The Cleansing Products that are Dirtying the Environment 

In 2018, a study was done by the UC Boulder team, to measure North American urban air pollution in the form of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which upon interaction with sunlight, form ozone and particulate matter – two forms of air pollutants that drastically affect human health and overall urban air quality.  High levels of benzene were recorded from vehicle exhaust but unexpectedly equally high levels of D5 siloxane were also found. This pollutant is not found in vehicle emissions but instead is a common ingredient base for shampoos, lotions and deodorants. Analysis highlighted that siloxane levels were the highest during morning peak hour, leading researchers to propose that such personal-care products were the culprit behind the siloxane pollution. 

This study highlighted that as technology drives cleaner vehicle engines and fuel, urban air pollution may increasingly come from other sources, often which remain largely unresearched and hence of concern. Coggan (2018) argues that ‘personal plumes’ from such beauty products, particularly their chemicals and fragrance components can be as big of a contributor to ozone as the vehicle one takes to work. This then increases the risk of negative health impacts associated with ozone (Figure 1), which is associated with asthma, lung and heart conditions and premature death.

 

Figure 1: Health Effects of Ozone and Air Pollution (Source: Edgy, 2019)

 

Another well known cleansing product that contributes widely to pollution is that of facial wash.  The 2018 St. Ives Apricot Facial Scrub scandal catalysed global awareness regarding microbeads, a pollutive component of many skincare products that makes its way into our waters and global commons. They are defined as small plastic particles below 5 mm (Kaalcikova, 2017) and are often used as exfoliants or enhancers in face washes, scrubs and toothpaste (Barrett, 2016). 

 

Figure 2: St. Ives Facial Scrub at the centre of the controversy (Source: Pai, 2019)

 

A lawsuit was filed against St. Ives, alleging that these microbeads caused microscopic tears in the skin, leading to permanent skin damage (Pai, 2019). However, aside from this negative health effect, microbeads also affect the environment in the form of aquatic pollution, in turn impacting the health and habits of aquatic organisms:

• It can affect the root length and cell viability of aquatic plants like duckweed (Kaalcikova, 2017)
• It can impair swimming of rotifers and sea urchins (Gambardella, 2018)
• Bioaccumulation of microbeads can result from mistaken consumption of microbeads by zooplankton in replacement of food. This leads to the accumulation of microbeads in marine creatures like fish and oysters, building up in the food chain before their eventual consumption by humans (Barrett, 2016). 

The health effects of microbeads on humans are yet to be fully determined but research has shown that they potentially bind with other toxins, including PCBs, causing harmful effects when consumed (Barrett, 2016). In line with the “Precautionary Principle”, referring to the need to act based on not fully 100 percentage scientific evidence, due to the plausible risk to the general public, scientists have advised the public and private sectors to eradicate the use of microbeads. As such, in 2015, US, Canada and several EU nations passed a ban against microbeads. In terms of consumer action, the Beat the Bead campaign has developed a free phone application that scans product barcodes to check for plastic components. Consumers can also look out for the following ingredients to protect themselves and the environment (Aldred, 2016): 

• polyethylene (PE)
• polypropylene (PP)
• polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
• polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)
• polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) 
• nylon

 

Author: Madeleine Shutler

 

References 

Aldred, J. (2016, April 19). Microplastics: Which beauty brands are safe to use? Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/19/microplastics-which-beauty-brands-are-safe-to-use 

Barrett, T., & *, N. (2016, October 03). Microbeads: Bad for You, Bad for the Environment. Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-features/2016/10/03/427839.htm 

Coggon, M. M., Mcdonald, B. C., Vlasenko, A., Veres, P. R., Bernard, F., Koss, A. R., . . . Gouw, J. A. (2018). Diurnal Variability and Emission Pattern of Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) from the Application of Personal Care Products in Two North American Cities. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(10), 5610-5618. doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b00506  

Edgy. (2019, April 16). Do Your Personal Cosmetics Cause Plastic Pollution? Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://edgy.app/cosmetics-cause-plastic-pollution 

Gambardella, C. (2018). Ecotoxicological effects of polystyrene microbeads in a battery of marine organisms belonging to different trophic levels. Marine Environmental Research, 141, 313-321. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.09.023 

Kalcikova, G. (2017). Impact of polyethylene microbeads on the floating freshwater plant duckweed Lemna minor. Environmental Pollution, 230, 1108-1115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.050 

Pai, D. (2019, September 12). Everything You Need to Know About the St. Ives Face Scrub Lawsuit. Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://www.glamour.com/story/st-ives-apricot-scrub-lawsuit