scrub samples, all seven tested contain beads. Among these, 5 samples, namely S1, S2, S3, S4 & S5, revealed the
presence of polymer. Among the five samples which contain plastic microbeads, one, NIVEA SCRUB (S3), contains both poly-
mer and non-polymer microbeads. Samples S6 and S7 contained non-polymer microbeads.
Among the scrub samples, the highest number of beads was detected in SCRUB (S2) with 17,250 per 20g of beads, whereas
minimum number of beads was found in CLEAN & CLEAR SCRUB (S4) with 2,288 microbeads as illustrated in Figure 12.
Though NYKAA BODY SCRUB (S5), MAMA EARTH FACE SCRUB (S6), and FABEYA FACE AND BODY SCRUB (S7) were found
to have microbeads, the numbers could not be counted, either because of the distortion or because of the tiny size.
Among all the scrub samples, NYKAA BODY SCRUB (S5) showed the maximum weight of 0.85g per 20g whereas VLCC FACE
SCRUB (S1) showed the lowest weight of 0.27g per 20g as shown in Figure 13.
No. of
Polymer Charac- Weight
Sam- Non-poly- Colour beads
Name in other MP Beads teristics of beads Size
ple ID mer beads of beads per
forms of bead per 20 g
20g
Poly Butyl
Red
methacrylate
S1 VLCC Face Scrub Spherical 0.27 5510
PAM White
Ethylene/
S2 Neutrogena scrub Propylene Spherical 0.69 Orange
copolymer 17250
*UC= Uncountable
Body wash
Out of the 9 samples tested, microplastics beads were found in 5, namely B1, B2, B3, B7, B9. Two samples, DOVE BODY WASH
(B9) and ADIDAS SHOWER GEL (B1), also contained beads not made of polymer or non-polymer microbeads. The highest
number of 4,727 microbeads per 20g were found in Fiama shower gel (B2) while the lowest number of 882 microbeads were
found in ADIDAS SHOWER GEL (B1) as shown in Figure 12. Though PALMOLIVE SHOWER GEL (B7) was also detected with
microbeads, it could not be counted due to thei small particle size as shown in Table 6. The highest microbeads of 0.52g per
20g were found in FIAMA SHOWER GEL (B2), whereas the lowest weight of 0.09g per 20g was \in DOVE BODY WASH (B9).
PE White
B3 Nivea shower gel Spherical 1382
Poly 0.21 74.88-
light blue 130.11
acrylic acid
PCCP type Maximum weight of Lowest weight of Highest number Lowest number of
microbeads (per 20g) microbeads (per 20g) of microbeads (per microbeads (per 20g)
20g)
Six different colours (blue, red, white, green, orange and transparent) of MP beads
were identified in the samples as reported in Figure 15. Blue was the most com-
monly detected colour in the MP beads, followed by red and white.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
White Red Blue Green Orange Transparent
Though most PCCP samples contained only one colour of microplastics beads,
there were a few samples with more than one colour. Sample F1 contained red
and green colour microplastics, S1 contained red and white beads and B3 con-
tained white and light blue microplastics.
If we look at different PCCP categaories, face wash samples were detected with
microplastics beads of red, green, blue and white. One sample, CLEAN & CLEAR
32.55 -130.92 µm. white and blue beads but the white beads were non-polymer. S6 and S7 also
had non-polymer beads of brown colour, likely to be a natural material such as
the smaller the size of Body wash samples reported four different colours, namely red, white, blue
and transparent. NIVEA SHOWER GEL (B3) had white and light-bluebeads.
microbeads, the higher the ADIDAS SHOWER GEL (B1) and DOVE BODY WASH (B9) also had beads of two
F6 S3 S6 S7 S3 S3
The size range of all microbeads were measured using stereoscopic analysis. In
all the PCCPs samples, microbeads were found in the size range of 32.55 -130.92
µm as reported in tables 4, 5 and 6. It was also observed that the smaller the size
of microbeads, the higher the number.
Composition
FTIR analysis was successfully carried out for 35 PCCPs samples (19 face wash-
es, 7 scrubs and 9 body washes) to identify the polymers present in these prod-
ucts. Altogether 20 samples were identified with polymers --- 10 face washes
(F1, F2, F4, F6, F8, F9, F11, F15, F17, and F19), 5 scrubs (S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5), and 5
body washes (B1, B2, B3, B7, and B9).
71. Gross M. (2013). Plastic waste is all at sea. Curr Biol, 23(4), R135–R137.
72. Sinha, V. R., Bansal, K., Kaushik, R., Kumria, R., & Trehan, A. (2004). Poly-ϵ-caprolac-
tone microspheres and nanospheres: an overview. International journal of pharma-
ceutics, 278(1), 1-23.
73. Celmo C, Addison M. (2015). Biodegradable microbead alternative for cosmetics.
Fifteenth Annual Freshman Engineering Conference, University of Pittsburgh, the
USA, Paper #5187
74. Havens KJ, Bilkovic DM, Stanhope DM, Angstadt KT. (2013). Method for reduc-
ing marine pollution using polyhydroxyalkanoate microbeads. US Patent, US
20140026916 A1
Banned or
Country Definition Usage Exceptions Law or regulation name
future ban
Taiwan 23/08/2016 Solid plastic Cosmetics used Non-biodegrad- Huan-Shu-Fei-Tzu No.
particles used for washing able plastic is 1060059207
for exfoliation or hair, bathing, included in the
cleaning of the face-washing, ban
body wherein the and soap B;. Facial
scope of particles scrub. C. Tooth-
diameter is smaller paste
than 5mm
South Korea 01/07/2017 Plastic solid plas- NA NA Ministry of Food and Drug
tic<5mm in size Safety Notice No. 2019-352
United England Any water-insol- Personal care
Kingdom 01/01/2018 uble solid plastic products: cleaning,
Scotland particle of less than protecting or per-
19/06/2018 or equal to 5mm in fuming a relevant
Wales any dimension human body part
30/06/2018 N (epidermis, hair,
Ireland 11/03/2019 nails, lips, teeth),
maintaining
mucous mem-
branes of the oral
cavity or restor-
ing its condition
or changing its
appearance
New Zea- 07/06/2018 Water-insoluble Wash-off product Water soluble Waste Minimisation
land plastic particle for: (i) exfoliation, plastic particles, (Microbeads) Regulations
that is <5mm at its (ii) cleaning of medical device or 2017
widest point all or part of a medicine
person’s body, (iii)
abrasive clean-
ing of any area,
surface, or thing,
and (iv) visual
appearance of the
product
USA 01/07/2018 Any solid plastic Intended to be Biodegradable Microbead-Free Waters
particle that is less used to exfoliate plastic Act of 2015
than five millime- or cleanse the
ters in size human body or
any part thereof
(the term‘rinse-off
cosmetic’ includes
toothpaste)
Ireland 14/06/2019 A solid plastic Cosmetic product Water soluble Microbeads (Prohibition)
particle that (a) is Cleansing product particles Act 2019
not water soluble,
and (b) at its widest
dimension is not
>5 mm in extent
Canada 01/07/2019 Plastic microbeads Toiletries Tooth- Prescription drugs Registration SOR_2017-111
that are ≤5mm in pastes Transit products - Microbeads in toiletries
size through Canada
Denmark 01/01/2020 until Intentionally added Rinse-off cosmet- N/A Plastik uden spild—Re-
EU ban microplastics ics geringens Plastikhan-
Possibly leave-on dlingsplan
cosmetics
China 31/12/2020 pro- N/A Daily chemical N/A Order No. 29 of the Na-
duction 31/12/2022 products con- tional Development and
sale taining plastic Reform Commission of the
microbeads People’s Republic of China
Brazil Pending Any solid plastic To clean, lighten, Biodegradable Projeto De Lei N° De 2016
particle less than burn or exfoliate plastic
5mm in size the body or any of
its parts
impact. 199980.
75. Eriksen M, Mason S, Wilson S, Box C, Zellers A, et al. (2013). Microplastics pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great
Lakes. Mar Pollut Bull, 77, 177–182.
76. McCormick A, Hoellein TJ, Mason SA, Schluep J, Kelly JJ. (2014). Microplastics is an abundant and distinct microbial habitat in an
urban river. Environ Sci Technol, 48(20), 11863–11871
77. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2015. Dutch Rally Support for a Europe Wide Microplastics Ban.
78. 2014/893/EU, 2014. COMMISSION DECISION of 9 December 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecola-
bel for rinse-off cosmetic products 47–51.
79. Government of Canada, 2017. Microbeads in toiletries regulations registration SOR/ 2017-111. Can. Gazette II 151 (12), 1349–1376.
80. Girard, N., Lester, S., Paton-Young, A., & Saner, M. (2016). Microbeads:“Tip of the Toxic Plastic-berg”. Regulation, Alternatives, and
Future Implications. Institute for Science, Society and Policy: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 210-230.
Though none of the annexures mention microbeads or plastic beads, there are
some polymers listed in them. Annex A, for example, contains:
81. B. Ólafsdóttir, Minister addresses the United Nations Conference on the Sea 5th of June
82. China’’s National Development and Reform Commission, 2019. Guidance Catalogue for Industrial Structure Adjustment, 2019 edition.
