I found 3million microbeads in one tube of face scrub

THE vast majority of us will have used toiletries containing microbeads without ever seeing the tiny plastic particles up close.

But as Professor of Marine Biology at Plymouth University’s International Marine Litter Research Unit, I have scrutinised them in great detail. What I have found has convinced me we should ban them.

As the Daily Mail has highlighted this week, every time you use a product containing these plastic particles, tens of thousands are washed down the sink and could find their way to the oceans, where they last for decades.

The photo above shows just how many beads were found in six face scrubs in our tests last year. The labels have been blurred because we selected the products at random – it was not our intention to highlight specific brands and some may now have changed their formula. But we were surprised to discover a tube could contain more than 2.8million microbeads.

I’ve been interested in the impact of plastic litter in the oceans since the late 1980s when, as a student, I helped in beach clean-ups organised by the Marine Conservation Society. Volun- teers tended to go for the big items – such as tyres and lost fishing nets – but I noticed they were walking over hundreds and hundreds of very small bits of plastic.

Under the microscope we saw bright red, green and blue fragments among the sand grains. Our tests confirmed they were ‘microplastics’. We went on to look at beaches around the UK and found microplastic everywhere, from the shoreline to the sea bed.

We looked at historical plankton samples collected since the 1950s by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science and found the amount of microplastic in the seas rose significantly from the 1960s/70s to the 1980s/90s.

In the laboratory we confirmed that marine worms, barnacles and sand hoppers – small crustaceans that normally feed at the top of the shore – would all ingest these tiny plastic pieces.

In one experiment we took common mussels – the sort that end up in a bowl of moules frites – and exposed them for just 12 hours to small particles of microplastics. We then moved them to clean sea water. After 48 days they still had pieces of plastic in their bodies.

In another study we looked at ten fish species from the English Channel. Each contained microplastics, and around a third of the 500 or so fish we examined had microplastic in their gut.

‘From shoreline to sea bed, they were everywhere’

The quantities were low and in my view do not present a hazard for human consumption, however they illustrated the widespread ingestion of microplastics.

We went further afield and did a global survey, looking at samples from 20 beaches, covering every continent. No matter where we were in the world, every coffee mugsized sample of sand contained small bits of plastic. Working with scientists in the US, we found plastic frozen in the Arctic ice. With colleagues from the Natural History Museum we found surprisingly large concentrations two miles down at the bottom of the sea.

In the early days it was not obvi- ous what the sources were. And it was while exploring this that I began looking at the world of cosmetics. I learnt that for the past few decades manufacturers have added plastic particles – less than a millimetre across – to a range of gels, creams and lotions.

Some of these microbeads are designed to act as abrasives. Others appear to be used to make products smoother to the touch. What they have in common is that they are made from durable plastic – usually polyethylene – that does not easily break down once in the environment.

To find out how many pieces were in one tube for the photo- graph above, PhD student Imogen Napper and I washed the facial scrub in hot water and then used filter paper to capture the beads. In one 150ml tube, we found more than 2.8million microbeads.

This means a single shower could release 100,000 microbeads into the drains. Many are likely to pass through water treatment works and escape into rivers, lakes and seas. According to industry figures last year, around 680 tons of microbeads were added to cosmetic products in the UK alone – enough to fill 30 articulated lorries.

Not all of that goes into the sea. Some is captured at sewage plants, but the resultant sludge is often returned to the land so even the microbeads captured in water treatment can end up back in the environment. Of course it is important to get this in context.

For as concerning as it is, the contribution of microbeads to the tide of plastic pollution in the seas is relatively small. It is estimated that less than 4 per cent of all marine litter comes from microbeads. The rest is mostly larger items of litter – typically single-use packaging – which can also break down into microplastics as they are battered by waves and degraded by the sun’s rays.

However, an estimated 54trillion pieces of microplastic are thought to be in the oceans. We know that sea creatures throughout the food chain – from the tiniest plankton to much larger creatures, probably even large filter feeding whales – can eat microplastics. And we know that it can stay in their bodies.

Laboratory tests have shown this has the potential to harm them. In an experiment with the University of Exeter we let marine worms live and feed in sand containing 1 per cent microplastic. The worms with the plastic diet did not put on as much weight as those without the plastic.

We do not know whether plastic interfered with their digestive systems, but it reduced their ability to grow and so reduced their potential value as food to predators.

That level of exposure may sound high, but on some shorelines plastic comprises around 3 per cent of beach sediment by weight.

The reality is, we do not have exact figures on total microplastic on beaches or in the water. We suspect the data we do have is an underestimate because it is extremely difficult to separate and identify microscopic plastic fragments.

However, in any event, concentrations of plastic are likely to rise in future – and it is clear to many researchers now that plastic is harmful to marine life and that what evidence we do lack is not a reason to delay taking action.

That is why I have come to the conclusion we need legislation to ban microbeads. Just as we do not need disposable, single-use plastic carrier bags to bring home our shopping, in my view there is little benefit to society from using microbeads in cosmetics.

But legislation needs to be thorough and robust and it needs to cover all the solid plastic beads used in household products that could be flushed into the sewers. I believe reputable manufacturers would welcome that.

Above all, it would give an important signal to industry and to consumers that we need to take greater responsibility for the debris that we are letting spoil the environment and our oceans.

Securing funding for this research has been challenging. Some of the studies I describe here were only possible because of support from funders including the Leverhulme Trust, the European Union and Defra, who recognised the importance of the issue. You can find out more about our unit here: https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/marine-litter

‘We need to take greater responsibility’