Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2025 Apr 7;32(17):11063–11071. doi: 10.1007/s11356-025-36341-3

State of microbeads in facial scrubs: persistence and the need for broader regulation

Christelle Not 1,2,✉, Kayi Chan 1,2, Mandy Wing Kwan So 1,2,3, Woody Lau 1,2, Lilia Tsz-Wing Tang 1,2, Coco Ka Hei Cheung 1,2
PMCID: PMC12014694  PMID: 40195225

Abstract

Microbeads are small spherical plastic particles used as exfoliants in personal care products. Unfortunately, they have been found in the marine environment and are considered a significant contributor to global plastic pollution. In response, several countries have implemented microbead bans over the last few years. Here, we examined the exfoliant (scrubbing particles) composition of 28 facial scrubs from different regions in the presence and absence of microbead bans. We identified that over half of the exfoliant types identified in this study are microbeads, revealing the persistence of microbeads across various stages of microbead ban implementation. In regions with full bans, six out of eight products still contain microbeads, with some containing up to 6298 ± 1543 beads per gram of facial wash, suggesting the need for stronger legislation enforcement. We also identified challenges in distinguishing between microbeads composed of conventional plastics and synthetic waxes by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. This study highlights the need to broaden the scope of microbead bans to include synthetic waxes, as they are not currently regulated. These findings underscore the importance of a broader and clearly articulated definition of microbeads in legislation to guide industry formulation and consumer choice of microbead-free products.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11356-025-36341-3.

Keywords: Microplastic, Microbeads, Ban, Spectroscopy, Global plastic pollution, PCCPs

Introduction

Larger plastic debris (> 5 mm), known as macroplastics, fragment into microplastics (≤ 5 mm) under the influence of UV radiation, wind, and microbial activity (Andrady 1994, 2011; Corcoran et al. 2009; Efimova et al. 2018; Min et al. 2020; So et al. 2022; Cheung and Not 2024a, 2024b). These microplastics, identified as secondary microplastics, represent a majority of the microplastics found in the ocean. Meanwhile, 15–31% of microplastics originate from primary sources (primary microplastics), where plastic pieces are intentionally manufactured to be smaller than 5 mm in size (Boucher and Friot 2017). Given their ubiquitous presence and minute size, microplastics are readily available to be ingested by a wide range of marine organisms from various trophic levels with different foraging strategies (Ritchie and Roser 2018; So et al. 2023).

Microbeads, spherical beads used as scrubbing agent in personal care or cosmetic products (PCCPs), are one of the most commonly found primary microplastic in the oceans (Eriksen et al. 2013; Isobe et al. 2015; Cheung and Fok 2016). Since the late 1990s, these small plastic exfoliants, typically spherical in shape with a diameter around 200–400 μm and mainly composed of polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP), have been replacing natural materials such as pumice, oatmeal, and walnut husk in exfoliating skin cleansers (Fendall and Sewell 2009; New York State Attorney General 2014; Dauvergne 2018). Napper et al. (2015) estimated that up to 94,500 microbeads could be washed down the drain in a single use, with 2–10% escaping wastewater treatment, resulting in a non-negligible release into the marine environment (Murphy et al. 2016; Duis and Coors 2016). Conversely, sludge cakes that capture microbeads during the waste treatment process are utilized as agricultural fertilizers, allowing microbeads to enter the marine environment via runoff (Rochman et al. 2015; Boucher et al. 2016; Murphy et al. 2016; So et al. 2018). Increasing public awareness and concern about the unnecessary nature of these single-use plastic microbeads has prompted action from manufacturers and policy-makers. Multinational companies including Johnson and Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Target Corporation, The Body Shop, and L’Oréal have pledged to phase out microbeads from their products (Rochman et al. 2015). Full bans on the manufacture, import, and sale of products containing microbeads took effect in the United States (US), Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (UK) in 2018 and 2019. European countries including Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, and Sweden followed with full bans in 2020. Dauvergne (2018) estimates that the combined effect of these bans will lead to a 1–2% reduction in microbead emission into the environment over the next decade.

In this study, we acquired a total of 28 facial scrub products sourced from various regions that are at different stages of implementing bans on microbeads. Our primary objectives were to (1) investigate the prevalence of microbeads in the market, (2) evaluate the effect of legislations regulating microbeads in PCCPs, and (3) identify potential gaps in the legislation to advance efforts to combat microbead pollution. More precisely, we first aim to assess how widely microbeads are still present in these products, despite the growing awareness and regulatory efforts aimed at reducing their use. Secondly, we analyzed the impact of existing laws on the formulation and sale of facial scrubs, determining whether these regulations have successfully reduced the presence of microbeads in the marketplace. Finally, by examining the current regulatory frameworks, we seek to uncover shortcomings or inconsistencies that may hinder effective combat against microbead pollution. This insight will help inform future legislative actions aimed at protecting the environment and public health. To our knowledge, such evaluation has not been done for personal care products bought in different parts of the world.

Materials and methods

Facial scrub samples

We purchased 28 facial scrubs representing eight brands and seven regions including Canada, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, Italy, Japan, Scotland (UK), and the United States (US). Of the 28 scrubs, eight bottles were purchased in a region where microbead ban legislation was implemented (Canada, US and UK; CA4-CA6, US5, UK1-UK4), nine bottles were purchased in a region where ban legislation was announced but yet to be implemented (Canada, US and Italy; CA1-CA3, US1-US4, IT1, IT2), and 11 bottles were purchased in a region with no legislation in place (Hong Kong SAR, Japan and Germany; HK1-HK4, JP1-JP4, DE1-DE3) (Table 1) at the time of the purchases.

Table 1.

List of the 28 facial scrub samples tested in this study, with details of their region of purchase, product brand, date of purchase, ban implementation stage (at the time of purchase), microbead detection, and microbead abundance

Sample Region of purchase Brand Date of purchase Ban implementation stage (at purchase) Microbeads detected Microbead abundance (per g of product)
HK1 Hong Kong SAR Brand 6 12/2018 No ban Yes 12,284 ± 1300
HK2 Hong Kong SAR Brand 2 12/2018 No ban - -
HK3 Hong Kong SAR Brand 1 12/2018 No ban - -
HK4 Hong Kong SAR Brand 2 12/2018 No ban Yes 86 ± 10
JP1 Japan Brand 7 01/2019 No ban (Voluntary) Yes 4062 ± 1777
JP2 Japan Brand 1 01/2019 No ban (Voluntary) - -
JP3 Japan Brand 6 06/2019 No ban (Voluntary) - -
JP4 Japan Brand 8 06/2019 No ban (Voluntary) Yes 839 ± 73
DE1 Germany Brand 2 01/2019 No ban (Voluntary) Yes 64 ± 12
DE2 Germany Brand 5 01/2019 No ban (Voluntary) - -
DE3 Germany Brand 3 01/2019 No ban (Voluntary) - -
CA1a Canada Brand 1 12/2018 Announced Yes 6188 ± 404
CA2b Canada Brand 2 12/2018 Announced Yes 89 ± 3
CA3 Canada Brand 3 12/2018 Announced - -
US1 United States Brand 4 01/2019 Announced Yes 133 ± 19
US2 United States Brand 1 01/2019 Announced Yes 2891 ± 762
US3c United States Brand 2 01/2019 Announced Yes 26 ± 1
US4 United States Brand 5 01/2019 Announced - -
IT1 Italy Brand 3 12/2018 Announced - -
IT2 Italy Brand 5 12/2018 Announced - -
CA4b Canada Brand 2 01/2020 Implemented Yes 81 ± 10
CA5 Canada Brand 4 01/2020 Implemented Yes 124 ± 5
CA6a Canada Brand 1 01/2020 Implemented Yes 6298 ± 1543
US5c United States Brand 2 01/2020 Implemented Yes 24 ± 5
UK1 Scotland Brand 2 01/2019 Implemented Yes 5671 ± 1970
UK2 Scotland Brand 1 01/2019 Implemented Yes 7851 ± 1328
UK3 Scotland Brand 5 01/2019 Implemented - -
UK4 Scotland Brand 3 01/2019 Implemented - -
Open in a new tab

a, b, c: Paired products, which were the same products from the same brand purchased in the same region before and after microbead bans were enacted

Sample preparation

We dissolved 1–2 g of facial scrub in boiling water and extracted insoluble particles using gravity filtration on an 11-μm filter paper (Cheung and Fok 2017). We dried samples to a constant weight at 55℃ and gently scraped off all insoluble particles from the filter paper into a glass petri dish to allow for sorting by colour and shape as well as quantification. Three replicates of the above procedure were performed for each bottle, resulting in a total of 84 samples.

