A review of environmental and health effects of synthetic cosmetics

The use of cosmetic products is expanding globally, and with it, so is the range of chemical substances employed in their production. As a result, there is also a higher risk of intoxication, allergic reactions, prolonged chemical exposure, adverse effects, and indiscriminate use. Cosmetic products can contain more than 10,000 ingredients. Most users of synthetic cosmetics are unaware of the harmful effects if they even are. However, it is linked to many diseases like cancer, congenital disabilities, reproductive impairments, developmental systems, contact dermatitis, hair loss, lung damage, old age, skin diseases and reactions, allergies, and harm to human nails. Many beauty products also create a high demand for natural oils, leading to extensive and intensive cultivation, harming natural habitats through deforestation, and contaminating soil and water through pesticides and fertilizers. The adverse effects of hazardous substances in synthetic cosmetics extend beyond human health and influence ecosystems, air quality, and oceans. Thus, this review aims to assess the environmental and health impacts of cosmetics using published scientific articles. The study used a systematic review based on Scopus, Science Direct, Web databases, Scholar Google, and PubMed. The results of this review showed that the formulation of cosmetics until the disposal of their containers could adversely affect environmental and human health.

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

1 Introduction

The market size of the beauty sector, which is estimated to be $48.8 billion and is still expanding, is enormous. People frequently use makeup to express who they are; individuality and self-expression are significant facets of who we are. However, the effects of the cosmetics business and its products on the environment are significant and cannot be disregarded. The beauty sector has substantial environmental consequences, from excessive packaging waste to the utilization of natural resources like palm and soy. Beauty packaging generates 120 billion garbage units annually, including plastic, paper, glass, and metals that are inadequately recycled and ultimately wind up in landfills, according to the social justice platform It should be emphasized that the Traceability and Verification System is the UNICEF Supply Division. The demand for natural oils from several cosmetic goods also increases, which encourages vast and intense farming, damages natural ecosystems through deforestation, and contaminates soil and water with pesticides and fertilizers (Gutierrez, 2023).

Any substance that is poured, sprinkled, sprayed, inserted into, or otherwise applied to the human body is a cosmetic (Attard and Abstract, 2022) and is used to clean, beautify, promote attractiveness, or alter the appearance without disrupting the body’s physiological functions (John Kanayochukwu Nduka, 2019). The body’s physiological processes should not be changed during this process by cosmetics. Cosmetics must be efficient, durable, stable, and safe for human use. They are mixes of certain surfactants, oils, and other substances. It is challenging to monitor the safety of every product, with so many being introduced to the market each season, and certain items can contain carcinogenic chemicals (Alam et al., 2019).

According to published research, cosmetic products like lipstick, lip gloss, eye shadow, and henna hair color contain high levels of hazardous lead (Kaličanin and Velimirović, 2016; Łodyga-ChruŘcińska et al., 2018). Triclosan is a common antibiotic likely present in consumer goods and personal care items utilized by 75% of the U.S. population. Following a risk evaluation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Triclosan (TCS) was eliminated from soap products in September 2016 (FDA). Triclosan is still present, but, in high proportions, in various personal care items such as surgical soaps, mouthwash, hand sanitizer, and toothpaste (Weatherly and Gosse, 2017).

Heavy metals are a common constituent in cosmetic goods (Alam et al., 2019). According to Velly et al., lead levels in toothpaste were higher than permitted by U.S. and E.U. guidelines (Vella and Attard, 2019). Polyethylene glycol (PEGs) (favorably used as penetration enhancers), according to Panico et al., may still contain contaminants, including lead, iron, cobalt, nickel, cadmium, and arsenic (Łodyga-ChruŘcińska et al., 2018) described how lead and nickel were present in lipsticks and powders on the Polish market at levels prohibited by European regulations (Łodyga-ChruŘcińska et al., 2018).

Most chemicals are included in cosmetic products as preservatives, surfactants, perfumes, stains, etc. These compounds also improve the items’ quality, properties, and shelf lives while improving user appeal (Pereira and Pereira, 2018). However, many of these chemicals also have adverse side effects (Figure 1). Clinical symptoms most frequently reported include conjunctivitis, cosmetic acne, photoallergic/toxic, contact dermatitis, hypo/hyperpigmentation, itching, and corrosive scalp injury. These reactions may occur immediately after application or after repeated use (Mestawet et al., 2018).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Graphic abstract of environmental and health effects of synthetic cosmetics.

Documents show that natural material extracts were employed previously, but synthetic substances are now frequently found in cosmetic items. Some of these artificial additions may endanger the health of consumers. The underarm and breast area’s estrogenic cosmetics are being looked into as a potential source of breast cancer (Amasa et al., 2012; Rootid et al., 2022). There have also been reports of birth abnormalities, reproductive issues, and developmental issues (Okereke et al., 2015; Kaličanin and Velimirović, 2016).

Environmental concerns are another issue with cosmetics. The environmental effect of about $400 billion and the expanding worldwide cosmetics and beauty business ranges from the procurement of raw materials to production, distribution, and trash produced by end-users (Chouhan and Himanshu Vig, 2021). Cosmetics impact the oceans, the air quality, and the ecosystems that have sustained flora and fauna for thousands of years, in addition to the local landfills filled with mountains of single-use plastics (Young, 2022). Species are vanishing so that makeup and skincare palettes can be made. In addition to how the items’ production and disposal affect wildlife, they also suffer directly from 80 percent of the world’s population’s continued use of animal testing (European Parliament, 2018).

In contrast to pharmaceutical medications, personal care, and cosmetic items can only be used externally. Due to human activity, such as washing, taking a shower, or taking a bath, they are more likely to enter the environment in large quantities and contribute to more ecological systems. Shampoos, soaps, toothpaste, and shower gels are examples of personal care products that often fall under sanitary practices and should be rinsed off immediately. However, some personal care items, like sanitizers and sunscreen lotion, are leave-on products. Typically, cosmetics are applied to items and left on the skin for at least a few hours (Borowska and Brzóska, 2015). When cosmetics are removed, washed, or used in the shower, they enter sewage treatment facilities, which are ineffective at eliminating all contaminants from substances in personal care and cosmetic goods (Ray et al., 2020). As a result, these chemicals gather with sewage sludge, which is subsequently applied to crops as fertilizer, opening up a route for their entry into the food chain (Juliano and Magrini, 2017).

The most prevalent types of personal care and cosmetic pollutants are organic chemicals (bisphenol-A, p-chloro-m-xylenol, triclosan, grease, fat, and surfactants), which not only harm the aquatic environment but also have an equivalent impact on the plants and human health (Ray et al., 2020). With the increasing popularity of cosmetics, along with reports of toxicity in products sold globally and their adverse effects on both human health and the environment, it is justifiable to closely examine these issues.

However, cosmetics in developing nations like Ethiopia do not require marketing authorization, unlike medicinal products. In the Western world, most countries have laws and regulations on cosmetic safety and labeling (Bilal et al., 2017). As is the case in many other nations, the drug regulatory system does not devote much or any effort to safeguarding the general public and the environment from the negative impacts that these products may have. The companies are in charge of ensuring the safety of the cosmetic products; however, due to various factors, these businesses are business-oriented and pay little to no attention to the cosmetic products’ safety. Some of them include the need to alter test procedures, formulas, packaging, and advertising which could increase sector costs (Amasa et al., 2012).

Additionally, some customers choose not to read the labels of cosmetic items to determine the ingredients and other essential details before using them (Bilal et al., 2017). Therefore, the high rate of illiteracy and lax enforcement of laws leave a gap if faulty goods are put onto the market and cause harm to the environment and people. The purpose of this review was to get insight into the effects of harmful substances in synthetic cosmetics on both human health and the environment.

2 Approach

This review has selected 215 studies published between 1995 and 2024. An adequate literature analysis has been conducted to examine the most recent data on the chemical components of cosmetics, including epidemiological research addressing risk factors for various diseases. This narrative review considered pertinent studies on synthetic cosmetics, environmental and human health effects, and management issues. The narrative literature review was according to Pereira and Pereira (2018). In this review, we used literature published in English (Wan et al., 2024), and there were no constraints on the year of publication or type of study setting. We also considered some grey literature, including databases and the most recent reports that were released. Case studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, policy review papers, systematic reviews, and other pertinent studies were also considered. Databases including Scopus, Science Direct, Web databases, Scholar Google, PubMed, Environmental Science and Technology, Government and Environmental Organizations, and Regulatory Agencies were employed to access published scientific publications. Grey literature and reference lists for the studies under evaluation were found using Google.

The inclusion criteria for scholarly papers were as follows: Papers should be published in peer-reviewed journals or reputable academic sources, written in English, and provide relevant empirical data, analysis, or theoretical insights on the effects of toxic ingredients in synthetic cosmetics on humans and the environment. They must contain the terms “cosmetic pollution,” “cosmetic toxicity,” “cosmetic impact,” “cosmetic intoxication,” “cosmetic risk,” “cosmetic danger,” “cosmetic and human health,” or “cosmetic side effects.” Scientific papers that discussed cosmetic surgery, and cosmetic impact written in a non-English language or had no connection to cosmetic impact items were omitted, as per the exclusion criteria. Reviews and original publications with a toxicological and clinical perspective were among the scientific literature chosen. The primary hazardous chemicals found in cosmetic items are linked to potential health issues in the scientific literature using this technique. The clinical-toxicological connection is made a useful tool to explain and comprehend the adverse effects of using cosmetics through this integrative study, bringing attention to the underutilized use of these items and emphasizing the accompanying health hazards.

The impact of synthetic cosmetics on the environment and health, associated issues, and potential solutions were the focus of this review, which focused on specific studies on the subject. The evidence was compiled and given section by section to make it simple to summarize the results by subject area. Accordingly, the aspects of common toxic chemical compounds that harm human and environmental health are the subject of this article (Siti Zulaikha et al., 2015). This review consists of five sections as follows:

1. Common Hazardous Chemicals in Synthetic Cosmetics

- Identification and discussion of chemicals posing risks to health and the environment.

2. Consequences of Cosmetics on Environment and Human Health

- Analysis of the impacts of cosmetic use on ecosystems, wildlife, and human wellbeing.

3. Difficulties in Controlling Substances in Cosmetics

- Examination of challenges related to regulation, enforcement, and monitoring of cosmetic ingredients.

4. Management Strategy

- Proposal of strategies and approaches to mitigate risks associated with cosmetic chemicals.

5. Conclusion

- Summary and key findings from the study.

3 Result and discussion

Chart 1 Show trends in publications and citations on Human Health and ecological effects of synthetic cosmetics (2000–2023). The data for “Chart 1” were obtained from multiple reputable scientific databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. These databases were chosen due to their comprehensive coverage of scientific literature and their reliability in providing peer-reviewed literature on synthetic cosmetic and their effect.

To gather relevant data, we used specific search strings tailored to identify studies on health and ecological risks associated with cosmetic ingredients. The search strings used are keywords in Figure 2. The search results were filtered to include peer-reviewed articles and reviews published within the last decade. Data were extracted from the selected studies and categorized into health and ecological risks. Synthesizing this data to provide a comprehensive overview of the trends, which were then visualized in “Chart 1.”

Chart 1

Chart 1. Treand in publications and citations on human health and ecological effects of synthetic cosmetics (2000–2023).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Systematic protocol for retrieving the datasets.

The Chart titled “Trend in publication and citations on human health and ecological effects of synthetic cosmetics (2000–2023)” illustrates the academic interest and impact of research in this field over 23 years. Publications addressing human health effects are depicted with a blue line, while those addressing environmental effects are shown with a grey line. The trends illustrate the growing academic interest and impact in these fields over the past two decades. The data is divided into four categories: Human health risk publications, Human health risk citations, Ecological risk publications, and Ecological risk citations.

3.1 Human health risk publications (blue line)

The blue line represents the number of publications focused on human health risks associated with synthetic cosmetics. Over the years, this number has remained relatively stable, with minor fluctuations. The number of publications typically stays below 100 per year, indicating a constant but modest level of research activity in this area. This suggests that while there is ongoing interest, the volume of new research published annually has not seen significant growth.

3.2 Human health risk citations (red line)

The red line shows the number of citations for publications on human health risks. Unlike the steady trend in publications, citations exhibit significant fluctuations. Notable peaks occur around 2008 and 2018, indicating periods of heightened academic or public interest in these studies. These spikes may be linked to regulatory changes, high-profile studies, or increased public awareness. However, there is a sharp decline in citations after 2020, suggesting a decrease in the impact or relevancy of earlier studies in recent years.

3.3 Ecological risk publications (gray line)

The grey line represents publications on the ecological risks of synthetic cosmetics. These publications are consistently fewer in number compared to those on human health risks, remaining below 50 per year. The trend is relatively flat, showing little variation over the years. This indicates that ecological concerns have not significantly driven an increase in research output, possibly reflecting either a lower priority or fewer resources allocated to this area compared to human health.

3.4 Ecological risk citation (yellow line)

The yellow line tracks citations of ecological risk publications. Citation in this category also shows high peaks, particularly around 2008 and 2018, similar to the pattern observed for human health risk citation but with a much higher magnitude. This suggests that during these peak years, studies on ecological risks had a significant academic or public impact. Following these peaks, there, is a notable decline in citations after 2020, which may indicate a shift in the research focuses or a decrease in the perceived relevance of previous studies.

The overall trend depicted in the chart reveals that while the number of publications on human health and ecological risks od synthetic cosmetics has been stable and relatively low, the impact of these publications, as measured by citations, has experienced significant fluctuations. Picks in citation numbers around 2008 and 2018 highlight periods of increased attention, possibly due to emerging evidence, regulatory changes, or heightened public concern. However, the decline in citations post-2020 suggests shifting interest or a saturation point in the field, where newer studies may be needed to reignite academic and public interest.

3.5 Databases and sources for health risk trends

1. PubMed: A comprehensive database of biomedical literature, PubMed contains numerous studies on the health effects of cosmetic ingredients such as parabens, UV filters, and fragrances. Researchers and healthcare professionals frequently use this database to access peer-reviewed articles on allergic reactions, endocrine disruption, and other health impacts.

2. Scopus: Scopus offers extensive coverage of scientific, technical, medical, and social science research. It includes articles on the long-term health effects of various cosmetic ingredients, regulatory updates, and emerging trends in toxicology and public health.

3. Web of Science: This multidisciplinary database provides access to research articles, conference proceedings, and reviews. It is useful for tracking the latest studies on the health risks of cosmetic ingredients and understanding the evolving landscape of regulatory science.

4. Regulatory Agencies: Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and Health Canada publish guidelines, safety assessments, and updates on restricted or banned substances in cosmetics. These sources provide authoritative information on regulatory trends and health risk assessments.

3.6 Databases and sources for ecological risk trends

1. Environmental Science Databases: Databases like Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) and the Journal of Environmental Management publish research on the environmental impacts of cosmetic ingredients, including their persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity to aquatic life.

2. Google Scholar: A freely accessible web search engine that indexes scholarly articles across various disciplines. It provides access to studies on the ecological effects of ingredients like triclosan, microplastics, and UV filters.

3. ScienceDirect: An extensive database offering access to a large collection of scientific and technical research articles. It covers studies on the environmental behavior and risks of cosmetic ingredients.

4. Government and Environmental Organizations: Reports and publications from organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the European Environment Agency (EEA), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) provide data and analyses on the ecological risks of cosmetic ingredients.

3.7 How the trends are based

3.7.1 Health risks

The trends in health risks are based on a synthesis of findings from clinical studies, toxicological research, and regulatory assessments. These include experimental data on allergic reactions, long-term exposure effects, and endocrine disruption, as well as updates from regulatory bodies on banned or restricted substances.

3.7.2 Ecological risks

The trends in ecological risks are derived from environmental monitoring studies, ecotoxicological research, and reports on the persistence and bioaccumulation of cosmetic ingredients in ecosystems. These studies provide insights into how these substances affect aquatic life, microbial communities, and overall ecosystem health.

3.8 Health and ecological risks of cosmetic ingredients

3.8.1 Health risks of cosmetic ingredients

Cosmetic ingredients, while enhancing appearance and personal hygiene, can pose significant health risks to consumers. These risks range from immediate allergic reactions to long-term health concerns, including hormonal disruptions and chronic illnesses. Understanding these risks is crucial for making informed choices about cosmetic products.

3.8.1.1 Increase in allergic reactions due to parabens and fragrances

Parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, have been linked to an increase in allergic reactions. These compounds can cause skin irritation, rashes, and other dermatological issues, especially in individuals with sensitive skin (Rastogi et al., 1995; Zareba et al., 2007). Fragrances, another prevalent ingredient in cosmetics, are also major allergens. Studies have shown that fragrances can cause contact dermatitis and exacerbate conditions like eczema and asthma.

3.8.1.2 Long-term health effects of UV filters and endocrine disruptors

UV filters, such as oxybenzone and octinoxate, are essential in protecting skin from harmful UV radiation. However, these chemicals are also known as endocrine disruptors, capable of interfering with hormone function. Long-term exposure to UV filters has been associated with reproductive issues, developmental problems, and an increased risk of certain cancers. Endocrine disruptors in cosmetics, including phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), similarly pose risks, affecting thyroid function and metabolic processes over time (Li et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2021).

3.8.1.3 Regulatory updates on banned or restricted substances

Regulatory bodies worldwide are continually updating lists of banned or restricted substances in cosmetics to protect public health. For instance, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) regularly reviews and restricts the use of harmful chemicals like certain parabens, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, and specific UV filters (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, 2021). These regulatory changes aim to mitigate the risks posed by toxic cosmetic ingredients and promote safer alternatives.

3.8.2 Ecological risks of cosmetic ingredients

Cosmetic ingredients not only affect human health but also pose significant ecological risks. These substances can accumulate in the environment, disrupting ecosystems and harming wildlife. Understanding these risks is essential for developing sustainable cosmetic products.

3.8.2.1 Bioaccumulation and persistence of parabens and UV filters in aquatic environments

Parabens and UV filters once washed off the skin, enter aquatic environments through wastewater. Studies have shown that these chemicals persist in water bodies, bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms, and disrupt endocrine functions in fish and other wildlife (Brausch and Rand, 2011). The long-term environmental persistence of these substances raises concerns about their cumulative impact on aquatic ecosystems (Ullah et al., 2017).

3.8.2.2 Impact of triclosan and other antimicrobials on microbial communities and aquatic life

Triclosan, an antimicrobial agent used in many personal care products, has been found to adversely affect microbial communities in aquatic environments. This disruption can lead to antibiotic resistance and negatively impact the health of aquatic life. Research indicates that triclosan can impair reproduction and development in fish, amphibians, and invertebrates (Liu and Wong, 2013).

3.8.2.3 Studies on the effects of microplastics from exfoliants on marine ecosystems

Microplastics, often used in exfoliating products, pose a significant threat to marine ecosystems. These tiny plastic particles are ingested by marine organisms, leading to physical harm, chemical contamination, and disruption of feeding behaviors. Studies have documented the presence of microplastics in various marine species, indicating widespread ecological impact and highlighting the need for biodegradable alternatives (Gago et al., 2018).

3.9 Toxic ingredients in cosmetics

A significant issue in the cosmetics industry is the general lack of consumer awareness about the various chemicals that these products contain. Many individuals are unaware that cosmetics often include a multitude of chemicals, each with its specific purpose. Some of these chemicals can pose risks to our health and the environment. Although not every chemical in cosmetics is harmful, it is crucial to understand the ingredients in the products we use. Opting for products with natural or organic ingredients when possible is a good practice. By educating ourselves about the common chemicals in cosmetics, we can make more informed decisions and take proactive measures to protect both our health and the environment (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2007; Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, 2021).

The usage of substances with preservative action, surfactants, perfumes, stains, etc., has expanded today due to innovation, research, and the development of new cosmetic goods (Park, 2023). These ingredients improve the caliber, functionality, and shelf life of cosmetic formulations, but many of them also pose a risk to human health due to frequent, prolonged, and indiscriminate exposure (Whitacre, 2015). Several organizations on a global scale govern the manufacture, quality control, and safety of cosmetic items (European Union, 2009; UNI EN ISO 22716, 2014; Boyer et al., 2017; Sherrow, 2018). These organizations are in charge of modifying the standards and recommendations for the population’s safe and healthy use of these products while reducing health hazards (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, 2021).

Various organizations, including government agencies (GAO, 2009; Raymond and Krupnick, 2016; Practices et al., 2021), environmental groups (Asfaw et al., 2017), research institutions (Ananthapavan et al., 2021), and industry associations (Ricardo, 2021), may conduct cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) or control CBAs related to toxic ingredients and their impacts on human health and the environment (Arct and Mieloch, 2020). These analyses aim to assess the economic costs and benefits associated with the use of toxic ingredients in products and their potential adverse effects on human health. For example, they may assess the costs and benefits of implementing stricter regulations or bans on certain toxic substances to protect public health.

Cost-benefit analysis plays a crucial role in decision-making processes related to toxic ingredients and their impacts on human health and the environment. By quantifying the economic costs and benefits of different policy options or management strategies, CBAs help stakeholders make informed decisions that balance environmental protection, public health, and economic considerations (Ricardo, 2021).

However, no single organization controls the cost-benefit analysis and ensures user safety when harmful compounds are added to cosmetic items (Barthe et al., 2021).

In the creation of numerous cosmetic goods around the world, several compounds have the potential to be hazardous to both human health and the environment. We also looked at potential health issues associated with cosmetic use and its harmful ingredients.

Cosmetic products like creams, lotions, soaps, lipsticks, mascaras, eye shadows, nail polishes, shampoos, hair dyes, sprays, gels, deodorants, and fragrances may contain ingredients such as triclosan, parabens, phthalates, sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate (SLS or SLES), mineral oil, formaldehyde, and butylated compounds like butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) or butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) (Ad and Mn, 2019; Barabasz et al., 2019; Scott Faber, 2020). About 12,500 industrial chemicals, including carcinogens, insecticides, reproductive poisons, endocrine disruptors, plasticizers, degreasers, and surfactants, were identified by U.S. researchers as being used as cosmetic additives (Naveed, 2014; Sheikh AG, 2018; Lauren, 2019). According to the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), an estimated 12,500 chemicals are used in cosmetics in the U.S. Only 11 of these chemicals are prohibited in the U.S. Still, more than 1,300 are banned or restricted in the E.U. (Milman, 2019) Several types of cosmetics have been identified to contain aluminum, a lightweight metal, in addition to heavy metals like lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, and nickel. These metals are commonly found in color cosmetics, face and body care products, hair cosmetics, herbal cosmetics, and similar items (Kader Mohiuddin, 2019). For a variety of reasons, heavy metals are also added to cosmetics. It is commonly known that heavy metals are harmful (Siti Zulaikha et al., 2015).

3.10 Environmental and health effects of cosmetics

3.10.1 Health effects of cosmetics

Cosmetic compounds are emerging environmental contaminants that are hazardous to human health (Juliano and Magrini, 2017).

People encounter toxic metals through multiple exposure pathways. Many consumers use these products daily and thereby expose themselves to the risk of these toxic metals. Numerous studies have shown that cosmetics components may harm the environment (Juliano and Magrini, 2017; Issac and Kandasubramanian, 2021; Young, 2022) and human health (Okereke et al., 2015; Nduka and Kelle, 2018; Ad and Mn, 2019). It has been documented that the use of cosmetics can cause cancer, mutation, reproductive damage, and endocrine disruption (Amasa et al., 2012). Some chemicals used in personal care products can negatively affect the hormone system, even at low concentrations (Vandenberg et al., 2012; NYS Health Foundation, 2013). Endocrine-disrupting substances like parabens and phthalates may be most dangerous during fetal and early postnatal development when organ and neurological systems are forming (Francisco et al., 2012; Nassan et al., 2017; Bouyssi-Kobar et al., 2019; Adegoke et al., 2021). Endocrine disorders and several types of cancer have been related to exposure to these substances. For instance, endocrine disruptors have been associated with breast cancer since it is known that they alter how women’s bodies use estrogen. Endocrine disruptors have also been linked to immune system damage, which increases susceptibility to health problems (Adegoke et al., 2021). Many cosmetics have also been connected to severe hazards like infections and burns (Biskanaki et al., 2023). Hair loss, blisters, nosebleeds, bleeding gums, and a loss of taste and smell have all been connected to formaldehyde-based on “keratin treatments,” which are used to straighten hair (Scott Fabber, 2020). Plenty of proof exists indicating that personal care items are tainted with heavy metals, as reported by Siti Zulaikha and co-authors in 2015, along with supporting visual data (Siti Zulaikha et al., 2015).

More than 10,000 chemicals can be found in cosmetic products (Kaličanin and Velimirović, 2016). The European Union has stricter rules, and its precautionary approach recognizes that substances linked to cancer and birth abnormalities are not allowed to be added to cosmetics. A total of 1,328 substances known or suspected of causing cancer, genetic mutation, reproductive damage, or birth defects are prohibited from cosmetics under E.U. regulation. Comparatively, the U.S. FDA has only forbidden or limited the use of 11 substances in cosmetics. European Union legislation, in contrast to American law, mandates pre-market safety evaluations of cosmetics, mandatory registration of cosmetic products, government approval for the use of nanomaterials, and outlaws the use of animals in cosmetic testing (European Union, 2009; FDA, 2022; Onel et al., 2019; Gautam et al., 2022).

Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury, aluminum, zinc, chromium, and iron are found in various personal care products like lipstick, whitening toothpaste, eyeliner, and nail polish (Siti Zulaikha et al., 2015). While some metals are added deliberately as ingredients, others appear as contaminants. These metals pose significant risks to human health and the environment.

Lead: Lead exposure from cosmetics has been linked to various health issues, including developmental delays in children, reproductive problems (Environmental, 2019), and neurological damage. Chronic exposure to lead can lead to kidney damage, hypertension, and impaired cognitive function.

Mercury: Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can accumulate in the body over time, leading to neurological disorders, kidney damage, and skin rashes. Prolonged mercury exposure can also impair cognitive function and affect fetal development in pregnant women (EPA, 2001).

Cadmium: Cadmium exposure from cosmetics has been associated with lung damage, kidney dysfunction, and bone disorders. Long-term exposure to cadmium may increase the risk of cancer and disrupt hormonal balance in the body (Ramelli et al., 2012; Genchi et al., 2020; Charkiewicz et al., 2023).

Arsenic: Arsenic is a carcinogen that can cause skin lesions, respiratory issues, and cardiovascular problems. Chronic exposure to arsenic has been linked to various types of cancer, including skin, lung, bladder, and liver cancer (Palma-Lara et al., 2020; Speer et al., 2023).

The presence of these toxic metals in synthetic cosmetics highlights the importance of rigorous testing and regulation to ensure product safety and protect consumer health. Consumers should be aware of the potential risks associated with certain ingredients and prioritize products that are certified to meet safety standards (Canada, 2007).

3.10.2 Safety assessment of ingredients in cosmetics

Impurities such as heavy metals are frequently found in cosmetic and personal care products. This explains why the concentration of heavy metals found in the products was so low. Their presence in cosmetics does not necessitate their labeling as product contaminants. Even if the harmful metals were only present in trace amounts, they are known to accumulate and cause poisoning. If permitted to build up over time, the gradual release of these metals into the human body could be detrimental to the biological system. Because of these metals’ lengthy half-lives, they may build up in the body’s organs. The uncertainty factor is applied to risk characterization in the last stage of the safety assessment of cosmetic compounds. The MoS is the name given to this uncertainty factor.

The World Health Organization (WHO) generally considers a margin MoS value of 100 as a benchmark for determining the safe use of a substance (Siti Zulaikha et al., 2015).

3.11 Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk analysis of different harmful substances found in various types of cosmetics

3.11.1 Non-carcinogenic analysis

Health risks associated with heavy metals are assessed by estimating risk levels and categorizing them as either carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic hazards. So, the hazard index (HI), Systemic Exposure Dosage (SED), and MoS were used to estimate the non-cancer health risks of different harmful substances found in various types of cosmetics.

