Organiser
Microplastic release into the environment has emerged as a significant concern across various industries, including textiles, automotive, and cosmetics. While the cosmetics industry accounts for a relatively smaller percentage of microplastic use compared to others, the issue remains critical. Microplastics are non-biodegradable, leading to irreversible plastic pollution in ecosystems and the food chain. This article explores the definition, usage, and alternatives to microplastics in cosmetics, as well as the challenges posed by new regulations.
What Are Microplastics?
Microplastics, also called Synthetic Polymer Microparticles (SPMs), are defined under the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) regulation as solid polymer particles smaller than 5 mm. These particles are classified as microplastics unless they are biodegradable, natural, water-soluble, or do not contain carbon atoms. According to Regulation (EU) 2023/2055, ECHA restricts the intentional use of microplastics to minimize environmental risks. This regulation applies to all industries including both cosmetic ingredient suppliers and cosmetic product manufacturers, who must provide data and studies demonstrating their compliance.
Microplastics can originate from two sources:
Primary Microplastics: Intentionally added to consumer products,for example cosmetic products including shower gels, makeup, and sun protection products, to enhance texture, sensoriality, and stability.
Secondary Microplastics: Derived from the breakdown of larger plastics due to wear and tear or environmental degradation, such as tire wear or plastic waste.
Are there Microplastic Ingredients Used in Cosmetics?
Some cosmetic ingredients are Microplastics. They serve various functions, including:
Identifying Microplastics in Cosmetic Products and Regulatory Challenges for Cosmetic Manufacturers
Microplastics cannot be identified through the INCI names of the ingredients; scientific testing is required to confirm they meet ECHA’s definition. Cosmetic ingredients suppliers must provide authorities with biodegradability and solubility studies to ensure transparency and regulatory compliance.
Suppliers must provide biodegradability or solubility studies to authorities within 7–30 days of request, per Appendix 15 and 16. While some microplastics, like polyethylene (PE) microbeads, are still identifiable, the industry must adopt non-microplastic alternatives to comply with regulations and minimize environmental impact.
Synthetic solid polymers can be excluded from the microplastics definition via solubility tests at pH7, as per the EU Appendix 16. However, polymers like carbomer which need to be neutralized during formulations, are chemically modified at pH7 (pH of the test), and are different from their commercialized form, making the tests inapplicable. Hence, polymers that must be neutralized during formulation are microplastics, if they are not biodegradable according to Appendix 15. Thus, carbomer, widely used in cosmetics, with over 1500 new products containing it annually in Europe is defined as a microplastic according to the European restriction. As a result cosmetics manufacturers using carbomer will have to navigate complex steps to ensure regulatory compliance.
Since 2015, 18 countries, including the US, Canada, India, and France, have introduced legislation banning or restricting microplastics. In Europe especially, according to its restriction on microplastic, if evidence of permanent modification of a microplastic ingredient is insufficient, cosmetic products face market bans on the following dates:
Which alternatives to microplastics are available for use in cosmetics?
=> Synthetic Soluble Polymers:
Pre-neutralized rheology modifiers like Seppic’s Sepinov™ EMT 10, Sepinov™ WEO, and Sepimax Zen™ eliminate the need for neutralization during formulation. These polymers offer superior stability, compatibility with a wide range of ingredients, and improved performance compared to carbomer. For example, Sepimax Zen™ effectively stabilizes exfoliating particles and resists electrolytes, making it suitable for low-viscosity formulas.
=> Natural Polymers:
Biodegradable options like Seppic’s Solagum™ range provide multifunctionality and synergistic effects. These natural rheology modifiers are derived from renewable sources and meet the performance demands of modern formulations.
Seppic’s Commitment to Non-Microplastic Solutions
Seppic has taken proactive steps to ensure its rheology modifiers comply with ECHA’s microplastic regulation. It has carried out the solubility test according to OECD 120 in GLP conditions (method required by ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency, in Appendix 16) and biodegradability tests in GLP conditions or in laboratories accredited to ISO 17025 (according to methods required by ECHA, listed in Appendix 15). This commitment ensures that Seppic’s ingredients are free from regulatory constraints and provide superior performance in cosmetic formulations.
Conclusion Microplastics in cosmetics, while once commonly used, now face strict regulatory scrutiny due to their environmental impact. The shift toward non-microplastic alternatives, such as Seppic’s innovative rheology modifiers, is essential for ensuring compliance, sustainability, and consumer satisfaction. By adopting these non microplastic Seppic’s rheology modifiers, formulators can formulate with ease of mind while achieving high performance.