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, China.
83. Drohmann, D., 2018. Regulating microplastics: the global status on microbeads control legislation in cosmetics &personal care prod-
ucts. Int. Chem. Regul. Law Rev. 2, 79–86.
84. Republic of South Korea, 2017. Proposed amendments to the “Regulation on Quasi-drug Approval, Notification and Review” (7 pages,
in Korean).
85. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2018. Legal Limits on Single-Use Plastics and Microplastics: A Global Review of
National Laws and Regulations.
Annex B contains
The current standard as covered in the regulation lacks clarity amd makes it
ambiguous about complete ban of use of microbeads in cosmetics in India.
In our current study, out of the 35 samples tested, 20 (10 face washes, 5 scrubs
and 5 body washes) were detected with presence of polymers. Fourteen
different type of polymers namely, acrilonitrile film, polyethyelene, poly
acrylic, acrilonitrile/butadiene/styrene, polyvinyl alcohol, polyimide,
poly butyl methacrylate, PAM, lanoline, ethylene/propylene copolymer,
polypropylene, LDPE, ethylene/vinyl acetate coploymer, and EVOH were
detected in these 20 samples. Among the 20 samples with polymers, 14 have
microplastics (MP) beads.
Scrubs of Indian brands such VLCC and Nykaa also contained plastic microbeads. Though we did not look at the market share
of these particular brands, most of these are popular brands and do hold a large market share.
Despite the lack of direct evidence, it can be concluded with some confidence that the great majority of microbeads present in
these tested personal care products will be released to the environment. Microbeads or microplastics are often not captured
even when wastewater treatment facilities are available as the sizes vary and the WWTPs are not designed to capture really
small particles. Current sewage treatment facilities are not designed to remove micro- and nano-sized particles.
Even though the sizes and number of particles of polymers (apart from plastic microbeads) detected in the PCCPs have not
been measured, it is unlikely that these will be too large in size and hence these may also go past the WWTPs. The study was
also not designed to test nano particles and it is possible that some of the PCCPs contained those. It is even more unlikely that
nano particles will be captured during treatment.
Once these microbeads and other polymers from the PCCP micro- and nano-plastics enter the marine environment, they
merge with secondary MPs and add to marine pollution. Their small size also makes them accessible to a wide range of
marine organisms, and may facilitate the transfer of pollutants. Though research is relatively new, till now there has been no
permanent effective removal method to eliminate these particles once emitted into the environment.
Though in global context there have been several studies to assess the presence of plastic microbeads in PCCPs, our current
findings fills the knowledge gap in the field of plastic microbead contamination in marine environment in the Indian context.
86. https://www.beiersdorf.com/beiersdorf-live/career-blog/blog-overview/2016/01/2016-01-07-bye-bye-microbeads
87. https://www.unilever.com/brands/Our-products-and-ingredients/Your-ingredient-questions-answered/Plastic-scrub-beads.html
88. https://www.colgatepalmolive.com/en-us/sustainability/our-sustainability-policies/ingredient-safety, accessed on 27th October, 2021
89. https://www.adidas.com/us/blog/361051-the-oceans-death-by-plastic
90. https://sustainablebrands.com/read/behavior-change/johnson-johnson-p-g-tohalt-use-of-microbeads-in-beauty-products
This study looked at 35 PCCPs samples but it is important to look at the wide range of such products available in the market,
especially local products. Also, it is important to look at other range of products like make-up cosmetics that have been tested
globally and tested with microbeads. Further research is also needed to understand better the implications of usage and re-
lease of nano- and micro-sized plastics from PCCPs on humans and marine ecosystem, especially with ingestion and chemical
transfer through the food chain. There is a need for further probe into the health impact resulting from plastic exposure and
associated additives in PCCPs, such as phthalates, in human beings as well.
Given the potential risks of microplastics, a precautionary approach can be recommended with a phase-out and eventual ban
on the usage of plastic microbeads in PCCPs. The current findings can be used to inform scientific communities, regulatory
organisations and the general public, and also push companies to phase out the usage of microplastics in India. The detection
clearly suggests that the companies or brands have made little effort to voluntarily phase out plastic microbeads from their
products. Hence, there is probably a need to push for regulatory measures focusing on cleaner production and including
environmental considerations at the product design stage. It was also important to note that there are products in each cate-
gory (face wash, scrub and body wash) which do not contain plastics. Alternatives are available and are being used by many
companies.
It is important that these measures are initiated at the earliest so that Indian
PCCPs become plastic free.
https://www.instagram.com/toxics_link/
https://www.facebook.com/toxicslink
https://twitter.com/toxicslink
https://www.youtube.com/user/toxicslink2012
www.toxicslink.org