Sample analysis and quantification

Based on shape and colour, representative samples for each type of insoluble particle were selected in triplicate. Particle composition was identified using the Bruker LUMOS II microscope in attenuated total reflectance mode (FTIR-ATR). Each particle was measured with 32 scans per measurement, generating a mean spectrum in the range of 600–4000 cm−1 with a resolution of 4 cm−1 (Cheung and Fok 2016). Using the Bruker OPUS software, sample spectra were compared to reference spectra contained in the ATR FTIR Complete Vol. 1–4 and ACLAB.S01 libraries. Polymer identification was based on the highest hit quality index (HQI) returned. Each type of particle identified as plastic by FTIR-ATR was also measured by Raman spectroscopy using the point acquisition mode of a Renishaw inVia confocal Raman microscope (Wotton-under Edge, UK) with a Leica 10 × objective lens and a 785-nm edge laser. Raman spectra were obtained using 0.05–0.5% laser power for 10 s in a Raman shift range of 603–1717 cm−1. Standard baseline correction, cosmic ray removal, and smoothing was performed using the Renishaw WiRE 5.5 software. Sample Raman spectra were compared to reference spectra of the Renishaw Polymeric Materials Database. Polymer identification was based on a matching index value > 0.7 (Leung et al. 2021).

Particles identified as synthetic polymers by FTIR and Raman analyses were classified as microbeads, which were then counted using the multipoint tool in the Image J software on scanned images of the petri dishes. For each type of microbead, 30 microbeads were selected randomly and the diameter was measured using a Zeiss Stemi 305 Stereo Zoom microscope and Zeiss Labscope software. For non-spherical microbeads, the maximum span was measured instead.

Results

Insoluble particles (i.e. exfoliants) in each facial scrub sample were characterized into types based on their shape, colour, and composition. In total, 42 types of exfoliants were identified from 28 bottles of facial scrub. Of these 42 types, 20 were identified by FTIR as non-plastic polymers (including cotton, cotton/flax, cellulose swab, castor oil hydrogenated, and agarose). Most of the non-plastic exfoliants were spherical in shape (17 out of 20 types, 85%). Out of the 20 types of non-plastic exfoliants, nine were white (45%), eight were blue (40%), two were orange (10%), and one was black (5%) in colour (Table 2).

Table 2.

Characterization of exfoliants extracted from 28 facial scrub samples, including the presence of microbeads, their shape, colour, chemical composition, and average size

Sample No. of types of exfoliants No. of types of microbeads Total no. of microbeads (per g of product) Exfoliant characteristics
Microbead Shape Colour Polymer identification by FTIR Polymer verification by Raman Average microbead size (mm)
CA1a 2 2 6188 ± 404 ✓ Round White Polyethylene wax PE 0.194 ± 0.065
✓ Round Orange PE PE 0.413 ± 0.107
CA2b 1 1 89 ± 3 ✓ Round Blue PE PE 0.427 ± 0.133
CA3 2 0 / Round Blue Cotton + flax (60:40) / /
Round White Cotton / /
CA4b 1 1 81 ± 10 ✓ Round Blue PE PE 0.432 ± 0.124
CA5 2 1 124 ± 5 ✓ Round Purple PE PE 0.352 ± 0.077
Round White Cotton flax / /
CA6a 2 2 6298 ± 1543 ✓ Round Orange PE PE 0.466 ± 0.111
✓ Round White Dyneema/PE PE 0.305 ± 0.109
US1 2 1 133 ± 19 ✓ Round Purple Microcrystalline wax PE 0.364 ± 0.085
Round White Cellulose swab /
US2 2 2 2891 ± 762 ✓ Round White PE PE 0.309 ± 0.053
✓ Round Blue PE PE 0.361 ± 0.092
US3c 2 1 26 ± 1 ✓ Round Blue PE PE 0.724 ± 0.114
Round White Cellulose swab / /
US4 1 0 / Round Blue Castor oil, hydrogenated / /
US5c 2 1 24 ± 5 ✓ Round Blue PE PE 0.648 ± 0.08
Round White Cellulose swab / /
HK1 2 2 12403 ± 1301 ✓ Round White Tetracontane PE 0.555 ± 0.131
✓ Irregular White Tetracontane PE 0.593 ± 0.130
HK2 1 0 / Irregular Orange Agarose / /
HK3 2 0 / Irregular Black Cotton + flax (60:40) / /
Irregular White Cotton / /
HK4 1 1 86 ± 10 ✓ Round Blue PE PE 0.436 ± 0.113
JP1 1 1 4062 ± 1777 ✓ Irregular White PE PE 0.525 ± 0.152
JP2 1 0 / Round Orange PFR Rayon, Rayon fiber / /
JP3 1 0 / Round White 1,2,3-Propantyltridocosanoate / /
JP4 1 1 839 ± 73 ✓ Round White Vexar plastic netting, Olefin fiber PE 0.590 ± 0.125
IT1 2 0 / Round Blue Cotton + flax (60:40) / /
Round White Cotton + flax (60:40) / /
IT2 1 0 / Round Blue Castor oil, hydrogenated / /
DE1 1 1 64 ± 12 ✓ Round Orange PE PE 0.499 ± 0.16
DE2 1 0 / Round Blue Mobil SHC (synthetic for high temperature, roiling oil) / /
DE3 1 0 / Round Blue Cotton / /
UK1 2 2 5671 ± 1970 ✓ Round Green PE PE 0.500 ± 0.083
✓ Round White Copolymer EPDM Polyvinyl stearate/PE 0.229 ± 0.027
UK2 2 2 7851 ± 1328 ✓ Round White PE PE 0.237 ± 0.065
✓ Round Orange PE PE 0.438 ± 0.118
UK3 1 0 / Round Blue Pantone black natural 10009 (dried) / /
UK4 2 0 / Round Blue Cotton + flax (60:40) / /
Round White Cellulose swab / /
Open in a new tab

a, b, c: Paired products, which were the same products from the same brand purchased in the same region before and after microbead bans were enacted

The remaining 22 types of insoluble particles were identified by FTIR as plastics (PE, olefin, and copolymer EPDM) or plastic-like polymers (PE wax, microcrystalline wax, and tetracontane) (Hartmann et al. 2019). Raman analysis also confirmed that the 22 types of insoluble particles were indeed plastics (PE and Polyvinyl stearate/PE). The majority of these microbeads were spherical in shape (20 out of 22 types, 91%) and came in a wide range of colours of which nine were white (41%), six were blue (27%), four were orange (18%), two were purple (9%), and one was green (5%) (Table 2).

Thus, of the 28 bottles of facial scrub tested, 12 bottles (43%) did not contain microbeads (HK2, HK3, JP2, JP3, DE2, DE3, CA3, US4, IT1, IT2, UK3, UK4; Table 1), while 16 bottles (57%) were found to contain microbeads. Of these 16 bottles, six bottles contained only a single type of microbeads (CA2, CA4, HK4, JP1, JP4, DE1), six bottles contained a mixture of two types of microbeads (CA1, CA6, US2, HK1, UK1, UK2), and the remaining four bottles contained a mixture of microbeads and non-plastic exfoliants (CA5, US1, US3, US5) (Table 2). In the 16 bottles, the concentration of microbeads ranged from 24 ± 5 (US5) to 12,284 ± 1300 (HK1) beads per gram of facial wash (Table 2), and the size of microbeads ranged from 0.194 ± 0.065 mm up to 0.724 ± 0.114 mm (Table 2; Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Images of microbeads (left axis), microbead abundance per gram of facial scrub (top axis), and size distribution of microbeads in millimeters (bottom axis) for each facial scrub sample. Facial scrub samples were labelled in black to represent the purchasing regions with no ban, orange for regions with bans announced but yet to be implemented, and red for regions with full ban implementation. a, b, c: Paired products, which were the same products from the same brand purchased in the same region before and after microbead bans were enacted. Types of microbeads were abbreviated as Shape_Colour (e.g. ‘RO’ denotes round orange microbeads). Shapes were abbreviated as ‘R’ for spherical microbeads and ‘I’ for irregularly shaped microbeads. Colours were abbreviated as follows: ‘O’ for orange; ‘W’ for white; ‘B’ for blue; ‘P’ for purple; ‘G’ for green

Discussion

Exfoliant composition

Through composition analysis of our facial scrub samples, we identified natural organic materials including cotton, flax, and cellulose as the exfoliant in 16 out of 28 facial scrubs (Table 2). This finding aligns with the new market trends that biodegradable alternatives are replacing microbeads (Venus 2020). However, these natural alternatives only comprised 48% of the types of facial exfoliants present in this study (20 out of 42 types), while the remaining were identified as microbeads (52%, 22 out of 42 types) (Table 2).

Microbeads identified in this study are all composed of synthetic polymers, and can be classified into two groups: conventional plastics and plastic-like polymers. As suggested by FTIR and Raman analyses, the major types of microbeads (82%, 18 out of 22 types) extracted in this study appear to be composed of conventional plastics that include PE (CA1, CA2, CA4-CA6, US2, US3, US5, HK4, JP1, DE1, UK1, UK2), olefin (JP4), and copolymer EPDM or polyvinyl stearate/PE (UK1). Meanwhile, the remaining (18%, 4 out of 22 types) are composed of plastic-like polymers, including PE wax (CA1), microcrystalline wax (US1), and tetracontane (HK1) (Table 2). Noticeably, microbeads remain dominant in facial scrubs in regions with microbead ban implemented, with more than half of their exfoliants found to be microbeads (64%, 9 out of 14 types) (Table 1; Table 2). Our results demonstrate the prevalent use of microbeads as facial exfoliants despite the existence of natural alternatives, implying the need for stronger legislative or market initiatives to drive the material shift from microbeads to non-plastic exfoliants in these products.

Microbead abundance in facial scrubs

The quantity of microbeads in facial scrubs varied greatly where almost half of the products tested (43%) did not contain any microbeads. For the remaining products that were found to contain microbeads (57%), we noticed that these products could be roughly categorized into those that contained relatively low quantities of microbeads versus products that contained a much higher abundance (Table 1; Fig. 1). The lower concentration products generally contain around 100 microbeads per gram of facial wash. In contrast, the high-concentration products contain thousands of microbeads per gram. Our results show that more than 96% of the microbeads are present in just seven products (HK1, JP1, CA1, US2, CA6, UK1, UK2), while all of these high concentration products except JP1 contain two types of microbeads (Fig. 1). This finding suggests that a small number of products may play a dominant role in the release of microbeads into the environment and targeting these specific products could have a big impact in efforts to combat microbead pollution.

Effect of microbead bans

Our study reveals the persistence of microbeads in products across different implementation stages of microbead bans (Table 1). In particular, microbeads are detected in six out of eight products in regions with microbead bans in place, with concentrations ranging from 24 ± 5 to 6298 ± 1543 beads per gram of facial wash, which suggests the limited influence of microbead bans. This finding is supported when we compare the paired products (products from identical brands and regions purchased prior to and following ban implementation) as microbeads were found to be persistently present (Table 1). In addition, the consistent concentration, colour, shape, size distribution, and polymer composition of microbeads in these products (Table 2; Fig. 1) also indicate the limited effectiveness of bans to induce market shifts from plastics to natural alternatives.

Interestingly, some brands produced products that were consistently microbead-free regardless of the state of any legislation (Table 1). Specifically, products from Brand 3 and Brand 5 only utilized natural alternatives such as cotton, flax, and cellulose as exfoliants in their products. It is worth noting that these brands have made public commitments to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues, indicating that market incentives may play an important role in driving changes towards more sustainable product production (Dauvergne 2018; Diana et al. 2022).

Broadening and unifying ban coverage

The two groups of microbeads identified in this study—conventional plastics and plastic-like polymers—vary in their market restrictions despite their similar chemical compositions. Microbeads produced with conventional plastics including PE, PP, and PET are widely banned in countries with legislation in place. Meanwhile, the banning of plastic-like polymers (for example, synthetic waxes) is still under debate as these materials are more likely to melt at lower temperature and are utilized as ‘liquid polymers’ by manufacturers (Munno et al. 2018; Dauvergne 2018).

