The Hidden Risks of Recycled Plastic Toys: A Literature Review on Legacy Additives and Child Safety

Abstract

The presence of harmful legacy additives in plastic toys poses risks to children’s health and limits the possibilities for reuse of second-hand toys and the recycling of plastic toys. This review article examines the lifecycle of plastic toys and the persistence of hazardous chemicals, including phthalates and brominated flame retardants. Difficulties in recycling practices due to heterogeneous material composition and the perpetuation of a ‘risk cycle’ of toxic legacy additives are discussed. The review identified significant regulatory gaps, particularly in toys manufactured outside the EU, and revealed the ongoing circulation of toxic substances in both new and second-hand toys. This study highlights the necessity of addressing chemical risks in toys within the context of a circular economy and indicates opportunities for advancing sustainable practices in the toy industry. By evaluating regulatory gaps and recycling practices, the study emphasises the need for stricter enforcement, enhanced consumer awareness, and sustainable waste management strategies to promote a safer circular economy.

Keywords

Legacy additives - Toy safety - Plastic recycling - Chemical risk assessment - Sustainable chemistry

Significance

This review article identifies the potential risks associated with the reintroduction of legacy additives through the recycling of plastic toys, which could impact child safety and the environment. By examining regulatory gaps and evaluating recycling practices, the study emphasises the necessity for more rigorous enforcement and sustainable waste management strategies to safeguard children and advance a safer circular economy.

Introduction

This review discusses recycling practices and regulatory gaps related to the presence of legacy additives in plastic toys that hinder a circular economy. The issue of plastic pollution represents a significant environmental and public health challenge of the 21st century, with the use of plastic toys contributing considerably to this problem. Despite their pervasive presence and appeal, plastic toys frequently contain hazardous chemicals, including phthalates and brominated flame retardants, that present potential risks to children's health and the environment [1], [2]. These chemicals, classified as legacy additives, are of particular concern due to their persistence and the potential for reintroduction into the market through recycling processes [3], [4].

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDGs 9, 13, 14, and 15, place significant emphasis on the necessity of fostering sustainable industrial practices, combating climate change, protecting aquatic ecosystems, and preserving terrestrial biodiversity [5].

Toys have existed since prehistoric times, with anthropologists finding a doll older than 4000 years. The earlier materials used for toys were sticks and rocks; the Ancient Greeks used clay and terracotta [6]. During the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the mass production of toys was made possible, and their price decreased gradually. After World War II, the production of toys switched from rubber to plastic, in what is known as the “Plastic Boom” [7]. Mattel Inc. launched the popular doll Barbie™ in 1959. Legos were also launched in the 1950s, as well as Mr. Potato Head by Hasbro™ [8]. At the end of the 20th century, computer games and gaming consoles became quite popular for entertainment for children and adults alike [9]. Nowadays, increased consumerism through social media platforms like TikTok and YouTube promotes ready-made toys [2]. The toy industry, with an estimated value of over USD 90 billion, is among the most plastic-intensive sectors, with 90% of toys containing at least one type of plastic [2], [10]. Toys are manufactured under a planned obsolescence framework, meaning they are designed with disposal in mind to be replaced by new products upon their release, even if the older product is still functional [11]. For example, the brands Hot Wheels and Barbie release slightly altered products twice a year to maintain this framework [12], [13]. Increased production without repair or recovery, especially of durable and complex mixtures like the case of plastic toys, increases their environmental impact and makes them contribute to pollution. It is alarming to note that less than 2% of plastic toys are recycled, while approximately 80% are discarded in landfills, oceans, or through incineration, thereby exacerbating environmental degradation [12], [14]. For example, in France, 40 million toys are discarded annually in landfills [12]. Toys make up approximately 6% of landfilled plastic waste, and in addition, toys with electrical components (e.g., batteries) contribute to waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) [12], [15].

Children are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of hazardous chemicals due to their smaller body size, developing organ systems, and behaviours that increase exposure, such as mouthing objects [16], [17]. Legacy additives like phthalates, used as plasticisers, are known endocrine disruptors, while heavy metals and brominated flame retardants can cause developmental, reproductive, and neurological harm [3], [18]. Although regulations such as the EU’s REACH framework have sought to limit these substances, regulatory gaps remain, particularly for toys manufactured outside the EU [19].

Finally, the socioeconomic and gender dimensions of plastic toy production and waste should not be forgotten. Women’s biology can create specific vulnerabilities during puberty, menstruation, pregnancy, nursing children, and menopause. As an example, a study found that women working in the plastics industry had a fivefold elevated risk for breast cancer and reproductive disorders.

Women and children are also more often involved in the informal waste and recycling sector and by that exposed to unsafe and unhygienic environments. In addition, indoor and backyard burning of plastic waste is related to high exposures and health risks for vulnerable groups [20]. In general, global flows of trade in plastic waste (ostensibly for recycling) from high-income countries to low-income countries can create human rights and environmental justice issues [21].

The circular economy model, which places an emphasis on recycling and reuse, represents a promising approach to the reduction of plastic waste [22]. Recycling plastics promotes sustainable development by extending the life of materials and has lower carbon emissions compared to manufacturing virgin plastics. It reduces plastic waste and, by that potential release of hazardous additives to the environment [23], [24].

