The Silent Impact of Glitters

🌐 Introduction

Glitters, those tiny sparkling wonders gilding our makeup, enhancing craft projects, and knitting into textile products, have long been underestimated contributors to the global microplastics crisis. Often constructed from polyethylene terephthalate, these shimmering particles have found their way into significant volumes of single-use plastics. Despite their extensive use in entertainment events, shows, carnivals, and daily life settings worldwide, glitters have puzzled the spotlight as a major source of microplastics.

🔬 Unlike other microplastics that result from the gradual disintegration of larger plastic items, glitter is sold in its most environmentally hazardous form right from the start. Despite making up less than 1 percent of overall microplastics, recent studies reveal the pervasive nature of glitter. From becoming airborne and raining down on protected natural areas to embedding itself in the seafloor, glitter is leaving a permanent mark on the environment.

🌍 The Ecological Impact of Glitter

In the recent study, different types of glitter, including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), biodegradable modified regenerated cellulose (MRC), synthetic mica, and a natural particle control (kaolinite) are tested to distinguish the chemical and physical effects of glitter on the physical characteristics of Lemna minor (a type of plant).

⚖️ Biodegradable Glitters: A Double-Edged Sword: While some glitter types, like PET and synthetic mica, exhibited minimal effects on Lemna minor, the biodegradable MRC glitters emerged as a potential ecological concern. High concentrations of fresh MRC glitters led to a decrease in root length, biomass, and chlorophyll content of Lemna minor. This observation hinted at the short-term ecotoxicity of biodegradable glitters, suggesting that their physical and chemical properties may induce adverse effects, particularly in the early stages of exposure.

🌊 The Leaching Conundrum: Chemical Intricacies of Glitter: Leachate from MRC glitters, representing the chemical effects, further contributed to a reduction in root length, though less pronounced than the impact of fresh glitters. The chemical characteristics of MRC glitters, including the presence of metals like lead, copper, and zinc, were identified as potential contributors to the observed effects. The study suggests that the leaching of degradation by-products from glitter surface coatings may play a pivotal role in influencing the physiology of Lemna minor.

🔄 Aging Glitters: As the study unfolds, a noteworthy aspect emerges—the effects of aging on glitters. While aged MRC glitters exhibited minimal effects, the toxicity of aged microplastics remains uncertain in the broader context. Some studies suggest an increase in toxicity with aging, while others propose a decrease. The implications of aging on the ecological impact of glitters warrant further exploration and understanding.

🚨 While glitter, volume-wise, contributes minimally to pollution compared to other microplastics, its proven ecological harm highlights its significance. However, the real issue extends beyond glitter to the larger problem of excessive waste production, particularly during holidays.

💡 EU Microplastics Legislation

A bold step in the right direction enters the European Commission's game-changing Regulation (EU) 2023/2055. By specifically addressing the use of synthetic polymer microparticles, including glitters, this legislation is a critical move toward limiting the silent infiltration of microplastics into our ecosystems.

🌟 Conclusion

Banning glitter isn't merely about targeting a sparkly victim. It symbolizes a collective effort to address the larger challenge of reducing waste and accepting sustainable practices. As we attempted exit to the era of glitter use, it's time to lead in an age of thoughtful consumption and sustainable alternatives.

Link To EU Legislation: https://www.sgs.com/en-hr/news/2023/10/safeguards-13723-european-commission-issues-current-thinking-on-microplastics-in-products

Link to Study: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.115291