To assess non-carcinogenic risk, especially from exposure to chemicals, two primary metrics are used: the Hazard Quotient (HQ) and HI. These are commonly applied in human health risk assessments (Nduka et al., 2016; Eticha et al., 2018b; Arshad et al., 2020). The HQ value < 1 is considered to be safe while that greater than 1 is unsafe for human health. The HQ level was calculated using Equation 1.

Hazard Quotient $\left(HQ\right)$: is used to estimate the risk of non-carcinogenic effects from a single substance.

$HQ=\frac{SED}{RfD}(1)$

The SED value was calculated by an expression:

$SED\left(\frac{\frac{mg}{kg}}{d}\right)=\frac{Cs\times AA\times SSA\times F\times RF\times BF}{BW}\times {10}^{-3}(2)$

where, Reference Dose (RfD): is the maximum acceptable oral dose of toxic substance, established by a regulatory agency like EPA. It represents a daily exposure level that is assumed to be without significant risk of adverse effects on life. SED is the systematic exposure dose, Cs indicates metal concentration in the sample (mg/kg), SSA is the surface area of skin onto which the product is applied (cm²), AA shows the quantity applied (g/cm²), RF is the retention factor, F indicates the application frequency of a product/day, BF is the bioaccessibility factor, 10⁻³ (mg/kg) is used as unit conversion factor, BW is the average body weight (70 kg) (Eticha et al., 2018b; Arshad et al., 2020).

HI: is used to estimate the risk of non-carcinogenic effects from exposure to multiple chemical substances (Equation 3) (Eticha et al., 2018b; Arshad et al., 2020). It is the sum of the Hazard Quotient for all chemicals considered.

$\text{HI}=\sum HQi(3)$

HQi: The Hazard Quotient for each chemical.

The HI value in sample hydroalcoholic gel samples tested in the study is less than 1. The HI levels were much less than 1, meaning that the samples were safe for human health (Arshad et al., 2020). The study conducted on Health Risk Assessment of some Cosmetic Products sold in Keffi Markets, Nasarawa State Nigeria revealed that HI, pressed powder, dental powder, eye shadow, and eyeliner, 9.61 $\times$ 0³, 6.0 $\times$ 10⁴, 7.2 $\times$ 10⁶, and 1.0 $\times$ 10⁹ respectively. Results are in agreement with those reported by Health Canada (2016). HI levels for the lotion and sunblock were greater than 1 at both 50% and 100% bio-accessibility, which demonstrated that excessive use of these products may cause health risks to consumers. In the case of hair dye, foundation, whitening cream, and lipstick, HI values reported by Abed Elaziz et al. (2016) were also less than 1 for different facial cosmetics.

3.11.2 Carcinogenic analysis

The carcinogenic analysis is realized by the evaluation of the probable cancer risks due to exposure to heavy metals. The ILCR is the incremental probability of a person developing any type of cancer over a lifetime as a result of 24 h per day exposure to a given daily amount of a carcinogenic element for 70 years. The permissible limits of ILCR for one or more heavy metals are 10⁻⁶ < ILCR <10⁻⁴ and computed as reported previously (Equation 4) (Arshad et al., 2020).

$\text{LCR}=SED\times SF(4)$

where SF represents the carcinogenicity slope factor (mg/kg/d)/-1 and it approximates the cancer risk per unit intake dose of an agent to cause cancer over an average lifetime.

The study conducted (Gnonsoro et al., 2022) on Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals (Pb, Cd, Hg) in Hydroalcoholic Gels of Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire depicted that the mean values of ILCR for lead and cadmium are 2.59 $\times$ 10⁻⁸ ± 1.15 $\times$ 10⁻⁸ and 4.78 $\times$ 10⁻⁹ ± 1.56 $\times$ 10⁻⁹ respectively. For a single heavy metal, an ILCR below 1 $\times$ 10⁻⁶ poses an insignificant cancer risk and can be disregarded, whereas an ILCR exciding 1 $\times$ 10⁻⁴ signals a significant health concern due to the heightened risk of cancer. Therefore, the hydroalcoholic gel samples tested in the study did not pose a carcinogenic risk through dermal sensitivity for lead and cadmium.

In the context of cosmetic products, assessing carcinogenic risk involves analyzing exposure through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact.

Ingestion of cosmetic products generally occurs through incidental ingestion of lip products or accidental ingestion by children. This pathway necessitates careful calculation of doses based on product usage and the concentration of harmful substances, coupled with regulatory measures to limit such substances in lip and oral care products (FDA, 2022; Salles et al., 2023).

Inhalation exposure is significant for aerosolized products like sprays, powders, and perfumes. Here, risk factors include the concentration of airborne particles, the frequency of use, and environmental ventilation. Proper risk assessment involves estimating inhalation rates and using inhalation-specific toxicological data, with mitigation strategies such as regulating volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and promoting safe usage practices (Oh and Kim, 2020; SCCS, 2023).

Dermal contact is the primary exposure pathway for most cosmetics, which are applied directly to the skin. This involves considering skin permeability, product formulation, and application frequency. The risk is assessed by evaluating the product’s concentration, the surface area exposed, and absorption rates, with regulatory measures ensuring the exclusion of known carcinogens and comprehensive safety testing of ingredients (Chedik et al., 2024).

Integrating these pathways into a comprehensive risk assessment allows for a complete understanding of carcinogenic risks associated with cosmetics, ensuring products meet safety standards and maintain consumer safety and confidence (Canavez et al., 2021; Canada, 2007).

Maximum Allowed Limit: Regulatory limits for hazardous metals in various cosmetic products as specified by different health agencies.

Lead (Pb) and Cadmium (Cd) are common hazardous metals found in synthetic cosmetics. Table 1 provides examples of these metals in various cosmetic products and their associated carcinogenic risk assessments.

Table 1

Table 1. Health risk assessment of hazardous metals in synthetic cosmetics.

Including specific examples of carcinogenic risk assessments for hazardous metals in synthetic cosmetics enhances the study’s relevance. It provides a clear, detailed understanding of the potential carcinogenic risks and regulatory standards, helping to inform both consumers and regulatory bodies about the safety of cosmetic products.

Table 2 also suggests that certain cosmetics, especially eyeshadow, and lipstick, have relatively high HI values for certain metals, indicating a potential risk of adverse health effects from exposure to these metals through cosmetics. This suggests the need for further assessment and possibly regulation to ensure consumer safety.

Table 2

Table 2. MoS, SED, and HQ value of some toxic metal ingredients present in cosmetics products.

Table 3

Table 3. Cosmetic ingredients and their health effect.

The SED predicts the number of chemicals that enter the human body by various exposure means and is computed as Equation 2 (Arshad et al., 2020).

According to the study conducted by Eticha et al. (2018a), on the determination of levels and exposure risks of metals in lipsticks, the result revealed that the calculated SED (μg/kg bw/day) and MoS of heavy metals from the lipstick products. The SED of cadmium and zinc from the samples ranged from 7.98 $\times$ 10⁻⁸ to 1.61 $\times$ 10⁻⁶, and 4.02 $\times$ 10^–5 to 8.04 $\times$ 10⁻⁵ μg/kg bw/day for 50% and 100% bioaccessibility scenarios (Eticha et al., 2018a).

The study done in Nigeria on Concentrations and exposure risks of some metals in facial cosmetics indicates the SED of cadmium, lead, and chromium in lipstick samples in the range of 1.96 × 10⁻⁵ to 3.92 $\times$ 10⁻⁵, 6.61 $\times$ 10^–5 to 1.13 $\times$ 10^–4, and 5.43 $\times$ 10^–5 to 1.09 $\times$ 10^–4 μg/kg bw/day respectively at both 50% and 100% bioaccessibility (Iwegbue et al., 2016).

At 50% and 100% bioaccessibility, the MoS for cadmium and zinc chromium in lipsticks are 5.10 $\times$ 10⁶ to 2.55 $\times$ 10⁶, 3.72 $\times$ 10⁸ to 1.86 $\times$ 10⁸, and 5.53 $\times$ 10⁶ to 2.76 $\times$ 10⁶, respectively (Iwegbue et al., 2016). The MoS for zinc and cadmium in lipsticks at 50% and 100% bioaccessibility, respectively, is 2.49 $\times$ 10⁶ to 1.24 $\times$ 10⁶ and 1.25 $\times$ 10⁹ to 6.27 $\times$ 10⁸, according to (Eticha et al., 2018a). Nonetheless, the World Health Organization (WHO) states that a product’s MoS value is safe to use if it is greater than 100 and that a value up to 100 is acceptable (Iwegbue et al., 2016; Eticha et al., 2018a; Arshad et al., 2020).

Another study suggests that in the samples of hair dye, foundation, whitening cream, and lipstick MoS was greater than 100, which revealed that the evaluated samples were safe for use. However, in lotions and sun-blocks- blocks the MoS values for Cd, Cr, and Pb were below 100, which indicated that these products are not safe for use, particularly concerning Heavy metal contamination. In different cosmetic products analyzed (Usman et al., 2021) levels of MoS were found to be higher than 100 while MoS for lipsticks was almost similar to the previous study as reported by Arshad et al. (2020) (Equation 5).

$MOS=\frac{NOAEL}{SED}(5)$

Nevertheless, if the amount of metal in the samples is above the WHO’s recommended threshold of 100, which indicates that a material is acceptable for use, continued use of the products may cause these metals to accumulate to dangerously high levels in the human body. It is advised that regular monitoring systems and the establishment of maximum allowable levels for heavy metals in cosmetic products be put in place to mitigate any potential dangers to human health linked with the use of cosmetics.

The analysis suggests that while these harmful substances are present in cosmetics, the risks associated with their non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic exposure are relatively low when used as directed. However, it's essential to consider cumulative exposure from multiple sources and potential synergistic effects when evaluating overall risk. Additionally, continuous monitoring and regulatory oversight are crucial to ensuring the safety of cosmetic products.

The values in Table 2 depend on various factors such as cosmetics brand (Arshad et al., 2020), frequency of use, exposure pathways, and individual factors such as age and health status.

3.11.3 Environmental effects of cosmetics

Cosmetic ingredients can enter the environment through various pathways, including but not limited to, direct discharge (Paulsen, 2015; Tsiouli and Fytianos, 2023) from manufacturing facilities (Juliano and Magrini, 2017) into water bodies, runoff (Oluwole et al., 2020). from urban areas during rainfall events., leaching from landfills (Ejeromedoghene et al., 2021; Tsiouli and Fytianos, 2023) where cosmetic products are disposed of Yadav. (2023), and via personal use and disposal practices such as washing off products in sinks and showers (Tsiouli and Fytianos, 2023). Additionally, microplastics and other solid particles from cosmetic formulations can accumulate in soil and water bodies through wastewater treatment effluent or direct release, further contributing to environmental contamination (Juliano and Magrini, 2017; Pereira and Pereira, 2018; David and Niculescu, 2021; Young, 2022).

The most significant pathway for cosmetic ingredients to enter the environment is through wastewater discharge (Khalid and Abdollahi, 2021). This is particularly concerning because wastewater treatment plants may not effectively remove all cosmetic ingredients, leading to their release into aquatic environments (Juliano and Magrini, 2017). Once in aquatic systems, these compounds can persist, bioaccumulate, and biomagnify through the food chain (Li et al., 2023). They can also transform more harmful substances through processes like photolysis and oxidation. Ultimately, many of these compounds end up in water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and oceans, where they can have adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems and potentially enter the human food chain through seafood consumption (Ghosh et al., 2023; Osman et al., 2023).

They discharge into the atmosphere, water, and soil throughout the production process, posing major environmental dangers. According to a US Government Accountability Office review, nanoparticles with antibacterial capabilities that are never provided in large enough numbers may interfere with the beneficial activity of microorganisms in water treatment facilities and render the suggested water for reuse ineffective. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles used for disinfection and to break down contaminants may also be able to drive other organic transformations and have an impact on atmospheric photochemical processes. Similarly, a study done by the University of Toledo discovered that nano-TiO₂, a substance that is thought to be near home, lowered the organic processes of microorganisms after an hour of exposure. As a result, it has been proposed that these particles, which wind up at civic sewage treatment plants, might damage creatures that are essential to maintaining the ecosystem (Gupta et al., 2022).

The effluents from wastewater treatment plants and sewage sludge, which are frequently used as a fertilizer, are probably the most significant sources of pollution. Ultraviolet filters (UVFs), often used in the production of cosmetics, can directly enter water bodies when washed off the skin during recreational activities such as swimming, or bathing, as well as indirectly through wastewater from the use of personal care products, washing clothes, and industrial discharges (Juliano and Magrini, 2017).

Ultraviolet filters (UVFs) are chemicals used in sunscreens and other cosmetics to protect the skin from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Common UV filters include oxybenzone, octinoxate, and avobenzone.

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) of UV filters, such as oxybenzone, octinoxate, and avobenzone, is a critical area of study due to their widespread use in sunscreens and personal care products. These chemicals are designed to absorb or reflect UV radiation, protecting human skin from harmful effects. However, their release into the environment through activities such as swimming, bathing, and wastewater discharge raises significant ecological concerns.

Ultraviolet filters can be highly toxic to various aquatic organisms. For example, oxybenzone has been shown to cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections in coral cells, disrupting their symbiotic relationship with algae. This can lead to the loss of coral reefs, which are crucial for marine biodiversity (Wood, 2018; Miller et al., 2021; Mozas-Blanco et al., 2023). Similarly, octinoxate has been found to cause developmental issues in fish and invertebrates, impacting reproduction and population dynamics (Schlumpf et al., 2008).

Many UV filters are lipophilic, meaning they can accumulate in the fatty tissues of aquatic organisms. This bioaccumulation can lead to biomagnification up the food chain, posing risks to predators, including birds and mammals that consume contaminated fish and invertebrates. Persistent UV filters can remain in the environment for extended periods, further exacerbating their ecological impact (Peng et al., 2017).

