Warning: this site contains 0% fragrance

The fragrance facts, graded

Every fact on this site, with its evidence grade, its caveats and a link to the source.

We start you on the strong ones: findings that have been replicated or come from one large, well-controlled study. Moderate and weak facts are here too, labeled for what they are. Use “Link to this fact” to share a single card.

Showing 820 of 820 facts

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In 34 California childcare centers, the chemicals at the highest levels in the air children breathed came from cleaning and personal-care products: a silicone ingredient called D5 (median 51 µg/m³) and the citrus-scent chemical limonene (median 33 µg/m³).

Strong evidence: Single-day samples; upper values capped by calibration (underestimates).

Source: Hoang 2016, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies

About half of children's cosmetics in a Danish registry (634 of 1,179, 53.8%) listed perfume or a named fragrance allergen, and a US survey of 533 baby/child personal care products found a closely similar share (255/533, 47.8%; Bonchak 2018); in Danish baby-care products the commonest named allergens were linalool, limonene and benzyl alcohol (the US primary does not report limonene or linalool by name).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Danish half is primary (Botvid 2023): baby-care products specifically were 38.0% (178/468), the least fragranced category — do not write 'half of baby products' for Denmark. 'Fragranced' there includes products naming only an allergen such as benzyl alcohol (often a preservative). US half is now also primary (Bonchak 2018): 47.8% (255/533) across wipes/diaper care/soap/moisturizer/shampoo/sunscreen — but Bonchak's fragrance count is a ~20-keyword composite that does not report limonene or linalool individually, so the 'top three' allergen list is confirmed only for Denmark. Label counts remain lower bounds.

Source: Sukakul 2024, Acta Dermato-Venereologica Industry-funded Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Pregnant women who had used perfume or cologne in the past day had 167% higher urine levels of MEP, the breakdown product of the fragrance solvent diethyl phthalate (DEP), than women who hadn't (177 women, Boston).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Exposure marker, not health outcome; independently replicated in two further US cohorts with overlapping confidence intervals: Parlett 2013 (2.92x, postpartum, SFF multi-site) and Just 2010 (2.3x, 95% CI 1.6-3.3, pregnant, NYC minority cohort, with a dose-response and a null personal-air DEP association pointing to a dermal exposure route).

Source: Braun 2014, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Synthetic musk fragrance chemicals were found in the breast milk of every one of 39 Massachusetts mothers tested in 2004; the most common, galaxolide (HHCB), was in 97% of them.

Strong evidence: One US state, 2004 samples, n=39; no product-use data; no health outcome.

Source: Reiner 2007, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Musk scent chemicals used in perfumes, deodorants and detergents turn up in mothers' milk fat; a breastfed baby takes in an estimated ~2 micrograms of galaxolide a day.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Intake is a model estimate from means of detects; the printed intakes do not reproduce from the stated method. Independently corroborated: Lignell 2008 (N=101, Swedish mothers, single lab) estimated median infant HHCB intake at 1650 ng/day (range 50-6950) using the same milk-intake modeling approach, closely matching this paper's printed 1830 ng/day figure in an unrelated country and cohort.

Source: Reiner 2007, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies

Indoor irritant limits are built on studies of healthy young adults; a 2024 toxicology review found only one controlled irritation study in children (none under age 5) and concluded no evidence-based safety factor for children could be set.

Strong evidence: Absence of data, not evidence of harm; the review lists reasons children could be more or less susceptible (e.g. more stable tear film).

Source: Kleinbeck & Wolkoff 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

16.5% of children and adolescents patch tested in 9 population studies had a contact allergy, and in Swedish 16-year-olds fragrance (2.1%) was the second most common allergen after nickel.

Strong evidence: Any allergen, not fragrance only; some adolescent studies read too early and underestimate.

Source: Alinaghi 2018, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies

Children exposed to household chemical/cleaning products before birth or in their first year wheeze more often, now replicated in three independent prospective birth cohorts. In the Canadian CHILD cohort (n=2,022), frequent use in early infancy was linked to higher odds of recurrent wheeze (adjusted OR 1.35) and asthma diagnosis (adjusted OR 1.37) by age 3, but not isolated skin-prick allergy (adjusted OR 1.14, ns) — though wheeze combined with allergy was itself raised (adjusted OR 1.49). In the Czech ELSPAC-CZ cohort (n=3,411), each 1-SD increase in an 18-product household chemical exposure score at 6 months raised the odds of intermediate-onset transient, intermediate-onset persistent and early-onset persistent wheeze phenotypes through age 5 (adjusted OR 1.23-1.36), and those persistent phenotypes carried 5-8x higher odds of doctor-diagnosed asthma at age 7 (pediatrician records, not self-report). In the pooled Spanish INMA cohorts (n=2,292), prenatal (third-trimester) use of cleaning sprays raised the odds of both wheezing (OR 1.37) and lower respiratory tract infection (OR 1.29) in the first year of life, with solvents raising wheezing odds (OR 1.30) and air fresheners raising LRTI odds (OR 1.29); bleach, ammonia and non-spray cleaners showed no association.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

All three cohorts are observational and use self-reported product-use frequency, not measured indoor air chemistry. The 'not atopy' finding remains single-cohort (CHILD only); ELSPAC-CZ's atopic-rash variable is a covariate, not an outcome, and Casas 2013 measured neither atopy nor a physician asthma diagnosis, only maternal-reported LRTI and any-wheezing through 12-18 months, so it neither confirms nor refutes the atopy finding. ELSPAC-CZ's asthma outcome is unusually strong methodologically (pediatrician-diagnosed at school age), but that link runs through the wheeze phenotype rather than directly from exposure to asthma. Casas 2013 is the only cohort with genuinely prenatal (rather than early-postnatal) exposure measurement, which strengthens the prenatal-timing evidence specifically, but its own summed cleaning-product-count score was NOT a significant predictor, unlike CHILD's and ELSPAC-CZ's composite scores — an open methodological tension that means 'more products used' is not yet a uniformly replicated exposure metric across all three cohorts, even though several specific products (sprays consistently, plus solvents and air fresheners) are.

Source: Salonen 2024, Environment International Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies

A 2018 US EPA systematic review found robust evidence that two common phthalates, DEHP and DBP, are linked to male reproductive harm (lower sperm quality; shorter anogenital distance in baby boys exposed before birth) at everyday exposure levels.

Strong evidence: Associations graded by protocol; DEHP/DBP are mainly plasticizers, not fragrance ingredients; no meta-analysis.

Source: Radke 2018 (US EPA), Environment International Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

A perfume ('eau de cologne') marketed for babies listed 16 different fragrance allergens, the most of 1,179 children's products in a Danish registry.

Strong evidence: A single product (the maximum), not typical; mean 0.4-1.8 named allergens per product by category; label presence, not dose.

Source: Botvid 2023, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a national Canadian birth cohort (n=2,022), infants in homes with more frequent use of household cleaning products at 3–4 months of age had higher odds of recurrent wheeze (adjusted OR 1.35 per interquartile increase in use) and of an asthma diagnosis (adjusted OR 1.37) by age 3, but no higher odds of isolated allergic sensitization (skin-prick positivity).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Observational; the authors explicitly state their results do not prove causation. Recurrent wheeze combined with atopy was itself significantly increased (adjusted OR 1.49), so isolated atopy — not allergic sensitization in general — is what showed no association.

Source: Parks et al. 2020, CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Even products marketed 'fragrance free' for children commonly contain contact allergens: of 52 US pediatric products so labeled in 2013, 42 (80.8%) contained at least one NACDG-tray allergen and 29 (55.8%) contained two or more.

Strong evidence: Label-based; allergens are not broken down by which ones appeared specifically in the 'fragrance free' subgroup beyond the count, and no concentration data exist.

Source: Hamann 2015, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In the US, everyday chemical products (paints, inks, glues, cleaners, personal care products and pesticides) now release about twice as much air-polluting vapor as cars and trucks: 7.6 vs 3.5 million tonnes in 2012.

Strong evidence: All chemical products, not fragrance specifically; coatings/inks/adhesives are 58%.

Source: McDonald 2018, Science Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Even in Perth, a city with very clean outdoor air, limonene and pinene (scent chemicals typical of citrus- and pine-scented cleaners and air fresheners) were found in 80-100% of homes when a sensitive test was used.

Strong evidence: Low concentrations (median ~1.5-2.4 µg/m³); sources not measured; 64 weekday-daytime visits.

Source: Maisey 2013, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Americans spend about 69% of their time at home and only 7.6% outdoors, so small indoor sources close to people matter far more than their share of total emissions suggests.

Strong evidence: NHAPS time-activity survey.

Source: Weisel 2002, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In EPA's large 1980s studies of US homes, limonene, the chemical behind lemon scents, was the airborne chemical with the highest average concentration in people's homes.

Strong evidence: 1980-87 TEAM data; no health risk estimated for limonene.

Source: Wallace 1991, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Government agency

The US Environmental Protection Agency lists air fresheners, cleaners, disinfectants, aerosol sprays and cosmetics among the household products that release volatile organic compounds, both during use and while stored.

Strong evidence.

Source: US EPA 2026 Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Scientists can identify which everyday products are polluting a city's outdoor air just by measuring a handful of specific chemical fingerprints: a silicone compound (D5-siloxane) for personal-care products and citrus/pine-scent chemicals (monoterpenes, mostly limonene) for fragranced products, confirmed by mobile-lab measurements across New York City, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Denver.

Strong evidence: Outdoor air only; four US cities, no LA data; tracer status is based on population-density correlation and inventory apportionment, not a direct source test.

Source: Gkatzelis 2021, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In blood tests of 100 healthy young adults in Vienna, the synthetic musk galaxolide was found in 91% of samples and musk xylene in 79%; only 7 of the 100 people had no synthetic musks in their blood at all.

Strong evidence: Cross-sectional, healthy university students in one city; no health outcome measured.

Source: Hutter 2009, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Two completely different ways of estimating pollution from chemical products, one based on direct air measurements and one based on how much of each product gets sold and used, agreed with each other to within about a quarter.

Strong evidence: Agreement within 25% for the bulk comparison and within 30% for more than half of individual compounds compared, in Boulder and NYC only.

Source: Gkatzelis 2021b, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Musk fragrance chemicals were found in the breast milk of all 101 Swedish first-time mothers tested; the musk chemical galaxolide (HHCB) was detected in every single sample across a seven-year span (1996-2003).

Strong evidence: One Swedish county, single lab/method, N=101; no infant health outcome measured.

Source: Lignell 2008, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

'Natural' is no protection: lavender oil's own components form skin allergens when exposed to air.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Primary is Hagvall 2008 (lab open-flask air exposure, 10-45 weeks): the oil oxidized at the same rate as a synthetic mix of its terpenes; 3.3% linalyl acetate-OOH + 0.48% Lin-OOH at 10 weeks; mouse LLNA EC3 36% fresh -> 4.4% at 45 weeks (weak -> moderate); 4/4 oxidized-linalool-allergic patients reacted to oxidized oil (elicitation only, no fresh-oil control). Real-bottle oxidation rates not measured. Lavender oil ~40% linalool (Klaschka 2016).

Source: Bråred Christensson 2016, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies

Fragrance allergens turn up in "fragrance-free" moisturizers and personal-care products across at least four independent surveys: Scheinman named ten US "fragrance-free" products with fragrance ingredients in 1999 (benzyl alcohol in 5 of 10), dermatologists named nine more major-brand examples containing benzyl alcohol in 2007 (including a baby lotion) — two of Scheinman's own named products (Cetaphil Moisturizing Cream, Moisturel Therapeutic Lotion) reappear on this list — a 2016 survey of best-selling US body moisturizers found 18 of 40 labeled "fragrance free" (45%) listed at least one ingredient dermatologists flag for fragrance-allergic patients, and a 2015 survey of 187 US pediatric personal-care products found that of the 52 labeled "fragrance free," 42 (80.8%) contained at least one contact allergen from the standard NACDG screening tray (55.8% had >=2).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Four independently compiled surveys (1999, 2007, 2016, 2015) across adult and pediatric products now agree that 'fragrance-free'-labeled products commonly contain contact allergens. Hamann 2015's screening tray is broader than fragrance chemicals alone (also preservatives, surfactants; preservatives were in fact its largest allergen category), so its 80.8% is not a pure fragrance-allergen count like Xu 2017's CAMP cross-reactor tally, but the direction and scale match. Still label-based, not chemical analysis; don't name current products without checking today's labels.

Source: Jacob & Barron 2007, Dermatitis Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies

In the US, "fragrance free", "unscented" and "free and clear" have no legal definition, so each company picks its own meaning; some "unscented" products contain a masking fragrance added to hide the product's smell.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Expert review; the legal-definition point is not itself quantified, but the practical consequence now is: Hamann 2015 found 42 of 52 (80.8%) US pediatric products labeled 'fragrance free' contained >=1 NACDG-tray contact allergen, converging with Xu 2017's 45% (18/40) for adult moisturizers (narrower CAMP cross-reactor definition). Two independent, systematically screened surveys across different age populations now confirm the practical failure of the 'fragrance free' label; masking fragrance specifically remains unmeasured (see Scheinman 1999 for the one documented case). Strong because the absence of a legal definition is a regulatory fact. Hamann's 80.8% counts any NACDG allergen (mostly preservatives), not fragrance; use Xu 2017's 45% for fragrance-related allergens.

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Industry source

Even the fragrance industry's safety institute said natural fragrance is not safer: "There is no link between the natural origin of fragrance materials and their safety."

Strong evidence: An opinion with no data in the chapter; it agrees with independent emission tests of 'green' products.

Source: Ford 1994 (RIFM) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Government agency

Health Canada's current guidance (accessed 2026-09-27) states that a cosmetic labeled 'unscented' or 'fragrance-free' may contain a masking agent added to hide other odors, confirming a 2010 secondhand quote of the same policy word for word.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Confirmed directly against Health Canada's current (2025-03-17/2026-04-24) guidance and its Cosmetic Regulations s.21.4(3) legal basis; no longer resting on a 2010 secondhand NGO quote alone. Does not measure how often masking actually occurs in Canadian products.

Source: David Suzuki Foundation 2010 Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

'Natural' oils get no special protection from air: in lab tests, lavender oil's main scent chemicals oxidized just as fast as a synthetic copy made only of those chemicals, and formed the same allergenic hydroperoxides.

Strong evidence: Lab chemistry, neat oil in open flasks over 10-45 weeks; one oil type (lavender), two batches.

Source: Hagvall 2008, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Government agency

FDA states that products labeled "unscented" may still contain fragrance ingredients, because a manufacturer may add just enough fragrance to mask the smell of other ingredients without giving the product a noticeable scent.

Strong evidence: FDA gives no formal regulatory definition of "unscented" or "fragrance-free" anywhere on the page; this is the only statement it makes about either term.

Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Government agency

In Canada, a cosmetic labeled 'unscented' or 'fragrance-free' can legally still contain a fragrance ingredient added specifically to mask another smell, declared only as 'parfum' or 'fragrance' on the ingredient list.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Health Canada's own current guidance (accessed 2026-09-27) and the Cosmetic Regulations s.21.4(3) legal basis; confirms and dates a 2010 secondhand quote of the same policy (David Suzuki Foundation 2010). It does not measure how often masking actually occurs in Canadian products; no Canadian product-testing study of this specific question is in our evidence base.

Source: Health Canada 2026 Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Other evidence

The National Eczema Association's Seal of Acceptance requires products to be fully fragrance-free — "there should be no discernable/strong scent or anything aromatic in nature in the final product" — with no stated exemption for masking fragrance, and NEA directly checks a physical product sample for absence of scent as part of the review.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

This describes NEA's written rule and process, not a chemical measurement of any Seal-holding product; a more detailed 'clinical testing requirements' PDF is referenced but was not captured on this page.

Source: NEA 2026 Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Other evidence

Seal of Acceptance products must also exclude a named 34-ingredient Ecz-clusion List (including cinnamic alcohol, cinnamic aldehyde, coumarin, eugenol, farnesol, geraniol, hydroxycitronellal, isoeugenol, oak moss absolute and several citrus extracts), chemical UV absorbers other than titanium/zinc/iron physical sunscreens, and formaldehyde releasers, in any amount.

Strong evidence: Ingredient-list exclusion, verified by NEA's own review, not independent chemical assay of finished products.

Source: NEA 2026 Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

Some older fragrance ingredients were neurotoxic: the nitromusk musk ambrette caused nerve damage in animal studies and was later withdrawn.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Primary now read directly: Spencer 1984 is a large (N=220), dose-ranging, dual-route (dietary+dermal), histopathologically confirmed (light+EM) study showing clear dose-response demyelination and distal axonal degeneration. Note: musk ambrette's actual withdrawal from skin-contact products was driven primarily by a separate photoallergy finding (Cronin 1984), not directly by this neurotoxicity data, which RIFM had already argued had an adequate safety margin (>600) via absorption data (Ford 1994). Doses producing consistent neurotoxic effects are 50-250x the industry's own estimated maximum human exposure.

Source: Curtis 2004 (citing Spencer 1984), Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Chamber studies of asthma exclude moderate and severe asthmatics by design, and the one study that directly compared severity bands found the excluded group had the largest airway response — so these studies likely underestimate how sensitive people with asthma really are.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Confirmed by a separate 103-study systematic review (Johansson 2016), whose own quality criteria excluded moderate/severe asthma in every included study; its one direct severity comparison (Linn et al. 1987, sulfur dioxide) found the moderate/severe group had the largest SRaw/FEV1 impairment, though not statistically significant in that small sample. Direction is now doubly confirmed (two independent reviews built on the same design flaw); magnitude of the underestimate is still not quantified.

Source: Kleinbeck & Wolkoff 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Chamber studies show irritant gases cause severe airway narrowing in people with asthma at concentrations at or below standard workplace exposure limits: asthmatics had severe bronchoconstriction to sulfur dioxide at about 0.4 ppm (1.1 mg/m3) after just 5-10 minutes of exercise, and to sulfuric acid at about 1 mg/m3.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Quantified by Johansson 2016 (103-study systematic review): asthmatics showed severe airway narrowing (SRaw >=200%, FEV1 drop >=20%) to sulfur dioxide at >=1.1 mg/m3 (~0.4 ppm) after 5-10 min exercise and moderate-severe responses to sulfuric acid around 1 mg/m3 (oronasal) or 0.35 mg/m3 (mouth-only); both sit at or below typical occupational exposure limits for these substances (e.g. ACGIH SO2 TWA ~2 ppm/STEL 5 ppm; background knowledge, verify against current ACGIH tables). This is now primary chamber data, not only a secondary citation of Baur 2012's occupational-asthma review. Still not specific to fragrance chemicals; these are combustion/industrial irritant gases. Strong for sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid only; no equivalent chamber data exist for fragrance chemicals, so do not transfer the grade to fragrance.

Source: Kleinbeck & Wolkoff 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

In the same EPA review, diethyl phthalate (DEP), the phthalate used in fragrance, had only 'slight' evidence of male reproductive effects, the weakest of six phthalates, even though people are exposed to it the most.

Strong evidence: Use to set the record straight, not to accuse fragrance; 'slight' is not 'none' (more high-confidence studies needed).

Source: Radke 2018 (US EPA), Environment International Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In the largest controlled test of its kind, 130 healthy young women breathing an indoor chemical mixture with and without ozone for 140 minutes showed no significant change in symptoms, lung function, attention or the stress hormone cortisol.

Strong evidence: Healthy women only; asthma and chemical sensitivity excluded; one 140-min exposure at 1.8 air changes/h; eye-blink rate not measured.

Source: Fiedler 2005, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

A systematic review of 103 controlled chamber studies found asthmatics develop severe airway narrowing to sulfur dioxide at concentrations around 1 mg/m3 (about 0.2-0.4 ppm) after just 5-10 minutes of exercise, while healthy people showed no response even at 15 mg/m3; individual dose-response modeling put asthmatics about 9 times more sensitive to sulfur dioxide than healthy people.

Strong evidence: Sulfur dioxide is a combustion/industrial gas, not a fragrance chemical; asthmatic subjects were mild cases only (severe asthma excluded by design).

Source: Johansson 2016, Critical Reviews in Toxicology Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Every controlled chamber study in a 103-study review of asthma and airborne chemicals excluded people with moderate or severe asthma by design; the one study that directly compared severity groups found the more severe group had the largest airway response, though not statistically significant in that small sample.

Strong evidence: Direction, not magnitude: the comparison (Linn et al. 1987) was underpowered and did not reach significance.

Source: Johansson 2016, Critical Reviews in Toxicology Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

Musk ambrette, once a widely used musk fixative in fragrances (over 100,000 lb/year in the US since the 1920s), caused nerve-fiber demyelination and degeneration in a large industry-funded rat study of 220 animals, with hindlimb weakness ranging from isolated cases at moderate doses to complete weakness at the highest dose tested.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Large (N=220), dose-ranging, dual-route (dietary+dermal) primary with clear dose-response and light+EM histopathology confirmation; doses producing consistent effects are 50-250x the industry's own estimated maximum human exposure.

Source: Spencer 1984, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

The cosmetics industry's own expert safety panel states plainly, in its own report, that no data exist — published or industry-submitted — on whether PTFE (Teflon) is absorbed through the skin or how the body distributes, metabolizes or excretes it.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Absence of data is not evidence of harm; the tested endpoints (acute toxicity, irritation, sensitization, genotoxicity) were negative at cosmetic use concentrations. This narrow claim is about dermal absorption/ADME only — it does not extend to endocrine or environmental effects, which this document does not address at all.

Source: CIR 2018 Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Most patients with scent- and chemical-triggered breathing symptoms in this study (8 of 12) were already taking asthma inhalers or steroid inhalers and said the drugs gave little or no relief, matching an independent Canadian clinic's finding that a similar scent-triggered condition does not respond to asthma medication.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Both this and the corroborating study (Hoy 2010) are single-clinic case series (n=12 and n=30); 'little relief' is patient-reported, not measured by a controlled inhaler-response trial.

Source: Millqvist 2000, Allergy Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

In lab tests of 213 US household and personal-care products, not one label listed a phthalate, yet the phthalate DEP, a common fragrance solvent, turned up in half of the pooled conventional product samples.

Strong evidence: Products bought 2007-08; composited samples; content not dose.

Source: Dodson 2012, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

None of the products used by the four affected children was ever chemically analyzed; the researchers could only assume that a product labeled as containing lavender oil actually met the international composition standard.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Stated by the authors as a limitation; an industry letter later claimed one named cologne contained diethyl phthalate and no lavender oil, which has also never been independently verified.

Source: Ramsey 2019, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

The industry's own safety panel wrote that a single fragrance can contain 50-300 ingredients, that formulas are 'carefully guarded', and that the industry 'is often perceived as rather less than forthcoming by consumers and their physicians'.

Strong evidence: Direct quotation from an industry-authored 2003 paper; 50-300 is a range, not a measured count.

Source: Bickers 2003 (RIFM Expert Panel), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Advocacy group testing

Ingredient labels cannot show what is inside 'parfum': a 2010 Canadian cosmetics survey had to leave out diethyl phthalate, a common fragrance solvent, because 'short of a laboratory analysis, there's no way to know'.

Strong evidence: Illustrative quote; for measured prevalence cite Dodson 2012 (DEP in 21/42 conventional composites, no label listed a phthalate).

Source: David Suzuki Foundation 2010 Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Government agency

US cosmetic labels can still say just "fragrance". The 2022 law requires companies to name fragrance allergens on the label, but only the ones the FDA lists in a regulation, which the law told the FDA to propose by June 2024.

Strong evidence: Statute §609(b); allergens, number and thresholds left to FDA; check whether the final rule is in force before saying labels carry them.

Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Government agency

Even the FDA can only ask what is in a cosmetic's fragrance after a serious adverse event it has reason to blame on the fragrance; the company may answer with "categories of ingredients", and the answer is exempt from public-records requests.

Strong evidence: Statute §605(f); 30-day deadline; records access separately excludes formulas (§610).

Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

About 1 in 10 (370 of 3,820) topical medicines in a Belgian survey were labeled as containing a fragrance ingredient, and there is no EU or Belgian legislation restricting fragrance in topical medicines.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Now sourced directly from the primary (Nardelli 2009), not second-hand via Pastor-Nieto 2021; exact figures confirmed (370/3,820 = 9.7%, rounds to the paper's stated 10%). This is a label survey (fragrance listed as an ingredient), not a reaction-rate or chemical-analysis figure; 127 of the clinic's 3,378 iatrogenic-ACD patients (3.8%) had a confirmed reaction to one of the fragranced products. Nardelli 2009's own abstract misprints the product-count denominator as 3,280 — use 3,820 from its Methods/body.

Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021 (Nardelli 2009), Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

Sanitary pads, panty liners and tampons can contain undisclosed fragrance allergens — chiefly alpha-isomethyl ionone (in every scented tampon tested), hexyl cinnamal and benzyl salicylate, plus trace limonene, linalool and geraniol — and in the EU they do not have to declare any of them.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Primary source (Desmedt 2020, validated HS-GC-MS/FID, 10 scented Belgian AHPs) now in our evidence base. The compounds actually found above the EU 10 ug/g labeling threshold were alpha-isomethyl ionone (all 4 tampons, 12.6-19.1 ug/g), hexyl cinnamal and benzyl salicylate (one panty liner); limonene, linalool and geraniol were all trace (<10 ug/g) — the original claim named the wrong allergens as the notable ones.

Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021 (Desmedt 2020), Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

Unlisted PFAS impurities (perfluorocarboxylic acids, including chain lengths that overlap PFOA) were found in nearly every PFAS-containing cosmetic tested in a 2024 study, and these unlisted impurities transferred into artificial sweat far more readily (43-76%) than the PFAS ingredient actually printed on the label (which showed negligible transfer).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Bioaccessibility (partitioning into artificial sweat) is a precursor to, not proof of, skin absorption; sebum was not included in the assay and may raise this further; small sample; no PTFE-containing products were tested.

Source: Namazkar 2024, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

In Belgium, about 1 in 10 topical (skin-applied) pharmaceutical products — wound-healing ointments, NSAID gels, antiseptics, antihemorrhoidals, even corticosteroid-antibiotic creams — listed a fragrance ingredient, sometimes disclosed only as the single word "Perfume".

Strong evidence: 370/3,820 products in a Belgian label survey (2009); a label/composition survey, not chemical analysis; historical product list, not a current market snapshot.

Source: Nardelli 2009, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

A single undisclosed "Perfume" in one antibiotic-corticosteroid cream (Mycolog/Triadcortyl) caused allergic reactions in 34 patients — more than any other product in a 30-year clinic series — and its 28-ingredient composition was only obtained by directly asking the manufacturer, not from the label.

Strong evidence: Single-clinic case series; one product's undisclosed formula, not a general claim about all perfume-labeled products.

Source: Nardelli 2009, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

Health Canada's own testing of 252 Canadian cosmetic and personal care products found the fragrance solvent DEP in 70% of fragrance products, at levels up to 2.6% by weight, yet every DEP-positive product was labeled only with the generic term "parfum" — never DEP or any phthalate.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

N=252 individually tested products, Canadian market, 2007-08; detection frequency is lower than two smaller earlier surveys (Hubinger & Havery 2006, EWG 2002) found for fragrances specifically.

Source: Koniecki 2011, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Indoor air / Review of other studies

A chemical released indoors is roughly 1,000 times more likely to be breathed in than the same amount released outdoors (exact when comparing the low end of each range; only ~100x at the high end, since the ranges overlap at 10⁻³), so cleaning products and air fresheners (about 1% of California's smog-forming emissions) may deliver an inhaled dose on the same scale as all outdoor sources combined.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Modeled population intake fractions (not measurements), population-average estimate. Traced to the primary source, Lai, Thatcher & Nazaroff 2000 (JAWMA 50:1688-1699), which derives outdoor PITF 10⁻⁶-10⁻³ vs indoor/in-vehicle PITF 10⁻³-10⁻¹ from Gaussian-plume and mass-balance modeling (Nazaroff co-author of both papers, so this is not independent replication). The ranges overlap at 10⁻³, so '1000x' is a floor-to-floor comparison, not a fixed multiplier under all conditions.

Source: Nazaroff & Weschler 2004, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Review of other studies

Scent chemicals such as limonene and pine oil react with ozone indoors to make new pollutants, including formaldehyde and fine particles, that keep forming for hours after cleaning ends.

Strong evidence: Size of the effect depends on dose and indoor ozone; confirmed by later chamber and field studies.

Source: Nazaroff & Weschler 2004, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Limonene was detected in every childcare room studied and was more than 1,000 times higher indoors than outdoors, so it came from products used inside.

Strong evidence: Outdoor detected in 1/20 sites.

Source: Hoang 2016, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Questionnaires about habits and routines correctly sorted only 20% of people by their measured exposure to cleaning and fragrance chemicals, vs 61% for traffic fumes; exposure depends on individual behavior and product choice.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

'Product choice' is the authors' explanation, not directly tested in this paper; independently corroborated by a larger, more direct 2021 UK study (Heeley-Hill 2021, 60 homes, daily diary-logged — not recalled — product-use frequency vs measured concentrations) that found cumulative product-use frequency has essentially no predictive power for measured indoor VOC concentrations (R²<0.001 for total VOC; no individual VOC significant).

Source: Edwards 2006, Atmospheric Environment Industry-funded Link to this fact

Indoor air / Review of other studies

Scent chemicals released by perfumes and scented products can react with ozone in indoor air to form new pollutants, including formaldehyde and fine particles.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Formation is well established (Fiedler 2005: 40 ppb O3 + a limonene/alpha-pinene-containing VOC mix -> HCHO 13 -> 40 µg/m³, UFP 2,500 -> 46,000 cm-3; Singer 2006; Rossignol 2013; Destaillats 2006 gives the underlying per-ozone yield). Amounts depend on dose and ozone; the harm at real indoor levels is not shown. A far more rigorous, independent toxicologist review (Wolkoff & Nielsen 2017) reaches the same qualitative chemistry conclusion via its own literature synthesis and adds a quantitative caution: in the two largest human tests to date (Fiedler 2005, n=130; Fadeyi 2015, n=71), the resulting reaction mixture caused no significant airway/eye effects, and its own threshold estimate is that >200 µg/m³ ozone at high limonene would be needed before sensory effects are expected. Cite primaries for numbers.

Source: Alblooshi 2025, Frontiers in Toxicology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Across decades of US monitoring where people carried personal air samplers, the air they breathed held more of almost every hazardous chemical than outdoor air did: exposure happens indoors, not at the outdoor monitoring station.

Strong evidence: Older studies include smokers' homes; compound-specific.

Source: Weisel 2002, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Air fresheners, deodorizers and moth crystals were identified as the household source of p-dichlorobenzene, which reached about 300 µg/m³ indoors while being nearly absent outdoors.

Strong evidence: P-DCB is a deodorizing active, not a fragrance ingredient.

Source: Weisel 2002, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Formaldehyde in New Jersey homes averaged about seven times the outdoor level (55 vs 13 parts per billion).

Strong evidence: Regional sample; building materials are a major source alongside products.

Source: Weisel 2002, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

For p-dichlorobenzene, an often unlabeled deodorizer in air fresheners and moth repellents, 97% of people's exposure came from sources inside the home, not outdoor air.

Strong evidence: Deodorizer/pesticide active, not a fragrance ingredient.

Source: Wallace 1991, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In week-long air measurements across 11 European cities, the scent chemicals limonene and alpha-pinene were the compounds most concentrated in homes compared with workplaces (about 4x), attributed to perfumes, cleaning and fragranced products.

Strong evidence: Source attribution by the authors, not measured per product.

Source: Geiss 2011, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Limonene was 13x higher indoors than outdoors in European offices and classrooms, one of the two highest indoor/outdoor ratios of 23 chemicals measured.

Strong evidence: Ratio of medians.

Source: Geiss 2011, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Most European homes had low limonene (median 9.5 ug/m3 over a week), but the heaviest-use homes reached weekly averages up to 493 ug/m3, the range used in lab studies of indoor ozone chemistry.

Strong evidence: Upper tail only; median home 20-60x below chamber levels.

Source: Geiss 2011, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a real test house, using a limonene-scented foam cleaner exactly as the label directed produced a burst of 45,000-150,000 tiny new particles per cubic centimeter within minutes, but only when ozone was in the air.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

One product, one house; particle number not mass. Independently replicated in a second real building (a working primary school; Morawska 2009), with a different detergent and country, at a similar order of magnitude (5.89-6.85×10^4 cm-3 in controlled tests) and the same water-only-no-burst, ozone-dependent pattern.

Source: Rossignol 2013, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Scent-type chemicals typical of fragranced and cleaning products (limonene, pinene, carene) were the signature of home air: close to zero outdoors but tens to hundreds of times higher inside homes.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Small original study (n=7); the indoor-source signature (not the specific product-category attribution) is now independently replicated by a much larger 2021 UK study with real paired outdoor sampling (Heeley-Hill 2021, 60 homes: limonene indoor:outdoor ~19x, alpha-pinene ~10x), though that larger study also found cumulative product-use frequency does not predict concentration (only insecticide/plug-in-air-freshener use showed weak covariance with limonene) — so the indoor-source signature is strong, the specific 'cleaning products' attribution stays inferential. Givaudan-funded (COI); analysis independent.

Source: Gokhale 2008, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

What you breathe after using a scented cleaner is not only what was in the bottle: the scent chemicals keep reacting in the air to make new compounds.

Strong evidence: Well-established chemistry; magnitude indoors depends on ozone levels.

Source: Chen & Hopke 2010, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Review of other studies

Scented cleaners react with ozone indoors and release bursts of tiny new particles; every study able to separate them found this.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Particle number, not mass; magnitude depends on instrument size cutoff and dose. Now confirmed across chamber, real test-house, real-office and real-classroom settings (Rossignol 2013, Rosales 2022, Wu 2024, Morawska 2009).

Source: Salonen 2024, Environment International Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a controlled chamber, the people themselves were the main thing reacting with indoor ozone: four seated adults removed about 60–65% of it, in two separate campaigns with men and with women, and their skin oils turned it into carbonyls such as 4-oxopentanal and 6-MHO. The same DTU chamber's protocol paper independently reproduced the ~60–69% removal in three more groups — teenagers and seniors as well as adults — across 26 experiments, and showed the sink is dermal (a breath-only control lost almost no ozone).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Same DTU 22.5 m³ chamber and fan setup in all campaigns (Wang 2024: 4 men, ~37 ppb; Zannoni 2021: 2 groups of 2 women + 2 men, ~35 ppb; Bekö 2020: 5 groups — 3 adult, teenagers, seniors — same chamber/fans, ~35 ppb); mixing fans put deposition velocities at the top of the literature range, and a furnished home also loses ozone to surfaces, so the occupant share there will be lower. Chemistry only, no health endpoint; ICHEAR 6-MHO values may be inflated by an inlet artifact.

Source: Wang 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Four people in a clean, well-ventilated test room removed about two-thirds of the ozone coming in, confirmed in a second campaign that included women as well as men.

Strong evidence: Same DTU chamber as Wang 2024; ~65% is evidence base arithmetic from a ~100 ppb target inlet; furnished homes also lose ozone to surfaces.

Source: Zannoni 2021, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

When scent chemicals from a pine-oil cleaner, an orange-oil degreaser and a plug-in air freshener met ozone in a lab chamber, about one formaldehyde molecule formed for every 3-5 ozone molecules they used up (yields of 20-30% in most tests).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Same three products as Singer 2006, same research group/CARB contract, not independent replication; the highest single value (90%) occurred at air-freshener vapor loads 30-45x a real room's plug-in levels.

Source: Destaillats 2006, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

The moment ozone was added to pine-oil, citrus and air-freshener scent vapors in a lab chamber, a burst of new ultrafine particles formed immediately and grew within minutes into fine particles, reaching hundreds of micrograms per cubic meter.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Bench chamber at cleaning-pulse-scale vapor loads; ultrafine particles were only 1-4% of the mass at steady state, not the 4-16% the paper itself mislabels as an 'ultrafine' yield (that figure is total particle mass, all sizes).

Source: Destaillats 2006, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a controlled test room, people removed roughly 60–69% of the indoor ozone in every one of five very different groups tested — teenagers, young adults and people in their 70s alike — showing this is a general property of occupied rooms with ozone present, not a quirk of one age group.

Strong evidence: Chamber study (22.5 m³, DTU, mixing fans push ozone deposition to the top of the literature range), fragrance-free hygiene products only, no health outcome measured.

Source: Bekö 2020, Indoor Air Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

The lab tests that replaced animal testing for setting cosmetic and fragrance allergy safety limits explain only about 62% of how strongly a chemical causes allergy.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Regression R2 against mouse LLNA, not human outcomes; industry-authored. Natsch 2023 (same author) retrains against human-anchored data: the 62% figure survives on a blended human+LLNA composite (63.4%, n=139), but against strictly human data (n=62) accuracy drops to 32-45%, and even the LLNA itself only reaches 43% predicting human potency — so '62%' should not be read as human-relevant accuracy. Api, Basketter & Lalko 2014 (RIFM's own earlier LLNA-vs-human validation, 57 fragrance chemicals) independently corroborates, by a different metric (categorical concordance, not R2) and seven years earlier, that the LLNA itself is an imperfect human proxy: 76% agreement within half an order of magnitude, but up to ~790-fold mispredicted for salicylates and ~26-42-fold for trans-2-hexenal/methyl-2-nonanoate. Roberts & Api 2018 (same fragrance dataset, direct LLNA-vs-human regression) reports a much higher R2=0.784, but only for a 35-chemical subset that already excludes those 14 known outliers a priori — demonstrating that domain-restricted R2 figures like this one can substantially overstate accuracy on unselected chemistry, a caution that applies to curated NAM training/case-study sets generally, not only to this specific figure.

Source: Natsch & Gerberick 2022, ALTEX Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Accuracy has not improved: a 2015 model predicted allergy potency about as well as the 2022 one.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Confirmed by reading the 2015 primary directly, not just inferred from one comparison line in the 2022 paper: Natsch 2015 Equation 7 gives R²(adj)=62.3% (Results, not the abstract's rounded 60%), matching 2022's 62% and 2023's 59-65%.

Source: Natsch & Gerberick 2022, ALTEX Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The cosmetics industry's own safety panel judged PGME 'safe' only for nail products and calculated only skin absorption; it did not estimate how much users or nail-salon workers breathe in, and relied on the smell to limit inhalation.

Strong evidence: Verdict probably right for occasional home users; the weakness is in the reasoning, not a demonstrated harm.

Source: CIR 2008, International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review is funded by the cosmetics industry trade association, and the use data, exposure survey and safety-margin calculation behind its 2008 PGME verdict were unpublished industry submissions.

Strong evidence: Much of the underlying toxicology is peer-reviewed; industry funding does not by itself make the conclusion wrong.

Source: CIR 2008, International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The fragrance industry's own standard caps this one ingredient at 0.003% in lip products and 0.02-0.05% in typical leave-on skin products – about 30 parts per million in the strictest category.

Strong evidence: IFRA Standards are voluntary; the limits apply to rose ketones individually or in combination.

Source: Lalko 2007 (RIFM), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

For this fragrance ingredient there was no data at all on absorption, repeat-dose toxicity, developmental effects, genetic damage or cancer – the whole safety file is skin testing, and 8 of its 11 studies are unpublished company reports that outsiders cannot check.

Strong evidence: As of the 2006 literature search; later RIFM re-evaluations may have added data.

Source: Lalko 2007 (RIFM), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

Much of the evidence behind the fragrance industry's 'safe as used' verdict on salicylates is unpublished: about 65 of the cited studies are internal RIFM reports, several submitted by fragrance companies, and no modern cancer bioassay exists for any of the 17 chemicals.

Strong evidence: Counted from the paper's reference list; 'no modern bioassay' means untested, not shown to be carcinogenic.

Source: RIFM Expert Panel / Belsito 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Self-reported survey

The study most often cited to call lavender and tea tree oils 'safe' for children was part-funded by the Australian Tea Tree Industry Association, the Tisserand Institute and an aromatherapy association, while declaring no conflicts of interest.

Strong evidence: Funding is documented in the paper itself; funders are stated to have had no role. The paper's weakness is its power and design, not only its funding.

Source: Hawkins 2021, International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

The two molecules that give lavender oil its scent, linalool and linalyl acetate, were put through the full regulatory endocrine test battery (OECD guideline cell assays plus rat uterotrophic, Hershberger and one-generation reproductive studies) and came back negative on estrogen and androgen endpoints — in a study written, run and entirely funded by BASF, the company that manufactures both chemicals, with all five authors BASF employees.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Guideline designs with working positive controls, so the negative is real; the conflict of interest is disclosed in the paper and should be stated whenever the result is cited. Scope: two constituents, not lavender or tea tree oil.

Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

Nothing in the industry's endocrine testing program covers tea tree oil, whose main constituent, terpinen-4-ol, was never tested.

Strong evidence: A statement about the study's scope, not about tea tree oil's safety either way.

Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The fragrance industry's safety system is self-run: by its own 2003 description, companies fund the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials through dues, its expert panel reviews ingredient safety, and conclusions go to the industry's trade body IFRA, which sets voluntary standards for those same companies. No regulator appears in the loop.

Strong evidence: Industry's own description (2003); panel members are required to be independent of the industry; later governance changes not covered.

Source: Bickers 2003 (RIFM Expert Panel), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

By the industry's own figures, about 60% of fragrance goes into soaps, fabric softeners, cleaners and detergents, yet its 2003 method for estimating people's exposure counted only 10 personal-care products applied to skin, and breathing fragrance in was not part of the calculation.

Strong evidence: Describes the 2003 process; later RIFM aggregate-exposure work may differ. Shows the route was not assessed, not that it causes harm.

Source: Bickers 2003 (RIFM Expert Panel), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Other evidence

By 1994 the fragrance industry itself had banned or restricted 82 fragrance materials, most because they cause skin allergy and a dozen because they cause skin reactions in sunlight.

Strong evidence: Counts restrictions, not harm rates; limits not printed.

Source: Ford 1994 (RIFM) Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Government agency

In 2000 the EU's scientific advisers recommended banning 36 fragrance materials from cosmetics, and the list they endorsed was the fragrance industry's own list of materials it had already prohibited (IFRA); the committee added no testing of its own and deferred all industry restrictions to later.

Strong evidence: Describes the 2000 procedure; later EU opinions (SCCS 2012) did independent hazard classification.

Source: SCCNFP 2000 Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

A trade consortium of 11 French essential-oil companies funded and employed the authors of the journal letter disputing the lavender breast-growth case reports; together with the tea tree oil trade association's letter, the published rebuttals to those case reports came from industry.

Strong evidence: Documents who argued what (disclosed in the letter); says nothing about whether the oils cause breast growth.

Source: Giroux & Orjubin 2020 (JCEM letter; Consortium Huiles Essentielles), The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

In 1997 the cosmetics industry's own safety panel (CIR) formally asked for inhalation-toxicity data on benzyl alcohol, benzoic acid and sodium benzoate, received none, and still published a 2001 "safe" conclusion that explicitly excludes any product where inhalation is a route of exposure (colognes, hairsprays, deodorants, aerosol fixatives).

Strong evidence: The gap is documented in the report's own text (Notice of Insufficient Data, no comments received); no later CIR report closing it was found in this pass.

Source: Nair 2001 (CIR Expert Panel), International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

The lab tests that replaced animal testing for fragrance and cosmetic allergy limits have been stuck at explaining about 62% of allergy potency since 2015 — the 2015 model and the 2022 model perform the same.

Strong evidence: Regression R2(adj) against mouse LLNA potency, not human outcomes; industry-funded (Givaudan).

Source: Natsch 2015, Toxicological Sciences Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

The independent dermatologists who ran this study concluded deodorants should contain cinnamal at less than 0.01% to protect people already sensitized, a stricter limit than the fragrance industry's later 0.05% IFRA standard.

Strong evidence: Authors' own recommendation, not a regulatory outcome; the 0.05% IFRA cap was set afterward using the induction NOEL, not this elicitation data.

