Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Evaluating alternatives to plastic microbeads in cosmetics


In our haste to ban or regulate unsustainable and environmentally damaging materials and chemicals, we may overlook dangers posed by their substitutes. In light of the scientific evidence regarding the fate, persistence and toxicity of microplastics in the marine environment, many countries have banned the sale of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads to prevent their release to the environment. However, the wider lifetime environmental impacts of the potential substitutes have not been considered, and care must be taken so that the environmental costs of using them do not potentially outweigh the benefits resulting from the bans. In this study, we use life cycle assessment to compare the environmental performance of a wide range of potential alternatives. The study investigates the quantities of these materials required and the human health and environmental impacts of their manufacture, transport and inclusion in cosmetics. We highlight that the long-term environmental and human health effects of their disposal are unknown and are thus excluded from the life cycle assessment. In support of the responsible replacement of plastic microbeads in cosmetics, we identify several alternatives that will perform better, as well as substitutes that could pose additional risks and have undesirable effects.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Microbeads in the marine environment.
Fig. 2: The study boundaries.
Fig. 3: Impacts of alternatives grouped according to their origins (mineral, plant and plastic).
Fig. 4: Comparing alternatives to polyethylene.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.


  1. Zitko, V. & Hanlon, M. Another source of pollution by plastics: skin cleaners with plastic scrubbers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 22, 41–42 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gregory, M. R. Plastic ‘scrubbers’ in hand cleansers: a further (and minor) source for marine pollution identified. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 32, 867–871 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fendall, L. S. & Sewell, M. A. Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 1225–1228 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C. & Galloway, T. S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2588–2597 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beach, W. J. Skin cleaner. US patent US3645904A (1972).

  6. Leslie, H. A. Review of Microplastics in Cosmetics (Institute for Environmental Studies, 2014).

  7. Defra Implementation of the Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017 Impact Assessment Report No. Defra2083 (HMSO, 2017).

  8. Cole, M. et al. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 6646–6655 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Management of Marine Debris UNEP/CMS/Resolution 11.30 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2016).

  10. The Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017 UK SI no. 1312 2017 (HMSO, 2017).

  11. Annex XV Restriction Report — Microplastics ECHA/PR/19/03 (European Chemicals Agency, 2019).

  12. Waste Minimisation (Microbeads) Regulations 2017 Vol. 2017/291 (New Zealand Government, 2017).

  13. Product Catalog Vol. LK_Katalog_AEF_V6_2017 (Lipoid Kosmetik AG, 2017).

  14. KEMI Förslag till nationellt förbud mot mikrokorn av plast i kosmetiska produkter (Proposal for a National Ban on Plastic Microbeads in Cosmetic Products) Report No. 2/16 (Kemikalieinspektionen, 2016).

  15. Bryce, E. The race to reinvent microbeads and avoid a plastic disaster. Wired (1 December 2018).

  16. OSPAR Welcomes Cosmetics Industry Microplastics Pledge (OSPAR, 2015);

  17. Plastic in Cosmetics—Are We Polluting the Environment Through Our Personal Care? (United Nations Environment Programme, 2015).

  18. Howard, G. From BPA to BPZ: A Toxic Soup? (CHEMTrust, 2018).

  19. Diquat Dibromide (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, 2009);

  20. Scheebaum, M. V. Biomonitoring of Herbicide Impact Using Aquatic Macrophytes: Laboratory and Field Studies for the Evaluation of Potential Toxicity on Aquatic Plants. PhD thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Univ. (2006).

  21. Woods, J. S., Veltman, K., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Verones, F. & Hertwich, E. G. Towards a meaningful assessment of marine ecological impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA). Environ. Int. 89–90, 48–61 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sonnemann, G. V. et al. Medellin Declaration on Marine Litter in Life Cycle Assessment and Management (FSLCI, 2017);

  23. Downs, C. A. et al. Toxicopathological effects of the sunscreen UV filter, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), on coral planulae and cultured primary cells and its environmental contamination in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 70, 265–288 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moulite, M. Hawaii bans sunscreens that harm coral reefs. CNN (3 July 2018);

  25. Hou, J. et al. Toxicity and mechanisms of action of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in living organisms. J. Environ. Sci. 75, 40–53 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Heller, A., Jarvis, K. & Coffman, S. S. Association of type 2 diabetes with submicron titanium dioxide crystals in the pancreas. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 31, 506–509 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kershaw, P. Exploring the Potential for Adopting Alternative Materials to Reduce Marine Plastic Litter (UNEP, 2018).

  28. Regional Action Plan for Prevention and Management of Marine Litter in the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR, 2014).

  29. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Report No. A/RES/70/1 (UN General Assembly, 2015).

  30. Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and FrameworkISO 14040:2006 (ISO, 2006).

  31. Gouin, T. J. A. et al. Use of micro-plastic beads in cosmetic products in Europe and their estimated emissions to the North Sea environment. Int. J. Appl. Sci. (SOFW J.) 141, 40–46 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Herrmann, I. T. & Moltesen, A. Does it matter which life cycle assessment (LCA) tool you choose? A comparative assessment of SimaPro and GaBi. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 163–169 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ponsioen, T. What’s New in SimaPro 8? (PRé Sustainability B.V., 2013);

  34. Golsteijn, L. ReCiPe (PRé Sustainability B.V., 2012);

  35. Rumble, J. R. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 99th edn (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, 2018).

  36. Alibaba Sourcing Solutions Products by Category (Alibaba, accessed 17 September 2019);

  37. Murphy, F., Ewins, C., Carbonnier, F. & Quinn, B. Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 5800–5808 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sources, Fate and Effects of Plastics in the Marine Environment Report No. 90 (GESAMP, 2015).

  39. Sherrington, C., Darrah, C., Hann, S., Cole, G. & Corbin, M. Study to Support the Development of Measures to Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources (Eunomia, 2016).

  40. Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M. & Tassin, B. Microplastic contamination in an urban area: a case study in Greater Paris. Environ. Chem. (2015).

  41. Mato, Y. et al. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35, 318–324 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. EAC Environmental Impact of Microplastics: Fourth Report of Session 2016–17 Report No. HC 179 (House of Commons, 2016).

  43. Hulme, P., Davis, K. & Hickey, P. CSOs – the past, the present and the future. In CIWEM Urban Drainage Group Annual Conference 2014 (CIWEM, 2014);

  44. Sussarellu, R. et al. Oyster reproduction is affected by exposure to polystyrene microplastics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2430–2435 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. A Threat to Our Rivers: Plumbing Misconnections (Thames 21);

  46. CBD Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status and Potential Solutions Technical Series No. 67 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, GEF, 2012).

  47. Andrady, A. L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 1596–1605 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tanaka, K. et al. Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 69, 219–222 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gregory, M. R. & Andrady, A. L. in Plastics and the Environment (ed. Andrady, A. L.) Ch. 10, 379–401 (John Wiley and Sons, 2003).

  50. Seltenrich, N. New link in the food chain? Marine plastic pollution and seafood safety. Environ. Health Perspect. 123, A34–A41 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank J. Hunt, Marine Litter Policy Lead in the Marine Environment Strategy Team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK, for identifying the policy need that the work presented here aimed to address.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors were involved in the study conceptualization and design. C.F.H. led the writing of the original draft. C.F.H. and N.V. contributed to the review and editing. N.V. led the project supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaos Voulvoulis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Olwenn Martin and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes (Methods and Results), Figs. 1 and 2, Tables 1–6 and references.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hunt, C.F., Lin, W.H. & Voulvoulis, N. Evaluating alternatives to plastic microbeads in cosmetics. Nat Sustain 4, 366–372 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing