Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 60 – Migration and health assessment of chemical substances in surface treated wooden toys

Migration and health assessment of chemical substances in surface treated wooden toys

5 Conclusion

Below is summarised the results of the assessment of the individual substances and the detected concentrations.

Table 22 Summary of conclusions

Chemical substance	Measured concentration in saliva extracts	Oral uptake μg/kg/d	Ref.value: mg/kg/day	MOS	Conclusion
2-Butoxyethanol	Detected in 12 samples. The concentrations were between 1.3 and 322 μg/g	0.4 - 101	NOAEL: 7.6 RfD: 0.5	= 76	No health risk. However low MOS in1 product.
2-(2-Butoxy)ethanol	Detected in 5 samples. The concentrations were between 3,2 and 53 μg/g	1.0 - 17	NOAEL: 500	== 30000	No health risk.
Cyclohexanone	Detected in 2 samples. The concentrations were 14 and 27 μg/g	4.4 – 8.5	NOAEL: 462 TDI: 5	== 81000	No health risk.
2,6-Dimethoxy-benzoquinone	Detected in 7 samples. The concentrations were between 4.9 and 31 μg/g	1.5 – 9.8	None		Assumed no health risk.
3,6-Dimethyl-1,4-dioxane-2,5-dione	Detected in 14 samples. The concentrations were between 10 and 97 μg/g	3.2 - 31	None		Could not be evaluated. Insufficient data.
2-Ethoxyethanol	Detected in 2 samples. The concentrations were 2.1 and 17 μg/g	0.7 – 5.4	NOAEL: 94	== 17400	No health risk. (NB repro.tox).
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)-ethanol	Detected in 4 samples. The concentrations were between 4.5 and 60 μg/g	1.4 - 19	NOAEL: 167	== 8800	No health risk.
Formamide	Detected in 2 samples. The concentrations were 18 and 69 μg/g	5.7 - 22	NOAEL: 50	== 2300	No health risk. (NB repro.tox).
Furfural	Detected in 4 samples. The concentrations were between 0.5 and 4.6 μg/g	0.2 – 1.5	NOAEL: 53 ADI: 0.5	== 36000	No health risk. (NB possible carcinogen)
4-Hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxy-benzaldehyde	Detected in 12 samples. The concentrations were between 1.4 and 20 μg/g	0.4 – 6.3	NOAEL: 5 ADI: 5	== 790	Could not be evaluated but based on benzaldehyde concluded no health risk. (NB possible allergen)
N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone	Detected in 5 samples. The concentrations were between 28 and 59 μg/g	9 - 19	NOAEL: 169 RfD: 0.5	== 8900	No health risk.
3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-2-one (= isophorone)	Detected in 3 samples. The concentrations were between 4.7 and 21 μg/g	1.5 – 6.6	NOAEL: 125 RfD; 0.2	== 19000	No health risk. (NB possible carcinogen)
Vanillin	Detected in 12 samples. The concentrations were between 2.1 and 11 μg/g	0.7 – 3.5	NOAEL: 1000 ADI: 10	== 200000	No health risk.
Barium	Detected in 5 samples. The concentrations were between 29 and 90 μg/g	0.9 – 2.8	NOAEL: 10 TDI: 0.02	== 350	No health risk.

From the detected substances and based on classification and occurrence a number of substances were selected for a further assessment of a potential health risk to the consumers. The consumers are in this context defined as children 0 to 3 years of age.

In spite of that none of the detected substances could be assessed to pose any immediate health risks to the consumer it should be noted that the classification of some of the identified substances was of a serious character.

Of the 125 identified substances 43 were classified in the List of dangerous substances (Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC) and further 16 could be self-classified according the Advisory list for self-classification of dangerous substances from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Of the classified substances 2 were classified carcinogenic (Carc. cat. 3), 1 substance mutagenic (Mut. cat. 3), and 9 substances reproduction toxic (Repr. cat. 2-3). Besides, 5 substances were classified sensitising.

The assessments are mostly evaluated by comparison to data from subchronic or even chronic effect data. As the urge to put toys in the mouth is assumed to decline after a few years, the conclusions should be acceptable.

The conclusion from this study is, therefore, that none of the examined pieces of wooden toys are considered to pose a health risk to children mouthing the toys when the evaluation is based on individual substances.

However, during the use of the toy the child is exposed to several substances released simultaneously from the toy. The effects from the exposure to several chemicals at the same time are unknown. This means that a potential effect can not be entirely be refused.

Another problem by evaluating individual substances in single toys may arise when the child plays with more than one toy. This will increase the exposure accordingly.

Besides, it should be noted that by an assessment by comparing to threshold limit values, TDI, etc. that the consumer may also be exposed to the same substances from other sources not included in the evaluation.