POPS RECYCLING CONTAMINATESCHILDREN’S TOYS WITH TOXIC FLAME
RETARDANTS

Joseph DiGangi, Ph.D.
Jitka Strakova
Lee Bell
April 2017

POPS RECYCLING CONTAMINATES CHILDREN’S TOYS WITH TOXICFLAME RETARDANTS
Joseph DiGangi, PhD, IPEN
Jitka Strakova, Arnika Association
Lee Bell, IPEN
April 2017

Established in 1998, IPEN is currently comprised of over 500 Participating
Organizations in 116 countries, primarily developing and transition countries.
IPEN brings together leading environmental and public health groups aroundthe world to establish and implement safe chemicals policies and practices
that protect human health and the environment.IPEN’s mission is a toxics-free
future for all.
IPEN gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by theGovernment of Sweden and other donors that made the production ofthis document possible. The expressed views and interpretations hereinshall not necessarily be taken to reflect the official opinion of any of theinstitutions providing financial support. Responsibility for the content lies
entirely with IPEN.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recycling plastics containing toxic flame retardant chemicals found in electronic waste results in contamination of new plastic children’s toys and related
products. The substances include octabromodiphenyl ether (OctaBDE), decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE), and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). This
study found all three toxic chemicals in recycled plastic children’s products. In a
survey of products from 26 countries, 90% of the samples contained OctaBDEor DecaBDE. Nearly half of them (43%) contained HBCD. Recycling materials
that contain persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and other toxic substances
contaminates new products, continues human and environmental exposure,and undermines the credibility of recycling.
OctaBDE and DecaBDE are widely used in electrical equipment and are primary toxic components of electronic waste (e-waste). HBCD is primarily usedin polystyrene building insulation but is also found in electronic equipment.
Both HBCD and OctaBDE are listed in the Stockholm Convention for global
elimination. DecaBDE is recommended for listing in the treaty for eliminationand governments will make the decision at the 8th Conference of the Parties(COP8) in April 2017. Note that OctaBDE is subject to an exemption that
permits recycling of materials containing the substance. The treaty’s expert
committee has warned against this practice and COP8 will decide whether
to continue it. The expert committee explicitly recommended to “…eliminate
brominated diphenyl ethers from the recycling streams as swiftly as possible”
noting that, “Failure to do so will inevitably result in wider human and environmental contamination and the dispersal of brominated diphenyl ethers into
matrices from which recovery is not technically or economically feasible and in
the loss of the long-term credibility of recycling” (UNEP/POPS/COP.5/15).
The Stockholm Convention contains hazardous waste limits known as “lowPOPs content” levels that define the value at which wastes are considered to be
POPs wastes and therefore must be addressed according to strict treaty obligations. The final limits for listed substances such as OctaBDE and HBCD will
be decided at COP8. The limit for DecaBDE will be decided later if listed. This
study found samples of children’s products exceeding proposed and existinghazardous waste limits. For example, 43 samples (39%) contained OctaBDE atlevels greater than 50 ppm – one of the proposed hazardous waste limits. One
sample exceeded the higher proposed limit of 1000 ppm. For HBCD, 7 samples(7%) contained HBCD at concentrations higher than 100 ppm – one of the
proposed hazardous waste limits. Two samples exceeded the higher proposedlevel of 1000 ppm. Finally, 48 samples (43%) contained DecaBDE at levels
that exceeded the current hazardous waste limit for PCBs, which they strongly
resemble in structure and adverse effects. The data illustrates the importance ofPOPs Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants (April 2017)3

protective hazardous waste limits since weak standards could encourage toxic
recycling and waste dumping in the absence of national regulations prohibiting
the practices.
Two Stockholm Convention measures that could help address toxic recycling
are: 1) to end the current recycling exemptions and avoid new ones includingin the listing decision on DecaBDE; and 2) set protective limits for substancesin wastes so that they are subjected to treaty obligations for destruction.
Sustainable waste management and a circular economy are not compatible
with toxic chemicals being recycled into new consumer products.

IPEN RECOMMENDATIONS•COP8 should end the toxic recycling exemption for brominated diphenyl
ethers in parts IV and V of Annex A.

•

Parties should not create a recycling exemption for materials containing
DecaBDE.

•

COP8 should adopt the following low POPs content levels:

4°°

HBCD: 100 mg/kg (100 ppm)°°

OctaBDE (HexaBDE and HeptaBDE): 50 mg/kg (50 ppm)°°

PCBs: 10 mg/kg (10 ppm)

INTRODUCTION
Brominated flame retardants have been widely added to foam and plastics used in consumer and electronic products. Pentabromodiphenyl ether(PentaBDE) has been used extensively in polyurethane foam, but also appears
in electronics. Octabromodiphenyl ether (OctaBDE) has been used in acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and other plastics used in electronics such as
office equipment. Decabromodiphenyl either (DecaBDE) is widely found inplastics used in electronics and is a common component of electronic waste.
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD or HBCDD) was mainly applied in extruded
and expanded polystyrene foam for building insulation, but also in video cassette recorder housing and electronics. These chemicals are known to disrupt
human hormone systems, adversely impacting the development of the nervous system and children’s intelligence. Commercial PentaBDE, commercial
OctaBDE, and HBCD are listed in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention for
global elimination. Governments will decide on adding DecaBDE to Annex A at
COP8 in April 2017.
Plastics or other materials containing POPs could be subject to the treaty’s
waste provisions depending on their levels of contamination. The Stockholm
Convention contains hazardous waste limits known as “low POPs content”
levels (LPCL) that define the value at which wastes are considered to be POPs
wastes according to the concentration of POPs they contain. Wastes containing
POPs above the LPCL must be addressed according to strict treaty obligations.
Weak standards could encourage toxic recycling and waste dumping in theabsence of national regulations prohibiting the practices.
In 2009, COP4 created an exemption that permits recycling of plastics, foam,
and other materials containing commercial PentaBDE and OctaBDE until
2030. Due to concerns about the possible impacts of this recycling exemption,
COP4 requested the treaty’s expert committee to examine its implications.
Subsequently, the expert committee known as the POPs Review Committee(POPRC), developed recommendations on the recycling exemption for COP5.
The Committee warned against the practice and recommended to, “…eliminate
brominated diphenyl ethers from the recycling streams as swiftly as possible”
noting that, “Failure to do so will inevitably result in wider human and environmental contamination and the dispersal of brominated diphenyl ethers into
matrices from which recovery is not technically or economically feasible and in
the loss of the long-term credibility of recycling” (UNEP/POPS/COP.5/15). The
recycling issue is especially relevant to DecaBDE due to widespread informal
sector recycling of e-waste in developing countries.

POPs Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants (April 2017)

5

This study asked whether flame retardants found in e-waste are carried into
new consumer products as a result of plastic recycling as predicted by the POPs
Review Committee technical report. We examined OctaBDE, HBCD, and
DecaBDE in Rubik’s cubes, a children’s product usually made of recycled plastic, along with several other types of plastic toys.

6

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Rubik’s cubes and several other consumer goods were screened for bromineusing a handheld XRF analyzer to identify samples with significant bromine
levels (hundreds of ppm). Positive samples were analyzed for PBDEs and
HBCD at the Institute of Chemical Technology, an accredited laboratory in
the Czech Republic. Brominated flame retardants were extracted by n-hexane
and the leachate transferred into isooctane. Identification and quantificationof flame retardants was accessed via gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
in the mode of electron ionization (GC-MS/MS-EI). The main components ofcongeners listed in the Stockholm Convention were analyzed with a detection
limit of 0.1 ppb for PBDEs and 3 ppb for HBCD.

POPs Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants (April 2017)7

RESULTS
Laboratory analysis of 95 Rubik’s cubes and 16 additional samples (including a thermo cup, hair clips, combs, headdresses, and children’s toys) from 26
countries in various regions found 100 samples (90%) contained OctaBDE atconcentrations ranging from 1 to 1174 ppm. Ranges of the measured concentrations per country are summarized in Table 1 (Annex 1). Forty-three samples(39%) contained OctaBDE at levels greater than 50 ppm – one of the LPCL
proposed for PBDEs listed in the Stockholm Convention. One sample exceeded
the higher proposed LPCL of 1000 ppm.
Results shown in Tables 1 and 2 (Annex 1) demonstrate that forty-five samples(43%) contained HBCD at concentrations ranging from 1 to 1586 ppm. In
products in which it was measured, seven samples (7%) contained HBCD atconcentrations higher than 100 ppm – the provisional LPCL. Two samples
exceeded the higher proposed level of 1000 ppm.
One-hundred-one samples (91%) contained DecaBDE at concentrations ranging from 1 to 672 ppm (Tables 1 and 2 in Annex 1). Forty-eight of the samples(43%) contained DecaBDE at levels greater than 50 ppm. Note that the provisional definition for LPCL for DecaBDE has not yet been set but PBDEs
strongly resemble PCBs which have a provisional LPCL of 50 ppm. A lower
proposed LPCL limit of 10 ppm for PCBs has been proposed and 76 samples(68%) containing DecaBDE exceeded this limit.
Overall, the results indicate that toxic flame retardant chemicals found in
e-waste are widely present in children’s toys made of recycled plastic. Many
children’s products contained significant levels of these substances of 50 ppm
or greater. This includes two substances listed in the Stockholm Convention(OctaBDE and HBCD) and a third flame retardant up for a listing decisionat COP8 (DecaBDE).

8

DISCUSSION
The data demonstrates that toxic flame retardant chemicals found in e-waste
are widely present in plastic children’s products such as Rubik’s cubes, car toys,
or children’s hair accessories. The results are consistent with the study of Chenet al. (2009) which found PentaBDE, OctaBDE, DecaBDE and other flame
retardants in 80% of sampled plastic children’s toys. This survey also complements a recent study by Samsonek and Puype (2013) which found flame retardants from electronic waste recycled into plastic food contact materials such as
thermo cups and kitchen utensils. A follow-up study in 2015 found DecaBDE
in food contact materials on the EU market such as thermo-cup lids and an egg
cutter made from recycled plastic (Puype et al. 2015). An analysis of toys madeof recycled plastic on the market in Belgium found commercial PentaBDE,
OctaBDE, and DecaBDE (Ionas et al. 2014). A single OctaBDE congener was
found in 22% of the toys and DecaBDE was found in 16% of them. This is consistent with an analysis of the PentaBDE and OctaBDE (POP-BDEs) stream in
the Netherlands by Leslie et al. (2013) which found that 22% of the POP-BDEs
in waste electrical and electronic equipment is expected to end up in recycledplastics. In Australia, an analysis of 1714 plastic products or components of
TVs and small appliances found OctaBDE congeners in 31% of them at levels
ranging from 51 – 6805 ppm (Gallen et al. 2014). A Stockholm Convention
secretariat review of this issue noted that these levels (and the ones found thisstudy) are below those needed for flame retardancy suggesting that the substances were present as a result of recycling (UNEP/POPS/COP.8/INF/12). The
problem of recycling materials containing POPs and contaminating new products also occurs in recycled foam products such as carpet padding (DiGangi etal. 2011). Two key aspects to address the toxic recycling issue in the Stockholm
Convention are the values set for LPCL and the recycling exemption.

LOW POPS CONTENT LEVELS AND POPS WASTESThe Stockholm Convention aims to reduce and eliminate all releases of POPsand includes measures to address releases from stockpiles and wastes in Article
6. This includes establishment of LPCLs which are a crucial tool to control
potential releases of POPs due to improper handling of POPs wastes. LPCLs
define the value at which wastes are considered to be POPs wastes and therefore must be “Disposed of in such a way that the persistent organic pollutant content is destroyed or irreversibly transformed” (Stockholm Convention
Article 6.1 d ii). Thus, LPCLs are crucial for defining which wastes are hazardous according their POPs content. The accompanying technical guidelines
are important for providing appropriate methods and options for POPs waste
disposal. In the absence of national regulations, strict LPCLs may be theonly mechanism to prevent widespread transboundary movements of POPsPOPs Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants (April 2017)9contaminated products and wastes, accelerating the rate and scope of human
exposure to POPs. Strict LPCLs will also restrict the amount of contaminatedmaterials entering the recycling chain.

NEW PROPOSALS FOR LOW POPS CONTENT LEVELS DECIDED AT
COP8
The values assigned to LPCLs for all listed POPs will be decided at COP8 (forproposed definitions see UNEP-CHW.13-INF-66). All LPCLs are important,
but the levels for OctaBDE, HBCD, and PCBs are especially relevant for thisstudy. PCBs are relevant because they are closely related to DecaBDE in structure and adverse effects which should result in similar LPCLs being adopted forboth chemicals. Proposals for the decision on LPCLs at COP8 were developedby a Basel Convention Small Intersessional Working Group.
There are two LPCL proposals for OctaBDE and two for HBCD. The proposal
for the OctaBDE LPCL combines two OctaBDE congeners (HexaBDE andHeptaBDE) and the two listed PentaBDE congers (TetraBDE and PentaBDE).
Delegates at COP8 will decide on a proposed LPCL of either 50 ppm or 1000
ppm as a sum of all four congeners (UNEP-CHW.13-INF-66). These numbers
come from a comprehensive report elaborated by EU consultants (ESWI and
BiPRO 2011). The report initially recommended using a provisional LPCL of
200 ppm for the four individual substances which is the origin of the 1000 pm
LPCL proposal. However, the report noted that these initial levels were only
intended to be for a “restricted time frame in order to facilitate enforcement”(ESWI and BiPRO 2011). Lower levels were proposed for greater protection ofhuman health and then environment. The consultants proposed lowering thethreshold to 10 ppm for each of the four PBDE substances by 2016 which is theorigin of the Basel Working Group’s proposal of 50 ppm LPCL. IPEN supports
the 50 ppm LPCL for PBDEs as a sum. A similar process prompted the EU
consultants to update the LPCL limit for HBCD to 100 ppm from the current
provisional limit of either 100 ppm or 1000 ppm. IPEN supports the 100 ppm
LPCL limit for HBCD. The impact of the LPCL proposals can be seen in thepresented data. If the LPCL for PentaBDE/OctaBDE is 50 ppm, then fortythree samples (39%) exceed it. In contrast, if the LPCL is 1000 ppm, then only
1 sample exceeds the LPCL limit. In a like manner, 7 samples exceeded a LPCL
for HBCD of 100 ppm but only 2 samples would exceed a 1000 ppm LPCL
in this study.
There are also two LPCL proposals for PCBs– 50 ppm (current provisional
limit) or 10 ppm (new proposal). IPEN supports the 10 ppm limit for greater
health protection. The 10 ppm LPCL for PCBs was proposed on the basisthat PCBs and polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) have very similar structure and toxicity and the proposed LPCL for PCN is 10 ppm. The same logic
10

should apply to DecaBDE. The Stockholm Convention expert group noted that
DecaBDE is structurally similar to PCBs and have been produced on a similar
scale (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.10/10/Add.2). Earlier, the Committee noted that,“The neurotoxic effects of PBDEs are similar to those observed for PCBs andso children exposed to PBDEs are likely to be prone to subtle but measurable
developmental problems” (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.2/17/Add.1). In this study, 48
samples (43%) contained DecaBDE at levels greater than the current provisional LPCL of 50 ppm. Seventy-six samples (68%) contained DecaBDE atlevels greater than the proposed 10 ppm LPCL.

IMPLICATIONS OF LOW POPS CONTENT LEVELS
If weak LPCLs are adopted, then more POPs can flow into consumer products
and transboundary movement of POPs in contaminated materials such as ewaste, incineration residues, polystyrene, or polyurethane foam will expand andaccelerate. The flow of this contaminated material is likely to be from developed
countries to developing countries where management costs are lower and regulations weaker. If this is allowed to happen then the objectives of the Stockholm
and Basel Conventions will be permanently undermined at the expense ofhuman health and the environment. This effect has already been demonstrated
by Breiviket al. (2011) due to POPs waste export from developed countries to
Africa and Asia. A secretariat review of PentaBDE and OctaBDE elimination
noted that, “It is estimated that at least 50 % of WEEE [waste electrical andelectronic equipment] is collected outside of the official take-back systems in
the EU, part of which is then exported to developing countries as used equipment or illegally. Illegal shipments originate mainly from Europe, North
America, Japan, Australia and the USA with common destinations in Asia
(including China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan and Vietnam) and Africa (including Ghana, Nigeria, and Benin). In addition to WEEE, plastics from WEEE
are also reported to be exported to developing countries in Asia” (UNEP/POPS/
COP.8/INF/12). A weak LPCL will enshrine this arrangement and unnecessarily expose new populations to POPs when contaminated materials are shipped
as recycled materials or other products without restriction.

