Investigating the environmental impact of cosmetics in oceanic environments
Introduction
With the increasingly worrying environmental crisis looming over us, it is important to consider all different aspects of our lives which may be causing negative impacts on the planet. The cosmetics industry is one which we all personally invest in and therefore felt it would be easy for us to engage with. We were aware that the production and consumption of cosmetic products can have damaging side-effects to the environment but were keen to carry out further detailed primary and secondary research to affirm this.
The trend to have “natural” beauty products has increased in the last decade, and the challenge with this is that when large companies source these natural ingredients, they to do so as quickly and as cheaply as possible, leading to seriously unsustainable production. For example, issues include more pesticide use and human rights issues. When produced in this way, the use of natural ingredients in cosmetics actually disrupts ecosystems and depletes non-renewable natural resources.
An even bigger issue is non-natural ingredients which do not break down and instead accumulate in ecosystems. For instance, after being washed down sinks they are released into lakes, streams and rivers damaging flora and fauna.
We will be focusing on the environmental waste impact of five commonly used cosmetic products: eyeshadow, nail polish, mascara, lip gloss and make up remover wipes, initially carrying out secondary research on the production, composition an waste impacts of each, and then using primary research from our own experiment.
Background Information
Eyeshadow
Ingredients:
Talc – a naturally occurring mineral used here as the bulk of the powder eyeshadow. It also absorbs moisture and makes the eyeshadow opaque.
Zinc Stearate – This is an anticaking agent that also adds color and can be used to increase the thickness of the eyeshadow.
Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate – This compound is derived from stearate, a naturally occurring fatty acid. It is a conditioning agent that slows the rate of water loss from the skin.
Isostearyl Neopentanoate – This binds the ingredients together while conditioning the skin.
Tocopheryl Acetate – This chemical is more commonly known as vitamin E. It is a skin conditioner as well as an antioxidant. Doctors warn that too much vitamin E can be harmful to your health.
Caprylyl Glycol – This is yet another skin conditioning agent. It is also being used as a preservative in a blend with phenoxyethanol.
Hexylene Glycol – Hexylene glycol is a humectant. Glycols have gotten a bad rap for their supposed toxicity; they are said to cause liver and kidney damage. This is true, however, only of concentrations at 100 percent. In eyeshadow, the concentration of hexylene glycol is very small and safe. It is there to keep the product from changing texture in extreme heat or cold.
Phenoxyethanol – This is a preservative. It is used in combination with caprylyl glycol.
Silica – It is used as an absorbent powder.
Mica – Mica is added to give the eyeshadow luster and shine.
Colouring Agents – The following compounds are colouring agents and may be present, depending on the particular shade of eyeshadow you have chosen: titanium dioxide (Cl 77891), iron oxides (Cl 77491, Cl 77492, Cl 77499), bismuth oxychloride (Cl 77163), blue 1 lake (Cl 42090), carmine (Cl 75470), chromium hydroxide green (Cl 77289), chromium oxide greens (Cl 77288), ferric ferrocyanide (Cl 77510), manganese violet (Cl 77742), red 40 lake (Cl 16035), ultramarines (Cl 77007), yellow 5 lake (Cl 19140)
o Synthetic Flurophlogopite
o Paraffinium Liquidum
o Dimethicone
o Synthetic Wax
o Ethylhexyl Palmitate
o Polybutene
o Magnesium Stearate
Harm on the Environment:
Titanium dioxide used as a colouring agent. Titanium dioxide causes DNA damage to freshwater snails and stops phytoplankton from growing. Given that phytoplankton is responsible for producing roughly two-thirds of the Earth's atmospheric oxygen, the decreased growth of phytoplankton means many fish -- and other ocean life -- will suffocate and die. And it's not just marine wildlife that will suffer, either. Humans and animals, too, will find it more difficult to breathe as atmospheric oxygen levels are depleted.
Paraben is a chemical preservative found in most cosmetics to stifle the growth of bacteria. There is some evidence that paraben is partially at fault for killing off coral, and more than a few scientists believe that this chemical is a hormone disruptor in dolphins and other marine wildlife. What is particularly worrying about paraben is that there is a swelling stack of scientific evidence that parabens have been accumulating in the tissues of marine organisms, bears, and birds -- which shows us that this environmental contaminant actually works its way from our sink water into the bodies of animals.
