New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Plastic beads are the latest pollution threat to Great Lakes

Tiny plastic beads from beauty products are showing up in North America's Great Lakes, and an environmental group is calling upon companies to stop using the plastic particles.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Lisa Maria Garza

(Reuters) - Tiny plastic beads from beauty products are showing up in North America's Great Lakes, and an environmental group is calling upon companies to stop using the plastic particles.

Scientists have already been found the particles, known as microplastic, floating in the oceans but recently reported the same contamination in the largest surface freshwater system on the Earth. The particles are often less than a millimeter (0.04 inch).


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A team of researchers with 5 Gyres Institute, a non-profit California-based environmental activist group, collected samples from lakes Erie, Superior and Huron last summer and found large quantities of round, plastic pellets.

"They matched the same size, color, texture and shape of the microbeads found in popular consumer products," said the group's executive director, Marcus Eriksen. He said the group plans to publish the research in a peer-reviewed journal later this year.

Microbeads are tiny plastic balls used in products like facial scrubs, body washes and toothpastes. They scrub away dead skin, similar to using a sponge, and are designed to wash down the drain.

Scientists captured the tiny samples using "manta trawl," a net system resembling a manta ray, which is towed behind the boat.

The organization presented their research to Proctor & Gamble Co and Johnson & Johnson, expecting a battle for urging them to stop using microbeads in their products.

A Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman said they have already begun the phase out of polyethylene microbeads in their existing products and are currently developing an environmentally friendly alternative for future products.

"We won without having to go through a legislative battle, which no one wants to do," Eriksen said.

Proctor & Gamble did not respond to requests for comment from Reuters. Eriksen said a company spokesperson told 5 Gyres they will phase out microbeads in products by 2017.

The pollution damage will continue in the meantime. The plastic particles are now added to an already long list of threats to the fish population, Eriksen said.

Microplastic is easily confused with natural food found in lakes. The beads can remain in fish and be ingested by humans, the group said.

"We don't know if the problem stops with the fish or if we eat the fish, the problems are with us now," said Lorena Rios-Mendoza, a chemist with the University of Wisconsin-Superior who was on the 5 Gyres boat expedition.

There is no practical way to remove the plastic debris already floating in the lakes, Eriksen said. Particles will float to shore, drift out to the ocean or absorb chemicals from the water, which weigh the particles down and cause them to sink to the bottom of the lakes.

The lifespan of microplastics is unknown so it can take years for it to completely leave the ocean or lake, if it ever does.

"Plastic doesn't biodegrade so once it's in the water, it doesn't just disappear," Rios-Mendoza said.

The scientists are expanding their search this summer to lakes Michigan and Ontario.

(Reporting by Lisa Maria Garza in Houston; Editing by Mary Wisniewski and Lisa Shumaker)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe