Chemicals in the Car Seat

Posted in: Car Seat Buying Guide

On August 3, 2011 published sensational test results showing potentially unhealthy chemicals in the majority of children’s car seats.

What does The Car Seat Lady think about these test results?

In our roles as a pediatrician, a nurse, and a mom, we worry about the chemicals our children are exposed to. However, since car crashes remain the #1 cause of death and injury to children in the US, we worry more about the risks from a car crash than from chemicals found in the car seat. Therefore, we would urge parents to select a car seat based on the following criteria: the car seat fits the child’s age/weight/height, the seat installs securely in the vehicle, the parent finds it user-friendly enough to use properly on every trip.

As you will see below, we do not dispute that there are flame retardants in car seats; however, we have serious questions and concerns about the accuracy and validity of the testing and results – and the ability to extrapolate their data into a prediction of risk for a child. freely admits ”the levels given are not intended to correspond to levels known to cause health effects.”

Putting the findings into Perspective:

Unfortunately, the chemicals in the testing – bromine, lead, & chlorine – are not exclusive to children’s car seats, but rather are found extensively throughout your home and vehicle – they are likely in your breastfeeding pillow, bassinet mattress, carpet, kids’ pajamas, bouncy seat, etc. A 2011 study in the journal of the American Chemical Society found that more than 80% of the baby products they tested (including car seats, mattresses, breast feeding pillows, and more) contained a halogenated flame retardant additive – many of them chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs).

To put things into perspective, your child likely spends less than 2 hours a day in the car seat, while (hopefully!) they spend 10-16 hours a day in a crib. Therefore, the potential exposure from chemicals in the car seat is far less than the exposure from their crib mattress. We therefore find it curious that has not tested crib mattresses. Also, as if there weren’t already enough reasons to avoid using the infant car seat as your child’s crib/stroller seat/swing, etc, here’s another one.

Flame Retardant Standards & Requirements

Many children’s products, including car seats, are required to meet strict flame retardancy standards – which typically requires the use of not-so-healthy chemicals. notes that in their testing “over half (60%) contained at least one of the chemicals tested for.” However they did not test for CFRs (Chlorinated Flame Retardants) which are known to be unhealthy. Why they omitted this chemical, we don’t know. It makes us wonder if the 40% of seats in their testing that did not contain any of the chemicals they tested for actually had other unhealthy chemicals – like CFRs.

As governments take steps to ban certain flame retardants, other chemicals step in to replace the banned ones. In many instances, the new chemicals are found to be similarly unhealthy compared to the banned ones. There are companies that use Oeko-Tex (R) non-brominated, non-chlorinated flame retardants that they claim are “non-toxic and harmless to human health” – but it remains to be seen if these chemicals are truly as healthy as they claim.

How does the presence of a certain chemical translate into that chemical harming the child?

Flame retardants come in two varieties: additive & reactive. Additive flame retardants are not chemically bound to the product – which allows them to migrate out of the product and into the environment (i.e. house dust, food chain, sewage sludge) over time. Reactive flame retardants are chemically bound to the material in the product. While the bound chemicals are not released from the product, any residual unbound (i.e. unreacted) flame retardant can be released and lead to human exposure. does not discuss how the chemicals – bromine, chlorine & lead – make their way from the fabric, or the plastic chest clip, or the plastic base of the seat into a child’s body in order to cause potential harm. Different methods of absorbing a chemical are possible, including: transdermally (through the skin) either via direct contact or if the chemical is volatilized/aerosolized, via inhalation (which would presumably require that the chemical aerosolizes itself), and via ingestion (if the child were to suck/chew on a particular piece). However, from their information, it is not clear which routes pertain to which chemicals. If the transdermal route is the only method of absorption for a specific chemical, and the child’s skin does not contact that surface, then even though there is a potentially hazardous chemical in that product it should not be able to harm the child–since there is no vehicle for transfer into the child. This would apply to chemicals in the plastic base/shell of the seat. The child’s body is typically not in contact with these parts of the car seat, but rather just the fabric cover. Interestingly, Chlorinated Flame Retardants, which were NOT included in’s testing, are known to aerosolize and can therefore spread far beyond the product in which they were originally found.

Are these chemicals necessary? Can you remove them yourself?

It’s important to recognize that flame retardants are put into/on the car seat for a reason – i.e. to slow down the time it takes for your child’s car seat to ignite and incinerate, thereby hopefully giving you a few extra seconds to get the child out of the car seat before the fire spreads. Altering the fabric cover to your child’s car seat in any way that violates the manufacturer’s instructions will void your warranty – which means that should your child be injured, the manufacturer will not be liable.

Repeated washing/cleaning of any type is likely to decrease the flame retardancy of the fabric – especially the use of soaps. Soaps contain fats which deteriorate the flame retardants (laundry detergents are not soaps). Flame retardants and other chemicals are known to off-gas or degrade during exposure to heat and/or UV rays. Therefore, a parent might chose to leave a new car seat out in the hot sun for a few days prior to the child’s first time using it. When caring for fabrics containing flame retardants, one can follow these instructions to prevent degrading/deteriorating the flame retardancy. If a parent chose to go against the car seat manufacturer’s instructions and wished to degrade the flame retardancy, the parent could follow the opposite of these care instructions.

What can you do?

The real way to effect change is to encourage the government to change the flame retardant standards. This is truly the way that unhealthy chemicals will begin to make their way out of our children’s car seats, clothing, and home products. Write to your local congressman & senator and tell them that you want a healthier environment for your child. Governor Cuomo of New York just anonunced he will sign a bill to prohibit the sale of any children’s products containing the flame retardant chemical Tris. In 1977 the US Consumer Products Safety Commission banned Tris’ use in children’s clothing as it is a known carcinogen.

Understanding the Testing

The Car Seat Lady feels that before one can interpret data, one must know how the data was obtained and the limitations of the testing methods. We find it concerning that news reports did not highlight the significant discrepancies and other potential flaws in the testing methods and results. Please read our analysis and interpretation of’s methodology and our conclusions below.

Discrepant Results


The following table below lists 6 different Britax car seats that all have the EXACT SAME FABRIC – called the Onyx pattern. found VERY discrepant results amongst what should seemingly have identical results. We can’t seem to understand how there is a difference in 3 orders of magnitude in the Bromine content (54 to 76,286ppm) between the fabrics of these seats – when the fabric is identical. Even on those seats tested on the same day – 1/1/08 – there is a difference of nearly 2 orders of magnitude in the Bromine content – 1401ppm to 76,286ppm.

With regard to Lead, how is it that one seat had no detectable lead, yet another seat tested on the same day with the same fabric had 463ppm?

(with Onyx fabric)
Testing Date Bromine
(in seat fabric)
(in seat fabric)
Companion 1/1/08 44,528ppm 96ppm
Marathon 1/1/08 1401ppm 0ppm
Regent 1/1/08 69,985ppm 208ppm
Roundabout 1/1/08 76,286ppm 463ppm
Parkway SG 2/14/11 178ppm 0ppm
Advocate 70 CS 2/17/11 54ppm 0ppm

Here’s another example of discrepant results, this time with Britax seats having the Cowmooflage fabric

BRITAX Car Seat (with Cowmooflage fabric) Testing Date Bromine
(in seat fabric)
Marathon 1/1/08 0ppm
Roundabout 1/1/08 0ppm
Advocate 70 CS 2/17/11 53ppm
Chaperone 2/17/11 158ppm

One other problem with using XRF for bromine detection in polyurethane foam was the possibility of false positives. This finding was highlighted in this study.


All Chicco Key Fit 30’s are made of the SAME plastic shell, use the SAME plastic chest clip – and only differ in the fabrics used for the cover. Therefore, one would expect different results in the seat (i.e. the fabric) but the same results in the base (plastic) and clip. However, this is not what we see… and yet does not explain how this discrepancy is possible.

The Car Seat Lady has three ideas on how to explain this discrepancy:

  1. There are flaws in the testing and/or the machine used in the testing
  2. The companies who manufacture the clips and the base are putting varying amounts of bromine & lead into their products – which would mean that the rankings assigned do not apply to all Key Fit 30’s with a given fabric, but rather just to that one specific seat that was tested.
  3. The upper and lower end of the results are within the margin of error of the XRF machine – which would discredit the entire report. Nowhere does state the margin of error of the XRF machine, they only state the LOD (limits of detection).
Chicco Key Fit 30
(Fabric name)
Date Tested Lead in Base Bromine in Base Bromine in Clip
Adventure 1/31/11 0ppm 0ppm 43ppm
Adventure 2/17/11 10ppm 16ppm 233ppm
Cubes 2/14/11 0ppm 0ppm 0ppm
Extreme 2/14/11 0ppm 0ppm 56ppm
Fuego 2/17/11 9ppm 45ppm 39ppm
Limonata 2/14/11 0ppm 0ppm 0ppm
Race 2/17/11 10ppm 11ppm 46ppm
Romantic 2/17/11 0ppm 7ppm 54ppm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.