Send to

Choose Destination
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2015 Jul-Aug;25(4):343-53. doi: 10.1038/jes.2015.33. Epub 2015 May 6.

Assessment of phthalates/phthalate alternatives in children's toys and childcare articles: Review of the report including conclusions and recommendation of the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Author information

Rutgers Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI), Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.
Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr-Universit├Ąt Bochum (IPA), Bochum, Germany.
University of Washington (retired), Seattle, Washington, USA.
US Department of Health and Human Services (retired), Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Brunel University, London, UK.


The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) convened a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) on Phthalates found in children's toys, and childcare products, and in products used by women of childbearing age. The CHAP conducted a risk assessment on phthalates and phthalate substitutes, and made recommendations to either ban, impose an interim ban, or allow the continued use of phthalates and phthalate substitutes in the above products. After a review of the literature, the evaluation included toxic end points of primary concern, biomonitoring results, extant exposure reconstruction, and epidemiological results. The health end points chosen were associated with the rat phthalate syndrome, which is characterized by malformations of the epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicles, prostate, external genitalia (hypospadias), and by cryptorchidism (undescended testes), retention of nipples/areolae, and demasculinization (~incomplete masculinization) of the perineum, resulting in reduced anogenital distance. Risk assessment demonstrated that some phthalates should be permanently banned, removed from the banned list, or remain interim banned. Biomonitoring and toxicology data provided the strongest basis for a mixture risk assessment. In contrast, external exposure data were the weakest and need to be upgraded for epidemiological studies and risk assessments. Such studies would focus on routes and sources. The review presents recommendations and uncertainties.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Nature Publishing Group
Loading ...
Support Center