RECYCLING EXEMPTION FOR MATERIALS CONTAINING PENTABDEAND OCTABDEIn 2009, COP4 created an exemption that permitted recycling of plastics, foam,
and other materials containing PentaBDE and OctaBDE until 2030. Due toconcerns about the possible impacts of this recycling exemption, COP4 requested the treaty’s expert committee to examine its implications. Subsequently,
the expert committee known as the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) developed recommendations on the recycling exemption for COP5. The Committee
warned against the practice and recommended to “…eliminate brominatedPOPs Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants (April 2017)11

diphenyl ethers from the recycling streams as swiftly as possible” noting that,“Failure to do so will inevitably result in wider human and environmental contamination and the dispersal of brominated diphenyl ethers into matrices fromwhich recovery is not technically or economically feasible and in the loss of thelong-term credibility of recycling” (UNEP/POPS/COP.5/15).

RECYCLING EXEMPTION FOR HBCD REJECTED
In 2012, in its review of HBCD releases, the POPRC noted that, “the releases
from PS foam and recycling of electronic and electrical products in developing countries are of importance” (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/19/Add.1). The
Committee further expressed concern about recycling materials containing
HBCD noting that, “HBCD will likely be spread into articles that will be difficult to identify, as previously determined by the POPRC for recycling products
containing pentaBDE and octaBDE.” Increasing the waste burden of POPs indeveloping countries is another consequence of toxic recycling and exemptions
for use. The Committee expressed concern about “articles and products in use
containing hexabromocyclododecane being exported, especially to developing countries and countries with economies in transition” (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/16). At COP6, delegates rejected a proposal by the EU to allow recycling of products containing HBCD due to concerns expressed by the POPRC in
its recommendations and by developing countries at the COP.

EXPERT COMMITTEE WARNS AGAINST DECABDE RECYCLING
The POPRC took up the topic of recycling again in its evaluation of DecaBDE– which is particularly relevant to the informal sector “recycling” of e-waste indeveloping countries. The DecaBDE Risk Management Evaluation states that,“it is difficult to control the content of c-decaBDE in plastic material destinedfor recycling and that recycling may contribute to human exposure to c-decaBDE. Monitoring data also shows that recycling contributes to significant
environmental pollution and health risks for local populations, particularly indeveloping countries where recycling occurs in the informal sector” (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.11/10/Add.1). Concerns about developing country capacity tohandle imports of DecaBDE also emerged during the Committee’s evaluation:“African experts oppose a recycling exemption due to lack of capacity to identify and analyse products containing deca BDE” (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.11/10/
Add.1). Finally, the POPRC stated that, “the control measure that most effectively will abate global emissions is to globally ban the production and use ofc-decaBDE in articles and avoid recycling of products containing c-decaBDE…
this practice will continue to spread c-decaBDE to the environment as well as
human exposure” (UNEP/POPS/COP.8/INF/12). Notably, the Committee did
not recommend a recycling exemption for DecaBDE.

12

DECISION ABOUT CONTINUING THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTIONRECYCLING EXEMPTION AT COP8At COP8, delegates will decide whether to continue the recycling exemption forcommercial PentaBDE and OctaBDE as required by paragraph 2 of parts IV
and V of Annex A. The decision is part of an overall review of how well Parties
are progressing in eliminating both substances. The secretariat review noted
that, “low levels of POP-BDEs have been detected in a range of articles, including plastic toys that are not subject to flammability requirements, suggesting that their presence was unintentional and possibly a consequence of therecycling of plastics originating from WEEE [waste electrical and electronicequipment]” (Haarman and Gasser 2016).
To prevent toxic recycling, plastics containing flame retardants should be
separated. This can be accomplished using handheld XRF devices (x-ray
fluorescence) to detect bromine. In addition, a variety of cheap, simple methods exist that are applicable in all countries. These include the Beilstein test to
identify halogen-containing plastics and flotation techniques to separate them.
Flotation separation techniques have been used by waste pickers in developing
countries to separate brominated plastics from clean plastics with a high levelof success (Truc et al 2015). They can also be used by the informal plastics recycling sector in India with an average removal efficiency of 96% using a solutionof fresh water and table salt (UNEP/POPS/COP.8/INF/12). The technical andeconomic feasibility of these methods clashes with developed country claims
that economic considerations are a barrier to separate materials containing
brominated flame retardants (UNEP/POPS/COP.8/INF/12).
The secretariat review notes that a comprehensive analysis of PentaBDE and
OctaBDE elimination is not possible. However, it is clear from the secretariat
and POPRC reviews that continuing the flow of these substances into new
products through recycling is not consistent with Stockholm Convention objectives – especially when widely available, technically and economically feasible
methods exist to address the issue. IPEN supports ending the Stockholm
Convention recycling exemption because no convincing arguments for continuing it have been presented in the secretariat’s review. In fact, the review confirms the flow of PentaBDE and OctaBDE into consumer products and notes
the availability of techniques for separating materials containing brominatedflame retardants. Toxic substances found in e-waste should not be recycled
into consumer products. Ending the Stockholm Convention recycling exemption would reduce wider human and environmental contamination and help
preserve the credibility of recycling.

POPs Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants (April 2017)13

CONCLUSION
Recycling of plastics containing toxic flame retardant chemicals found inelectronic waste results in contamination of new plastic children’s products.
This extends human and environmental exposure and undermines the credibility of recycling. Toxic recycling and POPs wastes have significant impacts
in developing and transition countries. There is now compelling evidence thatenvironmental pollution is a major cause of death and illness in low and middle
income countries. These countries are least able to manage or mitigate suchthreats because of their lack of capacity and sparse financial resources. In many
countries, ending the Stockholm Convention recycling exemption and applying strict LPCLs for POPs contained in e-waste and other POPs will be the only
global regulatory tool that can be used to prevent import and export of thesecontaminated products and wastes.

14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Alaska Community Action On Toxics (UnitedStates), Armenian Women for Health and Healthy Environment (Armenia),
Arnika Association (Czech Republic), ALHem - Safer Chemicals Alternative(Serbia), Balifokus Foundation (Indonesia), Casa Cem (Mexico), Centre
for Environmental Justice (Sri Lanka), Center for Environmental Justiceand Development (Kenya), Centre for Environmental Solutions (Belarus),
Center for Public Health and Environmental Development (Nepal), CETAP(Brazil), ChemTrust (UK), Eco-Accord (Russia), Ecological Alert and Recovery(Thailand), EcoWaste Coalition (Philippines), Environment and Social
Development Organization (Bangladesh), Greenpeace (Hungary), groundWork (South Africa), Taller Ecologista (Argentina), Japan Endocrine-disruptor
Preventive Action (Japan), SRADev (Nigeria), Nature University (China), andToxics Link (India) for assisting with sampling.
IPEN gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by theGovernment of Sweden and other donors that made the production of thisdocument possible. The expressed views and interpretations herein shall notnecessarily be taken to reflect the official opinion of any of the institutions
providing financial support. Responsibility for the content lies entirely with
IPEN.

POPs Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants (April 2017)15

REFERENCES
Breivik K, Gioia R, Chakraborty P, Zhang G and Jones KC (2011). “Are Reductions in
Industrial Organic Contaminants Emissions in Rich Countries Achieved Partly byExport of Toxic Wastes?” Environmental Science & Technology 45 (21): 9154-9160.
Chen SJ, Ma YJ, Wang J, Chen D, Luo XJ and Mai BX (2009). “Brominated flame retardants in children’s toys: concentration, composition, and children’s exposure and risk
assessment.” Environmental Science and Technology, 43 (11): 4200-4206.
DiGangi J, Strakova J and Watson A (2011). “A Survey of PBDEs in Recycled Carpet
Padding.” Dioxin, PCBs, and Wastes Working Group, IPEN, available at http://ipen.
org/sites/default/files/documents/A-survey-of-PBDEs-in-recylcled-carpet-padding.
pdf
ESWI/BiPro (2011). “Study on waste-related issues of newly listed POPs and candidate
POPs”. Final Report, 25 March 2011 (update 13 April 2011). Service request under theframework contract No ENV.G.4/FRA/2007/0066.
Gallen C, Banks A, Brandsma S, Baduel C, Thai P, Eaglesham G, Heffernan A, Leonards
P, Bainton P and Mueller JF (2014). “Towards development of a rapid and effective
non-destructive testing strategy to identify brominated flame retardants in the plastics of consumer products.” Science of the Total Environment 491-492: 255-265.
Haarman A and Gasser M (2016). “Managing hazardous additives in WEEE plastic
from the Indian informal sector.” A study on applicable identification & separation
methods. Sustainable Recycling Industries, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials
Science and Technology, ISBN 978-3-906177-13-7
Ionas AC, Dirtu AC, Anthonissen T, Neels H and Covaci A (2014). “Downsides of
the recycling process: Harmful organic chemicals in children’s toys”. Environment
International 65: 54-62.
Leslie HA, Leonards PEG, Brandsma SH and Jonkers N (2013), IVM/IVAM Report:
13-16.
Puype F, Samsonek, J, Knoop J, Egelkraut-Holtus M and Ortlieb M (2015). “Evidence ofwaste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) relevant substances in polymeric
food-contact articles sold on the European market”. Food Additives & Contaminants:
Part A, Chemistry, analysis, control, exposure & risk assessment 32: 410-426.
Samsonek J and Puype F (2013). “Occurrence of brominated flame retardants in black
thermo cups and selected kitchen utensils purchased on the European market.” Food
Additives & Contaminants: Part A, 30 (11), 1976-1986.
Truc N, Lee C, Mallampati S. and Lee B. (2015). “Separation of Hazardous Brominated
Plastics from Waste Plastics by Froth Flotation after Surface Modification withMild Heat-Treatment.” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology.
International Journal of Environmental and Ecological Engineering 2(12): 1378-1381.

16

ANNEX 1: FLAME RETARDANTS IN
CHILDREN’S PRODUCTSTABLE 1: RANGE OF CONCENTRATION (PPM) OF PBDEs IN RUBIK’S CUBESPER COUNTRY
Purchased in

Number of samples

OctaBDE

DecaBDE

HBCD

Argentina

3

0 - 342

0 - 359

0 - 1586

Bangladesh

227 - 41

33 - 96

1-5

Belarus2

3-5

134 - 153

NA

Brazil

2

1-5

1-6

0

Canada4

9 - 280

20 - 297

1 - 20China

6

3 - 582 - 360/NA

Czech Republic

6

0 - 752 - 96

0 - 42Germany

2

1

3-4

0

Hungary2

0-6

0 - 58

0/NA

India

6

0 - 336

0 - 516

0 - 78Indonesia

5

0 - 520 - 630 - 541

Japan

4

2 - 171 - 17

0

Kenya

3

15 - 226

18 - 1710 - 1280

Mexico5

20 - 178

17 - 152

0-2

Nepal

3

17 - 58

19 - 234

0-1

Nigeria14

18 - 1174

25 - 672

0-9Philippines

4

2 - 108

5 - 293

0 - 13

Poland4

0 - 51

0 - 790

Russia3

1 - 362

0 - 2172 - 691

Serbia3

13 - 57

36 - 47

NA

Slovakia

1

26

98

0

South Africa

357 - 509

98 - 281

1 - 60

Sri Lanka

246 - 48

44 - 131

0-1

Sweden1

0

0

0Thailand225 - 48

21 - 23

0-5

United Kingdom

336 - 210

10 - 400

0-5NA = not analyzed
POPs Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants (April 2017)17

TABLE 2: CONCENTRATION (PPM) OF PBDEs AND HBCD IN CHILDREN’SPRODUCTS FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND THE NETHERLANDS
Item

Purchased in

OctaBDE

DecaBDE

HBCD

Toy - robot

Czech Republic

0

1

0

Toy - finger skateboard

Czech Republic

95

121

0

Toy - gunCzech Republic

82

117

375

Toy – car 1

Netherlands

89

145

21

Toy – car 2

Netherlands

4

8

0

Children painting
brush

Czech Republic

35

23

2

Children hockey stickCzech Republic

6

9

0

Thermo cup

Czech Republic

3

6

0

Hair clip 1

Czech Republic

19

18

1

Hair clip 2

Czech Republic

18

18

5

Headdress 1

Czech Republic

9

33

0

Headdress 2

Czech Republic

102

78

19

Headdress 3

Czech Republic

107

195

24

Headdress 4

Slovakia

7

17

0

Comb 1

Czech Republic

6

5

0

Comb 2

Slovakia

0

0

0

18

POPs Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants (April 2017)19

arnika.org | english.arnika.org • @arnikaorg

I pen.org • ipen@ipen.org • @ToxicsFree