Several UV filters have been identified as endocrine disruptors (Table 3). They can interfere with the hormonal systems of aquatic organisms, leading to altered reproductive behaviors, growth patterns, and developmental processes. For instance, studies have shown that UV filters like 4-MBC (4-methylbenzylidene camphor) can affect the endocrine system of fish, leading to decreased fertility and altered sex ratios (Wang et al., 2016; He et al., 2021).

Parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics to inhibit microbial growth, include methylparaben, ethylparaben, and butylparaben. These substances can enter aquatic systems via wastewater, where they pose toxic risks to various forms of aquatic life such as algae, crustaceans, and fish. The endocrine systems of these organisms can be disrupted by parabens, causing reproductive and developmental issues (Mozas-Blanco et al., 2023). Despite being biodegradable, the pervasive use and continual release of parabens result in their accumulation in the environment, creating long-term ecological risks (Mozas-Blanco et al., 2023).

Triclosan, an antimicrobial agent found in numerous personal care products like soaps, toothpaste, and deodorants, poses environmental risks (Table 3). It can persist in aquatic environments, where its presence is toxic, leading to significant water contamination issues (Al et al., 2016).

3.11.3.1 Air pollution

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are air pollutants found in various cosmetics, including fragrances, deodorants, hair sprays, hair mousses, hair styling gels, nail paint removers, shaving creams, and antiperspirants (Lisa and Benson, 2017; USEPA, 2021). According to a recent study, these goods considerably contribute to carbon dioxide emissions (McDonald et al., 2018). The study found that half of the VOCs released in 33 major cities come from household and cosmetic goods. One study discovered that, in some situations, the VOC from deodorants, hairsprays, and fragrances emit the same quantity of chemical vapors as autos. However, it was noted that the balanced ratio was more a result of decreased pollution from automobiles than increased pollution from cosmetics (McDonald et al., 2018). Let’s not overlook the environmental impact of the numerous components produced from fossil fuels that are used in packaging and beauty products. Carbon pollution is a significant concern even when natural ingredients are extracted and processed in non-sustainable methods.

3.11.3.2 Water pollution

Toxic chemicals in beauty products leach from our bodies into the oceans, from our bathrooms to spending hot summer days at the beach. Sometimes dangerous compounds are found in shampoos, sunscreens, creams, and lotions that end up in the environment and endanger wildlife. Every year, 14,000 tons of sunscreen end up in the water and on coral reefs. The immense devastation of coral reefs in the world’s oceans is caused in part by oxybenzone. It has been discovered that chemical additives, such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), sodium lauryl sulfate, and butylated hydroxy anisole (BHA), can significantly alter the biochemistry of aquatic life. These poisonous compounds sometimes kill fish, in addition to reducing the animal plankton population. Some of these pollutants remain in the water supply even after sewage treatment (Barabasz et al., 2019).

3.11.3.3 Microbeads

The presence of microplastics in the marine environment is a problem that is receiving more attention and is now acknowledged as one of the growing concerns since it could harm animals and pose hazards to the health of marine ecosystems. Additionally, early research has shown that microplastics are widely distributed in much inland water, with a higher concentration than in the coastal environment (Wu et al., 2018). Microplastics have become prevalent environmental contaminants in both freshwater and marine ecosystems (Limonta et al., 2019). Plastic packaging is only one component of the plastic pollution brought on by beauty products. Plastic microbeads are used as exfoliants in body scrubs and other beauty treatments, and they are little plastic flecks no larger than 5 mm (Issac and Kandasubramanian, 2021). Innumerable microplastics flush into water bodies when products that contain microbeads are used. They draw pollutants in when fish ingest them and finally by people. Microbeads exacerbate the already severe plastic pollution problems in the world’s oceans. Although the U.S. and the U.K. have outlawed microbead production, they still come across them in some products. Nothing prevents cosmetic firms operating in nations without microbead regulations from utilizing hazardous plastic (Young, 2022).

3.11.3.4 Unsustainable resource consumption

Cosmetics products seriously deplete natural resources. For instance, palm oil, a plant-based ingredient, can be found in more than 2,300 cosmetic products (under 20 various names) (Young, 2022). Only tropical regions within 10 degrees of the equator support the growth of palm oil. Between 2015 and 2018, vendors in Southeast Asia alone cleared 500 square miles of rainforest due to rising demand for the commodity (Final Countdown, 2018). Deforestation frequently occurs using fire, which releases tons of carbon dioxide, much more than the trees sequester. Moreover, primates are undoubtedly the direct victims of the widespread degradation of rainforests caused by palm oil. According to Orangutan Foundation International, between 1,000 and 5,000 orangutans are murdered annually in palm oil concessions (Orangutan Foundation International, 2015). The mica mining sector is rife with deforestation as well. The mineral is frequently used to give cosmetics a shine for 4,249 of the goods evaluated by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), including lipsticks and eye shadows (Singh, 2019). Furthermore, two of the world’s most disadvantaged and underpaid individuals work in both industries, palm oil, and mica extraction from the ground. The processes used in mining, harvesting, and manufacturing require a lot of labor and are frequently done in hazardous environments.

3.11.3.5 Transport/logistics of beauty products

The logistics and distribution of cosmetics are environmentally detrimental as well. Many cosmetic items are manufactured abroad, and when they are sent to international markets, a significant carbon footprint is left behind.

915 million tons of carbon dioxide were created by the aviation sector in 2019 alone, accounting for roughly 2% of total CO₂ emissions caused by human activity annually (Jarošová and Pajdlhauser, 2022) These carbon emissions hasten the effects of global warming, which causes several more environmental issues.

Customers are urged to buy their cosmetics from local vendors or even make their own to stop this practice (Sadie, 2020).

For instance, short supply chains and transit routes can help minimize emissions (Cherrafi et al., 2022). Cosmetic enterprises have to pay attention to the spread of possible invasive species through logistical procedures and product movements (Ashdaq et al., 2023). Organisms that are brought into an environment where they do not normally reside are referred to as invasive species (Scanes, 2017). Highly aggressive species that have no natural rivals or predators may proliferate and endanger native species by becoming invasive (Nikolovska, 2016). The composition and operation of ecosystems may occasionally be disturbed by these biological invasions, which can also have significant financial consequences.

Particularly cosmetic businesses that use imported fresh and raw plant-based materials may be vulnerable to this (Cooney, 2004). To prevent the spread of potentially invasive alien species, businesses should take action. You should take the precautionary principle into account (CBD, 2002). Arriving items with biological raw materials and fresh ingredients should always be thoroughly inspected visually for potential stowaways (such as insects). If “contamination” is seen, the offending organism has to be eliminated. The possible measures are the identification of possible gateways for potentially invasive species in the company (i.e., goods entrance), process description and procedure for “contaminated” material, and development of protocols for documentation of material contamination (Gisp and Jackson, 2007).

3.12 Risks to the biodiversity/flora and fauna of ecosystems

Loss of biodiversity is the term used to describe the reduction in diversity within a species, an ecosystem, a region, or the planet itself (David Elisha and Jebbin Felix, 2020). Because it undermines ecosystems’ ability to operate and puts them in danger of disturbance, biodiversity loss is a concern because it negatively affects both individual animals and ecosystems as a whole (Chandellier and Malacain, 2021). As a result, life on Earth is left with fewer resources and is less able to satisfy its requirements.

Many cosmetic products are made using organic, plant- and animal-derived components (Abattoir, 2015). These include biologically derived ingredients having beneficial qualities for cosmetic applications, such as essential oils, pigments, and surfactants. Biodiversity is becoming a key concern for the cosmetics sector due to rising customer demand for natural components and sustainable cosmetic products (European Business and Biodiversity Campaign, 2010).

The production or collection of biological raw materials often has the greatest direct and indirect detrimental consequences on biodiversity. The primary environmental effects include the (indirect) use of land for resource extraction, the exploitation of ecosystems and habitats, pesticide and fertilizer contamination, and agricultural practices that encourage erosion (Wassie, 2020). A conspicuous illustration of this is the continued destruction of significant portions of primary rainforest for the increasingly widespread cultivation of palm oil (Murphy et al., 2021). In the case of wild collection, the ecological sustainability of the resource collection is reliant on the good conservation status of the employed species and its population (Leaman, 2008). Improper harvesting techniques or other factors might have a detrimental impact on preservation. Factors influencing the preservation negatively are improper harvesting methods or harvesting times as a harvesting rate above the regeneration capacity of the species. The Candeia tree (Eremanthus erythropappus), which produces the anti-inflammatory alpha-bisabolol, which is used in several skin creams and is native to the Amazonian rainforest, is a good example of this (Queiroz and Cajaiba, 2016).

There is a possibility of harmful consequences on biodiversity even at the very end of the value chains for cosmetics. For instance, many of the cosmetics’ active components wind up in sewage water and are incapable of being filtered in typical sewage treatment facilities (European Business and Biodiversity Campaign, 2010). Such “Xenobiotic” (bio-incompatible) substances wind up in rivers and streams, where they are likely to accumulate in aquatic creatures and, for example, impair reproduction (Ravindra et al., 2019).

Since the use of materials from protected or endangered species, as well as biological raw materials and ingredients from areas with high biodiversity can be extremely important to the success of cosmetic companies, corporate management should modify its environmental policy to support the objectives of the UN Biodiversity Convention (Lojeng, 2022).

Environment and Sustainability Managers as well as auditors should assess to what extent the strategic importance of biodiversity is known as well as anchored in the company (Burby, 2013). To accomplish this, it is recommended to analyze the corporate mission and environmental policy.

Without appropriate action, the loss of biodiversity will keep accelerating, with unexpected impacts on the economy and society (David Elisha and Jebbin Felix, 2020). The following elements are the main causes of biodiversity loss on a global scale: habitat degradation and ecological devastation, excessive use of natural resources (Hens and Boon, 2003; Gebretsadik, 2016; Bar et al., 2023).

3.12.1 Risks to the flora

Synthetic cosmetics pose several risks to flora, which refers to the plant life within a particular ecosystem (Elisha and Terry, 2021; Faccio, 2020). These risks primarily stem from the production, usage (Nduka and Kelle, 2018), and disposal of synthetic cosmetics, as well as the ingredients contained within them (Juliano and Magrini, 2017; Lafforgue and Lafforgue, 2021).

Chemical Pollution: Synthetic cosmetics often contain various chemicals, such as parabens, phthalates, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances (Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2023). When these products are washed off during bathing or disposed of improperly, these chemicals can find their way into water bodies through sewage systems (Juliano and Magrini, 2017). Once in the water, they can negatively impact aquatic flora by disrupting their growth, reproduction, and overall health (Gonsioroski et al., 2020; Issac and Kandasubramanian, 2021).

Soil Contamination: Improper disposal of synthetic cosmetics, such as dumping unused products or washing them off directly onto soil, can lead to soil contamination (Bowen, 1975). Chemicals from these cosmetics can leach into the soil, affecting the microbial communities essential for nutrient cycling and plant growth (Yadav, 2023). Contaminated soil may also hinder the germination of seeds and the growth of plant roots (Paulsen, 2015; Yu et al., 2022).

Habitat Destruction: The production of synthetic cosmetics often involves the extraction of natural resources, such as minerals and petroleum (Martins and Marto, 2023). This extraction process can lead to habitat destruction, particularly in biodiverse areas rich in flora. Deforestation, soil erosion, and habitat fragmentation are some of the consequences that can directly harm plant species and disrupt ecosystems (European Business and Biodiversity Campaign, 2010).

Invasive Species Introduction: Some synthetic cosmetic ingredients, especially microplastics and non-biodegradable substances, can inadvertently introduce invasive species into natural habitats (Lauren, 2019; Osman et al., 2023; Ziani et al., 2023). For example, microbeads used in exfoliating scrubs can enter water bodies and act as vectors for the spread of invasive plant species, disrupting native flora and outcompeting indigenous plants.

Air Pollution: The production and transportation of synthetic cosmetics contribute to air pollution through the release of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Air pollution can negatively impact plant health by interfering with photosynthesis, damaging leaf surfaces, and altering soil pH levels through acid rain deposition, ultimately affecting the composition and distribution of flora within ecosystems (Florentina and Io, 2011; Acwin Dwijendra et al., 2023).

Different parts of the plant (Table 4) can provide ingredients for cosmetic and personal care products (Faccio, 2020).

Table 4

Table 4. Different parts of plants used as cosmetic ingredients.

It has been documented that components taken from plant parts such as bark, flowers, fruit, leaves, nuts, petals, pollen, seeds, roots, sprouts, stems, and other types of plant parts are used to create cosmetic products (Gupta and Prakash, 2013). This may result in plant species disappearing from the environment. As a result, plant biodiversity declines. This contributes to additional global warming through deforestation, which once more has a detrimental impact on human welfare (Sagbo, 2021; Nadeeshani Dilhara Gamage et al., 2022).

The loss of different plant parts used as ingredients in cosmetic formulations can have significant ecological and physiological consequences for the plant species involved, potentially affecting their growth, reproduction, and survival in their natural habitats.

3.12.2 Risk on fauna

Without appropriate action, the loss of biodiversity will keep accelerating, with unexpected impacts on the economy and society (Spangenberg et al., 2012). The following elements are the main causes of biodiversity loss on a global scale: habitat degradation and ecological devastation, excessive use of natural resources (Spangenberg et al., 2012; David Elisha, 2021; Hatipoglu, 2023).

Most often, factory farms serve as the primary locations where pigs are slaughtered for their meat, and where portions of their bodies are processed to produce the cosmetic ingredient “glycerine” (Abattoir, 2015; National Pork Board, 2009). For instance, factory farms seriously harm the ecology (Anomaly, 2015). Due to the high concentration of phosphorus and nitrogen in factory-farmed pigs’ feces, when it contaminates areas outside the farm, it may cause a great deal of harm (Chemiczne and Wody, 2012; Fiut and Urbaniak, 2016).

Water gets excessively enriched in minerals and nutrients due to eutrophication, which is caused by run-off pollution from waste pits at factory farms. As a result, there is an excessive development of algae, which frequently causes the water’s oxygen levels to drop. Fish and other aquatic plant and animal life are subsequently killed as a result. ‘Dead zones’ are places where this happens (Yang et al., 2008).

In addition to being exploited and slaughtered for their meat, skin, and milk, cattle are also used to produce tallow and other cosmetic elements from their carcasses. Because so many cattle are produced for these purposes and because cattle emit such large amounts of greenhouse gases, these businesses are always bad for the environment (Durrans, 2013).

Every year, many millions of fish are murdered for food, oils, and substances like guanine. The effects on the ecology and, naturally, the fish, who suffer and perish, are very harmful (Kibria, 2024).

Oceans encompass 70% of the planet (Wang, 2021). The entire ocean ecology may collapse if we do end up with fishless or almost fishless oceans in the future, as is anticipated (Durrans, 2013). Species that depend on fish for sustenance would become extinct if humans wiped them off. Algae, kelp, plankton, krill, and worms would all suffer greatly without the symbiosis that all these species form in nature. The effects on the environment are mind-boggling (Bert, 2016).

4 Challenges in managing cosmetic ingredients

Managing cosmetic ingredients poses several challenges (Raj and Chandrul, 2016), including:

1. Regulatory Complexity: The regulation of cosmetic ingredients varies greatly between regions and countries, making it challenging for companies to comply with different standards and requirements (Mohd Riyaz Beg, 2016; Raj and Chandrul, 2016; Singh et al., 2018; Ferreira et al., 2022; Abed et al., 2024). Harmonizing regulations globally can be difficult due to differing priorities, cultural attitudes, and scientific interpretations.

2. Ingredient Transparency: Lack of transparency regarding the ingredients used in cosmetic products can make it difficult for consumers to make informed choices (Bibby, 2018; Standard, 2020; Santoro, 2022). Some ingredients may be listed under generic terms or trade names, obscuring their true nature and potential risks (Lafforgue and Lafforgue, 2021).

3. Data Gaps in Safety Information: Many cosmetic ingredients lack comprehensive safety data, especially concerning long-term exposure and potential interactions with other chemicals (Amasa et al., 2012; Steiling, 2016; Panico et al., 2019; Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, 2021). This makes it challenging to assess their environmental and health impacts accurately.

4. Emerging Contaminants: New cosmetic ingredients are continually being developed, and their environmental fate and toxicity may not be fully understood (Juliano and Magrini, 2017). These emerging contaminants can pose challenges for monitoring and management efforts.

5. Microplastics and Nanoparticles: Microplastics and nanoparticles are commonly used in cosmetics for various purposes, such as exfoliation and UV protection (Leslie, 2014; Gupta et al., 2022; Ziani et al., 2023). However, their small size makes them difficult to remove during wastewater treatment, leading to their accumulation in the environment and potential ecological harm.

6. Sustainable Sourcing: Many cosmetic ingredients are derived from natural resources, such as plants and minerals (McMullen and Dell’Acqua, 2023). Unsustainable sourcing practices can lead to deforestation, habitat destruction, and loss of biodiversity, posing challenges for both environmental conservation and the long-term availability of these ingredients.

7. Consumer Behavior and Awareness: Despite increasing interest in sustainability and environmental issues, consumer behavior and awareness regarding the environmental impacts of cosmetics may still be limited (Rocca et al., 2022; Martins and Marto, 2023). Educating consumers and encouraging them to make more sustainable choices can be challenging.

Addressing these challenges requires collaboration among governments, industry stakeholders, scientific experts, and consumers to develop robust regulatory frameworks, improve ingredient transparency, enhance safety assessment methodologies, promote sustainable sourcing practices, and raise awareness about the environmental impacts of cosmetics (Iswahyudi et al., 2024).

5 Certifications

Certification in the cosmetic industry serves several purposes, primarily to assure consumers that products meet certain standards of safety, quality, and environmental responsibility. However, the necessity and effectiveness of certification in this industry are subjects of ongoing debate, particularly in light of the “greenwashing” phenomenon.

Greenwashing refers to the practice of companies making exaggerated or misleading claims about the environmental or ethical benefits of their products or practices (Aparna and Murugan, 2024). In the cosmetics industry, this often manifests as brands labeling their products as “natural,” “organic,” or “eco-friendly” without sufficient evidence to support these claims. Greenwashing can mislead consumers who are seeking genuinely sustainable or environmentally friendly options, leading them to choose products that may not align with their values (Lopes et al., 2023).

Several factors contribute to the prevalence of greenwashing in the cosmetics industry:

1. Lack of Regulation: The cosmetics industry is not as heavily regulated as other sectors, such as pharmaceuticals or food. This lack of oversight allows companies to make unsubstantiated claims without facing significant consequences (Alexa, 2021).

2. Complexity of Ingredients: Consumers may have difficulty understanding ingredient lists and deciphering which products are truly environmentally friendly or sustainable (Komis, 2022). This confusion can make them more susceptible to greenwashing tactics.

3. Market Demand: There is growing consumer demand for natural and eco-friendly products (Baviskar et al., 2024), leading companies to capitalize on this trend by marketing their products as such, even if their claims are not entirely accurate.

4. Competitive Pressure: Companies may feel pressured to engage in greenwashing to remain competitive in the market, especially if they perceive that consumers are increasingly prioritizing sustainability (Lopes et al., 2023; Quicanga, 2023).

To combat greenwashing and provide consumers with more reliable information, various certification schemes have been developed in the cosmetics industry. These certifications typically involve rigorous testing and evaluation of products to ensure they meet specific standards for ingredients, manufacturing processes, and environmental impact (U.S. FDA, 2021). Some of the most widely recognized certifications include:

1. USDA Organic: This certification verifies that products meet the United States Department of Agriculture’s standards for organic production, including the use of organic ingredients and environmentally friendly practices (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011).

2. Ecocert: Ecocert is an independent certification body that verifies the natural and organic content of cosmetics and ensures they meet certain environmental and ethical standards (ECOCERT Greenlife, 2022).

3. COSMOS: COSMOS (Cosmetic Organic and Natural Standard) is a Europe-wide standard for organic and natural cosmetics. It sets criteria for ingredients, manufacturing processes, packaging, and labeling to ensure products are environmentally friendly and sustainable (COSMOS, 2023).

4. Leaping Bunny: The Leaping Bunny certification is awarded to companies that have demonstrated their products are cruelty-free, meaning they were not tested on animals at any stage of development (Guide, 2020).

These certifications were chosen for their widespread recognition and credibility within the cosmetics industry. While there are other certifications available, these four are among the most well-established and trusted by consumers seeking genuinely sustainable and ethically produced cosmetics. However, consumers need to remain vigilant and critically evaluate the claims made by brands, as greenwashing tactics continue to evolve and adapt. Additionally, efforts to improve regulation and transparency in the industry can help reduce the prevalence of greenwashing and ensure consumers can make informed choices about the products they purchase.

6 Conclusion

Cosmetic items have a big impact on the environment and human health. Because some items contain chemical substances, there is a chance that they will cause health problems like allergies, sensitivities, and skin irritation. Certain ingredients in cosmetics, such as phthalates and parabens, have been connected to hormone disruption, which may affect the development and health of the reproductive system. Furthermore, several chemicals, including coal tar compounds and formaldehyde, have been identified as carcinogenic, which raises questions about potential long-term health effects, such as an elevated risk of cancer.

Regarding the environment, throughout their existence, cosmetic products have contributed to several types of pollution. The manufacturing process has the potential to emit contaminants into the air and water during production, which could worsen the local community’s public health issues and cause environmental damage. In addition, the discarding of cosmetics especially those that include microplastics may contaminate ecosystems and waterways. Because microplastics can be consumed and cause harm at different stages of the food chain, the buildup of tiny particles in the environment is a concern to marine life and wildlife. Furthermore, the production, packing, and shipping of cosmetics all have a carbon footprint that contributes to climate change and exacerbates environmental problems worldwide. All things considered, tackling the effects of cosmetics on the environment and human health requires extensive initiatives meant to advance safer ingredients, environmentally friendly manufacturing processes, and conscientious consumer behavior.

Author contributions

YW: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abattoir (2015). Abattoir by-product utilization for sustainable meat industry: a review. J. Animal Prod. Adv. 5 (6), 681. doi:10.5455/japa.20150626043918

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Abed Elaziz, M. M., Khalifa, M. A., and Ghariani, R. H. (2016). Chemical and physical investigations of Arabian Eye Kohl Brands as cosmetic in Libya. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society, Section A: Chemistry 4 (1), 463–463. doi:10.18596/jotcsa.287343

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Abed, M. S., Moosa, A. A., and Alzuhairi, M. A. (2024). Heavy metals in cosmetics and tattoos: a review of historical background, health impact, and regulatory limits. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 13 (December), 100390. doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.100390

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Acwin Dwijendra, N. K., Mohammadi, M. J., Aravindhan, S., Jalil, T. K., Taherian, M., Iswanto, A. H., et al. (2018). Investigating the effects of air pollution on plant species resistance in Urban areas. Health Scope 12 (1), 1–10. doi:10.5812/jhealthscope-129786

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ad, K., and Mn, A. (2019). Cosmotics and their associated adverse effects. A Rev. (April). doi:10.31069/japsr.v2i1.1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adegoke, E. O., Rahman, M. S., Park, Y. J., Kim, Y. J., and Pang, M. G. (2021). Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and infectious diseases: from endocrine disruption to immunosuppression. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22 (8), 3939. doi:10.3390/ijms22083939

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahlström, M. G., Thyssen, J. P., Wennervaldt, M., Menné, T., and Johansen, J. D. (2019). Nickel allergy and allergic contact dermatitis: a clinical review of immunology, epidemiology, exposure, and treatment. Contact Dermat. 81 (4), 227–241. doi:10.1111/cod.13327

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Al, R., etMei-F, Y., and Brain, S. K. (2016). Triclosan: a widespread environmental toxicant with many biological effects. Physiology and Behav. 176 (5), 139–148. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1801473

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alam, M. F., Akhter, M., Mazumder, B., Ferdous, A., Hossain, M. D., Dafader, N. C., et al. (2019). Assessment of some heavy metals in selected cosmetics commonly used in Bangladesh and human health risk’, Journal of Analytical Science and Technology. J. Anal. Sci. Technol. 10 (1), 2. doi:10.1186/s40543-018-0162-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Albugami, M. M., Buzaid, A., Shah, F., and Ahmed, A. Y. (2024). Assessment of the color effect on cadmium and lead contents in the most popular cosmetics in the Saudi market. Res. Square, 1–23. Available at:. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4119052/v1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alexa, R. (2021). The lack of regulation in preventing greenwashing of cosmetics in the U.S. J. legislation 47 (1), 133. Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol47/iss1/5/.

Google Scholar

Amasa, W., Santiago, D., Mekonen, S., and Ambelu, A. (2012). ‘Are cosmetics used in developing countries safe ? Use and dermal irritation of body care products in jimma town, southwestern Ethiopia’, J. Toxicol. 204830. doi:10.1155/2012/204830

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ananthapavan, J., et al. (2021). A cost–benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments’, Health Research Policy and Systems. Biomed. Cent. 19 (1), 1–23. doi:10.1186/s12961-021-00796-w

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anomaly, J. (2015). What’s wrong with factory farming? Public Health Ethics 8 (3), 246–254. doi:10.1093/phe/phu001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aparna, P., and Murugan, K. S. (2024). Green washing: a deceptive marketing practice and its implications. Atlantis Press Int. BV, 122–132. doi:10.2991/978-94-6463-374-0_12

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arct, J., and Mieloch, M. (2020). β-carotene in skin care, Academy of Cosmetics and Health Care, Warsaw, Poland. Pol. J. Cosmetol 2016 19 (3), 206–213. (20 December).

Google Scholar

Arshad, H., Mehmood, M. Z., Shah, M. H., and Abbasi, A. M. (2020). Evaluation of heavy metals in cosmetic products and their health risk assessment. Saudi Pharm. J. 28 (7), 779–790. doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2020.05.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Asfaw, T. S., Botes, V., and Mengesha, L. G. (2017). The role of NGOs in corporate environmental responsibility practice: evidence from Ethiopia. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2 (1), 2–9. doi:10.1186/s40991-017-0013-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ashdaq, M., Alam, S., Aris, V., and Mandasari, N. F. (2023). The impact of marketing through social media on brand attitudes: a study of cosmetics products in female generation Z. J. Econ. Finance Manag. Stud. 06 (08), 3702–3709. doi:10.47191/jefms/v6-i8-19

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Attard, T. A., and Abstract, E. (2022) ‘Heavy metals in cosmetics. In Intech, 13. doi:10.5772/intechopen.102406

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bar, S., Dhara, S., Madhu, N. R., Mandal, B., Sarkar, B., and Ghorai, S. K. (2023). Root causes of biodiversity loss with special reference to India. A Basic Overv. Environ. Sustain. Dev., 1–34. [Volume: 2]. doi:10.52756/boesd.2023.e02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barabasz, W., Pikulicka, A., Wzorek, Z., and Nowak, A. K. (2019). Ecotoxicological aspects of the use of parabens in the production of cosmetics. Czas. Tech. (12), 99–124. doi:10.4467/2353737xct.19.126.11451

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barthe, M., Bavoux, C., Finot, F., Mouche, I., Cuceu-Petrenci, C., Forreryd, A., et al. (2021). Safety testing of cosmetic products: overview of established methods and new approach methodologies (nams). Cosmetics 8 (2), 50–18. doi:10.3390/cosmetics8020050

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baviskar, D., Chattaraj, A., and Patil, A. (2024). Consumer behaviour and sustainable product choices: insights from visual trends. E3S Web Conf. 472, 02002–02014. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202447202002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bergman, J., and Kandel, H. (2017). Safflower production. Gaborone, Botswana: The Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, NDSU Extension Service.

Google Scholar

Bert, D. G. (2016). Determining the spatial scale of species ’ determining the spatial scale of species. Response Habitat’ 3568 (August). doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bibby, J. (2018). Transitioning to transparency. The Aldrich Press: England.

Google Scholar

Bilal, A. I., Tilahun, Z., Osman, E. D., Mulugeta, A., Shekabdulahi, M., and Berhe, D. F. (2017). Cosmetics use-related adverse events and determinants among jigjiga town residents, eastern Ethiopia’, Dermatology and therapy. Springer Healthc. 7 (1), 143–153. doi:10.1007/s13555-016-0157-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Biskanaki, F., Kalofiri, P., Tertipi, N., Sfyri, E., Andreou, E., Kefala, V., et al. (2023). Carotenoids and dermoaesthetic benefits: public health implications. Cosmetics 10 (5), 120. doi:10.3390/cosmetics10050120

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Borowska, S., and Brzóska, M. M. (2015). Metals in cosmetics: implications for human health. J. Appl. Toxicol. 35 (January), 551–572. doi:10.1002/jat.3129

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bouyssi-Kobar, M., et al. (2019). Personal care product use as a predictor of urinary concentrations of certain phthalates, parabens, and phenols in the HERMOSA study. J. Pediatr. 29 (1), 13–22. doi:10.1038/s41370-017-0003-z.Personal

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bowen, H. J. M. (1975). Soil pollution. Educ. Chem. doi:10.5124/jkma.1998.41.10.1032

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boyer, I. J., Bergfeld, W. F., Heldreth, B., Fiume, M. M., and Gill, L. J. (2017). The cosmetic ingredient review program - expert safety assessments of cosmetic ingredients in an open forum. Int. J. Toxicol. 36 (5_Suppl. 2), 5S–13S. doi:10.1177/1091581817717646

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brausch, J. M., and Rand, G. M. (2011). A review of personal care products in the aquatic environment: environmental concentrations and toxicity. Chemosphere 82 (11), 1518–1532. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.11.018

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Burby, R. (2013). Environmental management and governance. Environ. Manag. Gov. doi:10.4324/9780203439876

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Canada, H. (2007). Concentrations and exposure risks of some metals in facial cosmetics in Nigeria. Toxicol. Rep. 3, 464–472. Elsevier Ireland Ltd,. doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2016.04.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Canavez, A. D. P. M., de Oliveira Prado Corrêa, G., Isaac, V. L. B., Schuck, D. C., and Lorencini, M. (2021). Integrated approaches to testing and assessment as a tool for the hazard assessment and risk characterization of cosmetic preservatives. J. Appl. Toxicol. 41 (10), 1687–1699. doi:10.1002/jat.4156

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

CBD (2002). CBD (convention on biological diversity). UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20 Page 249’. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, Canada, 249–261.

Google Scholar

Cerulli, A., glabra, G., uralensis, G., inflata, G., et al. (2022). Licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra, G. Uralensis, and G. Inflata) and their constituents as active cosmeceutical ingredients. Cosmetics 9 (1), 7. doi:10.3390/cosmetics9010007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chamer, A. M., Medan, D., Mantese, A., and Bartoloni, N. (2015). Impact of pollination on sunflower yield: is pollen amount or pollen quality what matters? Field Crops Res. 176, 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2015.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chandellier, J., and Malacain, M. (2021). ‘Biodiversity and Re/insurance: an ecosystem at risk biodiversity and re/insurance: technical report’, (April).

Google Scholar

Charkiewicz, A. E., Omeljaniuk, W. J., Nowak, K., Garley, M., and Nikliński, J. (2023). Cadmium toxicity and health effects—a brief summary. Molecules 28 (18), 6620–6716. doi:10.3390/molecules28186620

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chedik, L., Baybekov, S., Cosnier, F., Marcou, G., Varnek, A., and Champmartin, C. (2024). An update of skin permeability data based on a systematic review of recent research. Sci. Data 11 (1), 224–314. doi:10.1038/s41597-024-03026-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chemiczne, Z., and Wody, G. I. (2012). ‘Chemical polluting of soil and water on pig -breading farm’, Ecol. Chem. Eng. A. 19 (1-2), 25–33. doi:10.2428/ecea.2012.19(01)002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cherrafi, A., Chiarini, A., Belhadi, A., El Baz, J., and Chaouni Benabdellah, A. (2022). Digital technologies and circular economy practices: vital enablers to support sustainable and resilient supply chain management in the post-COVID-19 era. TQM J. 34 (7), 179–202. doi:10.1108/TQM-12-2021-0374

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chouhan, N., and Himanshu Vig, R. D. (2021). Cosmetics market by category (skin and sun care products, hair care products, deodorants & fragrances, and makeup & color cosmetics), gender (men, women, and unisex), and distribution channel hypermarkets/supermarkets, specialty stores, pharmacies, onli’, Allied Mark. Res. Available at: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/cosmetics-market.

Google Scholar

Cooney, R. (2004). “Precaution and invasive alien species: challenges at the interface of the trade and environment regimes,” in Biodiversity loss and species extinctions: managing risk in a changing world. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237626762.

Google Scholar

COSMOS (2023). COSMOS STANDARD criteria. Brussels, Belgium: COSMOS Standard AISBL, 0–52. Available at: https://www.cosmos-standard.orgww.

Google Scholar

David, E., and Niculescu, V. C. (2021). Volatile organic compounds (Vocs) as environmental pollutants: occurrence and mitigation using nanomaterials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (24), 13147. doi:10.3390/ijerph182413147

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

David Elisha, O., and Jebbin Felix, M. (2020). The loss of biodiversity and ecosystems: a threat to the functioning of our planet, economy and human society. Int. J. Econ. Environ. Dev. Soc. 1 (1), 30–44. Available at: www.ijeeds.com.

Google Scholar

David Elisha, O. (2021). Destruction of costal ecosystems and the vicious cycle odf poverty in Niger delta region. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353741948.

Google Scholar

Durrans, B. (2013). The future of the other: changing cultures on display in ethnographic museums. Mus. Time-Machine, 144–169. doi:10.4324/9780203358825_chapter_7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Department of Health and Human Services (2016). Report on carcinogens. Fourteenth Edition. Available at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/index-1.html’

Google Scholar

ECOCERT Greenlife (2022). ECOCERT standard natural detergents and natural detergents made with organic. Available at: www.ecocert.

Google Scholar

Ejeromedoghene, O., Nwosisi, M., Tesi, G., Noragbon, E., and Akinyeye, R. (2021). Impact of pharmaceutical waste generation and handling on environmental health in developing countries: COVID – 19 pandemic in perspective. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 25 (3), 385–396. doi:10.4314/jasem.v25i3.12

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Elisha, O. D., and Terry, D. (2021). Destruction of costal ecosystems and the vicious cycle odf poverty in Niger delta region. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353741948.

Google Scholar

Environmental, N. (2019). ‘Reproductive and developmental hazards: a guide for occupational’, (April).

Google Scholar

EPA (2001). Integrated risk information system (IRIS) chemical assessment summary: methylmercury (MeHg). CASRN 22967-92-6’, 1–43.

Google Scholar

Esposito, T., Sansone, F., Franceschelli, S., Del Gaudio, P., Picerno, P., Aquino, R., et al. (2017). Hazelnut (Corylus avellana l.) shells extract: phenolic composition, antioxidant effect and cytotoxic activity on human cancer cell lines. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 18 (2), 392. doi:10.3390/ijms18020392

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eticha, T., et al. (2018a). Levels and exposure risks of metals in lipsticks in mekelle, Ethiopia. Int. J. Reserach Pharm. Chem. 8 (1), 1–5.

Google Scholar

Eticha, T., Getachew, H., Kahsay, G., and Gebretsadik, H. (2018b). Metals contamination in face powders and their associated health risks to the users in mekelle, Ethiopia. J. Environ. & Anal. Toxicol. 08 (01). doi:10.4172/2161-0525.1000547

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

European Business and Biodiversity Campaign (EBBC) (2010). Fact sheet: biodiversity in the cosmetics sector. Available at: https://www.business-biodiversity.eu/en/knowledge-pool/wild-harvesting.

Google Scholar

European Parliament (2018). Testing cosmetics on animals: MEPs call for worldwide ban | News | European Parliament. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180426IPR02613/testing-cosmetics-on-animals-meps-call-for-worldwide-ban.

Google Scholar

European Union, E. (2009). Regulation no 1223/2009 on cosmetic products. Nouv. Dermatol. 29 (5 PART 1).

Google Scholar

Faccio, G. (2020). Plant complexity and cosmetic innovation. iScience 23 (8), 101358. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101358

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

FDA (2022). FDA regulation of cosmetics and personal care products. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov.

Google Scholar

Ferreira, M., Matos, A., Couras, A., Marto, J., and Ribeiro, H. (2022). Overview of cosmetic regulatory frameworks around the world. Cosmetics 9 (4), 72–15. doi:10.3390/cosmetics9040072

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Final Countdown (2018). Now or never to reform the palm oil industry Greenpeace. Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/publication/18455/the-final-countdown-forests-indonesia-palm-oil/.196

Google Scholar

Fiut, I. S., and Urbaniak, M. (2016). Factory farming versus environment and society. The analysis of selected problems przemysłowa hodowla zwierząt a środowisko i społeczeństwo. Analiza wybranych problemów. Probl. Ekorozwoju 12 (1), 143–156. Available at: www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/.

Google Scholar

Florentina, I., and Io, B. (2011). The Effects of Air Pollutants on Vegetation and the Role of Vegetation in Reducing Atmospheric Pollution, in The Impact of Air Pollution on Health, Economy, Environment and Agricultural Sources. doi:10.5772/17660

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Francisco, M., Peinado, L. M. I.-D., and Olga Ocón-Hernández, N. O. (2012). Endocrine disrupting chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products and risk of endometriosis. Intech, 13. Available at: doi:10.1039/C7RA00172J%0A

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gad, H. A., Roberts, A., Hamzi, S. H., Touiss, I., Altyar, A. E., et al. (2021). Jojoba oil: an updated comprehensive review on chemistry, pharmaceutical uses, and toxicity. Polymers 13 (11), 1711–1722. doi:10.3390/polym13111711

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gago, J., Carretero, O., Filgueiras, A., and Viñas, L. (2018). Synthetic microfibers in the marine environment: a review on their occurrence in seawater and sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127 (July 2017), 365–376. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.070

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gao, U. S. G. A. O. (2009). Options for enhancing the effectiveness of the toxic substances control act Highlights. GAO-09-428T Toxic Substances Control Reforms', in Control.

Google Scholar

Gautam, P., Ganghas, D., Mittal, P., Gupta, V., and Dhiman, K. (2022). Regulatory framework of cosmetic in the European Union. Toxicol. Commun. 4 (3), 13. doi:10.53388/20220202013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gebretsadik, T. (2016). Causes for biodiversity loss in Ethiopia: a review from conservation perspective. J. Nat. Sci. Res. 6 (11), 32–40. doi:10.4172/2376-0354.1000171

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Genchi, G., Sinicropi, M. S., Lauria, G., Carocci, A., and Catalano, A. (2020). The effects of cadmium toxicity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 (11), 3782–3824. doi:10.3390/ijerph17113782

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghosh, S., Sinha, J. K., Vashisth, K., Han, S., and Bhaskar, R. (2023). Microplastics as an emerging threat to the global environment and human health. Sustain. Switz. 15 (14), 10821. doi:10.3390/su151410821

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gisp, N., and Jackson, D. L. (2007). The global invasive species Programme.

Google Scholar

Gnonsoro, U. P., Ake Assi, Y. E. D., Sangare, N. S., Kouakou, Y. U., and Trokourey, A. (2022). Health risk assessment of heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Hg) in hydroalcoholic gels of abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire’, biological trace element research. Springer U. S. 200 (5), 2510–2518. doi:10.1007/s12011-021-02822-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gonsioroski, A., Mourikes, V. E., and Flaws, J. A. (2020). Endocrine disruptors in water and their effects on the reproductive system. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21 (6). doi:10.3390/ijms21061929

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Group, E. W. (2007). 1,4-dioxane. Available at: http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/bitstream/item/7130/1/LUZARDO-BUIATRIA-2017.pdf.

Google Scholar

Guerranti, C., Andreuccetti, C., Cenni, I., Santini, S., Martellini, T., Cincinelli, A., et al. (2022). Cosmetics trace elemental content: analytical methodology and toxicity evaluation of products in the Italian market. Anal. Lett. 56 (7), 1115–1127. doi:10.1080/00032719.2022.2121405

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guide, C. M. R. U. (2020). User guide user guide. Computer, 169–232. doi:10.21945/IVM-476

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gupta, C., and Prakash, D. (2013). Herbal plants used in cosmetics and cosmeceuticals and their advantages over the synthetic counterparts. Med. Aromatic Plants World. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gupta, V., et al. (2022). Nanotechnology in cosmetics and cosmeceuticals — a review. Gels 2022, 1–31. doi:10.3390/gels8030173

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gutierrez, L. (2023). Beauty at what cost ? The environmental impact of cosmetic ingredients and Materials;Sustainable LivingSustainable manufacturing. Available at: https://sustainable-earth.org/cosmeticingredients/#:∼:text=Some%20common%20makeup%20ingredients%2C%20such,and%20pollution%20.

Google Scholar

Haji, A. S., Maurya, S. R., and Shah, N. (2023). Azadirachta indica A. Juss.: ethnobotanical knowledge, phytochemical studies, pharmacological aspects future prospects. Plant Environ. 5 (1), 1–15. doi:10.22271/2582-3744.2023.mar.1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hatipoglu, İ. H. (2023). The importance of rose and rosehip species in past, present, and tomorrow. Int. Conf. Appl. Eng. Nat. Sci. 1 (1), 268–273. doi:10.59287/icaens.1004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

He, K., Hain, E., Timm, A., and Blaney, L. (2021). Bioaccumulation of estrogenic hormones and UV-filters in red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii). Sci. Total Environ. 764, 142871. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142871

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Health Canada (2007). Evidence for quality of finished natural health products.

Google Scholar

Health Canada (2016). Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality - chromium. Available at: www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/water-quality.html.