In fact, synthetic wax is a long petroleum-based polymer that closely resembles PE. Despite the wide adoption of FTIR to identify plastics, distinguishing between wax and PE by FTIR can be challenging due to their similar compositions (Habib et al. 2020). This is also demonstrated in the present study as all conventional plastic microbeads we detected (mainly PE) were listed as plastic-like polymers on product ingredient lists, namely ‘synthetic wax’ (in CA1, CA6, US2, US3, US5, UK2), ‘microcrystalline wax’ (in CA5, US2, HK4), ‘cera microcristallina’ (in CA1, CA2, CA4, CA6, DE1, UK1, UK2), and ‘paraffin’ (in JP1, JP4) (Table S1). The clear mismatch between the labelled and the identified microbead compositions suggests that PE and synthetic wax have very similar compositions that can hardly be differentiated. On the other hand, a previous study by Akhbarizadeh et al. (2024) suggested that PE microbeads are primarily irregularly shaped while PE wax are primarily spherically shaped. However, our study shows that a majority of round-shaped microbeads are composed from PE (or olefin) (Table 2), which does not align with previous findings and indicates that distinguishing wax and PE in facial products by their shapes may not be practical. Given that one group of microbeads (conventional polymers) is banned but the other group (plastic-like polymers) is not, the difficulty in differentiating the two by their chemical compositions and physical properties may pose challenges in monitoring manufacturers’ compliance to microbead bans.

Synthetic wax (namely PE wax, microcrystalline wax, cera microcristallina, and paraffin) is commonly used as an exfoliant in personal care products. For instance, the present study and other studies have detected wax in facial wash products (Cheung and Fok 2016; Nawalage and Bellanthudawa 2022; Jasmine et al. 2024; Akhbarizadeh et al. 2024), indicating its prevalence as an exfoliant. Yet, given its extremely similar chemical composition and physical properties to conventional plastic microbeads in facial scrubs, synthetic wax is surprisingly not listed in any of the bans.

According to Dauvergne (2018), the PCCP industry views wax as a semi-liquid ingredient applied in cosmetics, which is not considered a plastic as long as it is not in a solid form, as defined by U.S. federal law (Strifling 2016). However, given the fact that synthetic wax has a lower melting point than conventional plastics, their potential impacts as a plastic pollutant cannot be ignored. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (1995), the melting point of microcrystalline wax ranges from 62 to 102 °C, which closely resembles the findings of Habib et al. (2020) that softening point of microbeads in cosmetic products ranges from 65 to 123 °C. This implies that synthetic wax microbeads may remain as solids (i.e. plastics) in real-life scenarios. In particular, they may survive wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) treatment, which typically operates at temperatures ranging from 20 to 35 °C, and be subsequently discharged into the marine environment. Therefore, there is a crucial need to develop a better understanding of the potential ecological impacts of synthetic wax as well as to consider including synthetic wax in ban legislation.

Indeed, the current scope of ban legislation varies significantly between regions, leading to a lack of clear guidelines for international manufacturers on which materials to avoid. For example, South Korea has banned the 22 plastic components listed by UNEP (2015) in facial scrubs, while the US and France have banned bioplastic alternatives (Venus 2020). Hence, it is crucial to refine the scope of microbead bans to facilitate mutual understanding and ensure collective efforts towards combating the targeted pollutants. Providing more specific descriptions on microbead compositions and physical characteristics will facilitate the manufacturers’ comprehension and enhance their capacity to comply with microbead bans and formulate microbead-free products.

Conclusion

Our study reveals that microbeads are still present in facial products after microbead ban implementation, indicating the need for further actions. We have identified a small number of products that contribute significantly to microbead release, suggesting that targeting these specific products could have a significant impact on reducing microbead pollution. To improve microbead ban effectiveness, our study suggests expanding the scope of microbead bans to include other plastic-like polymers, such as synthetic wax (commercially labelled as ‘synthetic wax’, ‘microcrystalline wax’, ‘cera microcristallina’, and ‘paraffin’), which are commonly used as an alternative to conventional plastic microbeads. These plastic-like microbeads not only share a similar chemical composition to conventional microbeads but may also be discharged as solid particles much like conventional microbeads. As their environmental impacts are yet to be determined, a precautionary approach to the management of these particles would be recommended. Additionally, the use of natural exfoliants as a replacement to both these plastic-like and conventional microbeads should be prioritized to ensure no further harm to the environment. Meanwhile, it is essential to establish global consensus on microbeads to provide clear guidelines for international manufacturers and to achieve the shared goal of eliminating microbeads from personal care and cosmetic products globally.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1091 KB) (1.1MB, docx)
Supplementary file2 (PDF 224 KB) (224.4KB, pdf)

Author contribution

This study was conceptualized by Kayi Chan and supervised by Christelle Not. Material preparation, investigation, and data curation were performed by Kayi Chan, Mandy Wing Kwan So, Woody Lau, and Lilia Tsz Wing Tang. Data analysis and the manuscript were conducted and written by Kayi Chan, Mandy Wing Kwan So, and Coco Ka Hei Cheung. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research receives funding from the Science Faculty of the University of Hong Kong under the research impact fund.

Data availability

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information files. Datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval

In conducting the research, all prevailing local, national, and international regulations and conventions, and normal scientific ethical practices, have been respected.

Consent to participate

This research does not involve human subjects.

Consent to publish

This research does not involve human subjects.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interest.

Footnotes

Highlights

• Microbeads are present in facial scrubs across different ban implementation stages.

• Less than half of the identified exfoliant types are natural.

• Certain scrubs contain up to 12284 ± 1300 microbeads per gram of products.

• Six of eight products under full ban contain microbeads (24 to 6298 per g of scrub).

• Synthetic wax should be included in a broader microbead definition for bans.

Publisher's Note

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

References

  1. Akhbarizadeh R, Yu JT, Ead L, Nicholls E, Thibeau J, Lanisa M, ... Helm PA (2024) Reductions of plastic microbeads from personal care products in wastewater effluents and lake waters following regulatory actions. ACS ES&T Water. 10.1021/acsestwater.3c00526.s001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Andrady AL (1994) Assessment of environmental biodegradation of synthetic polymers. J Macromol Sci Part C: Polym Rev 34(1):25–76. 10.1080/15321799408009632 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrady AL (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 62(8):1596–1605. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Boucher C, Morin M, Bendell LI (2016) The influence of cosmetic microbeads on the sorptive behavior of cadmium and lead within intertidal sediments: a laboratory study. Reg Stud Mar Sci 3:1–7. 10.1016/j.rsma.2015.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boucher J, Friot D (2017) Primary microplastics in the oceans: a global evaluation of sources. Vol. 10. Gland, Switzerland: Iucn. 10.2305/iucn.ch.2017.01.en
  6. Cheung CKH, Not C (2024a) Early signs of plastic degradation and fragmentation: a 40-day study in marine environments. Mar Pollut Bull 207:116809. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116809 [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Cheung CK, Not C (2024b) Degradation efficiency of biodegradable plastics in subtropical open-air and marine environments: implications for plastic pollution. Sci Total Environ, pp 173397. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173397 [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Cheung PK, Fok L (2016) Evidence of microbeads from personal care product contaminating the sea. Mar Pollut Bull 109(1):582–585. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheung PK, Fok L (2017) Characterisation of plastic microbeads in facial scrubs and their estimated emissions in Mainland China. Water Res 122:53–61. 10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Corcoran PL, Biesinger MC, Grifi M (2009) Plastics and beaches: a degrading relationship. Mar Pollut Bull 58(1):80–84. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.08.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dauvergne P (2018) The power of environmental norms: marine plastic pollution and the politics of microbeads. Environ Polit 27(4):579–597. 10.1080/09644016.2018.1449090 [Google Scholar]
  12. Diana Z, Reilly K, Karasik R, Vegh T, Wang Y, Wong Z, ... Virdin J (2022) Voluntary commitments made by the world’s largest companies focus on recycling and packaging over other actions to address the plastics crisis. One Earth 5(11):1286–1306. 10.1016/j.oneear.2022.10.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Duis K, Coors A (2016) Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment: sources (with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects. Environ Sci Eur 28(1):2. 10.1186/s12302-015-0069-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Efimova I, Bagaeva M, Bagaev A, Kileso A, Chubarenko IP (2018) Secondary microplastics generation in the sea swash zone with coarse bottom sediments: laboratory experiments. Front Mar Sci 5:313. 10.3389/fmars.2018.00313 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fendall LS, Sewell MA (2009) Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar Pollut Bull 58(8):1225–1228. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Habib RZ, Abdoon MMS, Al Meqbaali RM, Ghebremedhin F, Elkashlan M, Kittaneh WF, ... Al Kindi R (2020) Analysis of microbeads in cosmetic products in the United Arab Emirates. Environ Pollut 258:113831. 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113831 [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Hartmann NB, Huffer T, Thompson RC, Hassellöv M, Verschoor A, Daugaard AE, ... Wagner M (2019) Are we speaking the same language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. 10.1021/acs.est.8b05297 [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Isobe A, Uchida K, Tokai T, Iwasaki S (2015) East Asian seas: a hot spot of pelagic microplastics. Mar Pollut Bull 101(2):618–623. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jasmine TY, Helm PA, Diamond ML (2024) Source-specific categorization of microplastics in nearshore surface waters of the Great Lakes. J Great Lakes Res 50(1):102256. 10.1016/j.jglr.2023.102256 [Google Scholar]
  20. Leung MML, Ho YW, Maboloc EA, Lee CH, Wang Y, Hu M, ... Fang JKH (2021) Determination of microplastics in the edible green-lipped mussel Perna viridis using an automated mapping technique of Raman microspectroscopy. J Hazard Mater 420:126541. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126541 [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Min K, Cuiffi JD, Mathers RT (2020) Ranking environmental degradation trends of plastic marine debris based on physical properties and molecular structure. Nat Commun 11(1):727. 10.1038/s41467-020-14538-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Munno K, Helm PA, Jackson DA, Rochman C, Sims A (2018) Impacts of temperature and selected chemical digestion methods on microplastic particles. Environ Toxicol Chem 37(1):91–98. 10.1002/etc.3935 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Murphy F, Ewins C, Carbonnier F, Quinn B (2016) Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 50(11):5800–5808. 10.1021/acs.est.5b05416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Napper IE, Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC (2015) Characterisation, quantity and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Mar Pollut Bull 99(1–2):178–185. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Nawalage NSK, Bellanthudawa BKA (2022) Synthetic polymers in personal care and cosmetics products (PCCPs) as a source of microplastic (MP) pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 182:113927. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. New York State Attorney General (2014) Unseen threat: how microbeads harm New York waters, wildlife, health and environment, pp 1–15. URL https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/microbeads_report.pdf. Accessed 05.28.24
  27. Ritchie H, Roser M (2018) Plastic pollution [WWW Document]. Our World in Data. URL https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution#how-does-plastic-impact-wildlife-and-human-health. Accessed 12.31.22
  28. Rochman CM, Kross SM, Armstrong JB, Bogan MT, Darling ES, Green SJ, ... Veríssimo D (2015) Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads. 10.1021/acs.est.5b03909 [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. So WK, Chan K, Not C (2018) Abundance of plastic microbeads in Hong Kong coastal water. Mar Pollut Bull 133:500–505. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. So MWK, Vorsatz LD, Cannicci S, Not C (2022) Fate of plastic in the environment: from macro to nano by macrofauna. Environ Pollut 300:118920. 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118920 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. So MWK, Vorsatz LD, Cannicci S, Not C (2023) The role of mangrove crabs, the key macrofaunal bioengineers, in microplastic production in tropical coastal forests. Reg Stud Mar Sci 63:103012. 10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103012 [Google Scholar]
  32. Strifling DA (2016) The microbead-free waters act of 2015. J Land Use Environ Law 32(1):151–166 [Google Scholar]
  33. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (1995) Com-pendium of food additive specifications. [cited 2016 July 26]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w6355e/w6355e0m.htm. Accessed 24 Jan 2025
  34. Venus O (2020) National marine microbead policy in developed nations: How microbead bans have influenced microplastic pollution in waterways and begun the trend towards international collaboration. BA thesis: Unviersity of Michigan

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1091 KB) (1.1MB, docx)
Supplementary file2 (PDF 224 KB) (224.4KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information files. Datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Environmental Science and Pollution Research International are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES