Don’t take our word for it. Here’s every fact on this site, with its evidence grade, its caveats, and a link to the source, so you can check us.
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.
The industry / Other evidence
This paper's conservative-model design assumed every unit of cosmetic product recorded as sold (in national purchase-panel data) was actually used, and applied the single highest-use country's scale factor to the entire EU15 population for every product — e.g. EU15 shampoo exposure was modeled on Denmark's (the highest) usage and EU15 deodorant-spray exposure on Great Britain's (the highest) usage.
Moderate evidence: Industry-funded (Colipa); conservatism assumptions chosen by the study's own industry sponsors, not independently audited.
Source: Hall 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Comparing new to ~15-year-old EU reference values, the two biggest changes among all 12 cosmetic product types this Colipa project has now studied are deodorant/antiperspirant non-spray (roughly tripling, 0.5 to 1.5 g/day) and shower gel (nearly doubling, 10 to 18.7 g/day), which the study's own industry authors attribute to changing personal-hygiene habits rather than a measurement-methods change.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Industry-funded (Colipa); the attribution to changed habits, rather than to the newer, larger and more rigorous measurement method itself, is the authors' own interpretation and is not independently tested in the paper.
Source: Hall 2011, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
A 2011 industry follow-up study that restates the 2007 deodorant-spray daily-use figure (6.10 g/day) still could not say how much of that spray actually lands on skin — the same 'quantity leaving the can, not landing on skin, is under investigation' caveat as the original 2007 study, unresolved four years later.
Moderate evidence: Industry-funded (Colipa); deodorant spray is not one of this 2011 paper's own five studied products, so this is a restated figure, not a new measurement.
Source: Hall 2011, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded 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.
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
The EU's mandatory '26 allergens' cosmetic label did not reduce allergen use in German deodorants: the share containing at least one of the 26 EU-labeled fragrance allergens rose from 52% (2008) to 83% (2011), years after the labeling rule took effect.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Three non-representative convenience samples of the German market (n=66/200/108), not a tracked panel of the same products; the author states representativeness for the whole market is not established.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
Deodorants marketed with words like 'sensitive', 'soft' or 'skin soothing' were not allergen-free: 95% still contained perfume and 15% contained a strong allergen above the labeling threshold.
Moderate evidence: N=102 of 308 products across the 2010-2011 samples; single-country, label-based.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
Where two specific fragrance allergens (Lyral, oak moss extract) did become rarer in German deodorants, it tracked binding IFRA/SCCNFP maximum-concentration recommendations introduced around 2004-2009, not the general disclosure-only labeling rule.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
A within-paper contrast drawn by the author from the same three-year dataset; only 2 of the 26 allergens had a specific concentration cap recommended, so this may not generalize to the other 24.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 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.
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
Fragrance allergy caused by a deodorant correlated with a positive patch test to fragrance mix II or HICC (34.3% and 24.9% of deodorant-linked cases) more than to fragrance mix I or Myroxylon pereirae (28.2% and 12.7%), while scented lotion and shampoo correlated more with fragrance mix I and M. pereirae, suggesting deodorants are enriched for the specific chemicals in fragrance mix II rather than just containing more fragrance overall.
Moderate evidence: Correlational, single retrospective dataset; the paper does not independently verify deodorant formulations chemically, relying on prior surveys for that.
Source: Heisterberg 2011, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
Up to 30% of German deodorants in a given year contained at least one strong (Group I) fragrance allergen above the concentration that legally triggers labeling (0.001%).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Label-based count, not chemical analysis; the author cites independent chemical testing (Kantonslabor Basel) and Rastogi 2007a finding under-threshold allergens missed by label counts, so true prevalence may be higher.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
There was no significant difference in fragrance-allergen labeling between deodorants marketed for men and for women in Germany, even though a separate Danish clinical study found men have significantly more deodorant-caused fragrance allergic contact dermatitis than women.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Different countries and different measurements (label content vs. clinical outcome); the author explicitly says her data cannot explain the sex gap in allergy rates and only speculates that women may use deodorants, including neutral ones, more often.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
Deodorants that fragrance-allergic patients blamed for a rash reproduced that rash on controlled retesting 60% of the time (12 of 20 products), and the deodorants that caused a reaction contained fragrance-mix allergens at 1.3 to 8.6 times higher concentration, on average, than the ones that did not.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Small single-study cohort (14 patients, 20 patient-supplied deodorants), independently funded (EU/Danish/Swedish public grants, no industry money); no matched non-allergic control group was tested against the same implicated products, so an irritant (rather than allergic) contribution cannot be fully excluded for any single case.
Source: Johansen et al. 1998, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
How much fragrance-mix allergen a deodorant contained mattered more than how many different allergens it contained: deodorants that caused a reaction and those that did not had a similar number of fragrance-mix constituents present, but the reacting ones had higher concentrations of each.
Moderate evidence: Based on GC/GC-MS analysis of only 19 deodorants (13 use-test-positive/doubtful vs. 6 negative); small group sizes for a concentration comparison.
Source: Johansen et al. 1998, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Other evidence
Of 226 chemicals identified in 71 deodorants, 84 (37%) carried at least one chemical-structure 'alert' for skin-protein reactivity, and 70 of those were aldehydes, ketones, or alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehydes/ketones/esters – the reactive chemical classes already established as the dominant fragrance-allergen chemotype.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
A structural alert is a hazard flag based on molecular structure only; the paper explicitly states it gives no information on potency (strong/moderate/weak) and is not a substitute for patch testing or animal studies.
Source: Rastogi et al. 1998 (Contact Dermatitis 39:293), Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Other evidence
Citral, a fragrance chemical already established as a human skin sensitizer, was detected by GC-MS in 26 of 71 European deodorants tested in 1998 (15 of 22 vapo-sprays, 8 of 22 aerosol sprays, 3 of 27 roll-ons).
Moderate evidence: Presence only, not concentration; a single 1998 market snapshot from 5 European countries.
Source: Rastogi et al. 1998 (Contact Dermatitis 39:293), Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
In a 1996 chemical analysis of 73 European deodorants, the seven allergens used in the standard fragrance-mix patch test were very unevenly present: geraniol was found in 76% of products and eugenol in 57%, but cinnamic aldehyde in only 17% and isoeugenol in 29%.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Single study, one product category, purchased 1996 in 5 European countries; not replicated for deodorants specifically, though the pattern matches the same lab's later household-product survey (Rastogi 2001).
Source: Rastogi et al. 1998, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
The two rarest fragrance-mix allergens in this 1996 deodorant survey, cinnamic aldehyde (max 424 ppm) and isoeugenol (max 458 ppm), reached concentrations the study authors judged capable of triggering a reaction in people already sensitized to them, based on published human patch-test and use-test thresholds.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The judgment applies only to already-sensitized individuals and only to the single highest-concentration product found for each substance; median concentrations across the sample were more than 10x lower than the level of concern, and the authors state no conclusion can be drawn for the other fragrance-mix constituents because no-effect thresholds have not been studied.
Source: Rastogi et al. 1998, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
In a controlled study, deodorants containing hydroxycitronellal at 0.032% to 0.32% triggered allergic armpit rashes within a few weeks in all 7 people already allergic to the chemical, while an identical unscented deodorant on the other armpit, and the same deodorants used by 7 non-allergic people, caused no reactions (P<0.001).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Single-center study (Malmö only), unlike the 5-center Bruze 2003 cinnamic-aldehyde companion study graded strong; small cohort (7 test + 7 control patients), though statistically significant with a concurrent negative control group and blinded, randomized contralateral-axilla design.
Source: Svedman et al. 2003, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC/Lyral) was labeled on 13.5% of 632 deodorants in this 2015-16 Danish sample, significantly lower than the 33.0% found in an earlier 2007 Danish deodorant survey of 88 products (chi-square p<0.0001).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Different sampling methods and sample sizes between the two surveys (app-based self-selection vs. market survey); the comparison is suggestive of declining HICC use ahead of the EU ban, not a controlled before/after study.
