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.

18 facts match “oxidized”

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

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

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

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 / 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

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 / 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

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

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 / 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

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 / 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

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

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

Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.