Silicones or Siloxanes. In 2005, Norwegian Institute for Air Research and the Swedish Environmental Research Institute reported that high levels of siloxanes were found in samples taken from several locations in the Nordic countries. Detectable levels were also found within fish, raising alarm about the bioaccumulation of these chemicals. Further studies found that siloxanes accumulated in aquatic life in Nordic lakes and in Lake Erie in Canada and Lake Pepin in the U.S., even higher up in the food chain, raising risks of people consuming them. Studies have also shown that siloxanes that we apply to our bodies can volatilize-which means they can become released into the air as well as contaminate our waterways. In 2015, the American Chemical Society reported that scientists had found traces of these compounds in soil, plants, phytoplankton, and krill all the way down in Antarctica.
Mica production is mainly mining. It is also mostly carried out by more vulnerable people in poorer countries. India is a major exporter of muscovite mica. A large part of mica mining is done by hand, and it involves travelling far down narrow mining shafts.
Unfortunately, many sheet mica workers are poorly paid, unprotected and therefore exploited. They may well live and work in remote areas where there is little available to them by way of education or healthcare. There are also concerns that non-western countries with extensive mica mining are high risk for negative impact on children’s rights.
In some countries, there is illegal mica mining, posing further risks to those involved and, because it is unregulated, also risks to the surrounding environment.
Mica mining should also take into consideration mineral conservation. This should mean more emphasis on efficiency in extraction and processing; and avoiding over-exploitation of mineral resources.
Nail Polish
Nail polish is used to coat the nails in a colour that is used to protect and enhance the aesthetic of the nail beds. However, the strong smell that is associated with many nail polishes suggest that there are some strong chemicals or compounds; the smell comes from alcohols, solvents and resins which together allow the polish to stick adhere to the nail bed, to dry faster and produce a strong colour.
The environmentally damaging components of nail polish are often labelled the 'toxic trio' which is composed of: dibutyl phthalate, toluene compounds and formaldehyde.
Phthalates are used in industry as plastic softeners, and have been proven to have a disruptive effect on hormones. Studies have associated exposure to phthalates to early puberty in girls and declining sperm counts in men, and there are those who claim that the exposure contributes to increasing incidences of uterine abnormalities, testicular cancer, and other reproductive abnormalities and rising infertility.
Toluene has many negative effects on the human body – it is a reproductive and developmental toxin. In low exposure concentrations, it affects the nervous system and can produce symptoms such as confusion, weakness, tiredness and memory-loss. With high levels of exposure, it can affect the renal and hepatic organ systems and has been associated with birth defects in animals, while also causing extreme nausea, fatigue, dizziness and headache.
Formaldehyde, a resin found in many building material, is a common indoor air pollutant. Inhaling its fumes, even short-term, causes headaches, an irritated throat and difficulty breathing, and has been found to be carcinogenic. It is easily absorbed by the skin and can produce rashes.
Other ingredients
• Nitrocellulose: a film-forming agent derived from cellulose. Irritant to skin, eyes and lungs and due to its widespread use it is a common industrial pollutant found in many water supplies.
• Pigments: Many are synthetic colours which are linked to carcinogenic and neurotoxic effects.
• Micas: a naturally occurring substance. However, the mining of it is dangerous often unethical relying on child labour, diseases such as silicosis, asthma and bronchitis common amongst the children and the women. Water contamination in the areas surrounding the mica mines in certain areas of the world have caused a range of health problems including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and eosinophillia, silicosis and tuberculosis.
• Butyl acetate: irritating to skin, eyes and respiratory tract.
• Camphor: irritating to irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. A CNS disrupter associated with dizziness, confusion, nausea and twitching muscles. Readily absorbed through body tissues.
• Isopropyl alcohol: irritating to eyes and mucous membranes; central nervous system depression. Prolonged contact can cause eczema and sensitivity. Animal studies show inhalation can damage the liver.
• Styrene compounds: like toluene and formaldehyde, styrene is a VOC associated with irritation of the skin, eyes and the upper respiratory tract. Chronic exposure affects the central nervous system producing symptoms such as depression, headache, fatigue and weakness and may interfere with kidney function. Based on data from animal studies styrene is also considered a potential human carcinogen. Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, or Teflon). PFCs are virtually indestructible and widespread in the environment and most observers believe that we have not yet begun to understand their full impact on human health or the environment.
Mascara
There are many different formulas for mascara, which all consist of natural colours (eg carbon black) and artificial, inorganic pigments. A common type of mascara contains of an emulsion of oils, waxes, and water. In formulas for this type of mascara, natural products such as paraffin, carnauba wax and beeswax are often used. Oils used often include mineral oil, lanolin, linseed oil and castor oil. Stearic acid is a common ingredient of lotion-based formulas, as are stiffeners such as ceresin and gums such as methyl cellulose. Some mascaras include fine rayon fibres, which make the product more viscous. There are two main methods of production:
Anhydrous method – Ingredients are mixed and heated and agitated (combined) on a high speed with the pigments. More heat is applied to melt the waxes and the mixture is stirred using a propeller blade until mixture is semi-solid.
