Glitter may be good for school projects and make-up, but it’s no good for the environment. That’s why work is underway on safer – and equally sparkly – alternatives.

Australian researchers worked with a team from the University of Cambridge to compare the environmental effects of traditional polyethylene terephthalate (PET) glitter and a newly-developed cellulose nanocrystalline (CNC) glitter.

Cellulose is made out of a type of sugar called glucose, and is an organic compound often found in nature.

The researchers’ paper revealed PET glitter had a definite negative ecological effect during testing, while the CNC glitter had none.

University of Melbourne associate professor in ecotoxicology and paper co-author Suzie Reichman told TND both types of glitter were added into containers of soil along with springtails (invertebrates typically used for ecotoxicity testing).

PET glitter made a dent in population growth. Source: Chemosphere

After 28 days, neither glitter appeared to have any effect on the survival or growth rates of the springtails.

But once the level of PET glitter in soil reached 1000 milligrams per kilogram, there was a clear downturn in population growth.

“[The springtails with PET glitter] were having 61 per cent less offspring … than they were having in our control soil with no glitter and in the CNC glitter,” Reichman said.

“That can have a big impact over time on the viability of a population in the wild.”

What’s the problem with glitter?

PET glitter has been widely used around the world for decades but it is grouped among micro-plastics, and concerns are growing about the effects of widespread environmental pollution.

Micro-plastics are defined as non-biodegradable, insoluble synthetic polymer particles measuring less than five millimetres; once they’re released into the environment, they’re almost impossible to remove.

These tiny pieces of plastic have been found in fresh and salt water, on land, in soil, and are ingested by many species, including humans.

Micro-plastics have even been found in human brain tissue and breast milk.

The long-term health risks for humans are not yet known, but accumulated micro-plastics have been reported to lead to malnutrition in marine and aquatic animals, along with inflammation, reduced fertility and mortality.

The issue is considered serious enough that last year, the European Commission enacted a plastic glitter ban across the European Union as part of a wider crackdown on micro-plastics.

Biodegradable and soluble options are still allowed to be sold.

Reichman said the Cambridge team is working to commercialise their CNC glitter, but more research will be required to make sure it’s safe in various ecosystems.

More research needed

There are no serious talks of an EU-style glitter ban by the Australian government yet.

Reichman said more research into the effects of both micro-plastics and glitter specifically on soil were still needed in order to develop safe threshold levels and an evidence-based approach.

She said the toxicity of micro-plastics depended on their type, size, and how long they’ve been in the environment.

Research will tell us whether some forms may need to be restricted, and whether others may require outright bans.

“Up until a couple of years ago, [researchers] were missing the glitter in the samples [of soil contaminated with micro-plastics],” Reichman said.

“They kept saying, ‘Oh, glitter is not important,’ … and then realised that it wasn’t being measured … so it still hasn’t been measured in soil yet, but they have … measured it in sewage sludge, and [glitter] was found to be one quarter of the micro-plastics in the sewerage sludge.

“That makes sense, because … if you wear glitter make-up or do anything with glitter and get it on you, and then you have a shower, that’s going to go down into the sewer and end up in the sewage sludge.”