Skip to main content

Algorithm for environmental risk assessment of cosmetics to reduce their environmental impact


Cosmetics, especially rinse-off personal care products (PCPs), such as shampoo, facial cleanser, and body wash, are composed of various chemicals and are one of the sources of chemicals released into aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, the cosmetic industry strives to reduce the impact of their products on the aquatic environment. In this study, we proposed an algorithm based on persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity (PBT) for the environmental risk assessment of cosmetics. PBT features are generally used in the evaluation of the environmental impact of chemicals. Based on the PBT assessment, it is possible to predict the short- and long-term effects of chemicals on the environment. Our algorithm derives substance and product scores from PBT features, allowing for the risk assessment of each ingredient in the product. Furthermore, we proposed a criterion for the environmental impact grade through which each component can be classified. We intend to use this grade and factors determined through the algorithm to manufacture products with low environmental impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Scheme 1
Fig. 1


  1. S stands for Substance. Score(S) refers to the substance score.

  2. P stands for Product. Score(P) refers to the product score.

  3. ‘S in P’ stands for Substance in product. Score(S in P) refers to the substance score in product.


  1. Boxall AB, Fogg LA, Blackwell PA, Kay P, Pemberton EJ, Croxford A (2004) Veterinary medicines in the environment. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 180:1–91.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim JW et al (2008) Acute toxicity of pharmaceutical and personal care products on freshwater crustacean (Thamnocephalus platyurus) and fish (Oryzias latipes). J Toxicol Sci Jpn 34:227–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schneider SL, Lim HW (2019) Review of environmental effects of oxybenzone and other sunscreen active ingredients. J Am Acad Dermatol 80:266–271.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. EU (2018) COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/35. Accessed 21 Mar 2022

  5. Vita NA, Brohem CA, Canavez ADPM, Oliveira CFS, Kruger O, Lorencini M, Carvalho CM (2018) Parameters for assessing the aquatic environmental impact of cosmetic products. Toxicol Lett 287:70–82.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. L’Haridon J, Martz P, Cheneble JC, Campion JF, Colobe L (2018) Ecodesign of cosmetic formulae: methodology and application. Int J Cosmet Sci 40:165–177.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Saxe JK, Predale RA, Sharples R (2018) Reducing the environmental risks of formulated personal care products using an end-of-life scoring and ranking system for ingredients: method and case studies. J Clean Prod 180:263–271.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Strempel S, Scheringer M, Carla A, Ng, Hungerbühler K (2012) Screening for PBT chemicals among the ‘existing’ and ‘new’ chemicals of the EU. Environ Sci Technol 46:5680–5687.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cassani S, Gramatica P (2015) Identification of potential PBT behavior of personal care products by structural approaches. Sustain Chem Pharm 1:19–27.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. EU (2006) REGULATION (EC) No 1907/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Accessed 21 Mar 2022

  11. US EPA (2012) Sustainable Futures / P2 Framework Manual. EPA-748-B12-001. Accessed 21 Mar 2022

  12. Snyder EM, Snyder SA, Giesy JP et al (2000) SCRAM: a scoring and ranking system for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances for the North American Great Lakes. Environ Sci & Pollut Res 7:176–184.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schoorl M, Hollander A, van de Meent D (2015) SimpleBox 4.0: A multimedia mass balance model for evaluating the fate of chemical substances. Accessed 21 Mar 2022

  14. Ribeiro AS, Estanqueiro M, Oliveira M, Sousa Lobo JM (2015) Main benefits and applicability of plant extracts in skin care products. Cosmetics 2:48–65.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. ECHA (2017) Chapter R.11. PBT/vPvB assessment, Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Accessed 21 Mar 2022

  16. National Institute of Environmental Research(NIER) (2020) Notification 2020-8 ‘Regulations on Classification, Labelling, etc. of Chemicals’. Accessed 21 Mar 2022

  17. Kienzler A, Bopp S, Halder M, Embry M, Worth A (2019) Application of new statistical distribution approaches for environmental mixture risk assessment: a case study. Sci Total Environ 693:133510.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Belanger SE, Beasley A, Brill JL, Krailler J, Connors KA, Carr GJ, Embry M, Barron MG, Otter R, Kienzler A (2021) Comparisons of PNEC derivation logic flows under example regulatory schemes and implications for ecoTTC. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 123:104933.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susun An.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, MS., Kim, S., Lee, S.E. et al. Algorithm for environmental risk assessment of cosmetics to reduce their environmental impact. Toxicol Res. (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Cosmetics
  • Environmental risk assessment
  • Environmental impact
  • PBT
  • Algorithm model