They’re the secret to your bright smile, your crack-free hands, and your luminous skin. We’ve all used them in the myriad of toothpastes and cleaners, scrubs, and creams that we use to maintain our looks and maybe even smooth out the wrinkles. Micro-beads are ever-present on the personal care product scene.
Microbeads are tiny plastic spheres— commercially available in particle sizes from 10 µm to 1000 µm (1 mm)—that are produced for use as mild abrasives. They were first introduced in 1972, and since then, have found their way into more than 100 cosmetic products.
They’re the secret to your bright smile, your crack-free hands, and your luminous skin. We’ve all used them in the myriad of toothpastes and cleaners, scrubs, and creams that we use to maintain our looks and maybe even smooth out the wrinkles. Micro-beads are ever-present on the personal care product scene. Microbeads are tiny plastic spheres— commercially available in particle sizes from 10 µm to 1000 µm (1 mm)—that are produced for use as mild abrasives. They were first introduced in 1972, and since then, have found their way into more than 100 cosmetic products. [text_ad] The problems lie with what happens when personal care products containing microbeads are rinsed away. Beads flow within gray water to sewage collections systems and eventually end up in treatment plants. Consumer assumption may be that treatment plants filter them out. But you and I know that’s simply not true. Microbeads escape along with effluent from treatment plants to the waterways where marine animals (unable to distinguish between food and microplastics) unknowingly consume them. While some species excrete them easily, others do not and therefore accumulate plastic internally. One study found that around 35% of 670 fish tested had microplastics in their stomachs. This is a serious problem, and not only for the fish. Plastics can contain harmful additives such as phthalates and flame retardants. Their ingestion by fish and other marine creatures can mean that these chemicals are passed throughout the food chain, from prey to predator. In addition, the surface of microplastics tends to attract and absorb toxic organic pollutants such as PCBs and DDT from the marine environment. Scientists predict that over time, pollutants will accumulate in marine species and ultimately be damaging to the humans who consume them. Microbeads are tiny enough to fit through wastewater filters. Unless water treatment facilities employ some form of advanced, tertiary filtration such as membrane microfiltration, continuous backwash upflow duel sand microfiltration, or rapid sand filters, beads are transported with effluent. But this additional filtration equipment is cost prohibitive. The Office of the Attorney General’s 2014 study reviewed 610 New York State wastewater treatment plants. Out of 34 treatment plants that submitted effluent samples, microbeads were detected in 25. Something had to be done. But retrofitting treatment plants to provide microfiltration to remove microplastics would be costly. And the reality is that upgrading each treatment plant would cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Policy makers have realized that the only way to keep microbeads from global waterways is to stop them from entering the waste stream to begin with. Since global plastic production is over 280 million tons and growing, this decision seems especially noteworthy. On December 7, 2015 H.R. 1321, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, was signed unanimously by the House. It bans rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads. Manufacturing will be prohibited as of July, 2017 and the product ban goes into effect in January of 2018. The legislative action to eliminate microbeads is welcome in that it eliminates an environmental hazard and prevents excessive retrofitting costs for water treatment facilities. But the discussion also makes us wonder what other products are problematic for facilities to remove? Which should be eliminated at the manufacturing level?
The problems lie with what happens when personal care products containing microbeads are rinsed away. Beads flow within gray water to sewage collections systems and eventually end up in treatment plants. Consumer assumption may be that treatment plants filter them out. But you and I know that’s simply not true.
Microbeads escape along with effluent from treatment plants to the waterways where marine animals (unable to distinguish between food and microplastics) unknowingly consume them. While some species excrete them easily, others do not and therefore accumulate plastic internally. One study found that around 35% of 670 fish tested had microplastics in their stomachs. This is a serious problem, and not only for the fish.
Plastics can contain harmful additives such as phthalates and flame retardants. Their ingestion by fish and other marine creatures can mean that these chemicals are passed throughout the food chain, from prey to predator.
In addition, the surface of microplastics tends to attract and absorb toxic organic pollutants such as PCBs and DDT from the marine environment. Scientists predict that over time, pollutants will accumulate in marine species and ultimately be damaging to the humans who consume them.
Microbeads are tiny enough to fit through wastewater filters. Unless water treatment facilities employ some form of advanced, tertiary filtration such as membrane microfiltration, continuous backwash upflow duel sand microfiltration, or rapid sand filters, beads are transported with effluent. But this additional filtration equipment is cost prohibitive.
The Office of the Attorney General’s 2014 study reviewed 610 New York State wastewater treatment plants. Out of 34 treatment plants that submitted effluent samples, microbeads were detected in 25. Something had to be done. But retrofitting treatment plants to provide microfiltration to remove microplastics would be costly. And the reality is that upgrading each treatment plant would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Policy makers have realized that the only way to keep microbeads from global waterways is to stop them from entering the waste stream to begin with. Since global plastic production is over 280 million tons and growing, this decision seems especially noteworthy. On December 7, 2015 H.R. 1321, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, was signed unanimously by the House. It bans rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads. Manufacturing will be prohibited as of July, 2017 and the product ban goes into effect in January of 2018.
The legislative action to eliminate microbeads is welcome in that it eliminates an environmental hazard and prevents excessive retrofitting costs for water treatment facilities. But the discussion also makes us wonder what other products are problematic for facilities to remove? Which should be eliminated at the manufacturing level?
