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
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).
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 / Review of other studies
Children exposed to household chemical/cleaning products before birth or in their first year wheeze more often, now replicated in four independent prospective birth cohorts. The founding ALSPAC cohort (UK, n=7,019, Sherriff et al. 2005) found that an 11-product, frequency-weighted prenatal household chemical (TCB) score was significantly associated with persistent wheeze through 3.5 years (adjusted OR 1.06 per unit increase; top-vs-bottom-decile adjusted OR 2.3), but not with transient early or late-onset wheeze; this is the same ALSPAC cohort and composite-score methodology that both Casas 2013 and Mikeš 2019 name as their model. 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 four cohorts are observational and use self-reported product-use frequency, not measured indoor air chemistry. The ALSPAC/Sherriff 2005 and ELSPAC-CZ signals are specific to persistent-type wheeze phenotypes, not wheeze in general; ALSPAC found no association with transient early or late-onset wheeze. 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; ALSPAC/Sherriff 2005 did not assess atopy or asthma at all. Casas 2013 is the only cohort among the three post-2010 cohorts with genuinely prenatal (rather than early-postnatal) exposure measurement, but ALSPAC/Sherriff 2005 is also prenatal and its composite score behaved like CHILD's and ELSPAC-CZ's (significant), not like Casas's (null) — evidence against prenatal timing per se explaining the Casas null. Casas 2013's own summed cleaning-product-count score was NOT a significant predictor, unlike ALSPAC's, CHILD's, and ELSPAC-CZ's frequency-weighted composite scores — an open methodological tension (register entry C262) that means 'more products used' is not yet a uniformly replicated exposure metric across all cohorts, even though several specific products (sprays consistently, plus solvents and air fresheners) are.
Source: Salonen 2024, Environment International Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.