Bio-solution · CM02 · Cosmetics
Biodegradable scrub particles and exfoliants instead of polyethylene microbeads
Replaces
Polyethylene (and PP/PET/PMMA) microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics: face/body scrubs, toothpastes, shower gels; glitter (polyester/alu particles)
Polyethylene (and PP/PET/PMMA) microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics: face/body scrubs, toothpastes, shower gels; glitter (polyester/alu particles)
→
Scope
Jojoba and carnauba wax beads, cellulose and silica particles, ground shells/kernels, biodegradable glitter (cellulose core)
Jojoba and carnauba wax beads, cellulose and silica particles, ground shells/kernels, biodegradable glitter (cellulose core)
Suppliers 4
| Polybion | Mexico | active |
| Natura &Co | Brazil | active |
| TIPA | Israel | active |
| EDEN LIFE | Tunisia | active |
Route into Russia / EAEU COSM
- Regulator
- EAEU conformity bodies (Rospotrebnadzor for SGR)
- Typical time
- declaration (SGR for some categories)
- Legal basis
- TR CU 009/2011; the applicant must be a legal entity or entrepreneur registered in the EAEU (can act for the foreign manufacturer)
Information, not legal advice — confirm the procedure for your product.
Proof 5 claims
Old process
Use of synthetic, solid plastic particles (polyethylene, polypropylene, etc.) as exfoliants in rinse-off personal care products.
Use of synthetic, solid plastic particles (polyethylene, polypropylene, etc.) as exfoliants in rinse-off personal care products.
→
New practice
Biodegradable exfoliants including cellulose, silica, walnut shells, jojoba beads, corn kernels, bamboo particles, and rice powder.
Biodegradable exfoliants including cellulose, silica, walnut shells, jojoba beads, corn kernels, bamboo particles, and rice powder.
- Displaced at scale?
- yes
- Caveats
- Evidence indicates that while plastic microbeads have been largely phased out of rinse-off personal care products in the UK and other regions due to regulation, some products may still contain microplastic ingredients, and the use of microplastics in 'leave-on' products and certain cleaning products remains an area of concern. Additionally, some 'unknown' ingredients in products are not verified as non-plastic.
- Hand review
- D3 EU+: plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics down 97.6% (2012–2017, Cosmetics Europe data to ECHA).
- Research activity
- “microbeads cosmetic” — funded papers since 2015: CN 1 · BR 0 · IN 1
Enhanced adsorption of tetrabromobisphenol a (TBBPA) on cosmetic-deriv (doi) - checked
- 2026-10-06
| The European cosmetics industry achieved a 97.6% reduction in the use of plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics and personal care products between 2012 and 2017. “In 2018 data gathered by Cosmetics Europe for the ECHA Call for Evidence on intentionally added microplastics found a total 97.6 % reduction in the use of plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics and personal care products between 2012 - 2017.” EU plus Norway and Switzerland · 2012-2017 · large measured reduction of the old process | government or intergovernmental ✓ echa.europa.eu |
| Median concentrations of irregular polyethylene plastic microbeads in wastewater treatment plant effluents declined by up to 86% following regulatory bans in the U.S. and Canada. “Median concentrations of irregular microbeads, composed of polyethylene plastic, declined by up to 86% in WWTP effluents from 8.4 to 14.3 particles/m3 before to 2.0–2.2 particles/m3 after the bans” Canada (Toronto) · 2016-2019 · large measured reduction of the old process | peer-reviewed ✓ pubs.acs.org |
| Biodegradable alternatives like mannan, wax beads, and cellulose have been shown to provide cleansing and exfoliating efficacy comparable to polyethylene microbeads. “Here, cellulose particles had a cleansing effect in cosmetic products that was comparable to that of polyethylene or silica.” · · | weak (company, news, market research, other) www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com |
| Natural alternatives are generally more expensive than plastic microbeads, with costs ranging from £5.50/kg to £15.50/kg compared to £2.50/kg for plastics, though the impact on final product unit cost is relatively low. “Additionally, one company reported an increase in costs for using natural alternatives to £5.50/kg to £15.50/kg (up from £2.50/kg for plastics), which, given the original assumptions of indicative product microbead content (3% for toothpaste, 5% for face scrubs), the unit cost of switching is relatively low – the …” · 2017-2024 · | government or intergovernmental ✓ www.legislation.gov.uk |
| The switch from plastic microbeads to biodegradable alternatives was primarily driven by legislative bans and regulatory restrictions in the US, UK, Canada, and the EU. “Based on these risks and consumer concern, the use of microplastic particles, i.e., microbeads, in personal care products has been prohibited in the United States as of January 2018. The British government also banned personal care products containing microplastics as of January 2018, and several additional countries …” · 2017-2018 onwards · | weak (company, news, market research, other) www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com |
Details
Replaces: PE/PP/PET microbeads, micro-glitter · Scope: rinse-off cosmetics · Evidence: high
The chemical problem#
- A single shower-peeling product could carry hundreds of thousands of polyethylene beads — designed to wash straight into the drain, too small for any treatment plant, ending in rivers, fish and salt.
- The US Microbead-Free Waters Act (2015), the UK ban (2018) and now the EU REACH restriction on intentionally added microplastics (Reg. (EU) 2023/2055) turned the category from niche concern into law, with transition windows into 2027+.