Nevertheless, the recycling of plastic toys presents several significant challenges. The complex polymer composition and the presence of hazardous additives inherent to these materials present significant challenges to the feasibility of recycling processes, raising concerns about the potential reintroduction of toxic substances into new products [25], [26]. However, the strategy of avoiding waste by reusing plastic toys is not without its challenges either. Legacy additives, some of which have been banned, remain prevalent, especially in second-hand or reused plastic toys, raising high concerns for child safety. The current recycling practices frequently result in the perpetuation of a “risk cycle,” whereby prohibited substances are reintroduced into the market, thereby undermining the efficacy of regulatory measures and eroding consumer confidence.

The transition to a circular economy (CE) for children’s toys is a potential solution to the environmental and health challenges posed by the production and disposal of plastic toys, which will be further elucidated as follows.

Circular economy modelling

In the following areas that could integrate a CE model will be explored, specifically applied to the lifecycle of toys, with the aim of reducing their ecological footprint and enhancing material efficiency.

The integration of CE principles within the toy industry is vital, and this can be achieved through the implementation of green design principles. These principles include the prioritisation of nontoxic materials, the design of products to facilitate disassembly and maintainability, and the promotion of longevity through the incorporation of multifunctional and educational features in toys [27]. These strategies are in alignment with the bioeconomy framework, which emphasises the integration of biobased and biodegradable materials, thereby reducing dependency on fossil fuels while enhancing the safety and recyclability of toys [28].

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) mechanisms have the potential to play a significant role in advancing CE in the toy sector. These policies mandate manufacturers to take accountability for the end-of-life management of their products, thereby fostering innovation in recycling infrastructure and sustainable design [29]. Furthermore, policy interventions such as the implementation of stricter regulations on hazardous additives and the introduction of mandatory eco-labelling schemes have the potential to influence consumer behaviour, thereby promoting more sustainable choices [30].

Consumer preferences for eco-friendly products are a significant factor in the adoption of CE models. Nevertheless, despite the growing awareness, a discrepancy often exists between sustainable intentions and actual purchasing behaviours. Addressing this discrepancy necessitates the implementation of comprehensive public education initiatives and the transparent communication of the environmental advantages associated with circular toys [27], [31].

The development of integrated CE models for toys necessitates the integration of innovative material science, effective recycling systems, and supportive policy frameworks. For instance, the promotion of take-back programs and the enhancement of material traceability through digital platforms can improve the recovery rates of toy materials [31]. Investment in research on bio-based materials and alternative design approaches has the potential to further decouple toy production from resource-intensive linear systems. Adopting a circular economy approach is therefore not only a means of mitigating the industry’s environmental impact but also of creating healthier, more sustainable products that align with global sustainability goals [1].

The following [Figure 1] illustrates the phases and areas in which circular economy principles can be applied to the toy sector and the expected impact based on the aforementioned discussion.

Figure 1 Circular economy principles in the toy sector with their impact and strategies of application.

Objectives

The objectives of this work are to examine the lifecycle of plastic toys, with a particular focus on potential risks associated with legacy additives and their implications for child safety and environmental sustainability, as well as the limitations of current regulatory frameworks in the context of assessing a safe and sustainable circular economy concept. For this purpose, findings from 12 studies from academic journals, 2 compliance reports, and 2 EU Directives are synthesised to identify (1) key health and environmental risks, (2) regulatory deficiencies, and (3) opportunities for advancing sustainable practices in the toy industry. Hence, the necessity for more rigorous enforcement, enhanced waste management, and heightened awareness among stakeholders is emphasised to guarantee consumer safety and the protection of the environment.

Methodology

The methodology followed for this literature review was adapted from a framework for systematic reviews [32], comprising the following steps: (1) identifying relevant databases and search terms, (2) applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, (3) screening titles and abstracts, (4) performing a full-text analysis of selected articles, and (5) synthesising findings into key themes. These steps were guided by a framework that integrates environmental, chemical, and regulatory dimensions.

The Web of Science (WoS) scientific database was used as a search engine for academic publications, where two queries were launched to cover the objectives of this research: (1) regulatory compliance of toys in the EU and (2) studies on the recyclability of plastic toys and their associated chemical risks. The first query was “Sustainable Toys AND Regulation”: Focused on retrieving studies related to regulatory compliance, yielding five results, the second query “Sustainable Toys OR Alternative Toys” targeted studies on recyclability and sustainable alternatives, resulting in 50 studies. Both queries were performed in the Advanced Search of the WoS section and filtered for articles published in the past 5 years (2019–2023) on the categories: “Environmental Sciences”; “Green Sustainable Science Technology”; “Chemistry Multidisciplinary”; “Chemistry Physical”; Chemistry Analytical”; “Chemistry Medicinal”.

A predefined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied to refine the selection. Inclusion criteria included (1) peer-reviewed articles addressing regulatory aspects, (2) experimental data on recyclability, and (3) the presence of legacy additives in toys. Exclusion criteria included (1) studies outside the scope of toy sustainability and (2) lacking relevance to the objectives of the study. After the application of the criteria, 2 studies from the regulatory compliance query and 10 from the recyclability query were selected for comprehensive analysis. The remaining studies were excluded from further analysis on the grounds of irrelevance or insufficient alignment with the research objectives.

