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.
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.
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 / Measured in people or real products
The protective association between bleach cleaning and reduced allergy/asthma risk was abolished in households with parental smoking; in that subgroup, bleach use was instead linked to a higher rate of recurrent bronchitis (adjusted OR for the smoking-by-bleach interaction, 2.03, 95% CI 1.12-3.66).
Moderate evidence: Subgroup/interaction analysis from a single cross-sectional study; the recurrent-bronchitis outcome is parent-reported, not medically confirmed.
Source: Nickmilder, Carbonnelle & Bernard 2007, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology Link to this fact
Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey
In a Dutch birth cohort of 2,333 adolescents (age 14), a composite score for household use of 10 types of cleaning agents was not associated with asthma, rhinitis, or eczema, even at the highest exposure quartile: adjusted OR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.56, 1.63) for asthma, 1.23 (0.83, 1.82) for rhinitis, and 0.95 (0.56, 1.63) for eczema, comparing highest to never/seldom use.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Cross-sectional, single cohort, parent-reported exposure and outcomes; adolescents are not the ones doing the cleaning, so this speaks to a low-exposure life stage rather than ruling out effects at higher exposure (e.g. prenatal/infancy).
Source: Bukalasa et al. 2019, Environment International Link to this fact
Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey
A sensitivity analysis restricted to the 988 adolescents (42% of the cohort) reported to be sometimes or mostly present at home during cleaning activities again found no association between the composite cleaning-agent-use score and asthma, rhinitis, or eczema, confirming the main null result.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Smaller subsample (n≈988) with wider confidence intervals; one rhinitis point estimate for the low-exposure category rose to adjusted OR 2.14 (95% CI 1.04, 4.41) without a dose-response pattern across categories, which the authors do not treat as a real effect.
Source: Bukalasa et al. 2019, Environment International Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.