Microplastics enter the environment as a result of larger plastic items breaking down (‘secondary’) and from particles originally manufactured at that size (‘primary’). Personal care products are an important contributor of secondary microplastics (typically referred to as ‘microbeads’), for example in toothpaste, facial scrubs and soaps. Consumers play an important role in influencing the demand for these products and therefore any associated environmental consequences. Hence we need to understand public perceptions in order to help reduce emissions of microplastics. This study explored awareness of plastic microbeads in personal care products in three groups: environmental activists, trainee beauticians and university students in South West England. Focus groups were run, where participants were shown the quantity of microbeads found in individual high-street personal care products. Qualitative analysis showed that while the environmentalists were originally aware of the issue, it lacked visibility and immediacy for the beauticians and students. Yet when shown the amount of plastic in a range of familiar everyday personal care products, all participants expressed considerable surprise and concern at the quantities and potential impact. Regardless of any perceived level of harm in the environment, the consensus was that their use was unnatural and unnecessary. This research could inform future communications with the public and industry as well as policy initiatives to phase out the use of microbeads.

Several country–wide bans have recently been implemented for microbeads, which are a form of microplastics that are found in our oceans. The effect of the ban on reducing the overall quantity of microplastics in our oceans, however, may not be significant. This paper explores the scientific data related to microbeads to evaluate whether an underlying risk or combination of risks led to the ban, what impact public perception and activism had on this issue, and how this case study may be extrapolated to other emerging issues, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In some cases, the strategy for communicating with the public and managing the outrage can be equally as important as the regulatory and technical strategies.

A novel aspect of the 8th International PCB Workshop at Woods Hole, MA, was the interaction between scientists and activists. While earlier workshops in this series had mentioned policy making, this Workshop focused on the problem of PCBs in schools. Focus on a problem brought an activist to give a plenary talk and facilitated a 1-day registration for other non-scientists to attend. The workshop was cohosted by the Superfund Research Programs at University of Iowa and Boston University and included active participation of each Program’s Research Translation and Community Engagement Cores. A mandate of each National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS)-funded Superfund Research Program is bidirectional communication between scientists and community groups. The authors describe the events leading up to community involvement in the Workshop and the substance of the community engagement aspects of the workshop, in particular the participation by a parent-teacher group, Malibu Unites. The authors also discuss the value of such communication in terms of making important research accessible to those who are most affected by the results and poised to use it and the value of making scientists aware of the important role they play in society in addressing difficult questions that originate in community settings.

In the last few years, the use of phthalates in perfumes has gained attention because these chemicals are sometimes added intentionally as a solvent and a fixative. Five phthalate esters, dimethyl phthalate (DMP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), and diethyl hexyl phthalate (DEHP), were measured in 47 branded perfumes using headspace solid phase microextraction (SPME) followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The results revealed considerable amounts of phthalate in all 47 brands with detection frequencies > limit of quantitation in the following order: DEP (47/47) > DMP (47/47) > BBP (47/47) > DEHP (46/47) > DBP (23/45). Of the 47 brands, 68.1, 72.3, 85.1, 36.2, and 6.7 % had DEP, DMP, BBP, DEHP, and DBP levels, respectively, above their reported threshold limits. Of these phthalates, DEP was found to have the highest mean value (1621.625 ppm) and a maximum of 23,649.247 ppm. The use of DEP in the perfume industry is not restricted because it does not pose any known health risks for humans. DMP had the second highest level detected in the perfumes, with a mean value of 30.202 ppm and a maximum of 405.235 ppm. Although DMP may have some uses in cosmetics, it is not as commonly used as DEP, and again, there are no restrictions on its use. The levels of BBP were also high, with a mean value of 8.446 ppm and a maximum of 186.770 ppm. Although the EU banned the use of BBP in cosmetics, 27 of the tested perfumes had BBP levels above the threshold limit of 0.1 ppm. The mean value of DEHP found in this study was 5.962 ppm, and a maximum was 147.536 ppm. In spite of its prohibition by the EU, 7/28 perfumes manufactured in European countries had DEHP levels above the threshold limit of 1 ppm. The DBP levels were generally low, with a mean value of 0.0305 ppm and a maximum value of 0.594 ppm. The EU banned the use of DBP in cosmetics; however, we found three brands that were above the threshold limit of 0.1 ppm, and all were manufactured in European countries. The results of this study are alarming and definitely need to be brought to the attention of the public and health regulators. Although some phthalate compounds are still used in cosmetics, many scientists and environmental activists have argued that phthalates are endocrine-disrupting chemicals that have not been yet proven to be safe for any use, including cosmetics. Phthalates may also have different degrees of estrogenic modes of action. Furthermore, we should not dismiss the widespread use of phthalates in everyday products and exposure to these chemicals from sources such as food, medications, and other personal care products.