It’s hard to resist a little glitz. For centuries, people have coveted and adorned themselves with precious stones, metals, and anything else that catches the light. Glitter, a collection of tiny, reflective particles originally from natural sources like mineral dust has long been an easy way to add some dazzle.
As early as A.D. 400, for example, the Maya people used mica in paint which shimmered in the sun. Other ancients in the Americas used the same mineral to adorn gravesites and craft figurines.
Modern technology, particularly the development of synthetic plastics, has given us endless and cheap supplies of glitter. Plastic-based glitter can be seen twinkling in everything from cosmetics and candles to wrapping paper and sunscreen.
But those sparkling flecks don’t just disappear when they slough off your face or birthday card. In fact, a growing body of research is pointing to serious environmental consequences of microplastic pollution.
“One of the bad things is that it’s intentionally made to be small…and also very mobile,” says Robert Hale, an environmental scientist and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Reports have found microplastics everywhere from the Antarctic to the deep ocean to, more recently, the placenta, feces, and blood vessels of humans.
With glitter on the chopping block, experts discuss just how much damage a bit of plastic glitz can do and whether non-plastic alternatives offer viable solutions.
Glitter in our ecosystem affects all life, including ours
Measuring less than five millimeters in length, most glitter is considered a microplastic and typically consists of three layers: a plastic core, a reflective coating, and a final thin, plastic layer. Like other microplastics—largely byproduct from the breakdown of bigger manufactured plastic—glitter has raised alarm because of how easily it can spread.
“It’s oftentimes applied to a surface somewhat weakly…so it by nature falls off and is easily distributed,” Hale says. Over time, glitter particles fragment further making them smaller and more easily ingested. “When it gets small enough, it actually can enter cells…and participate or interfere with various essential biochemical reactions.”
(Microplastics are hidden in your home. Here’s how to avoid them.)
Microplastics are a known environmental hazard that are rampant in marine and terrestrial environments and, because of their size, nearly impossible to remove. High concentrations of glitter microplastics appear to hinder the growth of aquatic organisms, like phytoplankton and zooplankton, which form the base of the food chain and play a critical role in oxygen production and carbon dioxide consumption.
“This microplastic is so small, at the nanoscale, that [zooplankton] could eat this up and actually tear up their internal organs,” says study author Rafael Barty Dextro, a research biologist at the Center for Nuclear Energy and Agriculture in Brazil.
A sample from the English Channel shows what fish might consume on the left, plastic on the right. The white chip and the fraying red fiber on the right are polyethylene—but to a young fish they too may look like food.
DAVID LIITTSCHWAGER
Small amounts of glitter can add up quickly, accumulating in cells and larger animals higher up the food chain. Microplastics have become ubiquitous and highly concentrated in bodies of water, particularly marine sediments, where they get into the bodies of small fish and vertebrates, which are then consumed by larger species.
In a study on viral mortality in fish, Hale found that microplastics amplified the effects of the virus, likely by causing physical damage to the gills and allowing the pathogen to enter more easily. Testing has found microplastics in the gastrointestinal tracts and feces of terrestrial animals, including snakes, birds, and even livestock.
(Microplastics have moved into virtually every crevice on Earth.)
It’s not just the plastic itself that can leach into and contaminate the environment—glitter is often made with all sorts of toxic, chemical additives for color and shine. “So all of this, once in contact with water and air, starts degrading and liberating all of those compounds into the water,” Dextro says.
Though the worst impacts have been found in marine life and ecosystem, humans too are at risk, particularly from cosmetic glitters.
Hale warns that directly applying glitter to skin can result in absorption or inhaling of tiny plastic particles. Humans may ingest between 74,000 and 121,000 microplastic particles per year, according to a 2019 estimate. Though the physiological impacts are still being studied, he says, these “foreign bodies” have been linked to a host of issues, including DNA damage, organ dysfunction, and cardiovascular problems. One recent study found a correlation between high levels of microplastics in arterial plaque and heart and circulatory issues, while another study linked inflammatory bowel disease with higher concentrations of fecal microplastics.
(Microplastics are in our bodies. How much do they harm us?)
Even if the quantities of glitter are fairly small relative to other microplastic sources, Hale describes it as an unnecessary risk. “[Glitter is] one of these voluntary heavy exposures…and easily avoided.”
Biodegradable glitters shine gold just like the real thing, without remaining in the environment indefinitely.
Benjamin Droguet
Solving the glitter problem
Growing fears about the dangers of microplastic build-up have driven some authorities to try to eliminate them outright.
In 2022, California considered, but did not pass, a bill that would have banned cosmetics and other products containing “intentionally added microplastics.” Glitter is prohibited within the annual confines of Burning Man’s Black Rock City, as well as dozens of British music festivals. So-called “glitter bans”—which prohibit the manufacture and sale of certain microplastic-containing products—are in effect in New Zealand and the European Union.
Others are trying to keep the makeup artists and festival-goers happy with alternative solutions, such as biodegradable glitter. Non-plastic options are starting to hit the market, offering glitters made from the likes of plant cellulose, cassava, and mica.
Bioglitter, the first manufacturer of non-plastic glitter, produces its eco-friendly glitz with cellulose from wood pulp, primarily eucalyptus. This extract is then made into a film, cut into hexagons, and coated with pigments, stabilizers, and, most importantly, shellac—a glossy secretion from the lac beetle that adds shine. In as little as four to six weeks, the glitter will degrade naturally in environments that contain microorganisms, which “consume the glitter and turn it into harmless substances: water, carbon dioxide and biomass,” says Lauren Jones, founder of Luminosity Glitter, a Bioglitter retailer.
But even biodegradable glitter may have its own problems. In preliminary studies, researchers found that cellulose and mica glitter was more damaging to duckweed and phytoplankton growth than conventional glitter. “Ecotoxicological research is needed to test for impacts of any new types of glitter so we don’t end up just creating a new problem,” says author Dannielle Green, ecologist and plastic pollution expert at Anglia Ruskin University.
Others have seen more promising results. Though analysis is still ongoing, Mauricio Junior Machado, an agricultural microbiologist at the University of São Paulo, says that initial observations have not found any acute effects of cassava- and mica-based biodegradable glitter on the cell growth of freshwater cyanobacteria.
In the meantime, Green emphasizes the value of individual actions, namely: don’t scatter or wash glitter down the drain. “We can make the decision to avoid glitter altogether or to dispose of it responsibly.”
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : National Geographic – https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/glitter-microplastics-biodegradable