Source: Bennike 2017/2018 Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Other evidence
The standard fragrance patch-test screen (fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II, balsam of Peru) misses a large share of true fragrance allergy: this review's own cited figures range from about 40% to 70% missed depending on the comparison, and "approximately half" of relevant reactions to perfumes, deodorants, and shaving lotions go undetected by baseline testing.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Different underlying comparators (26-fragrance panel vs hydroperoxides vs own products) give different miss rates; a specific percentage should always name what it was compared against.
Source: de Groot 2020, Dermatitis 31(1):13-35, Dermatitis® Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Review of other studies
Propylene glycol, a solvent and humectant used in many deodorants, can make up as much as 73% of the product and acts as both a skin irritant and an allergen, which makes its allergy patch tests hard to interpret (positivity ranges 0.1%-3.8% across studies).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Concentration and positivity-range figures are secondary citations (to Fiume 2012 and other cited surveys, not independently verified here) relayed by a 2024 review, not this review's own data.
Source: Musicante 2024, Cutis Industry-funded Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Review of other studies
Allergic contact dermatitis from textile dyes in clothing characteristically affects the borders/rim of the armpit while sparing the central vault, the opposite pattern from deodorant- or antiperspirant-caused dermatitis, which typically affects the vault where the product is applied.
Moderate evidence: Distribution pattern is a clinical observation relayed from case reports and small case series (Ryberg, Seidenari), not a controlled comparison.
Source: Musicante 2024, Cutis Industry-funded Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Review of other studies
Contact dermatitis from deodorants and antiperspirants is overwhelmingly caused by fragrance ingredients (isoeugenol, cinnamic aldehyde, hydroxycitronellal, lyral, oak moss, ylang-ylang oil), not by the antiseptic or antiperspirant active ingredients.
Moderate evidence: Synthesis judgment by a single reviewer across multiple studies, not a head-to-head comparison of allergen rates.
Source: Martini 2020, Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Other evidence
In a 4-year German patch-test study of 1,468 patients tested with their own deodorants and perfumes, 129 had positive reactions to a specific product, and 58 of them (45%) were missed by the standard fragrance-mix, balsam-of-Peru, and lyral patch tests.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Numbers relayed secondhand via this review, citing Uter et al.; the primary IVDK dataset is not yet in our evidence base, and the specific allergens responsible for the 58 missed reactions are not given.
Source: Martini 2020, Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
In a 2008 survey of 107 deodorants and antiperspirants stocked at US Walgreens pharmacies, 97/107 (90%) contained fragrance and 51/107 (47%) contained propylene glycol, far ahead of essential oils/biological additives (11/107, 10%), parabens (2/107, 2%), vitamin E (2/107, 2%), and lanolin (1/107, 1%).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Allergen presence came from a pre-existing NACDG-screening-panel database built from product labeling, not from the authors' own chemical analysis of the products; single US retailer, one time point (~2008).
Source: Zirwas & Moennich 2008, The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
Only 8 of 107 surveyed deodorants/antiperspirants were free of both fragrance and fragrance-related ingredients (essential oils, biological additives), making them judged genuinely safe for patients with diagnosed fragrance allergy.
Moderate evidence: Database-derived allergen listing, not independent chemical verification; a 2008 US retail snapshot that will not reflect current formulations.
Source: Zirwas & Moennich 2008, The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
In a clinical provocation study the authors relay secondhand, 20 deodorants applied to the axilla and forearm of 14 fragrance-sensitive patients produced a positive reaction in 60% of the deodorants tested, tracking the concentration of the allergen in the product rather than simply its presence.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Secondhand relay of Johansen et al. 1998's primary data; verified accurate against the primary (12/20 = 60%), now independently ingested as src-1998-deodorants-clinical-provocation-fragrance-sensitive.
