Do Flame Retardants Reach You Through Your Skin?

Most conversations about plastic-associated chemicals start and end with what we swallow. But the body has more than one door. Research by Abdallah and Harrad (2018) identifies dermal contact with furniture fabrics as a significant pathway of human exposure to brominated flame retardants (BFRs).[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018]

That matters because flame retardants are not confined to a single product. They are additive chemicals — physically mixed into materials rather than chemically bonded — which means they can migrate out of the products that carry them. If your skin is a route in, then the everyday surfaces you touch become part of the exposure picture, not just the water you drink.

Skin is a real pathway, not just a theoretical one

The default mental model treats the skin as a sealed barrier. The evidence complicates that. Plastic additives — including BFRs, bisphenols, triclosan, and phthalates — can be absorbed dermally during ordinary contact activities.[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018]

The physical mechanism is straightforward. Skin pores, which range from about 40 to 80 µm, are large enough to allow monomers and additives to pass, overcoming the dermal barrier.[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018] The chemicals do not need to be ingested or inhaled to get in; the surface itself is permeable to molecules of this size.

40–80 µm

How much actually gets absorbed

A pathway existing is one thing; the dose is what determines whether it matters. Here the research puts numbers on it. Reported dermal absorption levels for brominated flame retardants range from 76.9 to 101 ng per kilogram of body weight per day.[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018]

For context, the same body of work reports different figures for other additive classes absorbed through skin: around 12.1 ng/kg/day for bisphenols (BPs) and roughly 0.03 µg/kg/day for dimethyl phthalate (DMP).[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018] BFRs sit at the higher end of the reported dermal intake among these plastic additives, which is part of why furniture fabrics specifically are flagged as a significant pathway.

76.9–101

The absorption isn’t fixed — it depends on conditions

It would be misleading to treat “flame retardants absorb through skin” as a single fixed number. The research is explicit that several factors govern how much crosses the barrier: the amount of contact, the duration of contact, the concentration of the chemical, and the physiochemistry of the additive itself.[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018]

This is where nuance matters. More contact time with a treated fabric, higher additive concentrations, and the specific chemical structure of the compound all shift the outcome. A brief brush against a surface is not equivalent to prolonged, repeated contact. The pathway is real, but its magnitude is a function of behavior and conditions, not a constant.

Why flame retardants are worth taking seriously

The concern isn’t the dermal route in isolation — it’s what these compounds do once inside. Potential risks associated with the additives absorbed this way include disruptions in energy homeostasis, circulatory and immune system disorders, and neurological dysfunction arising from additive interactions.[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018]

Flame retardants specifically carry documented endocrine concerns. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — flame retardants used in electronics, furniture foam, and various products — have been linked to disturbances in thyroid hormone levels and potential adverse effects on neurodevelopment.[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018] The release of substances like DEHP and brominated flame retardants from plastic materials can result in serious issues, including liver and nerve toxicity.[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018]

That combination — a real absorption route plus compounds with endocrine and neurodevelopmental relevance — is what makes the dermal pathway worth naming rather than dismissing.

A note on where these chemicals come from

Brominated flame retardants are one example of a broader category: chemicals that are physically bonded into plastics and related materials rather than being part of the polymer backbone. MPs and plastic products contain a range of such additives — plasticizers, stabilizers, UV filters, and flame retardants among them — and these can leach or migrate out of the material over time.[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018]

The practical implication is that additive exposure is diffuse. It isn’t limited to a single product or a single route. Ingestion and dermal contact both contribute, and the furniture-fabric finding shows that the surfaces around us, not only what we consume, deserve a place in the exposure conversation.

What this means for you

The honest takeaway is measured, not alarmist. Dermal contact with treated fabrics is a genuine exposure pathway for brominated flame retardants, and the amount absorbed scales with contact amount, time, and concentration.[Abdallah & Harrad, 2018] That gives you levers: reducing prolonged skin contact with heavily treated materials, and being aware that “not ingesting it” doesn’t mean “not exposed to it.”

It also reframes the plastics-and-additives discussion. If you only think about what you drink or eat, you’re accounting for part of the picture. The skin is a door too — one the evidence says these particular compounds can walk through.