Brominated Flame Retardants: Fireproof or Harmful?

What are Brominated Flame Retardants?

Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are chemicals used to make materials less flammable by interfering with the combustion process. BFRs have been widely used in plastic and foam products for a long time, including in furniture upholstery, car seats and plastics, electronics, and building insulation.

BFRs are a subclass of the over 175 different types of flame retardant chemicals in common use on the world market. Common brominated flame retardants include Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), tetrabromobis phenol A (TBBPA) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD).

Flame retardant use has increased over the last two decades with increased use of plastics and polymers in electronics and construction.  PBDEs and the other brominated flame retardants are commonly used in a wide variety of applications, including the plastic housings of televisions, computers, mobile phones and other small consumer appliances such as toasters and hair dryers. They are also used in wires, cables and printed circuit boards.

The massive production and use of BFRs was first prompted by demand from the furniture industry in the 1970s, as a response to frequent fires started by cigarettes in beds, sofas, and other furniture. This solution focused on chemical fire retardants, rather than measures to increase fire safety of cigarettes and lead to the development of related fire safety standards, often mandated by governments. The chemical industry promoted this approach, which led to massive sales of their flame retardant chemicals, even though studies showed that flame retardant chemicals added to furniture would provide little or no fire protection but would expose consumers to daily doses of harmful chemicals.

People can come in contact with flame retardants in a variety of ways. Chemicals can leach from products into the air and then attach to dust, food, and water, which can be ingested. Young children who crawl and play on the floor are especially at risk from their normal hand-to-mouth behavior.

Scientific evidence over more than two decades demonstrate links between exposure to BFRs and a range of human health concerns, including endocrine and thyroid disruption, immunotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, cancer, and adverse effects on fetal and child development and behavior.

Some flame retardant chemicals are among the most toxic chemicals known and have been banned globally, but replacement chemicals often may be just as hazardous. These replacement chemicals are unregulated not because they are safe but because there is typically little or no hazard data on these poisonous (so-called “regrettable”) substitutes.

IPEN’s Study on BFR in Consumer Products

IPEN (International Pollutants Elimination Network) conducted two studies on BFRs in consumer products made from recycled e-waste plastics in China, Indonesia, Russia and also in 11 Arab and African countries namely Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Jordan, Kenya, Morocco, Syria, Tanzania, and Tunisia.

The studies aimed to determine whether recycled e-waste plastic children’s toys, hair accessories, office supplies and kitchen utensils sold on Chinese, Indonesian, Russian, African and Arab markets contained BFRs. The objective of this study was to assess whether brominated flame retardants found in e-waste are carried over into new consumer products available on the market as a result of plastic recycling.

Throughout October-December 2020, 455 samples of consumer products, made of recycled (“black” plastics), were purchased at markets and stores in China, Indonesia and Russia. Black plastic items were selected since electronic casings are typically black, generating black plastics when recycled. Products like toys and other common consumer products that are not required to meet any fire standards were deliberately chosen, so that it could be assumed that any BFRs present were not added to the product but rather followed as a consequence of recycling of plastics containing BFRs.

Children’s toys, hair accessories, kitchen utensils and office supplies were of primary interest, because they are used by children and women of reproductive age, who are especially sensitive to BFR exposures. Toys are often in contact with children’s mouths, kitchen utensils are in contact with food, and hair accessories and office supplies are in contact with women’s skin.

In the study from China, Indonesia, and Russia, 73 of the 455 samples were sent for lab testing for flame retardants, and all samples tested positive for one or more globally banned BFR. In the study from African and Arab countries, 83 samples were sent for lab testing, with 80 testing positive for banned BFRs.

The data showed that some of the sampled children’s products and consumer products obtained in African and Arab countries contained levels of brominated dioxins on a scale normally found in a variety of hazardous wastes, including in waste incineration processes.

Some of the highest total levels of the sum of PBDEs were detected in a toy car from Jordan, in a cup for pens and pencils (office supply) from Tanzania, and a head dresser (hair accessory) from Morocco.

The findings of children’s toys contaminated with PBDEs are alarming, because children’s developing bodies and brains may be especially vulnerable to the toxic effects from BFRs. Developmental neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption are part of the PBDEs’ properties that adversely affect children (Costa and Giordano 2007). PBDE exposure during prenatal and natal development is associated with poorer attention control in children, hyperactivity and behavioural problems.

Hair beauty accessories, kitchen utensils, and to some extent also office supplies are typically used by women. Exposures to BFRs are in particular critical during pregnancy as PBDEs and TBBPA can cross the placental barrier to a developing foetus (Mitro, Johnson et al. 2015) and have been detected in breast milk (Tang and Zhai 2017).

Prevent Use of BFRs

In order to achieve a non-toxic circular economy, it is crucial to apply a class-based approach that prevents use of poisonous substitutes to banned BFRs that are potentially just as harmful, although not yet regulated. A class-based approach to phase out all BFRs is the only adequate response to prevent further harm to human health and the environment.

References:

Blake, A. (2004, September). Health and Environmental Hazards of PBDEs and other BFRs | IPEN
https://ipen.org/documents/health-and-environmental-hazards-pbdes-and-other-bfrs

Costa, L. G. and G. Giordano (2007). “Developmental neurotoxicity of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants.” Neurotoxicology 28(6): 1047-1067.

Mitro, S. D., T. Johnson and A. R. Zota (2015). “Cumulative Chemical Exposures During Pregnancy and Early Development.” Curr Environ Health Rep 2(4): 367-378.

Petrlik, J., Beeler, B., Straková , J. (2022, May). Hazardous chemicals in plastic products | IPEN. Arnika.
https://ipen.org/documents/hazardous-chemicals-plastic-products

Straková , J., Grechko, V., Brosché , S., Karlsson, T., &  Buonsante, V. (2022, February). Brominated Flame Retardants in Plastic Products from China, Indonesia, and Russia | IPEN. Arnika.
https://ipen.org/documents/brominated-flame-retardants-plastic-products-china-indonesia-and-russia

Tang, J. and J. X. Zhai (2017). “Distribution of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in breast milk, cord blood and placentas: a systematic review.” Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 24(27): 21548-21573.