Google Scholar

Helmstetter, A. J., Oztolan-Erol, N., Lucas, S. J., and Buggs, R. J. A. (2020). Genetic diversity and domestication of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) in Turkey. Plants People Planet 2 (4), 326–339. doi:10.1002/ppp3.10078

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hens, L., and Boon, E. K. (2003). Causes of biodiversity loss: a human ecological analysis. MultiCiencia (August), 1–29. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2003.10.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hwang, D., Kim, H., Shin, H., Jeong, H., Kim, J., and Kim, D. (2014). Cosmetic effects of Prunus padus bark extract. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 31 (12), 2280–2285. doi:10.1007/s11814-014-0146-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

IARC (1987). International Agency for Research on Cancer. Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: an updating of IARC monographs volumes 1–42. IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog. Risks Humans 1987, 230–232. doi:10.1016/0300-483X(87)90138-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ibrahim, U., Yusuf, S. D., and Ubana, M. A. (2019). Health risk assessment of some cosmetic products sold in Keffi markets. Nasarawa State Nigeria’ 5 (2), 82–90. doi:10.1186/s12881-019-0803-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Inoti, S. K. (2017). ‘Genetic diversity in jojoba (simmondsia chinensis L.) using simple sequence repeats in semi-arid areas of Kenya’, 3(4).

Google Scholar

Issac, M. N., and Kandasubramanian, B. (2021). Effect of microplastics in water and aquatic systems’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (16), 19544–19562. doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13184-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Iswahyudi, I., Sutanto, A., Widodo, W., Warkoyo, W., Garfansa, W. P., and Arifin, S. (2024). The effect of microplastic contaminated compost on the growth of rice seedlings. J. Saudi Soc. Agri. Sci. King Saud University & Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.jssas.2024.07.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Iwegbue, C. M. A., Bassey, F. I., Obi, G., Tesi, G. O., and Martincigh, B. S. (2016). Concentrations and exposure risks of some metals in facial cosmetics in Nigeria. Toxicol. Rep. 3, 464–472. doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2016.04.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jarošová, M., and Pajdlhauser, M. (2022). Aviation and climate change. Transp. Res. Procedia 65 (C), 216–221. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2022.11.025

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

John Kanayochukwu Nduka, H. I. K. (2019) ‘Review of Health hazards and toxicological effects of constituents of cosmetics doi:10.5772/intechopen.845901–18.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Juliano, C., and Magrini, G. A. (2017). Cosmetic ingredients as emerging pollutants of environmental and health concern. A mini-review. A Mini-Review 4, 11. doi:10.3390/cosmetics4020011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kader Mohiuddin, A. (2019). Heavy metals in cosmetics: the notorious daredevils and burning health issues. Am. J. Biomed. Sci. & Res. 4 (5), 332–337. doi:10.34297/ajbsr.2019.04.000829

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaličanin, B., and Velimirović, D. (2016). A study of the possible harmful effects of cosmetic beauty products on human health. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 170 (2), 476–484. doi:10.1007/s12011-015-0477-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khalid, M., and Abdollahi, M. (2021). Environmental distribution of personal care products and their effects on human health. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 20 (1), 216–253. doi:10.22037/ijpr.2021.114891.15088

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kibria, G. (2024). ‘Global fish kills: causes and consequences global fish kill: causes and consequences causes of fish kills’, (April 2014).

Google Scholar

Komis, A. I. (2022). Consumer’s ethical perception on greenwashing acknowledgements.

Google Scholar

Kowalczyk, S., Grymel, M., Bilik, J., Kula, W., Wawoczny, A., Grymel, P., et al. (2024). Selected plants as sources of natural and active ingredients for cosmetics of the future. Appl. Sci. 14, 3487. doi:10.3390/app14083487

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lafforgue, A. B. C., and Lafforgue, C. (2021). ‘Risks associated with cosmetic ingredients’, 148, 77, 93. doi:10.1016/j.annder.2020.04.027

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lauren, Z. (2019). Pretty hurts: are chemicals in beauty products making us ill? Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/are-chemicals-in-beauty-products-making-us-ill.

Google Scholar

Leaman, D. J. (2008). ‘The international standard for sustainable wild collection of medicinal and aromatic plants (issc-map) elements of the standard relevant to cites (ISSC-MAP) Elements of the Standard Relevant to CITES NDF, Cancun, Mexico, November 2008’.

Google Scholar

Leslie, H. A. (2014). Review of microplastics in cosmetics. IVM Inst. Environ. Stud. 476 (July), 33.

Google Scholar

Li, B., Wang, J., Hu, G., Liu, X., Yu, Y., Cai, D., et al. (2023). Bioaccumulation behavior and human health risk of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in a freshwater food web of typical shallow lake, yangtze river delta. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20 (3), 2671–2716. doi:10.3390/ijerph20032671

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, X., Gao, Y., Wang, J., Ji, G., Lu, Y., Yang, D., et al. (2017). Exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors and human health. J. Public Health Emerg. 1, 8. doi:10.21037/jphe.2016.12.09

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, Y., Fang, Y., Liu, Z., Zhang, Y., Liu, K., Jiang, L., et al. (2021). Trace metal lead exposure in typical lip cosmetics from electronic commercial platform: investigation, health risk assessment and blood lead level analysis. Front. Public Health 9 (November), 1–13. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.766984

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Limonta, G., Mancia, A., Benkhalqui, A., Bertolucci, C., Abelli, L., Fossi, M. C., et al. (2019). Microplastics induce transcriptional changes, immune response and behavioral alterations in adult zebrafish. Sci. Rep. Springer U. S. 9 (1), 15775–15811. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52292-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lisa, M., and Benson, K. R. (2017). Guide to United States cosmetic products compliance requirements, National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi:10.6028/NIST.IR.8178

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, G., Cai, W., Liu, H., Jiang, H., Bi, Y., and Wang, H. (2021). The association of bisphenol a and phthalates with risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (5), 2375–2415. doi:10.3390/ijerph18052375

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, J. L., and Wong, M. H. (2013). Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs): a review on environmental contamination in China. Environ. Int. 59, 208–224. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2013.06.012

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Łodyga-Chruścińska, E., Sykuła, A., and Wiȩdłocha, M. (2018). Hidden metals in several brands of lipstick and face powder present on Polish market. Cosmetics 5 (4), 57–59. doi:10.3390/cosmetics5040057

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lojeng, R. K. (2022). ‘Biodiversity in the cosmetic industry’.

Google Scholar

Lopes, J. M., Gomes, S., and Trancoso, T. (2023). The dark side of green marketing: how greenwashing affects circular consumption? Sustain. Switz. 15 (15), 11649–11717. doi:10.3390/su151511649

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Made Safe (2022). ChemicalCallout: BHT and BHA. Available at: https://www.madesafe.org/chemical-profiles/bht-and-bha/’

Google Scholar

Martins, A. M., and Marto, J. M. (2023). A sustainable life cycle for cosmetics: from design and development to post-use phase. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 35, 101178. doi:10.1016/j.scp.2023.101178

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McDonald, B. C., de Gouw, J. A., Gilman, J. B., Jathar, S. H., Akherati, A., Cappa, C. D., et al. (2018). Volatile chemical products emerging as largest petrochemical source of urban organic emissions. Science 359 (6377), 760–764. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0524

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McMullen, R. L., and Dell’Acqua, G. (2023). History of natural ingredients in cosmetics. Cosmetics 10 (3), 71. doi:10.3390/cosmetics10030071

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mesquita, I., Lorigo, M., and Cairrao, E. (2021). Update about the disrupting-effects of phthalates on the human reproductive system. Mol. Reproduction Dev. 88 (10), 650–672. doi:10.1002/mrd.23541

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mestawet, G., Getachew, M., and Tewelde, T. (2018). Cosmetic use and its adverse events among female. Employees Jimma Univ., Southwest Ethiop. 28 (6), 717. doi:10.4314/ejhs.v28i6.6’

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Miller, I. B., Pawlowski, S., Kellermann, M. Y., Petersen-Thiery, M., Moeller, M., Nietzer, S., et al. (2021). Toxic effects of UV filters from sunscreens on coral reefs revisited: regulatory aspects for “reef safe” products. Environ. Sci. Eur. 33 (1), 74. doi:10.1186/s12302-021-00515-w

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Milman, O. (2019). US cosmetics are full of chemicals banned by Europe – why? The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/22/chemicals-in-cosmetics-us-restricted-eu,PaperKnowledge.TowardaMediaHistoryofDocuments.

Google Scholar

Mohd Riyaz Beg, M. (2016). Cosmetic-Regulations, Research & Marketing challenges and global compliance: an overview. Inst. Chem. Technol. Mumbai Cosmetic-Regulations. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.045

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mozas-Blanco, S., Rodríguez-Gil, J. L., Kalman, J., Quintana, G., Díaz-Cruz, M. S., Rico, A., et al. (2023). Occurrence and ecological risk assessment of organic UV filters in coastal waters of the Iberian Peninsula. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 196 (November), 115644. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115644

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Murphy, D. J., Goggin, K., and Paterson, R. R. M. (2021). Oil palm in the 2020s and beyond: challenges and solutions’, CABI Agriculture and Bioscience. Biomed. Cent. 2 (1), 1–22. doi:10.1186/s43170-021-00058-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nadeeshani Dilhara Gamage, D. G., Dharmadasa, R. M., Chandana Abeysinghe, D., Saman Wijesekara, R. G., Prathapasinghe, G. A., and Someya, T. (2022). Global perspective of plant-based cosmetic industry and possible contribution of Sri Lanka to the development of herbal cosmetics. Evidence-based Complementary Altern. Med. 2022, 1–26. doi:10.1155/2022/9940548

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nassan, F. L., Coull, B. A., Gaskins, A. J., Williams, M. A., Skakkebaek, N. E., Ford, J. B., et al. (2017). Personal care product use in men and urinary concentrations of select phthalate metabolites and parabens: results from the environment and reproductive health (earth) study. Environ. Health Perspect. 125 (8), 1–10. doi:10.1289/EHP1374

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2007). Cosmetics and your health. USA: US Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Cosmetics+and+Your+Health#0.

Google Scholar

National Pork Board (2009). The pork industry at a glance, Pork Checkoff. Available at: https://www.pork.org/publications/2009-annual-report/.

Google Scholar

Naveed, N. (2014). The perils of cosmetics. Pharm. Sci. Res. doi:10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.6(10).338-41

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nduka, J. K., and Kelle, H. I. (2018). Review of health hazards and toxicological effects of constituents of cosmetics, 1–18.

Google Scholar

Nduka, J. K., Odiba, I. O., Aghoghome, E. I., Umedum, N. L., and Nwosu, M. J. (2016). Evaluation of harmful substances and health risk assessment of mercury and arsenic in cosmetic brands in Nigeria. Int. J. Chem. 8 (1), 178. doi:10.5539/ijc.v8n1p178

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nestby, R. D. J. (2020). The status of prunus padus L. (Bird cherry) in forest communities throughout Europe and Asia. Forests 11 (5), 497–518. doi:10.3390/F11050497

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nikolovska, V. (2016). Invasive species: a look at their disastrous effects on ecosystems, health, and stability of native species. Rev. A J. Undergrad. Student Res. 17. doi:10.3390/su8121512

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

NYS Health Foundation (2013). Fact sheet: potentially toxic chemicals in personal care products. Available at: https://www.healthline.com/health/beauty-skin-care/what-is-sodium-lauryl-sulfate.

Google Scholar

Oh, H. J., and Kim, J. (2020). Characterization of inhalable aerosols from cosmetic powders and sustainability in cosmetic products. Sustain. Switz. 12 (19), 8187. doi:10.3390/su12198187

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Okereke, J. N., et al. (2015). Possible health implications associated with cosmetics. A Rev. 3, 58–63. doi:10.11648/j.sjph.s.2015030501.21

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Oluwole, A. O., Omotola, E. O., and Olatunji, O. S. (2020). Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in water and wastewater: a review of treatment processes and use of photocatalyst immobilized on functionalized carbon in AOP degradation. BMC Chem. 14 (1), 62–29. doi:10.1186/s13065-020-00714-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Onel, S., Davidson, J. A., Dwyer, D., Ehrlich, S., Meyer, C. L., Reagan, K. S., et al. (2019). U.S. Food and drug administration (FDA) and the products it regulates. Kirk-Othmer Encycl. Chem. Technol., 1–27. doi:10.1002/0471238961.1608011825091407.a01.pub3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Orangutan Foundation International (2015). Whats-Wrong-with-Palm-Oil? Available at: https://orangutan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Whats-Wrong-with-Palm-Oil-FLYER.pdf’

Google Scholar

Osman, A. I., Hosny, M., Eltaweil, A. S., Omar, S., Elgarahy, A. M., Farghali, M., et al. (2023). Microplastic sources, formation, toxicity and remediation: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 21, 2129–2169. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/s10311-023-01593-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Palma-Lara, I., Martínez-Castillo, M., Quintana-Pérez, J., Arellano-Mendoza, M., Tamay-Cach, F., Valenzuela-Limón, O., et al. (2020). Arsenic exposure: a public health problem leading to several cancers. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 110, 104539. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104539

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Panico, A., Serio, F., Bagordo, F., Grassi, T., Idolo, A., De Giorgi, M., et al. (2019). Skin safety and health prevention: an overview of chemicals in cosmetic products. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 60 (1), E50-E57–E57. doi:10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2019.60.1.1080

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Park, J. w. Y. J. K. J. C. H. K. J. N. A. Ö. S. W.-S. (2023). Advances inthe development of ingridents with both high performance and sustainablity for clean beuty cosmetics. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 45, 1–61. doi:10.1111/ics.12921

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Paulsen, L. (2015). The health risks of chemicals in personal care products and their fate in the environment. Chem. Honors Pap. 15. Available at: https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/chemhp/15.

Google Scholar

Peng, X., Fan, Y., Jin, J., Xiong, S., Liu, J., and Tang, C. (2017). Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of ultraviolet absorbents in marine wildlife of the pearl river estuarine, south China sea. Environ. Pollut. 225, 55–65. Elsevier Ltd,. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.035

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pereira, J. X., and Pereira, T. C. (2018). Cosmetics and its health risks. Glob. J. Med. Res. 18 (2), 63–70. doi:10.34257/gjmrbvol18is2pg63

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pinto, D., Braga, N., Rodrigues, F., and Oliveira, M. (2017). Castanea sativa Bur: an undervalued by-product but a promising cosmetic ingredient. Cosmetics 4 (4), 50–59. doi:10.3390/cosmetics4040050

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pinto, D., Cádiz-Gurrea, M. d. l. L., Garcia, J., Saavedra, M. J., Freitas, V., Costa, P., et al. (2021). From soil to cosmetic industry: validation of a new cosmetic ingredient extracted from chestnut shells. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 29 (June), e00309. doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2021.e00309

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Practices, B., et al. (2021). ‘Regulating risk from toxic substances’, (July).

Google Scholar

Prusakiewicz, J. J., Harville, H. M., Zhang, Y., Ackermann, C., and Voorman, R. L. (2007). Parabens inhibit human skin estrogen sulfotransferase activity: possible link to paraben estrogenic effects. Toxicology 232 (3), 248–256. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2007.01.010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Queiroz, A., and Cajaiba, J. (2016). A sustainable process for (-)-α-bisabolol extraction from Eremanthus erythropappus using supercritical CO2 and ethanol as co-solvent. J. Supercrit. Fluids 110, 39–46. doi:10.1016/j.supflu.2015.12.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Quicanga, A. (2023). Perceptions of greenwashing’S impact on green concern and green purchase intentions. Umeå University: Umeå, Sweden, 1–82.

Google Scholar

Raj, R. K., and Chandrul, K. K. (2016). Regulatory requirements for cosmetics in relation with regulatory authorities in India against US, Europe, Australia and asean countries. Int. J. Pharma Res. Health Sci. 4 (5), 1332–1341. doi:10.21276/ijprhs.2016.05.01

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramelli, G. P., Taddeo, I., Herrmann, U., and Weber, P. (2012). V13 Poster location 013 Paroxysmal tonic upgaze of infancy: 5 additional cases. Eur. J. Paediatr. Neurology 13 (September), S10. doi:10.1016/s1090-3798(09)70033-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rastogi, S. C., Schouten, A., de Kruijf, N., and Weijland, J. W. (1995). Contents of methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, butyl- and benzylparaben in cosmetic products. Contact Dermat. 32, 28–30. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1995.tb00836.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ravindra, H., Arya, P., and Haq, S. A. (2019). Effects of xenobiotics and their biodegradation in marine life. Smart Bioremediation Technol. Microb. Enzym., 63–81. Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-818307-6.00004-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ray, S. S., Gusain, R., and Kumar, N. (2020). Classification of water contaminants. Carbon Nanomaterial-Based Adsorbents Water Purif., 11–36. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-821959-1.00002-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raymond, K., and Krupnick, A. (2016). Cost-benefit analysis and regulatory reformResources for the Future: Washington, D.C., United States, 1–23.

Google Scholar

Ricardo (2021). Economic analysis of the impacts of the chemicals strategy for sustainability. Available at: https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2021/12/Economic-Analysis-of-the-Impacts-of-the-Chemicals-Strategy-for-Sustainability-Phase-1.pdf.

Google Scholar

Rocca, R., Acerbi, F., Fumagalli, L., and Taisch, M. (2022). Sustainability paradigm in the cosmetics industry: State of the art. Clean. Waste Syst. 3 (May), 100057. doi:10.1016/j.clwas.2022.100057

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rodrigues, R., Oliveira, M. B. P. P., and Alves, R. C. (2023). Chlorogenic acids and caffeine from coffee by-products: a review on skincare applications. Cosmetics 10 (1), 12. doi:10.3390/cosmetics10010012

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rootid (2022). Campaign for safe cosmetics, a project of breast cancer prevention partners. Available at: https://www.safecosmetics.org/get-thefacts/regulations/international-laws/.doi:10.1017/S1816383120000144

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sadie (2020). How the beauty industry is harming our seas and oceans. Available at: https://www.green-sail.com/blog/how-the-beauty-industry-is-harming-our-seas-and-oceans’

Google Scholar

Sagbo, J. (2021). ‘Indigenous cosmetics plants in the eastern cape province of South Africa: a case of skin care’.

Google Scholar

Salles, F. J., Paniz, F. P., Batista, B. L., Nardocci, A. C., and Olympio, K. P. K. (2023). Potentially toxic elements in costume cosmetics used by children and adults are associated with cancer risk. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20 (1), 531. doi:10.3390/ijerph20010531

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sandha, G. K., and Swami, V. K. (2009). Jojoba oil as an organic, shelf stable standard oil-phase base for cosmetic industry. Rasayan J. Chem. 2 (2), 300–306.

Google Scholar

Santoro, C. (2022). Sustainability and transparency in the cosmetic industry: the clean beauty movement and consumers’ consciousness. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland.

Google Scholar

Scanes, C. G. (2017). “Invasive species,” in Animals Hum. Soc., 413–426. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-805247-1.00024-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

SCCS (2023). Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety SCCS OPINION on the safety of aluminium in cosmetic products-Submission III. European Commission: Luxembourg, 1–62.

Google Scholar

Schlumpf, M., Durrer, S., Faass, O., Ehnes, C., Fuetsch, M., Gaille, C., et al. (2008). Developmental toxicity of UV filters and environmental exposure: a review. Int. J. Androl. 31 (2), 144–151. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2605.2007.00856.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2021). The SCCS’s notes of guidance for testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety. Evaluation. 8th revision.

Google Scholar

Scott, F. (2020). ‘The “Toxic Twenty” cosmetic ingredients and contaminants’.

Google Scholar

Scott Fabber (2020). The toxic twelve chemicals and contaminants in cosmetics. Available at: https://www.ewg.org/the-toxic-twelve-chemicals-and-contaminants-in-cosmetics’

Google Scholar

Sharifan, H., Klein, D., and Morse, A. N. (2016). UV filters are an environmental threat in the Gulf of Mexico: a case study of Texas coastal zones. Oceanol. Inst. Oceanol. Pol. Acad. Sci. 58 (4), 327–335. doi:10.1016/j.oceano.2016.07.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sheikh, A. G. (2018). Beauty care products - a chemistry deleterious to human chemistry. Int. J. Med. Sci. Public Health 2018, 1–8. doi:10.5455/ijmsph.2018.1130118112017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sherrow, V. (2018). Personal care products council (PCPC). Encycl. Hair, 389–390. doi:10.5040/9781440880148.0200

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, B. M., Jain, A., and Mishra, A. (2018). Cosmetic regulations in India vs. Globally and challenges in harmonization. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Drug Res. 10 (03), 150–157. doi:10.25004/ijpsdr.2018.100308

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, G. (2019). Mica scavenging in Jharkhand destroys lives and environment. Mongabay. Available at: https://india.mongabay.com/2019/10/mica-scavenging-in-jharkhand-destroys-lives-and-environment/.

Google Scholar

Siti Zulaikha, R., Sharifah Norkhadijah, S. I., and Praveena, S. M. (2015). Hazardous ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products and health concern: a review. Public Health Res. 5 (1), 7–15. doi:10.5923/j.phr.20150501.02

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spangenberg, J. H., Bondeau, A., Carter, T. R., Fronzek, S., Jaeger, J., Jylhä, K., et al. (2012). Scenarios for investigating risks to biodiversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21 (1), 5–18. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00620.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Speer, R. M., Zhou, X., Volk, L. B., Liu, K. J., and Hudson, L. G. (2023). Arsenic and cancer: evidence and mechanisms. Adv. Pharmacol. 96, 151–202. doi:10.1016/bs.apha.2022.08.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Standard, A. I. (2020). ‘Chemical ingrident transparency in products: review of existing public policies & an industry standard’.

Google Scholar

Steiling, W. (2016). Safety evaluation of cosmetic ingredients regarding their skin sensitization potential. Cosmetics 3 (2), 14. doi:10.3390/cosmetics3020014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tsiouli, S., and Fytianos, G. (2023). “Water pollution by personal care products,” in Personal Care Prod. Hum. Health, 115–137. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-99684-6.00002-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tunde, O. L., Oluwagbemiga, A. P., and Felix, O. O. (2024). Concentrations and probable health risks of potentially toxic metals (Pb, Cd and Cr) in some Nigerian lipstick products. J. Trace Elem. Minerals 8, 100142. Elsevier B. doi:10.1016/j.jtemin.2024.100142

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ullah, H., Noreen, S., Fozia, H., Rehman, A., Waseem, A., Zubair, S., et al. (2017). Comparative study of heavy metals content in cosmetic products of different countries marketed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Arabian J. Chem. 10 (1), 10–18. doi:10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.09.021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

UNI EN ISO 22716 (2014). Good manufacturing practices (GMP) – guidelines on good manufacturing practices. Milano Ente Ital. Unificazione, 2008. doi:10.3403/30148492U

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Agriculture (2011). National Organic Program: organic production and handling requirements. Available at: https://www.nofany.org/files/USDA_Organic_Production___Handling_Standards.pdf.

Google Scholar

USEPA (2021). Volatile organic compounds’ impact on indoor air quality EPA. GOV, 1–5. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/indoor-particulate-matter. doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13435-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

U.S. FDA (2021). Cosmetic products & ingredients. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products-ingredients.

Google Scholar

Usman, U. L., Danhauwa, S. A., Sajad, S., and Banerjee, S. (2021). Assessment of heavy metal in some commonly used cosmetic product and associated health risk in Nigeria: threat to public health. Macromol. Symp. 397 (1). doi:10.1002/masy.202100161

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vandenberg, L. N., Colborn, T., Hayes, T. B., Heindel, J. J., Jacobs, D. R., Lee, D. H., et al. (2012). Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocr. Rev. 33 (3), 378–455. doi:10.1210/er.2011-1050

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vanderplanck, M., Gilles, H., Nonclercq, D., Duez, P., and Gerbaux, P. (2020). Asteraceae paradox: chemical and mechanical protection of taraxacum pollen. Insects 11 (5), 304–308. doi:10.3390/insects11050304

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vella, A., and Attard, E. (2019). Analysis of heavy metal content in conventional and herbal toothpastes available at Maltese pharmacies. Cosmetics 6 (2), 28. doi:10.3390/COSMETICS6020028

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wan, M. W. O., Nurzalikha, A. M. S., and Zulfakar, M. H. (2024). The trend of halal cosmetics supply chain research in a decade: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Inf. Manag. Bus. Rev. 16 (No. 1), 213–228. (ISSN 2220-3796). doi:10.22610/imbr.v16i1(i).3681

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, J., Pan, L., Wu, S., Lu, L., Xu, Y., Zhu, Y., et al. (2016). Recent advances on endocrine disrupting effects of UV filters. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13 (8), 782–811. doi:10.3390/ijerph13080782

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Q., Shao, S., Su, Y., Hu, X., Shen, Y., and Zhao, D. (2019). A novel case of autogamy and cleistogamy in Dendrobium wangliangii: a rare orchid distributed in the dry-hot valley. Ecol. Evol. 9 (22), 12906–12914. doi:10.1002/ece3.5772

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Z. (2021). Influence of climate change on marine species and its solutions. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1011 (1), 012053. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1011/1/012053

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wassie, S. B. (2020). Natural resource degradation tendencies in Ethiopia: a review. Environ. Syst. Res. 9 (1), 33–29. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1186/s40068-020-00194-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weatherly, L. M., and Gosse, J. A. (2017). Triclosan exposure, transformation, and human health effects. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health - Part B Crit. Rev. Taylor & Francis 20 (8), 447–469. doi:10.1080/10937404.2017.1399306

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weryszko-Chmielewska, E., Tietze, M., and Michońska, M. (2012). Ecological features of the flowers of Aesculus hippocastanum L. and characteristics of Aesculus L. pollen seasons under the conditions of central-eastern Poland. Acta Agrobot. 65 (4), 61–68. doi:10.5586/aa.2012.022

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Whitacre, D. M. (2015). Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology. Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10479-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

WHO (2011). Mercury in skin lightening products public health andenvironment. Dep. Public Health, Environ. Soc. Determinants Health (15), 6. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-CED-PHE-EPE-19.13. doi:10.1002/9781119992615

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wood, E. (2018). Impacts of sunscreens on coral reefs. Rep. by Int. Coral Reef Initiative, 1–21. Available at: https://crm.gov.mp/wp-content/uploads/crm/ICRI_Sunscreen_0.pdf.

Google Scholar

Wu, C., Zhang, K., and Xiong, X. (2018). Microplastic pollution in inland waters focusing on Asia. Handb. Environ. Chem., 85–99. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yadav, E. (2023). The environmental implications of cosmetic chemistry laboratory waste: a review. Austin Environ. Sci. 8 (3).

Google Scholar

Yang, X. E., Wu, X., and Hao, H. l. (2008). Mechanisms and assessment of water eutrophication. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B 9 (3), 197–209. doi:10.1631/jzus.B0710626

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Young, O. (2022). ‘The environmental impact of cosmetics is tremendous—here’s how they’re harmful. Available at: https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-impact-of-cosmetics-5207672#toc-chemicalingredients’

Google Scholar

Yueh, M. F., and Tukey, R. H. (2016). Triclosan: a widespread environmental toxicant with many biological effects. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 56, 251–272. doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103417

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zareba, G., Cernichiari, E., Hojo, R., Nitt, S. M., Weiss, B., Mumtaz, M. M., et al. (2007). Thimerosal distribution and metabolism in neonatal mice: comparison with methyl mercury. J. Appl. Toxicol. 27 (July), 511–518. doi:10.1002/jat.1272

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zero Mercury Working Group (2010). Mercury in skin lightening cosmetics. Mercury Policy Proj., 1–4.

Google Scholar

Ziani, K., Ioniță-Mîndrican, C. B., Mititelu, M., Neacșu, S. M., Negrei, C., Moroșan, E., et al. (2023). Microplastics: a real global threat for environment and food safety: a state of the art review. Nutrients 15 (3), 617. doi:10.3390/nu15030617

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar