Antarctica is Earth’s most remote continent, barely touched by human activities.
It is, however, not immune to the kind of environmental damage that plagues more populated parts of the world. In a new study, researchers found chemicals originating from everyday personal care products (PCPs), such as cosmetics, detergents, pharmaceuticals, and deodorants, in Antarctic snow.
Contaminants in PCPs—loosely defined as semivolatile organic compounds that are industrially produced at a global scale, used in large volumes, and relatively persistent in the environment—are increasingly being recognized as pollutants. Both the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research have encouraged further research on PCP ingredients and the creation of monitoring plans for tracking their presence at the poles.
Looking for these pollutants, researchers collected 23 surface snow samples from 18 sites along the Ross Sea coast during the Antarctic summer of 2021–2022. Though some sampling locations were near areas with human activity, including Italy’s seasonally occupied Mario Zucchelli research station, the majority were situated hundreds of kilometers from human settlements.
The scientists reached these remote locations by piggybacking on helicopter rides transporting other teams maintaining weather stations or deploying scientific instruments. “This way we halved the impact of our sampling, because they needed to go there in any case,” said Marco Vecchiato, an analytical chemist at Ca’ Foscari University in Venice, Italy, who led the study.
Back in Italy, Vecchiato and his colleagues analyzed the snow samples under clean-room conditions to prevent contamination.
“This very different behavior during the season means that [PCPs] are very sensitive to the environmental conditions.”
They found PCP chemicals in every sample, with varying chemical concentrations suggesting different capacities for atmospheric transport. Of the 21 chemicals analyzed, three compound families were particularly notable. Salicylates, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics (including lotions, shampoos, and conditioners) and pharmaceutical products, were the most prevalent, followed by UV filters associated with sunscreens. Fragrances such as musks were also detected.
Most of these substances were dissolved in the snow. The UV filter octocrylene, however, which has been associated with coral reef damage and banned in places like the U.S. Virgin Islands and Palau, was found bound to solid particles within the snow.
The researchers observed an unexpected seasonal variation in the amount of PCPs within the samples: Samples collected later in the summer had about 10 times higher PCP levels than those collected earlier in the season, though the relative proportions of each pollutant within a sample remained consistent.
Seasonal fluctuation suggests that Antarctic summer air circulation plays a role in transporting pollutants from distant sources to the continent’s interior. During summer, oceanic winds blowing inland dominate over winds originating from the polar plateau, which are stronger during the rest of the year. That shift may push pollutants far inland.
“This very different behavior during the season means that [PCPs] are very sensitive to the environmental conditions,” Vecchiato said.
One of the researchers presented the team’s preliminary findings at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly in May, and the scientists have a more comprehensive analysis currently underway, according to Vecchiato.
A Local or Distant Source
Finding organic pollutants in seemingly pristine polar environments isn’t surprising. In the 1960s, scientists found large concentrations of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including the widely used pesticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), in Antarctica. POPs don’t degrade naturally and travel thousands of kilometers through the atmosphere, with some eventually getting trapped in snow and ice. Permanently frozen places such as glaciers and polar regions become natural traps. Starting in the early 2000s, the United Nations’ Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants established international cooperative efforts to eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs.
Though they might travel by a mechanism similar to that used by persistent organic pollutants, unlike POPs, PCPs “do break down in the environment,” said Alan Kolok, a professor of ecotoxicology at the University of Idaho. However, “if those fragrances are not coming from the [research] stations themselves,” he asked, “where are they coming from?”
“Thousands of people are currently accessing the Antarctic continent, and my conclusion is that wherever we humans go, we bring contaminants.”
To rule out a local origin for the PCP pollutants, researchers analyzed sewage from the Mario Zucchelli research station. The outpost did contribute some pollution, but the relative abundance of each compound in the sewage differed from that found in the snow, suggesting that the PCPs detected in the broader Antarctic environment likely originated from more distant sources.
“My suspicion is that for these types of compounds—personal care products, pharmaceutical products—there must be a local source,” said Ricardo Barra Ríos, an environmental scientist at the Universidad de Concepción in Chile who has analyzed PCP pollution in Antarctic coastal waters related to research stations. “Thousands of people are currently accessing the Antarctic continent, and my conclusion is that wherever we humans go, we bring contaminants.”
Vecchiato disagreed. In a separate study published earlier this year, he and other colleagues found PCPs, including fragrances and UV filters, in the snows of the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic. In that study, the researchers linked the presence of these compounds to atmospheric patterns that carried pollution from northern Europe and the northwestern coast of Russia.
“Most of these contaminants should have a limited mobility, but actually, we found them in remote regions,” Vecchiato said. “Does that mean that the models are wrong or that our analysis is wrong?” he asked. “No, probably we are missing a piece [of the puzzle], or maybe the use of these contaminants is so huge that we still have a relevant concentration in remote areas, even if they should not be prone to this kind of transport.”
—Javier Barbuzano (@javibar.bsky.social), Science Writer