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.
Indoor air / Other evidence
Methacrolein, a reaction product of ozone and isoprene (a natural component of human breath), can form indoors or in the airway itself whenever an ozone source is present, with no fragrance or cleaning product needed.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The formation reaction itself is not measured in this paper; it is cited as the motivation for the study. Later chamber work (Zannoni 2022) directly measured methacrolein forming from breath isoprene + indoor OH radicals in an occupied, product-free room.
Source: Larsen & Nielsen 2000, Toxicology Letters Industry-funded Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
The one real-world indoor measurement of gas-phase methacrolein in the wiki (309 ng/m3, during ozone-terpene cleaning-product chemistry) sits about 2,800 times below this paper's own proposed occupational exposure limit for methacrolein, and about 96,000 times below the mouse RD50.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Compares an acute, occupational-limit-oriented mouse endpoint to a short measured cleaning-event concentration in one test house; not a chronic or population exposure estimate. See contradictions register C63.
Source: Larsen & Nielsen 2000, Toxicology Letters Industry-funded Link to this fact
Indoor air / Self-reported survey
In a small (n=69) follow-up of Atlanta-area adults with chemical hypersensitivity, the products most commonly reported to trigger symptoms were cleaning agents (88.4%), pesticides (81.2%) and perfume (81.2%), followed by tobacco smoke (82.6%) and car exhaust (72.5%).
Moderate evidence: Small, non-random follow-up sample (n=69, about 35% of the original 199 hypersensitive respondents); self-report of trigger identification, not exposure measurement.
Source: Caress & Steinemann 2003 (EHP), Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Indoor air / Self-reported survey
The 11 household chemical products in this UK cohort's prenatal composite exposure score were used, in descending order of prevalence, as follows: disinfectant (87%), bleach (85%), aerosols (72%), air fresheners (68%), window cleaner (61%), carpet cleaner (36%), paint or varnish (33%), turpentine/white spirit (23%), pesticides/insect killers (21%), paint stripper (6%) and dry-cleaning fluid (5%).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Descriptive prevalence data, not an effect estimate. The 11 products were selected from an initial list of 15 by keeping only those used by at least 5% of the study sample, so rarer products are excluded from the score.
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
Ordinary indoor ozone reacts with the natural oils on everyone's skin (mainly squalene) to produce a family of carbonyl and dicarbonyl air pollutants — with no fragrance, cleaning product, or air freshener needed. In a simulated two-person office at everyday occupied-room ozone levels (14-18 ppb), two of the compounds (6-MHO and 4-oxopentanal) reached 0.5-2.3 ppb.
Moderate evidence: Single research group; a small 28.5 m3 chamber with only 2 occupants, not a real home; concentrations scale with occupancy and ozone level.
Source: Wisthaler & Weschler 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Link to this fact
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
After adjusting for outdoor PM2.5, season, cooking, cleaning, and smoking, incense-burning events were the largest contributor to indoor PM2.5 among all monitored indoor activities in 32 Hanoi homes, raising the geometric mean of total indoor PM2.5 by 120.3% (versus +71.6% for cooking, +52.2% for smoking, +40.5% for cleaning).
Moderate evidence: Single-city, single-cohort study with no independent replication; percentages are specific to this sample's burn frequency, ventilation, and background air quality.
Source: Tran 2021, Building and Environment Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
In a small case series, removing mothballs and reducing scented cleaning/personal-care products, candles, and stored chemicals cut targeted indoor-air VOC categories by roughly a quarter to over 95% (e.g., naphthalene from mothballs down 96%, p-dichlorobenzene from moth crystals down 56-80%, odorants/fragrances down 26-80%) across three homes, measured by GC/MS air sampling before and after a structured home intervention.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Small, uncontrolled, non-blinded case series with multiple co-occurring intervention elements per home (product substitution, education, counseling, and in one case new chemical storage); cannot isolate the VOC-reduction effect from other changes.
Source: Rincón et al. 2024, Primary Health Care Research & Development Link to this fact
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
Hotel housekeepers' real occupational personal exposure to fragrance terpenes (mainly limonene and alpha-pinene) from direct, repeated contact with cleaning and laundry products averaged just 7.7 µg/m3, even though every cleaning product tested in the study contained terpenes (up to 64 µg/mL in one smoke-removal spray).
Moderate evidence: Occupational, not general-population exposure; short sampling window (6-9h); small sample.
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
In this hotel study, airborne formaldehyde — the single biggest driver of estimated health risk — did not track terpene-fragrance levels or season (terpene-ozone secondary chemistry would be expected to rise with summer ozone), leading the authors to attribute it instead to building materials, furnishings, and the large volume of bedding and towels used in hotels, not to the terpene-containing cleaning and laundry products.
Moderate evidence: Attribution is inferential, not source-tested directly; the authors call for further study to verify formaldehyde sources in hotels.
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
In a 2021 pilot study of 20 real nail salons in the NYC area, toluene (median 7.03 ppb) and d-limonene (median 4.21 ppb) were the two most abundant of 31 volatile organic compounds measured in the air, and the authors attribute the d-limonene to cleaning and disinfection products rather than nail products, since d-limonene is not a nail-product ingredient.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Small convenience sample (n=20), area/micro-environmental air sampling only (not personal exposure), sampled during COVID-19 when cleaning frequency was likely elevated; source attribution to cleaning products is the authors' inference, not measured (no product-ingredient data collected).
Source: Han et al. 2022 Link to this fact
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
Nail salons serving 30 or more customers per day had significantly higher air d-limonene (median 6.18 ppb) than salons serving fewer than 30 customers (median 2.30 ppb, p=0.044), consistent with more frequent cleaning of tables between customers.
Moderate evidence: Single small pilot study; cleaning-product use itself was not directly measured or recorded, only inferred from customer volume and observed cleaning behavior.
Source: Han et al. 2022 Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
Ordinary spray-and-wipe cleaning with quats, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, or a thymol-based botanical disinfectant raised indoor fine-particle (PM2.5) levels by 0.7-14.5 micrograms per cubic meter and total-VOC sensor readings by 10-104 ppbv, measured across a residential bathroom, a university office, two chemistry labs, and a hotel in Canada.
Moderate evidence: Single study, small replicate counts per cleaner/location, and the TVOC sensor is explicitly non-quantitative.
Source: Souza 2025, ACS Earth Space Chem, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
The lowest-ventilation room tested, a residential bathroom with an air change rate under 1 per hour, showed 146-346% higher cleaning-related PM2.5 increases and about 7-fold higher TVOC increases than a university office and lab with 5.9-9.1 air changes per hour, for the same cleaning products.
Moderate evidence: One bathroom, one office, two labs; not a dose-response series across many ACR values.
Source: Souza 2025, ACS Earth Space Chem, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
The particulate matter released during cleaning in this study looked like direct, mechanical spray-bottle emission rather than new particles forming from chemical reactions in the air, consistent across all four very different cleaning chemistries tested.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
No ozone was deliberately added or measured in these experiments, and none of the four products was a terpene-rich scented cleaner, so this does not rule out secondary particle formation under different (ozone-rich, terpene-rich) conditions documented elsewhere.
Source: Souza 2025, ACS Earth Space Chem, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
Bleach cleaning produced a two-humped (bimodal) rise in total VOC readings, a pattern consistent with bleach's chlorine-based oxidants reacting with ordinary indoor VOCs to form new, oxidized compounds, rather than only releasing VOCs directly.
Moderate evidence: The oxidized compounds were not chemically identified in this study; the PID gives only a total, non-specific VOC signal, so this is an inferred mechanism, not a confirmed one.
Source: Souza 2025, ACS Earth Space Chem, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
During real COVID-19 disinfection at a hotel, repeated use of a quats-based disinfectant raised fine-particle levels by 5.5 to 14.2 micrograms per cubic meter in the lobby, elevator, and a public bathroom, exposing cleaning staff to repeated particle bumps throughout a work shift.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
One day of field measurement, one hotel; cleaning protocol there also deviated from the product label (solution left on surfaces rather than wiped off) to reduce staff vapor exposure.
Source: Souza 2025, ACS Earth Space Chem, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
A 2011 Georgetown study that sent test fabrics through seven Northern Virginia dry cleaners found perchloroethylene (PCE) solvent still in polyester, wool, and cotton after one cleaning at all five shops that use PCE, about 10-57 nmol/cm2 depending on fabric and shop.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
One jacket and one cleaning per shop, unpressed swatches sewn into the lining, seven shops in one region; residue measured, not what anyone breathes or absorbs. No industry funding stated.
Source: Sherlach 2011, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
In a lab chamber with a very high ozone level (about 6.5 ppm), all six ordinary perfumes, deodorants and cleaning liquids tested formed new particles; about 0.2% to 17% of the product's evaporated mass became aerosol, with an average near 4%.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
One lab, six products, a closed 0.68 m3 chamber at roughly 100 times typical indoor ozone, very dry air, no vapor wall-loss correction; a yield, not an indoor concentration. NSF and Sloan funded; no industry funding.
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 / 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 / Government agency
Benzophenone is widely used as a UV-curing photoinitiator for inks and varnishes, a fragrance fixative/enhancer and flavoring agent, a UV blocker in plastic packaging, and an additive in coatings, adhesives, laundry and household cleaning products; the US EPA classified it a high-production-volume chemical in 2003, with US annual production exceeding 1 million pounds (453,000 kg).
Moderate evidence: Production/use figures are the Working Group's synthesis of industry and HSDB/NTP secondary sources, not independently verified primary measurement.
Source: IARC 2013 Link to this fact
The industry / Measured in people or real products
All cleaning products tested in this study (laundry detergent, fabric softener, dust/floor/glass cleaners, and a smoke remover) contained detectable VOCs; alkanes (mainly n-tetradecane, 87 µg/mL in the laundry detergent) and terpenes (mainly limonene, up to 64 µg/mL in the smoke-remover spray) were the dominant classes, while chlorine bleach (not itself tested for VOCs but used liberally) was linked to the chloroform and carbon tetrachloride found in laundry-room air.
Moderate evidence: Only 7 products from one hotel were tested; formulations vary by brand and hotel.
The industry / Review of other studies
The 2016 review of clothing-cleaning methods was funded by Australian Wool Innovation, the wool industry's research body, and a coauthor works there; wool is the fiber it says needs more research on wet cleaning.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Funding by a fiber-growers body, not a solvent maker; no competing-interest statement beyond the funding line. This is a disclosure of potential interest, not evidence of bias in any specific finding.
Source: Troynikov 2016, Journal of Environmental Management Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Fewer than half (46.0%) of 63 reviewed fragrance-free policies included any supply-chain or procurement control over the cleaning, laundry, or air-freshening products the institution itself buys, even though named triggers in the companion focus-group study rank cleaning and laundry products alongside or above perfume.
Moderate evidence: Document analysis; does not establish that procurement control would reduce measured exposure, only that most policies do not attempt it.
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
HUD's own Occupancy Handbook (4350.3 REV-1, Exhibit 2-6, June 2007) states that for a HUD-assisted housing resident with chemical sensitivity disorder, it is not an undue financial and administrative burden for the owner to give advance notice before cleaning common areas and to use nonchemical alternative cleaning methods where practical.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Binding operational guidance for HUD-assisted multifamily housing, not a court ruling; applies only to owner-controlled common-area cleaning, not to other tenants' or staff's personal fragrance/scent use, and 'where practical' is left case-by-case.
Source: HUD Occupancy Handbook 4350.3 REV-1, Exhibit 2-6 (2007) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EWG Verified counts fragrance in its VOC limits and does not use California's fragrance exemption (0.25 percent by weight for several cleaner categories from 2031).
Moderate evidence: Program rule, not a measured emission result; compares a voluntary standard with California's regulation.
Source: EWG Verified criteria for cleaning products (10.24), Environmental Working Group, 2024 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In 2012 US law required ingredient labels on food, cosmetics, and drugs but not on household cleaning products, according to EWG.
Moderate evidence: Stated by an advocacy group without citation; the legal position since 2012 has changed in some states, so date the claim.
Source: EWG press release, Sept. 10, 2012, EWG press release (web page) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Suffolk County Local Law 15-2016 required the county health department to build a consumer-facing system categorizing garment-cleaning solvents; US EPA will no longer allow perchloroethylene cleaners to operate in residential buildings after 2020, and New York already requires closed-loop machines.
Moderate evidence: Describes law as the report states it in 2018; later regulatory changes were not checked.
Source: SCDHS 2018 Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
In industry's own comparative testing of 24 household cleaning-product formulations, liquid and powder laundry and dish detergents ranked among the least skin-irritating categories tested, below a standard 20% SDS irritant benchmark (liquid laundry detergent TR50 average 3.48 h; powder laundry and dish detergents >16 h, vs. SDS's 1.81 h).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Irritation (erythema from a single undiluted, fully occluded 4-h exposure), not allergy; single industry-funded study series with no independent replication; authors state results should not be extrapolated to real-use exposure conditions.
Source: Robinson et al. 2005, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Other evidence
Household detergents and cleaners were preserved with MI far more often than cosmetics in two European surveys: 16 of 97 Swedish detergents (16.5%) against 1 of 204 cosmetics, and 30 of 291 Italian cleaning products (10.3%).
Moderate evidence: Secondary summary of ingredient-label surveys from about 2009-2010; counts are small and not recent.
Source: Lundov 2011, British Journal of Dermatology Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Other evidence
US dermatologists' society review: fragrance was the 2007 Allergen of the Year; the industry's RIFM database lists more than 2,800 fragrance ingredients, at least 100 of them known allergens, and fragrance allergens can be hidden in cleaning and cosmetic products, even ones marketed as fragrance free.
Moderate evidence: Narrative review relaying other papers' statements; no original data and no counts of products.
Source: Militello 2020, Dermatologic Clinics Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Other evidence
EWG Verified cleaners must label 26 fragrance allergens on the package at 0.01 percent (0.001 percent for hand dish soap, hand laundry detergent, and leave-on pet products), and post about 57 more on the product website.
Moderate evidence: The on-pack list is the pre-2023 EU 26; current EU cosmetics law requires about 80 on pack. The website list has a one-year phase-in and EWG reserves a transition period.
Source: EWG Verified criteria for cleaning products (10.24), Environmental Working Group, 2024 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
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 / 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.
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
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 / Other evidence
Treat a strong, persistent solvent-type smell (heavy cleaning, fresh paint, new furnishings in a poorly ventilated space) as a plausible trigger for eye, nose, throat, or mild respiratory irritation, and ventilate or leave the area if symptoms appear.
Moderate evidence: The doses tested were far higher than most ventilated homes reach; this advice is about avoiding irritant symptoms, not about a demonstrated injury risk from ordinary indoor air.
Source: Pappas et al. 2000, Int J Occup Environ Health 6:1-8 Link to this fact
What you can do / Review of other studies
Never mix chlorine bleach with ammonia or acidic cleaning products, since this releases chlorine gas or trichloramine, both strong respiratory and eye irritants documented to cause acute lung injury in cleaners and housewives.
Moderate evidence: Drawn from background literature the authors cite (occupational case reports and reviews), not from new data collected in this study.
Source: Nickmilder, Carbonnelle & Bernard 2007, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology Link to this fact
What you can do / Review of other studies
When relying on a workplace, clinic, or school's fragrance-free policy, check whether it (1) defines what's covered beyond perfume, especially cleaning and laundry products, (2) sets a default fragrance-free expectation rather than a complaint-triggered one, (3) controls what cleaning/laundry products the institution buys, and (4) names a real consequence for non-compliance — a 2026 scoping review of 63 such policies found these structural features present in well under half of cases.
Moderate evidence: Based on a gray-literature document review of North American policies; individual policies may vary, and having these features on paper does not guarantee enforcement.
What you can do / Government agency
A resident of HUD-assisted housing with a documented chemical sensitivity can cite this HUD exhibit directly when requesting advance notice before common-area cleaning and nonchemical cleaning products where practical, since HUD's own guidance names these as accommodations that are not an undue burden.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Applies specifically to HUD-assisted (Section 504-covered) multifamily housing; the same specific accommodations are not guaranteed at privately owned housing covered only by the Fair Housing Act, where the undue-burden analysis is done case by case.
Source: HUD Occupancy Handbook 4350.3 REV-1, Exhibit 2-6 (2007) Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
Hairdressers, salon workers, and professional or domestic cleaners can reduce workplace asthma risk with ventilation, gloves, and lower-irritancy products or application methods where available, since this population-based cohort found both hairdressing and cleaning occupations, and reactive cleaning/disinfecting chemical exposure specifically, associated with higher adult-asthma risk.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The study cannot identify which specific chemicals within 'hairdressing' or 'cleaning/disinfecting' exposure are responsible, so this is general occupational-hygiene advice, not a product-specific recommendation.
What you can do / Other evidence
Ventilating a bathroom or other small room during and right after cleaning (opening a window, running an exhaust fan) is likely to cut both the particle and VOC bump from cleaning, since the single biggest difference between a low-impact room and a high-impact room in this study was air change rate, not which cleaner was used.
Moderate evidence: Based on one study's four rooms, not a controlled ventilation experiment within one room; advice is directionally supported, not quantified for a specific home.
Source: Souza 2025, ACS Earth Space Chem, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
When only cleaning (not disinfecting a specific pathogen), wiping up a quats disinfectant promptly rather than letting it sit for several minutes keeps both PM2.5 and TVOC much lower; leaving it the full label-specified 10-minute disinfection dwell time in a bathroom raised PM2.5 by 68% and TVOC about 8-fold compared with a 2-3 minute wipe-off.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Single bathroom, small N (1-5 per condition); a shorter dwell time may not achieve the disinfection the label is written for, so this is a cleaning-vs-disinfecting tradeoff, not a free upgrade.
Source: Souza 2025, ACS Earth Space Chem, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry Link to this fact
What you can do / Review of other studies
Most dry-cleaning alternatives to perc are not proven safer: a 2016 review found the long-term health effects of hydrocarbon solvents 'not well understood', flagged siloxane D5 (GreenEarth) as bioaccumulative, and listed chronic effects for hydrocarbons and liquid CO2 as 'unknown'.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Secondary review funded by Australian Wool Innovation (wool industry body); 'systematic' is a self-label with no study counts or appraisal; relies on agency, trade and manufacturer sources. 'Unknown' means not studied, not shown harmful; much of the hazard data comes from agency and manufacturer documents.
Source: Troynikov 2016, Journal of Environmental Management Industry-funded Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
EWG Verified bans quaternary ammonium compounds, formaldehyde releasers, isothiazolinones, phthalates, PFAS, boron compounds, and nitro- and polycyclic musks (galaxolide) in licensed cleaners.
Moderate evidence: EWG's own list drawn from other bodies' hazard lists; it shows what the label excludes, not that the remaining ingredients are harmless.
Source: EWG Verified criteria for cleaning products (10.24), Environmental Working Group, 2024 Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
OSHA recommends scheduling cleaning or maintenance work when other occupants are absent and limiting the amount and location of chemicals used near workers.
Moderate evidence: Advisory administrative controls; no evidence of effectiveness given.
Source: OSHA 3430-04, 2011 Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.