Source: Zirwas & Moennich 2008, The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology 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
If you suspect a deodorant is causing your skin allergy (especially if you are male), ask that patch testing specifically include fragrance mix II and HICC, since the standard fragrance mix I marker is a weaker predictor of deodorant-driven fragrance allergy.
Moderate evidence: Advice extrapolated from a correlational clinic dataset, not from an interventional study testing whether this actually improves diagnosis.
Source: Heisterberg 2011, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
Read the ingredient list for the named allergens rather than trusting marketing words like 'sensitive' or 'soft' on a deodorant label; in one German sample, products carrying such words were no less likely to contain perfume or a strong allergen than the market as a whole.
Moderate evidence: Single-country label survey; does not establish the words are misleading everywhere, only in this sample.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
If a deodorant use test on the forearm is negative but you still suspect that deodorant is causing your armpit rash, ask a clinician to repeat the test directly in the armpit.
Moderate evidence: Based on a single 1998 study of 12 informative deodorants; two-thirds of confirmed reactions were detected only in the axilla, never on the standard forearm test site.
Source: Johansen et al. 1998, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
In this 1996 sample, 3 of 73 deodorants labeled "not perfumed" genuinely contained none of the 21 fragrance substances tested, on chemical analysis.
Moderate evidence: Very small sample (n=3) from one country/year snapshot; does not establish that "not perfumed"/"fragrance-free" labels are reliable in general or in other markets/years.
Source: Rastogi et al. 1998, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
If you have armpit rashes and suspect your deodorant, ask your dermatologist for patch testing that includes hydroxycitronellal specifically rather than relying on a Fragrance Mix I result alone, since a positive fragrance-mix reaction does not identify which of its 8 constituents is responsible.
Moderate evidence: Extrapolated consumer advice from a clinical elicitation study; not itself a tested intervention.
Source: Svedman et al. 2003, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
If you have unexplained facial or hand eczema and a history of reacting to a scented deodorant or cologne, ask your dermatologist about patch testing with your own stay-on cosmetic products plus HICC (Lyral), not just the standard fragrance mix.
Moderate evidence: Risk-factor odds ratios come from one case-referent study cited by the review, not replicated here.
Source: Johansen 2003, Am J Clin Dermatol 4(11):789-798, American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
Most positive reactions (7 of 10, 70%) did not appear until after 2 weeks of twice-daily deodorant use, so a short 1-2 week trial of a new product is not a reliable way to rule out a delayed fragrance allergy.
Moderate evidence: Based on 10 reactors in a single study; the authors recommend use tests run at least 4-6 weeks for this reason.
Source: Bruze et al. 2005, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
What you can do / Review of other studies
Patch testing a patient's own perfume, deodorant, or shaving lotion, not only a standardized fragrance panel, has detected sensitizations (e.g. to jasmine absolute, ylang ylang oil, lyral) that the panel alone missed.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Relayed from North American (Belsito 2006) and German IVDK (Uter 2007) clinical series; useful practical guidance for allergic patients even though Brasch's own account is secondary.
Source: Brasch 2007, Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
Because hormone-disrupting chemicals cluster by product type, cleaners, synthetic detergents, fabric softeners, air fresheners, and deodorants are the household product categories where checking for isothiazolinone preservatives (such as benzisothiazolinone) and fragrance chemicals (such as hexyl cinnamaldehyde, geraniol, and citronellol) is likely to be most worthwhile.
Moderate evidence: Reflects which chemicals are most often listed in this product database, not which products emit the most or pose the greatest measured exposure.
Source: Lee & Ji 2022, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
Choosing toothpaste, soap, and deodorant that do not list triclosan (or Irgasan) on the label is a reasonable way to lower plasma and breast-milk triclosan levels, though it will not eliminate all exposure.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This single study alone would be weak support for a what-you-can-do claim; strength here rests on corroboration from the independent HERMOSA 2016 intervention trial (different population, different design) rather than on Allmyr 2006 alone.
Source: Allmyr 2006, Science of The Total Environment Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
Pump and trigger sprays put far less of the product into the lung-reaching respirable range than aerosol versions of the same product: recommended respirable-fraction ranges are 0-2% for hair, deodorant, body, sunscreen, and facial pump sprays, versus 2-35% for the equivalent aerosols.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
These are industry-compiled default ranges for safety-assessment purposes, not a head-to-head measurement of the same formulation in both formats; actual respirable fraction depends on the specific product's nozzle, pressure and formulation.
Source: Steiling et al. 2025, Toxicology Letters Industry-funded Link to this fact
What you can do / Review of other studies
If you have diagnosed fragrance or deodorant-ingredient allergy, ask your dermatologist about expanded patch testing (balsam of Tolu, fragrance mix 2, botanicals, lichen acid mix) if a standard fragrance screen is negative but suspicion remains, since the standard screen is estimated to miss a meaningful share of true fragrance allergy.
Moderate evidence: Practice recommendation from a narrative clinical review, not from an interventional study measuring whether expanded testing changes diagnostic outcomes.
Source: Zirwas & Moennich 2008, The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
Isoeugenol is a flavor ingredient (about 236 kg a year in the US) and also a classic fragrance allergen; the flavor panel's safety margin counts only eating it, not skin contact from deodorants or perfumes.
Moderate evidence: The article does not discuss fragrance exposure; 'allergen' status comes from other sources (Bruze 2005), not this page.
Source: Smith et al. 2009 (FEMA Expert Panel), GRAS Flavoring Substances 24, Food Technology 63(6), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Fragrance is everywhere / Review of other studies
Deodorants alone are estimated to deliver roughly 1,000 metric tons of fragrance per year to the German population, based on standard daily-dose, dermal-retention, and perfume-content assumptions.
Weak evidence: A calculated estimate from published dose and market-size figures, not a measured total; depends on assumed 1% dermal retention and 3-5% perfume content.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
Fragrance is everywhere / Other evidence
In the industry's illustrative model of 36,446 US and European adults, the 95th-percentile person received about 7.55 g/day of product on the skin and in the mouth from 19 personal-care product types, with mouthwash, mass-market body lotion, and deodorant roll-on the largest contributors.
Weak evidence: Model output from 2007-2008 diary data, industry-funded; Fig. 3 shares are read from a chart.
Source: Safford et al. 2015, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Fragrance is everywhere / Government agency
Alpha-isomethyl ionone, an allergen on the EU's 1999 labeled list, was declared on 46.6% of 88 deodorants checked in 2007 and detected in about 65% of 23 analyzed deodorants (6-2,588 ppm); it was found in 21.7% of 516 consumer products in another survey.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Small, older market surveys cited from other authors (German/Danish samples); label-declaration frequency, not exposure; the underlying patch-test rates for this chemical are low (0-2.1%).
Green, natural and unscented / Self-reported survey
'Fragrance-free'/'unscented' deodorant claims are not a reliable guarantee for fragrance-allergic people: in a cited patient survey, 4.7% of fragrance-contact-allergic patients who had used an unscented deodorant in the past 3 months got a rash from it.
Weak evidence: Figure is relayed from Lysdal and Johansen 2009, not Klaschka's own data; not in our evidence base as a primary yet.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
Among those teens, product use in the previous day (including cosmetics, creams and perfume or deodorant) did not statistically explain the higher phthalate and paraben levels in the ADHD group, although the ADHD group used more cosmetics and washes.
Weak evidence: 24-hour self-reported use; small n; supplementary mediation tables not available; does not show that products are not a source of exposure in general.
Source: Terzioğlu 2026, Psychiatry Investigation Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Other evidence
Men who used deodorant in the past 24 hours had about 74% higher urinary MEP, almost as much as cologne users (83%), though the study did not test what the deodorants contained.
Weak evidence: Single-product model; deodorant use may mark other fragranced products and no product contents were measured.
Source: Nassan 2017, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Other evidence
In the Mexican study, DEHP metabolites were higher among body lotion and deodorant users, but the differences largely disappeared among women who did not drink bottled water, so cosmetic and packaging routes could not be separated.
Weak evidence: DEHP is not a fragrance ingredient; do not turn this into a fragrance claim. Multiple comparisons and low power acknowledged by the authors.
Source: Romero-Franco 2011, Environment International Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
Industry chemists note that indoor air tests for secondhand smoke also pick up cooking, cleaners, furniture polish, perfumes, hair sprays, deodorants and building materials, and one conference-room scan found non-tobacco peaks larger than the tobacco-smoke peaks.
Weak evidence: Industry authors citing an industry report; shows measurement confounding, not that ETS is harmless.
Source: Rodgman & Perfetti 2013 Industry-funded Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
Two products in the same category can behave very differently: with seed particles present, one deodorant turned about 17% of its evaporated mass into aerosol and the other about 6% (about, read from Fig. 2), and the two cleaning liquids ran about 5% and 12%.
Weak evidence: Approximate values read from Fig. 2; two products per category; the authors say the products are not representative of the market.
Skin allergy / Review of other studies
Fragrance is the most common cause of allergic contact dermatitis in the armpit, and deodorants and antiperspirants are a major source of that fragrance exposure.
Weak evidence: Narrative clinical review with no new data of its own; relays a 1982 cosmetic-product survey and later studies not independently re-checked here.
Source: Musicante 2024, Cutis Industry-funded Link to this fact
What you can do / Review of other studies
Close deodorant containers after use and replace them about a year after opening: two of the most common deodorant fragrances (limonene, linalool) are rated weak allergens fresh but oxidize in air into much stronger sensitizers.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Klaschka relays this oxidation chemistry from prior studies (Karlberg 1994, Matura 2005, Skold 2008), already in our evidence base; she adds no new dose data of her own. Downgraded to weak 2026-09-28 (Jev audit): the action goes beyond what this paper itself tested.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
People patch-tested positive to isoeugenol or Fragrance Mix I should avoid isoeugenol-containing deodorants entirely rather than relying on IFRA-compliant "low" concentrations, since the current 0.02% cap sits inside the range this study showed can elicit reactions in sensitized users.
Weak evidence: Extrapolated consumer advice from a clinical elicitation study; not itself a tested intervention. Graded weak: what-you-can-do resting on one small ROAT study.
Source: Bruze et al. 2005, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
What you can do / Lab study (cells or chemistry)
Choosing a roll-on or stick deodorant instead of a spray from the same product line may reduce exposure to the estrogen-active fragrance ingredients this one lab's testing found concentrated in sprays.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Rests on a single lab's testing of 25 German products; dispenser-type differences most likely reflect how much fragrance a given carrier formulation needs, not a demonstrated safety difference, and this has not been independently replicated or linked to any human exposure or health outcome.
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
Parabens turned up in the breast tissue of 7 women who said they had never used underarm deodorant or antiperspirant, so underarm products are not the only way parabens get into the breast.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Only 7 never-users, self-reported lifetime use, older than the users, and no data on other personal care products (lotions, creams) that also contain parabens, so the real source is unknown.
Source: [[src-2012-measurement-paraben-concentrations-breast-tissue-serial-locations|Barr 2012]], Journal of Applied Toxicology Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
In the industry model for one fragrance chemical (2-phenylethanol), the highest skin dose per area was under the arms (95th percentile about 5,258 micrograms per cm2, nearly all from deodorants), far above the neck (911) or lips (829).
Weak evidence: Illustrative only; authors cite dermal uptake of this chemical under 10%, so absorbed dose would be lower.
Source: Safford et al. 2015, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
In 21 patients whose hydroperoxide allergy was judged certainly relevant, the products blamed were mostly rinse-off products such as soap and shampoo (15 of 21), then leave-on cosmetics and creams (9 of 21), plus detergents, deodorants and perfumes.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Small subgroup from one clinic; product type is the patient's and dermatologist's identification of products containing limonene or linalool on the label, not confirmed hydroperoxide content.
Source: Dittmar & Schuttelaar 2019, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.