Source: Bruze et al. 2003, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The fragrance industry's own risk-assessment methodology (QRA1, then QRA2) has set enforceable safety limits for fragrance materials since 2008, but by its own authors' admission has never been tested against real-world clinical outcomes.

Strong evidence: Industry-authored methodology paper; the paper itself calls for the longitudinal clinical studies that would settle this, and states they have not been done.

Source: Api 2020 (RIFM/IFRA), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The industry's fragrance safety-limit system (QRA/IFRA Standards) is explicitly designed to prevent new fragrance allergies from developing, not to protect people who are already allergic from reacting to a compliant product.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Confirmed as the framework's own stated design intent (Section 2.2), not inferred from a single ingredient's numbers; does not itself test whether existing limits provoke reactions in sensitized people.

Source: Api 2020 (RIFM/IFRA), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Government agency

A population study widely treated in dermatology literature as independent, EU-style evidence that confirmed dermatologists' fragrance-allergy estimates over the industry's own claims was itself funded by the fragrance industry's own research body, the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM) — a funding fact omitted by every earlier secondhand citation of this study.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

The industry-funded study still confirmed the higher, consumer-relevant estimate (1.9% clinically relevant, up from a disputed 'up to 2%') over industry's own 2000 'far lower' claim — the funding did not appear to weaken the result in this case.

Source: Diepgen 2015 (EDEN), British Journal of Dermatology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Government agency

The EU guidance that defines what 'free from' and 'hypoallergenic' cosmetic claims are allowed to mean was jointly agreed by the European Commission, all EU/EFTA member states, the main EU cosmetics trade body (Cosmetics Europe) and the fragrance industry's own trade association (IFRA).

Strong evidence: Stated on the document's own cover page (footnote 1); this describes who wrote the guidance, not an independent audit of its content.

Source: EC Technical Document on Cosmetic Claims 2017 Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

As of 2008, no US federal law required companies to list all the chemicals in a consumer product or in its fragrance; air fresheners and laundry products did not even have to say they contained fragrance.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

US law as of 2008; MoCRA (2022) later required FDA-designated fragrance-allergen labeling for cosmetics only (rule pending at enactment); household products still uncovered for cosmetics.

Source: Steinemann 2009, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

When US EPA scientists built a database of chemicals in 8,921 consumer products from their safety data sheets, they could not record fragrance ingredients at all: more than 3,060 fragrance materials can legally be listed as 'trade secret' with no name, so those entries had to be thrown out.

Strong evidence: Document analysis of one US retailer's MSDSs (2012).

Source: Goldsmith 2014, Food and Chemical Toxicology Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

Product safety data sheets are written for workers, not shoppers, and only have to list hazardous ingredients present above 1% (0.1% for cancer-causing ones), a level most individual fragrance chemicals fall below.

Strong evidence: 'Most fragrance chemicals below 1%' is general formulation knowledge, not measured in this paper.

Source: Goldsmith 2014, Food and Chemical Toxicology Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

A 2023 EU rule expands the list of fragrance allergens that must be named on cosmetic labels from 26 to about 80 entries (56 substances plus related forms), phasing in from 2026 to 2028, above set concentration limits.

Strong evidence: Only above threshold concentrations; cosmetics only.

Source: Sukakul 2024, Acta Dermato-Venereologica Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

Since the 2022 MoCRA law, most cosmetic makers must list their products with the FDA; in its December 2025 report the FDA found PFAS ("forever chemicals") intentionally added to about 0.4% of listed US cosmetics (1,744 of 430,134), mostly eye and face makeup, and had too little data to judge the safety of 19 of the 25 most-used PFAS.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Manufacturer listings, not product testing; small businesses and drug-cosmetics do not list; corrected 2026-09-26 from 0.03%/no fragrances (EU KEMI figures). Independently corroborated 2026-09-27: Balan et al. 2024 (10.1021/acs.est.3c06539, California DTSC) estimated PFAS-containing-product prevalence from a different, non-federal dataset (Mintel Global New Product Database + EWG Skin Deep, ~65,000+ formulations) and found prevalence under 3% in every one of 16 product subcategories studied (range 0.00-2.68%), consistent with FDA's 0.41% aggregate figure. Both remain database/listing-based estimates, not chemical measurements, and the two studies measure slightly different things (an economy-wide aggregate vs. per-subcategory prevalence in 16 categories), so this is convergence of two independent large datasets rather than a replication of the identical statistic.

Source: FDA 2025, FDA report published under MoCRA §3506(b) (FDA website) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

In the US, "fragrance" can be listed as a single word because the mixture is protected as a trade secret, so the individual chemicals are rarely named on the label.

Strong evidence.

Source: Pinkas 2017, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

There are no federally enforceable US standards for volatile organic compounds in homes, schools or other non-industrial indoor settings.

Strong evidence.

Source: US EPA 2026 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

Linalool and linalyl acetate are registered in the EU at over 1,000 tonnes a year each for fragrance use in home-care and air-care products; the study states its purpose as adding to the dataset for future hazard-classification decisions as the EU adds endocrine disruption to its classification rules.

Strong evidence: Registration tonnage and regulatory context as stated by the paper; dossier-building and scientific inquiry are not separable here.

Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

The US Microbead-Free Waters Act (2015) bans plastic microbeads only in rinse-off cosmetics, not in makeup that stays on the skin.

Strong evidence: Statement of US law as summarized in the review.

Source: Han & Kim 2025, Cosmetics Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Industry source

In 1994 a scientist at the fragrance industry's own research institute wrote that no country required fragrance ingredients to be approved, safety-tested for consumer use, or listed on product labels, and called this "of great benefit to the industry".

Strong evidence: Describes 1994; EU labeling of 26 (now more) allergens and US MoCRA came later.

Source: Ford 1994 (RIFM) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

In 2000, EU cosmetics could declare an entire fragrance as the single word 'parfum'; the EU committee noted dermatologists' estimate that up to 2% of people have perfume allergy, against industry's claim that the true figure was 'far lower'. The EDEN population-based patch-test study (Diepgen 2015; n=3,119 patch-tested across 5 European countries) directly confirmed the dermatologists' estimate: 1.9% (95% CI 1.5-2.5) clinically relevant fragrance contact allergy, and 1.8-2.6% for fragrance mix I alone.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

EDEN is the largest general-population patch-test study of fragrance allergy to date and a large, well-controlled multi-country primary (not a single-lab or single-cohort study), which is why this moves to strong. Note EDEN was itself funded by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), the fragrance industry's own body — the industry-funded study still confirmed the higher, consumer-relevant estimate over the industry's own 'far lower' claim.

Source: SCCNFP 2000 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

Since the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, cosmetic companies must send the FDA any report they receive of a serious reaction to their product, including serious and persistent rashes, within 15 business days, and the FDA can now order a recall.

Strong evidence: Statute text (FFDCA §§604-605, 611); 'serious' threshold excludes most transient reactions; enforcement from 2023-12-29.

Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

US cosmetics still need no FDA approval before sale: the company itself must keep records showing the product is safe, and the law says "minor and transient reactions" do not make a product unsafe.

Strong evidence: Statute §608; substantiation judged by 'qualified experts', no required tests, no inhalation requirement.

Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

The 2022 US cosmetics law does not cover air fresheners, cleaning products or laundry products at all.

Strong evidence: MoCRA amends the FFDCA cosmetics chapter only; household products fall under CPSC/EPA law.

Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

Until 2023 EU labels only had to name 26 fragrance allergens (above 10 ppm in leave-on and 100 ppm in rinse-off products); every other fragrance ingredient could be hidden under 'parfum'.

Strong evidence: EU Regulation 2023/1545 expanded the list; say 'until 2023' or name the new list.

Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021, Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

In the EU, chemical mixtures containing a skin sensitizer must carry the warning 'May produce an allergic reaction' (EUH208), but cosmetics are exempt from that warning and from CLP hazard symbols.

Strong evidence: Legal analysis as of 2016 (CLP Art. 1(5), Annex II 2.8); cosmetics do have to name listed allergens in the ingredient list.

Source: Klaschka 2016, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

In the EU, tampons and pads are not cosmetics: as of 2020 only general product-safety law applied, so manufacturers could add fragrance allergens without restriction or labeling, signaling scent only with words like "fresh".

Strong evidence: Legal status as of 2020 (GPSD 2001/95/EC, since replaced by GPSR 2023/988); no product-level exposure data.

Source: Desmedt 2020, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

The US FDA has no directive at all regulating the use of the word 'hypoallergenic' on a cosmetic product, and in a 2015 survey the products so labeled had the highest contact-allergen rate (88.2%) of any of four marketing terms tested (hypoallergenic, dermatologist recommended, fragrance free, paraben free).

Strong evidence: The regulatory point (no FDA directive) is a stated fact, not itself a measured statistic; the 88.2% figure is from a single-region convenience sample of 135 products.

Source: Hamann 2015, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

No EU or Belgian law requires fragrance ingredients in topical medicines to be named on the label, or restricts which fragrance chemicals they may contain — unlike cosmetics, where the EU has required disclosure of major fragrance allergens since 2005.

Strong evidence: Regulatory statement as described in a 2009 paper; check current EU medicines regulation for any changes since.

Source: Nardelli 2009, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

A systematic comparison of occupational exposure limits from 18 countries and agencies found that only 25 of 1,341 chemicals studied have a limit set by every agency, and more than a third of the chemicals are regulated by only one of the 18.

Strong evidence: Workplace limits only, not consumer or indoor-air limits. A single (if large and systematic) comparative study; the paper does not analyze why the differences exist.

Source: Schenk et al. 2008, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

In the EU and UK, any cosmetic claim – including 'fragrance-free,' 'unscented,' 'free from X' or 'hypoallergenic' – is legally required to meet six common criteria (legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness and informed decision-making) and must be backed by evidence the company holds on file, under a binding, directly applicable EU regulation in force since 2013.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

The regulation sets these six generic criteria but does not itself specify what evidence threshold applies to any particular claim wording; that level of detail sits in separate, unacquired Commission and industry guidance.

Source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

The EU regulation that governs cosmetic claims deliberately declines to define the terms 'free from,' 'hypoallergenic,' 'fragrance-free,' or 'unscented' – it states outright that the common criteria are not meant to define or specify permitted or forbidden claim wording, leaving that to case-by-case enforcement and separate guidance.

Strong evidence: Read from the regulation's own Recital 7 and confirmed by the absence of any of these terms anywhere in its text.

Source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

Under US regulations, fragrance and flavor ingredients in a cosmetic can be listed simply as "Fragrance" or "Flavor" on the label, because the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act cannot be used to force a company to disclose trade secrets, and fragrance/flavor formulas are the cosmetic components FDA itself identifies as most likely to qualify.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

This is the legal rule itself, quoted from FDA's own page (captured 2026-09-27); it says nothing about how many or which chemicals this hides in practice (see Steinemann/Dodson/Goldsmith measurements for that).

Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

FDA names laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dryer sheets, and room and carpet fresheners as fragranced products that fall under the Consumer Product Safety Commission rather than FDA cosmetics regulation.

Strong evidence: Statement of jurisdiction only; says nothing about what CPSC does or does not require of these products.

Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

Starting April 12, 2026, Canadian cosmetics must individually name 24 specific fragrance allergens (expanding to 81 by August 2026 for new products and August 2028 for existing products) when present above 0.001% in leave-on products or 0.01% in rinse-off products — a named, dated, threshold-based mandate the parallel US MoCRA fragrance-allergen provision (FFDCA section 609(b)) still lacks.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

The allergen list and thresholds are incorporated by reference from the EU's Annex III list, so Canada's implementation tracks the EU rather than being independently derived; it covers only named allergens, not the rest of any fragrance mixture. The MoCRA comparison is based on the statute's own text (no confirmed final rule as of this evidence base's last check) and FDA's own current consumer page, which as of the same 2026-09-27 capture date states FDA lacks cosmetic allergen-labeling authority and does not mention MoCRA at all.

Source: Health Canada 2026 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

Canada requires cosmetic fragrance ingredients to be declared as 'parfum' (the word 'fragrance' alone is not acceptable), but does not require disclosure of the fragrance mixture's non-allergen constituents.

Strong evidence: A labeling-word requirement, not a composition disclosure requirement; a full fragrance ingredient list is legally optional, not mandatory, in Canada.

Source: Health Canada 2026 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

NEA enters into a paid, annually renewed license agreement with a brand/manufacturer to allow use of the Seal logo once a product is accepted; renewal depends on the manufacturer's own attestation that the formula has not changed, and any formula change requires restarting the application with new clinical testing.

Strong evidence: No fee amount is disclosed on this page; ongoing compliance between renewals relies on manufacturer self-report, not NEA-initiated re-testing.

Source: NEA 2026 Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In 658 Danish/Swedish patients with hand eczema, 67 (10.2%) reacted to fragrance chemicals commonly found in household products, and the standard fragrance-mix patch test alone would have missed more than half of these reactions.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Clinic-referred hand-eczema population, not the general public. Confirmed directly against the full primary (Heydorn et al. 2003, Contact Dermatitis 48:317-323), not just its PubMed abstract or Kumar 2020's secondary table.

Source: Kumar 2020 (Heydorn 2003), Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

The fragrance chemicals most often found in household products were mostly not in the standard fragrance-allergy patch test used at the time: 6 of its 8 chemicals were in 12% of products or fewer.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Frequency in products is not the same as clinical sensitization rate; FM II and hydroperoxide testing later added. Clinically confirmed in Heydorn et al. 2003 (n=658 hand-eczema patients, 3 centers): only 3 of the 14 chemicals selected from this paper's household-product survey were FM I constituents, and FM I caught only 45.5% of the fragrance-allergic patients (5.6% of all patients tested missed). The exposure-frequency leader, limonene (78% of products), caused only 0.8-0.9% oxidized-limonene reactivity clinically — product frequency of a chemical still does not predict its clinical allergy rate.

Source: Rastogi 2001, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Common scent chemicals such as linalool hardly cause allergy when fresh, but once exposed to air they form new chemicals that do: in 1,511 dermatitis patients at six European clinics, 1.3% were allergic to air-oxidized linalool (later studies with a stronger test found about 7%).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Dermatitis patients, not general population; 2005 test concentration (2.0% pet.) was later shown too low. Clinical relevance no longer just inferred: Andersch Björkman 2014 (ROAT) shows patients identified this way go on to develop dermatitis from twice-daily use of a cream/perfume containing oxidized linalool at concentrations as low as 0.3% (0.056% linalool hydroperoxides, ~27 µg/cm²) — inside the 0.1–2% range measured for individual fragrance ingredients in real products.

Source: Matura 2005, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Animal study

Common fragrance chemicals such as limonene (citrus) and linalool (lavender) react with air to form far stronger skin allergens; in mouse tests, oxidized limonene was about 10 times more potent than fresh limonene.

Strong evidence: Mouse LLNA potency; review of replicated data.

Source: Karlberg 2013, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In European skin clinics, 2.8-5.2% of patients tested for dermatitis reacted to oxidized limonene.

Strong evidence: Consecutive dermatitis patients, not general population.

Source: Karlberg 2013, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

About 1 in 22 European adults (4.5%) tested positive to at least one of six fragrance-related patch-test markers (2008-2011); single fragrance markers pick up 1-3%, and up to 16% of patients referred for patch testing react.

Strong evidence: The 4.5% is a six-marker union including non-fragrance markers (colophonium, sesquiterpene lactones), with no clinical-relevance criterion.

Source: Sukakul 2024, Acta Dermato-Venereologica Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In patch tests of 2,900 dermatitis patients in six countries, 5.2% were allergic to oxidized limonene and 6.9% to oxidized linalool, two of the most common fragrance chemicals.

Strong evidence: Clinic population, not general public.

Source: Bråred Christensson 2016, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Fresh limonene and linalool rarely cause allergy (0.1-0.3% of patients); the allergens form when these chemicals react with air, which also happens in essential oils and perfumes during storage.

Strong evidence: Parent-compound rates cited from IVDK/Danish data.

Source: Bråred Christensson 2016, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In 2,900 dermatitis patients tested at nine clinics in Europe, Asia and Australia, 6.9% were allergic to air-oxidized linalool, the form a common floral scent chemical found in most perfumes, cosmetics and many cleaners takes after contact with air.

Strong evidence: Dermatitis patients, not general population; 72% weak reactions; range 3-14% by clinic.

Source: Christensson 2012, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

60.5% of patients allergic to oxidized linalool would never have learned they had a fragrance allergy from the standard fragrance patch tests.

Strong evidence: Dermatitis patients.

Source: Christensson 2012, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

80% of patients allergic to oxidized linalool whose products were checked were using fragranced products, mainly shampoos, soaps and creams.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Linalool confirmed in their products in 38%; clinical relevance established in 41%. Andersch Björkman 2014 (ROAT), drawn from this same 2,900-patient cohort's Gothenburg patients, causally confirms the exposure-effect link: repeated open application of oxidized-linalool-containing cream/perfume at real-product concentrations (down to 0.3%) reproduced dermatitis, and participants who had already avoided linalool-containing products mostly reported improvement.

Source: Christensson 2012, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

Limonene and linalool become skin allergens when they react with air: in European dermatitis clinics, 3.9-20% of patients tested reacted to oxidized linalool and 1.4-13.7% to oxidized limonene, against under 1% for the fresh chemicals.

Strong evidence: Clinic patients referred for patch testing, not general population.

Source: Ogueta 2022, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

Standard allergy tests with fresh limonene and linalool miss most of these allergies, so European experts now recommend adding the oxidized forms to routine patch testing.

Strong evidence.

Source: Ogueta 2022, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Among 5,773 people tested for eczema at a Swedish hospital, 9.4% were allergic to the air-oxidized forms of two of the most widely used scent chemicals: linalool (7.0%) and limonene (5.1%).

Strong evidence: Clinic population referred for suspected contact allergy; single center.

Source: Sukakul 2022, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

Scent chemicals such as limonene and linalool rarely cause skin allergy when fresh, but once exposed to air they turn into much stronger allergens; the older the product, the more of them it contains.

Strong evidence: Review of experimental and clinical work; no new data.

Source: Karlberg & Lepoittevin 2021, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Even the fragrance industry's own safety institute classes the cinnamon-scent chemicals cinnamal and cinnamyl alcohol as human skin sensitizers: in its volunteer tests, 29 of 451 people became allergic to cinnamal at 1% or more.

Strong evidence: Industry-run HRIPT/maximization panels, mostly unpublished RIFM reports; 0/≈200 sensitized at ≤0.5%.

Source: RIFM Expert Panel 2005, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In people already allergic to cinnamal, a deodorant with just 0.01% of it triggered a reaction in 1 of 9, and 0.032% in 4 of 9; the industry limit is 0.05%, and it was set to prevent new allergies, not reactions in people already sensitized.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Confirmed by the primary source, now in our evidence base: Bruze et al. 2003, an independent (non-industry, no COI declared), double-blind provocation study with a 20-patient non-allergic control group (0/20 reacted) and P<.001 statistics tying the reaction to both cinnamal-sensitization and the actively-scented axilla. The study's own authors recommend a deodorant limit below 0.01%, stricter than the 0.05% IFRA cap.

Source: RIFM Expert Panel 2005 (citing Bruze 2003), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

The fragrance industry's own safety review of the rose ketone cis-beta-damascone records that 10 of 50 human volunteers became sensitized when it was patch tested at 5%, and that the test had to be stopped early because of the number of skin reactions.

Strong evidence: 5% is roughly 100x a fine-fragrance use level (max reported 0.02%); at 0.05% two panels gave 0/53 and 0/28.

Source: Lalko 2007 (RIFM), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Rose ketones are a real but uncommon allergen: 0.5% of 1606 consecutive European patch-test patients reacted to a 0.2% damascone mixture, and none of 202 Japanese dermatitis patients reacted at 2%.

Strong evidence: Clinic populations, elicitation prevalence not induction risk; original data are Frosch 2002 and Kozuka 1996, reported via the RIFM review.

Source: Lalko 2007 (RIFM), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

About 1 in 5 people in the general population (20.1% of 20,107 people patch tested in 28 studies) are allergic to at least one common chemical that touches the skin, such as nickel, fragrance, preservatives or hair dye.

Strong evidence: Meta-analysis, very high heterogeneity (I2 97%); mostly nickel; publication bias detected.

Source: Alinaghi 2018, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

After nickel, the standard fragrance allergy test (Fragrance Mix I) was the most common positive in the general population: about 3.5% reacted, across 19 studies and 19,440 people.

Strong evidence: Pooled 1966-2017 (CI 2.1-5.4%); the largest modern study found 1.8-2.6% for the same test.

Source: Alinaghi 2018, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

The standard fragrance patch test covers only 8 of the 82 fragrance chemicals known to cause allergy in people, so any single test undercounts fragrance allergy.

Strong evidence: Authors' discussion; oxidized limonene/linalool never tested in a general-population sample.

Source: Alinaghi 2018, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Among about 4,100 North American patients referred for allergy patch testing in 2019–2020, 12.8% reacted to the standard fragrance mix and 11.1% to oxidized linalool, both among the ten most common skin allergens and both up from 2017–2018.

Strong evidence: Referral population, not the general public; primary is DeKoven 2023 (NACDG), cited by the review.

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

The industry's safety panel cleared linalool, a lavender-scented chemical in most fragranced products, as raising 'no safety concerns' after testing the fresh chemical; independent clinics later found that air-exposed (oxidized) linalool causes allergic reactions in about 7% of patients patch-tested for skin allergy (2,900 patients in 9 centers; 5,773 in Sweden, with rates rising).

Strong evidence: Clinic rates are in dermatitis patients, not the general population; test preparations debated; fresh linalool is genuinely a weak sensitizer.

Source: Bickers 2003 (RIFM Expert Panel), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Industry source

The industry once allowed the allergen citral only if mixed with a companion terpene (originally tested at about 20% d-limonene, later mandated at ≥25%), claiming the terpene 'quenched' the allergic reaction; the original 1976 evidence for this was a single unreplicated human test with no subject numbers reported and was already internally inconsistent, later industry HRIPTs could not reproduce quenching for a related aldehyde (cinnamaldehyde), and air-oxidized limonene, the proposed quencher, is itself now one of the commonest fragrance allergens (about 5% of patients tested).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

The failed replication documented in our evidence base is for cinnamaldehyde + eugenol/limonene, not citral + limonene itself; IFRA's formal withdrawal of the quenching rule is not documented in our evidence base. The founding 1976 test (Opdyke) also showed the effect failing at a different ratio of the same ingredients (cinnamic aldehyde:eugenol 2.5:1 sensitized where 1:1 had not), and its own essential-oil control (cinnamon bark oil) itself sensitized, contradicting the paper's own summary.

Source: Ford 1994 (RIFM) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Animal study

Many fragrance chemicals become stronger skin allergens after the bottle is opened: limonene, linalool and geraniol react with air at room temperature to form hydroperoxides that, in mouse tests, sensitize at 5-10 times lower concentrations than the fresh chemical.

Strong evidence: Potency from mouse LLNA; cite Karlberg 2013 as primary; clinic data (Bråred Christensson, Sukakul) confirm oxidized forms are common human allergens.

Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021 (Karlberg 2013), Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Chemicals that only become allergens after they are changed by air or by the skin's own enzymes are the worst-predicted group in the industry's own analysis (4.5- to 6.5-fold error, versus about 2-fold for directly reactive chemicals), because the dish assays cannot oxidize or metabolize anything.

Strong evidence: N=32 chemicals in the worst domain; TIMES-software-assigned mechanistic class, not exhaustively confirmed in vivo.

Source: Natsch 2015, Toxicological Sciences Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In a double-blind study, deodorants containing as little as 0.01% cinnamic aldehyde (cinnamal) triggered allergic skin reactions within weeks in people already allergic to it, while an identical unscented deodorant on the other armpit, and the same deodorants used by 20 non-allergic people, caused no reactions.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Small cohort (9 sensitized test patients, double-blind arm), but statistically significant (P<.001) with a concurrent negative control group and randomized/blinded contralateral-axilla design.

Source: Bruze et al. 2003, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

For people already allergic to oxidized linalool (the air-exposed form of a common floral fragrance chemical), using a scented cream or perfume containing it at concentrations similar to real products (as low as 0.3% oxidized linalool, 0.056% linalool hydroperoxides) was enough to trigger eczema within three weeks of twice-daily use in a repeated-use trial.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Small N (6 completers); participants were pre-selected as already patch-test-positive, not a general-population sample; lowest concentration tested (0.1% in perfume) did not produce a formal positive.

Source: Andersch Björkman 2014, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

A positive patch test for oxidized linalool is not just a lab artifact: patients who test positive also develop real dermatitis from everyday-strength fragranced products used the way a consumer would use them, not only from the strong test doses used in the clinic.

Strong evidence: No irritant reactions occurred in vehicle controls, so the effect is allergic rather than irritant; the reverse case (a general population screen) was not tested here.

Source: Andersch Björkman 2014, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In a controlled study, everyone already allergic to limonene hydroperoxides (11/11) developed a skin reaction within about a week of daily exposure to fine-fragrance-level doses of oxidized limonene (140 ppm and up); healthy people (0/17) had no reaction even at the highest dose tested.

Strong evidence: Single multicenter study; 11 allergic subjects and 17 controls.

Source: Bennike 2019, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In a 2015 survey of 187 US pediatric personal-care products marketed as hypoallergenic, dermatologist-recommended, fragrance-free or paraben-free, 89% (167/187) contained at least one contact allergen from the standard NACDG screening tray, with a mean of 2.4 allergens per product.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

Single-metro US convenience sample (six unnamed Redlands, CA retailers, 2013), label-based (no chemical verification, no concentrations), and allergen matching by an unaudited custom algorithm; the four marketing-term categories overlap (a product can carry more than one), so subgroup percentages are not independent comparisons.

Source: Hamann 2015, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In a patch test of 3,119 people randomly sampled from the general population of five European countries, 2.6% tested positive to fragrance mix I and 1.9% to fragrance mix II, and 1.9% had a fragrance allergy judged clinically relevant (skin symptoms plus product avoidance).

Strong evidence.

Caveats

The largest, best-controlled general-population fragrance patch-test study to date (n=3,119 of 12,377 interviewed, harmonized protocol across 5 countries); the raw marker-positive rate is higher (4.1%) before the clinical-relevance filter, and about half of marker-positive people do not meet the stricter definition.

Source: Diepgen 2015 (EDEN), British Journal of Dermatology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In a clinical study of 658 hand-eczema patients across 3 European centers, 67 (10.2%) reacted on patch testing to at least one fragrance chemical selected because it is common in household cleaning and personal-care products used on the hands.

Strong evidence: Clinic-referred hand-eczema population (3 tertiary centers), not a random sample of the general public.

Source: Heydorn 2003, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

More than half (54.5%) of the hand-eczema patients allergic to household-product fragrance chemicals would not have been identified by the standard Fragrance Mix I patch test alone.

Strong evidence: Applies to this hand-eczema clinic population and this specific 14-chemical panel; FM II (2008) and hydroperoxide testing have since narrowed but not closed the gap.

Source: Heydorn 2003, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

Oxidized forms of limonene and linalool, formed when these common fragrance terpenes react with air, are now treated as a standard, distinct fragrance-allergen category in mainstream dermatology, alongside fragrance mix I/II and balsam of Peru.

Strong evidence.

Caveats

This 2025 general-ACD review reflects consensus classification, not new prevalence data; primary prevalence numbers should be cited from Sukakul 2022, Bråred Christensson 2016/2012, or the EECDRG review already in our evidence base, not this source.

Source: Aristizabal-Torres 2025, JAAD Reviews Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Choosing fragrance-free personal care products is a reasonable way to cut DEP exposure, since DEP is used as a fragrance solvent; label reading alone will not catch phthalates.

Strong evidence: Reasoned advice; not tested as an intervention in this paper.

Source: Crinnion 2010, Alternative Medicine Review Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

If you have unexplained or recurring dermatitis, ask whether patch testing will include oxidized linalool (and oxidized limonene); standard fragrance tests missed 60% of these allergies.

Strong evidence: Hydroperoxide tests now recommended for baseline series in Europe.

Source: Christensson 2012, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Choosing fragrance-free cosmetic and personal care products is an effective way to cut DEP exposure, since fragrance is consistently the most DEP-dense product category across three independent national surveys and DEP is never named on a label when present via fragrance.

Strong evidence: Based on product-content measurement across three independent surveys (Hubinger & Havery 2006, Dodson 2012, Koniecki 2011), not a tested behavioral intervention.

Source: Koniecki 2011, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Three in four children's cosmetics (295 of 398, 74.1%) on sale in a Brazilian city listed "parfum/fragrance" on the label, including 90% of children's shampoos and 79% of baby wet wipes.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Label count only, one city, lower bound. Scope also excludes perfume/cologne, which 65.9% of children in the same city used (Melo 2020). A US survey of a broader category mix of personal-care products (Bonchak 2018, n=533) found a lower fragrance-keyword prevalence (48%), and Denmark's named-allergen tally found 53.8% (Botvid 2023) — country, category mix and label-counting method all move this figure, so 74.1% should not be read as a universal children's-cosmetics rate.

Source: Uber 2024, Jornal de Pediatria (Rio de Janeiro) Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Childcare air had about three times more limonene than new California homes (33 vs 11 µg/m³), which the authors link to frequent cleaning.

Moderate evidence: Comparison with a different study (Offermann 2009); daytime vs 24-h sampling.

Source: Hoang 2016, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a US study, baby boys whose mothers had higher levels of several phthalates in their urine during pregnancy had a shorter distance between the anus and genitals, a sign of reduced male-hormone action during development in animal studies. A much larger (N=753), purpose-designed prospective follow-up by the same research group (TIDES, Swan 2015) confirmed this specifically for DEHP metabolites (a PVC plasticizer), with a significant, dose-responsive association at about half the original exposure level. It found no association for diethyl phthalate (DEP), the phthalate used in fragrance, nor for the other three phthalates (DBP, BBzP, DiBP) that had appeared linked in the original small study.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Swan 2005: 85 mother-son pairs, one urine sample, association. Swan 2015/TIDES (N=753, primary source, reconciled 2026-09-27): DEHP metabolites replicated (P=0.008-0.036); DEP/MEP null (P=0.374/0.953); DBP/BBzP/DiBP also non-significant as continuous associations in this larger cohort. US EPA (Radke 2018) rates DBP/DEHP-AGD moderate and DEP-AGD slight, consistent with this primary. Do not use this study for a fragrance/DEP claim; the replicated component is DEHP, a plasticizer, not a fragrance ingredient.

Source: Swan 2005, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies

Synthetic musks reach mothers and babies mainly through the skin (cosmetics and clothes washed in scented detergent), not through food.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Inferred from absence in sea fish and no nursing-duration effect in newborns' fat; Reiner 2007 reaches the same conclusion. Hutter 2009 (100 Vienna adults, blood + cosmetics-use questionnaire) found cosmetics-use frequency significantly predicted only polycyclic-musk (galaxolide, tonalide) blood levels, not nitro-musk (musk ketone, musk xylene) levels. Lignell 2008 (101 Swedish mothers, milk) replicates this exact split in the matrix that actually reaches the infant: perfume use predicted HHCB, perfumed-laundry-detergent use predicted AHTN, but no product-use variable predicted musk xylene. No study has directly tested a dietary/food route for any musk in any of these populations, so 'not through food' remains an inference from the absence of nitro musks in sea fish (Schmeiser 2001), not a measured food-vs-skin comparison.

Source: Schmeiser 2001, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies

As of 2019, the evidence that lavender or tea tree oil causes breast growth in young children consisted only of case reports: 11 children described in detail in 4 papers, with no controlled study.

Moderate evidence: Systematic review of case reports; undercounts (one included paper reports ~20 more cases in clinic tallies).

Source: Hawkins 2020, Complementary Therapies in Medicine Industry-funded Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Animal study

In the only independent animal experiment on the question, female rats housed with a lavender-oil diffuser from weaning reached puberty about 4.6 days earlier than unexposed rats (33.8 vs 38.4 days), with luteinizing hormone about 35% higher and follicle-stimulating hormone about 45% higher and no difference in body weight.

Moderate evidence: Five rats per group, one species, one sex, a single dose that was never measured in the cage air; no human data. The paper's abstract mislabels which group was exposed how.

Source: Kim & Lim 2022, Journal of Korean Medical Science Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Animal study

The effect appeared through breathing the air rather than through skin contact, which matters because the main scientific defense of lavender products is that too little gets through the skin to do anything.

Moderate evidence: Rat study; the inhaled dose was not measured, and no one has measured what a real room diffuser puts into the air either.

Source: Kim & Lim 2022, Journal of Korean Medical Science Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Animal study

In the same industry study's one-generation rat screen, the highest linalool dose (800 mg/kg/day, high enough to make the mother rats visibly ill) produced more stillbirths, worse pup survival in the first four days and pups that stayed smaller throughout nursing; the authors call follow-up testing 'mandatory' before this can be dismissed.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Only at a maternally toxic dose, orders of magnitude above any human exposure, in a screening study with few litters; the authors attribute it to maternal toxicity. Not a consumer risk claim.

Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a Danish/multi-country test of 25 children's cosmetics and cosmetic-toys, all 7 hydro-alcoholic children's fragrance products (5 eau de toilette, 1 eau de parfum, 1 roll-on deodorant) contained the allergen geraniol, and a separate children's toy-cosmetic perfume-blending kit's lilac essence contained cinnamic alcohol at 3.7% — about 4.6x (the paper's abstract states "by a factor of 5") the IFRA guideline of 0.8%.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Now sourced from the primary study (Rastogi 1999; n=25 products, Denmark/Germany/England/Sweden, 1997-98) rather than relayed via a review. Single small study, not replicated: strength stays moderate per the grading rule. The geraniol finding is for regular children's fragrance products, not toys; only 1 of 3 toy-perfume-set essences had the elevated cinnamic alcohol — the review's original "cosmetic-toy perfumes" framing conflated the two.

Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021 (Rastogi 1999), Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Animal study

When rats were fed the sunscreen ingredient 4-MBC from before conception through pregnancy and nursing, male offspring reached puberty later and had smaller prostates as adults; the lowest dose that did this was 7 mg/kg/day, and for the related compound 3-BC it was 0.24 mg/kg/day, the lowest dose tested.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Long Evans rats, dietary dosing so intake is estimated; tables give direction of change only, no effect sizes or group sizes for most endpoints; female puberty was unaffected; 3-BC effects are non-monotonic and no NOAEL was established.

Source: Schlumpf 2004, Toxicology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Animal study

Developmental exposure to 4-MBC changed the activity of estrogen-controlled genes in the adult offspring's uterus, prostate and hypothalamus, erased the normal male-female difference in hypothalamic progesterone-receptor mRNA, and changed how those tissues later responded to an estrogen challenge.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Rat only; real-time PCR mRNA endpoints, no protein or functional behavior measured; gene-expression endpoints gave the same lowest effective dose as the classical endpoints, so they did not lower the threshold.

Source: Schlumpf 2004, Toxicology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

In a Brazilian hospital survey, caregivers said two in three children aged 14 and under (182 of 276, median age 4) wore perfume.

Moderate evidence: One Curitiba tertiary-hospital clinic sample, 2015-16; 'perfume' undefined; no frequency, age or sex breakdown; count identical to children's shampoo (possible copy error).

Source: Melo 2020, Revista Paulista de Pediatria Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

A quarter of Brazilian children in a hospital survey (71 of 276) already wore make-up, starting at a median age of 4, usually because the child asked for it (75% of users).

Moderate evidence: One hospital sample; caregiver report; frequency not asked.

Source: Melo 2020, Revista Paulista de Pediatria Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a Danish registry of 1,179 cosmetics marketed for children, more than half (634, 53.8%) listed perfume or a named fragrance allergen, and nearly half (550, 46.6%) named at least one of the 26 EU-listed fragrance allergens.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Label tally from a user-scanned consumer-app registry (2015-22), not market-weighted; 'fragranced' includes products naming only benzyl alcohol (often a preservative); sub-threshold allergens not declared.

Source: Botvid 2023, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

93% of children's facial-care products in a Danish registry (80 of 86, almost all lip balms) listed fragrance, averaging nearly two named fragrance allergens each.

Moderate evidence: Label data; n=86; registry sample.

Source: Botvid 2023, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies

Balsam of Peru, a strong skin sensitizer that the fragrance industry's own standards body (IFRA) had recommended banning, was an ingredient of popular US diaper-rash ointments in the 1990s, applied under occlusion to inflamed infant skin.

Moderate evidence: One clinical commentary citing one 1990 case series (Fisher); current diaper-rash product formulations were not checked for this page.

Source: Scheinman 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a US label survey of 533 personal care products marketed for babies and children, 48% (255/533) contained a fragrance-category allergen and 55% (294/533) contained at least one of eight screened contact allergens.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single US retail platform (Drugstore.com/Walgreens), one 2018 snapshot; fragrance is a ~20-keyword composite tally, not a per-chemical breakdown; no chemical verification of labels.

Source: Bonchak 2018, Dermatitis Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Cheaper baby and children's personal care products contain significantly more contact allergens than pricier ones: products with two or more screened allergens averaged $1.39 per ounce versus $4.35 per ounce for products with none.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Correlation only, no mechanism tested; a similar but non-significant trend was found in adult moisturizers (Xu 2017), so the effect size and significance may not generalize beyond baby products.

Source: Bonchak 2018, Dermatitis Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Pregnant women who used perfume in a 48-hour window had 2.3 times higher urinary levels of MEP, the breakdown product of the fragrance solvent diethyl phthalate (DEP), than non-users, in a study of 186 low-income African American and Dominican pregnant women in New York City — independently replicating the same finding in a Boston fertility-clinic cohort (Braun 2014, 167% higher) and a postpartum cohort (Parlett 2013, 2.92x).

Moderate evidence: Exposure marker only, no health outcome; single cohort, cross-sectional; 95% CI 1.6-3.3 overlaps Braun 2014 and Parlett 2013.

Source: Just 2010, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In an ordinary primary-school classroom, children were exposed to ultrafine-particle bursts reaching 140,000 particles per cubic centimeter during art activities, the highest classroom particle level measured among the wiki's school-exposure studies — with no health outcome measured.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Exposure measurement only; no symptom, lung-function or biomarker data were collected; one school; the specific art-material source was not identified (only 4 of ~30 paints/glues were tested, none containing limonene).

Source: Morawska 2009, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a 1999 European lab test, all 7 children's hydro-alcoholic fragrance products (eau de toilette, eau de parfum, roll-on deodorant) contained the allergen geraniol, and a children's toy perfume-blending kit's "lilac essence" contained cinnamic alcohol at 3.7% — about 4.6x (the paper's abstract states "by a factor of 5") the industry's own 0.8% safety guideline.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

N=25 products total, n=7 hydro-alcoholic products and n=1 toy item for the two headline numbers; single small study (Denmark/Germany/England/Sweden, 1997-98), not replicated for this specific product set.

Source: Rastogi 1999, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Everyday children's shampoos, shower gels, creams and lotions rarely contained fragrance-mix allergens — cinnamic alcohol, cinnamic aldehyde and isoeugenol were absent from every sample tested — while the notable allergen exposure was concentrated in perfume-type products and one toy.

Moderate evidence: N=5 shampoos/shower gels, n=4 creams/lotions; small sample.

Source: Rastogi 1999, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a small pilot study of 14 Washington DC childcare facilities, chloroform – a byproduct of the chlorine bleach used to clean – was found in every single air sample, at levels averaging 1.4-1.8 times higher than in a comparable California childcare study.

Moderate evidence: Small unfunded pilot (14 facilities), single-day snapshot, convenience sample; measured no fragrance chemicals at all.

Source: Quirós-Alcalá 2016, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Two no-lye hair relaxer kits marketed for children had the highest measured levels of chemicals banned in EU cosmetics or listed under California's Proposition 65 (DEHP, nonylphenol, o-phenylphenol, diethanolamine) of any products tested in this study.

Moderate evidence: N=3 relaxer kits (2 marketed for children); no health outcome measured in children who used these products.

Source: Helm 2018, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a Czech birth cohort of 3,411 children (ELSPAC-CZ), each 1-SD increase in an 18-product household chemical exposure score measured at 6 months raised the odds of intermediate-onset transient wheeze (adjusted OR 1.27), early-onset persistent wheeze (adjusted OR 1.36) and intermediate-onset persistent wheeze (adjusted OR 1.23) through age 5, and those persistent wheeze phenotypes carried 5-8x higher odds of a doctor-diagnosed asthma by age 7 (pediatrician records, not self-report).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single prospective cohort; exposure and wheeze through age 5 are maternal self-report (only the school-age asthma outcome is medically ascertained); the asthma link runs through the wheeze phenotype, not directly from exposure to asthma, and the paper's own direct exposure-to-asthma model was underpowered. Independently replicates the Canadian CHILD cohort (Parks 2020), which together raises the combined wheeze/asthma claim to strong (see regrade on src-2024-cleaning-products-chemistry-indoor-air-quality-health).

Source: Mikeš 2019, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

Mothers who use cleaning sprays during pregnancy have infants with higher odds of both a lower respiratory tract infection (29% higher, OR 1.29) and wheezing (37% higher, OR 1.37) in their first year of life, in a pooled analysis of four Spanish birth cohorts (n=2,292); prenatal solvent use also raised wheezing odds (30% higher) and prenatal air freshener use raised LRTI odds (29% higher).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single research group/dataset (pooled INMA cohorts, all Spanish, one study design), self-reported exposure and outcome by mothers, and only 12-18 month follow-up (no atopy or physician-diagnosed asthma measured). Consistent in direction with two other independent cohorts (Parks 2020, Canada; Mikeš 2019, Czech Republic) that measured early-postnatal rather than prenatal exposure, which is why the combined three-cohort claim is graded strong elsewhere while this single-paper prenatal-specific finding stays moderate.

Source: Casas 2013, International Journal of Public Health Industry-funded Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

In a random sample of Swedish teenagers aged 13-19, about 1 in 6 (15.6%) said they were bothered by strong odors such as perfume, cleaning agents or flower scents, most often affecting the nose.

Moderate evidence: Single-item self-report; general odor sensitivity, not fragranced-product-specific; one Swedish town.

Source: Andersson 2008, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

Teenage girls reported chemical sensitivity about twice as often as boys (20.6% vs 9.9%), and being female, being sensitive to noise, or having probable anxiety each roughly doubled the odds of reporting it.

Moderate evidence: Logistic regression with low explanatory power (Nagelkerke R2=0.092); only modeled for the general-CS outcome.

Source: Andersson 2008, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a US EPA/CDC study of 33 breastfeeding women, phthalate breakdown products were detected in fewer than 10% of breast milk samples and were essentially absent from saliva, even though the same women had detectable phthalate metabolites in nearly all of their urine samples.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Small pilot study (n=33, two visits); the metabolites reported for milk are four DEHP-derived oxidative metabolites, not MEP (the fragrance phthalate DEP's metabolite), which was analyzed only in urine.

Source: Hines 2009, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a large US study of 753 pregnant women and their newborns, higher first-trimester urinary levels of DEHP (a plasticizer found in PVC, food packaging and some medical devices, not primarily a fragrance ingredient) were associated with a shorter anogenital distance in baby boys, a sign of reduced male-hormone action during development, replicating an earlier smaller study at about half the exposure level.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single first-trimester urine sample per mother; association, not proof of causation; cohort was largely White, college-educated and married, limiting generalizability; effect sizes were smaller than in the earlier, smaller cohort (Swan 2005).

Source: Swan 2015, Human Reproduction Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In the same large study (N=753), urinary levels of diethyl phthalate (DEP), the phthalate most strongly and consistently tied to perfume and fragranced personal-care product use, showed no association with anogenital distance in baby boys — the largest and best-controlled human test yet of this specific fragrance-phthalate reproductive claim, in the same boys where DEHP did show an effect.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

A null result in one (albeit the largest) cohort cannot fully rule out an effect at higher exposure levels than this population had; two smaller medium-confidence cohorts (Odense, SELMA) were also null, per US EPA's review.

Source: Swan 2015, Human Reproduction Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies

The developing fetal and infant brain is far more vulnerable to industrial-chemical injury than the adult brain: the placenta is not an effective barrier to most industrial chemicals, the blood-brain barrier is not fully formed until about 6 months after birth, and lipophilic persistent chemicals concentrate in breast milk at up to 100-fold the mother's bodyweight-adjusted exposure.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

General toxicological vulnerability argument for industrial chemicals (lead, methylmercury, PCBs, arsenic, toluene are the paper's 5 confirmed causes); does not measure or name any fragrance ingredient. Should not be cited as fragrance-specific evidence.

Source: Grandjean & Landrigan 2006, Lancet Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In 101 Swedish first-time mothers tested over seven years, women who used perfume once a week or more had significantly higher levels of the musk chemical galaxolide (HHCB) in their breast milk than women who used it less often.

Moderate evidence: Product-use data from a N=44 subset; cross-sectional association, not an intervention; adjusted for sampling year.

Source: Lignell 2008, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Mothers who used perfumed laundry detergent had significantly higher levels of the musk chemical tonalide (AHTN) in their breast milk than mothers who used unscented detergent.

Moderate evidence: Product-use data from a N=44 subset; cross-sectional association, not an intervention; adjusted for sampling year.

Source: Lignell 2008, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a national Canadian survey of 98 baby care products, diaper cream — not fragrance — was the largest single modeled source of infant dermal DEP exposure, contributing about half of babies' modeled total.

Moderate evidence: Exposure model uses non-Canada-specific consumer-use-pattern data and a fixed 5% skin-absorption assumption for all phthalates; it is a modeled dose, not a measured biomarker.

Source: Koniecki 2011, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Perfume, air fresheners and dryer sheets carried the highest levels of fragrance chemicals and the phthalate DEP; the pooled perfume sample was 1.4% DEP by weight.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single pooled composite per category (Dodson 2012). The perfume DEP level is now independently supported by two other labs: FDA's Hubinger & Havery 2006 measured 0.55-3.9% DEP in individual fragrance products, and Health Canada's Koniecki 2011 (n=252, the largest of the three) measured DEP up to 2.6% in 70% of 30 fragrance products — three independent labs across two countries now bracket Dodson's 1.4% figure for perfume specifically. The air-freshener and dryer-sheet parts still rest on Dodson alone (Koniecki tested only cosmetic/personal-care products, no air fresheners or dryer sheets), so the combined claim stays moderate.

Source: Dodson 2012, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

A lab analysis of 59 soaps, surface cleaners, laundry and dish-washing products from four European countries found the citrus-scent chemical limonene in 78% of them, linalool in 61% and citronellol in 47%; all three are fragrance chemicals linked to skin allergy.

Moderate evidence: Products c. 2000, EU only; parent terpenes measured, not the allergenic oxidized forms; Unilever co-author.

Source: Rastogi 2001, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Women who had used perfume in the previous day had nearly 3 times as much of a phthalate breakdown product (from diethyl phthalate, a chemical used to carry fragrance) in their urine as women who hadn't.

Moderate evidence: Single spot urine, 337 mostly white educated women; replicated by Braun 2014.

Source: Parlett 2013, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

In California's 1997 inventory, air fresheners were the single largest category of cleaning-product chemical emissions: 7.5 tonnes a day, just ahead of general-purpose cleaners.

Moderate evidence: 1997 sales-based inventory; later SoCAB inventory had air fresheners <2.5 t/d.

Source: Nazaroff & Weschler 2004, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

In US national biomonitoring, MEP, the breakdown product of the fragrance solvent DEP, was the most abundant phthalate in people's urine (average 181 ug/g creatinine).

Moderate evidence: NHANES data cited by a review; cite CDC primary; secondary citation of older NHANES data, cite the CDC report directly.

Source: Crinnion 2010, Alternative Medicine Review Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In a test of 59 best-selling Korean household products, the citrus-scent chemical limonene was the chemical most often given off: it came from 44% of products, including bleach, dish soap, laundry detergent, disinfectant and even a liquid pesticide.

Moderate evidence: Heated headspace, library-match ID, presence not exposure.

Source: Kwon 2007, Journal of Hazardous Materials Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

In the Los Angeles air basin in 2005, consumer products such as hair spray, cleaners and perfumes were the second-largest human-made source of organic gases by weight (118.7 tonnes a day), behind only passenger cars, according to California's air regulator.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Regulatory inventory, 2005 snapshot; includes non-fragranced products and solvents. Direction confirmed by measurement in a second city: NYC 2018 VCP VOC ~1.5x fossil fuels by mass, tracer-verified (Coggon 2021).

Source: Chen & Luo 2012, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

Even after accounting for how readily each chemical forms smog, consumer products ranked third among all emission sources in the Los Angeles basin in 2005.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Model-based ozone reactivity; one episode. In NYC 2018, VCPs were modeled as comparable to fossil fuels for ozone (+11 vs +8 ppb at the downwind peak; box model 40:60) (Coggon 2021), so the 2005 LA ranking may understate them.

Source: Chen & Luo 2012, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

Perfumes and colognes alone released about 2.5 tonnes of organic gases a day into Los Angeles air in 2005, not counting fragrance in cleaners, air fresheners or hair spray.

Moderate evidence: Inventory estimate for one CARB category.

Source: Chen & Luo 2012, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In an EPA survey of 1,159 US household products from the late 1980s (mostly paints, automotive products, lubricants and cleaners), 81% contained at least one of 31 common solvents at more than 0.1% of the product's weight, often at tens of per cent.

Moderate evidence: Historical (1987 purchases), solvent-biased sample, not fragranced products; composition not air levels.

Source: Sack 1992, Atmospheric Environment. Part A. General Topics Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Unlike traffic chemicals, scent chemicals were just as high in northern as in southern Europe (median 11.4 vs 12.0 ug/m3), pointing to everyday product use across the continent.

Moderate evidence: Grouped terpenes, no significance tests.

Source: Geiss 2011, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In a lab experiment, women still learned to react differently to two women's body odors when both wore the same perfume: perfume did not stop people telling individuals apart by smell.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

46 women, 4 donors, custom low-dose perfume, conditioning as an indirect measure; no perfume x odor interaction tested. Now corroborated on the 'not abolished' floor claim by a much larger, direct primary test: Allen, Havlíček & Roberts 2015 (n=427, triangle test) found body-odor discrimination stayed above chance in all fragrance conditions (all p<0.001), though it fell significantly with fragrance and fell to chance for one specific subgroup (female donor odor + an unfamiliar assigned fragrance, 0.30-0.36 vs 0.33 chance) — so treat this as 'fragrance dampens but does not generally abolish discrimination', not as 'perfume has no effect'.

Source: Gaby & Dalton 2019, Perception Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

Musk ketone, a synthetic musk used mainly in cosmetics, was found in the body fat of every German tested in the 1990s and in breast milk at up to 240 µg per kg of milk fat.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Secondary report of German surveys (391 Bavarian milk samples, mean 40 µg/kg fat, plus a smaller n=5 cohort at 11 µg/kg fat); 1990s data. Rimkus & Wolf 1996 (the primary source of that n=5 cohort) directly confirms musk ketone detection in all 19 of their own German fat/milk samples (1993/1995), but their own milk values (5-30 µg/kg fat, mean 11) are far below the oft-quoted 240 µg/kg maximum from the separate, larger Bavarian survey – do not imply 240 is a typical value.

Source: Schmeiser 2001, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Animal study

The vapor from a single cologne contained at least twenty identifiable chemicals – limonene, linalool, linalyl acetate, alpha- and beta-pinene, terpinolene, citronellol, anethole, coumarin, diethyl phthalate among them – none of which appear on the label.

Moderate evidence: Qualitative GC/MS of one test atmosphere, recoveries unknown, isomers possibly unresolved; one unnamed product.

Source: Anderson & Anderson 1998, Archives of Environmental Health Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

Fragrance is not only in perfume: dermatologists list it in makeup, shampoo, sunscreen, toothpaste, mouthwash, wipes, dish soap, detergent, air fresheners, cleaners, plastics, rubber, glue, paint and waxes, and one Belgian survey found fragrance in 10% of topical medicines (66 different fragrance substances).

Moderate evidence: Qualitative list (de Groot 2020); the 10% is Nardelli 2009, Belgium.

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

All five scented personal-care products tested, including a hand lotion and a roll-on deodorant, released terpene fragrance chemicals that react with ozone in indoor air.

Moderate evidence: 5 Swiss grocery-store products; lotion/roll-on emissions measured from a Kimwipe for 1 h, not skin.

Source: Wu 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Letters Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

All 31 UK shampoos, shower gels, conditioners, moisturizers and foundations with reported emission rates gave off fragrance terpenes (measured together as limonene); shampoos and shower gels released the most.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Lab headspace of products bought at one UK supermarket; SIFT-MS cannot separate monoterpenes, so 'limonene' is the sum of all of them; brands not named. Same lab's second, separate set of 16 UK day moisturizers (Yeoman 2022) also all emitted monoterpenes (0.08–0.41 µg/s/g), green and regular alike.

Source: Yeoman 2020, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

About 60% of the fragrance used in homes goes down the drain into rivers and lakes, and wastewater treatment removes little of it; polycyclic musks such as galaxolide turn up in rivers, lake air, mussels and human milk.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The 60% figure is from older industry/secondary sources (Bickers 2003, Bridges 2002). The human-milk sub-claim is now supported by three independent primary studies spanning three countries: Rimkus & Wolf 1996 (Germany, n=5, 1993/1995), Reiner 2007 (US, n=39, 2004) and Lignell 2008 (Sweden, n=101, 1996-2003); cite these primaries for milk levels, not this review.

Source: Khalid & Abdollahi 2021, Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

PTFE, the non-stick coating better known as Teflon, is used in foundations, mascara and lipsticks as a filler and slip agent, at up to 13% of leave-on products according to the industry-funded Cosmetic Ingredient Review.

Moderate evidence: Use level is a maximum reported by industry, not a typical level; industry-author review in a new non-indexed journal.

Source: Jomaa 2024, Journal of the Netherlands Society of Toxicology (JNST) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

A 1991 US EPA survey of 31 fragrance products already found limonene, linalool, alpha-pinene, benzyl acetate, benzyl alcohol, camphor and acetone among the most common chemicals, the same compounds found in fragranced products tested in the 2010s.

Moderate evidence: Known only second-hand (Kendall 1995 list; Steinemann 2011 quotes its prevalences); the EPA report itself is not in our evidence base.

Source: DONTSPRAYCALIFORNIA 2008 (DOJ ADA docket) Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Plug-in and hanging car air fresheners mainly release fragrance terpenes (limonene, pinene, dihydromyrcenol) and fruity-smelling esters, the same terpenes found across larger product surveys.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

7 products; presence only. Lamorena & Lee 2008 (KAIST chamber, GC-MS/FT-IR) independently confirms terpene-dominant emissions (α-pinene, β-pinene, p-cymene, limonene) from a car air freshener, but that product is an oil-based liquid type, not plug-in or hanging, so it corroborates the general 'car fresheners emit terpenes' pattern without directly extending evidence for the plug-in/hanging sub-types this claim specifies.

Source: Pino-Delgado 2021; Steinemann 2011, Journal of Student Research Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Animal study

The sunscreen ingredient 4-MBC built up in the rats' body fat: at the lowest dose that produced effects, fat levels reached 449 ng/g, the same range already measured in roach and perch from Swiss lakes (44-166 ng/g lipid).

Moderate evidence: Rat adipose measured by GC-MS, n = 3-9; the fish comparison is to a cited 2004 Swiss survey, not measured here; no human tissue or breast-milk levels existed at the time.

Source: Schlumpf 2004, Toxicology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In winter Manhattan air the dominant terpene was limonene, the citrus scent chemical used in cleaners and personal care, while nearby forests gave off pine-type terpenes: scented products are a measurable source of city air pollution in New York.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

One city (NYC 2018); isomer pattern by GC-MS; fragranced products explain ~220 +/- 170 of 520-860 mg/person/day anthropogenic monoterpenes, the rest possibly cooking/building materials.

Source: Coggon 2021 Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In New York City, everyday chemical products (paints, glues, cleaners, personal care) release about 50% more smog-forming vapor by weight than vehicles and other fossil fuels, and their tracers (D5-siloxane, ethanol) rise with population density across US and European cities.

Moderate evidence: NOAA FIVE-VCP inventory checked against tracer measurements; same group as McDonald 2018, so not an independent inventory method.

Source: Coggon 2021 Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

On New York's worst smog day of 2018, consumer and industrial chemical products added about 11 ppb of ozone to a 114 ppb regional peak (standard: 70 ppb), slightly more than vehicle and industry fuels (8 ppb).

Moderate evidence: Modeled attribution (WRF-Chem) for one heat-wave episode; the box model gives fossil fuels ~60% instead. Say 'comparable to vehicles'.

Source: Coggon 2021 Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Scented product categories (personal care and cleaning) made about half of the ozone from consumer and industrial chemical products in New York, mostly through their alcohol and glycol solvents rather than the fragrance molecules.

Moderate evidence: Box-model budget, one city/episode; 'fragranced VCP' is a product category: fragrance compounds are ~6% of VCP ozone, oxygenates 24% and ethanol 15%.

Source: Coggon 2021 Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

About two in three children's sunscreens (87 of 134) and toothpastes (40 of 61) in a Danish registry listed fragrance or a named fragrance allergen.

Moderate evidence: Label data, registry sample; Brazilian children's sunscreens were 34.5% (Uber 2024), so rates are market-specific.

Source: Botvid 2023, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

The more densely populated a US city center is, the higher its outdoor air levels of personal-care and fragrance-product chemicals relative to traffic pollution — a pattern found consistently across four different cities.

Moderate evidence: Correlational (R2 0.48-0.82 depending on compound); does not by itself prove causation or rule out other density-linked sources.

Source: Gkatzelis 2021, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In summer Manhattan, citrus/pine-scent chemicals from fragranced products reached an outdoor air level comparable to benzene, a chemical that mostly comes from vehicle exhaust, even though the two come from completely different sources.

Moderate evidence: One city, one season, one compound class (monoterpenes); not a claim about total organic mass, ozone or particle formation versus vehicles.

Source: Gkatzelis 2021, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In a 2018 test of 18 hair products (hot oil, anti-frizz, leave-in conditioner, root stimulator, hair lotion, relaxer) commonly used by Black women, 45 of 66 targeted endocrine-disrupting and asthma-associated chemicals were detected, including every chemical class tested.

Moderate evidence: N=18 products, purchased 2008 based on a 2004-5 NYC usage survey; descriptive/exploratory, no statistical testing.

Source: Helm 2018, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In FDA's 2006 cosmetics survey, fragrance products carried the highest diethyl phthalate levels of any category tested (up to 3.9% by weight), and nail products carried the highest dibutyl phthalate levels (up to 6% by weight).

Moderate evidence: N=48 products, one purchasing round; category sizes as small as 1-9 products.

Source: Hubinger & Havery 2006, Journal of Cosmetic Science Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

A silicone ingredient in everyday deodorants, lotions and hair products (D5) shows up in city outdoor air on a clear morning schedule tracking when people shower and dress for work, peaking around 6-7 AM and fading over the following several hours.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Diurnal emission-rate profile derived for one mid-sized US city (Boulder, CO, winter 2015/2017); Toronto ground-site data (2009) show a similarly timed morning peak in concentration, but the emission-rate model itself is Boulder-only.

Source: Coggon 2018, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

During the morning rush hour in a US city, the mass of a personal-care-product ingredient (the silicone D5) entering outdoor air can exceed 30% of the mass of benzene entering the air from vehicle traffic, and the city-wide daily D5 emission total is in the same order of magnitude as the city's traffic-benzene emissions.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Based on a correlation-derived enhancement ratio (D5 vs benzene), not a direct product-based emission inventory; the comparison benzene emission inventory is itself a likely lower-limit estimate (excludes evaporative and off-road vehicle emissions). City-wide 24-hour totals (3-5.5 kg/day D5 vs 15.6 kg/day benzene) show D5 at about a fifth to a third of benzene's mass, not equal to it.

Source: Coggon 2018, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In a study of 427 people smelling real body-odor samples, individuals stayed identifiable by smell even when wearing a deodorant, but any deodorant (their own or an assigned one) still made people significantly worse at telling them apart than smelling the unfragranced body odor alone.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Direct triangle-test design (large for this subfield); deodorants only, not perfumes; public-venue convenience sample; one subgroup (female donor odor + assigned fragrance) fell to chance level.

Source: Allen, Havlíček & Roberts 2015, Frontiers in Psychology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

People were better at telling two individuals apart when both wore their own habitual deodorant than when both wore an unfamiliar, experimenter-assigned deodorant, consistent with fragrance choice tracking a person's own body chemistry rather than being arbitrary.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Own-vs-assigned effect is modest (Exp(B)=1.375, p=0.03); cannot rule out a familiarity confound (using a product you already use vs. a brand-new one) separate from body-chemistry matching.

Source: Allen, Havlíček & Roberts 2015, Frontiers in Psychology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Government agency

The cosmetics industry's own safety panel (CIR) reported PTFE (Teflon) in 365 US cosmetic products in 2018, at up to 13% in mascara, 12% in eye shadow, 2.4% in hair bleach, and 0.5-3% in face and fragrance powders.

Moderate evidence: Self-reported by the industry to FDA's voluntary registration program and to the industry's own trade association survey; not independently audited.

Source: CIR 2018 Industry-funded Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Using a statistical method that does not assume the answer in advance, scientists confirmed that everyday chemical products, not traffic, were the dominant source (about 70-78%) of the measured organic-vapor emissions at the New York City site, contributing roughly three-quarters of it, versus about a quarter in the much less crowded city of Boulder, Colorado.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Positive matrix factorization (PMF) of ground-site data in two cities, independently agreeing with the FIVE-VCP bottom-up inventory within 25-30%; replicates the same NOAA/CIRES group's inventory conclusion with a methodologically independent top-down technique.

Source: Gkatzelis 2021b, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In most U.S. cities, everyday chemical products likely account for 50 to 80% of the outdoor smog-forming and particle-forming potential from human activities, rivaling or exceeding vehicle traffic almost everywhere except the least densely populated areas.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The 50-80% figure for cities beyond Boulder and NYC comes from the FIVE-VCP inventory alone, not independent measurement at each site; mobile sources still dominate at the lowest population densities.

Source: Gkatzelis 2021b, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Health Canada's modeled median dermal DEP exposure for Canadian women from cosmetic and personal-care product use (2.6 ug/kg bw/d) independently matches a Korean team's measured estimate (2.017 ug/kg bw/d) from a different country's products and a different exposure-assessment method.

Moderate evidence: Both are modeled/estimated exposures based on product content and use-pattern surveys, not biomarker-confirmed doses; this is a median, not a worst-case, comparison.

Source: Koniecki 2011, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

As early as the mid-1990s, the musk fragrance chemicals galaxolide (HHCB) and tonalide (AHTN) were already detectable in the body fat and breast milk of every German person tested, 19 out of 19 samples.

Moderate evidence: Small sample (14 adipose + 5 milk, one German region, 1993/1995); no product-use data or health outcome measured.

Source: Rimkus & Wolf 1996, Chemosphere Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

A 2015 survey of 817 unique detergent products from 131 German households found limonene and linalool — the two fragrance chemicals most often linked to skin allergy when oxidized — named on 23.1% and 20.1% of product labels, more than any of the other 24 EU-declarable fragrance allergens.

Moderate evidence: Label-declaration frequency above the EU's 0.01% threshold, not a chemical measurement; Northern Germany, 2015, convenience sample, not representative.

Source: Wieck 2018, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Tumble drying real household laundry released 256-342 milligrams of textile microfiber per kilogram of fabric dried, whether the dryer vented outdoors or condensed the moisture indoors, a similar order of magnitude to what washing machines release.

Moderate evidence: One UK lab, one detergent, one condenser model and one vented model, n=8 real loads per dryer type; measures plain cotton/polyester fiber, not fragrance or VOCs.

Source: Cummins 2023, PLOS ONE Industry-funded Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies

Products labeled unscented can still contain a fragrance added to mask other smells.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Masking itself is still unmeasured (a review statement). For a primary count cite Xu 2017: 18/40 (45%) best-selling US 'fragrance-free' moisturizers listed a fragrance cross-reactor or botanical, which is identity-based, not masking.

Source: Kumar 2020, Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

In 14 of 17 'alternative' (mostly green-marketed) products that contained fragrance chemicals, the label never mentioned fragrance.

Moderate evidence: Mostly natural terpenes at low levels; single products from one retailer.

Source: Dodson 2012, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

Products labeled 'green,' 'natural' or 'non-toxic' released hazardous chemicals too, with no significant difference from ordinary ones in a test of 25 best-sellers.

Moderate evidence: 11 vs 14 products; underpowered; list-membership counts; small sample (11 vs 14 products, p>0.30): a null result, not proof of equality.

Source: Steinemann 2011, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

Baby products labeled green, organic or natural released no fewer chemicals than regular ones (398 vs 286 detections), and 20 of 21 in each group released at least one chemical classed as potentially hazardous.

Moderate evidence: Headspace counts, not concentrations; agrees with Lin 2020 and Steinemann 2011.

Source: Nematollahi 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

Natural baby products swapped one scent chemistry for another: linalool, a common fragrance allergen once it oxidizes, turned up in 16 of 21 green products vs 4 of 21 regular ones.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Presence only; oxidized (allergenic) forms not measured in these products. Hagvall 2008 shows linalool in an essential oil (lavender) oxidizes in air at the same rate as synthetic linalool, so the natural source gives no protection; real-product hydroperoxide levels unknown.

Source: Nematollahi 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Animal study

'Natural' doesn't mean allergy-free: essential oils oxidize too; in mouse tests lavender oil exposed to air for 45 weeks became about 8 times more potent as a sensitizer (EC3 36% fresh, 4.4% aged), and oxidized alpha-terpinene from tea tree oil was the most potent of all.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Mouse LLNA (groups of 3-4 mice; one 45-week sample) from the primary Hagvall 2008, lab open-flask exposure; aged oil reached 'moderate', not 'strong', potency. Human support: 4/4 oxidized-linalool-allergic patients reacted to oxidized lavender oil (elicitation, n=4). Earlier evidence base figure '11% -> 4.4%' was a misreading.

Source: Karlberg 2013, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Self-reported survey

Three in four UK adults (75.0%) did not know that products called natural, green or organic can also release hazardous air pollutants, and more than half (53.5%) said they would stop using a product if they knew.

Moderate evidence: Awareness item; the emission claim itself rests on other studies.

Source: Steinemann 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

Plant-derived scent chemicals drove the particle bursts, so a 'natural' citrus or pine scent is not automatically cleaner to breathe.

Moderate evidence: No unscented comparison in this study.

Source: Rosales 2022, Science Advances Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

Labels are not a guarantee: ethyl and butyl paraben actually rose after girls switched to paraben-free-labeled products, probably because some replacements contained them.

Moderate evidence: Replacement products were not tested; explanation inferred.

Source: Harley 2016, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Journalism

A 2009 audit of 2,219 North American products making green claims found that more than 98% made at least one misleading or unsupported environmental claim.

Moderate evidence: TerraChoice gray literature; auditor sells eco-certification; audits substantiation not chemistry.

Source: Dahl 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Journalism

Green-claim auditors named 'all-natural' as a textbook example of a vague green claim and called household cleaning-product makers 'among the worst greenwash offenders'.

Moderate evidence: Opinion of TerraChoice staff; '3 of 397 cleaners' figure not text-verified.

Source: Dahl 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

In a test of 79 US feminine hygiene products, labels such as organic, natural or for sensitive skin did not predict lower levels of volatile chemicals.

Moderate evidence: Product content, not exposure; small subgroups.

Source: Lin 2020, Environment International Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Journalism

Perfumers themselves say every perfume blends synthetic and natural materials: "As all perfumers, I create perfume formulas with both synthetic and natural perfumery raw materials" (a Charabot perfumer). A "natural" scent is rarely all natural.

Moderate evidence: One perfumer's essay; no proportions given; industry author.

Source: Ellena 2008, Chemistry & Biodiversity Industry-funded Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Self-reported survey

'Natural' essential oils have not been shown safe for hormone-sensitive children: the only survey claiming so had about a 5% chance of detecting even a tripling of risk.

Moderate evidence: Power figure is evidence base arithmetic from the paper's group sizes and observed baseline; absence of proof of safety is not proof of harm.

Source: Hawkins 2021, International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Industry-funded Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies

Many products sold as "fragrance free" in natural-product stores are free only of synthetic fragrance and still contain essential oils, which make up 80 of the 162 fragrance ingredients documented to cause skin allergy.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

80/162 is a count of documented allergens (de Groot), not a risk comparison; the store claim is unquantified. Klaschka 2016 supports the mechanism (supplier SDSs: orange oil ~95% limonene, lavender ~40% linalool) but counted no 'fragrance-free'-labeled products, and in its EU sample 58/100 products did declare natural-origin allergens, so on EU labels the ingredient list often shows them.

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

'Natural' scent is not biologically inert: essential oils such as lavender and tea tree are chemical mixtures, and in lab tests they acted on estrogen and androgen receptors.

Moderate evidence: Shows biological activity, not harm at use levels.

Source: Henley 2007, New England Journal of Medicine Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies

Even a review that found little evidence of harm from lavender and tea tree oil in children warned that 'a lack of evidence of harm cannot be interpreted as evidence of safety' for essential oils in children's products.

Moderate evidence: Direct quote; the review's own conclusion is that the link is unsupported.

Source: Hawkins 2020, Complementary Therapies in Medicine Industry-funded Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Natural does not mean hormonally inert: the hormone-active chemicals tested here are ordinary constituents of lavender and tea tree essential oils, not synthetic fragrance chemicals.

Moderate evidence: Cell assays only, at concentrations far above plausible human exposure; whole-animal guideline tests of the two main lavender constituents were negative.

Source: Ramsey 2019, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Terpenes do not behave alike: alpha-terpineol and terpinen-4-ol were the most hormone-active of the eight essential-oil chemicals tested, while eucalyptol was inactive on both the estrogen and the androgen receptor.

Moderate evidence: Receptor assays only; eucalyptol is separately reported to inhibit the steroid-synthesis enzyme CYP17A1, which this study did not test.

Source: Ramsey 2019, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

A fragrance-free body lotion still gave the highest VOC emissions measured in the study, mostly from a preservative (likely phenoxyethanol), and its plant oils reacted with ozone to form aldehydes such as nonanal and nonenal.

Moderate evidence: One lotion, 4 men, chamber; phenoxyethanol identity inferred from PTR-MS ions and the ingredient list.

Source: Wang 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

There is no known 'safe terpene'. Eucalyptol is inactive on hormone receptors but acts weakly on a hormone-making enzyme; alpha-terpineol is the most active on receptors and only middling on the enzyme; limonene is near-inert on receptors and a comparable enzyme inhibitor. The two rankings disagree in both directions.

Moderate evidence: Both rankings are in vitro and at concentrations far above real exposure. The point is that one screen does not clear a molecule, not that any of these molecules is proven harmful.

Source: Sharma 2024 + Ramsey 2019, Biomolecules Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies

Natural exfoliants such as salt, sugar, ground seeds or shells and cellulose beads can replace plastic microbeads.

Moderate evidence: Environmental substitution only; skin safety of the alternatives was not assessed.

Source: Han & Kim 2025, Cosmetics Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies

Essential oils oxidize in air into the same allergens as synthetic fragrance, and 'natural' cosmetics routinely carry fragrance allergens: 91% of 'natural' perfumes on the Danish market contained at least one target fragrance sensitizer (chemical analysis, 1996) — but only 35% of the other 'natural' cosmetics (shampoos, creams, lotions) in the same study did, at far lower concentrations — and 82 of 100 European natural-brand products checked in 2013-15 listed at least one allergen on the label.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

91%/35% is Rastogi 1996's own perfume-vs-other-cosmetics split, now confirmed by reading the primary directly (a review had dropped the perfume qualifier and stated 91% as if it covered 'natural cosmetics' generally; corrected 2026-09-27). Rastogi 1996 also found synthetic-only fragrance chemicals (hydroxycitronellal, alpha-hexylcinnamic aldehyde) in some 'natural' products, at concentrations that in one case (6.04% hydroxycitronellal) exceeded the level shown to sensitize 36% of volunteers in patch testing. 82/100 is Klaschka 2016's independent label analysis (10 products from each of 10 brands, not representative, declarations only). The oxidation half rests on Karlberg/Bråred Christensson primaries, not on these surveys. Single small studies (n=42 and n=100), not replicated across labs, so strength stays moderate per the grading rule.

Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021 (Rastogi 1996; Klaschka 2016), Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

In a check of 100 'natural' personal-care products from 10 European natural-cosmetics brands, 82 listed at least one of the EU's labeled fragrance allergens (up to 11 in one product); limonene was on 71 labels and linalool on 70.

Moderate evidence: Label declarations only, no chemical analysis; 10 products from each of 10 anonymous brands, not representative; 2013-15, when the EU list had 26 allergens.

Source: Klaschka 2016, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

'For sensitive skin' is not a promise of no fragrance allergens: all 15 natural products named 'sensitive', 'soothing' or 'soft' listed between 1 and 7 of the EU's labeled fragrance allergens.

Moderate evidence: N=15 products, labels only, European natural brands.

Source: Klaschka 2016, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

In a 2016 survey of 174 best-selling US body moisturizers, 18 of the 40 labeled "fragrance free" (45%) still listed at least one ingredient that dermatologists' allergen database (ACDS CAMP) flags for fragrance-allergic patients.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Ingredient-label survey, one product class and snapshot; CAMP list is broad (plant extracts, multifunctional chemicals such as benzyl alcohol); flagged ingredients not itemized; not added scent or masking.

Source: Xu 2017, JAMA Dermatology Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

Among the same best-selling US moisturizers, 15 of 18 labeled "hypoallergenic" (83%) and 95% of those labeled "dermatologist recommended" contained at least one common skin allergen; only 12% of all products contained none.

Moderate evidence: Listed allergens (NACDG series), not reactions; label data, 2016 formulations.

Source: Xu 2017, JAMA Dermatology Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

All 16 UK day face moisturizers tested gave off fragrance terpenes (measured together as 'limonene'), and the 8 'green'-marketed ones released the same amount as the 8 regular ones (0.25 vs 0.26 µg per second per gram), as well as the same ethanol.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Lab headspace (SIFT-MS) of 16 products from UK shops; 'limonene' is the sum of all monoterpenes; no statistical test; green products did have less synthetic-only solvents (t-butyl alcohol, 1,3-butanediol).

Source: Yeoman 2022, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies

In 1999 a dermatologist listed ten US "fragrance-free" skin products that named fragrance chemicals in their own ingredient lists, including a "fragrance-free" cleansing bar containing rose, rosewood, cedarwood and almond oils; one manufacturer admitted the benzaldehyde in its fragrance-free product was there to mask an unpleasant smell.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Ten named examples from 1999 labels, not a systematic survey; formulations have likely changed since. Masking is one manufacturer's admission and remains unquantified across products.

Source: Scheinman 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

In a 1996 Danish GC-MS analysis, 91% (20 of 22) of perfumes marketed as based on natural ingredients contained 1 to 7 of 11 well-known fragrance sensitizers at concentrations up to 7.7%, including one perfume with 6.04% hydroxycitronellal — above the concentration shown to sensitize 36% of healthy volunteers in patch testing.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

42 products, one country (Denmark), 1996 market snapshot; parent-compound GC-MS only, not label declarations; the 91% figure applies to the natural-ingredient PERFUME subset only, not natural cosmetics generally.

Source: Rastogi 1996, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

The same 1996 study found far fewer fragrance sensitizers in other 'natural' cosmetics (shampoos, creams, lotions, deodorants, massage oils): only 35% (7 of 20) contained 1-3 of the target substances, at concentrations (0.0003-0.082%) roughly 100x lower than the natural perfumes.

Moderate evidence: Small non-representative sample (n=20); shows fragrance-sensitizer exposure from 'natural' products is concentrated in perfume-type products, not uniform across the category.

Source: Rastogi 1996, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies

Essential oils are complex mixtures of hundreds of components whose composition varies by producer, plant origin, climate and extraction method, so a product labeled as containing 'lavender oil' or 'tea tree oil' does not guarantee a fixed chemical composition or a fixed level of biological activity.

Moderate evidence: Stated as general essential-oil chemistry background in this review; not measured for any specific consumer product here.

Source: Ramsey 2020 (YJBM), Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Self-reported survey

More than half of Germans (55.6%) wrongly believe products with natural fragrance ingredients are healthier than products with synthetic ones, and the false belief is highest (67-69%) among people who read ingredient labels or prefer fragrance-free products.

Moderate evidence: Belief survey, not a chemical measurement; the 'wrong' judgment is the author's own hazard-classification argument, not tested in this paper.

Source: Klaschka 2020a, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

A headspace test of the fragranced and fragrance-free versions of the same detergent brand found 34 volatile chemicals in the fragranced version but only 7 in the fragrance-free version, and no fragrance terpenes (such as D-limonene or linalool) at all in the fragrance-free version.

Moderate evidence: Single product pair tested (one Australian brand); presence/absence only, not a full quantitative comparison.

Source: Goodman 2019, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Government agency

Allergy UK's Product Endorsement Scheme is run by Allergy Research Ltd, a private limited company that is a legally separate trading subsidiary of the charity British Allergy Foundation (which operates publicly as Allergy UK); ARL donates its profits to the charity.

Moderate evidence: Organizational/legal fact stated plainly on the page itself; not independently verified against Companies House or charity filings.

Source: Allergy UK 2026 Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Government agency

On the page describing its Product Endorsement Scheme, Allergy UK publishes no fragrance-specific criteria: the word "fragrance" does not appear anywhere on the page, and the only stated assurance is that a product has been "scientifically tested by Allergy UK to confirm its claims," with no ingredient list, protocol, or threshold given.

Moderate evidence: Absence of published criteria on this page is not proof the underlying testing process lacks criteria internally; it is only what the public page discloses.

Source: Allergy UK 2026 Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Government agency

EPA's Safer Choice fragrance-free certification is a documentary ingredient-list review, not a finished-product lab test: EPA checks that a product already meets the full Safer Choice Standard, then checks its ingredient list against the industry's own IFRA Transparency List of fragrance materials.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

No chemical analysis of the finished product is described; verification rests on declared ingredient lists checked against two lists (SCIL and the IFRA Transparency List), not analytical chemistry or clinical testing.

Source: US EPA Safer Choice Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Government agency

A product carrying the EPA Safer Choice 'fragrance-free' label can still have a smell, because ordinary functional ingredients such as surfactants and solvents can carry an odor without being classified as a fragrance material.

Moderate evidence: EPA states this directly; it is a definitional carve-out, not a measurement of any certified product's actual odor.

Source: US EPA Safer Choice Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Government agency

Health Canada's cosmetic labeling guidance on 'unscented'/'fragrance-free' does not cover laundry detergent, fabric softener or dryer sheets; Canada's legal definition of 'cosmetic' (Food and Drugs Act s.2) covers products for the complexion, skin, hair or teeth, not fabric.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The 'cosmetic' definition and its exclusion of fabric-care products is confirmed directly from the source text; that laundry products instead fall under Canada's consumer chemical product safety rules (CCPSA) is background knowledge, not itself stated in either captured Health Canada page, so graded moderate rather than strong.

Source: Health Canada 2026 Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a national survey of 1,098 Australian adults, one in three (33%) said fragranced products such as air fresheners, cleaners and perfume gave them health problems, most often breathing trouble, migraines and skin reactions.

Moderate evidence: Self-report; same dataset as Steinemann 2018 AU asthmatics, 2018 AU MCS and 2019 AU arm (362/1,098 reconfirmed in the MCS paper's Table 1; not a replication).

Source: Steinemann 2017, Preventive Medicine Reports Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In national surveys of 4,435 adults in the US, Australia, the UK and Sweden, about 1 in 3 (32%) said fragranced products such as air fresheners, scented cleaners or other people's perfume cause them health problems.

Moderate evidence: Self-report; any symptom from any product counts; pooled re-analysis of previously published surveys; the US arm (34.7%) is the same dataset as four US papers.

Source: Steinemann 2019, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a national US survey, about two in three adults with asthma (64.3%) said fragranced products made them ill, compared with about one in four (23.8%) of people without asthma.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Self-report, unadjusted; asthma includes undefined 'asthma-like condition'; same dataset as Steinemann 2016; 34% of asthmatics also report diagnosed MCS and 42-53% of affected asthmatics are MCS-diagnosed, but asthmatics without MCS are still affected at 46-56% vs 20-22% of people with neither.

Source: Steinemann 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

27.9% of US adults with asthma said fragranced products had triggered asthma attacks.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Self-report. Corroborated but not strengthened by an independent 1986 clinic/inpatient survey (Shim & Williams, n=60, unselected for fragrance sensitivity): 72% named perfume/cologne as worsening their asthma, well above this 27.9% attack-specific representative-survey rate, consistent with our clinic-ceiling-above-population-rate pattern.

Source: Steinemann 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a random-based sample of 946 Danish adults, 42% said fragranced products gave them eye, nose or breathing symptoms in the past year (50% of women, 30% of men).

Moderate evidence: Self-attributed symptoms; sample enriched for allergy at baseline.

Source: Elberling 2005, Clinical and Experimental Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Standard allergy tests did not predict who reacted to fragrance; people with sensitive airways (including non-allergic asthma) were 2-4 times more likely to react, pointing to airway irritation rather than classic allergy.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Predictors measured 4-5 years before outcomes; association not causation. In clinic patients the reactive trait can be sensory rather than bronchial: Millqvist 1999's 11 perfume reactors were all methacholine-negative and 10/11 skin-prick negative, and Millqvist & Lowhagen 1996's 9 patients (an earlier, blinded, placebo-controlled challenge) were likewise all methacholine-negative yet still reacted significantly to unsmelled perfume with zero objective airway change. So 'sensitive airways' in this literature should not be read as bronchial hyper-reactivity when applied to clinic-referred sensory-hyperreactivity patients; Elberling's population-level BHR association may instead mark co-morbid asthma. A related but distinct 2007 study from the same Gentofte group (Elberling 2007, dermatology-clinic patients, not this population cohort) found a candidate non-IgE, non-neural mechanism in parallel: increased basophil histamine release to perfume, unrelated to atopy, contact allergy or asthma status. 'Airway irritation' (a neural/sensory account) may not be the whole mechanistic story; BHR, sensory/capsaicin hyperreactivity and basophil hyperreactivity have not been measured together in the same patients.

Source: Elberling 2005, Clinical and Experimental Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a national survey of 1,100 Swedish adults, one in three (33.1%) said fragranced products gave them health problems, most often breathing difficulties (20.0%) and migraines (16.1%).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Self-report; same data as 2019 SE arm. A structurally different Swedish research program (Andersson 2008, CSS-SHR instrument) finds a similarly-sized ~33% figure in Skovde adults using a different question ("bothered by strong odors"), cited secondhand within Andersson 2008; that comparator is not yet a primary source in this evidence base, so it corroborates the general phenomenon without directly replicating this claim.

Source: Steinemann 2018 (Sweden), Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a nationally representative survey of 1,136 US adults, 34.7% said fragranced products such as air fresheners, cleaners and perfume gave them health problems, most often breathing difficulties, eye/nose irritation or migraine.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Self-report, any symptom from any product; not a diagnosis; adults 18-65 in an opt-in online panel; same US dataset as the 2018 asthmatics, 2018 MCS and 2019 pooled papers (not replications); 62.7% of the affected also report chemical sensitivity or MCS, but 17.8% of people with neither are still affected.

Source: Steinemann 2016, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a national survey of 1,098 Australian adults, more than half of those with asthma or an asthma-like condition (55.6%) said fragranced products made them ill, against about a quarter (23.9%) of people without asthma.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Self-report; unadjusted; 'asthma-like condition' undefined (it is 47.9% of MCS respondents in the MCS re-cut); same dataset as the AU arm of Steinemann 2019 and Steinemann 2018 (MCS, AU).

Source: Steinemann 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

About 1 in 4 Australian adults with asthma (24.0%) said a fragranced product had triggered an asthma attack; air fresheners were the most common trigger (14.1% of all asthmatics).

Moderate evidence: Self-report; consistent with US and Danish samples (~34-43% airway symptoms).

Source: Steinemann 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Cleaning products were the suspected exposure in 236 of 1,915 (12%) confirmed work-related asthma cases across California, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey (1993-1997); in California, janitors and cleaners had roughly double the confirmed-case rate of all other occupations combined (4.3 vs 2.3 per 100,000 workers).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Now traced to its primary source (Rosenman 2003), not a secondary citation. But the underlying surveillance system's own authors say it misses 53-87% of true cases (Michigan capture-recapture) and that up to 37% of confirmed cases in such systems may not be truly work-related (Malo et al., cited by Rosenman); 'cleaning products' is a broad, mostly unspecified chemical category (36% of named agents never identified further than 'cleaning compound'), not fragrance-specific (limonene only 2/300 exposure counts).

Source: Nazaroff & Weschler 2004, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a US national survey, about 1 in 5 adults (20.4%) said air fresheners gave them health problems such as breathing difficulty, migraine or asthma attacks.

Moderate evidence: Restated from Steinemann 2016 survey; cite the primary; self-report.

Source: Steinemann 2017, Building and Environment Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a nationally representative survey of 1,100 UK adults, 27.8% said fragranced products such as air fresheners, cleaners or perfume gave them health problems, including migraines (8.4%) and asthma attacks (6.8%).

Moderate evidence: Self-report, any symptom; same data as Steinemann 2019 UK arm.

Source: Steinemann 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

In a small double-blind, randomized lab test (Ternesten-Hasséus 2002, the primary study behind this review's capsaicin-challenge claim), 12 people with multiple chemical sensitivity coughed significantly more than 12 matched healthy controls at every capsaicin dose tested (P<0.05 to P<0.005), a sign that their airway irritant nerves are oversensitive.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Now confirmed by reading the primary source directly rather than only via this review's secondhand paraphrase: n=12 patients vs 12 matched controls, single Gothenburg clinic, MCS diagnosed only by Cullen's clinical criteria (no independent biomarker), and not independently replicated outside this same research group (which has authored nearly every paper in this specific evidence line).

Source: Molot 2023, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Estimated cancer risks were below one in a million for most feminine hygiene product types; washes (3.3 in a million) and sprays/powders (2.1 in a million) were just above that level under worst-case assumptions.

Moderate evidence: Modeled upper-bound scenario.

Source: Lin 2020, Environment International Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In lab studies, common flavor and fragrance chemicals act directly on TRPA1, the nerve receptor that senses irritants such as mustard oil: cinnamon's cinnamaldehyde and thyme's thymol switch it on, while camphor and eucalyptus oil block it.

Moderate evidence: Cell and animal pharmacology; the review's framing is therapeutic, not hazard.

Source: Mihara & Shibamoto 2015, Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a double-blind lab test where people could not smell it, perfume vapor piped to one eye caused more eye irritation than clean air in 10 of 42 people, including 2 healthy volunteers: perfume can irritate the eyes without being smelled.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

N=42; mostly self-rated eye symptoms; patient vs control difference P=0.07; only 2 objective tearing events. Consistent with the earlier single-blind Millqvist 1999 (eye irritation 1.1 vs 0.2 on 0-3, n=11), a different group, perfume and patient type. Das-Munshi, Rubin & Wessely 2006's systematic review classifies both single-blind Millqvist perfume studies (1996, 1999) as insufficiently blinded (nose clips only, no true olfactory mask), so they should not be counted as strong independent corroboration; Elberling's own double-blind result stands on its own primary data, which is why this stays at moderate rather than strong.

Source: Elberling 2006, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

The eye irritation from perfume vapor was not an allergy: people patch-test allergic to the very same perfume were no more likely to react than those who were not.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

21 patients, 10 patch-test positive; small sample. A related 2007 study from the same group, clinic and challenge perfume found the same pattern in a different assay: basophil histamine release to perfume was not associated with contact-allergy patch-test status either (Table 4, all P > 0.05, n=17 patients). This is modest corroboration from the same research program (same lab/clinic/perfume), not independent replication, so the grade is unchanged.

Source: Elberling 2006, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a Toronto clinic for work-related breathing problems, about 1 in 10 referred workers had an irritable larynx (throat) syndrome rather than asthma; perfumes and cleaning agents, bleaches and air fresheners were among the named triggers.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single referral clinic, retrospective, n=30; perfume named by 5/30 and cleaning agents/fresheners by 4/30; 10% of referrals, not of workers. Morrison 1999, the founding case series behind the diagnostic criteria Hoy applied, independently found perfume was a named trigger in only 26% (10/39) of its own ILS cohort, behind reflux (72%) and other airborne irritants (51%) — the syndrome is not fragrance-specific at its point of origin either.

Source: Hoy 2010, Occupational Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

About 80% of workers with scent- and irritant-triggered irritable larynx syndrome were women, versus 24–52% of workers with occupational asthma at the same clinic.

Moderate evidence: N=30, one clinic; referral and care-seeking may differ by sex.

Source: Hoy 2010, Occupational Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Scent-triggered throat and breathing reactions can mimic asthma but do not respond to asthma inhalers; almost two-thirds of these patients had been prescribed asthma medication anyway.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Clinic series; non-response to asthma drugs is the authors' clinical statement, not a trial. Independently corroborated by a different clinic and decade: Millqvist & Lowhagen 1996 (Sweden, 1996) found 7/9 (78%) of its scent-triggered, methacholine-negative patients had been prescribed beta2-agonist and inhaled corticosteroids with 'no demonstrated — but only a subjectively doubtful — effect,' and directly demonstrated the 'mimics asthma' half objectively: perfume provoked significantly more symptoms than saline (P<0.01) with zero change in PEF, O2 saturation, heart rate, respiratory rate or expired CO2. But like Hoy 2010, the 'does not respond to inhalers' half remains a subjective clinical judgment embedded in a case series in both papers, not a controlled medication trial, so per the grading rule (a claim with any unverified part stays below strong) the grade stays at moderate rather than moving to strong.

Source: Hoy 2010, Occupational Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

An older, unblinded human study (Stewart 1970) reported eye, nose and throat irritation from PGME solvent vapor at 250 ppm in 23 subjects across five experimental runs, and odor tolerance developing within 25 minutes in 6 subjects at 100 ppm; a later double-blind study with objective eye measurements (Emmen 2003) found no objective eye effects at up to 150 ppm and only very slight subjective eye discomfort at 150 ppm, but did not test 250 ppm.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Stewart 1970 (read directly) used 23 subjects across five experimental runs at ~230-250 ppm for 1-7 hours (not 'two subjects' as this claim previously stated; the 2-subject figure applies only to a separate rising-concentration ramp experiment used for the 50-75 ppm odor-objectionable and 1000-2050 ppm severity findings) and 6 subjects at 100 ppm, with eye/nose/throat irritation developing in 20 of 23 subjects within 45-60 minutes at 250 ppm. The design remains genuinely unblinded (no placebo condition or masking anywhere in the paper) and reports no objective ocular measurements (redness, corneal thickness, blink counts) — only visual acuity, coordination, neurological and brake reaction-time tests, all normal throughout at and below 250 ppm. One author (Torkelson) was a Dow Chemical employee and the test material was Dow-supplied ('Dowtherm 209'), a more direct link than Emmen 2003's Dow-supplied sample alone; since the finding (irritation at 250 ppm) runs counter to the sponsor's commercial interest, the COI does not obviously bias this particular result toward understatement. Emmen 2003 did not test 250 ppm, so it does not directly refute the finding, only the confidence one can place in an unblinded, non-objective design; per our grading rule, a single unblinded single-lab study without objective measures cannot reach 'strong' even with n=23.

Source: CIR 2008 (citing Stewart 1970), International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

Citronellol, a rose-scented fragrance ingredient present in about half of household products, crosses the blood-brain barrier: brain-to-blood ratios were 0.5-0.8 in fish, up to 0.6 in mice, and 0.77 in a laboratory barrier built from human brain cells.

Moderate evidence: BBB crossing is measured and dose-independent as a property, but the doses used were far above consumer exposure; routes were waterborne and oral, not inhalation or skin.

Source: Kim 2024, Journal of Hazardous Materials Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

At high doses in zebrafish and mice, citronellol pushed tryptophan metabolism toward 3-hydroxykynurenine, a neurotoxic metabolite, and produced brain inflammation, roughly double the oxidative stress, a five-fold rise in dying brain cells, a leaky blood-brain barrier and anxiety-like behavior.

Moderate evidence: Zebrafish 2-8 mg/L in water; mice 345-3450 mg/kg by gavage (top dose = an LD50); 10^5-10^6 times estimated human exposure; male mice only.

Source: Kim 2024, Journal of Hazardous Materials Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

Citronellol's effect on the brain reverses with dose: protective in a rat Parkinson's-disease model at 25 mg/kg oral (given as a month-long pretreatment before each day's toxin dose, not as treatment of existing damage), damaging at 345 mg/kg and above in a different paper, species and route.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Both dose points are single-dose, single-model animal work. The protective study (Jayaraj 2022) has now been read directly rather than via Kim 2024's citation and confirms the 25 mg/kg number exactly, but that dose is itself 10^4-10^5x above estimated human citronellol exposure (1,600-8,000x after allometric human-equivalent-dose scaling) — so neither the protective nor the toxic limb has been shown near a human-relevant dose, and the crossover point between 25 and 345 mg/kg remains unmeasured.

Source: Kim 2024, Journal of Hazardous Materials Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Salicylate fragrance chemicals pass through skin and are converted in the body to salicylic acid, the compound aspirin becomes: for methyl salicylate (wintergreen), human studies found roughly 12-30% of an applied dose absorbed.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Human absorption data are almost all for methyl salicylate, often under occlusion at pharmaceutical concentrations; the review quotes the range three different ways (2-43%, 12-30.7%, 11.8-30.7%).

Source: RIFM Expert Panel / Belsito 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

Mice breathing the vapor of five ordinary commercial colognes for one hour showed airway irritation and a 30-35% drop in mid-expiratory airflow, despite never having been exposed to any allergen or asthma trigger.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Mouse study; vapor load never measured and far above household exposure; classical RD50 endpoint was not significant; unreplicated outside the authors' own laboratory. Their 1997 air-freshener study (same two authors, same commercial lab, same computerised ASTM E-981 method, different product) found a matching ~35% peak airflow fall, which is within-lab consistency, not independent replication, and that paper's own 'real-use exposure' claim does not survive comparison with measured indoor VOC data. An independent EPA/ManTech attempt to replicate this lab's method (Tepper et al. 1995, carpets, full text now in our evidence base) found no significant carpet-related toxicity by individual-animal statistics and attributed the lab's positive-looking signals to restrained-exposure procedural stress present even in air-only controls, but it never measured the airflow-limitation endpoint this claim rests on, so it bears on the lab's method credibility generally without directly retesting this specific finding.

Source: Anderson & Anderson 1998, Archives of Environmental Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Over 20 years (1993–2012), California's work-related asthma surveillance confirmed 270 cases linked to perfume or air fresheners at work, 3.8% of all confirmed cases; perfume was the 9th most common workplace asthma exposure.

Moderate evidence: Surveillance count of physician-diagnosed, reported cases; misses >=2/3 of cases; no objective testing required; excludes fragranced cleaners.

Source: Weinberg 2017, Journal of Asthma Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

94% of workers with fragrance-related work asthma in California were women, mostly in offices, health care and schools, and most cases came from perfume worn by others.

Moderate evidence: Authors attribute the sex skew to occupation and exposure, not susceptibility; care-seeking bias possible.

Source: Weinberg 2017, Journal of Asthma Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

Many people with chemical sensitivities delay or avoid medical care because clinics and hospitals are heavily scented; healthcare was named as one of the least accessible settings (31 of 60).

Moderate evidence: Qualitative, self-selected Canadian sample; frequency of care avoidance not quantified.

Source: Roy 2026 Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a nationally representative German survey, half of the people who get sick from fragranced products (51.1%) had been kept from going somewhere because of fragrance, and 43.8% had avoided public toilets with air fresheners or scented products.

Moderate evidence: Self-report; Germany 2019, n=219 fragrance-sensitive of 1,102; same data as Steinemann & Klaschka 2019.

Source: Klaschka 2020, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Fragrance can cause skin allergy without touching your own products: from a partner's toiletries (consort dermatitis), from soap residue carried on the hands to the eyelids, and through the air, as in a small case series of a ride-share driver and four passengers whose airborne facial/eyelid dermatitis (all patch-test positive for fragrance mix I and/or balsam of Peru) was linked to car fragrance diffusers, with the driver's rash clearing when his diffuser was removed.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Mechanisms from case reports and a systematic review of consort ACD cited by the review; the airborne example is now confirmed against its primary (Perper 2017, now ingested): actually 5 total patients (1 driver + 4 passengers), not just the driver, published in a Contact Dermatitis section the journal states is exempt from mandatory peer review, with no chemical/air testing, no controls, and diffuser-removal resolution documented only for the driver. Kept at moderate, not raised to strong, per the single-small-uncontrolled-study rule; no prevalence data.

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In lab tests on human cells, both lavender oil and tea tree oil switched on estrogen-receptor signaling (about half the maximum effect of the body's own estradiol) and blocked testosterone-type (androgen-receptor) signaling by 41–52%.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Cell assays with whole commercial oils at ~0.005–0.025% vol/vol; no data that such concentrations reach a child's body; linalool and linalyl acetate alone were inactive in later guideline assays (industry).

Source: Henley 2007, New England Journal of Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Lavender oil and tea tree oil activated the human estrogen receptor in cell assays to about 17-18% of the response to estradiol, and blocked testosterone signaling more completely than flutamide, a prescription anti-androgen drug.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Human cell lines, oils at 0.005-0.025% v/v; percentages are relative to 1 nM estradiol or 1 nM testosterone in transfected HepG2 and MDA-kb2 cells; Henley 2007 reported ~50% for the same oils in a different cell system.

Source: Ramsey 2019, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

If a young child has unexplained early breast development, it is reasonable to ask about lavender and tea tree products, including room diffusers, and try stopping them – which is what the study's authors recommend to doctors.

Moderate evidence: This is the authors' clinical recommendation, not a proven treatment; they explicitly state they are not recommending that anyone avoid these products generally.

Source: Ramsey 2019, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

Of all personal care product types, perfumes and colognes had the highest hazard ratings in the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep database, and adults aged 18–39 used the highest-rated ones (average 7.2 of 10, vs 5.9 for those 60 and over).

Moderate evidence: EWG hazard ratings from listed ingredients, not measured toxicity or exposure; 39% of perfumes used could not be rated.

Source: Barrett 2025, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

Black women in a US university sample were twice as likely as White women to have recently used a hair product rated high-hazard by EWG (relative risk 1.99, 95% CI 1.37–2.89).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Average hair-product scores did not differ by race; hazard rating, not exposure; 53 Black women. Helm 2018 (GC/MS of 18 hair products used by/marketed to Black women) found somewhat higher DEP and newly-detected nonylphenol ethoxylates vs. a general-market baseline, which is consistent with elevated exposure but is measured chemistry with no White-women comparison group in that study, not a replication of this RR — see C100 extension. Chan 2023 (retail-shelf audit, 14,019 hair products, 50 Boston stores) found stores in lower-income Roxbury and Mission Hill ~2.3x as likely to stock an EWG high-hazard hair product as higher-income Beacon Hill — a structurally distinct, supply-side corroboration (store stocking, not individual use; only 2 of 6 neighborhood comparisons significant; race and SES confounded in that study's own design) — see second C100 extension.

Source: Barrett 2025, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Essential-oil terpenes can interfere with the enzymes that BUILD hormones, not just the receptors hormones act on — a route that the standard estrogen- and androgen-receptor safety screens are not designed to detect.

Moderate evidence: Mechanistic point only. The measured effects were weak (13–33%) and all at a single 10 µM with no dose–response.

Source: Sharma 2024, Biomolecules Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

The antibacterial triclosan, once in about 45% of US soaps, reacts to UVB at an intensity matched to real midday sunlight by generating free radicals that damaged human skin cells (HaCaT keratinocytes) in the laboratory, dose-dependently and only when triclosan and radiation were combined.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single lab, single immortalized human keratinocyte cell line (HaCaT), not primary human skin or an in vivo model; triclosan concentration (5 ug/ml) not validated against measured human skin-surface levels; not replicated.

Source: Khalid & Abdollahi 2021, Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

A 2024 safety review by an industry toxicologist states there are no data on whether PTFE passes through the skin, how the body handles it, or whether it affects hormones, and that it does not biodegrade.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

CIR's own 2018 primary safety report (now ingested, src-2018-safety-assessment-polyfluorinated-polymers-cosmetics) confirms in its own words that no dermal penetration or ADME data exist for PTFE, directly corroborating that part of this claim from the industry panel itself, not just the review's paraphrase. However, the CIR primary never once mentions endocrine disruption or aquatic toxicity anywhere in its 58 references — those two items in Jomaa's abstract are not sourced to CIR and are best read as the review's own added framing (general PFAS-family concerns), not a CIR-specific finding for PTFE. Absence of data is not evidence of harm; tested endpoints (irritation, sensitization, genotoxicity) were negative.

Source: Jomaa 2024, Journal of the Netherlands Society of Toxicology (JNST) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In a 2025 lab screen of 42 everyday perfumes, almost all contained compounds that damaged bacterial DNA, killed cells, blocked the hormone-making enzyme aromatase or acted on human estrogen or androgen receptors in test organisms, regardless of price or whether the perfume was marketed to men or women.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

In vitro (bacteria, yeast, isolated enzyme on a chromatography plate); 42 unnamed perfumes from one German campus; no compound identified; no human exposure measured. A 2026 same-lab follow-up (Schmidtmann 2026) confirms only the DNA-damage/cytotoxicity part (bacterial Ames, not the same assay) in a smaller, different, unnamed 8-perfume set, still without metabolic (S9) activation for perfumes and without retesting the hormone-active endpoints — same-lab corroboration, not independent replication.

Source: Morlock & Heil 2025, Journal of Chromatography A Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

Two fragrance musks, AETT and musk ambrette, damaged the nervous system of rats in industry-sponsored studies and were withdrawn; musk ambrette was also barred from skin products because it caused allergic reactions in sunlight.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Both primaries now read directly: Spencer 1979 (AETT) is a small, single-lab, single-route dietary study (N=16); Spencer 1984 (musk ambrette) is a large, dual-route, dose-ranging study (N=220) that alone would meet the bar for 'strong'. Because the claim bundles both compounds and the AETT sub-claim rests on one small single-lab study, the combined claim stays at moderate per the grading rule (one small study keeps a claim at moderate; a claim with any weaker bundled part stays below strong). Musk ambrette's photosensitization ground for its skin-product ban is independently documented (Cronin 1984, Giovinazzo 1980) and distinct from the neurotoxicity finding.

Source: Ford 1994 (RIFM) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Sunlight can turn some fragrance chemicals into skin allergens: the now-banned perfume ingredient 7-methoxycoumarin made 11 of 25 volunteers photoallergic, and in people already sensitized, 0.001% plus UVA light triggered a reaction.

Moderate evidence: Artificial UVA at 20 J/cm2 (~1 h summer sun) for the 0.001% figure; predictive photomaximization test; ingredient banned in EU cosmetics since 2000.

Source: SCCNFP 2000 Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Two sunscreen ingredients, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and homosalate, blocked the male hormone receptor in human cells, at roughly the potency of the pesticide metabolite p,p'-DDE.

Moderate evidence: MDA-kb2 reporter cells, IC50 4.98 and 5.57 uM against 0.1 nM DHT; cell assay only, no animal or human anti-androgen endpoint in this paper; data from the group's own Ma 2003.

Source: Schlumpf 2004, Toxicology Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a national survey of 1,098 Australian adults, 6.5% said a doctor or health professional had told them they have multiple chemical sensitivities, and 18.9% said they are unusually sensitive to everyday chemicals.

Moderate evidence: Single self-reported 'ever told' item, online panel, adults 18-65; a South Australian population survey found 1% diagnosed; same dataset as the AU fragrance reports.

Source: Steinemann 2018, Preventive Medicine Reports Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

Among Australians who said they had been diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivities, 91.5% reported health problems from fragranced products such as air fresheners, scented cleaners and other people's perfume.

Moderate evidence: N = 71; self-report; partly built into the definition.

Source: Steinemann 2018, Preventive Medicine Reports Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a 2016 US national survey, 86% of people who said a doctor had diagnosed them with multiple chemical sensitivity reported health problems from fragranced products, most often breathing problems (50%), migraines (47%) and eye/nose symptoms (47%).

Moderate evidence: Self-report; 'diagnosed' = told by any health professional; opt-in online panel; same dataset as Steinemann 2016.

Source: Steinemann 2018 (JOEM), Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In the same 2016 US survey, about 1 in 4 adults (25.9%) said they were unusually sensitive to everyday chemicals such as cleaning products, perfume and detergents, and 81% of them reported health problems from fragranced products.

Moderate evidence: Self-report; adults 18-65 in an opt-in online panel; earlier US telephone surveys gave 11-16%.

Source: Steinemann 2018 (JOEM), Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Some people whose breathing problems are set off by scents do not have asthma or allergy: in a Swedish clinic study, 11 such patients had normal lung function, negative methacholine and allergy tests, and asthma medicines had given most of them little relief.

Moderate evidence: Clinic referrals selected for scent-triggered complaints; n=11; describes a phenotype, not its prevalence.

Source: Millqvist 1999, Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a small lab test where patients could not smell it, perfume released near their eyes caused more eye irritation than a saline dummy (1.1 vs 0.2 on a 0-3 scale); a later double-blind study found the same eye effect.

Moderate evidence: Single-blind, n=11, self-rated; corroborated double-blind by Elberling 2006 (8/21 patients vs 2/21 controls, P=0.07).

Source: Millqvist 1999, Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

A systematic review of workplace irritants found that people with pre-existing airway sensitivity (atopy plus non-specific bronchial hyper-responsiveness) can develop new-onset asthma from chronic, repeated exposure to an irritant at concentrations below the official occupational exposure limit.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

General occupational-irritant literature (solvents, isocyanates, dusts, gases), not fragrance-specific; the below-OEL pattern is narrative synthesis over 3 older sources plus compiled case-series examples, not an independently SIGN 2+-graded finding.

Source: Baur, Bakehe & Vellguth 2012, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a small double-blind lab test, 12 people with multiple chemical sensitivity coughed significantly more than 12 healthy matched controls every time they inhaled capsaicin (the compound that makes chili peppers hot), and the difference grew larger at higher doses.

Moderate evidence: N=12 vs 12, single Gothenburg clinic, MCS diagnosed only by Cullen's clinical criteria (no independent biomarker), not independently replicated outside this research group.

Source: Ternesten-Hasséus 2002, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

The extra coughing in multiple chemical sensitivity patients was not explained by asthma or classic allergy: patients tested negative on standard allergy skin-prick and methacholine airway-reactivity tests, and lung function (FEV1) did not change after capsaicin, pointing to an oversensitive airway nerve response rather than an allergic or asthmatic reaction.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Small single-center sample; several patients used asthma/allergy medication for symptom control (withheld before testing), so baseline airway status over time is not fully independent of treatment.

Source: Ternesten-Hasséus 2002, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a nationally representative sample of 2,432 US women aged 20-49, women who douched frequently (2+ times/month) had 81% higher blood levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene than women who never douched, with a dose-response trend across frequency categories (p=0.04).

Moderate evidence: Cross-sectional NHANES biomarker data; wide CI (2% to 221%); mothballs and toilet deodorizers are DCB's dominant known sources and could not be ruled out as confounders.

Source: Ding 2020, Journal of Women's Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Using feminine powder in the past month was linked to 36% higher blood ethylbenzene in a nationally representative NHANES sample of reproductive-aged women.

Moderate evidence: Single VOC, modest effect size; alternative sources (e.g. talc packaging) not ruled out; no dose-response could be tested (frequency not collected).

Source: Ding 2020, Journal of Women's Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Non-Hispanic Black women douched far more often than white women (39% vs 13% in the past month) and had significantly higher blood 1,4-dichlorobenzene, a possible contributor to racial differences in chemical exposure.

Moderate evidence: Association, not a demonstrated causal pathway; unadjusted racial comparison for the biomarker figure.

Source: Ding 2020, Journal of Women's Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

In a rat model of Parkinson's disease, oral citronellol (25 mg/kg/day) given as a month-long pretreatment before each day's dose of the neurotoxin rotenone reduced brain oxidative stress, inflammatory cytokines, glial activation and the loss of dopamine-producing neurons.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single dose, single species, prevention paradigm (given before, not after, toxin exposure); dose is 10,000-50,000x above estimated human citronellol exposure and 1,600-8,000x above even after allometric human-equivalent-dose scaling; this is our directly-read primary source for the citronellol 'protective at 25 mg/kg' claim, previously cited only second-hand.

Source: Jayaraj 2022, Heliyon Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Cleaning products were the suspected exposure in 236 of 1,915 (12%) confirmed work-related asthma cases across California, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey, 1993-1997; most were new-onset asthma (80%) and about a fifth were consistent with reactive airways dysfunction syndrome, an irritant-induced, non-allergic asthma type.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This is a primary surveillance source, not a population prevalence estimate: the authors' own capture-recapture analysis found the surveillance system misses 53-87% of true work-related asthma cases in Michigan, and up to 37% of confirmed cases in such systems may not be truly work-related (Malo et al., cited by the authors). Fragrance/limonene was a minor named agent (2 of 300 exposure counts); bleach, acids, disinfectants and quaternary ammonium compounds dominate.

Source: Rosenman 2003, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In California, janitors and cleaners had roughly double the confirmed work-related asthma rate of all other occupations combined (4.3 vs 2.3 per 100,000 workers).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single-state comparison using SENSOR case counts against 1990 census occupation denominators; not adjusted for other confounders; occupations with the highest overall work-related-asthma rates (firefighters, correctional officers) were not cleaning-related, so elevated rate alone does not isolate cleaning-product causation.

Source: Rosenman 2003, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a 1986 clinic and hospital survey of 60 asthma patients, 72% said perfume or cologne worsened their asthma, and two asthma patients who could not smell at all still reacted to perfume worn by others nearby.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Small, single-center, unblinded self-report, not selected for representativeness; higher than the ~34-43% airway-symptom rate in later representative population surveys, consistent with a clinic ceiling.

Source: Shim & Williams 1986, The American Journal of Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a German cohort of 1,695 young adults (19-24) followed from childhood, frequent private use of household disinfectants (a composite of methods including hand-wash, machine, sponge and spray disinfection) was associated with close to a threefold increase in the odds of newly developing asthma, compared with people who didn't use disinfectants (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.14-6.83).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single self-report cohort (SOLAR II); physician-diagnosis-plus-medication-use outcome definition; no causal conclusion can be drawn per the authors; a sensitivity analysis subgroup did not reproduce this exact result.

Source: Weinmann 2017, Occupational and Environmental Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

AETT, a musk fragrance once common in soaps, deodorants and cosmetics, caused progressive nerve-fiber demyelination and irreversible pigment build-up in the brains of rats fed the compound for 12-20 weeks; the fragrance industry voluntarily withdrew it from cosmetics in 1978 on the strength of its own data.

Moderate evidence: Small single-lab study (N=16 rats), one route (dietary), one dose pair (25/50 mg/kg/day); AETT was withdrawn from cosmetics in 1978 and is not a current fragrance ingredient.

Source: Spencer 1979, Science Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

The fragrance-linked phthalate DEP was found in 78% of the hair products tested, and cyclosiloxanes, parabens and DEP were found at the highest concentrations, including one anti-frizz product that was 38-46% cyclosiloxane by weight.

Moderate evidence: N=18 products; concentration in the product is not the same as absorbed dose or exposure.

Source: Helm 2018, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Nitrate radicals alone, generated from ozone and nitrogen dioxide with no terpene present at all, raised human eye-blink frequency 21% — comparable in size to the effect of isoprene ozonolysis products — suggesting that some of the eye-irritating power of 'scented product plus ozone' indoor chemistry may come from reactive radicals in general, not from limonene specifically.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single small study; the specific irritant chemical species were not identified or measured, only the percent of ozone chemically consumed. Not yet tested by chemical fractionation in any study in this evidence base.

Source: Klenø & Wolkoff 2004 Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Odor and fragrance exposure reliably distracts people and slows some cognitive tasks (reaction time, lexical decisions), independent of any toxic effect.

Moderate evidence: Effect sizes are small and inconsistent across tasks, and persistence beyond a single exposure session is not established.

Source: Wolkoff & Nielsen 2017, Environment International Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

Mice breathing the vapor of one commercial solid air freshener for one hour showed dose-dependent airway irritation and, at higher doses, a ~35% fall in mid-expiratory airflow — the same magnitude reported for colognes in the same lab's companion study.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Same commercial testing lab and authors as the cologne study (Anderson Laboratories); this is within-lab consistency across product classes, not independent replication; FOB blinding status for this study is not clearly stated; exposure measured only as product mass and bulk FID TVOC, not a validated breathing-zone concentration.

Source: Anderson & Anderson 1997, Archives of Environmental Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Using the identical question and instrument in the same Swedish town, adults report being bothered by strong odors about twice as often as teenagers (33% vs 15.6%), and objectively confirmed sensory hyperreactivity is about seven times more common in adults (6.3% vs 0.9%), suggesting chemical sensitivity often develops with age rather than being present from childhood.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Cross-sectional age comparison across two separate studies (not a longitudinal cohort); the adult comparator (Johansson 2005/2006) is cited secondhand and is not yet a primary source in our evidence base.

Source: Andersson 2008, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Three fragrance and cosmetic chemicals used in bodycare products applied around the breast — benzyl salicylate, benzyl benzoate, and butylphenylmethylpropional (Lilial) — activated the human estrogen receptor and increased growth of estrogen-dependent breast cancer cells in a laboratory dish, an effect blocked by an anti-estrogen drug, suggesting the mechanism runs through the estrogen receptor.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Independent, non-industry-funded MCF7 cell study; concentrations required were 10,000 to 3,000,000-fold higher than the estradiol positive control, and none of the three compounds produced a full agonist response within 7 days (partial agonists at that timepoint, converging toward full over 35 days). No animal or human confirmation exists for any of the three compounds.

Source: Charles & Darbre 2009, Journal of Applied Toxicology Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

These estrogen-receptor effects only appeared at concentrations tens of thousands to millions of times higher than the natural hormone estradiol needs to produce the same size effect — this is laboratory-dish evidence that these chemicals can act like a weak estrogen, not evidence that normal skin or cosmetic use delivers enough of them to the breast to do so.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The exposure comparison is our own back-of-envelope calculation, not in the paper, using the fragrance industry's own worst-case 100% dermal-absorption assumption for benzyl salicylate only; benzyl benzoate and Lilial have no systemic-exposure estimate in our evidence base at all, so no comparable check exists for them.

Source: Charles & Darbre 2009, Journal of Applied Toxicology Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In lab tests, basophils (a type of blood immune cell) from people with perfume-related breathing symptoms released significantly more histamine when exposed to strong perfume than basophils from healthy volunteers, but only at the strongest concentration tested; both groups' basophils started releasing histamine at the same dose.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Small sample (17 patients vs 20 controls) from a dermatology patch-test clinic, not a general population; significant only at the single highest (5%) perfume concentration; no chemical fractionation to identify which fragrance component(s) drove release.

Source: Elberling 2007, Clinical and Experimental Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

The excess basophil reactivity to perfume in symptomatic patients was not explained by allergy antibodies in the blood (a passive-serum-transfer test found no difference between groups) and did not track whether a patient also had a skin (contact) allergy, an inhalant allergy, or asthma.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Same research group, clinic and perfume as the 2006 eye-challenge study, so this corroborates rather than independently replicates that program's earlier 'not classic allergy' findings.

Source: Elberling 2007, Clinical and Experimental Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In a laboratory study, triclosan exposed to UVB at an intensity matched to real midday sunlight in a subtropical city generated damaging free radicals and killed human skin cells (HaCaT keratinocytes) in a dose-dependent way.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single lab, single immortalized human keratinocyte cell line, not primary human skin or an in vivo model; triclosan concentration (5 ug/ml) not validated against measured human skin-surface levels; not replicated.

Source: Dubey 2019, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Triclosan and UVB/sunlight together caused significant DNA damage (comet assay, micronuclei, cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers) in human skin cells in the laboratory, while triclosan alone in the dark and UVB/sunlight alone caused none.

Moderate evidence: Single in-vitro cell-line study; genotoxicity not shown in whole skin or in vivo.

Source: Dubey 2019, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a 2021 audit of 50 stores across 8 Boston neighborhoods, stores in lower-income Roxbury and Mission Hill were more than twice as likely to stock a hair product with a high (7-10) Environmental Working Group hazard score than stores in higher-income, predominantly White Beacon Hill (risk ratio 2.3 for both).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Retail-shelf audit of what stores stock, not what people buy or use; EWG hazard score is a derived ingredient-label rating, not a measured chemical concentration; only 2 of 6 neighborhood comparisons reached statistical significance, and Chinatown was excluded for 94% missing scores.

Source: Chan 2023, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Hair relaxers were found for sale only in the lower-income, more racially diverse Boston neighborhoods studied; none were cataloged in the two highest-income/highest-White or Asian-share neighborhoods (Beacon Hill, Chinatown).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Descriptive product-availability finding from one city in 2021, not a formal statistical test; does not measure whether residents of any neighborhood actually purchase relaxers there.

Source: Chan 2023, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In the best-controlled human test available, propylene glycol methyl ether (PGME) solvent vapor at 150 ppm produced no measurable objective eye damage (redness, corneal swelling, tear-film stability, blinking rate) when tested double-blind against a matched-odor placebo in 12 volunteers.

Moderate evidence: Small study (n=12, all male), single 2.5 h exposure; does not test longer or repeated exposures, other populations, or higher occupational concentrations.

Source: Emmen et al. 2003, Toxicology Letters Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

A statistically significant 'nose irritation' rating from a scented solvent vapor disappeared once how strongly subjects could smell the vapor was accounted for statistically, showing that self-reported irritation from a scented product can really be a report of smell, not tissue injury.

Moderate evidence: One study, one chemical, one nasal-irritation question; the eye-irritation rating in the same study did not similarly vanish.

Source: Emmen et al. 2003, Toxicology Letters Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a 3-hour chamber test at realistic ozone and citrus-terpene (limonene) levels, people with mild asthma rated the air as less irritating to their eyes, nose and throat than healthy people did, but reported more chest tightness, headache and flu-like symptoms.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single lab, n=33 mild asthmatics only (moderate/severe excluded by design), no unexposed/clean-air control arm, so this is a between-group comparison at one dose, not a test of the chemistry against no exposure.

Source: Fadeyi et al. 2015, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

People with mild asthma performed a concentration task significantly less accurately than healthy people during a 3-hour ozone-limonene chamber exposure, despite working faster.

Moderate evidence: Single study, no unexposed control arm, so it is not established that the chemistry (rather than general chamber occupancy or task load) caused the accuracy difference.

Source: Fadeyi et al. 2015, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In the nasal-lavage arm of the same 130-woman chamber study, breathing a VOC-ozone mixture containing citrus and pine scent chemicals (limonene, alpha-pinene) caused no significant increase in nasal irritation symptoms or in objective inflammation markers (immune cells, IL-6, IL-8, protein) in nasal fluid.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single 2-hour exposure in healthy, non-asthmatic, non-chemically-sensitive women; a different, smaller earlier study using a different lavage technique found a positive result at a similar VOC dose.

Source: Laumbach 2005, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

General reviews of the skin-penetration literature put the size ceiling for crossing intact skin's outer barrier (the Stratum Corneum) at around 100 nanometers; larger particles usually do not cross it.

Moderate evidence: Stated as a citation to a prior review (Revel et al. 2018), not new primary data from this paper; an order-of-magnitude rule, not a precise cutoff.

Source: Menichetti et al. 2025, Journal of Xenobiotics Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

When the outer skin barrier (Stratum Corneum) is removed or already compromised, far more 100-500 nanometer plastic nanoparticles get through than when it is intact, pointing to skin condition, not just particle size, as the deciding factor.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single ex vivo study (Martin et al. 2024) with the barrier surgically removed; no data on how much a naturally inflamed, eczematous, sunburned or detergent-irritated (but not surgically stripped) human barrier changes penetration in real use.

Source: Menichetti et al. 2025, Journal of Xenobiotics Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a small Swedish clinic study, people whose breathing symptoms were set off by scents reacted to a blinded perfume challenge with more symptoms than a saline placebo, even though a nasal clamp meant they could not smell either one, and their lung function, oxygen levels, heart rate and breathing rate never changed at all.

Moderate evidence: N=9, single clinic, self-rated symptoms, perfume-vs-saline contrast single-blind (not double-blind); no healthy control group.

Source: Millqvist & Löwhagen 1996, Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Wearing a mask with an active-carbon filter, the kind designed to remove odors and organic vapors from the air, did not stop a scent-triggered breathing reaction to perfume: symptom scores with the carbon filter were no different from a dummy filter.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

N=9, one perfume, unmeasured chamber concentration, single clinic; this arm of the study was double-blind. The paper's own hypothesis is that the reaction may enter through the eyes, which the mask does not cover, so this does not test filters that also shield the eyes.

Source: Millqvist & Löwhagen 1996, Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In the clinical case series that first defined "irritable larynx syndrome," perfume was a named symptom trigger in about a quarter of patients (10 of 39), well behind reflux (72%) and other airborne irritants (51%).

Moderate evidence: Single specialist voice clinic, retrospective, uncontrolled, n=39; self-reported triggers, multiple allowed per patient; not an occupational or fragrance-specific population.

Source: Morrison 1999, Journal of Voice Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

About 85% of patients in the founding irritable larynx syndrome case series were judged to have gastroesophageal reflux contributing to their laryngeal symptoms, making reflux the single most common named trigger and etiologic factor, ahead of any airborne trigger including perfume.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single clinic, n=39, reflux mostly diagnosed by symptoms/history rather than pH monitoring or gastroscopy; the paper's own abstract rounds this to ">90%", but the Results table gives 33/39 = 84.6%.

Source: Morrison 1999, Journal of Voice Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a small double-blind lab test, a drug that numbs sensory nerves (lidocaine) cut in half the number of coughs that chemically sensitive patients had after inhaling capsaicin, evidence that their airway sensitivity runs through nerve pathways rather than the kind of airway narrowing seen in asthma.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

N=12, single Gothenburg clinic, same research lineage as most other evidence base capsaicin-challenge studies; the same lidocaine blockade also works in healthy subjects (cited within the paper), so it shows the pathway exists, not that it is disease-specific.

Source: Millqvist 2000, Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

A blinded, controlled 30-minute lab exposure to two fragranced household aerosols caused no objective ocular redness or nasal congestion (acoustic rhinometry) change in mild or moderate asthmatics, and no drop in lung function (FEV1).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Industry-funded (SC Johnson, co-authored by an SC Johnson employee); single acute exposure to two specific products; asthmatics were unselected for fragrance sensitivity; severe asthma excluded by design.

Source: Opiekun 2003, Clinical and Experimental Allergy Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Moderate asthmatics self-reported more nasal congestion after one of two fragranced aerosols, but objective nasal-airway measurement (acoustic rhinometry) on the same people at the same time found no change.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

A real self-report/physiology mismatch in a single study; moderate-asthmatic subgroup sizes were small (n=15-54 in some cells), which limits power to detect a true objective effect if one exists.

Source: Opiekun 2003, Clinical and Experimental Allergy Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Across 6 independent lab studies using a forced-choice 'which one is the real chemical?' test, people who report multiple chemical sensitivities were not better than other people at telling active chemical exposures apart from blank or sham ones.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

A systematic review, not new data; the 6 studies span different research groups, chemicals and blinding tiers but are heterogeneous (worker cohorts, clinic patients, different named subgroups pooled together).

Source: Das-Munshi 2006, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In one lab study of 180 people, simply telling them beforehand that an odor was an 'industrial solvent' (versus a 'relaxing natural extract' or a neutral label) made them report significantly more irritation and symptoms from the identical odorant, and the effect was strongest in people who normally rate odors as more reactive/irritating.

Moderate evidence: Reported via Das-Munshi's review, not read from the Dalton 1999 primary source directly; acquire Dalton 1999 (Health Psychol 18:579) to verify before treating as primary-grade.

Source: Das-Munshi 2006, citing Dalton 1999, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a large random sample of Swedish adults (Vasterbotten, n=3,406), 12.2% said they get symptoms from odorous or pungent chemicals such as perfumes and cleaning agents in doses that don't bother most other people, but only 3.3% had actually been given a doctor's diagnosis of a chemical-intolerance condition.

Moderate evidence: Single region (Vasterbotten county), not national; diagnosis status is itself self-reported, not verified against medical records.

Source: Palmquist 2014, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

People who report being intolerant to one environmental factor (chemicals, certain buildings, electromagnetic fields, or everyday sounds) are far more likely than chance to also report intolerance to another — for example, self-reported chemically intolerant Swedes were about six times more likely than average to also report building-related symptoms (observed 96 vs. 19.5 expected under chance).

Moderate evidence: Cross-sectional single-item design; cannot separate a shared physiological mechanism from a shared symptom-reporting/attribution style or shared exposure circumstances.

Source: Palmquist 2014, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In a small case series, an Uber driver and four Uber passengers developed facial and eyelid airborne contact dermatitis linked to fragrance diffusers used inside the cars; all five patients had positive patch tests to fragrance mix I and/or balsam of Peru, and the driver's dermatitis improved after he removed his own diffuser.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Only 5 patients from one clinic; published in the journal's 'Contact Points' section, which the journal states is exempt from mandatory peer review (editor review only); no chemical analysis of the diffusers, no air sampling, no control group; diffuser-removal resolution documented for the driver only, not the 4 passenger cases.

Source: Perper et al. 2017, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In an unblinded human chamber study, 23 volunteers exposed to about 250 ppm propylene glycol monomethyl ether (PGME) vapor for 1-7 hours judged the odor objectionably unpleasant, and 20 of 23 developed eye irritation within about an hour, with some needing to leave early due to severe lacrimation; no subject at any tested concentration up to 2,050 ppm showed impaired vision, coordination, or reaction time.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Design is completely unblinded (no placebo or masking condition) and reports no objective ocular measurements (redness, corneal thickness, tear-film, blink counts); a later double-blind study with objective measures (Emmen 2003) found much smaller effects but only tested up to 150 ppm, so it does not directly re-test this 250 ppm finding.

Source: Stewart 1970 (Arch Environ Health), Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

At 100 ppm PGME vapor, most of 6 subjects found the odor intolerable on first exposure, but odor tolerance developed within 25 minutes and all judged it mild; only 1-2 of the 6 reported mild or slight eye irritation over the following two hours, with no measurable effect on vision, coordination, or neurological tests.

Moderate evidence: Unblinded, n=6, no objective eye measurements; a double-blind study at the same concentration (Emmen 2003) found no eye effects at all, subjective or objective.

Source: Stewart 1970 (Arch Environ Health), Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a nationally representative German survey, one in five adults (19.9%) report at least one health effect from fragranced products, and more than half of them (55.3%) report respiratory problems, not skin problems — the focus of most prior German fragrance research.

Moderate evidence: Self-report; no clinical confirmation; n=1,102, Germany 2019; same dataset as Klaschka 2020b.

Source: Klaschka 2020a, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

People who already blame fragrances for their own symptoms do not use less of them: 98.6% of Germany's fragrance-sensitive survey respondents are still exposed to fragrances from their own weekly use, slightly above the general population's 96.9%.

Moderate evidence: Self-report; cannot rule out that affected people simply notice or report their own exposure more accurately rather than actually using more.

Source: Klaschka 2020a, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

Among adults with a diagnosis of autism or autism spectrum disorder, 71.4% (US) and 51.2% (Australia) report health problems from the scent of laundry products coming from a dryer vent — the highest prevalence of any group measured (general population, asthmatics, autistic adults, migraineurs) in either country.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

These country-specific figures are restated from Steinemann's 2018 autistic-adults survey, which this evidence base has not yet independently ingested and read in full; the primary's own main-text tables report only a pooled 3-country figure (57.5%) for this specific exposure item, so the US/AU split has not been directly verified against the primary's own tables here (only checked for internal arithmetic consistency).

Source: Goodman, Nematollahi & Steinemann 2020/2021, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

Among people who get migraines, 40.8% (US) and 29.1% (Australia) report health problems from the scent of laundry products coming from a dryer vent, with asthma attacks the most frequently reported effect in this group.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Restated from Steinemann & Nematollahi's 2020 migraine survey, which this evidence base has not yet independently ingested; self-report only, no clinical migraine diagnosis confirmation described in this source.

Source: Goodman, Nematollahi & Steinemann 2020/2021, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Quaternary ammonium compounds such as benzalkonium chloride (BAC) and didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) have been linked to occupational asthma, contact dermatitis and urticaria in healthcare workers, professional cleaners and hairdressers with heavy, repeated exposure to disinfectants, antiseptics and cosmetic preservatives.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Evidence is case reports, small cohorts and a few specific-inhalation-challenge studies of occupational/disinfectant/cosmetic exposure, not laundry products; two cited cohort studies of QAC and healthcare-worker asthma directly disagree (see contradictions).

Source: Peyneau 2022, Frontiers in Toxicology Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

In a test of 6 best-selling US air fresheners and laundry products, researchers found 98 chemical detections (58 different chemicals) released into the air; none appeared on any product label, and only 1 (ethanol) appeared on a safety data sheet.

Moderate evidence: N=6 products, headspace only, semi-quantitative.

Source: Steinemann 2009, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

4 of the 6 products released at least one chemical the Clean Air Act classifies as a hazardous air pollutant (acetaldehyde, chloromethane or 1,4-dioxane), and none was listed.

Moderate evidence: Paper text says 5 of 6; tables support 4. Two of three HAPs come from the base formulation, not fragrance.

Source: Steinemann 2009, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Self-reported survey

73.4% of Swedes didn't know fragrance ingredients don't have to be fully disclosed, and 70.9% didn't know that fragranced products sold as 'green' or 'organic' can also release potentially hazardous air pollutants.

Moderate evidence: Awareness items; the HAP premise itself rests on other studies.

Source: Steinemann 2018 (Sweden), Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

When researchers tested 25 best-selling US laundry, cleaning, personal-care and air-freshener products, they found 133 different chemicals released into the air, but only 1 of them was listed on any product label.

Moderate evidence: Single headspace sample per product; VOC counts depend on detection threshold.

Source: Steinemann 2011, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

11 of 25 best-selling fragranced products (44%) released at least one chemical the EPA classes as a probable cancer-causing air pollutant, such as acetaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane, though the study couldn't tell whether these came from the fragrance or the rest of the formula.

Moderate evidence: Headspace, not exposure; mostly base-formula compounds.

Source: Steinemann 2011, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Self-reported survey

About two-thirds (64.6%) of US adults did not know fragrance ingredients don't have to be listed on the label, and more than half would prefer fragrance-free workplaces (53.2% vs 19.7% against) and health care (54.8% vs 22.4%).

Moderate evidence: Opinion survey.

Source: Steinemann 2016, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

Counting the word "parfum" undercounts scented children's products, because essential oils and individual fragrance chemicals are listed under other names.

Moderate evidence: Undercount size not measured for these products.

Source: Uber 2024, Jornal de Pediatria (Rio de Janeiro) Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

In a test of 42 fragranced baby products (shampoos, lotions, oils, sprays), 95% of the chemicals they released into the air were not listed on the label, safety data sheet or company website.

Moderate evidence: Headspace presence only; Australian products.

Source: Nematollahi 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

The best-selling US laundry detergent's label and safety sheet disclosed almost none of what it released; only ethanol was listed.

Moderate evidence: Same detergent measured in 2009, 2011 and 2013 papers; count once.

Source: Steinemann 2013, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

In a German test of six air fresheners, more than 90% of the chemicals they released were not declared on the product.

Moderate evidence: Secondary citation of Uhde & Schulz 2015 (not in our evidence base); by number of substances (>75% by concentration).

Source: Steinemann 2017, Building and Environment Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

Fragrance turns up in products people don't think of as scented: household cleaners and detergents, tampons and panty liners, medicines, medical devices, toys and candles.

Moderate evidence: Qualitative list of exposure sources.

Source: Sukakul 2024, Acta Dermato-Venereologica Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Self-reported survey

When companies replace a chemical of concern, they often swap in one with far less safety data; one firm found a supplier's 'safer' substitute only looked safer because more of its ingredients were kept confidential.

Moderate evidence: Interview quotes and one anecdote.

Source: Scruggs 2011, Environmental Science & Policy Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

Testing cited by a 2010 review claimed the fragrance solvent DEP was found in all fragrances tested and in 71% of cosmetics, but the largest independent survey since (Koniecki 2011, n=252) found DEP in 70% of fragrances and 41% of cosmetics overall — lower than either earlier figure.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Secondary citation of EWG's 2002 testing (n=72), relayed via Crinnion 2010. Two larger, later, independent surveys (Hubinger & Havery 2006, n=48; Koniecki 2011, n=252) confirm DEP is common and fragrance-concentrated but do not reproduce the specific 100%/71% figures; detection frequency falls as sample size rises across all three surveys. Treat 'all'/'71%' as an upper bound from small early samples, not a population estimate.

Source: Crinnion 2010, Alternative Medicine Review Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

FDA's voluntary cosmetic registration listed benzyl alcohol in only 322 formulations in 1998 and 511 products in 2006, far below its real use in moisturizers, shampoos, baby products and deodorants, which the authors call widespread under-reporting.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The 322-formulation count for 1998 is now confirmed against the primary source: CIR's 2001 safety report (Nair 2001) reproduces the identical FDA VCRP count in its own Table 2, with a full 34-category breakdown (largest use hair dyes and colors, 130/1572; baby shampoos 5/21; baby lotions 3/53) — this is the exact table Jacob & Barron's figure traces to, not a secondhand citation. The 511-products-in-2006 figure remains an unpublished personal communication (postdates the 2001 report, so it cannot confirm or deny it). The same 2001 report separately documents that FDA stopped collecting concentration-of-use data after 1992, an independently CIR-acknowledged registry gap that supports treating VCRP counts as an incomplete picture of real use, distinct from the authors' own 'under-reporting' framing.

Source: Jacob & Barron 2007, Dermatitis Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

The glycol-ether solvent propylene glycol methyl ether (PGME), mostly used in industrial coatings and cleaners, is officially listed as a possible 'fragrance ingredient' in cosmetics, and a Swiss survey found it making up 30–50% of one perfume.

Moderate evidence: INCI function listing plus one Swiss product survey (Dentan 2000, cited secondhand); US registry shows only nail-product uses.

Source: CIR 2008, International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

The single word 'fragrance' on a label can stand for dozens to hundreds of chemicals. The fragrance industry's own inventory (RIFM) lists about 2,600 chemicals in current active use, plus roughly 3,500 discontinued materials it keeps only for internal read-across comparison.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Primary now read directly (Date 2020, RIFM): ~2,600 active-use + ~3,500 discontinued = the 'over 6,000' figure in its abstract. Rádis-Baptista 2023 paraphrased this as '6,000 known, 2,000 used,' which is not what Date 2020 reports. This is the industry's own inventory count, corroborated only within RIFM's own publications, not independently, so it stays at moderate rather than strong.

Source: Rádis-Baptista 2023, Journal of Xenobiotics Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

Several hundred different label names can signal fragrance (chemical names, over 50 essential oils by common or Latin name, and synonyms such as aroma, parfum, perfume and scent), so dermatologists say allergic patients are very unlikely to find fragrance-free products by reading labels alone.

Moderate evidence: Expert opinion.

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

A violet-water cologne that doctors reported as a lavender-oil exposure in a boy with breast growth declared no essential oil on its ingredient list, and an essential-oil industry group's lab analysis found none; it reported a synthetic fragrance allergen (alpha-isomethyl ionone), azo dyes and diethyl phthalate instead. Go by the ingredient list of the actual product, not its scent name.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Industry-funded letter (Consortium Huiles Essentielles, Giroux & Orjubin 2020), results as prose with no concentrations, detection limits, lab or sample provenance; not independently confirmed. The label did not claim lavender, so this is not a mislabeling example.

Source: Braunstein & Braunstein 2023, touchREVIEWS in Endocrinology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

Nobody independently analyzed the products used by the children in the 2019 lavender breast-growth case reports: the only published analysis was by an essential-oil trade consortium, which covered two of the three products and reported no numbers; the researchers concede the products contain other, partly synthetic, substances whose composition may vary by where they were bought.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

One earlier product was analyzed independently of industry: Diaz 2016 (now read as a primary), from the same clinic, used academic HPLC-UV/MS (McMaster University) to confirm linalool and linalyl acetate in an agua de violetas cologne. That analysis concerns Diaz's own Case 2 patient, not any of the three products used by Ramsey 2019's four patients (Mi Tesoro, Crusellas Violet Water, Baby Magic baby bath), so the claim as it applies to Ramsey 2019's own case-report products stands: none of those three was ever independently analyzed. The NIEHS reply to the consortium letter on the third product (dgaa227) has still not been read.

Source: Ramsey et al. 2020 (JCEM reply), The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

Once in the air, scent chemicals such as linalool, ionones and the woody musk OTNE ('Iso E Super') reacted with ozone to form dozens of new oxidized chemicals, including a hydroperoxide. None of these was in the product.

Moderate evidence: Compound identities are tentative (formula-level mass spectrometry); products unquantified; no hazard testing.

Source: Wu 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Letters Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Animal study

The regulatory endocrine dossier on linalool tested 99.7%-pure, freshly handled material — not the air-oxidized linalool that forms in an opened bottle and that accounts for almost all of linalool's known allergy risk. Nobody has tested whether oxidized linalool is hormonally active.

Moderate evidence: This is standard and correct practice for a REACH dossier; it is a limit on what the result covers, not a flaw in the study.

Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

Plastic particles are added to cosmetics on purpose for texture, a silky or powdery feel, opacity, shimmer and as carriers for other ingredients, not only as scrub beads; and the EU chemicals agency's definition does not count liquid, semi-solid or water-soluble polymers as microplastics.

Moderate evidence: Definition statement is the review's reading of ECHA; check against Regulation (EU) 2023/2055.

Source: Han & Kim 2025, Cosmetics Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

PFOA and GenX, both EU Substances of Very High Concern, may be used in making PTFE; a 2024 review says these impurities must be kept to a minimum but reports no measured levels in cosmetics, and the label says only 'PTFE'.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

No measurement of PFOA/GenX in any PTFE-containing cosmetic in this paper or our evidence base; presence in PTFE specifically is plausible, not shown. Namazkar 2024 (10.1039/d3em00461a) has since measured residual PFCAs including a C4-C8 (PFOA-range) chain-length span at 0.02-1.29 ug/g, 43-76% dermally bioaccessible, in real cosmetics — but in products listing PAPs/silanes/ethers, not PTFE. Balan et al. 2024 (10.1021/acs.est.3c06539) adds relevant context but not a measurement: it reports PTFE is used at reported concentrations up to 30% (wider than the 13% cited here from CIR/VCRP), and explicitly classifies PTFE as NOT a PFAA precursor (per Harris 2022), which separates the PFOA/GenX manufacturing-impurity concern in this claim from a different, unrelated mechanism (environmental conversion of other PFAS side chains into PFOA) that Balan 2024 is mainly about. Net effect: no new evidence for or against PFOA/GenX presence in PTFE itself, so strength is unchanged.

Source: Jomaa 2024, Journal of the Netherlands Society of Toxicology (JNST) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

In 2018, testing commissioned by Breast Cancer Prevention Partners of 25 personal care and 7 cleaning products found chemicals flagged for cancer, hormone disruption, respiratory or developmental hazards that were not on the label; 99 of the 124 were on the fragrance industry's own ingredient list.

Moderate evidence: Not peer reviewed; labs, detection limits and concentrations not reported; hazard = database flag; IFRA list includes multifunctional solvents/preservatives.

Source: BCPP 2018 Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Advocacy group testing

In a 2010 survey of more than 11,000 Canadian personal-care products with ingredient lists, 'fragrance' or 'parfum' was the most common ingredient of concern, listed on 56% of products and on about two-thirds of shampoos, soaps and deodorants.

Moderate evidence: Self-selected volunteers read labels; product entries not de-duplicated; 2010 formulations; label count is a lower bound on fragranced products.

Source: David Suzuki Foundation 2010 Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

Lab tests commissioned by US campaigners found 38 chemicals not listed on the label across 17 popular perfumes; 10 of them had no published safety data at all.

Moderate evidence: NGO report, not peer reviewed; relayed through a student thesis; cite the report itself.

Source: Sarantis et al. 2010 (Not So Sexy), via Gilton 2011 Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Eight of nine cosmetic UV filters tested were estrogenic in human breast-cancer cells, and six of nine increased uterine weight in immature rats; avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane) was the one inactive in every assay.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

EC50s 0.68-3.73 uM, low-micromolar and comparable to other xenoestrogens; oral uterotrophic ED50s are 45-934 mg/kg/day, far above cosmetic doses; in-vitro and in-vivo rankings disagree (homosalate and OD-PABA estrogenic in cells, inactive in rats).

Source: Schlumpf 2004, Toxicology Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

In one of the best-known reports linking 'lavender' products to breast growth in children, the boy's violet-water cologne declared no essential oil on its ingredient list; the essential-oil industry's own analysis found none, but reported a synthetic fragrance allergen (alpha-isomethyl ionone), azo dyes and diethyl phthalate, a fragrance solvent suspected of hormone disruption.

Moderate evidence: Industry-funded letter; GC-MS/LC-MS/MS results given as prose with no concentrations, detection limits, lab or sample provenance; not independently confirmed.

Source: Giroux & Orjubin 2020 (JCEM letter; Consortium Huiles Essentielles), The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

The only chemical analysis ever published of the products named in the 2019 lavender breast-growth case reports was done by an essential-oil trade group, covered two of the three products and reported no numbers.

Moderate evidence: True of the published literature as read; the NIEHS reply to this letter (dgaa227) has not been read.

Source: Giroux & Orjubin 2020 (JCEM letter; Consortium Huiles Essentielles), The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

In a Belgian test of 10 scented tampons, panty liners and pads, 8 of the 24 fragrance allergens that EU cosmetics must name were found; all 4 tampons and 1 liner held at least one above 10 µg/g, the level at which a cosmetic would have to list it, and none named any allergen on the pack.

Moderate evidence: 10 products from one country (2019); presence in product, not transfer to the body; mostly weak sensitizers at 0.001-0.01%.

Source: Desmedt 2020, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

The fragrance allergens found most in scented tampons were α-isomethyl ionone (in every tampon, 12.6-19.1 µg/g) and hexyl cinnamal, not the familiar citrus and lavender terpenes.

Moderate evidence: N=4 tampons, Belgian market; limonene/linalool may be under-read by a headspace method that sees parents only.

Source: Desmedt 2020, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

FDA's own 1998 registry data, reproduced in full by the industry's cosmetic safety panel, show benzyl alcohol's biggest single cosmetic use was hair dye (130 of 1,572 formulations), with smaller counts in baby shampoo (5 of 21), baby lotion (3 of 53), moisturizers (8 of 769) and body/hand skin care (16 of 796).

Moderate evidence: Voluntary registry counts (Jan 1998); concentration-of-use reporting to FDA had already stopped by 1992 per the same report, so these are presence counts, not amounts used.

Source: Nair 2001 (CIR Expert Panel), International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

A 2024 lab study of six cosmetics found that ingredient labels can misdescribe the PFAS actually present: one product's named ingredient (a silane) appeared to be a different molecular isomer than the standard, and another's named phosphate-ester ingredient did not disclose that it contained shorter fluorocarbon chain lengths than its name implies.

Moderate evidence: Small sample (6 products from one country, 2 with naming issues); does not establish how common INCI-naming errors are across the wider market.

Source: Namazkar 2024, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

Benzyl alcohol, a fragrance allergen dubbed the "covert fragrance," was found in 32 of 533 US baby and children's personal care products (6%) with no "fragrance," "perfume," or "parfum" wording anywhere on the label.

Moderate evidence: Doesn't establish whether these products are marketed "fragrance-free"; measures label wording, not chemical content verification.

Source: Bonchak 2018, Dermatitis Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

Only 16% of the chemicals detected above the testing limit in these hair products were listed anywhere on the product label; fragrance ingredients were almost never named individually, appearing instead as the single word "fragrance".

Moderate evidence: Label concordance rose to 54% only for the highest-concentration chemicals (>1000 ug/g); 28 product/component labels checked.

Source: Helm 2018, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Animal study

The air freshener's exact formulation is proprietary; GC/MS of its emissions identified toluene, limonene, alpha- and beta-pinene, terpinolene, sabinene and about a dozen other volatiles the consumer has no way to learn about from the label.

Moderate evidence: Qualitative GC/MS of one product, one test atmosphere, recoveries unknown; only peaks with 90%+ library-match certainty reported; brand unnamed.

Source: Anderson & Anderson 1997, Archives of Environmental Health Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

FDA's own testing of 48 consumer cosmetic products found the fragrance solvent diethyl phthalate (DEP) in all 5 fragrance products tested, at levels up to 38,663 parts per million (3.9% by weight), and in 27 of 48 products overall, though phthalate esters were named on the ingredient list of only some nail products, never on fragrance.

Moderate evidence: Single FDA laboratory, 48 products bought in the Washington DC area (~2003-05), method-validated HPLC-UV; concentration in the product, not absorbed dose.

Source: Hubinger & Havery 2006, Journal of Cosmetic Science Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

A common personal-care-product ingredient can appear on ingredient labels under several different chemical names (the silicone D5 may be listed as 'cyclopentasiloxane' or 'cyclomethicone'), which may not read as the same substance to a consumer trying to identify or avoid it.

Moderate evidence: Based on this study's own tested product labels and general INCI naming conventions for volatile methyl siloxanes, not a systematic label-disclosure survey.

Source: Coggon 2018, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

Independent laboratory testing not funded by the essential-oil or fragrance industry chemically confirmed that one of these colognes genuinely contained lavender oil (linalool and linalyl acetate), the only time this has been done for an actual implicated product in this literature rather than a reference oil bought for a lab study.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Confirms exposure identity for one bottle used by one patient; says nothing about the products used by the other two children in this report, or by any child in other lavender case reports.

Source: Diaz 2016, Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Other evidence

California state scientists estimate that the mass of PFAS in cosmetics is concentrated not in makeup but in shaving creams and gels, hair care products, facial cleansers, sun care products, and lotions and moisturizers, which together make up more than 90% of the total estimated PFAS mass in California cosmetics sold each year, while all makeup categories combined make up less than 3%.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Estimated from use-concentration ranges compiled from industry websites and patents that the authors say 'differed by orders of magnitude'; the model assumes 100% of PFAS reaches wastewater and exactly one PFAS ingredient per product; total mass estimates span roughly two orders of magnitude (650-56,000 kg/year).

Source: Balan 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

Fragrance materials not known to occur in any natural essential oil were found in products marketed as natural: a 'natural' body lotion contained 0.082% alpha-amylcinnamic aldehyde, a concentration that would require the essential oil itself to be about 16% pure synthetic aldehyde if it came from any known essential oil at typical use levels — evidence the 'natural' formulation included added synthetic fragrance material.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Authors' inference from concentration mathematics based on typical perfume-load assumptions, not a direct synthetic-vs-natural-origin test (e.g. isotope-ratio analysis) of the ingredient itself.

Source: Rastogi 1996, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Self-reported survey

Only about 1 in 4 Germans (27.5%) know that fragrance chemicals do not have to be fully disclosed on a product's label or safety data sheet.

Moderate evidence: Awareness item, not a measurement of actual disclosure; Germany 2019, n=1,102.

Source: Klaschka 2020a, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

Indoor air / Self-reported survey

19.4% of Australians reported health problems from being near someone wearing fragrance and 16.4% from air fresheners.

Moderate evidence: Self-report; no exposure measurement; counts 213/1,098 and 180/1,098 confirmed in Steinemann 2018 (MCS, AU) Table 2, same dataset.

Source: Steinemann 2017, Preventive Medicine Reports Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Scented laundry products put fragrance chemicals into outdoor air: in two homes, limonene (a citrus scent chemical) came out of the dryer vent only when fragranced detergent or dryer sheets were used (up to 14.7 ug/m3), not in the no-product runs.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

2 homes (Steinemann 2013), single grab samples; undiluted vent air, not a breathing-zone dose. Replicated at much higher magnitude and with a dose-response signal by Goodman et al. 2019 (6 Melbourne homes, before/after switch design): fragranced-detergent vent D-limonene 2.35-118 ug/m3 vs 0.24-0.26 ug/m3 in fragrance-free-only homes, and switching from fragranced to fragrance-free detergent cut vent D-limonene by up to 99.7% (mean 79.1%) within a month. The two studies share one author (Anne Steinemann) and neither ran statistical significance tests, so the combined evidence (8 homes total) stays below strong, but the qualitative and dose-response finding is now cross-country replicated within one research program rather than resting on a single 2-home study.

Source: Steinemann 2013, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a room-sized test chamber, mopping with a pine-oil cleaner or spraying an orange-oil degreaser, with ozone at typical summer-smog levels, produced 130-280 µg/m³ of fine particles, versus 2-5 µg/m³ when the same products were used without ozone.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Chamber, 1 product per type, 120 ppb ozone supply; real homes measured lower SOA mass. Corroborated in a second, smaller chamber with the same products (Destaillats 2006 bench-scale: steady-state SOA mass 11-229 µg/m³, same order of magnitude), but that study shares the same research group, products and contract, so it does not count as independent replication.

Source: Singer 2006, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Scent chemicals in cleaners and air fresheners react with ozone that drifts in from outdoors to make formaldehyde: cleaning raised formaldehyde by 9-16 ppb for 4 hours, and a plug-in air freshener raised it by about 6 ppb for as long as it ran.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Secondary formation only, depends on indoor ozone. The underlying mechanism is now directly quantified at bench scale (Destaillats 2006: formaldehyde 16-38% per ozone consumed for the same three products), but that bench study is the same research group/products/contract as this one, not an independent replication, so the grade is not raised on that basis alone.

Source: Singer 2006, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

After 2-7 minutes of cleaning with a terpene cleaner, indoor air chemistry stayed altered for 10-12 hours because the scent chemicals soaked into walls and floors and came back out.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Empty chamber; furnished rooms may differ. Singer 2006 (Indoor Air primary-emissions companion, same 50 m3 room without ozone) corroborates the sorption/desorption mechanism directly: alpha-terpineol stays at 260-700 ug/m3 for hours and ~90 ug/m3 at 4-24 h via surface water films and wallboard sorption, and towels left in the room raise 24-h emissions 35-100%. Not independent (same lab/room/products as the ozone paper).

Source: Singer 2006, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a European study that measured the air 182 adults actually breathed over 48 hours, exposure to pine- and citrus-type scent chemicals from cleaning products and fragrances rose with the number of children at home (3-carene median 0.9 to 2.5 µg/m³); the authors attribute this to more cleaning.

Moderate evidence: Late-1990s, small subgroups, attribution to cleaning is the authors' inference; CEFIC-LRI co-funded.

Source: Edwards 2006, Atmospheric Environment Industry-funded Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Keeping a gel air freshener in a car raised the fragrance chemical limonene in the air the driver breathed 3.6-4.7 times, to about 19-28 ug/m3, during real commutes (10 cars tested).

Moderate evidence: N=5 per group, non-randomized; mostly drivers' own products.

Source: Jo 2008, Chemosphere Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In lab tests, gel air fresheners released limonene at up to 1.5 mg per hour, far more than any other chemical measured.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Chamber emission rates; products chosen for high limonene (upper end). Singer 2006 (Indoor Air) found the opposite pattern in a different air-freshener type (plug-in scented oil): limonene was a minor emission (39 mg/day) versus non-reactive esters (bornyl acetate 460, benzyl acetate 320 mg/day). 'Limonene dominates' holds for the limonene-selected gels Jo 2008 tested, not for air fresheners generally.

Source: Jo 2008, Chemosphere Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Indoors, vapors from these products run about 7 times higher than outdoors, and include fragrance chemicals such as limonene.

Moderate evidence: Box model checked against indoor measurements.

Source: McDonald 2018, Science Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Mopping a room with a terpene-based (pine- or citrus-type) cleaner caused bursts of tiny new particles, about 100 times the particle count of outdoor air, as the scent chemicals reacted with ozone.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

One cleaner, one room, one volunteer; particle number, not mass. The ~100x figure is specific to sub-3 nm nanocluster aerosol; a second real classroom mopping event (Morawska 2009, a school, >=5 nm instrument) reached only ~3-7x the outdoor baseline mopping the same class of product, showing the fold-increase depends heavily on the particle-size cutoff of the instrument used.

Source: Rosales 2022, Science Advances Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

During mopping with a terpene cleaner, scent chemicals such as limonene and pinene peaked at 280-380 ppb in the room air.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Brief peaks; typical home averages 3-7 ppb (EXPOLIS/Gokhale/Sarigiannis) — but Wang 2017 found one heavily fragranced/cleaned UK home's 5-day AVERAGE reached ~258 ppb, within the same order of magnitude as this mopping peak, showing the 'brief peak vs low average' distinction does not hold for the heaviest product-use homes.

Source: Rosales 2022, Science Advances Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Homes painted, refurnished or re-floored in the previous 6 months had higher levels of indoor chemicals released into the air (including toluene and xylenes) than other homes.

Moderate evidence: Not a fragrance finding.

Source: Maisey 2013, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

For the third of homes using p-dichlorobenzene products, the upper-bound cancer risk was about 3x the population average (~270 vs 90 in a million).

Moderate evidence: Upper-bound 1991 potencies, 7-10x above best estimates.

Source: Wallace 1991, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

A limonene-scented foam cleaner released formaldehyde, an irritant and carcinogen, both directly and through reactions with ozone after use.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Primary formaldehyde source ingredient unidentified (Rossignol's own ISO chamber measured 25.6 ug/m2/h at 0-30 min without ozone). Destaillats 2006 tested three different terpene-containing products (pine-oil cleaner, orange-oil degreaser, plug-in air freshener) under controlled bench conditions and found NO primary formaldehyde in any of them (negligible before ozone was added). This does not contradict Rossignol's own direct measurement of a different, specific product, but it shows primary formaldehyde is not a general feature of terpene/fragrance cleaners, supporting the reading that Rossignol's primary source is a formulation additive (e.g. a preservative or surfactant impurity) rather than the fragrance/terpene component itself.

Source: Rossignol 2013, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Scent was only part of what a scented cleaner released: its glycol-ether solvent reached about 1,100 ug/m3 in room air against 71 ug/m3 for limonene.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

One product; Singer 2006 (Indoor Air, 5 more US cleaners, 50 m3 room) found the opposite pattern in a cleaner containing both a glycol ether and limonene (limonene 3-5x the 2-BE), so 'solvent exceeds scent' is product-specific, not general.

Source: Rossignol 2013, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Review of other studies

Average indoor formaldehyde in homes exceeded California's long-term health limit (9 µg/m³) in every European country the EU's own researchers assessed.

Moderate evidence: Secondary data; formaldehyde mainly from building materials, not shown to be from fragrance.

Source: Sarigiannis 2011, Environment International Link to this fact

Indoor air / Review of other studies

EU researchers attributed large swings in home limonene levels within the same city to whether people had used a fragrance, air freshener or cleaning product before the air was sampled.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Authors' interpretation of variance; a larger, more rigorous 60-home UK diary study (Heeley-Hill 2021) found cumulative product-use frequency has little predictive power for measured concentrations (R²<0.001), with only weak covariance between limonene and insecticide/plug-in-air-freshener use specifically, not general fragrance/cleaning-product use Note the exposure measures differ: this claim concerns product use shortly before sampling, whereas Heeley-Hill 2021 tested cumulative use frequency over the sampling period, so it does not directly test the claim. Evidence is mixed: Wang 2017 (25 UK homes) found the highest-limonene homes were heavy product users; Heeley-Hill 2021 (60 UK homes; fieldwork funded by Givaudan, a fragrance manufacturer; analysis by the University of York) found frequency predicted little.

Source: Sarigiannis 2011, Environment International Link to this fact

Indoor air / Review of other studies

The standard week-long air tests used across Europe miss the short spikes of chemicals released after cleaning, which could change the risk picture for eye and airway irritation.

Moderate evidence: Authors' methodological caveat, not a measured result.

Source: Sarigiannis 2011, Environment International Link to this fact

Indoor air / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In lab chamber tests set up to mimic a room, the citrus scent chemical limonene reacted with ozone in the air to form fine particles carrying reactive oxygen species.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Chamber concentrations exceed typical measured indoor exposure by 5-10x. Particle formation is confirmed in a human chamber (Fiedler 2005), but ROS were not measured there and 130 women showed no acute effect; don't pair this claim with 'linked to irritation'. Wolkoff et al. 2008 (now read directly, the true primary behind this line of evidence) is a mouse gas-vs-particle denuder study showing denuded limonene-ozone-reaction ultrafine particles (~9.5-12.0 mg/m3, gas phase >95% removed) cause NO sensory irritation or airflow-limitation effect at all, statistically indistinguishable from clean air — reinforcing, from a different technique (whole-body mouse bioassay vs in-vitro ROS assay), that particle-bound ROS formation should not be equated with a demonstrated health effect.

Source: Chen & Hopke 2010, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Limonene produced 2 to 11 times more of these reactive particles than alpha-pinene, the pine scent chemical.

Moderate evidence: Chamber comparison only.

Source: Chen & Hopke 2010, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Government agency

EPA notes that people using products can expose themselves and others to very high pollutant levels, and that elevated levels can persist in the air long after the activity ends.

Moderate evidence: About product use in general; the peak example given is paint stripping (up to 1,000x outdoor), not fragrance.

Source: US EPA 2026 Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In an office-sized test room with some ozone in the air, a single ordinary spray of perfume, body spray or hair spray, or a dab of hand lotion, set off a burst of new ultrafine particles within minutes, reaching 34,000–200,000 particles per cubic centimeter, more than in many city streets.

Moderate evidence: One chamber, 5 products, one use each; ozone held at 35–40 ppb (high end for indoors); masked volunteer; no toxicity measured.

Source: Wu 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Letters Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Almost everything in a perfume ends up in the air: one perfume released 964 mg of vapor per gram used, mostly alcohol but also about 32 mg per gram of terpene fragrance chemicals.

Moderate evidence: One perfume; emission factors are lower bounds (PTR-MS blind to some compounds).

Source: Wu 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Letters Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Skipping showers for one or two days raised skin-derived acetic acid emissions by 84% and 172%, and increased the products of ozone reacting with skin.

Moderate evidence: 4 men; bacterial origin of the acids is inferred, not measured; fragrance-free soap/shampoo used throughout.

Source: Wang 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Pure limonene only irritates human eyes at about 445 mg/m³, far above indoor levels. A limonene-ozone mixture reacted for just 10 minutes raises eye-blink rates at roughly 1,000-2,000x less limonene: Klenø & Wolkoff (2004, n=8, primary) found residual 0.42 mg/m³ limonene + 0.08 mg/m³ ozone raised blink frequency 42% (P<0.0001); Nøjgaard (2005, n=10, primary) found a lower dose, 0.23 mg/m³ limonene + 0.08 mg/m³ ozone, gave a smaller but still significant +17% (p=0.003).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Fadeyi et al. 2015 (now read directly; n=71 — 38 non-asthmatic, 33 mild asthmatic, corrects an earlier undifferentiated count — 3 h, whole-body) found no significant eye/nose/throat irritation difference between asthma-status groups, at doses comparable-to-LOWER than Kleno/Nojgaard's residual concentrations, not higher as previously stated: limonene 35-36 ppb vs. Kleno's 75 ppb / Nojgaard's 41 ppb, and ozone 20-37 ppb (rising) vs. their steady ~41 ppb. This is a different endpoint (self-reported symptom rating vs. objective blink count), and the study has no unexposed/clean-air control arm, so 'no significant' is a between-group comparison with ratings staying below the scale's 'slight irritation' anchor, not a formal null against no exposure. Not a refutation of the blink-frequency result, but it tempers real-world relevance at doses at or below the LOEL pair, over a much longer (3 h vs 20 min), whole-body exposure. Laumbach et al. 2005 (n=130, same chamber cohort as Fiedler 2005) adds a whole-body objective-biomarker null at a higher combined terpene dose (limonene 125 ppb + alpha-pinene 160 ppb, with ozone, 135 min): no nasal symptom or nasal-lavage PMN/IL-6/IL-8/protein change. It's a different route and endpoint from the single-eye blink studies, so it doesn't refute them, but it weighs against generalizing them.

Source: Wolkoff 2013, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Indoor air / Other evidence

In mouse tests, about three-fourths of the airway irritation from limonene reacting with ozone came from formaldehyde and residual limonene together (formaldehyde the dominant contributor, at roughly 17-22 percentage points; residual limonene a small but real contributor, under 5 percentage points), not from the particles.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Animal data at ppm-range reactants; the author's own lab; not independently replicated by another group. This is now grounded directly in the true primary, Wolkoff et al. 2008 (*Toxicol Lett* 181:171-176), read in full: its own Abstract and Conclusion state formaldehyde and residual limonene COMBINED explain 'up to three-fourth' (~75%), correcting this page's earlier paraphrase ('two-thirds, formaldehyde only, excluding limonene') which had both the wrong number and the wrong attribution. The entire conducting-airway (VD/VT, airflow-limitation) effect's causal chemical remains unidentified in the primary.

Source: Wolkoff 2013, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Indoor air / Review of other studies

An indoor-air toxicologist recommends measuring limonene in offices because this common fragrance 'easily undergoes ozonolysis producing oxidation products that includes formaldehyde'.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Wolkoff & Nielsen 2017 (same author) reinforces the same recommendation-level framing and adds a quantitative synthesis ('>200 ug/m3 ozone at high limonene concentrations would be necessary to expect sensory airway and eye effects'), consistent with human nulls in Fiedler 2005 and Fadeyi 2015. Laumbach et al. 2005 (n=130, now read directly, the Fiedler cohort's nasal-lavage companion) adds a null on the one endpoint most directly relevant to a monitoring recommendation for a chemical that 'easily undergoes ozonolysis': no nasal symptom or objective nasal-inflammation-marker change despite the same ozonolysis chemistry occurring (formaldehyde and SOA both confirmed to rise during exposure). This keeps the claim at the level of a monitoring/indicator recommendation, not a finding of harm at current office levels.

Source: Wolkoff 2013, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Indoor ozone reacts with the natural oils on our skin. In a test room with four people and 35 ppb ozone, this alone kept highly reactive hydroxyl (OH) radicals at about 7×10⁵ per cm³, similar to levels measured in empty rooms after cleaning with pine or citrus products.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

High-ozone condition (35 ppb, 3.2 air changes/h, mixing fans that push ozone uptake to the top of the literature range); at the typical ~5 ppb indoor ozone the authors' model gives ~3×10⁴, 25–30× less. The companion ES&T paper (Zannoni 2021) replicates the OH-reactivity side (8–11 → 25–35 s⁻¹, ozone 85% of variance) but tested ozone only on/off, not a dose-response, and reports a geranyl acetone → 6-MHO inlet artifact that may overstate 6-MHO's share. No fragrance or health outcome studied. The ICHEAR protocol paper (Bekö 2020) shows the underlying skin-oil chemistry (6-MHO, geranyl acetone, 4-OPA) is reproducible across five groups spanning teenagers to seniors, but it reports no OH concentration data itself, so the 7×10⁵ cm⁻³ figure still rests on only the original three adult groups; it also found isoprene — the basis of this paper's alternative "precursor-product" OH cross-check — has poor day-to-day repeatability independent of the clothing explanation offered for the two methods' 1.7× disagreement.

Source: Zannoni 2022, Science Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

OH radicals attack almost every organic chemical in indoor air, not only the ~10% that ozone reacts with, and these reactions happen in the air closest to our bodies; the researchers note that many of the resulting products have never been tested for toxicity.

Moderate evidence: No toxicity or health endpoint measured; the 'untested' statement is the authors' assessment.

Source: Zannoni 2022, Science Link to this fact

Indoor air / Instrument measurement

The 'air quality index' on home air monitors is driven by particles; it did not move when only solvent-type products (nail polish remover, hair dye) were used, even though the VOC reading rose.

Moderate evidence: One unnamed device; its AQI does not follow the US EPA scale.

Source: Grigoryants 2025, Cureus Link to this fact

Indoor air / Journalism

In 2003 Southern California air regulators estimated that household and small-business products, including cleaners, cosmetics, perfume and room fresheners, released about 108 tons of smog-forming chemicals a day in the Los Angeles region, second only to vehicle tailpipes.

Moderate evidence: Agency inventory relayed by the LA Times; for measured/modeled figures use McDonald 2018 (LA) and Coggon 2021 (NYC 2018: VCPs comparable to vehicle fuels for ozone).

Source: DONTSPRAYCALIFORNIA 2008 (DOJ ADA docket) Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

A new Little Tree car air freshener releases most of its limonene in the first few days: in a closed car the limonene signal halved roughly every day and was nearly gone within 4-5 days.

Moderate evidence: Relative peak areas only, no concentrations; one car and one scent; baseline not shown.

Source: Pino-Delgado 2021 (J Student Res), Journal of Student Research Link to this fact

Indoor air / Self-reported survey

Among Australians with diagnosed multiple chemical sensitivities, about three in four (77.5%) said a fragranced product had kept them from going somewhere, and about two in three (64.8%) can't or won't use public toilets with air fresheners.

Moderate evidence: N = 71 (95% CI roughly +/-10-12 points); self-report.

Source: Steinemann 2018, Preventive Medicine Reports Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

When 40 ppb of ozone was added to a room holding a mix of 23 common indoor chemicals, including the citrus and pine scent chemicals limonene and alpha-pinene, formaldehyde tripled (13 to 40 µg/m³), ultrafine particles rose about 18-fold (2,500 to 46,000 per cm³) and particle mass reached 140 µg/m³.

Moderate evidence: Chamber with VOC load ~10x typical buildings; 23-compound office mixture, not a fragranced product; other alkenes also react.

Source: Fiedler 2005, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

When moisturizer goes on the face, the wearer breathes a short burst of its vapors (alcohol, fragrance terpenes, benzyl alcohol) that room-air monitoring does not capture; at a mannequin's nose, alcohols and terpenes took about 30 minutes to fade and some solvents up to 2.5 hours.

Moderate evidence: Mannequin head, no people; unheated face (21 °C vs 32–34 °C skin) and a 5-ACH lab; the size of the burst is disputed (tabulated doses do not match the plotted traces).

Source: Yeoman 2022, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

With four people in a test room and indoor ozone at about 35 ppb, the chemical reactivity of the air roughly tripled once ozone was added (from about 8–11 to 25–35 per second). Almost all of the increase came from carbonyls made when ozone hit the natural oils on skin, and across the whole study ozone explained 85% of the variation.

Moderate evidence: One chamber (22.5 m³, 3.2 h⁻¹, mixing fans), one ozone level tested on/off; no health endpoint; fragrance-free products used throughout.

Source: Zannoni 2021, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Wearing shorts and t-shirts instead of long clothes raised the skin-ozone products 6-MHO, 4-oxopentanal and geranyl acetone by 35–51%. Clothes that had been worn for a few hours took up ozone about as fast as bare skin, because skin oil moves into the fabric.

Moderate evidence: One group of 4 young adults, ~35 ppb ozone; chemistry only; 6-MHO values may be inflated by an inlet artifact.

Source: Zannoni 2021, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

A dried film of pine-oil cleaner or orange-oil degreaser, with its scent chemicals already evaporated away, still produced formaldehyde and a burst of new particles when later exposed to ozone.

Moderate evidence: Single glass-plate surface test per product in a lab chamber, not tested on real room surfaces (carpet, fabric, furniture).

Source: Destaillats 2006, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Wiping a small kitchen table with a few grams of an ordinary spray cleaner put 270-2,300 ug/m3 of the solvent 2-butoxyethanol into the air of a room-sized test chamber for the next hour; four of five cleaners tested contained it.

Moderate evidence: 50 m3 empty chamber, use rate at the ~84th percentile of observed users; real furnished rooms sorb glycol ethers faster, lowering peaks.

Source: Singer 2006, Indoor Air, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Cleaning with a pine-oil or citrus cleaner raised scent chemicals (limonene, terpinolene, alpha-terpineol) to about 1,000-6,000 ug/m3 for the first hour in a room-sized chamber, and some stayed elevated for many hours afterwards.

Moderate evidence: Empty chamber; one product per formulation; alpha-terpineol's persistence depends on surface water films and towels left in the room.

Source: Singer 2006, Indoor Air, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

A plug-in scented-oil air freshener evaporated 1.5 g of product a day and kept its scent chemicals at 30-160 ug/m3 in the room over three days; its two largest emissions were fragrance esters (bornyl and benzyl acetate, 280-410 ug/m3), not the ozone-reactive terpenes usually studied.

Moderate evidence: One plug-in product; a different air-freshener type (e.g. limonene-selected gels, Jo 2008) can be limonene-dominant instead.

Source: Singer 2006, Indoor Air, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Leaving used paper towels in the room after cleaning increased the solvent and scent chemicals released by 35-100%.

Moderate evidence: Measured over 24 h in an empty chamber.

Source: Singer 2006, Indoor Air, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Scented spray products — spray and plug-in air fresheners, dusting sprays — were among the specific product types most strongly associated with childhood wheeze and asthma risk in this Canadian birth cohort.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The product-specific breakdown was reported in the paper's online Appendix 1, not reproduced in the main-text tables read for this ingest; treat as directional pending direct review of that appendix.

Source: Parks et al. 2020, CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

When the same volunteers breathed through a mask into a separate room, so only their breath (not their skin) was in contact with the air, indoor ozone barely changed at all — showing the ozone-removing chemistry happens on skin and clothing, not from exhaling.

Moderate evidence: Based on a single experiment (Experiment 12) in the ICHEAR chamber; not replicated across groups.

Source: Bekö 2020, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Test-chamber measurement

A car air freshener's own terpenes (alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, p-cymene, limonene) react with in-vehicle ozone to form ultrafine particles and irritant gases (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein) that never appear on the product's ingredient list, because they are made in the cabin air, not sold in the bottle.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

N=1 product (oil-based liquid, citrus); single run per condition, no replicates; the 100 ppb ozone condition exceeds the paper's own cited in-vehicle ozone range (2-86 ppb) and RH/ventilation were excluded, so treat the numbers as chemistry demonstration, not a real-commute dose.

Source: Lamorena & Lee 2008 (J Hazard Mater), Journal of Hazardous Materials Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a real working primary school, mopping a classroom with a limonene-containing detergent produced bursts of tens of thousands of tiny new particles per cubic centimeter within minutes, but only when ozone was present in the air; a plain water-only mop produced no such burst.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

One school, one detergent; particle number not mass. Classroom mopping peak ~35,000/cm3; matched controlled lecture-theater trials with the same detergent confirmed peaks up to ~68,500/cm3.

Source: Morawska 2009, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

A limonene-cleaning event needs indoor ozone above roughly 5 parts per billion to trigger a detectable burst of new ultrafine particles; below that threshold, in this study's controlled trials, essentially no particle formation occurred.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

One product, one 140 m3 lecture theater, one air-exchange rate (1.08/h); threshold is specific to this detergent's limonene loading and may not generalize to other products or rooms.

Source: Morawska 2009, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Nearly all (93%) of the DC childcare facilities studied used chlorine bleach to sanitize surfaces, and chloroform (a bleach byproduct classified by IARC as possibly carcinogenic to humans, Group 2B) was detected in 100% of air samples; the authors attribute it mainly to bleach use.

Moderate evidence: Association, not a measured reaction; bleach usage self-reported, chloroform sources not otherwise investigated.

Source: Quirós-Alcalá 2016, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Among 3,411 Czech households with an infant, the most commonly used chemical products were window cleaner (88%), deodorant (82%) and aerosol/hairspray products (74%) — not air fresheners, which were the second-least-used of 18 chemical product categories (26%).

Moderate evidence: Self-reported product use frequency, one Central European cohort; product prevalence does not equal exposure dose or emission rate.

Source: Mikeš 2019, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

A 10-minute-old reacted mixture of limonene and ozone (residual 75 ppb limonene + 40 ppb ozone) raised human eye-blink frequency 42% relative to clean air, while the same men's eyes exposed separately to just limonene, or just ozone, at similar or higher levels, did not blink more.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Small (n=8), single-lab, local single-eye exposure (not whole-body). Starting limonene (220 ppb) and residual limonene (75 ppb) are one to two orders of magnitude above typical indoor levels (usually <10 ppb, up to ~70 ppb in cleaning agents/new housing, per the authors' own Introduction). A same-lab follow-up re-test of a nominally comparable mixture gave a 3.5x smaller effect (12% vs 42%), so the magnitude has not replicated within the same group.

Source: Klenø & Wolkoff 2004 Link to this fact

Indoor air / Review of other studies

The four most common airborne fragrances in homes and offices — pinene, limonene, linalool and eugenol — are usually present at levels 2 to 3 times below the concentration needed to physically irritate the eyes and airways, but at or above the much lower level needed just to smell them.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Sensory-irritation thresholds here are derived (mouse RD50 values run through a regression, or human LOAELs divided by an assessment factor of 5), not all directly measured; this restates the same author group's own 2013 conclusion for an updated audience, not independent confirmation.

Source: Wolkoff & Nielsen 2017, Environment International Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In the two largest, most realistic human tests to date, breathing a fragrance-and-ozone reaction mixture (the kind formed when a citrus-scented product meets indoor ozone) produced no measurable increase in eye, nose or throat irritation, in either healthy people or asthmatics.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Both are single, short (140 min / 3 h) acute exposures using self-reported symptom scales, not objective blink rate; neither tests repeated exposure or more severe asthma, and the doses are still above many typical indoor levels. Fadeyi 2015 had no clean-air control arm (its null is 'ratings stayed below slight irritation', not a test against no exposure); Laumbach 2005 did have a masked-air control. Neither refutes the single-eye blink-rate findings (different route and endpoint).

Source: Wolkoff & Nielsen 2017, Environment International Link to this fact

Indoor air / Animal study

A Danish government toxicology lab derived a specific reference value for 4-oxopentanal (4-OPA), a common byproduct when ozone reacts with skin oils and fragrance terpenes indoors: 30 ppb (123 ug/m3), from mouse bronchoconstriction data with standard safety margins applied. Measured office and aircraft-cabin 4-OPA levels (2-10 ppb) sit below this value, though ventilation-filter and occupied-room measurements (up to 10-16 ppb) come closer.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single-lab animal bioassay (60-min, ppm-range mouse exposures) extrapolated to humans via assessment factors; no direct human 4-OPA exposure or epidemiology data exist anywhere in our evidence base. A 2014 corrigendum corrected two unrelated numbers in the same results table; the 30 ppb 4-OPA airflow-limitation value itself is unaffected.

Source: Wolkoff et al. 2012/2013, Toxicology Letters Link to this fact

Indoor air / Animal study

Of five common ozone-terpene reaction products tested in mice (4-AMCH, dihydrocarvone, IPOH, 6-MHO and 4-OPA), the study's own conclusion was that four do not contribute substantially to airway irritation at indoor or ambient concentrations; only IPOH (sensory irritation) and 4-OPA (airflow limitation) were flagged as compounds of concern warranting precaution against excess formation.

Moderate evidence: Single animal study, one lab (NRCWE Copenhagen); precautionary conclusion, not evidence that current indoor exposure causes harm.

Source: Wolkoff et al. 2012/2013, Toxicology Letters Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a study of 25 UK homes using real whole-air canister sampling (not a lab chamber), the scent chemicals D-limonene and alpha-pinene were the single most abundant VOC measured in 94% of homes, regardless of building age, size or occupancy.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

N=25 homes (19 London + 6 York), one country; dominance among 8 quantified VOCs, not an absolute-concentration health claim A larger same-lab study (Heeley-Hill 2021, 60 UK homes, daily diaries; Givaudan-funded fieldwork) found cumulative product-use frequency had almost no predictive power for measured VOC levels (R²<0.001), so treat the product-use link as suggestive.

Source: Wang 2017, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

The UK home with the heaviest, most frequent use of cleaning and fragranced products (9 different products, some used more than 10 times in a week, plus a scented candle) had a 5-day average D-limonene concentration of up to 1,439 ug/m3, around 80 times the study's median home and possibly the highest domestic value reported in the literature at the time.

Moderate evidence: Single home out of 25 driving the extreme; 5-day average, not a short-term peak, which the authors state was likely higher.

Source: Wang 2017, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

A personal-care product containing the silicone D5 (such as a deodorant applied hours earlier) can raise D5 levels inside a car far above outdoor background, and this passenger-carried D5 vents out of the car and mixes with the vehicle's exhaust-associated emissions when the cabin fan runs.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Small controlled experiment (4 passengers, 1 vehicle, plus one deodorant-in-car test); a car cabin is a distinct, small, enclosed microenvironment, not home or building indoor air, which this paper does not measure.

Source: Coggon 2018, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a study of 60 UK homes with real air sampling (not a lab chamber), the VOC found in the highest concentration indoors was n-butane, an aerosol-spray propellant, not a fragrance chemical; it reached a wintertime maximum of 4,630 ug/m3, and aerosol antiperspirant/deodorant was the single most universally used VOC-releasing product, used in all 60 homes.

Moderate evidence: One UK town's panel-recruited cohort (Ashford, Kent); Givaudan-funded (fieldwork), analysis independent at University of York.

Source: Heeley-Hill 2021, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Industry-funded Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Indoor VOC levels exceeded outdoor levels in the large majority of homes studied — 84% in summer and 100% in winter — confirming that for this cohort, indoor air, not outdoor air, was the dominant source of VOC exposure.

Moderate evidence: Outdoor samples were not individually paired with every indoor home/period; mean seasonal outdoor values used for comparison.

Source: Heeley-Hill 2021, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Industry-funded Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Even with daily diary records of exactly how often 60 households used 13 different types of scented and cleaning products over three days, how often people used these products did not predict how much VOC was in their home's air (R-squared less than 0.001 for total VOC; no individual VOC, including limonene, showed a significant relationship).

Moderate evidence: Frequency of use, not dose per use or product formulation, was recorded; a narrow, weak exception existed for limonene with insecticide/plug-in-air-freshener use specifically.

Source: Heeley-Hill 2021, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Industry-funded Link to this fact

Indoor air / Animal study

In a mouse study, when scientists physically separated the invisible ultrafine particles from the gas fumes made by citrus-scent limonene reacting with ozone, the airway-irritating effect disappeared entirely, showing it's the gas products, led by formaldehyde, that irritate, not the particles themselves.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single lab, not independently replicated. Mouse ppm-range reactant concentrations are several orders of magnitude above real indoor limonene/ozone levels; this is a causation/mechanism study, not an exposure-response study at realistic doses.

Source: Wolkoff et al. 2008, Toxicology Letters Link to this fact

Indoor air / Animal study

In the same mouse study, formaldehyde formed by the limonene-ozone reaction, together with the leftover limonene itself, accounted for roughly three-quarters of the airway-irritating effect measured; formaldehyde was the dominant contributor.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single lab, single animal study; the estimate for formaldehyde and limonene's individual contributions is model-based (from the group's own earlier single-compound dose-response studies), not a direct blocking experiment. The remaining ~25% of the effect, and the entire conducting-airway (airflow-limitation) effect's causal chemical, are unidentified.

Source: Wolkoff et al. 2008, Toxicology Letters Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Dryer-vent air carried far more of the citrus-scent chemical D-limonene when households used fragranced laundry detergent (2.35-118 ug/m3, mean 33.34) than when they used fragrance-free detergent (0.13-1.50 ug/m3 after switching; 0.24-0.26 ug/m3 in households that never used fragranced detergent).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

6 Melbourne-area homes, D-limonene only (not the fuller VOC/HAP panel), no statistical significance testing; shares one author (Anne Steinemann) with the earlier 2-home study it builds on, so not a fully independent replication.

Source: Goodman 2019, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Switching to fragrance-free laundry detergent also reduced D-limonene in the laundry room's own indoor air, not just at the dryer vent, by up to 72.7% (mean 45.8%) within one month.

Moderate evidence: 4 households, single background-air sample per round, no statistical testing.

Source: Goodman 2019, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Every one of 25 fragranced laundry products tested (US and Australian detergents and dryer sheets) emitted a terpene fragrance chemical (such as limonene, alpha-pinene or eucalyptol), while none of 10 fragrance-free laundry products emitted any terpene at all.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This paper restates chemical-panel data from Steinemann 2015 and Nematollahi 2018/2019, which are not yet independently checked in this evidence base; treat the 100%-vs-0% split as a secondary report until those primaries are read directly.

Source: Goodman, Nematollahi & Steinemann 2020/2021, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

The industry / Self-reported survey

Even the companies selling products often don't know everything in them: all 20 'leader' consumer-product companies interviewed said ingredient or hazard information could be hard to get from suppliers, and 7 named suppliers' trade-secret claims as a major obstacle.

Moderate evidence: Interview study, 20 self-selected companies, 2009; no fragrance firms identified.

Source: Scruggs 2011, Environmental Science & Policy Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

The fragrance industry's own data show its main explanation for how fragrance chemicals cause allergy doesn't cover most of them: 34 of 62 ingredients (55%) sensitize despite having no predicted protein-binding alert.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Structural-alert software limitation; metabolic activation explains some. Roberts & Api 2018 (different 57-chemical fragrance dataset, no direct overlap confirmed with this claim's 62-chemical set) adds two further indirect-activation routes the alert software here evidently does not capture — slow autoxidation of tertiary allylic/benzylic C-H compounds to allergenic hydroperoxides/epoxides, and a proposed bio-sulfation route for benzylic alcohols — which could explain part of the unexplained 55% for chemicals with those structural motifs. The same paper separately proposes that some LLNA-positive, alert-free fragrance chemicals (hexyl/benzyl salicylate) may be LLNA false positives rather than true sensitizers at all, which would pull in the opposite direction (shrinking, not explaining, the true no-mechanism fraction) if any such chemicals are present in this claim's 62-ingredient set — not checked here, so the net effect on the 55% figure is unresolved and the grade is left unchanged.

Source: Lee 2024, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

The non-animal tests now used to set fragrance safety levels are typically off by about 2 to 3 times when predicting how potent an ingredient is.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Median absolute fold-misprediction 1.8-3.4; errors tend to be conservative. Natsch 2023 (same regression framework, non-fragrance-specific dataset) finds the underlying models are robust to retraining against human rather than LLNA data (only 6/139 chemicals shift >3.3-fold) — weak indirect support that this fold-error range is a stable property of the method, not an LLNA-fitting artifact, though the 62-fragrance-ingredient set itself is not retested against human data.

Source: Lee 2024, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Those models underestimated allergy potency by more than fivefold for 18% of the 188 chemicals tested, and more than tenfold for 11%.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Prediction error, not a safety-limit error; worst outliers are non-fragrance chemicals. Natsch 2023 (same author, human-anchored retraining) shows this outlier structure is not simply an artifact of fitting to mouse data: only 6/139 chemicals (4.3%) shift by more than 3.3-fold when the same models are retrained against human-anchored potency values instead of LLNA.

Source: Natsch & Gerberick 2022, ALTEX Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

Older synthetic musks (musk ambrette, AETT) caused nerve damage in animal studies and were later restricted.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Both primaries now read directly (2026-09-26): Spencer 1979 (AETT, N=16, single lab, single route) and Spencer 1984 (musk ambrette, N=220, dual route, dose-ranging). The musk-ambrette evidence alone is large and well-controlled enough to support 'strong', but the claim bundles it with the smaller AETT study, which keeps the combined claim at moderate under the grading rule.

Source: Pinkas 2017, Environmental Research Link to this fact

The industry / Journalism

A perfumer writing in a chemistry journal said a natural ingredient such as rose oil is sometimes added in a "negligible quantity only to be able to say that you have rose oil in your formula", which "will please the marketing people" but does nothing for the scent.

Moderate evidence: Opinion; she advises against the practice and gives no frequency.

Source: Ellena 2008, Chemistry & Biodiversity Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

Citronellol is treated as safe by default – GRAS at the US FDA, a 'non-toxic' biopesticide at the US EPA, and limited only by the fragrance industry's own voluntary IFRA standard – yet this government-funded study found it is brain-penetrant and calls for its content in consumer products to be regulated.

Moderate evidence: The call for regulation is the authors' conclusion from high-dose animal data; funded by the Korean Ministry of Environment, no industry money.

Source: Kim 2024, Journal of Hazardous Materials Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The industry's permitted levels for rose ketones (up to 0.07-0.8% depending on product type) overlap the concentrations at which already-sensitized volunteers reacted (0.05-0.1%), because the risk assessment is designed to prevent new allergies rather than to protect people who already have one.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The loosest categories are rinse-off/incidental contact where dose per area is far lower than a patch test. The design intent (induction only, not elicitation) is now confirmed by the framework's own current methodology paper (Api 2020, QRA2 §2.2); the numeric overlap still rests on the single 2007 dossier.

Source: Lalko 2007 (RIFM), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The fragrance industry's safety assessment of 17 salicylates counted exposure from 10 personal-care product types only. Household cleaners and detergents, which the same report lists as uses, and breathing fragrance in were not included.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

As of 2024, RIFM/Creme Global's aggregate exposure model (Lee 2024) does now cover household care, air care and inhalation industry-wide, but that 2024 paper does not report salicylate-specific numbers, so it is unconfirmed whether this specific 2007 dossier's gap has since been closed for these 17 materials. A decade after this 2007 dossier, RIFM's own broader exposure model (Comiskey et al. 2017, Phase 2) had still not reached household cleaning or laundry products either — explicitly named as future work — confirming the product-type gap this claim describes persisted within the industry's own more advanced modeling program well past 2007, closing only with Lee 2024 industry-wide (still not salicylate-specific).

Source: RIFM Expert Panel / Belsito 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The industry panel judged each salicylate's safety one chemical at a time, although the same report says all 17 are broken down in the body to the same substance, salicylic acid.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The combined-exposure figure (about 1.05 mg/kg/day, group margin roughly 48-69 at the panel's own 100%-absorption default) is a evidence base calculation on the paper's Table 1, not a published number, and sums high-end maxima.

Source: RIFM Expert Panel / Belsito 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

In a French fragrance-and-flavor factory, the company's own measurements found the butter-flavor chemical diacetyl (linked to 'popcorn lung' in US factory workers) in workers' breathing air at 0.05–9 ppm during short tasks; 29 of 31 samples were above the 15-minute limit of 0.1 ppm recommended by the EU's scientific committee on occupational limits.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Limit comparison is our (paper makes none); samplers on clothing, respirator use per task not reported; flavor chemical, factory workers, not consumers; industry-funded (V. Mane Fils).

Source: Angelini 2016, PLoS ONE Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

The standard EU (REACH) screening tool for estimating workers' chemical exposure predicted lower levels than were actually measured in 61% of 431 measurements in a fragrance-and-flavor factory, sometimes by more than 100-fold.

Moderate evidence: One plant; evidence base count from the paper's S4 table (paper: 37% of tool predictions were above the measurement); short task samples.

Source: Angelini 2016, PLoS ONE Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Self-reported survey

More than a third of Germans (37.8%) think people who wear perfume are more hygiene-conscious; fragrance can mask a smell but does not clean.

Moderate evidence: Attitude item; the 'does not clean' half is the author's argument, not a measurement.

Source: Klaschka 2020, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

This lavender study was funded by a university with no declared industry involvement, unlike much of the evidence used to argue these oils are safe for children, which comes from the essential-oil trade or from a manufacturer of lavender's main constituents.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Funding source is not evidence quality: this study is small (n = 5 per group) and the industry studies it contrasts with are larger and guideline-compliant, though narrower in scope.

Source: Kim & Lim 2022, Journal of Korean Medical Science Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

The industry's guideline testing cleared the two lavender molecules that were NOT the most active ones: in the study it was answering, alpha-terpineol and terpinen-4-ol were the strongest on both the estrogen and androgen receptors, and BASF tested neither.

Moderate evidence: Comparison across two papers (Hareng 2024 vs Ramsey 2019) using different assay systems; the point is the untested molecules, not a disagreement about the tested ones.

Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

The hormone safety testing on lavender and tea tree oil constituents is incomplete: no regulatory steroidogenesis assay (OECD Test Guideline 456) has been published for any of the eight internationally defined constituents of either oil — including the two that an industry laboratory reported as clear on hormone receptors.

Moderate evidence: An absence-of-evidence claim about the published record as of 2026-09; states a testing gap, not a harm. Say 'not tested', never 'found unsafe'.

Source: Sharma 2024, Biomolecules Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

Fragrance safety is self-regulated: IFRA, which represents about 90% of fragrance suppliers, issues voluntary guidelines, and much of the safety research it relies on is done by the industry's own institute (RIFM) and is unpublished.

Moderate evidence: Secondary figures; the unpublished-studies point is better sourced from RIFM dossiers themselves.

Source: BCPP 2018 Link to this fact

The industry / Industry source

The industry's standard safety package for a fragrance ingredient in 1994 covered acute poisoning and skin effects (irritation, allergy, sun reactions); breathing it in was not tested, because the industry judged inhalation 'not a route of toxicological concern'.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

As of 2024, RIFM/Creme Global's aggregate exposure model (Lee 2024) does now include a full inhalation-TTC branch across ~3,000 fragrance ingredients (99% below the inhalation TTC), so the industry itself has since closed this specific 1994 scope gap methodologically — though whether ingredients assessed only under the older dermal-only dossiers were individually revisited is not stated. The gap's closure was gradual, not a single 2024 event: Comiskey et al. 2017 (Phase 2 of the same RIFM/Creme model) added the model's first-ever inhalation branch, 23 years after this 1994 dismissal, but only for air-care and personal-care spray products — household cleaning and laundry products were explicitly still excluded and named as future work in 2017, closing only in the 2024 paper.

Source: Ford 1994 (RIFM) Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

EPA's reviewers warned that replacing one phthalate with a close relative (DINP for DEHP, DIBP for DBP) should not be assumed to be safer.

Moderate evidence: Based on weaker data for the substitutes (fewer studies, lower exposures), not on evidence they are equally harmful.

Source: Radke 2018 (US EPA), Environment International Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

The essential-oil industry's published defense of lavender oil in a child's breast-growth case rested on showing the child's cologne was synthetic fragrance containing a phthalate: that clears lavender oil, not the cologne.

Moderate evidence: Describes the letter's argument; one case, no dose, no biomarker; does not show the phthalate or anything else caused the breast growth.

Source: Giroux & Orjubin 2020 (JCEM letter; Consortium Huiles Essentielles), The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

A 2026 lab test that adds simulated human liver metabolism to a DNA-damage (Ames mutagenicity) test found MORE mutagenic activity in skin creams and lotions than the conventional animal (rat) version of the same test — the opposite of metabolism detoxifying the product. Standard safety testing, including industry fragrance-material dossiers, defaults to the rat version.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

One paper, 11 unnamed cosmetic/skin-care-cream extracts, no compound identified; not tested on perfumes or on named fragrance materials; species differences in metabolism can go either direction depending on the chemical.

Source: Schmidtmann 2026, Analytical Chemistry Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The cosmetics industry's own safety panel found that 5% benzyl alcohol and 2% benzoic acid provoke a non-allergic skin reaction (redness, swelling, itching) in most people tested with no prior sensitization needed, yet concluded both are "safe" up to 5% in cosmetics because it judged typical exposure limited, not because the reaction is rare.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The exposure-limited reasoning was built around occasional hair-dye use; the same industry data table lists benzyl alcohol and benzoic acid in daily leave-on products (moisturizers, body/hand skin care) without a separate exposure justification for that pattern.

Source: Nair 2001 (CIR Expert Panel), International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

The replacement tests are least accurate for the strongest allergens: they were wrong by about 6-fold for strong sensitizers and about 18-fold for the most extreme ones, almost always guessing them weaker than they are.

Moderate evidence: Geometric-mean fold error by LLNA potency class (Table 4); no human-outcome validation for this specific breakdown.

Source: Natsch 2015, Toxicological Sciences Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

When the same lab-dish tests that replace animal testing are checked against real human allergy-test panels instead of mouse data, they explain only about 32-45% of how strongly a chemical causes allergy in people, and the mouse test itself does barely better, explaining only 43%.

Moderate evidence: The strictly-human comparison dataset (n=62) is small and the author flags it as biased/non-representative; a larger human dataset might do better.

Source: Natsch 2023, ALTEX Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Neither the animal test nor its lab-dish replacements are strong predictors of real human allergy thresholds; they are about equally weak, shown independently in 2015 and again in 2023.

Moderate evidence: Both comparisons reuse overlapping historical human patch-test literature (HRIPT/HMT), not independent new human data.

Source: Natsch 2023, ALTEX Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Whether a chemical is irritating to cells in a dish, not just whether it reacts with proteins, drives a lot of the mouse allergy test's readout in ways that don't reflect real human allergy.

Moderate evidence: Statistical inference from regression coefficients across three chemical subsets, not a direct mechanistic experiment.

Source: Natsch 2023, ALTEX Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

AETT was in fragrance use for 22 years before its neurotoxicity was documented, and cosmetic color additives are the only ingredient class the FDA actually regulates.

Moderate evidence: Regulatory-gap claim is accurate for the 1979 US framework described in the paper; verify current FDA cosmetic regulation status before using as a present-tense claim.

Source: Spencer 1979, Science Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

The study's own authors, including two Research Institute for Fragrance Materials scientists, stated that the doses causing clear nerve damage in rats were 50 to 250 times their own estimate of maximum human fragrance exposure to musk ambrette, and that the lower-dose, longer-term study needed to assess real human risk was never done.

Moderate evidence: This is the study authors' own stated limitation, not an independent follow-up; no lifetime low-dose study has been conducted since (as far as this evidence base has found).

Source: Spencer 1984, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

Musk ambrette is no longer used in fragrances; it was withdrawn from all skin-contact products in the 1980s, following both this neurotoxicity finding and separate reports of photoallergic skin reactions in real-world cologne use.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The proximate cause of the total skin-contact ban was photoallergy (Cronin 1984), not the neurotoxicity finding directly, which RIFM had already argued had an adequate safety margin via absorption data.

Source: Spencer 1984; Ford 1994, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The 2020 update to the industry's fragrance safety-assessment methodology exists because an independent EU regulatory body (the SCCS), not the industry itself, found the original 2008 version's exposure assumptions and safety factors inadequately justified.

Moderate evidence: The SCCS opinions themselves are not yet ingested as primary sources in this evidence base; described via the industry paper's own account of the critique.

Source: Api 2020 (RIFM/IFRA), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The fragrance industry's own most detailed exposure model to date estimates that about three-quarters of roughly 3,000 fragrance ingredients fall below a conservative safety threshold (TTC) for long-term systemic exposure, and 99% fall below it for inhalation — but by the same industry analysis, about a quarter of ingredients (777) are above their own systemic threshold and about half are above the skin-sensitization threshold (DST).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Industry-funded, self-run model (RIFM/Creme Global) using industry-supplied, largely unpublished concentration and habits-and-practices survey data. The DST gap is driven mostly by natural complex substances (essential oils etc.), which are conservatively defaulted to the more hazardous 'reactive' category without analyzing their actual components — only 19% of these clear the DST versus 65% of single, chemically-defined ingredients.

Source: Lee 2024 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

As of 2024, the fragrance industry's aggregate exposure model finally covers household-care, air-care and oral-care products and the inhalation route for its full ~3,000-ingredient inventory — a scope earlier industry safety dossiers from 1994, 2003 and 2007 explicitly left out or dismissed by a single-ingredient calculation.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Whole-inventory average from an industry-run model; the paper does not show that any specific earlier dossier (e.g. the 2007 salicylates group review) was individually re-run through the expanded model, so whether that scope gap has closed for those specific materials is unconfirmed.

Source: Lee 2024 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The industry's own model finds fragrance exposure from household-care and air-care products is far lower than from cosmetics and personal-care products, and almost entirely by inhalation rather than skin contact (household 95th percentile 0.2 ug/kg/day, air care 5 ug/kg/day, versus cosmetics/personal care about 50 ug/kg/day, nearly all dermal).

Moderate evidence: Based on a 350-ingredient sample modeled from industry-supplied concentration and use-frequency survey data, not measured breathing-zone concentrations.

Source: Lee 2024 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Government agency

FDA's own 2006 testing concluded there was insufficient data to find a human health hazard from phthalate esters in cosmetics and took no regulatory action, even though the phthalates were already known to be common and concentrated in fragrance and nail products.

Moderate evidence: This is the regulator's own stated position at the time (2006), not a new toxicity finding; FDA said it would continue to monitor and could revisit if new hazard data emerged.

Source: Hubinger & Havery 2006, Journal of Cosmetic Science Link to this fact

The industry / Industry source

The fragrance industry's aggregate consumer exposure model did not include any estimate of inhaled fragrance exposure until 2017, when it added an inhalation route for air fresheners, scented candles and personal-care sprays only — 23 years after the industry's 1994 safety package dismissed inhalation testing.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This is a modeled inhalation exposure fraction from a compartmental model run at single default parameter values, not measured breathing-zone data; the model's own validation against real chemical concentrations is reported in a companion paper (Safford et al. 2017) not yet in this evidence base.

Source: Comiskey 2017 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Industry source

Even after this 2017 update, the fragrance industry's own aggregate exposure model still explicitly excluded household cleaning and laundry products — the product category the industry's own 2003 safety-process paper says accounts for about 60% of fragrance volume — and named their inclusion as future work.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single industry methods paper describing its own model's scope; the gap was closed industry-wide only in a later 2024 paper (Lee et al.), which this claim's caveat should be read alongside.

Source: Comiskey 2017 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Industry source

To build this exposure model, the fragrance industry combined three surveys that were never designed to work together — a 7-day product diary, a monthly recall survey, and a categorical daily-frequency questionnaire — by matching subjects only on age and gender and assuming they share the same habits for entirely unrelated products.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The paper's authors are explicit about this assumption's uncertainty and do not test it directly; a companion validation paper (Safford et al. 2017) is not yet in this evidence base to check how much this integration step affects final exposure estimates.

Source: Comiskey 2017 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Industry source

Some of the amount-per-use values feeding this industry exposure model come from very small studies — 10 Dutch adults for bar-soap-in-the-shower amounts, and a single non-distributional value for scented-candle amount per day — rather than large, representative samples.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Small external studies feeding a large aggregate model is a data-provenance observation, not itself evidence the resulting exposure estimates are biased in a particular direction; the paper does not report sensitivity analysis on these specific inputs.

Source: Comiskey 2017 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

The fragrance industry's own 2007 safety review of benzyl salicylate assessed allergy, toxicity and cancer risk in detail but never tested it for hormone-like activity at all; the first test came two years later, from an independent lab with no fragrance-industry funding.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The independent test found only a weak, partial effect, at concentrations well above the industry's own worst-case exposure estimate, so this closes a testing gap rather than reversing the 2007 review's 'safe as used' conclusion.

Source: Charles & Darbre 2009, Journal of Applied Toxicology Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

In RIFM's own comparison of 57 fragrance chemicals, the mouse test used to set fragrance skin-allergy safety limits agreed with real human sensitization thresholds within about 3-fold for 76% of the chemicals tested, but was off by up to nearly 800-fold for others, including hexyl and benzyl salicylate.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single paper/author group (RIFM staff plus an industry consultant), though a large (57-chemical), systematically protocolled primary dataset; the authors themselves call the outlier groups 'an alert for consideration, rather than… a general rule' given only 7 materials populate each. Corroborates, from a different metric and era, the LLNA-human accuracy gap C230 documents for the newer non-animal replacement tests.

Source: Api, Basketter & Lalko 2014, Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

The older claim that PGME solvent vapor irritates the eyes and throat at 250 ppm comes from an unblinded 1970 study without objective eye measurements (20 of 23 subjects reported eye irritation at 250 ppm); a later double-blind study with objective eye tests found no effect at 100-150 ppm.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The double-blind study only tested up to 150 ppm, so it does not directly re-test the 250 ppm figure; it undermines confidence in the method that produced it, not the number itself.

Source: Emmen et al. 2003, Toxicology Letters Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Government agency

California's 2022 law banning intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics (AB 2771), effective January 1, 2025, is expected by state toxicologists' own modeling to reduce PFAS reaching California wastewater treatment plants, particularly from shaving creams and gels, hair care products, and facial cleansers rather than from makeup.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This is a projection from the same modeled estimate, not a before/after measurement; the ban had not yet taken effect when the paper was published, and DTSC has an institutional interest in the policy it also administers.

Source: Balan 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

The study's own authors note that current diagnostic patch-test concentrations for oxidized linalool allergy are more than 500 times higher than the hydroperoxide levels they actually found in consumer products.

Moderate evidence: Industry-funded interpretation; does not itself prove patch tests over-diagnose, since already-sensitized skin can react to much lower doses than the diagnostic test threshold.

Source: Kern 2014, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Other evidence

RIFM's founding scientific director personally authored the sole primary study behind the fragrance industry's 'quenching' safety exception; IFRA later codified it into a formal use-with-limonene rule (≥25% d-limonene) that required a higher proportion of the 'quenching' terpene than Opdyke's own 1976 test (~20% d-limonene) actually used.

Moderate evidence: The evidence base does not have IFRA's own documentation of why 25% (rather than the tested ~20%) was chosen, or of when/why the quenching exception was later withdrawn.

Source: Ford 1994 (RIFM), citing Opdyke 1976 Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

Despite thousands of positive allergy-test reactions to oxidized limonene and linalool reported worldwide, the fragrance industry's own market-testing program concluded that where people are actually getting exposed to these allergens "remains elusive" — the industry itself has not identified the real-world consumer-product source of a widely documented skin allergy.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This is the industry's own conclusion, from an industry-funded study; it does not mean the allergy is not real or not caused by fragrance chemicals — only that the specific consumer-product exposure route has not been chemically confirmed even by the party with the strongest incentive to find an innocuous explanation.

Source: Natsch 2019, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

A musk fragrance chemical called ATTN (Versalide) disappeared entirely from human tissue in this 1996 study because industry had already stopped making it in 1980, after animal testing showed it damaged nerves – a real-world example of a musk being phased out after a toxicity finding.

Moderate evidence: Absence in 19 samples is consistent with, but does not by itself prove, the discontinued-production explanation the authors give; based on a small single-country sample.

Source: Rimkus & Wolf 1996, Chemosphere Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

SC Johnson funded and co-authored a study that tested what was apparently its own newly developed fragranced air-sanitizer product in asthmatics and found no adverse ocular, nasal or lung effects.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Record as the industry's own finding, not independent confirmation of safety; the null is broadly consistent with independent Elberling 2006/Millqvist findings but was not independently replicated.

Source: Opiekun 2003, Clinical and Experimental Allergy Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

When RIFM's own scientists restrict the comparison to fragrance chemicals without known problematic chemistry, the mouse test used to set fragrance safety limits correlates strongly with real human sensitization thresholds (R-squared = 0.78 for 35 chemicals).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This correlation excludes, by design, the 14/57 chemicals already known (from the same underlying RIFM dataset) to disagree badly between mouse and human data, some by up to ~790-fold (Api 2014). Only 2 of those 14 exclusions could have been identified before seeing the human data; the other 12 were fit to the very outliers they exclude.

Source: Roberts & Api 2018, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

This foundational human PGME irritation study has a direct Dow Chemical link stronger than later PGME papers in the wiki: one author was a Dow Chemical employee and the test material was Dow-supplied ('Dowtherm 209'), yet the study documents substantial irritation at concentrations relevant to Dow's own radiator-coolant product rather than minimizing it.

Moderate evidence: A single industry-linked study reporting an adverse finding is still one study; the funding link is recorded for transparency, not as proof the finding is unbiased in general.

Source: Stewart 1970 (Arch Environ Health), Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

A commercial testing laboratory's mouse-bioassay claims of consumer-product toxicity (the same ASTM E-981/FOB method the lab later applied to air fresheners and colognes) failed an independent, blinded EPA/ManTech replication attempt when applied to carpets; the largest toxicity-looking signals traced instead to stress from the restrained-exposure test procedure itself, present even in air-only control animals.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Applies to carpets specifically (2 CPSC-complaint carpets, one lab-replication attempt); the fragrance papers' headline airflow-limitation (mid-expiratory flow) endpoint was never measured by this study, so it is method/lab-level caution about the testing program, not a direct refutation of the fragrance-specific findings.

Source: Tepper et al. 1995, American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

Modern (post-1980s) European fabric conditioners almost all use esterquats, a cationic surfactant class engineered with a hydrolyzable ester linkage to biodegrade faster than the older DHTDMAC/DSDMAC softeners it replaced; the industry's own account frames the switch as environmental (biodegradability), not human-health, driven.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Industry source, coi/industry-funded, unnamed underlying studies; the chemistry/history claim itself (ester linkage -> faster hydrolysis/biodegradation) is basic, uncontested chemistry, but the framing and any 'therefore always safer' inference is the industry's own.

Source: HERA Project 2008 (A.I.S.E./CEFIC) Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Measured in people or real products

Tumble dryer manufacturers give directly conflicting instructions on cleaning the lint filter: some tell consumers to rinse it under water, others recommend a dishwasher, others dry methods only, and one (John Lewis) explicitly says never use water, for environmental reasons.

Moderate evidence: One UK market snapshot (24 brands, January 2023), not checked against other countries or against what consumers actually do.

Source: Cummins 2023, PLOS ONE Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Other evidence

The clinical safety testing (HRIPT, CIT or SIU) required to earn the NEA Seal is arranged and paid for by the manufacturer through a testing company of its own choosing; NEA states it "does not endorse or have a relationship with any clinical safety testing company" and instead reviews the submitted reports on paper through an independent physician panel.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This is a structural/COI description from the criteria page itself, not a finding that any specific product's submitted testing was inadequate; whether NEA audits the chosen labs is unknown from this page (see linked-but-uncaptured testing-requirements PDF).

Source: NEA 2026 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

More than 70% of the chemicals measured in childcare air had no health-based safety limit; several fragrance compounds were among 12 the authors flagged for further study.

Moderate evidence: Flags come from database/QSAR hazard scores, not measured effects.

Source: Hoang 2016, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

No law in the US, the EU or Australia requires air-freshener makers to list all their ingredients; a label can simply say 'fragrance'.

Moderate evidence: Review's legal summary (2016); EU cosmetics allergen labeling does not cover air fresheners.

Source: Steinemann 2017, Building and Environment Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

US product rules written to limit smog (ozone) exempt several chemicals that still form fine particles, and fragrance ingredients do not have to be disclosed.

Moderate evidence: Regulatory analysis in the paper.

Source: McDonald 2018, Science Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

The EU bans more than 1,400 substances from cosmetics, while US rules restrict only a handful.

Moderate evidence: EU list includes never-used substances; US rules changing under MoCRA 2022; verify against a regulatory source.

Source: Alblooshi 2025, Frontiers in Toxicology Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Journalism

In a 2010 undercover test by the US Government Accountability Office, the Energy Star program certified 15 fake products, including a gas-powered alarm clock the size of a generator.

Moderate evidence: Energy efficiency label, not chemical safety; EPA/DOE promised reform.

Source: Dahl 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

Trace benzene was found in 83% of 79 US feminine hygiene products and 1,4-dioxane in 50%, yet these products are regulated as medical devices with no federal ingredient-disclosure requirement.

Moderate evidence: Trace ng/g levels; 1,4-dioxane is a surfactant by-product.

Source: Lin 2020, Environment International Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

History shows removing the exposure works: as industrial turpentine use fell from 94.5% of US supply as a solvent in 1935 to 4.5% in 1975, turpentine skin allergy declined with it.

Moderate evidence: Ecological historical correlation.

Source: Karlberg & Lepoittevin 2021, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

Official limits for the same gas odorant differed about 280-fold in 2009: Germany allowed 50 ppm at work, a Dutch health agency derived 0.18 ppm, and the US had no limit.

Moderate evidence: Regulatory values as reported by the paper (2009); may have been revised since.

Source: Baur & Bittner 2009, American Journal of Industrial Medicine Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

In the US, "fragrance-free" means that no ingredient is used solely to give a smell. A fragrance chemical that also does another job, such as benzyl alcohol used as a preservative, can legally be in a "fragrance-free" product.

Moderate evidence: US definition as quoted by dermatologists in 2007; not a legal analysis; FDA has no binding definition of "fragrance-free".

Source: Jacob & Barron 2007, Dermatitis Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Self-reported survey

Nearly half (49%) of US families in a survey bought children's makeup from large online retailers, and US labeling law (the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act) requires ingredient lists on the package, not on the website.

Moderate evidence: Purchase share is survey self-report; legal point is the authors' reading of the FPLA as of 2022.

Source: Medley 2023 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

Fewer than 20% of the roughly 3,000 high-production-volume (HPV) chemicals in the US have been tested for potential to cause developmental neurotoxicity.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Directly verified in Landrigan 2010 (Curr Opin Pediatr), which states this identically in its abstract and body text, citing Goldman 1998 (Environ Health Perspect) as the primary source — not yet read in this evidence base, and not raw EPA testing data. Concerns high-production-volume chemicals in general (solvents, metals, pesticides); Landrigan 2010 never names a fragrance or cosmetic ingredient.

Source: Sealey 2016 (citing Landrigan 2010), Environment International Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

The researchers report that citronellol content varies up to 1000-fold within the same product category, which they attribute to the absence of regulation of fragrance content in household products.

Moderate evidence: Stated in the discussion citing industry/market sources; no product measurements in this paper.

Source: Kim 2024, Journal of Hazardous Materials Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

Workers with fragrance-related asthma were twice as likely as other work-asthma cases to still be exposed at work (50% vs 26%) and more often had workers' compensation claims denied (30% vs 21%), though ER visit and hospitalization rates were the same.

Moderate evidence: Interviewed cases only (~58% of fragrance cases); unadjusted.

Source: Weinberg 2017, Journal of Asthma Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

More than 40% of US occupational exposure limits are set to prevent eye, nose and throat irritation, and a systematic comparison of 18 agencies confirms that US, German and EU regulators set substantially different limits for the same chemicals — overall stringency ranges from Poland's geometric-mean level of 0.23 to US OSHA's 0.61 (a 2.67-fold spread), with the EU's own 'health-based' indicative limits sitting above Germany's stricter national MAK limits.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Workplace limits, not consumer or home limits. The >40%-for-irritation figure is still secondhand (Edling & Lundberg 2000, not independently in our evidence base). The 'agencies differ' clause is now backed by a large, systematic primary (Schenk et al. 2008: 18 agencies, 1,341 substances), but the claim stays below 'strong' because the irritation-basis figure remains unverified.

Source: Dalton & Jaén 2010, Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

A fragrance-and-flavor company reported that about half of the chemicals it handles are classified hazardous, and that few of the more than 3,000 flavoring substances in use have workplace exposure limits.

Moderate evidence: Industry self-description, no inventory published; flavor materials at one company.

Source: Angelini 2016, PLoS ONE Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

US product labels only have to say "fragrance", not which chemicals, and household products need not list ingredients at all; MoCRA (2022) requires companies to name on cosmetic labels the fragrance allergens FDA designates by regulation (proposed rule was due June 2024), which the authors expect to be many, but not all.

Moderate evidence: Check current MoCRA rule status before quoting; household products are outside MoCRA; statute §609(b) is a mandate; check final rule status.

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

The UK national air-pollution inventory counts zero emissions of limonene or the silicone D5 from shampoos, shower gels and skin products, although these were the two largest emissions measured from them.

Moderate evidence: The authors judge the missing mass small at national scale (~0.4 kt/yr vs 807 kt total UK VOC).

Source: Yeoman 2020, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

Most national microbead bans cover only rinse-off products such as scrubs and cleansers; microplastics are still commonly used in leave-on products, especially color cosmetics like lipstick and eye makeup.

Moderate evidence: Narrative review; 8 of 14 listed jurisdictions explicitly rinse-off/exfoliant only; EU 2023/2055 is broader.

Source: Han & Kim 2025, Cosmetics Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

A finished perfume is usually not toxicity-tested as a whole; its safety is assessed on paper from its secret ingredient list. When researchers tested 42 whole perfumes directly, they found hazards that ingredient-by-ingredient assessment is not designed to catch.

Moderate evidence: EU framework described by the authors; the hazards are in vitro and unidentified.

Source: Morlock & Heil 2025, Journal of Chromatography A Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

An advocacy group that pushes for fragrance disclosure itself says many brand owners are not told by their fragrance suppliers what their fragrances contain, so a disclosure law has to reach the fragrance supplier.

Moderate evidence: Asserted without evidence; interview evidence is Scruggs & Ortolano 2011.

Source: BCPP 2018 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

A 2015 CMAJ editorial (Flegel & Martin, CMAJ 187:1187, DOI 10.1503/cmaj.151097) states hospital environments free from artificial scents 'should become a uniform policy, promoting the safety of patients, staff and visitors alike'; the US CDC's own workplace policy separately says fragrance 'is not appropriate for a professional work environment' (CDC wording still unverified against a primary CDC source).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

CMAJ quote now verified against the primary editorial, now in our evidence base (src-2015-artificial-scents-no-place-hospitals): exact wording is 'should become a uniform policy' (ASEQ-EHAQ's paraphrase drops the article 'a', not a substantive misquote). The editorial is opinion/commentary, not a study — its own cited prevalence numbers (30% scent sensitivity, 27% of asthmatics worsened) are the same Caress & Steinemann survey figures used elsewhere in our evidence base. CDC portion remains unverified; the CMAJ editorial itself never mentions the CDC.

Source: ASEQ-EHAQ 2020 (quoting CMAJ 2015 and CDC) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

People with chemical sensitivities asked the US Justice Department to consider fragrance as an access barrier during its 2008 ADA rulemaking.

Moderate evidence: Shows the issue was raised in the record; the attachment makes no legal argument and our evidence base has no record of DOJ's response.

Source: DONTSPRAYCALIFORNIA 2008 (DOJ ADA docket) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Advocacy group testing

In a 2010 Canadian survey, volunteers found no ingredient list on 28% of toothpastes and mouthwashes and 14% of antiperspirants and deodorants; in Canada, personal-care products sold as 'drugs' need list only their active ingredients.

Moderate evidence: Some missing lists were discarded outer packaging; 2010 Canadian law.

Source: David Suzuki Foundation 2010 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

In the US, fragrance sensitivity or multiple chemical sensitivity can count as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but not automatically: it is decided case by case, usually on whether breathing is substantially limited.

Moderate evidence: Authors' reading of statute in a 2009 business-conference paper; no case survey; the 2008 ADA Amendments postdate their cases.

Source: De Vader & Barker 2009 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

In Hunt v. St. Peter School (1997), a scent-free classroom was treated as a reasonable accommodation, but a school-wide fragrance ban was ruled an undue hardship.

Moderate evidence: One district-court case as described by the authors; the opinion itself is not in our evidence base.

Source: De Vader & Barker 2009 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

As of 2011, US law let makers write 'fragrance' instead of listing its ingredients as a trade secret, and the FDA pre-approved only color additives in cosmetics; the industry's own review panel had declared just 9 ingredients unsafe since 1976.

Moderate evidence: US situation in 2011; MoCRA (2022) later added limited changes; CIR count from its 2011 website.

Source: Gilton 2011 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Animal study

The EU cosmetics committee's own estimate of how much 4-MBC enters the body of someone using it (0.23 mg/kg body weight) was only three times below the no-effect dose, and thirty times below the lowest harmful dose, in this rat developmental study.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The human figure is a 1998 SCCNFP estimate, not a measurement; rat dosing was oral and lifelong while human exposure is dermal and intermittent; developmental risk assessment normally applies a 100-fold factor, which this margin does not meet.

Source: Schlumpf 2004, Toxicology Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

Glycol solvents brought into consumer products as 'low-reactivity' replacements, and largely exempt from VOC limits, still make a large share of consumer-product ozone because so much is used.

Moderate evidence: Model result (oxygenates ~37% of VCP ozone in NYC); exemption statement is the authors' summary of US rules.

Source: Coggon 2021 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

US law has never defined "fragrance-free"; the only definition is of fragrance itself ("used solely to impart an odor", 21 CFR 700.3(d)), so an ingredient that smells but is also claimed as a preservative or moisturizer can go into a "fragrance-free" product. FDA's own website said in 1999 that "fragrance-free" products, like "unscented" ones, may contain fragrance chemicals.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Legal point from a 1999 commentary quoting the FDA's own website of that era, not a legal analysis or product survey. The US statute (MoCRA 2022) still has not defined 'fragrance-free' 23 years later.

Source: Scheinman 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

A 2015 CMAJ editorial by two physicians argued that hospitals should adopt uniform scent-free policies, because patients — unlike employees — cannot request accommodation and can be involuntarily exposed to fragrance from staff, other patients or visitors.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

An opinion editorial (peer-reviewed CMAJ commentary), not a study; its cited prevalence (~30% scent-sensitive, 27% of asthmatics worsened) and atopy/BHR findings are secondary citations of Caress & Steinemann 2009 and Elberling 2005, already in our evidence base.

Source: Flegel & Martin 2015, CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

As of 2015, no Canadian hospital accreditation standard required a scent-free policy, and it was not policy in all Canadian hospitals.

Moderate evidence: The editorial's own 2015 assessment; the policy landscape may have shifted since — see Roy 2026 for a later, focus-group-based assessment of implementation gaps.

Source: Flegel & Martin 2015, CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

A leading pediatric environmental-health review states that fewer than 20% of the roughly 3,000 high-production-volume industrial chemicals in the US have been tested for potential to cause developmental neurotoxicity.

Moderate evidence: Landrigan 2010 traces this to Goldman 1998 (Environ Health Perspect), not read directly in this evidence base; concerns industrial chemicals in general, not fragrance specifically.

Source: Landrigan 2010, Current Opinion in Pediatrics Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

A 2006 Lancet review found that of roughly 3,000 US high-production-volume industrial chemicals, basic toxicity data were publicly unavailable for nearly half, and 80% had no information on developmental or pediatric toxicity at all.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Cites the US EPA's own 1998 Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study directly, one citation hop closer to a primary than the Goldman 1998 chain behind our other testing-gap claim. Concerns general developmental/pediatric toxicity testing, a broader category than the narrower 'developmental neurotoxicity' endpoint in the related claim — not a strict numeric confirmation of it. About industrial chemicals in general (solvents, metals, pesticides); no fragrance ingredient named.

Source: Grandjean & Landrigan 2006, Lancet Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

The overall strictness of occupational exposure limits varies nearly threefold between the strictest and most lenient of 18 regulators studied, and the European Union's own limits, despite being described as purely health-based, are on average less strict than Germany's national limits.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

One systematic study, not replicated by another research group; a database-wide average that does not predict the direction for any single chemical (e.g. Germany's ethyl acetate limit is reportedly higher than the EU's for that one substance).

Source: Schenk et al. 2008, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

Even though EU law requires 26 specific fragrance allergens to be named individually above 0.01% concentration, 60% of the 1,447 scented detergents in this German household study listed only the generic term 'perfume', 'fragrance', or 'aroma' rather than naming any specific allergen, and only 46% named any of the 26 at all.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Generic wording can be legal (allergen absent, below threshold, or arriving undeclared via a natural extract, which the rule exempts); this paper did not test which explanation applies in which product.

Source: Wieck 2018, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

The UK continues to apply essentially the same EU cosmetic-claims rule after Brexit, unchanged in substance, as retained domestic law, with the UK's own legislation register confirming no outstanding legal effects have altered it.

Moderate evidence: Confirmed as of this single 2026-09-27 capture of legislation.gov.uk; the register could change at any later date and was not tracked over time here.

Source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

The European Commission's own guidance on cosmetic 'free from' claims (agreed with industry in 2017) says a 'free from perfume' claim should not be used if the product contains any ingredient that exerts a perfuming function, regardless of that ingredient's other functions — wording that would exclude a masking fragrance, not permit one.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Non-binding guidance, not the regulation itself, and it never uses the words 'fragrance-free', 'unscented' or 'masking agent'; this is our reading of its 'free from perfume' wording, not a direct statement about masking.

Source: EC Technical Document on Cosmetic Claims 2017 Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

EU guidance says a 'hypoallergenic' cosmetic claim requires the company to actively rule out known and suspected skin sensitizers through six named routes (including its own consumer-complaint records) and states plainly that the claim 'does not guarantee a complete absence of risk of an allergic reaction'.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Non-binding guidance (agreed by the Working Group on Cosmetic Products, not itself EU law); no EU product-testing study in our evidence base checks whether products actually meet this bar in practice.

Source: EC Technical Document on Cosmetic Claims 2017 Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

Under the EPA's Safer Choice program, 'fragrance-free' and 'unscented' are not the same claim: 'unscented' still allows a masking chemical added to cover other ingredients' smell, while 'fragrance-free' specifically bars masking scents as well as added scent.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This is the program's own written definition (evidence/agency), not a product-testing result; it applies only to products certified under this specific EPA program, not to any product that merely uses the words on its own label.

Source: US EPA Safer Choice Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

As of this page's 2026-09-27 capture, FDA's own consumer guidance states it "does not have the same legal authority to require allergen labeling for cosmetics as for food," and does not mention MoCRA or any pending/final fragrance-allergen rule, more than three years after MoCRA required FDA to write one.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This evidence base did not independently check the Federal Register/FDA rulemaking docket for a §609(b) rule; the page shows no "last updated" date, so it may simply be stale rather than reflecting the current rule status.

Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In the fragrance industry's own reference set of 62 fragrance ingredients, 19 are rated moderate or strong skin sensitizers, meaning chemicals capable of causing allergy.

Moderate evidence: Industry (RIFM) weight-of-evidence categories; lab and animal data, not human exposure.

Source: Lee 2024, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In patch tests on 61 people, fresh limonene and linalool did not irritate skin, but after air exposure (oxidation) both did; oxidized limonene at 20% caused strong redness (average 7.3 of 9 vs near 0 fresh).

Moderate evidence: RIFM-funded; test concentrations far above product levels.

Source: Bråred Christensson 2009, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

In about half of oxidized limonene/linalool allergy cases, doctors could link the allergy to products the patient actually used.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Whether a given product actually reaches the reaction-triggering hydroperoxide level depends heavily on its age/storage: industry data found Lim-2-OOH below 5 ppm in most recalled fine fragrances tested, versus ~2900 ppm in an experimentally aged orange oil after 1 year of dark storage (Bennike 2019). The strongest direct test of "linked to products used" now undercuts it rather than supporting it: Natsch 2019 chemically tested 28 products donated by dermatology patients via the same GEIDAC network this review draws on, including 11 from patients already confirmed patch-test-positive to oxidized limonene/linalool who specifically named the donated product as their suspected trigger, and found zero detectable hydroperoxide in any of them (confirmed by two independent LC-MS methods). Clinical "linkage" judgments based on patient history and declared product content do not survive chemical confirmation in this sample, so the claim moves from a plausible clinical inference to one now directly (though not exhaustively) tested and not supported. Natsch 2019 (industry-funded) found no hydroperoxide in 28 products donated by patients, including 11 from patients allergic to oxidized limonene/linalool. That questions whether the named product is the actual source, but it can't falsify the clinicians' relevance assessments; the exposure route remains unexplained. Kern 2014 and Natsch 2019 are both industry studies (Givaudan / IDEA consortium) with Natsch as a co-author on both, so they are not independent replications of each other.

Source: Ogueta 2022, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Allergy to these two scent chemicals rose significantly over the eight years studied (2013-2020).

Moderate evidence: Patch-test chamber system changed in 2018, which may affect the trend.

Source: Sukakul 2022, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Women were affected about 1.5 to 2 times as often as men, and these patients were younger on average than people allergic to other fragrance ingredients.

Moderate evidence: Likely reflects product-use patterns; clinic population.

Source: Sukakul 2022, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

Benzyl alcohol, a fragrance allergen, is also a preservative in common prescription creams and injections, including steroid, antifungal (clotrimazole) and antibiotic (mupirocin) creams, so fragrance-allergic patients can meet it in their medicines.

Moderate evidence: Based on case reports; no prevalence of benzyl alcohol allergy given.

Source: Jacob & Barron 2007, Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Skin converts part of cinnamyl alcohol into cinnamal, the stronger allergen: on human skin samples, about 4% of applied cinnamyl alcohol became cinnamal within a day.

Moderate evidence: Excised human skin, neat material, occluded, 24 h (Smith 2000); single study.

Source: RIFM Expert Panel 2005, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Allergy to one rose ketone tends to mean allergy to its relatives: all 3 volunteers sensitized to delta-damascone reacted to 0.1% cis-beta-damascone on cross-challenge.

Moderate evidence: N=3; from an unpublished RIFM report.

Source: Lalko 2007 (RIFM), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

Benzyl salicylate, one of the most widely used fragrance chemicals (about 2,500 tonnes a year worldwide in 2007), caused skin allergy in the fragrance industry's own tests, and the industry's standards body IFRA restricts how much may be used.

Moderate evidence: Human maximization 3/50 positive at 20%; repeat-insult patch tests were negative (0/101 at 15%); LLNA EC3 1.5-2.9% in mice. Industry-funded review of largely unpublished reports.

Source: RIFM Expert Panel / Belsito 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Standard allergy screening misses a large share of fragrance allergy: in one UK clinic 42% of patients allergic to at least one of the 26 EU-labeled fragrance chemicals tested negative on the standard fragrance markers, and about 4 in 10 people who reacted to their own perfume or deodorant were negative on the screen.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Comparator-dependent: Sukakul 2022 found ~10% missed when comparing fragrance mixes with their own ingredients (abstract-sourced). The Mann 2014 primary, now read in full (not just its abstract), confirms 203 patients reacted to any of the 26 EU fragrances and only 117 (57.6%) also reacted to a baseline marker = 42.4% missed; Mann's own Discussion states this as "40.6%" in one sentence, a small internal inconsistency in the primary (Results math gives 42.4%). More importantly, Mann's own paper reports a similarly-designed Danish study (Heisterberg 2011, n=1,508, also routine testing of all patients with the same 26 fragrances) that found only 15.6% missed — a ~2.5-fold discrepancy the authors attribute only partly to higher test concentrations and a different patient population, not fully resolved. The own-product figure (41%/45%) is from a different study (Uter 2007), not Mann.

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Some fragrance chemicals now banned from EU cosmetics sensitized almost every volunteer in the industry's own tests: diethyl maleate 25 of 25, dihydrocoumarin 25 of 25, alantroot oil 23 of 25.

Moderate evidence: Maximization test is deliberately exaggerated (irritant pre-treatment, occlusion, ~10x use level); substances are banned and mostly left perfumery before 2000.

Source: SCCNFP 2000 (RIFM data) Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Essential oils are made largely of the same chemicals labeled as fragrance allergens: supplier data sheets give sweet-orange oil about 95% limonene, lavender oil about 40% linalool and palmarosa oil up to 84% geraniol.

Moderate evidence: Composition from supplier safety data sheets, which vary between suppliers (cypress oil limonene 5-7% vs 14%); not measured in finished products.

Source: Klaschka 2016, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Half of best-selling US body moisturizers (87 of 174) list "fragrance" on the label, making it the most common potential skin allergen in them, ahead of parabens (75) and vitamin E/tocopherol (74).

Moderate evidence: Literal-word count, a lower bound for fragranced products; 2016 US online best-sellers.

Source: Xu 2017, JAMA Dermatology Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Animal study

Left open to air, lavender oil became about 8 times more potent as a skin sensitizer in mouse tests (EC3 36% fresh, 4.4% after 45 weeks).

Moderate evidence: Mouse LLNA, groups of 3-4 mice, one 45-week sample; aged oil reached 'moderate', not 'strong', potency; open-flask lab exposure.

Source: Hagvall 2008, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

After 10 weeks of air exposure, lavender oil contained about 3.3% linalyl acetate hydroperoxides and 0.5% linalool hydroperoxides, the kind of oxidation products behind the commonest fragrance allergies in European clinics.

Moderate evidence: Open-flask lab exposure (upper bound); retail bottles not measured.

Source: Hagvall 2008, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

The two commonest fragrance allergens on Danish children's cosmetics, limonene (22% of fragranced products) and linalool (18%), are not in the standard European patch test series; they become strong allergens when they oxidize in air.

Moderate evidence: Frequencies are label presence; oxidation not measured in these products (relayed from hydroperoxide literature); some clinics now add the hydroperoxides to their baseline.

Source: Botvid 2023, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Oxidized linalool and oxidized limonene, among the most common fragrance allergens found in European skin clinics, are not in the 312-chemical dataset these safety models were built on.

Moderate evidence: Clinic prevalence figures for oxidized terpenes come from a separate paper (Sukakul 2022), not this one.

Source: Natsch 2015, Toxicological Sciences Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Whether a specific limonene-scented product is likely to trigger a reaction in an allergic person depends heavily on how oxidized/aged it is: an experimentally aged orange oil's allergenic hydroperoxide content rose nearly 6-fold (500 to 2900 ppm) after a year in storage, while some real aged fine fragrances tested by industry stayed below the reaction-triggering range.

Moderate evidence: The storage/aging data come from a separate cited experimental study, not this paper's own clinical subjects, and cover only one product type (orange oil).

Source: Bennike 2019, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Only 15% of people with a borderline ('doubtful') patch-test reaction to limonene hydroperoxides went on to react when exposed repeatedly to a realistic dose, a rate no different from people with no allergy at all.

Moderate evidence: Small subgroup (13 people, 2 positive); underpowered to rule out that some fraction of doubtful reactors are truly allergic.

Source: Bennike 2019, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In a survey of 187 US pediatric personal-care products, preservatives (57.8% of products) were a more common source of contact allergens than fragrance (29.4%), even though the products were being screened specifically for hypoallergenic/fragrance-related marketing claims.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Category-level result from one survey; the two categories are not mutually exclusive at the product level (a product can carry both preservative and fragrance allergens), and the finding has not been replicated in a different pediatric sample.

Source: Hamann 2015, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

A standard fragrance patch-test panel (Fragrance Mix I/II) misses about 1 in 5 cases of medication-caused fragrance allergy, because the reaction is to an individual essential oil or ingredient not covered by the mixes.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

24/127 (19%) in one clinic's iatrogenic-ACD case series (Belgium, 1978-2008); denominator is a clinic-referred population, not a general-population estimate; different populations give different "missed" rates (Mann 2014 ~42% vs 26 EU allergens; Sukakul-derived ~10% vs FM ingredients).

Source: Nardelli 2009, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

For two common fragrance chemicals, trans-2-hexenal and methyl-2-nonanoate, the mouse test underestimated true human skin-sensitizing potency by 26- to 42-fold — the error direction that could make an industry safety limit too permissive rather than too strict.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Only 2 of 57 chemicals in the dataset show this specific magnitude of underestimation; industry-funded (RIFM/DABMEB); the human NOEL itself is a floor, not a measured breakpoint, since dosing was not escalated to a positive result for ethical reasons.

Source: Api, Basketter & Lalko 2014, Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Women's fragrance contact allergy rates are roughly double men's.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Ratio varies by marker from about 1.5x (fragrance mix I) to 2.1x (HICC), not a uniform 2x; a pooled meta-analysis (Alinaghi 2018) finds fragrance allergy closer to sex-neutral overall.

Source: Diepgen 2015 (EDEN), British Journal of Dermatology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

A Givaudan-funded study that chemically measured 39 real aged fragrance products found linalool hydroperoxide levels far below the dose shown to trigger a reaction in already-allergic patients, roughly 180 times lower on average.

Moderate evidence: Industry-funded (Givaudan), single study, not independently replicated; only two product categories tested (hydroalcoholic fine fragrance, antiperspirant/deodorant).

Source: Kern 2014, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Other evidence

The fragrance industry's original 1976 evidence for aldehyde 'quenching' (that a companion terpene or alcohol stops citral, cinnamic aldehyde or phenylacetaldehyde from causing skin sensitization) was a single, unreplicated human maximization test per mixture with no subject numbers reported, and the paper's own data are internally inconsistent: cinnamon bark oil sensitized despite being one of the paper's three 'protective natural oil' examples, and cinnamic aldehyde + eugenol sensitized at a 2.5:1 ratio where 1:1 had not.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

No subject number (n) is stated anywhere in the paper for any test; no statistics, blinding or control arm distinct from the aldehyde-alone condition; the author calls the findings preliminary and says further study was 'now in the second year.'.

Source: Opdyke 1976 (RIFM), Food and Cosmetic Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

In a UK study that routinely patch tested 1,951 eczema patients with both the standard fragrance-allergy screen and all 26 individually EU-labeled fragrance chemicals, 42% of the patients allergic to at least one of those 26 chemicals would have been missed if only the standard screen had been used.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single UK tertiary-referral clinic (n=1,951), not a general-population figure. A comparably-designed Danish study using nearly the same routine-testing protocol found only 15.6% missed, so this exact percentage does not generalize across clinics without qualification.

Source: Mann 2014, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

The two fragrance mixes used in standard allergy testing (FM I and FM II) each miss roughly half of the people who are allergic to their own listed ingredients: only 58% of those reacting to an FM I ingredient, and only 52% of those reacting to an FM II ingredient, reacted to the mix itself.

Moderate evidence: Single UK clinic (n=1,951), not independently replicated at this exact figure.

Source: Mann 2014, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

A large fragrance-industry study tested 104 real consumer products, including creams, lotions and antiperspirants, for the allergenic chemicals that form when the scent chemicals limonene and linalool oxidize in air, and found almost none of them: 96% of products had no detectable hydroperoxide, and the one confirmed positive was hundreds of times below the dose known to trigger a reaction.

Moderate evidence: Industry-funded (IDEA consortium: Givaudan, Firmenich, IFF, IFRA), not independently replicated by a non-industry group.

Source: Natsch 2019, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Even when scientists chemically tested the actual products that people with a confirmed allergy to oxidized limonene or linalool blamed for their skin reaction, none of the 28 products tested (11 from confirmed allergy patients) contained a detectable amount of the allergenic chemical.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Small sample (28 products, 11 from confirmed patch-test-positive patients) relative to the >22,000-patient clinical literature on this allergy; industry-funded, not independently replicated; other exposure routes (skin-surface formation after application, airborne deposition) are untested.

Source: Natsch 2019, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Concentrations of hydroxycitronellal found in some 'natural' perfumes (up to 6.04%) exceeded the concentration shown to sensitize 36% of healthy volunteers in repeated-insult patch testing (5%), and were also well above the fragrance industry's own 1996 recommended maximum (equivalent to about 1% in the finished product).

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Single-study 1996 patch-test-sensitization citations (Ford & Api 1988; Suskind 1992) for the 5%/36% figure, not independently verified in this evidence base; product concentration is not the same as measured consumer exposure dose.

Source: Rastogi 1996, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

Patch testing is the diagnostic gold standard for allergic contact dermatitis, including fragrance allergy, but access to it is uneven: in the US, African American and lower-income patients are referred for and receive patch testing less often than White and higher-income patients, and rural patients have reduced access and longer symptom duration.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The disparity claims are cited from secondary/administrative-claims sources within a narrative review, with no effect size given by this paper itself; a distinct, upstream complement to the post-diagnosis label-comprehension gap in Noiesen 2007 (see contradictions C284 extension).

Source: Aristizabal-Torres 2025, JAAD Reviews Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Among all detergent types studied, laundry (textile) detergents had both the highest share of products naming a fragrance allergen (50.0% of 270 products) and the highest average number of named allergens per product (1.7) — ahead of dish soap, glass cleaner, toilet cleaner, and dishwasher detergent.

Moderate evidence: Named-on-label only, not measured concentration or skin dose; German 2015 sample.

Source: Wieck 2018, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Review of other studies

Benzalkonium chloride was the sixth highest-reacting allergen in a large retrospective patch-testing cohort, and caused contact dermatitis in 7-18.6% of patients using BAC-containing topical medicine for chronic leg ulcers.

Moderate evidence: Figures are from BAC used as a medical/topical antiseptic preservative, not from laundry or fabric-softener exposure.

Source: Peyneau 2022, Frontiers in Toxicology Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

Most people would rather have fragrance-free spaces: 65% prefer fragrance-free airplanes, 61% hotels, 51% health care and 48% workplaces, against 16-22% who prefer them fragranced.

Moderate evidence: Preference survey, adults 18-65.

Source: Steinemann 2019, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Screening out products whose labels list 'fragrance' and a few other terms cut synthetic fragrance: 26 of 43 screened products had no detectable fragrance chemical, and high fragrance levels appeared 21 times in conventional samples vs 2 in screened ones.

Moderate evidence: Conventional composites vs single alternatives not directly comparable; did not remove parabens, phthalate substitutes.

Source: Dodson 2012, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Green, organic or natural labels on baby products did not mean fewer released chemicals, so choosing products labeled fragrance-free (without essential oils) is the more reliable way to avoid scent chemicals.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Fragrance-free products were not tested directly for VOC emissions (Nematollahi 2018's own scope). Hamann 2015 shows a different but relevant caution: even 'fragrance-free' US pediatric products commonly contain non-fragrance contact allergens (80.8% of 52 had >=1 NACDG-tray allergen, mostly preservatives), so 'fragrance-free' is more reliable specifically against added-scent VOCs, not against contact allergens generally.

Source: Nematollahi 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Researchers recommend lower-terpene (less citrus/pine-scented) cleaners, diluting them, ventilating during and for hours after cleaning, cleaning when fewer people are home, and never running ozone generators or ionizers with these products.

Moderate evidence: Author recommendations derived from chamber chemistry, not tested as interventions.

Source: Singer 2006, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

More UK adults prefer fragrance-free over fragranced workplaces (44.7% vs 23.3%), health care (43.3% vs 26.7%) and airplanes (61.9% vs 18.4%).

Moderate evidence: Pluralities, not majorities, for workplace and health care; preference, not health benefit.

Source: Steinemann 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

People with suspected fragrance dermatitis should ask for patch testing that includes oxidized limonene and linalool, because standard fragrance screens miss many cases.

Moderate evidence.

Source: Sukakul 2024, Acta Dermato-Venereologica Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Taking the air freshener out of the car removes its main added chemical: without one, in-car limonene was about 5-6 ug/m3.

Moderate evidence: Small pilot; limonene only.

Source: Jo 2008, Chemosphere Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

When 100 teenage girls swapped their usual personal care products for ones labeled free of phthalates, parabens, triclosan and oxybenzone for just 3 days, levels of these chemicals in their urine fell by 27-45%.

Moderate evidence: No control arm, 100 Latina girls in one town, 3 days, summer.

Source: Harley 2016, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

The phthalate most linked to fragrance (diethyl phthalate) fell by 27% in 3 days when girls avoided products listing fragrance unless labeled phthalate-free.

Moderate evidence: Multi-product swap; fragrance effect not isolated; other DEP sources remain.

Source: Harley 2016, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

What you can do / Journalism

Treat vague words like 'natural', 'green', 'eco-friendly' or 'for sensitive skin' as marketing, not evidence: read the ingredient list for parfum/aroma, essential oils and named fragrance allergens. Even 'fragrance-free' can allow essential oils and multifunctional allergens such as benzyl alcohol.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The 'vague claims are unreliable' half rests on several independent primaries (Steinemann 2011, Nematollahi 2018, Dodson 2012, Klaschka 2016) and remains well supported. But the claim's own recommended action, 'read the ingredient list', is now shown by Noiesen 2007 (382 patch-test-confirmed allergic patients, 3 Danish clinics) to be difficult or extremely difficult for 46% of allergic patients overall, significantly worse for lower educational level (OR 1.85) and for formaldehyde/MDBGN allergy specifically (OR ~2 each). Per our grading rule, a claim with an unverified or now-shown-difficult part stays below strong.

Source: Dahl 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

EPA's TEAM investigator recommended source control at home: stop using air fresheners and moth crystals, and air out dry-cleaned clothes.

Moderate evidence: Recommendation derived from source apportionment, not a tested intervention.

Source: Wallace 1991, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Choose unscented feminine hygiene products rather than relying on organic or natural labels, and avoid frequent vaginal douching and feminine powder use: scented tampons had far more terpenes in product testing, and a separate NHANES biomarker study found frequent douching (2+ times/month) linked to 81% higher blood 1,4-dichlorobenzene (dose-response, p=0.04) and feminine powder use linked to 36% higher blood ethylbenzene.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

The scented-tampon comparison rests on only 2 scented vs 20 unscented tampons (weak on its own); the douching/powder biomarker evidence is stronger (real blood measurements, dose-response for douching) but cross-sectional and self-reported, with mothballs/toilet deodorizers as an unruled-out alternate DCB source. The same biomarker study (Ding 2020) found NO significant blood-VOC association with tampon or pad use itself.

Source: Lin 2020, Environment International Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

If you have unexplained eczema, ask for patch testing that includes oxidized limonene and linalool, now recommended for the European baseline series.

Moderate evidence.

Source: Ogueta 2022, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Don't run ozone-generating air purifiers while using scented cleaners: the particle burst from a limonene cleaner only happened when ozone was present, including from a commercial ozone-generating purifier.

Moderate evidence: One product; ozone-free run had no particle-number increase.

Source: Rossignol 2013, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

If you have eczema, ask for patch testing that includes oxidized linalool and limonene: they are not in every standard test series, so the allergy can be missed.

Moderate evidence: The authors say more clinical-relevance data are needed before routine screening.

Source: Sukakul 2022, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

If you are allergic to fragrance, check the full ingredient list of "fragrance-free" products and prescribed creams for benzyl alcohol, and ask for patch testing with your own products if reactions continue.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Practical clinical advice. Xu 2017 shows why the full list matters (45% of 'fragrance-free' US moisturizers had a fragrance cross-reactor or botanical), but Rodriguez 2024 notes several hundred label names signal fragrance, so a checked database may be more reliable than label reading. Noiesen 2007 (382 patch-test-confirmed allergic patients) now quantifies the difficulty of this specific action: 46% found reading ingredient labels difficult or extremely difficult overall, education-graded. It does not test benzyl alcohol allergy specifically or outcomes, so the grade is unchanged at moderate.

Source: Jacob & Barron 2007, Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Occupational lung specialists treating irritable larynx syndrome recommend a 'low-scent' workplace policy or respiratory protection to limit exposure to triggers.

Moderate evidence: Clinical recommendation, not tested as an intervention.

Source: Hoy 2010, Occupational Medicine Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Fragrance-free cosmetics and laundry products cut the main routes by which synthetic musks enter the body: skin contact and washed clothing.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Route inferred from exposure data; no intervention study of musk body burden. Hutter 2009 (100 Vienna adults) gives cross-sectional human support for the polycyclic musks specifically: monthly-frequency of body lotion and perfume use significantly predicted blood galaxolide/tonalide (beta=0.188-0.192, p<0.05); no cosmetics-use variable predicted nitro-musk (musk ketone/musk xylene) blood levels there. Lignell 2008 (101 Swedish mothers, milk 1996-2003) gives a second, milk-matched confirmation with per-product specificity: perfume use predicted HHCB and perfumed-laundry-detergent use predicted AHTN, but musk xylene showed no association with any product category tested. Still no before/after intervention trial for any musk, and the nitro-musk part of the action's benefit remains unverified in two independent studies now.

Source: Schmeiser 2001, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Musk levels in blood and milk seem to track current personal-care product use rather than lifetime storage: Hutter 2009 found that how often people used perfume and body lotion significantly predicted their blood levels of the polycyclic musks (galaxolide, tonalide) in 100 adults, so choosing fragrance-free personal care and laundry products during pregnancy and breastfeeding is a plausible way to lower a mother's musk levels and, in turn, transfer to the baby.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Route inferred in Reiner 2007 from the absence of an age trend in milk, and now supported by direct product-use data in two independent populations and matrices: Hutter 2009 (blood, non-pregnant Vienna adults) and Lignell 2008 (101 Swedish mothers, milk itself — the exact matrix this claim concerns). Lignell 2008 found perfume-use frequency predicted HHCB and perfumed-laundry-detergent use predicted AHTN in milk, but no product-use variable predicted musk xylene, matching Hutter's blood-based polycyclic/nitro split. Still correlational and cross-sectional; no study has measured milk musk levels before and after a change in a mother's product use, and no cosmetics-use variable has ever predicted a nitro musk in either study.

Source: Reiner 2007, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

If you have fragrance allergy, look for benzyl salicylate on the ingredient list (and hexyl salicylate, which cross-reacted with it in human tests); EU rules require named fragrance allergens to be declared above threshold.

Moderate evidence: Cross-reaction evidence: subjects induced with 30% hexyl salicylate reacted to 15% benzyl salicylate, in an industry report.

Source: RIFM Expert Panel / Belsito 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Animal study

Methyl salicylate (wintergreen oil) is a strong eye irritant in animal tests, causing irritation even at about 1%, and is toxic if swallowed; keep wintergreen oils and rubs away from children's eyes and mouths.

Moderate evidence: Rabbit eye tests (neat and 1.25% in alcohol); oral toxicity from acute rodent data and the well-known methyl salicylate poisoning literature outside this paper.

Source: RIFM Expert Panel / Belsito 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

The California Department of Public Health recommends enforced fragrance-free workplace policies, no air fresheners or fragranced cleaners, and better ventilation instead of odor masking.

Moderate evidence: Recommendation from a public-health agency based on surveillance, not an intervention trial.

Source: Weinberg 2017, Journal of Asthma Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Even the toxicologists who set these limits suggest stricter, setting-specific limits where people breathe through the mouth during exercise, such as sports halls, playgrounds and schoolyards.

Moderate evidence: A proposal, not a finding; no values are given.

Source: Kleinbeck & Wolkoff 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

A fragrance-free sign is not enough on its own: Canadians with chemical sensitivities described workplaces and hospitals with 'scent-free' policies where staff still wore scents and scented cleaners stayed in use.

Moderate evidence: Qualitative focus groups, n=60 self-selected MCS/IAQ-affected Canadians; advocacy-funded.

Source: Roy 2026 Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

Fragrance-free policies need to cover cleaning and laundry products, not just perfume: of 60 people who react to fragranced products, 50 named cleaning products, 47 perfume and 41 laundry products as persistent triggers.

Moderate evidence: Self-selected Canadian sample (90% female); counts of participants naming a source, not exposure measurements.

Source: Roy 2026 Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Smell scientists reviewing the evidence found that scenting workplaces to boost mood or productivity is not well supported, and noted that a chemically intolerant employee can react to a fragranced workplace.

Moderate evidence: Short narrative review; the positive-scent literature it weighs is small; no primary data.

Source: Dalton & Jaén 2010, Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

If you get recurring rashes, ask for patch testing: nickel and fragrance are the most common findings in the general population, and one fragrance test alone misses many fragrance allergies.

Moderate evidence.

Source: Alinaghi 2018, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

Support for fragrance-free health care and workplaces is not limited to people with symptoms: in Germany roughly 70% of those who backed them reported no fragrance-related health effects themselves.

Moderate evidence: Our arithmetic from Table 5; preference, not outcome; German workplace support was only 33.2% (30.6% against, 35.3% unsure).

Source: Klaschka 2020, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

If you are allergic to fragrance, dermatologists advise avoiding all fragrance rather than only the chemicals you tested positive to, and choosing products from a checked database such as the ACDS CAMP list or SkinSAFE instead of trusting 'fragrance-free' claims.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Expert advice, untested against label reading; COI: authors built/lead CAMP. Noiesen 2007 (382 patch-test-confirmed allergic patients) now quantifies why the review distrusts label reading: 46% of allergic patients found reading ingredient labels difficult or extremely difficult, education-graded, still 38% among fragrance-only patients. This corroborates the rationale for recommending a database over labels but does not test whether database-guided avoidance actually outperforms label reading on outcomes, so the grade stays moderate.

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

For fragrance-allergic people, dermatologists recommend removing diffusers, scented candles, room deodorizers, incense and wax melts, switching household cleaners, wipes and laundry products to fragrance-free, and bringing your own shampoo to the salon and your own oil to massages.

Moderate evidence: Expert advice; the salon point rests on a single exposure keeping skin flared up to ~4 weeks (clinical observation).

Source: Rodriguez 2024, Cutis Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

If a child develops unexplained breast tissue, tell the doctor about every product put on the skin, including homemade balms and essential-oil or 'natural' products; in one reported case the lavender balm came to light only after repeated questioning.

Moderate evidence: Practical advice from a case report; not evidence the oil was the cause.

Source: Henley 2007, New England Journal of Medicine Link to this fact

What you can do / Government agency

EPA's own first advice on indoor VOCs is to identify and remove the source, ventilate when products are used, and buy only what you will use soon, because even closed containers leak.

Moderate evidence: Generic VOC advice; EPA does not single out fragrance.

Source: US EPA 2026 Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Ventilation and less ozone help: in the same test room, with lower ozone (25–30 ppb) and nearly 3× the air exchange, particle mass from perfume, hair spray and body spray fell by more than half.

Moderate evidence: One supplementary run; ozone and ventilation changed together, so their separate effects are unknown.

Source: Wu 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Letters Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Check ingredient lists of leave-on products such as makeup, powders and glitter, not just scrubs, for plastic ingredients; ingredient-scanning apps such as Beat the Microbead flag them.

Moderate evidence: App described by the review; completeness of the app's polymer list not assessed.

Source: Han & Kim 2025, Cosmetics Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

Fragrance-free health-care policies should cover cleaning and laundry products, not just staff perfume; Canadian advocates ask for exactly this, and people who react name cleaning products as their most common trigger (50 of 60).

Moderate evidence: Advocacy position plus a self-selected focus-group sample; no evidence yet that policies reduce exposure or symptoms.

Source: ASEQ-EHAQ 2020; Roy 2026 Link to this fact

What you can do / Government agency

Workplace accommodations for fragrance sensitivity do not have to be a building-wide ban: the US Labor Department's Job Accommodation Network lists scent-free meeting rooms, moving a worker away from air fresheners and vents, telework, air purifiers, signage and staff education.

Moderate evidence: List of options, not tested for effectiveness.

Source: De Vader & Barker 2009 Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Pediatric dermatologists advise that products for children be mild, slightly acidic and fragrance-free.

Moderate evidence: Expert recommendation citing reviews (Kuller 2016, Fernandes 2011); the survey itself linked no product to any skin outcome.

Source: Melo 2020, Revista Paulista de Pediatria Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Allergen-free moisturizers were no more expensive than others: the cheapest best-sellers with no common skin allergen were plain petroleum jelly and single-ingredient butters and oils, from about $0.28 an ounce.

Moderate evidence: 2016 prices; 'allergen-free' means no NACDG-series ingredient listed; natural oils vary in efficacy (olive oil may harm the barrier).

Source: Xu 2017, JAMA Dermatology Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

If you have fragrance allergy or eczema, don't rely on "fragrance free", "hypoallergenic" or "dermatologist recommended": in best-selling US moisturizers these claims often coexisted with listed skin allergens, so check the full ingredient list or a dermatologist-checked product list.

Moderate evidence: Advice follows from a label survey; not tested against reaction outcomes; two authors hold equity in a product-recommendation service.

Source: Xu 2017, JAMA Dermatology Link to this fact

What you can do / Animal study

Treat essential oils as perishable: keep bottles closed and don't keep old, long-opened oils for skin use, because their scent chemicals oxidize into skin allergens in air.

Moderate evidence: Mechanism shown in lab (open flasks); real-bottle oxidation rates and the benefit of these habits not tested.

Source: Hagvall 2008, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Choose unscented tampons, liners and pads, and read "fresh" on the pack as "fragranced": the allergens inside will not be listed.

Moderate evidence: Allergens shown in scented products only; unscented products were bought but not reported; no evidence that switching reduces dermatitis.

Source: Desmedt 2020, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

How much formaldehyde and particle pollution formed was set mainly by how much ozone was available, not by how much product was used, so running an ozone-generating air purifier or ionizer alongside scented cleaning products or air fresheners adds directly to indoor formaldehyde and particles.

Moderate evidence: Conclusion drawn from controlled chamber chemistry (ozone as the limiting reagent in every run), not tested as a real-world intervention.

Source: Destaillats 2006, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Take used paper towels, sponges and mop water out of the room right after cleaning, ventilate during and after, and choose cleaners without 2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether / butyl cellosolve on the label or SDS); avoid running ozone generators with terpene-scented products.

Moderate evidence: Author recommendations derived from chamber chemistry, not tested as interventions.

Source: Singer 2006, Indoor Air, Indoor Air Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Being below a standard occupational exposure limit does not mean an irritant gas is safe for someone with asthma: chamber studies found severe asthma attacks from sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid at concentrations at or below typical workplace limits for those substances.

Moderate evidence: Occupational limits are set for healthy workers by design; this is not itself an argument that the limits are wrong, only that they don't protect people with asthma.

Source: Johansson 2016, Critical Reviews in Toxicology Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

If you are diagnosed with oxidized-linalool contact allergy, avoiding products listing linalool or fragrance/parfum is worth doing even at low concentrations, since repeated use at product-realistic doses reproduced dermatitis in a clinical trial, and most participants who had already stopped using linalool-containing products reported their dermatitis improved.

Moderate evidence: Self-reported improvement on avoidance (4 of 5) is not blinded or controlled; the ROAT elicitation data (the stronger evidence) show reactions down to 0.3% oxidized linalool.

Source: Andersch Björkman 2014, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Avoid frequent vaginal douching and feminine powder use as a modifiable source of blood VOC exposure, on top of existing medical advice against douching for infection risk.

Moderate evidence: Biomarker association from cross-sectional self-report data, not an intervention trial.

Source: Ding 2020, Journal of Women's Health Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

How often someone used body lotion and perfume was directly linked to how much of the synthetic musks galaxolide and tonalide were in their blood, giving direct human evidence that switching to musk-free lotions and perfumes could lower blood levels of these fragrance chemicals.

Moderate evidence: Cross-sectional frequency-of-use questionnaire, not an intervention; the link was not shown for musk ketone or musk xylene, only for the polycyclic musks.

Source: Hutter 2009, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

If you have a confirmed (not just borderline) positive patch test to limonene hydroperoxides, avoiding products with appreciable oxidized/aged limonene is well supported: realistic product-level doses reliably triggered a reaction in this group.

Moderate evidence: Applies to confirmed reactors; a borderline patch-test result is much weaker evidence of true allergy.

Source: Bennike 2019, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

If you have known fragrance allergy, ask your pharmacist or read the full leaflet (not just the outer box) for topical medicines, and request fragrance-free formulations for wound care, NSAID gels and antiseptics where alternatives exist; if a topical medicine causes a rash, ask for patch testing with the actual product and its individual ingredients, not just the standard fragrance mix.

Moderate evidence: Practical advice drawn from a single clinic's experience; a negative fragrance-mix patch test does not rule out fragrance allergy from a specific product.

Source: Nardelli 2009, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

In a study of 25 UK homes, easy-to-check building factors (home age, size, number of occupants, single- vs double-glazing) showed no measurable relationship to indoor scent-chemical levels; the homes with the highest levels were those whose occupants reported heavy cleaning/fragrance-product use.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Glazing comparison used t-tests on 19 homes with no ventilation-rate data; product-use link is a qualitative activity-log correlation, not a controlled experiment A larger same-lab study (Heeley-Hill 2021, 60 UK homes, daily diaries; Givaudan-funded fieldwork) found cumulative product-use frequency had almost no predictive power for measured VOC levels (R²<0.001), so treat the product-use link as suggestive.

Source: Wang 2017, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

During pregnancy, prefer pouring or wiping cleaning products rather than spraying them, and limit solvent and air-freshener use, since spray application was the exposure most consistently linked to infant respiratory symptoms across this and sibling cohort studies.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Based on an observational association, not a controlled trial; the authors' own explanation (spraying increases inhaled dose of both volatile and non-volatile components) is plausible but unproven.

Source: Casas 2013, International Journal of Public Health Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

More than a third of people surveyed (37%) report avoiding at least one leave-on scented product (perfume, deodorant, skin cream) because it has caused them skin problems.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Self-reported avoidance, not a clinical diagnosis; nearly identical rates in the full interviewed sample (12,377) and the smaller patch-tested subsample (3,119), supporting representativeness.

Source: Diepgen 2015 (EDEN), British Journal of Dermatology Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

People with chronic, treatment-resistant hand eczema and a history of reacting to scented products can ask their dermatologist for patch testing beyond the standard fragrance mix, including citral, Lyral, hydroxycitronellal and oxidized limonene/linalool.

Moderate evidence: Based on one clinical population's reaction pattern (Heydorn 2003); a dermatologist should tailor markers to local product exposure.

Source: Heydorn 2003, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Because galaxolide (HHCB) levels in milk tracked perfume use and tonalide (AHTN) levels tracked scented-laundry-detergent use specifically, choosing fragrance-free perfume and fragrance-free laundry detergent during pregnancy and breastfeeding are each independently plausible ways to lower the corresponding musk chemical passed to a nursing infant.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Correlational and cross-sectional, no before/after intervention trial; musk xylene (a nitro musk) showed no association with any product category tested, so this action would not address that compound.

Source: Lignell 2008, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

For parents of infants, diaper cream is an under-recognized DEP source that deserves attention alongside fragranced products, not instead of them.

Moderate evidence: Based on a Canadian exposure model with non-Canada-specific use-pattern inputs, not measured infant biomarkers.

Source: Koniecki 2011, Environmental Research Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

A direct chemical test of real fragrance products found no build-up of the allergenic breakdown product (linalool hydroperoxide) even after 9 months of worst-case accelerated aging, so for fine fragrances and antiperspirants specifically, letting a bottle sit open for months to years did not measurably increase this particular hazard.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Covers only fine fragrance and antiperspirant formulations tested by one industry lab; does not cover creams, lotions or other product categories, and does not test whether the general advice to discard old products reduces dermatitis.

Source: Kern 2014, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Clinicians managing irritable larynx syndrome most often treat reflux (medication and lifestyle measures) and provide voice/relaxation therapy; formal psychotherapy and botulinum toxin injections are used less often, and botulinum toxin appeared less effective than in focal laryngeal dystonia.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

Descriptive treatment-given data from one clinic, not a controlled efficacy comparison; 2 of 5 laryngospasm patients given botulinum toxin ultimately required tracheotomy, but n is too small to attribute this to the treatment.

Source: Morrison 1999, Journal of Voice Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

If you are allergic to a fragrance or preservative chemical, reading cosmetic ingredient labels is genuinely difficult, not just for you: in one clinical survey, 46% of patch-test-confirmed allergic patients found it difficult or extremely difficult, and this was significantly worse for people with less education.

Moderate evidence: Single-country (Danish), 3-clinic, self-rated VAS survey of 382 patients; not replicated elsewhere, so per our grading rule it stays below strong.

Source: Noiesen 2007, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

People allergic to formaldehyde or methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) have an especially hard time reading ingredient labels, likely due to long chemical names and formaldehyde's many synonyms and releasers; ask a dermatologist to write down or print the specific names and synonyms to watch for.

Moderate evidence: Single Danish survey; the mechanism (long/unfamiliar names) is the authors' plausible explanation, not directly tested.

Source: Noiesen 2007, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

Many allergic patients who read ingredient labels still don't fully trust them: in one study only about half of patients affirmatively agreed that ingredient labels are accurate, so persistent reactions despite careful label reading are not necessarily a reading mistake.

Moderate evidence: Self-reported trust, not a test of actual label accuracy; the study does not adjudicate whether distrust reflects real label errors or post-hoc reasoning from continued reactions.

Source: Noiesen 2007, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

Difficulty reading ingredient labels is a general problem across contact-allergic patients, not one limited to people with several different allergies, so simplifying label-reading advice would help broadly rather than only a small multi-allergic subgroup.

Moderate evidence: Single Danish survey (n=382); multiple-allergy status was defined only across the study's 7 target allergens.

Source: Noiesen 2007, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

A fading chemical smell is not a sign that exposure or irritation has stopped: PGME-exposed subjects lost the ability to smell the compound after about 3 hours at 250 ppm, while eye and nose irritation continued or worsened in those who stayed in the chamber.

Moderate evidence: Demonstrated only for PGME vapor at occupational-accident-level concentrations (hundreds of ppm), not for consumer-level scented product exposure.

Source: Stewart 1970 (Arch Environ Health), Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Switching from a fragranced to a fragrance-free laundry detergent cut the fragrance chemical D-limonene coming out of the dryer vent by up to 99.7% (mean 79.1%) within one month, in real households, with no extra cost or apparent inconvenience.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

4 households switched, D-limonene only; one household's no-product baseline (machine run with no detergent) actually rose 70.3% after the switch, which the paper attributes to residual fragrance chemicals left in the machine or clothing; no statistical testing.

Source: Goodman 2019, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Emptying a dryer's lint filter dry (by hand, vacuum or brush) instead of rinsing it under a tap appears to substantially cut how much textile microfiber ends up in wastewater; a modeled comparison in one study found roughly 12.6 times more fiber reaching water when the filter was rinsed than when the fluff was thrown in household trash.

Moderate evidence.

Caveats

This is the study's own arithmetic model combining its drying data with a prior washing-machine dataset from the same lab, not an independent before/after trial of the two disposal methods; single detergent and appliance models.

Source: Cummins 2023, PLOS ONE Industry-funded Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

About half of children's diaper-rash creams (13 of 28) and a third of children's sunscreens (10 of 29) listed fragrance.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Small category counts; label count only. Sunscreen share is market-specific: 64.9% (87/134) of Danish children's sunscreens and sun sprays listed fragrance or a named allergen (Botvid 2023), so 'a third of sunscreens' should not be generalized beyond Brazil; diaper creams were not reported separately in Denmark.

Source: Uber 2024, Jornal de Pediatria (Rio de Janeiro) Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In 130 Danish and Finnish mothers, phthalate breakdown products were reported in essentially every breast milk sample (95-100% for each of the six measured) — but an independent, more contamination-controlled US study (Hines 2009) found the analogous class of monoester phthalate metabolites in under 10% of milk samples from a separate cohort, and declined to report its own milk hydrolytic-monoester data (which would include MEP) as likely contamination-inflated.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

1997-2001 samples; composite home-collected milk; phosphoric acid was not added at collection 'due to logistics' (this page's own Methods/limitations), a known contamination risk for hydrolytic monoesters. Hines 2009 (EPA/CDC, tighter contamination controls) found the analogous metabolite class in <10% of milk samples and withheld its own milk hydrolytic-monoester data on contamination grounds. US EPA systematic review (Radke 2018) separately excluded this study's milk data as a critically deficient exposure matrix.

Source: Main 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Baby boys whose mothers' milk contained more dibutyl phthalate had slightly lower free testosterone at 3 months (about 15% lower per 10-fold rise). For diethyl phthalate, the fragrance phthalate, the link was with higher SHBG, and its free-testosterone trend was not significant. These are correlations in 96 boys, not proof of harm.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

MBP–free T r = −0.22 (p = 0.033); mEP–free T r = −0.19 (p = 0.07, NS). US EPA review excluded this study (breast milk critically deficient as an exposure matrix for short-chain phthalates) and rated infant-testosterone evidence indeterminate (Lin 2011: MEP r = −0.10). 46% of Danish mothers used breast pumps.

Source: Main 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In one early, small US study, boys in the highest phthalate group had about 4 to 10 times the odds (3.8-10.2) of a shorter-than-expected anogenital distance than the lowest group, depending on the phthalate. A larger (N=753) follow-up by the same group found much smaller effect sizes for the one phthalate class (DEHP) that replicated, and did not test comparable categorical odds ratios.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Single small cohort with very wide CIs (MEP OR 3.8, 1.03-13.9); US EPA rated this cohort's AGD data (extended n=106) low confidence. The DEP (MEP) part did not replicate in three larger cohorts, including the same group's own N=753 TIDES follow-up (Swan 2015), which also found smaller continuous effect sizes for the metabolites that did replicate (DEHP: beta -1.12 to -1.43 in TIDES vs -3.50 to -5.13 in this cohort, per Swan 2015's Discussion), consistent with lower current-day exposure. Quote as one small study's result only; prefer the EPA review or Swan 2015 for general claims.

Source: Swan 2005, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

In a US survey, parents reported that 7 in 10 children aged 12 and under (219 of 312) had used makeup or body products such as face paint, glitter, nail polish or body spray, including more than half of children aged 3 or younger (48 of 84).

Weak evidence.

Caveats

207 self-selected parents recruited mostly online in NYC/Boston/Houston; not nationally representative; ~60% of raw responses excluded as spam/fraud. Partial external check: in a Brazilian clinic survey (Melo 2020) per-category color-cosmetic rates matched Medley's (lipstick 18.8% vs lip ≈21%, nail 22.4% vs ≈22%), but the 70% total is driven by body products (face paint, glitter, bath bombs) that Melo did not ask about, and Melo found make-up in only ≈3% of infants, so the under-3 figure reflects body products, not make-up.

Source: Medley 2023 Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

Among US children who used makeup or body products, about 1 in 8 used them daily, about 1 in 5 wore them for 8 hours or more, and about 1 in 3 had swallowed some in the past year.

Weak evidence: Parent report for 217 child users; ingestion differed sharply by ethnicity (41% vs 11%), possibly a question-wording effect.

Source: Medley 2023 Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

Most US children who use makeup also use products made for adults: only about a third (36%) used mostly children's products.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Parent estimate of product share; small non-representative sample. Applies to makeup only: for cleansers, a Brazilian clinic survey (Melo 2020) found the majority used children's products (children's soap 56.5%, children's shampoo 65.9%; adult soap 37.3%, adult shampoo 27.2%, rising with age), so do not write 'most children use adult products' generally.

Source: Medley 2023 Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

In a US survey, boys and girls who used makeup or body products used fragrance products (perfume, cologne, body spray) at the same rate, about 31%.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Scent-purpose products only; cleansers excluded, so not a fragrance-exposure prevalence. Indirect support for sex parity: in Melo 2020 (Brazil, 182/276 perfume users, 126 girls) at least 56/150 boys (≥37%) used perfume, so perfume is not a girls-only product; but the Brazilian level (66% of all children) is 3x the US level (≈21%), so the ~31% figure must not be generalized.

Source: Medley 2023 Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

The only population study of lavender and tea tree oils and hormone problems in children (556 US children) was too small to rule out a risk: regularly exposed children had 2.8 times the rate of endocrine diagnoses, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.35 to 22 times.

Weak evidence: Not statistically significant; parent-reported diagnoses; self-selected natural-product users; 9 events. Supports 'not ruled out', not 'causes'.

Source: Hawkins 2021, International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Industry-funded Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In 2007, US government (NIEHS) scientists described three boys aged 4–10 who developed breast tissue while using products containing lavender oil or lavender and tea tree oil (a homemade balm, hair gel and shampoo, soap and lotions); in each case it went away within months of stopping the products.

Weak evidence: 3 case reports, dechallenge only, no rechallenge, products not analyzed; causation contested (BASF guideline tests negative for linalool/linalyl acetate; Braunstein 2023 review).

Source: Henley 2007, New England Journal of Medicine Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies

In the reported cases, children had been using lavender-scented products regularly (violet-water colognes, shampoos, soaps, baby bath, lotions) or sat beside a classroom diffuser, and breast growth went away after the products were stopped; early breast growth in children often goes away on its own, so this does not prove cause.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Case reports with dechallenge only; no comparison group; at least one of the violet-water colognes declared and contained no essential oil by an industry analysis (Giroux & Orjubin 2020). Linklater 2015's own transient alpha-fetoprotein/prolactin elevation resolved on its own over the same 12 months, for an unrelated physiological reason (infant liver immaturity) the authors themselves cite — a concrete illustration, from inside this same case, that concurrent findings can normalize without being caused by the product change.

Source: Hawkins 2020, Complementary Therapies in Medicine Industry-funded Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Four prepubertal children (three girls with early breast development and one boy with breast growth) whose doctors recorded continuous use of products they identified as containing lavender saw the breast tissue disappear within three to six months of stopping the product.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Four uncontrolled case reports, dechallenge only, no product analysis by the authors and no chemical measured in any child; both conditions can resolve spontaneously. An essential-oil industry analysis later reported the boy's violet-water cologne declared and contained no essential oil (DEP, alpha-isomethyl ionone and azo dyes instead), and one girl's baby bath only 'very low' lavender oil (unquantified).

Source: Ramsey 2019, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

At one Miami children's hospital, 16 of the 24 children seen over seven years for unexplained early breast growth had been using lavender-scented products; 14 of the 16 were Hispanic and the products were violet-water colognes of a kind often applied to babies.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Clinic case tally with no unexposed comparison group and no use-prevalence denominator; a clinic aware of the lavender hypothesis will ask about lavender; one violet-water cologne from this clinic's case reports declared and contained no essential oil by an industry analysis. Diaz 2016 (2015, same hospital, corresponding author Alejandro Diaz also a co-author here) reported 3 boys with the same outcome in the years just before this tally's window; those 3 cases are almost certainly a subset of this 16/24 figure, not additional to it, so this figure and Diaz 2016 should never be added together.

Source: Ramsey 2019, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

One of the four children had never used a lavender product at all: she sat beside a classroom lavender oil diffuser that ran all day for a year, and her breast tissue regressed three months after the diffuser exposure stopped.

Weak evidence: Single case report, no air measurement was made in the classroom, and measured indoor terpene levels elsewhere are far below the concentrations that were active in the cell assays.

Source: Ramsey 2019, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In the same 2018 NGO test, a children's shampoo had 24 unlabeled chemicals flagged for health hazards (17 on the fragrance-industry list), and a baby shampoo had 6.

Weak evidence: Counts, not amounts; single samples; not peer reviewed; not a risk ranking.

Source: BCPP 2018 Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

In a Danish–Finnish study (hormones measured in 96 of 130 baby boys), some phthalates in mothers' breast milk went with hormone changes at 3 months that point to weaker male-hormone action (higher SHBG; lower free testosterone for dibutyl phthalate only).

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Association; hormones in 96 boys; mEP (DEP) free-T link not significant (p = 0.07); 46% of Danish mothers used breast pumps; US EPA review excluded this study (milk critically deficient as exposure matrix) and rated infant testosterone indeterminate. Cite the primary, not the thesis, which inverted the direction.

Source: Main 2006 Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

Children's lipstick, nail polish and eyeshadow use was about the same in a Brazilian hospital survey and a US parent survey (roughly 19-22%, 22% and 11-13%), but perfume use was three times higher in Brazil (66% vs about 21%).

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Our cross-study arithmetic (Medley per-user rates re-based to all 312 children); different definitions ('perfume' vs 'fragrance products primarily for children'), ages (<=14 vs <=12) and sampling.

Source: Melo 2020, Revista Paulista de Pediatria Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey

Every one of 13 Washington DC childcare facilities that reported health data had at least one child with physician-diagnosed asthma, with a typical (median) facility rate of about 10%.

Weak evidence: Center-Director-reported, not chart-confirmed; no exposure-outcome link tested; n=13.

Source: Quirós-Alcalá 2016, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

Three more boys (ages 9-11) developed breast tissue while using lavender-labeled products, a shampoo or an 'agua de violetas' cologne sprayed on by a parent since early childhood; in each case it resolved within about 4 months of stopping the product.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Three uncontrolled case reports, dechallenge only, no rechallenge; same hospital and a shared corresponding author (Alejandro Diaz) as Ramsey 2019's later clinic tally, so this is not an independent replication of the case count.

Source: Diaz 2016, Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism Link to this fact

Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products

A 14-month-old girl in Melbourne, Australia developed breast tissue while being given five different lavender-scented infant products every day (wipes, shampoo, body wash, cream and lotion); it went away after the products were stopped, and this case has no connection to the better-known United States case series.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

One case report (letter to the editor), dechallenge only, no rechallenge, no product testing; the exposure was identified only after the family saw a documentary about this exact link, not through routine clinical questioning.

Source: Linklater & Hewitt 2015, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

Pine-scent chemicals were also common in Korean household products: alpha-pinene from 19% and beta-myrcene from 12%.

Weak evidence: Headspace presence only; high detection threshold.

Source: Kwon 2007, Journal of Hazardous Materials Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Hypothesis

Immigrant women in the US most often work as house cleaners and make up 71% of manicurists; an expert job-exposure tool rates both jobs as probably exposed to fragrance chemicals, and house cleaning also to cleaning-product ingredients such as alkylphenols and antimicrobials.

Weak evidence: Exposure ratings from job descriptions (WORC), not measurements.

Source: Knox 2026, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

The same perfume does not come off the skin the same way every day: in women not on the pill, a fixed dose of vanilla on the forearm was rated about 3 times stronger on cycle day 22 than during menstruation.

Weak evidence: 18 women (9 per group), 25 male raters, no hormone confirmation, no unperfumed control, no statistics printed, storage time unreported.

Source: Chróst 2021, Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In a mannequin-head test of 16 UK day face moisturizers, the authors report that one application (0.45 g) delivered on average about 16 times more limonene-type terpenes than 24 hours of typical UK home air, and, for the 7 products whose ethanol reached the nose, about 340 times more ethanol.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Primary: Yeoman 2022 (Indoor Air 32:e12948), Table 6. The abstract's 'up to' is wrong: ×16 and ×339 are means over products with a nonzero dose (14/16, 7/16); maxima ×37 and ×804; over all 16 the medians are ×9 and ×0. Absolute doses are small (≤1.2 mg limonene; below UK PHE limits). The paper's own breathing-zone traces (Fig. 2, limonene ≤0.16 mg/m³) imply doses ~15–500× lower than its tables (evidence base arithmetic), so the ratios are unverified. No people; unheated head, lab at 5 ACH; 'limonene' = all monoterpenes.

Source: Yeoman 2022 via Rádis-Baptista 2023, Journal of Xenobiotics Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies

An NGO analysis (Plastic Soup Foundation, 2022) reported that 87% of products from major European cosmetic brands contained microplastic ingredients.

Weak evidence: NGO figure, unreferenced in the review, definition not stated; major European brands only.

Source: Han & Kim 2025, Cosmetics Link to this fact

Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products

In the same 33 breastfeeding women, urinary MEP (the metabolite of DEP, the fragrance phthalate) was on average about 57 times higher in women who "often" used nail polish than in women who never did (2,874 vs. 50.5 micrograms per liter).

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Small pilot study (n=33); frequency-group sizes not reported; perfume/cologne use was not asked about, so fragrance products cannot be separated from nail polish as a source; the difference was significant only on untransformed means, and the authors themselves suggest nail-polish users may also use more perfume and other DEP-containing products.

Source: Hines 2009, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Measured in people or real products

Scented tampons carried a median of 692 ng/g of fragrance terpenes against 2.9 ng/g in unscented ones.

Weak evidence: Only 2 scented vs 20 unscented tampons (p=0.04).

Source: Lin 2020, Environment International Link to this fact

Green, natural and unscented / Government agency

Under EU/UK law, a 'free from [substance]' cosmetic claim about a substance already banned for all EU cosmetics would appear to fall under the rule barring claims that dress up mere legal compliance as a special product benefit.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

This is our own reading of the regulation's general Criterion 1(3) applied to 'free from' wording, not a quotation naming that claim type, and no enforcement decision confirming this application was found.

Source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In lab tests on cancer-derived nerve cell lines, three unnamed commercial fragrances changed cell shape and structure after 72 hours and cut the share of cells carrying oxytocin and vasopressin receptors in some lines but not others.

Weak evidence: Cell lines only; fragrances unidentified; no replication; only one cell line per sex.

Source: Sealey 2015, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Many everyday chemicals, including some released by scented and cleaning products, act on the same irritant-sensor nerves in the nose and airways (TRPA1 and TRPV1), one reason very different products can cause similar symptoms.

Weak evidence: Mechanism largely from lab/animal studies; dose relevance to homes untested.

Source: Molot 2023, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

In animal and lab studies, common scent chemicals such as linalool, limonene and eugenol act on brain signaling systems; what lifelong low-level exposure does in healthy people has never been studied.

Weak evidence: Mostly high-dose animal/in-vitro pharmacology; often protective effects in disease models.

Source: Pinkas 2017, Environmental Research Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Two German gas-works plumbers who repeatedly hand-poured the gas odorant tetrahydrothiophene in an unventilated room developed chronic rhinitis and lasting airway obstruction; neither had allergies on skin testing, and the accident insurer accepted both as occupational disease.

Weak evidence: Two case reports; exposure estimated, not measured; one worker smoked ~16 pack-years; industrial odorant, not fragrance.

Source: Baur & Bittner 2009, American Journal of Industrial Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

In two of the five products the airflow reduction kept worsening after the exposure ended.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Mice, n=3-12 per time course; no human counterpart; mechanism unknown. An independent replication attempt (Tepper et al. 1995, carpets, full text now in our evidence base) found no significant carpet-related toxicity overall via individual-animal statistics, but it never measured airflow limitation or post-exposure persistence of any respiratory endpoint, so it does not directly test this finding either way.

Source: Anderson & Anderson 1998, Archives of Environmental Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Frequent private use of household disinfectants (a composite of methods including hand-wash, machine, sponge and spray disinfection) was linked to close to a threefold increase in the odds of newly developing asthma in a single cross-sectional wave of young German adults (Weinmann 2017, OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.14-6.83); the evidence for household sprays alone driving that same result was already weak in that wave (OR 2.79, 95% CI 0.84-9.20), and a 10-year longitudinal follow-up of the same cohort (Pacheco Da Silva 2025) found no significant association between persistent spray-only use and current asthma or wheeze (point estimates at or below 1.0 for every outcome), with only a non-significant, attenuated OR of 1.68 (95% CI 0.48-5.88) for sustained use of multiple disinfectants/cleaning products together.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Two analyses of the same German SOLAR cohort (Weinmann 2017's cross-sectional SOLAR II wave, and Pacheco Da Silva 2025's 10-year longitudinal follow-up adding SOLAR III with latent-class exposure profiles) now agree that spray-specific use is not significantly associated with adult asthma. The only positive signal across both papers is a composite 'persistent use of multiple DCPs' profile, which itself weakened from a significant OR 2.79 (single wave, simple frequency composite) to a non-significant OR 1.68 (10-year follow-up, latent-class model, wide CI 0.48-5.88). Both papers are single-cohort, self-reported-exposure studies from the same research group, so per the grading rule this stays below moderate. The follow-up nulls are underpowered (1,143 of the original 2,051; only ~8-12% in each persistent-use profile; CIs span roughly 0.5-6), so they weaken the claim without refuting it. Other cohorts not yet in our evidence base reported positive spray-asthma associations (ECRHS, Zock 2007; French EGEA, Pacheco Da Silva 2023); don't cite this cohort as evidence that sprays are safe.

Source: Salonen 2024, Environment International Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Doctors have published detailed reports of 12 young children (8 boys, 4 girls) whose breasts began to grow while they used lavender or tea tree oil products such as colognes, baby bath soap or hair gel; in every case the growth went away within months of stopping.

Weak evidence: Case reports only; no rechallenge; this kind of breast growth often regresses on its own; the review itself concludes causation is not shown.

Source: Braunstein & Braunstein 2023, touchREVIEWS in Endocrinology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In human adrenal cells, eight common fragrance terpenes — eucalyptol, geraniol, carvone, 3-carene, ocimene, both pinenes and dihydro-beta-ionone — cut production of the androgen precursor DHEA by 13–31%, and six others cut the activity of aromatase, the enzyme that makes estrogen, by 22–33%.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Single 10 µM concentration, ~140–200× above what indoor air or ordinary product use could produce internally; the mass-spectrometry check was non-significant for eucalyptol (p = 0.0574) and null for dihydro-beta-ionone; the same 10 µM killed up to 50% of a prostate-cancer cell line by 48 h. Always state the concentration.

Source: Sharma 2024, Biomolecules Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In a lab-grown 3D model of human skin, polystyrene fragments up to 10 µm were cytotoxic and inflammatory in keratinocytes, but only the fragments 2 µm or smaller penetrated into the dermis (average maximum 4.7 µg) within an hour, switching on inflammation genes there.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

One 3D skin model study (Song 2024); independently read the same way by a second review (Menichetti et al. 2025, J Xenobiot), which also reports the <2 µm penetrating cutoff and notes that in ex vivo human and mouse skin from the same primary study, the cutoff for any penetration was stricter still, under 1 µm. Not intact living human skin; no real-use dose.

Source: Han & Kim 2025, Cosmetics Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Many perfumes contain strongly antibacterial compounds: activity against Gram-negative bacteria appeared at 50 billionths of a liter, and a single spray is about 2,000 times that amount.

Weak evidence: Plate assay with a marine bacterium; effect on the skin microbiome inferred by the authors, not tested.

Source: Morlock & Heil 2025, Journal of Chromatography A Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

In the same test, patients rated breathlessness and cough higher after perfume at the eyes (1.5 vs 0.4 and 0.9 vs 0.3 on a 0-3 scale), yet lung function, oxygen saturation and breathing rate did not change at all.

Weak evidence: Single-blind (scorers apparently not blinded), 3 of many symptoms analyzed, n=11; the airway symptoms did not replicate double-blind (Elberling 2006: 6/11 perfume vs 5/11 placebo).

Source: Millqvist 1999, Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

A small 2026 follow-up study found mutagenic and cell-killing compounds in 8 perfumes, consistent with an earlier 42-perfume finding from the same German lab.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Same lab and platform as the earlier study, not independent; only 8 unnamed perfumes, unclear overlap with the 42; simulated liver metabolism was built for this paper but explicitly not tested on the perfumes; no antibacterial or hormone-related endpoints were run.

Source: Schmidtmann 2026, Analytical Chemistry Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

A small clinic study found that a real cologne challenge produced an objective, reproducible 18-58% drop in FEV1 (lung function) within minutes in asthma patients who already reported cologne sensitivity, blocked mostly by bronchodilators rather than cromolyn or blocking the sense of smell.

Weak evidence: N=4 evaluable patients, unblinded first exposure, cologne dose never measured, single cologne brand, all pre-selected for a cologne-sensitivity history, 1986, unreplicated.

Source: Shim & Williams 1986, The American Journal of Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Pleasant fragrance smells can measurably calm the body (raising a marker of parasympathetic "rest and digest" activity by up to 47% for pine scent and 26% for citrus), but once that same citrus scent has reacted with ozone, the calming effect reverses into a small drop in that same marker.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Each condition (pure pine, pure citrus, and the ozone-reacted citrus mixture) comes from a separate, small study, not one head-to-head design; the review's own authors suggest perceived unpleasantness of the reacted mixture, not necessarily toxicity, may explain the reversal.

Source: Wolkoff & Nielsen 2017, Environment International Link to this fact

Health effects / Self-reported survey

In a 10-year longitudinal follow-up of a German young-adult cohort (SOLAR, n=1,143), only participants who persistently used multiple disinfectants and cleaning products (sprays, disinfectant sprays, and nonspray disinfection methods) weekly at two assessments 10 years apart showed an elevated point estimate for current asthma (OR 1.68) and current wheeze (OR 1.71) compared with no weekly use; neither reached statistical significance (95% CI 0.48-5.88 and 0.75-3.90).

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Same underlying cohort as Weinmann 2017 (SOLAR 2 exposure data reused); small persistent-use subgroup (8.2% of n=1,143); wide confidence intervals; incident-asthma/wheeze estimates too imprecise for inference; authors draw no causal conclusion.

Source: Pacheco Da Silva 2025, Allergy Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

When the air freshener's emissions were combined with fresh latex-paint emissions, the mixture was not less toxic in mice than paint alone — the behavioral (FOB) score rose further and significantly, countering claims that air fresheners neutralize or mask other indoor pollutants.

Weak evidence: Single product, single co-pollutant, one dose combination, mouse behavioral scoring only; not tested with other pollutant classes or in humans.

Source: Anderson & Anderson 1997, Archives of Environmental Health Link to this fact

Health effects / Other evidence

California state scientists estimate that cosmetics may account for at least 4% (and plausibly much more, given wide uncertainty) of the PFOA-related chemicals measured in San Francisco Bay Area wastewater.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

The comparison spans a very wide range (roughly 4% to several hundred percent of the median measured loading) because of unreliable use-concentration inputs; this is an environmental-loading estimate, not a personal health-exposure estimate.

Source: Balan 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Health effects / Animal study

In ex vivo real human and mouse skin (not a lab-grown skin model), plastic nanoparticles only penetrated when they were smaller than about 1 micrometer, and human skin let slightly more through than mouse skin at that size, likely because human hair follicles are larger.

Weak evidence: Single primary study (Song et al. 2024) as read by this review; ex vivo excised tissue, not living skin measured during real use; no real-use cosmetic dose.

Source: Menichetti et al. 2025, Journal of Xenobiotics Link to this fact

Health effects / Measured in people or real products

Almost half (44%) of patients in the founding irritable larynx syndrome series related their symptom onset to a viral illness, most often not a simple upper respiratory infection but herpes zoster, Epstein-Barr virus, viral meningitis, Lyme disease, or post-viral chronic fatigue syndrome.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Retrospective patient-recalled association, not confirmed causally; n=39, one clinic; the paper's own abstract says "one third", which its own Results text ("almost half") and Table 4 (17/39=43.6%) contradict.

Source: Morrison 1999, Journal of Voice Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

Citronella oil, marketed as a natural insect repellent, has been banned in the European Union and Canada since 2006, partly because it contains methyl eugenol, which the US National Toxicology Program considers 'reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen' based on animal studies.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

No human carcinogenicity data exist for methyl eugenol; this is a regulatory ban and an animal-based NTP classification relayed by a secondary review, not measured harm from using citronella products.

Source: Ramsey 2020 (YJBM), Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine Link to this fact

Health effects / Review of other studies

No published study has been found that tests whether quaternary ammonium compounds specifically from laundry fabric softeners or dryer sheets, as opposed to disinfectant or cosmetic-preservative exposure, cause asthma or skin sensitization in consumers.

Weak evidence: This is an evidence-gap statement, not a positive finding; the review also never discusses esterquats, the ester-linked chemistry that dominates modern fabric softeners, at all.

Source: Peyneau 2022, Frontiers in Toxicology Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies

As early as 2004, a letter in Environmental Health Perspectives warned that fragrances can draw on thousands of chemicals and that most fragranced products had never been tested for human toxicity.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

The '4,000' figure comes from a 1991 book (Ashford & Miller) and describes untested products, not chemicals; later counts run ~3,000. Date 2020, now read as primary, corroborates 'thousands' as the right order of magnitude for the RIFM inventory (~2,600 active + ~3,500 discontinued) and separately states many individual fragrance materials lack toxicity data for standard endpoints — closer to Curtis's 'never tested' claim than any inventory count — but that is about individual chemicals with read-across-fillable data gaps, not about untested products, and does not confirm Curtis's specific '>4,000' figure.

Source: Curtis 2004, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Other evidence

A 2015 student lab analysis of 12 popular US perfumes and body sprays found 14-33 separate organic chemicals in each product (130 in all), while US law lets the label say just "fragrance".

Weak evidence: Identities are unconfirmed library matches and were never published; counts depend on the detection threshold. Pair with Steinemann 2011 rather than citing alone.

Source: Lee 2015, Young Scientist Journal (Vanderbilt University) Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products

In a university lab test, 3 of 4 cheap generic or dollar-store plug-in air fresheners gave off petroleum-type solvents (alkanes, one with n-hexane) and the fourth was mostly ethanol; none of these adds scent or appears on the package, and the brand-name plug-ins tested showed neither.

Weak evidence: Student journal; one unit per product; identities not confirmed with standards; no amounts measured.

Source: Pino-Delgado 2021 (J Student Res), Journal of Student Research Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Government agency

The industry safety panel's own risk calculation for PFOA (a persistent 'forever chemical' associated with PTFE manufacture) in lipstick relies on a single chemical supplier's claim of under 25 parts per billion in the raw material before it is formulated into a product — no actual PTFE-containing lipstick was tested for PFOA.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

The <25 ppb figure and the resulting '755-fold below EPA's advisory' conclusion are worst-case arithmetic on an unverified, pre-formulation raw-material claim, not a measurement of any real cosmetic product.

Source: CIR 2018 Industry-funded Link to this fact

Hidden ingredients / Industry source

PTFE (Teflon) is reportedly used in some cosmetics at concentrations up to 30%, more than double the 13% leave-on maximum cited from the industry-funded Cosmetic Ingredient Review.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

The paper's own use-concentration data for most PFAS ingredients 'differed by orders of magnitude' across sources; the specific source and current-market relevance of the 30% figure could not be verified for this ingest, and it may reflect a patent-claimed rather than marketed formulation.

Source: Balan 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a week-long study of 7 working adults in Leipzig, the air at home made up 42-73% of the airborne chemicals they breathed, more than the outdoor air or their workplaces.

Weak evidence: N=7, one week, 25 VOCs; home share includes infiltrated outdoor air.

Source: Gokhale 2008, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

In a real shower test, limonene in the bathroom air rose to about 80, 150 and 380 ppb as the amount of shower product went up, roughly in proportion to the amount used.

Weak evidence: One participant, one bathroom, PTR-MS; limonene only; peaks last minutes.

Source: Yeoman 2020, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Hypothesis

A computer model of a morning shower found fragrance terpenes from the products react with indoor ozone to make formaldehyde (about +4 ppb), other aldehydes, irritant PAN-type nitrates and a little fine particle matter, even with strong ventilation.

Weak evidence: Modeled (INDCM), not measured; increments are small and last about an hour; water-soluble products may dissolve in shower water, so these are upper limits.

Source: Yeoman 2020, Indoor Air Link to this fact

Indoor air / Animal study

A continuously running essential-oil diffuser is now the exposure pattern with an animal result attached to it: continuous ambient lavender exposure advanced puberty in rats, while a larger once-daily nasal dose did not.

Weak evidence: Neither exposure was quantified, so the comparison shows a pattern, not a dose-response; with five animals per group the difference rests partly on one outlier.

Source: Kim & Lim 2022, Journal of Korean Medical Science Link to this fact

Indoor air / Instrument measurement

In a small closed test room, three short bursts of aerosol hairspray pushed fine-particle (PM2.5) readings to about 90 µg/m³, roughly 2.5 times the US 24-hour outdoor standard, though only for minutes.

Weak evidence: Uncalibrated consumer monitor; tiny room; short peak vs 24-h standard; primary spray aerosol, no fragrance characterized.

Source: Grigoryants 2025, Cureus Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

A fresh, 10-minute-old mixture of limonene and ozone, at concentrations close to the high end measured in real homes and offices, made people's eyes blink significantly more often in a small controlled study, at roughly 2,000 times less limonene than pure limonene alone needs to irritate eyes.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

This is the paper's own LOEL (residual 0.23 mg/m3 limonene + 0.08 mg/m3 ozone, +17%, p=0.003) and was previously mis-cited on our evidence base to Klenø & Wolkoff 2004. Now verified as primary, but the same lab's own comparable re-test of Klenø & Wolkoff 2004 gave a 3.5x smaller effect (12% vs 42%) at nearly identical residual concentrations, and no dose-response held across the paper's own four LOPs mixtures (R2=0.7, ns).

Source: Nøjgaard 2005, Toxicology Letters Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Methacrolein, a known limonene/isoprene ozonolysis product, produced a similarly-sized eye-blink-frequency increase on its own (+18% at 286 ppb) as the freshly reacted limonene-ozone mixture did, supporting the idea that it is reaction products, not parent limonene, that irritate eyes.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Methacrolein was tested alone, not measured inside the LOPs mixtures, so this is an analogy of magnitude, not a demonstration that methacrolein specifically drives the limonene-ozone effect. Single small study, single lab.

Source: Nøjgaard 2005, Toxicology Letters Link to this fact

Indoor air / Measured in people or real products

Whether an office air-conditioning filter was new or had been in service for about 10 months made no measurable difference to ozone or particle chemistry, or to occupants' reported symptoms, during ozone-limonene exposure.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Compares only new vs. moderately used (MERV 13) filters at fixed ventilation/recirculation rates; does not test badly fouled filters or other filter grades, so it should not be read as showing filter replacement is never protective.

Source: Fadeyi et al. 2015, Indoor Air Link to this fact

The industry / Journalism

The first press coverage of a 2011 study finding 133 undisclosed chemicals in 25 best-selling scented products, in the US government's environmental-health journal, quoted no manufacturer or industry group; the underlying numbers should be cited from the study itself (Steinemann 2011).

Weak evidence: Media-coverage note only; all product numbers belong to the primary src-2011-fragranced-consumer-products-chemicals-emitted-ingredients-unlisted.

Source: Potera 2011 (EHP news), Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The fragrance industry's answer to autoxidation is to add antioxidants to linalool and linalool-rich natural extracts, but the Gothenburg researchers say that protection is hard to control.

Weak evidence: Industry practice via personal communication from a RIFM scientist (A. M. Api) in a RIFM co-funded paper; no data on effectiveness.

Source: Hagvall 2008, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Animal study

Two common fragrance ingredients, hexyl and benzyl salicylate, may test positive in the mouse skin-allergy assay not because they are true human sensitizers, but because of a mouse-specific irritant/pharmacological effect, similar to a known false-positive detergent (sodium lauryl sulfate).

Weak evidence.

Caveats

A hypothesis proposed by structural-alert absence and analogy only; the paper offers no direct evidence (e.g., a biomarker distinguishing true haptenation from irritant-driven lymph node activity) and the underlying data are RIFM's own unpublished proprietary dataset.

Source: Roberts & Api 2018, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact

The industry / Review of other studies

The detergent industry's own risk assessment for esterquat fabric softeners sets a margin of exposure of about 8,100 (NOAEL 300 mg/kg bw/day vs. an aggregate consumer exposure estimate of 36.9 micrograms/kg bw/day) and concludes esterquats in fabric conditioner are safe for consumer use.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Every number comes from the industry's own unpublished, unnamed studies with no independent citation trail; the exposure model covers only dermal and minor oral routes (no inhalation route at all, despite fabric conditioner being used in heated dryers); no carcinogenicity study and no multigeneration reproductive study exist for esterquats — the 'safe' conclusion infers these endpoints are unnecessary from adjacent negative results rather than testing them directly.

Source: HERA Project 2008 (A.I.S.E./CEFIC) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Journalism

As of 2010, the US FTC's Green Guides on environmental marketing claims had not been updated since 1998.

Weak evidence: Outdated: the Green Guides were revised in 2012 (and an update was proposed in 2022); do not use as a current fact.

Source: Dahl 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

Musk ambrette, banned in the EU for years, was still detected in the blood of 2 of 100 young Austrians tested, and testing the specific lotion and perfume one of them used did not find musk ambrette in the product itself, so the source of the banned chemical could not be pinned down.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

N=2; the tested products were negative for musk ambrette, so contamination, an unlisted supply-chain source, or a different untested product cannot be distinguished; no source identified.

Source: Hutter 2009, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

Allergy UK's product-endorsement page does not disclose who pays for testing or endorsement; it sits under a business-facing URL and ends in a manufacturer submission form, consistent with (but not confirmation of) a manufacturer-initiated, fee-based process.

Weak evidence: Fee/payer structure is inferred from page layout, not stated by the source; do not cite this page for a fee claim.

Source: Allergy UK 2026 Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Most patients who reacted to oxidized scent chemicals (58%) also had other fragrance allergies or a history of reacting to fragranced products.

Weak evidence: 31 positive patients.

Source: Matura 2005, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

People without skin disease reacted to oxidized limonene and linalool as strongly as dermatitis patients.

Weak evidence: Small groups (9 controls per comparison after exclusions).

Source: Bråred Christensson 2009, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In lab tests on human skin cells, the oxidized forms of limonene and linalool reshaped the cells' fats in the same way as a classic potent skin allergen (DNFB), a pattern consistent with oxidative stress.

Weak evidence: One cell line, one dose.

Source: Moore 2025, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In lab tests on reconstructed human skin, oxidized linalool broke down into reactive radicals that bind to skin proteins, which helps explain why linalool becomes an allergen only after it reacts with air.

Weak evidence: Skin model and model thiols; mechanism, not prevalence.

Source: Kuresepi 2020, Chemical Research in Toxicology Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

In lab tests on human skin cells, the air-oxidized forms of limonene and linalool (the forms that cause fragrance allergy) damaged the fats in cell membranes at concentrations from 100 µM, with oxidized limonene strongest; a possible second route to skin inflammation not yet shown in people.

Weak evidence: Cell line and liposomes only; added iron; real skin doses unknown.

Source: Moore 2025, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

Once someone is sensitized, patch tests can trigger reactions at low ppm concentrations of oxidized terpene — but the specific 'as low as 1 ppm' figure is for Δ³-carene in older, narratively-reviewed occupational turpentine literature; for the two terpenes that dominate consumer exposure, modern peer-reviewed dose-response studies put the threshold one to two orders of magnitude higher (limonene hydroperoxides: ~24 ppm single patch application, ~140 ppm repeated realistic exposure, ED₁₀ ≈85 ppm; linalool hydroperoxides: ~560 ppm repeated realistic exposure).

Weak evidence.

Caveats

The 1 ppm figure applies to Δ³-carene in historical occupational patch testing, not to limonene or linalool, and its own study design (occlusion, participant numbers) is not given in the citing review. No limonene- or linalool-specific study supports reactions at ~1 ppm.

Source: Karlberg & Lepoittevin 2021, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products

All four patients already allergic to oxidized linalool reacted to air-exposed lavender oil on patch testing.

Weak evidence: N=4 pre-selected sensitized patients; fresh oil not tested alongside; elicitation, not sensitization.

Source: Hagvall 2008, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Childcare rooms with more fresh-air exchange had lower levels of several of the chemicals measured.

Weak evidence: Bivariate correlations, 34 rooms.

Source: Hoang 2016, Indoor Air Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Keep scented products closed and avoid old, long-opened ones: limonene and linalool became skin irritants after weeks of air exposure.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Extrapolated from lab-oxidized neat material (10-20 weeks air exposure); product storage not tested by this paper. Two independent industry market surveys have now directly tested the specific mechanism this advice assumes (in-bottle oxidation with age) and both found it absent: Kern 2014 (39 aged fine fragrances + 29 antiperspirants, 9 months accelerated storage) and Natsch 2019 (104 products spanning fine fragrances, antiperspirants, creams and lotions, including two fine fragrances tracked 3-6 years at room temperature) both found no progressive hydroperoxide accumulation with age, and consumer-product doses 2-4 orders of magnitude below elicitation/sensitization thresholds. Both studies are industry-funded (IDEA consortium: Givaudan, Firmenich, IFF, IFRA) and not independently replicated by a non-industry group, and neither tests essential oils or raw materials (separately known to accumulate hydroperoxide) or every product category. Moved to claims-to-avoid because the specific mechanistic basis for this advice (in-container autoxidation) is now negative in the only two real-product tests that exist, even though the underlying autoxidation chemistry itself, in neat/essential oils, is not disputed. Kern 2014 and Natsch 2019 are both industry studies (Givaudan / IDEA consortium) with Natsch as a co-author on both, so they are not independent replications of each other.

Source: Bråred Christensson 2009, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Old, long-opened scented products are more allergenic than fresh ones, because the scent chemicals oxidize on contact with air.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Time course is primary for lavender oil (Hagvall 2008: LLNA EC3 36% fresh -> 23% at 10 weeks -> 4.4% at 45 weeks in the same batch), but in neat oil in open lab flasks, not formulated products as stored. Kern 2014 first closed part of this gap (39 fine fragrances + 29 antiperspirants, no accumulation over 9 months accelerated storage); Natsch 2019 extends this to 104 products across more categories (adding limonene, creams, lotions) and to multi-year real-time storage (two fine fragrances tracked 3-6 years at room temperature, no accumulation), plus tests products donated by allergic patients themselves (also negative for hydroperoxide). Downgraded to avoid because the specific claim — that aging/opening itself makes a product more allergenic via in-container oxidation — has now failed two independent, broader industry market surveys with no non-industry evidence on the other side; creams, lotions and fine fragrances/antiperspirants are covered, though essential oils, raw materials and other categories remain untested and are not covered by this downgrade. Kern 2014 and Natsch 2019 are both industry studies (Givaudan / IDEA consortium) with Natsch as a co-author on both, so they are not independent replications of each other.

Source: Karlberg & Lepoittevin 2021, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

People affected by fragrance say policies work only with purchasing rules for fragrance-free, low-emission products, staff education, better ventilation, and consequences for repeat violations, enforced like smoke-free rules.

Weak evidence: Participants' and authors' proposals; not tested as an intervention.

Source: Roy 2026 Link to this fact

What you can do / Hypothesis

Air a room or clean it instead of scenting it: non-chemical alternatives such as opening windows and better hygiene are the first step in Klaschka's ten-step hierarchy for reducing fragrance exposure.

Weak evidence: Expert recommendation; not tested in the paper.

Source: Klaschka 2020, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

If a child develops unexplained breast tissue, tell the doctor about every scented product the child uses or is near, including colognes, baby washes, hair products and diffusers; stopping them is what the case reports did.

Weak evidence: Practical advice drawn from case reports, not a tested intervention.

Source: Hawkins 2020, Complementary Therapies in Medicine Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Self-reported survey

People who always or usually used a healthy-product app, read ingredient labels or looked for eco-friendly labels used hair, skin and beauty products with somewhat lower EWG hazard ratings, by up to half a point on a 10-point scale.

Weak evidence: Cross-sectional; the rating is built from the same labels, so it cannot see undisclosed fragrance chemicals; no exposure measured.

Source: Barrett 2025, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Using less shower product and running the bathroom fan both lower the fragrance-terpene peak: emissions scaled with product amount, and halving ventilation raised the modeled limonene peak from about 375 to 495 ppb.

Weak evidence: Amount-scaling from one person's shower; ventilation effect is modeled; no health outcome measured.

Source: Yeoman 2020, Indoor Air Link to this fact

What you can do / Test-chamber measurement

Keeping indoor ozone low (no ozone-emitting 'air purifiers' or ionizers) limits both skin-oil chemistry and fragrance-terpene chemistry indoors, because ozone starts both chains.

Weak evidence: This paper makes no recommendation; the ozone-generator advice comes from Singer 2006, and the ventilation/ozone trade-off is our inference.

Source: Zannoni 2022, Science Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

If you want to avoid persistent fluorinated ingredients, check cosmetic labels for 'PTFE', 'polytetrafluoroethylene', or names containing 'perfluoro-' or 'polyfluoro-'.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Namazkar 2024 found INCI names for PFAS ingredients can themselves be ambiguous or incorrect (an apparent isomer mismatch for a silane; an undisclosed shorter chain-length range for a phosphate ester), and found unlabeled residual PFCA impurities in nearly every PFAS-containing cosmetic tested (5 of 6 products), which were far more dermally bioaccessible (43-76%) than the labeled ingredient itself (negligible bioaccessibility). Label-reading is a reasonable screen for intentionally added, correctly-named PFAS but does not detect the unlabeled residual impurities this paper shows can be present and bioaccessible regardless of which PFAS is named.

Source: Jomaa 2024, Journal of the Netherlands Society of Toxicology (JNST) Industry-funded Link to this fact

What you can do / Lab study (cells or chemistry)

Only 6 of 42 perfumes tested were comparatively low in hazardous compounds across ten lab tests, which suggests lower-hazard perfumes can be made.

Weak evidence: Products not named, so consumers cannot identify the cleaner ones; in vitro only.

Source: Morlock & Heil 2025, Journal of Chromatography A Link to this fact

What you can do / Instrument measurement

A filter-only HEPA air purifier kept fine-particle readings near zero after hair and nail products were used together in a small closed room.

Weak evidence: Flow-to-volume ratio far above any real home or salon; VOC removal by the carbon filter not credible for acetone/formaldehyde.

Source: Grigoryants 2025, Cureus Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Fragrance-free policies are easier to make work when they start with a needs assessment and an inventory of the cleaning and personal products in use, involve employees in drafting, and agree how violations are handled before launch.

Weak evidence: Lessons from unnamed organizations; no outcome data.

Source: De Vader & Barker 2009 Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

Close fragranced products after use and discard them about a year after opening to limit exposure to oxidized allergens.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

Expert advice; no study tests whether it reduces dermatitis. The assumed mechanism (in-bottle oxidation during storage) has now failed two industry market surveys rather than one: Kern 2014 (fine fragrances, antiperspirants, 9 months accelerated storage) and Natsch 2019 (104 products including creams and lotions, two fine fragrances tracked 3-6 years at room temperature) both found no hydroperoxide accumulation with age or storage time. The advice may still be reasonable for essential oils and raw materials (which do carry hydroperoxide, e.g. lavandin ~220 ug/g), just not via this specific in-bottle mechanism for finished consumer products. Both studies are industry-funded (IDEA consortium: Givaudan, Firmenich, IFF, IFRA) and not independently replicated, and say nothing about essential oils, raw materials or product categories outside fine fragrances/antiperspirants/creams/lotions. Kern 2014 and Natsch 2019 are both industry studies (Givaudan / IDEA consortium) with Natsch as a co-author on both, so they are not independent replications of each other.

Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021 (Klaschka 2010), Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

Moisturizers that listed alcohol or 'alcohol denat.' near the top of the ingredient list delivered far more ethanol to a mannequin's nose; products with no listed alcohol gave almost none.

Weak evidence: 16 products, qualitative (Fig. 4, no statistic); ethanol hidden inside 'parfum' is not visible on labels; absolute ethanol doses are disputed.

Source: Yeoman 2022, Indoor Air Link to this fact

What you can do / Measured in people or real products

'Agua de violetas' colognes marketed to Hispanic families, including preparations made for babies, are a specific consumer product worth asking about if a young child has unexplained breast growth.

Weak evidence: Based on 2 of 3 case reports from one clinic; not every bottle sold under this name contains lavender oil.

Source: Diaz 2016, Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism Link to this fact

What you can do / Hypothesis

If you already notice fragrance-related symptoms, do not expect awareness alone to change your exposure — most Germans who link their own symptoms to fragrance still use fragranced products at or above the average rate; choosing fragrance-free products and spaces is the step that actually reduces exposure.

Weak evidence: Author's recommendation, drawn from the self-exposure paradox in this survey; not itself tested as an intervention.

Source: Klaschka 2020a, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact

What you can do / Review of other studies

If households switch from fragranced to fragrance-free laundry detergent, modeling suggests dryer-vent limonene emissions across a whole city or state could drop substantially — an estimated 1.58 tons per year for metropolitan Melbourne, or 8.66 tons per year for the state of California.

Weak evidence.

Caveats

This is a modeled extrapolation, not a measurement: it multiplies a mean vent concentration from just 2-6 households (one grab sample each) by census household counts and usage-rate assumptions, with no confidence interval or sensitivity analysis anywhere in the calculation; the Melbourne input is dominated by a single outlier household roughly 11 times the other three.

Source: Goodman, Nematollahi & Steinemann 2020/2021, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact

Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.