Visit MrsMakeup UK
Microplastics aren't just an environmental problem anymore. They're turning up in places researchers didn't expect to find them — including human blood and placental tissue — and the science is still emerging on what that means for our health.
We're not here to tell you to throw out your favourite makeup. But there is enough emerging research and peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that, where you have the choice, considering alternatives without intentionally added microplastics is a sensible precaution.
At Mrs Makeup, we think reducing an avoidable exposure is a sensible choice. If you can choose a comparable product without intentionally added microplastics, why wouldn't you?
Three Ways They Get Into Your Body
1. Through the skin
Your skin is a strong barrier, so the big question is whether microplastic particles can actually get through it.
The outer skin layer is the main defence, but tiny particles may have other routes through hair follicles and sweat glands. And when that barrier is compromised — for example by eczema, inflammation, cuts or scratches — it may be easier for particles to get further into the skin. Studies suggest that damaged or inflamed skin can allow greater uptake of very small particles than healthy skin.
2. Inhaled from powder products
Loose powders, setting powders and some spray products can put fine particles into the air, creating a potential inhalation route. Research supports inhalation as a relevant exposure pathway for cosmetic particles, although we don't yet know what level of microplastic exposure ordinary makeup use produces.
3. Ingested from lip products
Lip products provide another straightforward exposure route. Small amounts can be swallowed during eating, drinking or normal lip contact, putting any intentionally added microplastics into the digestive system.
We don't know how significant this exposure is compared with other sources of microplastics, but if you're trying to reduce avoidable exposure, choosing lip products without intentionally added microplastics is a simple precaution.
What Has Actually Been Found in the Body
This is not speculation. Microplastics have been detected in human tissue in multiple independent studies:
- In human blood — confirmed by researchers who tested blood samples from a group of adults. Microplastic particles were present and circulating.
- In the placenta — microplastics have been detected in placental tissue, raising questions about potential prenatal exposure. A 2025 review in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology specifically identified particles from foundations, lipstick, mascara, and eye shadow in placental samples — suggesting cosmetics as a direct contributor, not just background environmental exposure. Researchers have not yet quantified how much comes from cosmetics relative to other sources, or what the effects on foetal development may be.
- In arterial plaque — a significant 2024 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found microplastics in the fatty deposits inside artery walls, and found an association between their presence and cardiovascular events. It was an observational study — it shows an association, not that the particles cause the damage — but it is one of the most significant findings in this area to date.
What the research has not yet established is exactly how much of this comes from cosmetics specifically, or whether cosmetic exposure alone at typical levels is sufficient to cause measurable effects. The science is moving quickly, but those questions are still open.
The Health Concerns
No one can tell you definitively that wearing a foundation with Polyethylene in it will cause you a specific health problem. What the research has established is where these particles end up in the body, and what the chemicals they carry are known to do. The concern is long-term, daily exposure — not a single application.
| Concern | What the research shows | Where things stand |
|---|---|---|
| Hormones | Plastic particles used in cosmetics contain chemical additives incorporated during manufacture — two classes are particularly relevant here. Brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), found in polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics, have been confirmed to absorb through skin in studies using 3D human skin models (Abafe et al. 2024). Phthalates — plasticiser additives used in some plastic formulations — are well-established endocrine disruptors that mimic or interfere with oestrogen and other hormones. These are distinct chemical classes with separate evidence bases; both are plastic additive concerns, not properties of the plastic particles themselves. Human evidence at cosmetic exposure levels remains limited for both. | Plausible and supported by experimental evidence. Human causal evidence at cosmetic use levels is still developing. |
| Heart and arteries | Microplastic particles have been found inside arterial plaque — the material that builds up in blood vessel walls. A 2024 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found an association between particles in plaque and cardiovascular events in the patients studied. | Association documented in a significant human study. Whether the particles contribute to causing the damage, or accumulate there as a consequence of it, is not yet established. |
| Pregnancy and baby development | Microplastics have been detected in placental tissue — the organ that connects mother and baby during pregnancy. Foetal development is particularly sensitive to hormonal interference at critical stages. Researchers have not yet established how much of this exposure comes from cosmetics, or what the effects may be. | Presence in placenta confirmed. The link from cosmetic use specifically to foetal exposure and harm has not been demonstrated — but the question is being actively studied. |
| Inflammation | The body recognises foreign particles as something to attack. When particles lodge in tissue, this can trigger a low-level, ongoing inflammatory response — which is linked to a wide range of long-term health conditions. | Mechanism is well understood. Evidence specific to cosmetic microplastics is still building. |
| Lungs | Fine particles inhaled from powder products can lodge in lung tissue. The same principle underlies known occupational lung conditions from industrial dust — the difference with makeup is the dose is smaller but repeated daily over years. | Mechanism established. Makeup-specific research is limited but the route is real. |
The honest position is this: microplastic particles are being found inside human bodies — in blood, in placentas, and in arterial plaque. The chemicals they carry include some that are known to interfere with hormones. The research connecting those findings specifically to cosmetic use, and to measurable health outcomes in humans, is still developing. The science is still developing, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore the question. Where a comparable alternative exists, avoiding intentionally added microplastics is a simple precaution.
Who Researchers Are Paying Attention To
The evidence is not strong enough to say that particular groups are definitely at higher risk from microplastics in makeup. It is more accurate to say that researchers are paying particular attention to certain situations because they involve sensitive biological systems or potentially greater exposure.
| Situation | Why it is being studied |
|---|---|
| Pregnancy | Microplastics have been detected in human placental tissue, and the fetoplacental unit is therefore an important area for research. The 2025 Anifowoshe review discusses placental translocation and reproductive toxicity but notes that much of the evidence is from animal and laboratory studies. It does not establish that cosmetic exposure causes foetal harm. |
| People using multiple products every day | Repeated use of several products could increase total exposure to intentionally added microplastics, but the size of that contribution compared with other environmental sources has not been established. |
| People frequently using loose powders or sprays | These formats can create airborne particles, making inhalation a more relevant exposure pathway than with products that remain wet or compact during use. The health significance of typical cosmetic exposure remains uncertain. |
| People who want to minimise avoidable exposure | This is a precautionary choice rather than a medical conclusion. If a comparable product without intentionally added microplastics is available, choosing it reduces exposure to those ingredients without requiring a claim that the original product has been proven harmful. |
The EU Is Changing the Rules — Just Very Slowly
In 2023 the EU announced that intentionally added microplastics would be phased out of cosmetics. The timeline depends on the product type:
- Loose glitter and exfoliating microbeads — banned immediately, October 2023
- Rinse-off cosmetics (face washes, shower gels) — October 2027
- Leave-on makeup (foundations, eyeshadow, mascara) — October 2029
- Lip, nail and colour cosmetics — October 2035
2035 — for the products with the highest risk.
Lip products — where you absorb and swallow what you apply — get the longest window of all. That deadline was not set by scientists deciding it was safe to wait. It reflects what the industry agreed to. A lipstick on the shelf today in an Irish pharmacy can legally contain Polyethylene for another nine years. Being EU-approved and being safe are not the same thing.
What to Look for on the Label
The word "microplastic" will never appear on an ingredient list. These ingredients are listed under their chemical names, usually somewhere in the middle of a long list. Here are the seven names we flag as automatic exclusions:
| What to look for | Also written as | Our verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Polyethylene | PE, Polyethylene Wax | ✗ Not recommended |
| Polymethyl Methacrylate | PMMA | ✗ Not recommended |
| Nylon-12 | — | ✗ Not recommended |
| Nylon-11 | — | ✗ Not recommended |
| Nylon-66 | — | ✗ Not recommended |
| Polypropylene | PP | ✗ Not recommended |
| Polybutylene Terephthalate | PBT | ✗ Not recommended |
The easiest way to check a product you already own is to paste the ingredient list into our Beauty Assistant — it will check it against our full flag list and tell you exactly what it finds. If you are looking manually, find the ingredient list on the brand's own EU website rather than Amazon, where lists are often incomplete.
What Mrs Makeup Does About It
Our approach is precautionary. We don't need to claim that every microplastic used in makeup causes harm before deciding that, where a comparable alternative exists, we'd rather avoid intentionally added microplastics.
That's why products containing our hard-flagged microplastic ingredients are excluded from our clean recommendations. It's about making a more informed choice — not about telling you to panic about the makeup you already own.
Frequently Asked Questions
Still have a question about an ingredient or product? You can also ask the Mrs Makeup beauty bot for a more detailed ingredient-focused answer.
Not exactly. Environmental microplastics are often fragments or fibres generated as larger plastic items wear down, while some cosmetic microplastics are intentionally added ingredients. The particles can be made from different polymers and can behave differently depending on their size, shape and chemistry. The important point is that finding environmental microplastics in human tissue does not by itself prove that cosmetic ingredients are responsible.
Long-wear products can remain on the skin for many hours, so repeated use is relevant when thinking about cumulative exposure. But it has not been established that the chemicals associated with cosmetic microplastics routinely migrate through intact skin into the bloodstream at a clinically significant level. Research is still working out how much systemic exposure normal cosmetic use produces.
It is a plausible exposure route. Loose and setting powders can generate airborne particles and some will be inhaled during application. The key uncertainty is dose: everyday cosmetic use is very different from occupational exposure to high concentrations of industrial dust, and we do not yet know whether typical makeup exposure produces a meaningful long-term health effect.
Two classes of chemical additives in plastic particles are relevant here. Brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), found in polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics, have been shown to absorb through skin in laboratory studies using 3D human skin models — the Abafe et al. 2024 study confirmed this pathway specifically. Phthalates — a separate class of plasticiser additives used in some plastic formulations — are well-established endocrine disruptors known to interfere with oestrogen and other hormones. These are different chemical classes; the evidence bases for each are distinct. For both, human evidence demonstrating measurable hormonal effects at typical cosmetic exposure levels is still limited. The existence of an endocrine-active chemical or a biological mechanism does not by itself demonstrate that everyday makeup use causes clinically significant hormonal disruption in people.
Under the EU microplastics restriction, different cosmetic categories have different transition periods, with lip, nail and colour cosmetics among the categories with the longest transition period. A transition period is a regulatory timetable, not a scientific declaration that an ingredient is either safe or unsafe. Mrs Makeup applies its own precautionary ingredient standard sooner.
Fact-Check This Article with AI
Run an independent review of the claims here. The AI may not agree with everything — that's the point.
AI models tend to default to mainstream consensus positions. You should research your own individual concerns using whatever methods you deem best.
Sources
- Leslie et al. (2022) — Microplastics in human blood. Environment International. doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199
- Ragusa et al. (2021) — Microplastics in human placenta. Environment International. doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274
- Abafe et al. (2024) — Assessment of human dermal absorption of flame retardant additives (PBDEs) in polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics using 3D human skin equivalent models. Environment International. doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108635
The first study to demonstrate dermal bioavailability of chemical additives leaching from microplastic particles using 3D human skin equivalent models. Found brominated flame retardant additives (PBDEs) present in polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics were bioavailable through skin contact — up to 8% of the exposure dose. Sweaty skin increased bioavailability, which is directly relevant to makeup worn during the day. This study is specifically about additive chemicals leaching from plastic particles, not the particles themselves crossing the skin. - Kukkola et al. (2024) — Cosmetics and microplastic pollution. Journal of Hazardous Materials. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135053
- Han & Kim (2025) — Microplastics in cosmetics: emerging risks for skin health and the environment. Cosmetics. doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics12040171
This 2025 peer-reviewed dermatology review — published after most of the studies AI fact-checkers tend to cite — specifically examines microplastics in cosmetics and skin health. It characterises dermal absorption as an increasingly recognised exposure pathway and presents experimental evidence that plastic particles can penetrate the skin barrier, particularly at smaller particle sizes. Nanoplastics below 200nm have been shown to migrate through hair follicles, lipid channels, and skin furrows into the viable epidermis. The review also notes that certain cosmetic formula ingredients — including ethanol and oleic acid — can enhance transdermal absorption. The review identifies the magnitude of systemic exposure under normal cosmetic use as an area requiring further human study. Evidence for particle interaction with skin is therefore important, but it should not be translated into a claim that ordinary cosmetic use has been shown to produce a significant systemic dose. - Tan, Saha & Niebel (2025) — Plastics in dermatology: a review and solutions. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. doi.org/10.1111/jdv.20537
This 2025 review examines dermal, inhalation and ingestion exposure routes and discusses human findings involving blood, placenta and arterial plaque. It is useful evidence that these are active research areas, but it does not establish that foundations, lipstick, mascara or eye shadow caused the particles detected in human placenta. The authors also note that much of the evidence for biological effects comes from animal and in vitro research. - Anifowoshe et al. (2025) — Microplastics: a threat to the fetoplacental unit and reproductive systems. Toxicology Reports. doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2025.101938
A systematic review from the Indian Institute of Science examining the evidence specifically on microplastics and the fetoplacental unit. Synthesises findings across placental translocation, male and female reproductive toxicity, foetal organ accumulation, and inflammation and oxidative stress mechanisms. Draws on Leslie 2022 and Ragusa 2021 and adds a broader picture of reproductive research. The authors acknowledge that most studies to date are animal-based and that mechanisms in humans require further investigation. The review supports continued study of placental and reproductive exposure; it does not establish that cosmetic use causes foetal harm.
