Infant clothing may expose babies to hundreds of different chemicals used in everything from plastics to paints—including some known to be toxic, a new scientific investigation shows.

The analysis of 43 infant garments, published this month [October 5] in Environmental Research, is the first to comprehensively screen for all detectable chemicals versus a limited number. In total, 303 different chemicals—from traces of pesticides to prescription drugs—were identified across the fabrics.

The findings build upon other research that has found potentially harmful chemicals and those that are known to be harmful, including toxic metals, in clothes designed for pregnant women, newborns, and toddlers. Although this study’s sample size was modest, its findings also raise questions about how well we understand chemical exposure from everyday clothing.

“The findings contribute important evidence regarding the plausible health risks posed by chemical constituents present in fabrics designed for infant use,” the scientists say. “Many of them exhibit biochemical activities involving potential or demonstrated toxicity, and consequently infant textiles should be considered as an exposure and risk source.”

The discovery of pharmaceuticals, in particular, was unexpected and suggests that contamination pathways—whether from manufacturing, wastewater, or environmental contact—are not fully understood, the researchers say. The antidepressant venlafaxine appeared in more than half of all garments tested.

In addition, the study highlights a regulatory blind spot: While the European Union (EU) enforces strict rules on chemicals in many consumer products, and the United States (U.S.) regulates infant textiles mainly for flammability and lead content, both regions lack comprehensive oversight for the wide range of other chemical substances present in fabrics. 

There are no broad U.S. limits on many of the chemicals identified in this study, such as UV filters, biocides, or synthetic musks (a type of fragrance), unless they are regulated under other laws. Scientists warn that this gap could mean infants, whose small bodies and developing organs make them especially sensitive to toxins, are being exposed to potentially harmful compounds just by being clothed.  

“This widespread chemical usage raises significant public health concerns, particularly because the routine act of wearing clothing implies exposure on a daily basis,” the researchers say.

Infants have thinner skin and spend long hours in direct contact with clothing, including with their hands and mouths, and even minor chemical releases could matter, they say. Previous research has shown that everyday contact with textiles can lead to low but measurable chemical exposures.

“In these developmental periods, even subtle biochemical disruptions can contribute to long-term adverse health effects, including male infertility, endometriosis, and cancer, among others,” the researchers say.

Modern textile manufacturing involves an extensive array of substances—more than 8,000 by some estimates. These include dyes, plasticizers (used to make materials flexible), flame retardants (to reduce flammability), UV stabilizers (to prevent fading), and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS or “forever chemicals,” used for water resistance). 

Some are added by industry intentionally to improve fabric performance, while others appear unintentionally through fiber processing or contamination. As a result, textiles may contain toxic residues that often go unrecognized.

Fabrics for baby clothes contain unexpected chemicals

To better understand this risk, the scientists collected infant garments from homes, kindergartens, and stores in Granada, Spain, including both new and used clothing. Each sample was tested under four conditions, from water-only rinses to more aggressive chemical extractions, to see how easily compounds could leach from fabrics—a clue to how “bioavailable” (able to enter the body) they might be.

Advanced laboratory techniques were used to detect and identify compounds. The results showed a striking variety of chemical classes, from preservatives and fragrances to pharmaceuticals.

Among the most concerning, the researchers say, were pharmaceuticals, an unprecedented finding, including opioids (oxycodone, oxymorphone), antidepressants (venlafaxine), hormones (oestriol, nandrolone), and thyroid regulators. Some appeared in more than half of the fabric samples—even after simple water washing. 

“Of particular concern is the presence of some substances with a distinct pharmaceutical character, some of them with opioid or tranquilizer action, others of an estrogenic/ androgenic effect, and others related to treatments for depression or acute pain,” they say.

Many chemicals also appeared together, revealing an unexpectedly complex and poorly understood level of contamination in textiles. Other substances identified in the textiles were:

• Pesticides and biocides, such as diethyltoluamide (DEET) and metamitron, which are linked to respiratory, hormonal, and cancer risks. Some leached from fabrics with only distilled water, suggesting they could be absorbed during normal wear.
• Related ingredients, like triphenyl phosphate, diphenyl phosphate, and piperonyl butoxide, which are used in pesticide formulations as well as dyes, paints, cosmetics, and cleaning products, and known to cause developmental effects in lab animals. DEHP (a type of phthalate) and quinoline and aniline compounds are also known to pose health risks, including potential hormone disruption or toxicity. Animal studies suggest piperonyl butoxide, commonly found in many pesticide products, can cause birth defects and developmental problems when exposure occurs during pregnancy.
• Surfactants, such as sodium lauryl sulfate, which are common in detergents and cosmetics and may cause skin, eye, and respiratory issues, among other problems. Several were new detections in textiles.
• Food additives and flavorings, including parabens, which are preservatives restricted in some foods and cosmetics for their hormone-disrupting effects.
• Fragrances, such as synthetic musks (tonalide and galaxolidone) and 1-phenylethanol, many of which persist in the environment and may disrupt hormones.
• Preservatives, including benzothiazoles and benzotriazoles, which are compounds with endocrine and environmental toxicity. Also found was benzyl alcohol, which has been linked to health problems such as “gasping syndrome” in premature newborns and heart or brain malformations in animal studies. Almost 95% of the tested textile products contained methylparaben when analyzed under one set of laboratory conditions.
• UV filters and corrosion inhibitors, like benzophenones and 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, which are potential hormone disruptors and carcinogens. Some compounds were found to be more likely to leach easily under normal skin contact. Studies have shown UV filters, used in sunscreens, are detectable in human tissues, blood, urine, breast milk, and fetal circulation.
• Flame retardants, which are known to cause hormonal disruptions, affecting thyroid function and estrogen balance. Studies have linked flame retardant exposure to developmental and health problems in infants, with some capable of leaching and entering the body through skin contact.
• Plasticizers, including phthalates, bisphenols, and their substitutes, which are used to make plastic products, including food packaging, more flexible and durable. Aromatic amines such as 2-naphthylamine and 1,5-naphthalenediamine were detected, which are both known to cause cancer. Bisphenol substitutes (like bisphenol S, or BPS) and phthalates are confirmed endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that can lead to reproductive or developmental problems. BPS and 1,3-diphenylguanidine were both found in more than 30% of garments under realistic wear conditions, suggesting they can leach and contact the skin.
• Lesser-known chemicals, such as acridine and acridone, are recognized as genotoxic, meaning they can damage DNA.

Each of these categories reflects chemicals with different industrial or consumer uses, the scientists say, but many were not expected to be present in clothing, especially garments for infants.

While chemical exposure occurs in many forms—through air, water, and food—absorption through the skin is a significant concern. Unlike oral exposure, which passes through the liver before entering the bloodstream, skin absorption allows chemicals to bypass this natural filter. This may result in a longer, often more toxic form of chemicals to remain in the body.

For infants, whose metabolic systems are developing, this route of exposure could extend the effects of toxic substances. Even small doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs)—which interfere with hormone systems—have been linked to long-term problems like infertility, developmental disorders, and certain cancers later in life.

Gaps in regulation putting infants’ health at risk

Despite Europe’s stricter approach, the researchers warn that even EU rules are incomplete. Textile chemicals often fall under general industrial regulations rather than textile product-specific safeguards. Some harmful substances—such as aromatic amines, bisphenols, and parabens—can still be found in textiles sold in Europe, even though these chemicals are known to disrupt hormones and pose risks to health and the environment.

For instance, substances banned in cosmetics—like Michler’s ketone, a dye intermediate classified as a carcinogen—may still appear in fabrics. Likewise, benzisothiazolinone, banned from cosmetics for causing skin allergies, remains largely unregulated in clothing.

This uneven oversight means that products sold globally can contain different levels of potentially hazardous chemicals depending on where they were made or marketed, the scientists say. Since textile manufacturing occurs on a massive scale, often in multiple countries with varying standards, tracking and controlling chemical use becomes extremely difficult.

The authors of the study argue that what we wear—especially what we put on our children—deserves the same chemical safety attention as what we eat or apply to our skin. The U.K., for instance, is considering a bill to restrict the level of microplastics and potentially harmful “forever chemicals” in school uniforms.

The researchers propose several measures to close the safety gap:

• Establish rules on how much of a chemical should be allowed to safely transfer from fabric to skin
• Require allergen and ingredient labeling for textiles
• Develop lists of approved substances that can safely be used in clothing production
• Increase testing for Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs), such as certain phthalates and PFAS
• Implement stronger oversight for imported textiles, which may use chemicals banned in local markets

These changes would represent a scientifically and regulatorily coherent step towards reducing exposure disparities, the researchers say, aligning textile safety standards with other consumer goods—and helping to ensure across global supply chains more consistent protection.

To reduce your child’s exposure to toxic chemicals, wash all new clothes once or twice before wearing, and choose organic clothing made from natural materials like GOTS-certified cotton, which is free from harsh chemicals and safe for sensitive skin. Look for labels with “PFAS-free” or “PFC-free” on product tags, and select clothing from brands that explicitly test for PFAS. Also avoid items labeled “stain-resistant,” “water-repellent,” “wrinkle-free,” ‘”flame-resistant,” or “antistatic.”

Reference

Domínguez-Liste A, Linares-Ruiz E, Schweiss MO, et al. Elucidation of xenobiotics in textiles for infants using non-targeted approaches: The role of fabrics as a source of early-life exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Environmental Research. 2025;286:123002. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2025.123002