Design Life-Cycle

 Shreya Singh

Professor Christina Cogdell

DES40A 

December 2, 2021

Acquired Raw Materials: Production Cycle of the Neutrogena Deep Clean Invigorating Face Scrub

In today’s world, popularized brands in the beauty and skincare industry are releasing new drugstore products that are widely accepted for daily use. But do we know what exactly goes into these products and how production impacts the environment? Although it's natural to pick up the first item in stock on the shelves, most people don’t fully understand where the materials for the product are derived from and if the ingredients are even healthy for your skin. One of the most well-known skincare brands, Neutrogena, is infamous for face washes that are considered safe for everyday use by the general public. In 2020, the brand, owned by company Johnson & Johnson, generated $4.45 billion in the skincare sector alone. The Neutrogena Deep Clean Invigorating Face Scrub is one specific product that has sparked controversy over the use of polyethylene to make microplastic beads claiming to exfoliate the skin. The production of the Neutrogena Deep Clean Invigorating Face Scrub utilizes different raw materials such as glycerin, methyl gluceth-20, sodium laureth sulfate, polyethylene, menthol and synthetic wax and shows the life cycle from acquisition of the materials and manufacturing to transportation and ultimately the end by-products that go back to the environment.

Although some of the acquired raw materials used to produce the Neutrogena Deep Clean Invigorating Face Scrub are naturally derived, ingredients such as plastics, polyethylene, synthetic wax and sodium laureth sulfate are commonly produced from petroleum and natural gases. Aside from the plastic which goes into production for the container, polyethylene specifically is the most popular form of plastic used in the production of microbeads. These beads are small enough in size, between 60 to 800 μm in diameter, to create a supposedly gentle scrubbing feeling. Microbeads first made their appearance in face washes to perform one role, “Abrasive scrub cleansers were developed when people realized that mechanical exfoliation – the process of removing the outermost layer of skin with an abrasive material– produces smoother skin” (Chang, 2015). Sodium Laureth Sulfate can be derived from petroleum oil using the process of hydroformylation or naturally from coconut and palm oils. Synthetic wax, like polyethylene, is man-made from natural gas or ethylene but can also be made from animal fats. It is also produced from natural gas using three commonly used methods; polymerization of carbon monoxide under high pressure,  thermal degradation and deriving fatty acids under high temperatures. The natural ingredients in this face scrub include glycerin, derived from animal and vegetable fats, methyl gluceth-20, derived from corn sugar, and menthol which comes from mint plants. The vegetable fats are extracted from the seeds of plants while animal fats are taken from meat by-products. Another important material, glycerin, is a very viscous liquid that can be made both synthetically or naturally from sugar using the process of fermentation. Crude glycerin in the US is commonly derived from biodiesel factories.

The demand for these raw materials is significant to the distribution and transportation where they are shipped out using trucks, planes and ships powered by fossil fuels. The demand for glycerin has skyrocketed in the past two decades, thus contributing to an increase in transportation of this resource all over the globe, “The Asia-Pacific region overtook Europe as the largest market in 2009 and is now the largest regional market with the fastest growth in the world, propelled by the increase in glycerin applications in various sectors such as pharmaceutical, personal hygiene, food and beverage products” (Quispe, Coronado, & Carvalho Jr. , 2013). The market for glycerin has dispersed all over the globe which generates the use of more fossil fuels to provide for the modes of transportations in order to export from Asia to the west. Additionally, polyethylene, synthetic wax and sodium laureth sulfate use non-renewable energy sources in the manufacturing process. These three raw materials not only contribute to the rising fossil fuels, but so do the main methods of transportation for these ingredients. Transportation alone is a significant factor for the dangerously high rise of greenhouse gas emissions, “Billions of tons of cargo are transported around the world each year by trucks, planes, ships, and trains. This transportation makes up 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and as much as 11% if warehouses and ports are included” (Greene, 2019). The amount of carbon emissions that go back to the Earth’s o-zone layer simply for transportation of these raw materials puts a great risk on our planet’s habitability. In fact, policy makers have widely agreed upon a 2 °C maximum temperature warning limit for the 21st century due to the rapid increase of carbon emissions, “However, the greenhouse gas emissions contained in present estimates of global fossil fuel reserves are around three times higher than this, and so the unabated use of all current fossil fuel reserves is incompatible with a warming limit of 2 °C” (McGlade & Ekins, 2015). On a larger scope, the emissions coming out of transporting these commonly used raw materials contribute to the exponentially rapid global climate change. 

Once the product has been used by the consumer, the main wastes generated from the raw materials of the product end up going back to the Earth’s oceans and affecting ecosystems through the form of plastic. Since many plastic bottles and containers aren’t recycled, they go straight to landfills and oceans. However, the greater threat comes from the polyethylene microbeads which go down the drain during the use of the product. Unfortunately, these microplastics are too small in size to be caught in the water filtration process and end up in the ocean. Due to their tiny size, they pose a greater threat to sea-life, “Once in the water, microbeads bio-accumulate. They are often mistaken for food, being ingested by zooplankton. These small marine creatures are then consumed by larger species such as fish, mussels and oysters and ultimately by humans'' (Barrett 2016). One of Neutrogena’s most popular face wash has significantly contributed to the harmful effects of micro plastics in marine life. Though the consumption of seafood that have ingested micro plastics is not thoroughly studied over a longitudinal period of time, the synthetically derived raw materials that go into these microplastics mistaken for food by sea animals are dangerous to their natural biology. However, the chemical breakdown of microplastics in the ocean doesn’t just affect small marine life but also directly binds with POP’s, harming ocean waters, “If the plastic alone wasn’t enough concern, plastic actually binds to chemicals in the ocean (including POPs – meaning Persistent Organic Pollutants, or chemicals resistant to environmental degradation) As the plastic accumulates in the food chain, so do these POPs” (Miles, 2019). Not only do pollutants and plastics harm the ocean separately, but the binding of plastic with POP’s is a major concern for the chemical safety of the ocean for marine-life. If these synthetic raw materials continue for mass production, the biochemistry of organisms could be genetically modified while ocean waters are modified on a molecular level. Since water is necessary for survival, the end result can lead to severe health risks for humans.

In conclusion, the raw materials for our specific product, the Neutrogena Deep Clean Invigorating Face Scrub, provides a greater scope on the effects of the end products by examining its production life cycle. From the acquisition of the raw materials to how it’s manufactured, transported and where the materials go once the product is done being used is paramount to the everlasting changes made to our environment. Despite brands such as Neutrogena promising to use more renewable energy sources, biodegradable materials and sustainable manufacturing processes, the use of non-renewable energy to produce synthetic raw materials for even just one product in the company’s line still contributes to the mass production and transportation of these materials. In the end, this still results in the same consequences to the biology of marine-life, chemicals in the oceans, rise in carbon emissions that directly contribute to rapid climate change and rise in ocean levels due to the ice melting in the poles. Due to such devastating effects from mass production of these products, it is important to understand where the raw materials acquired to produce, manufacture and transport come from. The production life cycle of every product produced simply goes back to the soils from which the materials came from.’

Works Cited

Barrett, Tom. “Microbeads: Bad for You, Bad for the Environment.” Insurance Journal, 3 Oct. 2016, https://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-features/2016/10/03/427839.htm. 

Bozic, Milan. How the Beauty Industry Is Harming Our Seas and Oceans, https://www.green-sail.com/blog/how-the-beauty-industry-is-harming-our-seas-and-oceans. 

Chang, Michelle, et al. “Reducing Microplastics from Facial Exfoliating Cleansers in Wastewater through Treatment versus Consumer Product Decisions.” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Pergamon, 10 Nov. 2015, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15301478?casa_token=PVpST05asZoAAAAA%3AnThH6IhkgZMvLjhuWUTwyyTZQ5qu5KYcv5H6PM3R-6jd61uPwUVmLEWIMo0An8o6F3g3ix26. 

Corbett, J.J., Winebrake, J.J., (2007). Sustainable goods movement: Environmental implications of trucks, trains, ships, and planes. EM Magazine. https://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2229&context=article

Eoff, John, et al. “Production of Glycerin from Sugar by Fermentation.” ACS Publications, 1 Sept. 1919, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ie50117a006.

Greene, Suzanne. “Freight Transportation.” MIT Climate Portal, https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/freight-transportation. 

Guerranti, C., et al. “Microplastics in Cosmetics: Environmental Issues and Needs for Global Bans.” Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, Elsevier, 8 Mar. 2019, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668918305635.  

McGlade, Christophe, Ekins, Paul., et al.“The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Fuels Unused When Limiting Global Warming to 2 °C.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 7 Jan. 2015, https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14016?fbclid=IwAR2Kv84M2N-Rq7hDNi1HBNxx8fvTiH6gURXCBAL_e07wAoU5Qk9FXZsQ6aY. 

Miles, Lindsay., et al.  (Treading My Own. “Microbeads: Hidden Plastics in Cosmetics (+ What We Can Do about It).” Treading My Own Path, Lindsay (Treading My Own Path) Https://Treadingmyownpath.com/Wp-Content/Uploads/2019/06/Logo.png, 4 Nov. 2021, https://treadingmyownpath.com/2019/08/22/microbeads/. 

Nicholson, Scott R., et al. “Manufacturing Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Plastics Consumption.” Joule, Cell Press, 20 Jan. 2021, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435120306267. 

Quispe, César A.G., et al. “Glycerol: Production, Consumption, Prices, Characterization and New Trends in Combustion.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Pergamon, 3 Aug. 2013, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113003948?casa_token=ZJCSHEbMJMkAAAAA%3A16hayIZbQcOQ0Enhz2cO8BN4Hov_zki6rmmjbgY

Sahiti Bobbala 

Shreya Singh, Olivia Vincent 

Professor Christina Cogdell

DES40A

Embodied Energy of Neutrogena Invigorating Face Wash 

In the most basic step of your skincare routine, washing your face, copious amounts of energy have gone into the production of your face wash before you can even get your hands on it. Energy is consumed through every step of the process from transportation of the goods, manufacturing of the items, and storage of all materials and finished products. Neutrogena is a common skincare brand used by many teenagers and is often associated with acne care. Their entire branding process focuses on the fact that they are the #1 brand recommended by dermatologists, however you don’t need any sort of prescription to get your hands on this product. For this reason it is extremely popular and is most peoples go-to on the easily accessible drugstore shelves. So how much embodied energy is involved throughout the full life cycle of the #1 dermatologist recommended skincare products? In specific we will be answering this question by analyzing a popular face wash by neutrogena, the “Invigorating Face Wash”. First we will take a look at the history of this company and the “energy” that went into the branding of these products, then we will look at what energy goes into the actual manufacturing process of specific ingredients in the face wash as well as the environmental harm of these ingredients. Lastly, we will explore the ways in which neutrogena has reduced their energy consumption along with their future plans. 

This is a brief overview of how they came to be marketed as the #1 dermatologist recommended brand. Emanuel Starloff is the founder of the brand which emerged in the 1950s. Before Neutrogena came to be the widely used brand that we know of today it started off as a cosmetic company that went by the name of Natron. Natron held a small stock of beauty products that were used in various salons and movie and film sets. Later on it became available for commercial use and was placed on the shelves of beauty supply stores and other drugstores. Starloff originally started the brand in Europe but wanted to expand to the United States. There are three main countries that Neutrogena is produced in: the UK, Germany, and the United States. This brand particularly stood out due to their partnership with medical experts. In the 1960s they aimed to be promoted by medical professionals and did just that. Nuetrogena built this relationship between their company and reliable dermatologists which strengthened their reputation and made them hard to compete with. Once they were acquired by Johnson and Johnson they expanded their reach and the brand grew even larger. They switched their focus to creating safe products for the skin. Now their products are sold in practically every drugstore in the country (and in Europe). This widely sold face wash contains ingredients that undergo long processes of production. 

Each specific ingredient in the invigorating face wash expends energy. Specifically, we will focus on glycerin, sodium laureth sulfate, sodium benzotriazolyl butylphenol sulfonate, synthetic wax, and microcrystalline cellulose. I will explain how these ingredients are manufactured for use and also discuss the environmental impact of manufacturing them. I will also touch on the energy used through transportation of the product. A potent ingredient in the invigorating face wash is glycerin. According to Ghannadzadeh and Tarighaleslami the production of glycerin is “one of the most energy-intensive chemical processes.” Glycerin is derived from soybeans and palm oil as well as beef and mutton fat which is called tallow. Glycerin is common in skincare products and it can now be produced in a synthetic way which reduces the environmental harm of making it from plant and animal resources. It can be synthetically produced for the face wash by using an unsaturated organic compound called propylene. When manufacturing it for skincare use, salt is added in order to have the fatty acids in the soap separate and emerge to the top of the mixture. This is then split from the bottom half of the mixture (it can be sold separately as soap). In this case the mixture underneath is what goes into the product. It is mostly pure glycerin but the impurities are filtered out and lastly it is decolorized by being filtered through charcoal. Another potent ingredient which happens to be the third most common ingredient in this face wash is Sulfate, specifically sodium laureth sulfate. The way it is manufactured starts with palm and coconut oil, it can also be derived from petroleum. Sodium Laureth Sulfate starts off as Sodium Lauryl Sulfate which then undergoes a process called ethoxylation. When including these ingredients into the product they start off by extracting any fatty acids which are then transformed into fatty alcohols. Through ethoxylation an ethylene oxide is added to the alcohol. According to Sanker, this process is so harmful to the environment it is actually banned in some places around the world. When it is washed down the drain it is not easily degradable and can linger around in the environment. Not only is it Hazardous to the environment but it also is to humans. According to Radhakrishnan, sulfate can clog your pores when used on the skin and it can also irritate your eyes. Sodium Laureth Sulfate naturally strips away oil, so it can leave your skin feeling dry as well. In fact it is so bad for the skin that it is specifically used in labs to irritate skin. This is a notable fact as it is manufactured into a product that is meant to be safe and effective for your skin. The Honest Company explains how “Many brands that claim to be “natural,”, “green,” or “eco-friendly” still use these ingredients(sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate, or sodium lauryl ether sulfate)”. Sulfates are extremely detrimental for the environment and they are typically deposited through acid rain. This is known to cause harm in aquatic life, soil which inhibits plants growing to their full potential, all while it increases the acidity in lakes and other bodies of water. Though sulfate is widely used as it is what gives your product its lathering effect, it is known to be harmful which is something to take into account when buying this face wash. Sodium benzotriazolyl butylphenol sulfonate is also manufactured into this product. This compound absorbs UV light. The energy from the UV light that is absorbed is later on converted to heat energy. This happens through a process which then leads a single chemical compound to exist in 2 separate structures that are no longer convertible. The way that this is produced starts off in a cool environment. Benzotriazolyl is combined with oleum which is essentially just sulfur trioxide in sulfuric acid. Then at room temperature this mixture is continuously stirred until it is poured into another mixture of ice water. At this point they heat, cool and filter the substance. It is then poured into water and sodium hydroxide. This eventually forms into a crystal and it undergoes a vacuum drying method. There are two main safety and environmental concerns with this ingredient. It causes eye damage and it also has long term harmful effects on aquatic life. Synthetic wax is included in order to hold the face wash mixture together and give it the desired consistency. When cooling the wax, small crystals are formed which allows the product to have structure. Wax within itself is biodegradable however when adding synthetic materials it becomes harder to dispose of, takes longer to decompose and causes environmental destruction. The last main ingredient that expends energy through the creation of this face wash is microcrystalline cellulose. Cellulose is taken through plant fibers which hold the pulp. It is made through mixing acid solution with hydrolyzed cellulose. When incorporated into the wash it is like a small white powder and is used to gently scrub or exfoliate the skin. If the particles in the powder are not as fine the effects of its use vary, for example it would be a stronger exfoliant. 

Different modes of transportation of these critical ingredients release fossil fuels. Sadie explains how transportation of skincare/beauty products harms the environment. She mentions that these products are made in feriegn countries and have to be imported from other countries. In this case transportation from Europe to the United States is a long haul and trains and trucks won't be enough, planes are needed.  To put this energy usage into perspective she adds in a statistic and writes “In 2019 alone, the aviation industry produced 915 million tons of carbon dioxide -- that’s nearly 2 percent of all human-produced CO2 emissions per year.” The co2 emissions from transporting these products across the globe from Europe to the United States causes numerous harmful effects to the environment. Just a small number of them include: increasing temperatures, crop yield, shrinkage of water supply, and rising sea levels. Increasing temperatures can lead to wildfires which are extremely difficult to contain and use up so much energy to put out. Differences in crop yield will cause prices of certain foods to increase. The shrinkage of water supply will mean that more intensive filtration processes will be required. Rising sea levels cause flooding. Of course these are all environmental determinants with any release of fossil fuels but transportation is a big contributor to these emissions. According to Defino and Slvester the beauty industry is one of the most harmful industries as it contributes to much of the earth's pollution. In addition to transportation, the plastic packaging that the face wash comes in is extremely wasteful. According to Barnard this industry is one of the “top offenders” when it comes to generating large amounts of plastic waste. A shocking 120 billion segments of plastic are created yearly by this industry, Neutrogena’s single use packaging is only escalating this problem. 

Let’s take a look at neutrogena's promises to their consumers when it comes to expending energy and how they plan on creating more sustainable ways of production. The following is a quote from neutrogena entailing how they are committed to upholding their promise of sustainability and being conscious of the environmental impacts of their products.“We strive to avoid unnecessary and harsh ingredients and we prioritize ingredients that are not only safe for your skin, but also safe for the planet, throughout the lifecycle of our products.” The brand is claiming that they apparently take into account the entire life cycle of their products from start to finish. When making large claims like this it is important as a consumer to do your own research and see if they hold to be true or if they’re simply making general statements that will make their products look better. We must consider how sustainable they really are and how their ingredients are produced as well as the waste of plastic products that they create. Nuetrogena has implemented a new way of producing their products in 2020. They claim to have launched new packaging for their products. This new way of packaging uses 30% of post consumer recycled products. This means that after a product has been used and recycled they use these same materials for a combination of new materials and from this they form a new product. They also claim that their team is working to reduce not only the plastic waste from their products but also the carbon emissions released during the entire process. This is crucial for them to focus on as greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced from these big corporations. Using post recycled products is a big step in helping combat the issue of plastic waste. As of right now their products are one time use and they run out fairly quickly which means they have to be tossed in the trash and repurchased and the cycle continues. Using a product like the invigorating face wash would only add to this waste however they are making an effort to put forth products that can actually be refilled! This is not set in stone yet, they were future plans which were supposed to happen by 2021 yet the year is coming to an end and we have not seen these changes yet. It is important as a conscious buyer to hold them accountable to their claims. As of right now this plastic product still stands on your local drugstore shelf and is one time use. Sadie, the author who wrote about the co2 emissions from transportation, also touches on the issues with plastic use for products like this face wash. She says that “one of the biggest ways that the beauty industry harms the environment is through single-use plastic packaging. These containers are often not recycled and find their way into landfills or waterways.” Their products are not fully recyclable yet but by 2025 they plan on having all plastic products be 100% recyclable. Only a small portion of their materials  can be re-used  to begin with. This generates a deep issue because even if the average consumer were to take all the steps to recycle their face scrub in a proper way, much of it is not going to be used. Considering that most users don't take all the necessary steps to recycle their skincare products, in reality much of their materials aren't being reused at all. Their parent company Johnson and Johnson has also come out with many claims of switching to more sustainable ways of production  as well as safer individual ingredients that are going into each product. 

In conclusion, copious amounts of energy are used in order for you to simply wash your face. It is crucial as consumers that we become more intentional about the products we are using, especially when we are putting them on our face. Neutrogena presents itself as a safe and sustainable brand but the ingredients used in their invigorating face wash along with other products cause irritation and can clog your pores. Though they claim to be sustainable their plans for 2021 have failed and the single use plastic they have is extremely wasteful, on top of that they are just another brand contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. If we want to reduce our carbon footprint and be more environmentally conscious we should step away from the big companies to find alternatives. The first step is being aware so educating yourself on the harmful effects of the products you use is a step in the right direction. 

Works Cited

Jane. “Where Are Your Beauty Products Made? (Drugstore Edition).” JulietLyLillyRose, 27 May      2018, http://julietlylillyrose.com/2015/11/18/beauty-products-made-drugstore/. 

“Neutrogena® History and Story: The Bar.” NEUTROGENA® History And Story | The Bar, https://www.neutrogena.com/the-bar/why-neutrogena.html. 

“Our Commitment to Sustainability & The Planet: Neutrogena®.” & The Planet | NEUTROGENA®, https://www.neutrogena.com/our-promise.html. 

“Our Environmental Sustainability Efforts.” J&J Consumer Health, https://www.jnjconsumerhealth.com/sustainability. 

“Glycerin - What Is Glycerin? How Is It Used in Skincare Products?” The Dermatology Review, 7 Oct. 2021, https://thedermreview.com/glycerin/. 

Sanker, E.A. “What Is Ethoxylation?” Info Bloom, 5 Feb. 2021, https://www.infobloom.com/what-is-ethoxylation.htm. 

Safety Assessment of Inorganic Hydroxides ... - Cir-Safety.org. https://www.cir-safety.org/sites/default/files/inooh062015slr.pdf. 

“What Is Microcrystalline Cellulose.” Cellulose Ethers-HPMC/CMC/HEC/MC/EC of Manufacturer< | Supplier of Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose (HPMC), Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose (CMC), HydroxyEthyl Cellulose (HEC), Polyanionic Cellulose (PAC)., 12 Mar. 2014, https://celluloseether.com/microcrystalline-cellulose/. 

“California Air Resources Board.” Sulfate & Health | California Air Resources Board, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/sulfate-and-health. 

“Benzenesulfonic Acid, 3-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-Yl)-4-Hydroxy-5-(1-Methylpropyl)-, Monosodium Salt.” National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Database, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/23690892. 

Bozic, Milan. How the Beauty Industry Is Harming Our Seas and Oceans, https://www.green-sail.com/blog/how-the-beauty-industry-is-harming-our-seas-and-oceans. 

“A Guide to Sodium Laureth Sulfate: Is It Safe?” The Good Human, 20 Oct. 2020, https://thegoodhuman.com/a-guide-to-sodium-laureth-sulfate-is-it-safe/#find. 

Olivia Vincent

Professor Christina Cogdell

DES40A 

December 2, 2021

Wastes and Emissions from the Life Cycle of Neutrogena Invigorating Face Wash

Neutrogena is an extremely popular cosmetic brand with a variety of products. They are most well known for their face washes and skincare items, with the invigorating face wash being one of their more popular products. This product is packaged in a plastic bottle and contains petroleum-based chemicals and microplastics within the product itself. Throughout its lifecycle, it has a huge impact on the environment. The waste and emissions from each step of its lifecycle have the biggest impact on the environment. There is a significant amount of waste created, such as non-biodegradable plastics, and emissions, such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, from each step of the lifecycle. 

The extraction of raw materials at the very beginning of the life cycle creates chemical pollutants, physical waste, and emissions that are toxic to the environment and wildlife. One of the core raw materials that are used in this product is oil or petroleum. It is used in both the packaging and the chemicals within the face wash, along with synthetic wax microbeads that are used as exfoliants. The extraction process of oil creates hazardous pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, and can also result in disastrous oil spills. Oil, gas, and petrochemical facilities “reported admitting 764 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2018”, and these emissions are expected to increase to 991 million tons by 2025 (Bernhardt, 2020, pg. 3). Greenhouse gases are one of the leading causes of climate change, and the more humans contribute to the amount of these gases in the atmosphere, the worse the issue will become. Climate change is known to have negative effects on many aspects of the environment, such as changes in weather patterns and disrupting the normal functioning of ecosystems. Another adverse effect of oil fracking is the potential for catastrophic oil spills. Many oil rigs are located offshore in the oceans, and these rigs experience leaks and spills often. “A 1981 report by the National Academy of Sciences estimated that 36 million gallons of oil are released into the oceans each year as a result of all offshore oil and gas operations”, and this does not include any major spills that may occur (Epstein, Sebler, 2002 pg. 14). The oil off product that is being put into the ocean through regular discard during the fracking process and through major spills is detrimental to marine life. It kills and harms many species of birds, fish, phytoplankton, and other sea creatures as well. Not to mention, oil is highly flammable and presents the risks of oceanic fires. Lastly, the oil extraction process creates lots of hazardous chemical waste that can pollute the environment. For example, the wastewater that is created during extraction is contaminated with heavy metals, volatile hydrocarbons, and other toxic compounds. The process of properly disposing of this wastewater is extremely expensive and often is not done properly, resulting in environmental contamination that is harmful to wildlife and humans alike (Epstein, Sebler, 2002, pg. 10). This is only the beginning of the lifecycle of this product. After the oil and other raw materials are extracted, they must be processed and manufactured in order to create the desired product. 

During the manufacturing process, petroleum is processed in order to create both the chemicals and synthetic waxes found within the face wash itself and the plastic packaging used to hold the product. These processes produce a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide. The Fischer-Tropsch process is commonly used to convert oil into chemicals and synthetic substances. This process entails heating crude oil to specific temperatures in order to create the desired chemical outcome. When combusted, all of the carbons within the oil are converted into carbon dioxide (Dry, 1999). This carbon dioxide is then released into the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Not only do the chemicals within the face wash have to be manufactured, but so does the plastic packaging that the product is contained in. There are many greenhouse gases emitted during the manufacturing process of plastic bottles. Annually, 104 MMT CO2e of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere from plastic manufacturing plants (Nicholson, 2020). These greenhouse gases being emitted from both the chemical and plastic manufacturing plants are huge contributors to the climate crisis, and manufacturing is not the only step of the lifecycle that creates mass amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. The transportation of the products after their manufacturing also is a huge cause of emissions and pollutants.

Neutrogena is an internationally used product that ships from the UK, USA, and Germany. The planes, trucks, ships, and trains used to transport these products across the globe are a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions. A huge form of transportation for this product is airplanes, a form of transportation for goods and people that has increased drastically in recent decades. “Global fuel consumption has risen much faster for aviation than for other energy-use sectors.”  (Vedantham & Oppenheimer, 1994, pg. 10) Through fuel consumption, engine effluent emissions are released into the atmosphere. From aircraft, these emissions include nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases. It is thought that emissions from aircraft, specifically nitrogen oxides,  may also end up affecting the ozone layer, which protects humans and animals from harmful ultraviolet sun rays. Ozone may also be created lower in the atmosphere, which can have negative effects on human, animal, and plant health (Vedantham & Oppenheimer, 1994, pg.11). The contribution of greenhouse gases and the disrupting of normal patterns of ozone in the atmosphere are detrimental to the environment. These emissions and pollutants do not only come from planes, but also from trucks, ships, trains, and other forms of transportation used to distribute this product. These forms of transportation all emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, as well as air pollutants like particulate matter and sulfur oxides. “As a percentage of all mobile source emissions, heavy-duty truck, rail, and water transport together account for more than 25% of CO2 emissions, approximately 50% of NOx emissions, and nearly 40% of PM emissions in the United States.” (Corbett & Winebrake, 2007, pg. 10) These are all very large percentages of these emissions in the U.S., which shows how greatly the transportation industry is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. The effects on the environment don’t end with the transportation of the product to the consumer but continue throughout the product’s use. 

Neutrogena Invigorating Face Wash contains chemicals and microplastics that can be sources of environmental contamination when washed down the drain during use. Microplastics are tiny particles of plastic that are found in many cosmetic products. In the case of Neutrogena Invigorating Face Wash, the microplastics are present in the synthetic wax beads used as an exfoliating agent. During the use of this product, microplastics are washed down the drain. These particles of plastic are so tiny that they often are not filtered out during water treatment processes and then find their way back into the environment. They are so small that they are accidentally eaten by organisms low on the food chain, unable to be digested, and then passed on to the higher trophic levels. This is concerning because these microplastics contain highly toxic chemicals that cause health issues, such as endocrine disruption, when ingested (Guerranti, 2019). On top of this, common cosmetic chemicals that are found in Neutrogena Invigorating Face Wash are also harmful when washed down the drain. When these chemicals find their way into aquatic ecosystems, organisms experience endocrine disruption, mutations, and reproductive disorders (Dhanirama, 2019). The microplastics and chemicals being introduced to the environment from this product are extremely harmful to the health of wildlife and the ecosystems that they support. This could potentially cause the endangerment of certain species of animals as well as the failure of ecosystems that support the healthy functioning of our planet. Not only does the use of Neutrogena Invigorating Face Wash cause environmental implications, but the discard of the product after use creates a lot of waste and contamination in the environment as well. 

The discard of non-biodegradable plastic bottles and containers is a huge issue facing our planet today, and Neutrogena Invigorating Face Wash contributes to this global waste issue. It is a well-known fact that humans are creating more and more waste per year with our mass consumption of consumer goods. Plastic waste is especially bad for the environment, as it takes hundreds or thousands of years to decompose, and even then leaves microplastic particles in its wake. Annually, around 25.8 million tons of plastic waste are created in Europe alone (Cinelli, 2019). This doesn’t account for all of the other countries consuming mass amounts of plastic products daily, and then disposing of them. Neutrogena’s plastic bottles are contributing to this global issue. The microplastic particles leftover from the decomposition of plastic products are now being found in the digestive tracks of animals, and experts warn that they may be making their way into the human food chain as well (Lakshmi, 2019). It is a terrifying thought to imagine that humans are now unknowingly consuming toxic microplastics that can majorly disrupt normal bodily functions. A solution to this issue of plastic waste is recycling. However, contrary to popular belief, most plastics do not get recycled at the end of their lifecycle. “Less than 30% . . . is collected for recycling” (Cinelli, 2019). Similarly, another source states that “Fewer than half the bottles bought in 2016 were collected for recycling and just 7% of those collected were turned into new bottles” (Lakshmi, 2019). Between the struggle to collect plastics before they end up in the ocean, and the difficulty to recycle them due to residue of product still inside, it is evident that not many plastics are being recycled or re-used. Unless humans stop consuming products like Neutrogena Invigorating Face Wash that come in non-biodegradable and un-recyclable packing, the issue of plastic waste in the environment will continue to grow. 

Neutrogena Invigorating Face Wash produces an alarming amount of wastes and emissions at every step of its lifecycle. The greenhouse gas emissions from this product, along with so many other cosmetic products, are contributing greatly to the issue of global warming, and the waste and pollutants created from the use and discard of the product are extremely harmful to the environment and delicate ecosystems that keep our planet functioning in a healthy manner. Many don’t realize the large effects that one small product could have on the planet, and all consumer goods add up to create the alarming climate crisis we are facing today. Something must change in the way humans create, manufacture, transport, use, and dispose of products or the future of our planet will be in jeopardy. 

Works Cited

Bernhardt, Courtney. “Greenhouse Gases from Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Production.” Environmental Integrity Project, 2020, https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Greenhouse-Gases-from-Oil-Gas-and-Petrochemical-Production.pdf. 

Cinelli, Patrizia, et al. “Cosmetic Packaging to Save the Environment: Future Perspectives.” MDPI, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 15 Apr. 2019, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9284/6/2/26/htm. 

Lakshmi, Suguna. “A Million Bottles a Minute: World's Plastic Binge 'as Dangerous as Climate Change'.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 28 June 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/a-million-a-minute-worlds-plastic-bottle-binge-as-dangerous-as-climate-change.  

Guerranti, C., et al. “Microplastics in Cosmetics: Environmental Issues and Needs for Global Bans.” Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, Elsevier, 8 Mar. 2019, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668918305635.  

Vedantham, A., & Oppenheimer, M. (1994). Aircraft Emissions and the Global Atmosphere. https://repository.upenn.edu/library_papers/56  

Corbett, J.J., Winebrake, J.J., (2007). Sustainable goods movement: Environmental implications of trucks, trains, ships, and planes. EM Magazine. https://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2229&context=article

Dhanirama, Danelle, et al. “Cosmetics as a Potential Source of Environmental Contamination in the UK.” Taylor & Francis, 2012, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09593330.2011.640353. 

Dry, Mark E. “Fischer–Tropsch Reactions and the Environment.” Applied Catalysis A: General, Elsevier, 15 Nov. 1999, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926860X99002756.  

Nicholson, Scott R., et al. “Manufacturing Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Plastics Consumption.” Joule, Cell Press, 20 Jan. 2021, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435120306267.  

Epstein, Paul R., and Jesse Selber. Oil: A Life Cycle Analysis of Its Health and Environmental Impacts. Centre for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, 2002.