Emulsion method - Water and thickeners are combined to make a lotion consistency. In a separate container, waxes and emulsifiers are heated and pigments are added, and then mixed with the lotion base. The homogenizer has a closed lid, unlike in the previous method, which keeps air out and prevents evaporation. Ingredients are blended at a high speed, which breaks down the oils and waxes. Blending continues until the mixture reaches room temperature.
It is advised to dispose of mascara after 3-6 months. The plastic tubes are damaging to the environment as are rarely recycled. The actual mascara is usually combined with a form of make-up remover and ends up in water sources, the chemicals not being able to break down.
Lip gloss
Lip gloss should apply easily and provide a wet, shiny look. It should have a transparent color coverage and feel very moist. The fragrance/flavour may be higher than in lipstick. They should come in a variety of colours and flavours. (Williams and Schmitt, 2012) The combination of a higher flavour level and the general cosmetic industry will lead to a increased usage in potentially harmful chemicals in the creation of Lip Gloss.
Lip Glosses and Lipsticks are based around the same primary manufacturing process. The primary ingredients are wax, oil, alcohol, and pigment. Preservatives and antioxidants are also added to ensure longevity.
In order to manufacture the lipstick, there are two primary stages: mixing and moulding. However, in order to manufacture lip gloss there is no need to mould a liquid. First the raw ingredients are melted and mixed separately. One mixture contains the solvents, a second contains the oils, and the third contains the fats and waxy materials. The solvent solution and liquid oils are then mixed with the colour pigments. The mixture is passed through a mill, grinding the pigment to avoid a ‘grainy’ feel to the lip gloss. This introduces air into the oil and pigment mixture, so this mill section is required. The mixture is stirred for several hours. After this pigment has been ground and mixed, it is added to the hot wax mass until a uniform colour and consistency is obtained.(Made How, 2019) This industrial process is how lip gloss is formed.
An industrial process will always have some form of environmental impact, from heat wastage to carbon dioxide release. If organic compounds are released via the water supply, then a nearby water source could be subject to eutrophication, which will eventually lead to an anoxic water supply. If there are toxins in the water, then the wildlife will die, leading to a less diverse environment. Carbon dioxide emissions increase the enhanced greenhouse gas effect, which contributes to global warming. The release of other acidic or poisonous chemicals could lead to acid rain along with other serious property damage. Industrial processes will nearly always have an environmental impact, which will vary with the industry.
The lip gloss we used in our experiment included many chemicals, such as polybutene, triisostearyl citrate, ethylhexyl palmitate, hydroxystearic acid, tin oxide and many more. There were 19 different ingredients listed for this lip gloss, along with 20 different CI numbers. This combination of chemicals had equated to this lip gloss.
As aforementioned, the fragrance content of a lip gloss can be extremely high. Synthetic fragrances can lead to the most irritation and reactions in humans, and they are not obliged to release the ingredients of these fragrances. According to a study done in 2005, these unknown ingredients are doing harm to the marine environment. Wastewater treatment plants don’t break them down, which means that they enter rivers and oceans via sewage discharge. The National Geographic reported that they ‘compromise a cell defence mechanism that normally prevents toxins from entering cells.’ This means that they lower the immune system of all the organisms around them, which can be extremely harmful in the long run. Fragrance chemicals can climb up the food chain, meaning that they can biomagnify, making them more dangerous for larger animals. (Rebecca, 2016).
However, this lip gloss uses some widely renowned environmentally-friendly chemicals, such as Ethylhexyl Palmitate. Ethylhexyl Palmitate is not suspected to be persistent or bioaccumulate. It’s been given a score of 1, which is a low hazard, by EWG’s Skin Deep Cosmetic database. Although there is limited data about this chemical it is suspected not to be harmful in anyway.(Cosmetic Database, 2018) Polybutene is also classified as environmentally friendly; it has the lowest environmental impact.(Polybutene, 2019)
Make-up remover wipe
The most common makeup remover wipes are either made from or contain non-biodegradable plastic fibres such as polypropylene, rayon, or polyester which inevitably means that makeup wipes contribute to plastic pollution. There is currently enough plastic in the ocean which could circle the earth over 425 times, and over the next decade, it seems this figure will keep increasing. 75% of all plastic ever made has been thrown away and has ended up either in a landfill or ocean, where it stays a danger to both wildlife and the environment. The amount of makeup wipes that remain unrecycled is simply shocking.
Plastic takes too long to decompose- it can take up to 1000 years for plastic to decompose fully, so it lingers in the environment in its current state- meaning that after one or two uses plastic is left useless unless recycled. Even after over 400 years, plastic never fully decomposes- it just simply breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces which end up being ingested by marine life.
Because of the way they are used, many make-up wipes are single use plastics which means that the use of plastic is particularly inefficient. This has long term environmental impacts due to the fact that this often harms wildlife, especially in the ocean. Often, unsuspecting creatures get tangled in plastic debris, and end up suffocating, or spending the rest of their lives trapped. In addition to this, the ingestion of plastic is also a large problem- it has life threatening effects on wildlife, and this plastic eventually ends up being ingested by humans indirectly. An estimated 700 species in the ocean are affected by our careless use of plastic, and according to the Ocean Conservancy, plastic has been found in more than 60% of all seabirds and 100% of sea turtle species.
So why doesn’t plastic biodegrade? Most plastics are derived from propylene, which is a chemical component of petroleum. When propylene is heated up in the presence of a catalyst, individual chemical unit monomers of propylene link together and form very strong carbon-carbon bonds with each other, resulting in a long chains of monomers- a polymer called ‘Polypropene’. When materials decompose, they are broken down by decomposers- which are organisms that have evolved over the years in order to attack certain bonds which are common in nature, in order to survive. In this same manner, they can decompose polysaccharides to get sugar. However, polypropylene is not a naturally occurring structure (it takes too much energy to make so nature choose other alternatives to hold together large molecules), especially since it has many carbon-carbon bonds, hence the organisms are unable to break it down and therefore it doesn’t decompose.
So why don’t we make biodegradable make-up wipes and use them as alternatives? Environmentalists may wonder why plastic manufacturers don’t substitute peptide bonds in the place of carbon-carbon bonds. However, peptide bond created plastics have very short shelf lives, meaning that the containers made out of plastic would start to decompose sooner than the object contained in it- posing to be a problem.
Aim
The aim of our experiment was to extend our research and explore the information we had already found. We wanted to see first-hand how damaging the chemicals would be to broaden our understanding and test our hypothesis.
Hypothesis
Prior to carrying out the experiment we predicted that all the products would stunt the growth of the plant because of the toxic chemicals within the closed system. Therefore, we expected the alternative hypothesis to be true; that there is a relationship between the aquatic plant growth and the cosmetic chemicals in the water, demonstrating the negative impacts of them on marine life.
Method
Equipment
- Five beakers
- Distilled water
- Elodea nuttallii
- pH meter
- Set up 6 beakers of 500cm3 of water in an area with adequate sunlight
- Prepare 6 stems of waterweed (elodea nuttallii) weighing 20g
- Extract 2g of each of nail polish (mixed with nail polish remover), lip gloss, mascara, eyeshadow and makeup-remover wipe
- Mix each of the makeup products into the water, and leave one with pure distilled water as a control
- Add the elodea plant, and measure the pH of the mixture
- Count the number of bubble evolved in a one minute period
- Repeat step 6 each day over a period of 5 days
From the results, it is apparent that the eyeshadow and the make-up remover wipe had the least effect on the rate of photosynthesis, as the number of oxygen bubbles evolved had stayed relatively similar to the control, and the mean number of bubbles was within 14±1. It appears that nail polish had the most dramatic effect on the number of oxygen bubbles evolved; the mean number of bubbles is 10.6 compared to 14.2 of the control. This is unsurprising, as the nail polish was the most alkaline of the substances tested; the optimum pH for photosynthesis is a pH of 8. The reduction in the number of oxygen bubbles evolved could be explained by the fact that at high pH levels, many enzymes are denatured, which would affect the metabolic reactions of photosynthesis and reduce the rate of photosynthesis. The lip gloss was relatively similar to the control, and had a slight increase (though not statistically significant), which could also be attributed to the fact that the pH is higher than the control, and closer to the optimum pH of 8. However, by this same logic, we would expect an increase in the number of bubbles evolved for mascara, which was at a similar pH. Although the decrease between the values at the average pH of the control and mascara, it could be explained by the fact that in dissolving the mascara, the water became slightly more opaque, and meant that less light could reach the plant for photosynthesis. It must be acknowledged that it is not possible to ascertain the effect of the individual compounds on the rate of photosynthesis, simply the effect of the pH.
Evaluation
There were many things that we could have improved with our experiment. We could have firstly increased its reliability by conducting several repeats of the experiment, and across several different species of plants. Carrying out more repeats would have meant that we could perform statistical tests to evaluate whether our results were statistically valid, and that the conclusion we were drawing were valid. We also could have counted bubbles for five minutes, and found an average number of bubbles per minute to increase reliability. To extend our experiment further, we could have also used a hydrogen carbonate indicator to measure the extent of photosynthesis that was occurring, as it would have indicated whether respiration and photosynthesis were in equilibrium or if one process had stopped before the other.
In order to make our experiment more accurate, we could have counted the bubbles that were released by the photosynthesising waterweed in three distinct periods of the day, instead of just once per day, which would have provided a more complete picture of the trend in the relative level of respiration.
Another limitation of the experiment was the fact that the mascara made the water more opaque, and would have blocked. This effect was not simulated across the entire experiment and could have influenced the results in a significant way.
In addition, the experiment that we had set up was an extremely basic model which did not fully simulate the conditions of the ocean. There were many factors that greatly change the results of this experiment such as water temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide saturation, depth, light intensity, the presence of entire ecosystems and this is just too complex for our experiment to fully emulate. Furthermore, we did not account for relative concentrations of each of the products– the ocean is a large body of water, and it is unclear what proportion of the ocean would be contaminated by waste from cosmetic items.
Conclusion
While the experiment could not fully simulate all the factors and conditions of the ocean, it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion as to the effect of pH of the dissolved makeup products on the elodea. However, it is possible to draw as a conclusion that when such cosmetic items are dissolved or mixed into water, they can influence the pH of the water, which in turn can have a significant effect upon wildlife. In addition, the chemicals outlined in each of the background sections at the start of this project analyses the way that individual compounds in each of the products may be environmentally damaging and toxic, and especially with a booming make-up industry, and many of these products ending up in landfill or being washed down drains, it may have an enormous and potentially devastating impact on aquatic flora and fauna, which ingest these various chemicals. While there may be an argument that these products are all formulated to be compatible and safe for human skin, it must be remembered that they are designed and formulated for external use, and so it is impossible to predict the effect when ingested internally. The results of our experiment and the research that we have carried out suggests that the manufacture, sourcing and disposal of make-up does have a significant effect on the environment, and that more has to be done to mitigate the effects.
Evaluation
There were many things that we could have improved with our experiment. We could have firstly increased its reliability by conducting several repeats of the experiment, and across several different species of plants. Carrying out more repeats would have meant that we could perform statistical tests to evaluate whether our results were statistically valid, and that the conclusion we were drawing were valid. We also could have counted bubbles for five minutes, and found an average number of bubbles per minute to increase reliability. To extend our experiment further, we could have also used a hydrogen carbonate indicator to measure the extent of photosynthesis that was occurring, as it would have indicated whether respiration and photosynthesis were in equilibrium or if one process had stopped before the other.
In order to make our experiment more accurate, we could have counted the bubbles that were released by the photosynthesising waterweed in three distinct periods of the day, instead of just once per day, which would have provided a more complete picture of the trend in the relative level of respiration.
Another limitation of the experiment was the fact that the mascara made the water more opaque, and would have blocked. This effect was not simulated across the entire experiment and could have influenced the results in a significant way.
In addition, the experiment that we had set up was an extremely basic model which did not fully simulate the conditions of the ocean. There were many factors that greatly change the results of this experiment such as water temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide saturation, depth, light intensity, the presence of entire ecosystems and this is just too complex for our experiment to fully emulate. Furthermore, we did not account for relative concentrations of each of the products– the ocean is a large body of water, and it is unclear what proportion of the ocean would be contaminated by waste from cosmetic items.
Conclusion
While the experiment could not fully simulate all the factors and conditions of the ocean, it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion as to the effect of pH of the dissolved makeup products on the elodea. However, it is possible to draw as a conclusion that when such cosmetic items are dissolved or mixed into water, they can influence the pH of the water, which in turn can have a significant effect upon wildlife. In addition, the chemicals outlined in each of the background sections at the start of this project analyses the way that individual compounds in each of the products may be environmentally damaging and toxic, and especially with a booming make-up industry, and many of these products ending up in landfill or being washed down drains, it may have an enormous and potentially devastating impact on aquatic flora and fauna, which ingest these various chemicals. While there may be an argument that these products are all formulated to be compatible and safe for human skin, it must be remembered that they are designed and formulated for external use, and so it is impossible to predict the effect when ingested internally. The results of our experiment and the research that we have carried out suggests that the manufacture, sourcing and disposal of make-up does have a significant effect on the environment, and that more has to be done to mitigate the effects.