Skip to main content
Environmental Sciences Europe
Download PDF

Extremely high levels of PBDEs in children’s toys from European markets: causes and implications for the circular economy

Environmental Sciences Europe volume 36, Article number: 183 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

With the high influx of low-cost plastic toys on the market, there is growing concern about the safety of such toys. Some of these plastic toys contains hazardous chemicals like polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) due to the use of recycled plastics in new toy manufacturing. Here, we investigated if toys marketed in Europe are compliant with EU directives to assess the safety of currently used children's toys and identify implications of PBDE content in toys.

Results

Eighty-four toys purchased from international toy retailers were screened for bromine using X-ray fluorescence (XRF), and 11 of those with bromine content higher than 500 µg/g were analyzed for ten PBDEs using GC–HRMS. PBDEs were detected in all 11 toys. Ʃ10PBDE concentrations ranged up to 23.5 mg/g (with a median concentration of 8.61 mg/g), with BDE-209 being the most abundant compound (4.40 mg/g). Eight samples exceeded the EU’s Low POP Content Limit (LPCL) of 500 µg/g for the Ʃ10PBDEs by 6–47 times and the Unintentional Trace Contaminant (UTC) limits of 10 µg/g for Deca-BDE by 12–800 times.

Conclusions

PBDEs were up to percent levels, suggesting direct recycling of flame retarded plastic, e.g., e-waste plastics, into toy components. This is a call for concern and requires intervention from all stakeholders involved in the toy market. Overall, the occurrence of non-compliant toys in the EU market, as indicated in this study is primarily attributed to gaps in regulations, inadequate legislation for recycled plastics, the rise of online sales, complexities in global and national supply chains, and economic challenges. Failure to address these issues will hinder the efforts of the plastics industry to transition into a circular economy. This suggests that more actions are needed to address gaps in cross-border enforcement, and stricter sanctions are required for toy manufacturers who fail to adhere to regulations and safety standards.

Introduction

The growing availability of low-cost plastic toys in the market has raised concerns about their safety. Plastic toys are widely available from mass market vendors who sell them online or through their physical stores. According to the European Toy Industries Association, one in every four toys in Europe is sold online and this number is expected to rise to one in three by 2027 [1]. The Safety Gate rapid alert system, developed by the European Union (EU) to track dangerous non-food products, reported toys to be the most notified product category entering the EU in 2022, and 23% of all notifications were for toys containing levels of harmful chemicals exceeding what is allowed by EU regulations [2]. Given that 90% of toys on the market contain plastics [3], there are concerns about the presence of hazardous chemicals, e.g., PBDEs, due to the use of recycled plastics in new toy manufacturing [4, 5].

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are used as flame retardants in products like electronics, furniture, textiles, and building material. Due to their persistence in the environment and potential health risks, these chemicals are banned in many regions and listed as persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention. Although the use of Penta- and Octa-BDEs has been discontinued, Deca-BDEs are restricted in the EU to a concentration equal to or greater than of 0.1% by weight in any article. In addition, their use is limited to specific applications in the EU, China, and the US [6,7,8], generally in the transportation sector [9]. PBDEs have continued to re-enter circulation through the recycling of older products that contain these chemicals, leading to their presence in new product [10, 11]. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has estimated that 5 kt of PBDEs could end up in the recycling process and reappear in plastic articles [12]. There are also concerns about the unintentional formation and release of brominated dioxins and furans from these brominated flame retardant-containing (BFRs) plastics [13, 14]. The frequent hand-to-mouth activities of young children create a pathway for ingesting such chemicals from toys. Due to their faster metabolic rates, immature organ systems, rapid growth rates of organs and tissues, and high surface area-to-weight ratios, children are more vulnerable to these contaminants than adults [15, 16]. Lower IQ, hyperactivity, and behavioural and learning disorders have been linked to PBDE exposure in children [17,18,19]. These health problems resulting from general endocrine disrupting chemical exposures are estimated to cost the EU about €157 billion annually, which is equivalent to 1.23% of the EU’s GDP [20].

The EU has established the Toy Safety Directive (TSD) (2009/48/EC), which prohibits or restricts the use of certain hazardous substances and mixtures in toys, to reduce risks to children. Although PBDEs are not specified under the TSD, the EU has adopted certain regulations to reduce their contamination in new plastic products. One regulation specifies that waste articles like electrical plastic casings containing PBDEs above the Low Persistent Organic Pollutant Content Limit (LPCL) of 500 µg/g can only be recycled into new products if its POP contents have been destroyed or irreversibly transformed [21]. In addition, an Unintentional Trace Contaminant (UTC) limit of 10 µg/g each for tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, and deca-BDE formulation has been set for new plastic articles [22, 23].

There are insufficient data to determine whether plastic toys sold in the EU market comply with these regulations. Of 3548 records in the Safety Gate database flagging chemical hazards in non-food products since 2005, only seven products were flagged for PBDEs (Table S1). The low levels of alerts for PBDE content in children’s products and toys can give the impression that this is of limited concern. However, several studies that have investigated BFR content in children’s toys contradict this. One of these investigations reported the BFR levels in two toys in the United Kingdom to be above the proposed limits of 500 µg/g [24], while another reported PBDEs in five toys on the European market to be above the previous LPCL of 1000 µg/g [25]. In this study, we investigated if toys marketed in Europe contain PBDEs that comply with EU directives. Our aim was to assess the safety of currently used children's toys in relation to PBDEs and understand the implications of these chemical in the products. We also discussed the challenges that may be responsible for the sale of non-compliant children’s toys in the EU market from the viewpoint of the circular economy concept. Our analysis, linking measured contamination in toys with the factors driving this contamination, can provide insight into what actions can be taken to ensure the safety of consumer products and protect public health within the framework of the circular economy.

Materials and methods

Sampling and screening for Br by XRF

Eighty-four children’s toys were obtained in France between November and December 2022. Fourteen toys were purchased from online retailers, 67 from large international retailers at outlets in France, and three toys were purchased second hand. These toys were randomly selected, with considerations of price and accessibility. All samples analysed were purchased new except a phone, scout mask, and children’s chair. To prioritize the PBDE analysis, toys were initially screened for Br mass fractions with a SCiAps X-200 X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer. Before analysis, each toy was disassembled into parts, and the Br content was measured by placing the instrument sensor as flat as possible on the toy’s surface for 5 s. The screening threshold for Br content was set at 500 µg/g and only samples (n = 11) above this limit were selected for further destructive chemical analysis (Table S2).

Analysis of PBDEs

The 11 toys with Br content >500 µg/g were further analysed to quantify PBDE concentrations. PBDE standards were purchased from Wellington Laboratories (CA). Only the plastic components of the toys were analysed, with exception of the chair, where the synthetic fabric was analysed. Toy samples were homogenized by cutting into small chips (<3 mm), frozen using liquid N2, and homogenized in a ball mill at 30 Hz for 2 min (Retsch, DE). 200 mg of homogenized sample was spiked with 13C-labelled internal standards (1 ng of 13C-BDE-28 to -183 and 5 ng 13C-BDE-209), placed in 20 mL EPA vials and sonicated three times for 20 min in 5 mL n-hexane. The extract was evaporated under a gentle nitrogen stream and cleaned using H2SO4 modified silica (44%, 8 g) and 1 g Na2SO4 in an open tubular column; compounds were eluted with 40 mL n-hexane: dichloromethane (1:1 v/v). The eluate was reduced in volume by a nitrogen stream in a SuperVap apparatus (FMS, USA), transferred into a GC vial, and spiked with recovery standards (1 ng BDEs-77 and -138). Instrumental analyses were performed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) on a 7890A GC (Agilent, USA) equipped with a Rtx-1614 column (15 m × 0.25 mm × 0.10 μm) (Restek, USA) coupled to an AutoSpec Premier MS (Waters, Micromass, UK). The high-resolution mass spectrometer (HRMS) were operated in EI + mode in a resolution of >10,000 [26, 27].

Quantification validation

The RECETOX Trace Analytical Laboratories are accredited for standard sampling and analysis methods CSN EN ISO/IEC 17025 by the Czech Institute for accreditation, and PBDE methods have been previously applied to plastic polymer samples [26, 27]. Method recoveries were tracked with spike-recovery tests, and recoveries ranged from 81% to 113% (Table S3). All laboratory equipment was washed in an alkali solution, rinsed and baked at 450 °C for 5 h. Three laboratory blanks were analysed alongside the samples, and their average concentration was subtracted from the final concentration of individual PBDEs in each sample. Blanks and detection limits are listed in Table S4. Data for BDE 209 are affected by substantial uncertainty, as most of the samples contained very high amounts of BDE-209, in a few cases saturating the detector, therefore preventing quantification. As a result, the accredited isotope dilution method could not be used for quantification for BDE-209. Concentrations of BDE-209 in the high-concentration samples were calculated using external calibration (Samples numbers 1–9, Table 1). Samples were therefore diluted by a factor 500–1000 and 50 µL of 13C extraction standard (13C BDE 209) was added, followed by nonane up to a final volume of 100 µL. Diluted samples were re-analyzed, and results were recalculated based on the respective dilution factor. Results of quantifications for BDE-209 were not recovery corrected, and the results are likely to be underestimated. BDEs-28 to -183 were quantified by isotope dilution and are therefore adjusted for recoveries.

Table 1 Results for PBDEs in toys from the French market
Full size table

Results and discussion

Compositional profile of PBDEs

The concentrations and profile of PBDEs measured in the different toys are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1. All samples had some detected PBDE content, and BDE-183 was detected in all samples except the scout mask. Ʃ10PBDEs concentration ranged from 2 × 10–4 to 23.5 mg/g (median: 8.61 mg/g). The most abundant PBDE was BDE-209, with a median concentration of 4.40 mg/g (< LOD to 9.38 mg/g), accounting for an average of 66% of PBDEs in all samples (Fig. 1). BDE-183 was the second most abundant, with a median concentration of 2.29 mg/g (<LOD to 14.1 mg/g), accounting for 34%. Eight of 11 toys had very high concentrations of BDE-209; up to 1% BDE-209 in the purse handle. The maximum concentration of BDE-209 in our samples was more than 200,000 times higher than those reported in previous studies for polymeric children’s play mats in China [28], 60 times higher than those in hard plastic children toys in Belgium [29], two to four times higher than those found in children’s plastic toys in UK [24], and China [30], and comparable to BDE-209 in food contact articles from EU markets [25] and a selection of black and painted plastic products obtained internationally [5] (Fig. 2). The maximum concentration of BDE-183 found in the purse handle (14,100 µg/g) was 2 million times higher than the levels found in play mats in China [28] and 30 to 50 times higher than those found in toys in the UK [24], Belgium [29], and China [30].

Fig. 1
figure 1

a Concentration in μg/g and b percentage distribution of PBDEs in children’s toys purchased from France

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Levels of unintentionally added BDE-209 in consumer products. Data are from Ionas et al. [29], Fatusin et al. [24], Chen et al. [30], Kajiwara et al. [5], Guzzonato et al. [25], Peng et al. [28], and this study (in green). The blue bars span from the study median to maximum values, and dates correspond to the midpoint of the sample production or purchase dates, according to the information given in the publication. Minima are not displayed as in most studies minima were below detection limits

Full size image

The Ʃ10PBDEs concentrations reported in this study are among the highest reported for children’s plastic toys around the world, and this is a call for concern. An association has been made between playing with plastic toys and PBDE levels in hand wipes of children [31] and given the extremely high levels of PBDEs in a subset of toys, young children are at risk of exposure via ingestion and skin contact. There is no functional reason for the presence of Deca-BDE in children’s toys. Four samples: pistol 1, pistol 2, rifle, and purse handle, had Ʃ10PBDEs concentrations over 1% by mass. The highest was the beaded handle of a toy purse which contained a concentration of 2% BDE-209. The remaining products contained PBDEs, but at levels below 2%. PBDE levels below 2% do not impart substantial flame retardancy and suggest that PBDEs were not intentionally added [32, 33]. Rather, the presence of high levels of BDE-209 suggests the direct use of recycled e-waste plastic materials in producing children’s toy parts. Some electronics casing uses very high concentrations of FRs, in particular TV casing, with Deca-BDE reported at levels from 40 mg/g up to 20% [34,35,36,37]. The use of recycled e-waste plastic in new items has previously been noted [24, 29, 30], including in a recent study by the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) [38]. However, the on-going presence of extremely high levels detected in a subset of toys emphasize that greater attention is needed. The second highest concentrations were found for BDE-183, which is a component in the BDE-209 technical mix, as well as a possible degradation product, so its origin may be closely linked with Deca-BDE. Commercial Deca-BDE mixtures typically contain ≥97% BDE-209, with the remaining 2–3% consisting of minor amounts of nona- and octa-BDEs (≤1% BDE-183), while commercial Octa-BDE mixtures contain between 13% and 42% BDE-183 and 11–22% BDE-197 [39]. The exact composition of the minor BDEs depends on the specific manufacturing process and the purity achieved [40]. It has been reported that about 90% of commercial Deca-BDEs and 70% of commercial Octa-BDEs are found in electronic plastic casings [41, 42]. The presence of high levels of BDE-183 in our samples—sometimes comparable to or exceeding those of Deca-BDE (as seen in the purse handle and pistol 1) suggests two possibilities: (1) the use of Octa-BDE-containing waste plastics in toy manufacturing or the possible debromination of BDE-209 to BDE-183 during plastic extrusion or (2) regranulation at high temperatures during the recycling process [43,44,45]. Although not specifically quantified, we also noted the presence of other octa- and nona-BDE congeners in the samples (examples in Figures S1–S3), attributed to their presence either as minor components of the technical mixtures and debromination during recycling.

All samples analysed except the phone, scout mask and the chair fabric exceeded the EU’s LPCL of 500 µg/g for the concentration of Ʃ10PBDEs by 6–47 times. In addition, nine of the 11 samples exceeded the UTC limits of 10 µg/g for Deca-BDE by 12–800 times, while seven of the 11 samples exceeded the same limit for Hepta-BDE by 180–1400 times. According to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004, if a plastic fraction contains POPs at a level above the stipulated regulatory limits, then such plastic should either be destroyed, the substance of interest transformed, or the plastic subjected to authorised treatment that includes (1) physicochemical treatment, (2) incineration by land, and (3) used as a fuel to generate energy [46]. According to this directive, eight of the children's plastic toys analysed in this study should be subjected to the aforementioned procedure and not used or sold to the public.

Moreover, a comparison with values from this, and other recent studies suggests that awareness of the potential contamination due to recycling of PBDE-containing plastics has not led to changes in practices or reduced levels; rather the highest levels reported are from this study and other recent studies (Fig. 2).

The Br mass fractions obtained by XRF analysis ranged from 0.655 mg/g in combat mask to 213 mg/g in scout mask (Table S2). Two samples (scout mask and chair fabric) had the highest levels of Br but lowest levels of PBDEs—this suggests that these items contain other brominated compounds that were not target analytes in this study (e.g., alternative BFRs or other organobromine compounds). Because PBDEs may only make up a small portion by mass of the total Br, it is expected that the total Br content in all samples from this study will be higher than the PBDEs. However, no significant correlation was observed between Br and Ʃ10PBDEs. Moreover, the mass fraction of Br was substantially lower than the concentration of BDE-209 in eight of the analysed toys, which could be an artifact of measurement calibration or inhomogeneity in the toy parts; a study on BFRs in toys from the UK notes that XRF measurements returned substantially different values from different locations in the same toy item [24].

Challenges in enforcement and a way forward

This study has shown that children’s toys in the French market contain PBDE at concentrations that far exceed regulatory limits. This suggests that the toys were made directly or indirectly from flame-retarded plastics, such as waste plastics from vehicles, building materials, or end-of-life electronic materials. There are several factors that may have led to the sale of non-compliant toys in EU markets, which poses challenges to market surveillance and custom authorities. Here, we discuss four main challenges and potential solutions.

Regulatory gaps

There are three potential reasons for the presence of toxic compounds in toys: either a lack of regulation, existing regulations are being violated, or loopholes in current regulations are being exploited [15]. In this case, we suspect the latter two reasons are more likely. In the EU, consumers can purchase toys from non-EU websites that were not originally intended by the manufacturer to be sold in the EU. Instead, these toys find their way into the EU market through various global distribution channels without a clear responsible stakeholder to ensure compliance with EU directives [47]. Non-EU economic operators may lack awareness of EU requirements or choose to disregard them. They often rely solely on manufacturer-provided information claiming compliance with EU standards. This loophole allows rogue traders to exploit these channels, selling non-compliant products at reduced prices to avoid the costs of meeting regulatory standards [47].

Several studies have indicated that recycling e-waste plastic is a significant source of hazardous chemicals, not just in toys but also in other plastic products [48,49,50]. Unfortunately, the fate and behaviour of these chemicals during recycling is still unknown [51, 52]. As a result, it is necessary for recyclers to segregate e-waste materials according to the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) (2008/98/EC), POP (2019/1021), and CENELEC requirements in order to avoid recirculation of hazardous substances [53,54,55]. The EU eco-design requirements are expected to enhance the reuse, dismantling, and recycling of e-waste. This will also help control the levels of hazardous chemicals in new plastic products [56]. Through the Circular Plastics Alliance, most EU countries have introduced recycling schemes for plastic materials. The EU requires member states to recycle 50% of their plastic material into new products by 2025, but this number still stands at 41% [57]. The relatively low amount of secondary raw materials (SRMs) generated slows the process to attain such a target and this emphasizes the need to boost the rate of recycling to reach the 2025 goal. However, the growing number of directives on products and waste recycling, as detailed in Barouta et al. [55] creates an unstable situation for investment in the circularity of e-plastics. Having numerous regulations for similar substances creates confusion that, in turn, hinders the rate of recycling [58]. The EU has established the ‘One substance and one assessment’ approach to address these challenges by creating a uniform hazard assessment. This approach ensures that recycled materials and virgin plastics are held to the same standards regarding the level of hazardous substances. This aims to improve the safety of SRMs and make it easier for them to be integrated into the market. However, most plastics will be excluded from the circular economy due to the high cost of removing legacy substances from e-waste plastics [59, 60]. Harmonizing regulations while adhering to previous directives is necessary to support investment in the circularity of e-plastics. Furthermore, the samples analyzed in this study are likely to contain polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PBDD/Fs), as products with PBDEs often contain these compounds as byproducts [13, 61]. PBDD/Fs are expected to be added to Annex C of the Stockholm Convention [62], which will establish a legal and regulatory framework for countries to manage and eliminate these substances.

Rise of online marketplace

The rise of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms have created new problems in product safety. A substantial fraction of non-compliant toys in the EU originate outside the European Economic Area (EEA) via online marketplaces, with only 4% of dangerous toys reported in Safety Gate originating from EU countries [47, 63]. Many toys deemed unsafe and recalled from EU markets can still be found online, often through multiple sellers. A study by the Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) found that 97% of the 200 toys purchased from third-party online sellers did not comply with the EU toy safety regulations, and 76% of those had defects that made them harmful to children [64]. Members of the European Parliament have also expressed concerns about the non-compliance of toys sold online (E-000856/2019; E-003979-18). At a global scale, online sales were estimated to have increased by 21% in 2021 to 2022. In 2020, approximately 44% of large companies engaged in online sales, accounting for approximately 27% of their total sales revenue [65]. This indicates that a significant portion of these companies utilized the internet as a platform to sell their products, contributing substantially to their overall revenue. This process has led online traders to introduce toys into the EU market that meet the legal requirements of other manufacturing countries but do not comply with those of the EU. The disparity in regulatory standards may significantly affect the safety of toys sold in the EU [66]. A significant majority of respondents to public consultation—70% of consumers/environmental groups, 80% of public authorities, and 67% of industry representatives—highlighted the absence of specific regulations governing online sales as a barrier to the effectiveness of the TSD [47]. The TIE has called for more EU regulations to hold online vendors accountable for selling unsafe products [64]. Since the TSD gives manufacturers the sole responsibility of performing a complete conformity assessment on toys, enforcement agencies must then ensure that manufacturers correctly disclose composition of all toy products before they are imported into the member states. Additional policies are needed to cover up gaps in cross-border enforcement, and stricter sanctions are required for toy manufacturers who fail to adhere to regulations and safety standards.

Technical and economic challenges in plastic recycling

One of the likely reasons for the high level of PBDEs in our study is the direct recycling of heavily flame retarded plastics (e.g., e-plastics) into toy components. Before plastic material can be recycled back into new products, the plastic material needs to be treated with appropriate technologies to reduce the levels of toxic chemicals to standard limits. Removing such chemicals before recycling requires a sophisticated and expensive purification process [67]. The cost associated with this purification process from collection to actual processing is very high, even higher than the cost of producing virgin plastics. As of 2024, recycled polyethylene terephthalate costs around 1000 USD per tonne while a virgin plastic around 800 to 900 USD per tonne [68]. Meanwhile, screening waste stream plastics for hazardous substances is highly challenging. The most common analytical techniques for separating plastics containing BFRs from waste streams are XRF, near-infrared spectroscopy, and density separation [10, 69]. However, achieving the POPs threshold of 10 ppm for SRMs is unrealistic because industrial XRF cannot provide validated measurements for concentrations below 1000 ppm [55, 58]. Accurate quantification at ppm levels requires expensive analytical instruments like GC–MS; small-scale recyclers may not find selling SRMs to be a profitable business. Moreover, implementing analytical methods for PBDEs and other toxic chemicals in plastics is another challenge due to the complex matrices and diverse polymer compositions of plastics. The intricate extraction and clean-up processes required to remove interfering substances, along with the potential degradation products from various plastic types, further complicate the analysis. Non-target screening approaches are costly, require specialized instrumentation and data analysis, and are not routinely implemented in product screening [70, 71]. Robust analytical methods are needed to effectively monitor PBDEs and other hazardous chemicals in toys, particularly those from non-EU countries, to ensure proper enforcement and safety.

Supply chain complexities

The complexity of global toy production systems, which characterised by large and complex supply chains with downward pressure on prices creates further challenges in ensuring safe toys. Most children’s toys sold in the EU are manufactured in China, where prices are as low as one-fifth of toys made in Europe [72]. The increasing demand for low-cost toys creates pressure on toy manufacturers, which may compromise toy quality through the use of cheap and potentially hazardous materials for production [15]. As a result, manufacturers may struggle to ensure compliance with EU regulations and global standards. Meanwhile, a physical assessment of a toy is insufficient to show if a toy complies with EU regulations; a major determinant is the chemical composition of the products. Unfortunately, most composition data are unavailable and can only be provided by the product manufacturers, Moreover, the content of the recycled plastic may not be known to toy manufacturers beyond the base polymer. Ensuring the traceability of a toy throughout the entire supply chain simplifies and enhances market surveillance. An effective traceability system helps market surveillance authorities identify and track down economic operators who have placed non-compliant toys on the market [47]. The proposed EU digital product passport (DPP) will help enhance traceability and transparency in the toy supply chain [47], by facilitating the sharing of essential product information related to sustainability and circularity (including those specified in Annex III of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation proposal), across all the relevant economic actors.

Implications for the circular economy

In an ideal circular economy, plastics are made, used, reused, and recycled back into the system. This ensures that no materials are lost, no toxic chemicals are present, and every part is used as efficiently as possible. However, this system faces challenges due to potential presence of toxic chemicals in plastics like BFR, as highlighted in this study. Recycling toxic materials like e-waste without appropriate treatment hinders the circular economy. Plastic recycling should not be done when the original product contains high levels of hazardous chemicals. The EU has set ambitious targets for collecting and recycling e-waste through the WFD and the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive 2012/19/EU. In addition, the European Commission has adopted a new Circular Economy Plan as part of the European Green Deal. This provides strategies for better product design, promotes circular economy processes, encourages sustainable consumption, and aims to prevent waste while keeping resources in the EU economy for as long as possible. It is imperative that this plan together with regulations and other EU initiatives, be followed and enforced by stakeholders in the plastic industries. Failure to do so not only puts children's health at risk but also jeopardizes investments in the circular economy.

Conclusion

The findings of this study show that some children’s toys on the market in France contain extremely high PBDE concentrations. The PBDE levels were far above the regulatory limits, suggesting that the toys were directly or indirectly produced from flame retarded plastics, such as waste plastics from vehicles, building materials, or end-of-life electronic materials. The presence of such levels of PBDEs may pose significant risks to children upon exposure. Given the common European market and global nature of plastic toy manufacturing, we expect this level of contamination mirrors across EU markets, and likely, most international markets. The occurrence of non-compliant toys in the EU market are primarily attributed to gaps in regulations, inadequate legislation for recycled plastics, the rise of online sales, complexities in global and national supply chains, and economic challenges. Failure to address these issues will hinder the efforts of the plastics industry to transition into a circular economy. To this end, more actions are needed to cover gaps in cross-border enforcement, and stricter sanctions are required for toy manufacturers who fail to adhere to regulations and safety standards.

Availability of data and materials

Data are provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

BFR:

Brominated Flame Retardant

DPP:

Digital Product Passport

EEA:

European Economic Area

EU:

European Union

FR:

Flame Retardant

HEAL:

Health and Environment Alliance

HRMS:

High-Resolution Mass Spectrometer

LPCL:

Low POP Content Limit

PBDEs:

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers

POP:

Persistent Organic Pollutants

SRMs:

Secondary Raw Materials

TIE:

Toy Industries of Europe

TSD:

Toy Safety Directive

UNEP:

United Nations Environment Programme

UTC:

Unintentional Trace Contaminant

WEEE:

Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment

WFD:

Waste Framework Directive

XRF:

X-Ray Fluorescence

References

  1. EuroDev (2023) European toy market: trends, insights, and forecast. https://www.eurodev.com/blog/5-toy-industry-trends-in-europe. Accessed 7 Sep 2023

  2. European Commission (2023) Safer Products for All. 2022 Results. Luxembourg

  3. The World Counts (2023) Toys is a $90 billion industry. $300 billion if games are included. https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/consumption/other-products/environmental-impact-of-toys. Accessed 8 Oct 2023

  4. Straková J, Petrlík J (2017) Toy or toxic waste. An Analysis of 47 Plastic Toy and Beauty Products Made from Toxic Recycling. https://ipen-china.org/sites/default/files/documents/Exec Summary Toy-or-Toxic-Waste_IPEN-Arnika_analysis-summary_2017.pdf

  5. Kajiwara N, Matsukami H, Malarvannan G et al (2022) Recycling plastics containing decabromodiphenyl ether into new consumer products including children’s toys purchased in Japan and seventeen other countries. Chemosphere 289:133179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Stapleton HM, Sharma S, Getzinger G et al (2012) Novel and high volume use flame retardants in US couches reflective of the 2005 PentaBDE phase out. Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303471d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. European Commission (2017) COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2017/227 of 9 February 2017 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32017R0227. Accessed 20 Aug 2024

  8. Chen Y, Li J, Tan Q (2020) Trends of production, consumption and environmental emissions of Decabromodiphenyl ether in mainland China. Environ Pollut. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharkey M, Harrad S, Abdallah M et al (2020) Phasing-out of legacy brominated flame retardants: the UNEP Stockholm Convention and other legislative action worldwide. Environ Int 144:10641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106041

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wagner S, Schlummer M (2020) Legacy additives in a circular economy of plastics: current dilemma, policy analysis, and emerging countermeasures. Resour Conserv Recycl 158:104800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hale RC, King AE, Ramirez JM (2023) Plastic debris: an overview of composition, sources, environmental occurrence, transport, and fate. In: Microplastic contamination in aquatic environments: an emerging matter of environmental urgency

  12. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2022) Report for the evaluation and review of brominated diphenyl ethers listed in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention. UNEP/POPS/COP.10/INF/1. Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Tenth meeting, Geneva, p 87

  13. Sindiku O, Tysklind M, Osibanjo O et al (2011) Polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans (PBDD/Fs) in e-waste polymers in Nigeria. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:14515–14529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5260-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Behnisch P, Petrlik J, Budin C et al (2023) Global survey of dioxin- and thyroid hormone-like activities in consumer products and toys. Environ Int 178:108079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.108079

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Becker M, Edwards S, Massey RI (2010) Toxic chemicals in toys and children’s products: Limitations of current responses and recommendations for government and industry. Environ Sci Technol 44(21):7986–7991. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1009407

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Landrigan PJ, Goldman LR (2011) Children’s vulnerability to toxic chemicals: a challenge and opportunity to strengthen health and environmental policy. Health Aff 30(5):842–850. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eskenazi B, Chevrier J, Rauch SA et al (2013) In utero and childhood polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) exposures and neurodevelopment in the CHAMACOS study. Environ Health Perspect 121(2):257–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vuong AM, Yolton K, Dietrich KN et al (2018) Exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and child behavior: current findings and future directions. Horm Behav 101:94–104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Park S, Cowell W, Margolis AE et al (2023) Prenatal exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers and inattention/hyperactivity symptoms in mid to late adolescents. Front Epidemiol 3:1061234. https://doi.org/10.3389/fepid.2023.1061234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Trasande L, Zoeller RT, Hass U et al (2015) Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(4):1245–1255. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2014-4324

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. European Commission (2022) Regulation (EU) 2022/2400 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 amending Annexes IV and V to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 on persistent organic pollutants (Text with EEA relevance). Off J Eur Union

  22. European Commission (2016) Commission regulation (EU) 2016/460 of 30 march 2016 amending annexes IV and V to regulation no 850/2004 of the European parliament and of the council on persistent organic pollutants. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0460&from=MT.

  23. European Commission (2019) Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European parliament and of the council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants (recast). https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R1021&from=EN.

  24. Fatunsin OT, Oluseyi TO, Drage D et al (2020) Children’s exposure to hazardous brominated flame retardants in plastic toys. Sci Total Environ 720:137623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137623

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Guzzonato A, Puype F, Harrad SJ (2017) Evidence of bad recycling practices: BFRs in children’s toys and food-contact articles. Environ Sci Process Impacts 19(7):956–963. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7em00160f

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pozo K, Urbina W, Gómez V et al (2020) Persistent organic pollutants sorbed in plastic resin pellet — “Nurdles” from coastal areas of Central Chile. Mar Pollut Bull 151:110786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110786

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gómez V, Pozo K, Nuñez D et al (2020) Marine plastic debris in Central Chile: characterization and abundance of macroplastics and burden of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Mar Pollut Bull 152:110881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Peng B, Yu ZM, Wu CC et al (2020) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers and organophosphate esters flame retardants in play mats from China and the exposure risks for children. Environ Int 135:105348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ionas AC, Dirtu AC, Anthonissen T et al (2014) Downsides of the recycling process: harmful organic chemicals in children’s toys. Environ Int 65:54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.12.019

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen SJ, Ma YJ, Wang J et al (2009) Brominated flame retardants in children’s toys: Concentration, composition, and children’s exposure and risk assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4200–4206. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9004834

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hoffman K, Webster TF, Sjödin A, Stapleton HM (2017) Toddler’s behavior and its impacts on exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 27(2):193–197. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2016.11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. D’Silva K, Fernandes A, Rose M (2004) Brominated organic micropollutants - igniting the flame retardant issue. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 34(2):141–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Birnbaum LS, Staskal DF (2004) Brominated flame retardants: cause for concern? Environ Health Perspect 112(1):9–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Abbasi G, Buser AM, Soehl A et al (2015) Stocks and flows of PBDEs in products from use to waste in the U.S. and canada from 1970 to 2020. Environ Sci Technol 49(3):1521–1528. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504007v

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rauert C, Harrad S (2015) Mass transfer of PBDEs from plastic TV casing to indoor dust via three migration pathways - a test chamber investigation. Sci Total Environ 536:568–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.050

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Takigami H, Suzuki G, Hirai Y, Sakai S (2008) Transfer of brominated flame retardants from components into dust inside television cabinets. Chemosphere 73(2):161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.06.032

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sindiku O, Babayemi J, Osibanjo O et al (2015) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers listed as Stockholm Convention POPs, other brominated flame retardants and heavy metals in e-waste polymers in Nigeria. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(19):14489–14501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3266-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Health and Environment Alliance (2019) Why regulations is the key to protecting today’s and future children from toxic plastic toys. https://www.env-health.org/why-regulation-is-the-key-to-protecting-todays-and-future-children-from-toxic-plastic-toys/

  39. Salih Al-Omran L (2019) Physiochemical properties and environmental levels of legacy and novel brominated flame retardants. In: Flame retardants

  40. Costa LG, Giordano G (2011) Is decabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-209) a developmental neurotoxicant? Neurotoxicology 32(1):9–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. UNEP (2017) The 16 new POPs under the Stockholm convention. http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/TheNewPOPs/tabid/2511/Default.aspx. Accessed 20 Mar 2020

  42. Cai K, Song Q, Yuan W et al (2022) Composition changes, releases, and potential exposure risk of PBDEs from typical E-waste plastics. J Hazard Mater 424:127227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Li Y, Li J, Wang L (2013) Recycling of PBDEs containing plastics from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): a review. In: Proceedings - 2013 IEEE 10th International Conference on e-Business Engineering, ICEBE 2013

  44. Strååt M, Nilsson C (2018) Decabromodiphenyl ether and other flame retardants in plastic waste destined for recycling

  45. Kajiwara N, Noma Y, Tamiya M et al (2021) Destruction of decabromodiphenyl ether during incineration of plastic television housing waste at commercial-scale industrial waste incineration plants. J Environ Chem Eng 9(2):105172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. European Commission (2008) Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 158, p. 7, 30.4.2004, last amended Commission Regulation

  47. European Commission (2023) Commission staff working document impact assessment report. Accompanying the document “proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council” on the safety of toys and repealing Directive 2009/48/EC

  48. Carmona E, Rojo-Nieto E, Rummel CD et al (2023) A dataset of organic pollutants identified and quantified in recycled polyethylene pellets. Data Br 51:109740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109740

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Almroth BC, Dey T, Karlsson T, Wang M (2023) Chemical simplification and tracking in plastics. Science 382(6670):525

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. IPEN (2023) Toys made with recycled plastics expose children to high levels of toxic chemicals. https://ipen.org/news/toys-made-recycled-plastics-expose-children-high-levels-toxic-chemicals. Accessed 19 Aug 2024

  51. European Commission (2019) A circular economy for plastics – Insights from research and innovation to inform policy and funding decisions

  52. Hahladakis JN, Iacovidou E (2019) An overview of the challenges and trade-offs in closing the loop of post-consumer plastic waste (PCPW): focus on recycling. J Hazard Mater 380:120887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120887

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. European Parliament (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance)

  54. European Parliament (2019) Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants (Text with EEA relevance). PE/61/2019/REV/1OJ L

  55. Barouta D, Alassali A, Picuno C et al (2022) E-plastics in a circular economy: a comprehensive regulatory review. J Clean Prod 355:131711

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. European Commission (2019) Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repeali. Official Journal of the European Union

  57. Eurostat (2021) Recycling rates of packaging waste for monitoring compliance with policy targets, by type of packaging. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ENV_WASPACR/default/table?lang=en&category=env.env_was.env_wasst. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  58. EURACTIV (2020) Recycling of e-waste plastics - Event report. https://en.euractiv.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/special-report/Recycling-of-e-waste-plastics-_-BSEF-Event-Report-2020.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2020

  59. Katrakis E, Zonneveld N, Morcillo F (2017) Complex waste plastics recycling industry ‘Wish List’ to promote a rapid transition to a circular economy. https://mbapolymers.com/news/complex-waste-plastics-recycling-wish-list/. Accessed 14 Apr 2024

  60. Ügdüler S, Van Geem KM, Roosen M et al (2020) Challenges and opportunities of solvent-based additive extraction methods for plastic recycling. Waste Manag 104:148–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hagberg J, Olsman H, van Bavel B et al (2006) Chemical and toxicological characterisation of PBDFs from photolytic decomposition of decaBDE in toluene. Environ Int 32(7):851–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.04.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. UNEP (2023) Chemicals in plastics: a summary and key findings. UNEP, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  63. BEUC (2022) Products from online marketplaces continue to fail safety tests. Compilation of research on unsafe products from online marketplaces from 2021 and 2022. Bruxelles

  64. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) (2022) Implementation of the Toy Safety Directives. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/698912/EPRS_ATA(2022)698912_EN.pd

  65. Mordor Intelligence (2021) Connected toys market – Growth, trends, COVID-19 impact, and forecasts (2022–2027). https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/connected-toys-market. Accessed 12 Nov 2022

  66. KEMI (2021) Increased e-commerce – increased chemicals risks? A mapping of the challenges of e-commerce and proposed measures. Report of a government assignment. Stockholm

  67. Lee A, Liew MS (2021) Tertiary recycling of plastics waste: an analysis of feedstock, chemical and biological degradation methods. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 23(1):32–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Eco-business (2023) Recycled plastic at virgin prices? Asian recyclers say market volatility making it hard to meet brands’ demand. https://www.eco-business.com/news/recycled-plastic-at-virgin-prices-asian-recyclers-say-market-volatility-making-it-hard-to-meet-brands-demands/. Accessed 19 Mar 2024

  69. Wagner F, Peeters JR, De Keyzer J et al (2019) Towards a more circular economy for WEEE plastics – Part A: development of innovative recycling strategies. Waste Manag 100:269–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.09.026

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Hollender J, Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Ferguson PL (2017) Nontarget screening with high resolution mass spectrometry in the environment: ready to go? Environ Sci Technol 51(20):11505–11512. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Hollender J, Schymanski EL, Ahrens L et al (2023) NORMAN guidance on suspect and non-target screening in environmental monitoring. Environ Sci Eur. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00779-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Harney A (2008) Kinks in the global supply chain: can laws keep us safe? https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-lawyer/articles/kinks-in-the-global-supply-chain-can-laws-keep-us-safe/

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has received support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program under grant agreemeents No. 857560 (Cetocoen Excellence) and No. 964827 (AURORA). This publication reflects only the authors' view, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Funding

This work was co-funded from the Horizon Europe program under grant agreement No. 101057014 (PARC). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HADEA). Neither the European Union nor HADEA can be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The authors thank the RECETOX Research Infrastructure (No LM2023069) financed by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports for a supportive background.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, 611 37, Brno, Czechia

    Chijioke Olisah, Lisa Melymuk, Ondrej Audy, Petr Kukucka & Petra Pribylova

  2. Premières Lignes Television, Brûlon, 75008, Paris, France

    Martin Boudot

Authors
  1. Chijioke Olisah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Melymuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ondrej Audy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Petr Kukucka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Petra Pribylova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martin Boudot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CO: data curation, writing, reviewing and editing. LM: conceptualization, supervision, data curation, writing, reviewing and editing. OA: methodology, data curation, and writing, reviewing and editing. PK: methodology, data curation, and writing, reviewing and editing. PP: methodology, data curation, and writing, reviewing and editing. MB: conceptualization and sampling. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Melymuk.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olisah, C., Melymuk, L., Audy, O. et al. Extremely high levels of PBDEs in children’s toys from European markets: causes and implications for the circular economy. Environ Sci Eur 36, 183 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00999-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00999-2

Keywords