The selected studies were subjected to qualitative analysis, with particular attention paid to their methodologies, results, discussions, and conclusions. The process of data extraction was undertaken with a view to identifying key findings, thematic patterns, and implications for child safety and sustainability. The internal validity of the included studies was evaluated, acknowledging the possibility of minor biases inherent in qualitative reviews [32]. A thematic synthesis of the data revealed recurring topics related to sustainability in the toy sector. These included regulatory gaps, chemical risks associated with legacy additives, and challenges in recycling processes. These themes constituted the basis for the Results and Discussion sections of this review. The challenges and potential solutions identified in the literature were subjected to critical evaluation in relation to the overarching research question.

[Figure 2] represents the methodological path for this literature review.

Figure 2 Overview of literature review workflow.

Results and Discussion

The research ultimately identified 12 key works that underwent comprehensive analysis. The studies addressed critical aspects of the sustainability and safety of plastic toys, emphasising the persistent risks associated with legacy additives, regulatory gaps and recycling challenges. The analysis elucidates the interconnection between health risks, environmental degradation, and the circular economy, demonstrating how inadequate management of toys perpetuates what is termed the “risk cycle.”

This section presents the findings in four key categories: health and environmental risks, regulatory deficiencies, challenges in recycling, and opportunities for sustainable toys. These themes collectively illustrate the intricate challenges associated with addressing legacy additives in toys within the context of sustainability. [Table 1] provides a summary of the principal findings of each category, together with the dominant themes and the principal authors involved in those discussions.

Table 1 Summary of the literature review results.

Category	Summary of findings	Key references
Health and environmental risks	Persistent risks from phthalates, BFRs, and heavy metals; environmental degradation through leaching	[3], [40], [41]
Regulatory deficiencies	Lack of retroactive measures; global disparities in toy safety standards	[19], [25], [43]
Challenges in recycling	Material heterogeneity; contamination from electronic waste; limited viability of pyrolysis	[12], [14], [34]
Opportunities	Innovative recycling techniques; circular economy models; regulatory integration	[43], [60], [61]

Health and environmental risks

Numerous additives are used for different purposes to improve the properties of plastics used in toys, for example, to give toys bright colours, flexibility, or stability and protection, such as flame retardancy. However, several additives are correlated with a number of significant health and environmental concerns. Phthalate esters such as the widespread used DEHP (di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) are incorporated into the polymer matrix through noncovalent bonding; therefore, they are susceptible to leaching into the environment [3]. There is evidence of phthalates causing developmental toxicity and prenatal toxicity [33], [34]. they have also found to cause an endocrine-disrupting effect [3], [35]. Another example of hazardous additives in plastic toys is heavy metals, which function as stabilisers for a polymer in formulation and are also used for pigments. Heavy metals can migrate into the environment and subsequently reach consumers through contamination of soil, dust, and food contamination [18], [36], thereby posing health risks, including acute and chronic toxicity [37], [38]. Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are suspected to be carcinogenic, reprotoxic, and mutagenic [39].

A review of the literature revealed that legacy additives, some of which have been banned, remain prevalent in toys, especially second-hand and recycled items. For example, Turner et al. (2018) identified the presence of heavy metals, including cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and chromium (Cr), in second-hand toys. Migratory tests simulating gastric conditions revealed levels that exceeded EU safety limits, particularly in brightly coloured items such as Lego™ blocks. These findings are consistent with broader concerns regarding the chronic exposure of children to hazardous substances through mouthing behaviours and dermal absorption [40]. Furthermore, another study documented the presence of polybrominated dioxins and furans (PBDD/Fs) in black plastic toys made from recycled electronic waste, thereby emphasising the inadequacy of current regulations to prevent such contamination [41]. Another study emphasises that recycled plastics from electronics with high BFR content can be incorporated in household items that do not require flame retardancy, resulting in potentially high and unnecessary exposures. They showed that a high percentage of studied toys had a concentration of Br >50 mg/kg, raising high concerns of exposure to children [42].

The environmental impact is similarly a cause for concern. The improper disposal of toys introduces pollutants into ecosystems, with heavy metals leaching into soil and water, and BFRs contributing to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention [4]. These substances have the capacity to disrupt ecosystems, bioaccumulate in food chains, and pose risks to human health.

Regulatory deficiencies

Despite the introduction of regulatory frameworks such as the EU’s Toy Safety Directive (TSD) and Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), which have contributed to the advancement of toy safety, significant shortcomings remain. For example, the TSD prohibits the use of specific substances, yet lacks provisions for the retroactive regulation of older toys that contain prohibited additives [40]. Consequently, the reintroduction of harmful chemicals into the market via recycled toys perpetuates the risk cycle.

Two studies [40], [43] have identified instances of regulatory non-compliance, including the presence of high concentrations of phthalates such as DEHP and DBP in older toys and childcare articles. Such additives have been linked with developmental and reproductive toxicity. The lack of alignment between REACH and waste management directives serves to exacerbate the problem, as it allows for the persistence of substances with restricted thresholds in recycled materials.

Furthermore, toys imported from regions with less rigorous regulatory frameworks present an additional risk. A study conducted by the Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) in 2020 revealed that 95% of toys purchased from online marketplaces failed to meet the requisite safety standards set forth by the European Union. This underscores the necessity for more rigorous enforcement and enhanced international collaboration [44]. [Figure 3] summarises the identified risk cycle for contaminants.

Figure 3 Risks in the REACH regulation for recycled materials.

Challenges in recycling

After the end-of-life of a plastic toy, there are various routes, as shown in [Figure 4]. Besides the least desirable options of disposal or landfilling, followed by incineration, there are recycling (mechanical and feedstock) and reuse. However, the recycling of plastic toys presents technical and economic challenges due to the heterogeneous composition of the material and the presence of legacy additives.

Figure 4 Overview of the fate of plastic toy waste [45] [46] [47].

Mechanical recycling methods, such as shredding and extrusion, have been investigated to recycle ABS toys to make 3D filaments. The results showed that successive reprocessing cycles of a simple shredding and melt-processing did not significantly affect the tensile properties of the material, and the colour of the samples remained consistent until the tenth reprocessing cycle. The filament prepared from waste plastics was used to fabricate a 3D printed product, which demonstrated similar mechanical properties to the product made from virgin polymer. However, the study also shows that too many recycling cycles result in a reduction in polymer quality, leading to a decline in mechanical strength and thermal stability [24].

Techniques like mechanical separation can only be used on very pure samples. However, plastic toys are often heterogeneous mixtures of materials, which, in addition to various types of polymers, metals and other fabrics, also include an increasing number of electronic toys, which in turn pose challenges for recycling. Another study showed that roughly a third of toys were categorised as WEEE [48]. The analysis of plastic composition showed that polystyrene (PS) 25%, polyethylene (PE) 23%, polypropylene (PP) 16%, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) 10%, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 10% were the mainly used polymers. The findings additionally revealed that the majority (>60%) of the toys disposed, were still functional and were disposed containing batteries. This indicates the need for reusability models prolonging the use phase of electronic toys and the challenge that consumers do not remove batteries before they dispose of toys, which is problematic because batteries contain both hazardous substances (Hg, Cd, and Pb) and valuable materials (Zn, Ni, Fe, steel, Al, Li, Co, and Ag) [48].

For feedstock recycling, different processes are shown in [Figure 3].

Pyrolysis, for example, is an alternative recycling process for plastic in which the C, H, and O atoms in the feedstock are rearranged to gas or liquid phase products, like syngas (H₂ and CO) and oil for intermediate platform chemicals, which have use in industry (benzene derivatives) through temperature increase and controlling the chemical conditions throughout the process (anoxic conditions) [49]. A study used plastic toy bricks for pyrolysis under different conditions, however they also observed the generation of toxic by-products, including dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [14].

The contamination of recyclates with unregulated additives serves to further complicate the recycling process. A study that created a mass flow analysis estimated that 4% of banned phthalates, including DEHP and BBP, are reintroduced into the product cycle in Europe, primarily through recycling processes. Such contamination undermines the feasibility of achieving a circular economy and raises questions about the sustainability of recycling plastic toys [50].

Opportunities for sustainable toys

Notwithstanding the challenges, there are opportunities to advance the sustainability of the toy industry. Consumer preferences for green toys highlight a demand for improved recycling infrastructure and extended product lifecycles [27]. Initiatives such as toy take-back programs and donation schemes offer promising models for reducing waste and promoting reuse. These developments are complemented by innovations in materials science and regulatory reforms, which together provide a pathway towards safer and more sustainable toy production [27].

One area of promising development is the creation of solvent-based recycling processes. These methods have demonstrated potential in the separation of harmful additives from polymer matrices. For example, in technologies such as CreaSolv, solvent extraction and precipitation methods have been proposed as a means of removing phthalates from PVC during recycling. Another solvent-based technology is based on carbon dioxide at supercritical parameters, where it exhibits properties of a liquid and a gas, making it a suitable solvent for dissolving polymers and penetrating materials [51].

However, these techniques have yet to achieve widespread implementation due to economic and scalability concerns [50], [52].

Advances in biobased plasticisers, such as adipates, citrates, and epoxidised oils, represent a significant opportunity for mitigating the risks associated with hazardous chemicals in plastic toys. Adipates, for instance, are noted for their excellent flexibility and compatibility with PVC, while citrates offer low toxicity and biodegradability, making them ideal for children’s products. Epoxidised oils, such as soybean oil, also provide stability against heat and UV degradation while adhering to health and safety regulations. The development of these alternatives has been shown to effectively reduce reliance on phthalates without compromising material performance [53], [54].

Complementing this, aqueous ammonia treatments for PVC disposal have emerged as a promising method to degrade DEHP and other harmful additives [53], [55]. This technique facilitates the breakdown of these compounds by hydrolysis in mild conditions, transforming them into safer by-products and enabling the recycling of PVC into applications free of hazardous contaminants [56], [57]. These chemical advancements reinforce the viability of integrating greener technologies into the toy industry's waste management processes. It is indeed crucial to integrate the principles of sustainable chemistry and related fields like green chemistry, renewable chemistry, and circular chemistry into the development of innovative recycling techniques to design and use products and processes that are safer, more equitable, and have lower environmental and health impacts [58].

Another potential opportunity exists in the integration of eco-labelling criteria into the production and recycling of toys. The implementation of an ecolabeling system can provide consumers with transparent information regarding the chemical composition and sustainability of toys, thereby creating an incentive for manufacturers to adopt safer materials and production methods. Such practices could also be aligned with EU initiatives such as the EU Ecolabel (Regulation (EC) No 66/2010), which has already demonstrated success in guiding consumer behaviour in other sectors [51], [59].

It is evident that regulatory reforms play a pivotal role in facilitating the adoption of sustainable practices. The integration of REACH with waste management directives, such as the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), would facilitate the monitoring and removal of hazardous substances from recyclates. Such alignment would prevent the re-entry of banned additives into the product cycle, thereby reducing the health risks associated with recycled toys [43], [50]. Turner (2018) has also proposed the introduction of more rigorous quality controls on recyclates, which would be instrumental in guaranteeing the safety of the supply chain. Encouraging innovation in internal plasticisation methods offers another transformative opportunity. This approach modifies the molecular structure of polymers, eliminating the need for external plasticisers altogether. For example, research into incorporating polar moieties or long-chain alkyl groups directly into PVC has shown potential to enhance flexibility and durability without compromising safety. Such methods represent a shift toward designing inherently safe materials, thereby reducing dependence on legacy additives [1], [57].

Finally, the encouragement of innovation in the field of material science has the potential to diminish the necessity for reliance on traditional plastics. For example, research into bio-based polymers and additive-free formulations represents a potential avenue for the development of safer and more sustainable toys [1], [24]. It is imperative that there be collaborative efforts between the academic, industrial, and policy-making communities in order to facilitate the translation of these innovations into practical applications. Together, these advancements, supported by robust regulatory frameworks, signal a promising future for the sustainable transformation of the toy industry.

Conclusions and Outlook

Play is of vital importance to children, as it significantly impacts their psychological and social development. Toys, as indispensable instruments for facilitating play, have undergone significant evolution over time. While early toys were crafted from materials such as wood, rubber, and steel, the advent of plastics in the 1930s marked a significant turning point in the industry. In the present era, plastics constitute approximately 90% of the raw materials employed in the manufacture of toys, due to their durability, cost-efficiency, and versatility. The extensive utilisation of plastics is evident in a multitude of applications, including packaging, coatings, conductive plastics, and electronic components. However, this reliance on plastics has brought about significant challenges, particularly regarding the additives used to functionalise these materials. The chemicals used in plastics, including stabilisers, dyes, plasticisers, and flame retardants, are essential for enhancing the properties of plastics. However, they often pose risks to human health and the environment. Among these, phthalates, heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and short-chain chlorinated paraffins have been identified as hazardous substances commonly found in toys.

The vulnerability of children to these chemicals has been extensively documented. The developing physiological systems of children, coupled with behaviours such as mouthing and direct contact with toys, result in a heightened susceptibility to the adverse effects of chemical exposure in comparison to adults. In light of these risks, regulatory frameworks have been established, including the Toy Safety Directive, REACH, RoHS, and POP Regulation, with the objective of mitigating the dangers associated with hazardous chemicals in consumer products. These regulations have the dual objective of safeguarding human health and addressing the environmental impact of the toy industry, with a particular focus on promoting recycling and reuse. The European Union's Waste Framework Directive (WFD) serves to complement these efforts by establishing ambitious recycling targets with the objective of fostering sustainable practices across a range of industrial sectors, including toy manufacturing.

Nevertheless, despite the aforementioned developments, the toy industry continues to confront considerable obstacles in the effective management of the lifecycle of plastic products. To address this issue, a number of initiatives have been implemented, including toy take-back systems, donations and refurbishment programmes, which have the objective of extending the useful life of toys. However, these practices also demonstrate a significant vulnerability: toys manufactured prior to the implementation of rigorous safety regulations frequently remain in circulation, thereby exposing children to chemicals that are now recognised as hazardous. This perpetuates the so-called risk cycle, whereby legacy additives that have been banned under current regulations re-enter consumer environments through prolonged use or recycling.

The review of existing literature conducted for this study identified two principal pathways that perpetuate the risk cycle. First, the recycling of materials containing legacy additives, such as BFRs from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), introduces hazardous substances into new products, including toys. Secondly, the continued utilisation of older toys, particularly in contexts such as daycare centres and nurseries, results in children being exposed to substances that exceed the current safety limits. While regulatory measures have been effective in reducing the prevalence of these substances in newer products, the presence of legacy additives in older items highlights the necessity for enhanced regulatory oversight and innovative recycling technologies.

To effectively address these challenges, it is necessary to adopt a multifaceted approach. The development of sustainable alternatives to traditional plastic additives represents a promising avenue for the mitigation of the risks associated with the use of hazardous chemicals. Investigations into biobased plasticisers, including adipates, citrates and epoxidised oils, have demonstrated the potential for these substances to replace phthalates. Furthermore, chemical processes such as aqueous ammonia treatments for PVC disposal provide a means of degrading harmful components like DEHP. Internal plasticisation methods, which modify the molecular structure of polymers to eliminate the need for external plasticisers, provide further evidence of the considerable progress being made towards the development of safer materials. Nevertheless, despite these advances, the recycling of POPs continues to present a significant challenge due to their inherent persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity. Technologies such as density-based separation and solvent extraction have been proposed as methods for the isolation and removal of contaminants prior to recycling. However, economic and technical barriers have thus far limited their widespread adoption.

From a regulatory standpoint, the harmonisation of frameworks such as REACH, the WFD and the POP Regulation is crucial to achieving enhanced consistency and efficacy in the management of chemical risks. The implementation of enhanced quality controls for recycled materials through sustainable chemical analyses of legacy additives in recycled toys and the introduction of more rigorous ecolabeling criteria could serve to further promote safer and more sustainable practices within the industry. The implementation of eco-labelling not only serves to heighten consumer awareness but also provides an incentive for manufacturers to prioritise the utilisation of non-toxic and environmentally friendly materials.

Technological innovations are also of great importance in addressing the complexities of recycling materials that have been contaminated. Solvent-based recycling methods, such as the CreaSolv process, provide effective solutions for the separation of harmful additives from polymer matrices. Similarly, supercritical CO₂ extraction has demonstrated potential for the dissolution and recovery of polymers while reducing environmental impact. Initiatives such as the EU's Recycling Project demonstrate the potential of advanced methodologies to enhance the traceability, sorting, and recycling of plastic waste streams. These innovations align with the principles of sustainable chemistry and highlight the importance of collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders in driving systemic change.

The results of this study emphasise the necessity of integrating sustainable chemistry principles into the toy industry to mitigate the environmental and health impacts of plastic waste. The realisation of a circular economy for toys necessitates continuous innovation, rigorous regulatory supervision and a dedication to transparency and collaboration amongst all stakeholders. By adopting a systems-thinking approach, the toy industry has the potential to spearhead the development of solutions to global challenges associated with plastic waste and chemical safety, while simultaneously ensuring the well-being of future generations.

Maria Santos

Maria Santos is a researcher at the Professional School of Leuphana University, where she is pursuing an MSc in sustainable chemistry. She holds a BSc in chemistry and brings over two years of experience in the chemical industry. Her expertise lies in the formulation of consumer goods with recycled materials to develop sustainable and innovative solutions.

Evelyn Araripe

Evelyn Araripe is an interdisciplinary scholar working in the fields of science education and sustainability science. Currently a Ph.D. candidate at both the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar, Brazil) and Leuphana University of Lüneburg (Germany), where she lectures in the courses of sustainable chemistry. With a BA in social communication – journalism (Unimep, Brazil, 2008), an under-degree in environmental education (Senac, Brazil, 2011) and an MSc in science education from UFSCar (2020), her expertise lies in creating case studies that weave sustainability and climate change issues into chemistry education. She is a German Chancellor Fellow from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Dr. Lotta Hohrenk-Danzouma

Dr. Lotta Hohrenk-Danzouma is a Post Doc in sustainable chemistry of renewable organic resources at Leuphana University. With a background in environmental science (BSc), water and environmental chemistry (MSc), and analytical chemistry (PhD), her expertise lies in the development of green and sustainable analytical methods with a focus on the extraction of bioactive compounds from agro-industrial residues to enable biocircularity in the context of sustainable food systems.

Prof. Dr. Vânia G. Zuin Zeidler

Prof. Dr. Vânia G. Zuin Zeidler is a Full Professor of Sustainable Chemistry of Renewable Organic Resources at the Institute of Sustainable Chemistry, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany. Previously, she was a Professor at the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Brazil, and a Visiting Professor at the University of York, UK. Her research focuses on Green and Sustainable Analytical Chemistry, particularly innovative methods for extracting bioactive compounds from agro-industrial residues. She co-founded the Green Chemistry Section of the Brazilian Chemical Society, and in 2023, she was recognised as an Expert Voice by Science (AAAS) for her contributions to Sustainable Chemistry.

Contributors’ Statement

MS, EA, LHD, VZZ: conception and design of the work; analysis and interpretation of the data; statistical analysis; drafting the manuscript; critical revision of the manuscript. MS: data collection.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the School of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, for supporting this work project.

Declaration of use of AI

The authors declare the use of DeepL Write to improve the English written language.

• References

• 1 Fachina S, Araripe E, Zeidler VG. Z. Defining greener, healthier and more sustainable toys: A case study of L.O.L. Surprise!. Sustainable Chem. Pharm. 2024; 41: 101661
• 2 Zuin V, Araripe E, Fachina S. Plasticized Childhood: The Impact of Plastic Toy Advertisement to Children on Their Health and the Environment. Instituto Alana; São Paulo: 2020
• 3 Beach ES, Weeks BR, Stern R, Anastas PT. Plastics additives and green chemistry. Pure Appl. Chem. 2013; 85: 1611-1624
• 4 Sharkey M, Harrad S, Abdallah MA.-E, Drage DS, Berresheim H. Phasing-out of legacy brominated flame retardants: The UNEP Stockholm Convention and other legislative action worldwide. Environ. Int. 2020; 144: 106041
• 5 Halisçelik E, Soytas MA. Sustainable development from millennium 2015 to Sustainable Development Goals 2030. Sustainable Dev. 2019; 27: 545-572
• 6 Graham LD. Terracotta Fertility Figurines of Prehistoric Eurasian Design from Modern East Africa. 2013
• 7 Thomas V. The Greening of the Toy Industry. 2023
• 8 Macchia A. et al. Mattel’s Barbie: Investigation of a Symbol—Analysis of Polymeric Matrices and Degradation Phenomena for Sixteen Dolls from 1959 to 1976 Polymer. 2022; 14: 4287 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14204287
• 9 Healey A, Mendelsohn A. COUNCIL ON EARLY CHILDHOOD. Selecting Appropriate Toys for Young Children in the Digital Era. Pediatrics 2019; 143: e20183348
• 10 UNEP. Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry. 2014
• 11 Rivera JL, Lallmahomed A. Environmental implications of planned obsolescence and product lifetime: a literature review. Int. J. Sustainable Eng. 2016; 9: 119-129
• 12 Levesque S, Robertson M, Klimas C. A life cycle assessment of the environmental impact of children’s toys. Sustainable Prod. Consum. 2022; 31: 777-793
• 13 Johnson ME. Learning from Toys: Lessons in Managing Supply Chain Risk from the Toy Industry. Calif. Manage. Rev. 2001; 43: 106-124
• 14 Jung S. Valorizing plastic toy wastes to flammable gases through CO2-mediated pyrolysis with a Co-based catalyst. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022; 434: 128850
• 15 Ejlertsson J, Karlsson A, Lagerkvist A, Hjertberg T, Svensson BH. Effects of co-disposal of wastes containing organic pollutants with municipal solid waste—a landfill simulation reactor study. Adv. Environ. Res. 2003; 7: 949-960
• 16 ESA. Chemicals of Special Concern to Children’s Health. Children’s Environmental Health; 2022. https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/childenvhealth/chemicals.html#:~:text=The%20presence%20of%20arsenic%2C%20mercury,system%20as%20it%20is%20developing
• 17 Koppe JG. et al. Exposure to multiple environmental agents and their effect. Acta Paediatr. 2006; 95: 106-113
• 18 Sankhla MS, Kumari M, Nandan M, Kumar R, Agrawal P. Heavy metals contamination in water and their hazardous effect on human health-a review. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2016; 5: 759-766
• 19 European Commission. Directive 2009/48/EC. 2009
• 20 Lynn H, Rech S, Samwel-Mantingh M. Plastics, Gender and the Environment: Findings of a Literature Study on the Lifecycle of Plastics and its Impacts on Women and Men, from Production to Litter. Women Engage Common Future WECF; 2017
• 21 Stoett P. et al. Global plastic pollution, sustainable development, and plastic justice. World Dev. 2024; 184: 106756
• 22 Gnanou Y. Epilogue: Sorting, Depolymerizing, and Recycling Polymers: The Long Road to a Circular Plastics Economy. In Macromolecular Engineering. 2022 pp 1-30
• 23 Gracida-Alvarez UR, Benavides PT, Lee U, Wang M. Life-cycle analysis of recycling of post-use plastic to plastic via pyrolysis. J. Cleaner Prod. 2023; 425: 138867
• 24 Nur-A-Tomal MS, Pahlevani F, Sahajwalla V. Direct transformation of waste children’s toys to high quality products using 3D printing: A waste-to-wealth and sustainable approach. J. Cleaner Prod. 2020; 267: 122188
• 25 Aurisano N, Huang L, Milà I Canals L, Jolliet O, Fantke P. Chemicals of concern in plastic toys. Environ. Int. 2021; 146: 106194
• 26 Gazzotti S, De Felice B, Ortenzi MA, Parolini M. Approaches for Management and Valorization of Non-Homogeneous, Non-Recyclable Plastic Waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022; 19: 10088
• 27 Tu J.-C, Chu K.-H, Gao D.-Z, Yang C. Analyzing Decision-Making Factors of Green Design for Kid’s Toys Based on the Concept of Product Lifecycle. Processes 2022; 10: 1523
• 28 von Braun J. Bioeconomy and its set of innovations for sustainability. Ind. Biotechnol. 2020; 16: 142-143
• 29 Marino G. The Toy Industry is a Giant, but Its Circularity is Still Lagging Behind: To Introduce a Truly Effective EPR System, Some Kinks must be Solved Renewable Matter. 2023 46 https://www.renewablematter.eu/en/growing-responsible-in-toyland
• 30 Babich MA, Bevington C, Dreyfus MA. Plasticizer migration from children’s toys, child care articles, art materials, and school supplies. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2020; 111: 104574
• 31 Robertson-Fall T. Creating a circular economy for toys. In Solutions to Design Out Waste and Pollution. 2021
• 32 Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003; 14: 207-222
• 33 Pang L. et al. Effect of prenatal exposure to phthalates on birth weight of offspring: A meta-analysis. Reprod. Toxicol. 2024; 124: 108532
• 34 Xu Z, Xiong X, Zhao Y, Xiang W, Wu C. Pollutants delivered every day: Phthalates in plastic express packaging bags and their leaching potential. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020; 384: 121282
• 35 Tumu K, Vorst K, Curtzwiler G. Endocrine modulating chemicals in food packaging: A review of phthalates and bisphenols. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2023; 22: 1337-1359
• 36 Turner A. Cadmium pigments in consumer products and their health risks. Sci. Total Environ. 2019; 657: 1409-1418
• 37 Cleveland Clinic. Heavy Metal Poisoning (Heavy Metal Toxicity): Symptoms, Causes & Treatment. 2022 https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23424-heavy-metal-poisoning-toxicity
• 38 Tchounwou PB, Yedjou CG, Patlolla AK, Sutton DJ. Heavy Metals Toxicity and the Environment. EXS 2012; 101: 133-164
• 39 DiGangi J, Strakova J, Bell L. Pops Recycling Contaminates Children’s Toys with Toxic Flame Retardants. 2017
• 40 Turner A. Concentrations and Migratabilities of Hazardous Elements in Second-Hand Children’s Plastic toys. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018; 52: 3110-3116
• 41 Behnisch P. et al. Global survey of dioxin- and thyroid hormone-like activities in consumer products and toys. Environ. Int. 2023; 178: 108079
• 42 Liu M, Brandsma SH, Schreder E. From e-waste to living space: Flame retardants contaminating household items add to concern about plastic recycling. Chemosphere 2024; 365: 143319
• 43 Carney Almroth B, Slunge D. Circular economy could expose children to hazardous phthalates and chlorinated paraffins via old toys and childcare articles. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 2022; 7: 100107
• 44 Toy Industries of Europe. Executive Summary Online Marketplaces. 2020 https://tiestorage.b-cdn.net/posts/Executive-Summary-Online-Marketplaces-6-1.pdf
• 45 Schmiemann A. et al. In 8 – Mechanical Recycling. in Recycling of Plastics. Niessner N. Ed Hanser; 2022. pp 275-433
• 46 Zhu C. et al. Realization of Circular Economy of 3D Printed Plastics: A Review. Polymer 2021; 13: 744
• 47 David ME. Methods of Recycling, Properties and Applications of Recycled Thermoplastic Polymers. Recycling 2017; 2: 24
• 48 Pérez-Belis V, Bovea MD, Gómez A. Waste electric and electronic toys: Management practices and characterisation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013; 77: 1-12
• 49 You S. et al. A critical review on sustainable biochar system through gasification: Energy and environmental applications. Spec. Issue Biochar Prod. Charact. Appl. – Soil Appl. 2017; 246: 242-253
• 50 Lee J, Pedersen AB, Thomsen M. The influence of resource strategies on childhood phthalate exposure—The role of REACH in a zero waste society. Environ. Int. 2014; 73: 312-322
• 51 Wagner S, Schlummer M. Legacy additives in a circular economy of plastics: Current dilemma, policy analysis, and emerging countermeasures. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020; 158: 104800
• 52 Walker TW. et al. Recycling of multilayer plastic packaging materials by solvent-targeted recovery and precipitation. Sci. Adv. 2020; 6: eaba7599
• 53 Bouchareb B, Benaniba MT. Effects of epoxidized sunflower oil on the mechanical and dynamical analysis of the plasticized poly(vinyl chloride). J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2008; 107: 3442-3450
• 54 Greco A, Brunetti D, Renna G, Mele G, Maffezzoli A. Plasticizer for poly(vinyl chloride) from cardanol as a renewable resource material. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2010; 95: 2169-2174
• 55 Cano JM, Marín ML, Sánchez A, Hernandis V. Determination of adipate plasticizers in poly(vinyl chloride) by microwave-assisted extraction. J. Chromatogr., A 2002; 963: 401-409
• 56 Boaretti C, Donadini R, Roso M, Lorenzetti A, Modesti M. Transesterification of Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate for the Recycling of Flexible Polyvinyl Chloride Scraps in the Circular Economy Framework. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021; 60: 17750-17760
• 57 Jia P, Hu L, Zhang M, Feng G, Zhou Y. Phosphorus containing castor oil based derivatives: Potential non-migratory flame retardant plasticizer. Eur. Polym. J. 2017; 87: 209-220
• 58 Zuin Zeidler VG. Defining sustainable chemistry—an opportune exercise?. Science 2023; 382: eadk7430
• 59 Rass-Masson N. et al. Report on Penalties Applicable for Infringement of the Provisions of the REACH Regulation in the Member States. 2009 https://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/reach/Final_report_REACH_penalties.pdf
• 60 Maddela NR, Kakarla D, Venkateswarlu K, Megharaj M. Additives of plastics: Entry into the environment and potential risks to human and ecological health. J. Environ. Manage. 2023; 348: 119364
• 61 Marquadt D. Mattel Launches New Toy Takeback Program Called Mattel PlayBack. Mattel, Inc.; 2021. corporate.mattel.com https://corporate.mattel.com/news/mattel-launches-new-toy-takeback-program-called-mattel-playback

Publication History

Received: 19 December 2024

Accepted after revision: 13 March 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
02 April 2025

Article published online:
05 May 2025