- Polyester/aluminium glitter is the same particle problem with sparkle.
Product overview#
- Wax beads: jojoba ester and carnauba microspheres — spherical like PE beads (same sensory roll), fully biodegradable.
- Cellulose particles: wood/pulp-derived granules and the newer bacterial cellulose powders — dense, soft, tunable.
- Mineral/natural grit: silica, ground apricot shell, olive pit, pumice — the traditional answer, reformulated for gentleness (roundness).
- Biodegradable glitter: cellulose-core, plant-metallic finish — the party substitution.
- Toothpaste abrasive switch: hydrated silica/chalk instead of PE specks (done industry-wide in the EU).
Active ingredient / Composition#
- Jojoba esters (C18–C22 wax esters), carnauba wax beads (coated spheres 100–1,000 µm).
- Microcrystalline cellulose / cellulose acetate-free grades; bacterial cellulose (Polybion-type).
- Silica (hydrated), shells/kernels ground and sieved.
Key facts#
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Class | Biodegradable particulate exfoliants |
| Particle size | 100–1,000 µm (above the microplastic size concern once biodegradable anyway) |
| Regulatory | EU 2023/2055 leaves wax/cellulose/shell particles outside the restriction |
- | Sensory | Wax beads closest to PE feel; shells more aggressive |
Advantages#
- Drop-in sensory with wax beads — reformulation risk is low; premium brands did it years ago.
- Same supply chains as CM01/FI01 (waxes, cellulose, fermentation) — no new chemistry to invent.
- Marketing turns a liability (banned ingredient) into a claim (biodegradable exfoliant).
- Degradation: waxes/cellulose are food for wastewater microbes — no persistence pathway.
Mode of action#
- Physically: rounded particles mechanically debride the skin surface — geometry, not polymer identity, does the job.
- Biologically: esters/cellulose hydrolyze (lipases/cellulases) to fatty acids and sugars in sludge and water.
Application#
| Product | Target | Method, timing and specifics |
|---|---|---|
| Face scrub | PE bead exit | Jojoba/wax microspheres 250–500 µm; density-matched to base |
| Body scrub | Volume exfoliant | Shell/kernel grit or salt/sugar base with wax beads for feel |
| Toothpaste | Abrasive | Hydrated silica (RDA-tuned); PE already phased in EU |
| Festival/kids glitter | Polyester glitter | Cellulose-core biodegradable glitter |
Limitations#
- Cost premium over PE beads (cents per unit, but margins matter in mass retail).
- Natural grit irregularity needs QC for gentleness claims.
- “Biodegradable” claims need standards discipline (ask for test data, not adjectives).
- The EU restriction’s transition periods mean non-compliant stock persists in some markets until deadlines.
Evidence of displacement — D3: proven displacement at scale#
Assessment (hand-reviewed): EU+: plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics down 97.6% (2012–2017, Cosmetics Europe data to ECHA).
Verified figures (the number is in the quoted sentence and the sentence is on the source page):
- displacement — The European cosmetics industry achieved a 97.6% reduction in the use of plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics and personal care products between 2012 and 2017. (EU plus Norway and Switzerland, 2012-2017; government or intergovernmental: echa.europa.eu)
- displacement — Median concentrations of irregular polyethylene plastic microbeads in wastewater treatment plant effluents declined by up to 86% following regulatory bans in the U.S. and Canada. (Canada (Toronto), 2016-2019; peer-reviewed: pubs.acs.org)
- economics — Natural alternatives are generally more expensive than plastic microbeads, with costs ranging from £5.50/kg to £15.50/kg compared to £2.50/kg for plastics, though the impact on final product unit cost is relatively low. (—, 2017-2024; government or intergovernmental: legislation.gov.uk)
Suppliers — real products and services (from the vendor index)#
Active vendors matched by topic tags (
ha-collagen-cosmetic, bioplastics cluster); open each card for evidence, contacts and status.
| Company | Region · Country | What the index shows | Card |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polybion | LatAm · Mexico | bacterial-cellulose materials | card |
| Natura &Co | LatAm · Brazil | clean-beauty major (formulation side) | card |
| TIPA | Africa/ME · Israel | compostable materials (packaging side of the same restriction) | card |
| EDEN LIFE | Africa/ME · Tunisia | microalgae ingredients (adjacent actives) | card |
Government funding signals#
Scanned 2026-09-28 (OpenAIRE + NSF); candidates reviewed by hand.
Signal: Weak in research databases — the driver is legislation. No directly relevant research-council grants surfaced; the substitution is fully specified by Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 and the US Microbead-Free Waters Act (2015) instead. When the law names the particle, no grant needs to prove the alternative.
Scientific evidence#
- Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances 3: e1700782.
- Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 amending Annex XVII to REACH as regards synthetic polymer microparticles.
- United States. Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-114).
- Note: journal references will be checked against Crossref by the automated pass; the two legal texts are legislation records.
Bioeconomy value#
A substitution where the law did the physics first: nothing about exfoliation needs plastic, so once the particle is banned, wax, cellulose and shell streams take the shelf — with vendors already inside this index.
Second article of cosmetics. Cross-links: fermentation actives ↔ CM01; microplastics in packaging ↔ PK04; EU restriction shared with PK04.