University of Washington

For Immediate Release

Oct. 26, 2010

The sweet smell of fresh laundry may contain a sour note. Widely used fragranced products – including those that claim to be “green” – give off many chemicals that are not listed on the label, including some that are classified as toxic.

A study led by the University of Washington discovered that 25 commonly used scented products emit an average of 17 chemicals each. Of the 133 different chemicals detected, nearly a quarter are classified as toxic or hazardous under at least one federal law. Only one emitted compound was listed on a product label, and only two were publicly disclosed anywhere. The article is published online today in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review.

“We analyzed best-selling products, and about half of them made some claim about being green, organic, or natural,” said lead author Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “Surprisingly, the green products’ emissions of hazardous chemicals were not significantly different from the other products.”

More than a third of the products emitted at least one chemical classified as a probable carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and for which the EPA sets no safe exposure level.

Manufacturers are not required to disclose any ingredients in cleaning supplies, air fresheners or laundry products, all of which are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Neither these nor personal care products, which are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, are required to list ingredients used in fragrances, even though a single “fragrance” in a product can be a mixture of up to several hundred ingredients, Steinemann said.

So Steinemann and colleagues have used chemical sleuthing to discover what is emitted by the scented products commonly used in homes, public spaces and workplaces. The study analyzed air fresheners including sprays, solids and oils; laundry products including detergents, fabric softeners and dryer sheets; personal care products such as soaps, hand sanitizers, lotions, deodorant and shampoos; and cleaning products including disinfectants, all-purpose sprays and dish detergent. All were widely used brands, with more than half being the top-selling product in its category.

Researchers placed a sample of each product in a closed glass container at room temperature and then analyzed the surrounding air for volatile organic compounds, small molecules that evaporate off a product’s surface. They detected chemical concentrations ranging from 100 micrograms per cubic meter (the minimum value reported) to more than 1.6 million micrograms per cubic meter.

The most common emissions included limonene, a compound with a citrus scent; alphapinene and beta-pinene, compounds with a pine scent; ethanol; and acetone, a solvent found in nail polish remover. All products emitted at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous.

Eleven products emitted at least one probable carcinogen according to the EPA. These included acetaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, formaldehyde and methylene chloride. The only chemical listed on any product label was ethanol, and the only additional substance listed on a chemical safety report, known as a material safety data sheet, was 2-butoxyethanol.

“The products emitted more than 420 chemicals, collectively, but virtually none of them were disclosed to consumers, anywhere,” Steinemann said. Because product formulations are confidential, it was not possible to determine whether a chemical came from the product base, the fragrance added to the product, or both.

Tables included with the article list all chemicals emitted by each product and the associated concentrations, although do not disclose the products’ brand names. “We don’t want to give people the impression that if we reported on product ‘A’ and they buy product ‘B,’ that they’re safe,” Steinemann said. “We found potentially hazardous chemicals in all of the fragranced products we tested.”

The study establishes the presence of various chemicals but makes no claims about the possible health effects. Two national surveys published by Steinemann and a colleague in 2009 found that about 20 percent of the population reported adverse health effects from air fresheners, and about 10 percent complained of adverse effects from laundry products vented to the outdoors. Among asthmatics, such complaints were roughly twice as common.

The Household Product Labeling Act, currently being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, would require manufacturers to list ingredients in air fresheners, soaps, laundry supplies and other consumer products. Steinemann says she is interested in fragrance mixtures, which are included in the proposed labeling act, because of the potential for unwanted exposure, or what she calls “secondhand scents.”

As for what consumers who want to avoid such chemicals should do in the meantime, Steinemann suggests using simpler options such as cleaning with vinegar and baking soda, opening windows for ventilation, and using products without any fragrance.

“In the past two years, I’ve received more than 1,000 e-mails, messages, and telephone calls from people saying: ‘Thank you for doing this research, these products are making me sick, and now I can start to understand why,’” Steinemann said.

-

Steinemann is currently a visiting professor in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. Co-authors are Ian MacGregor and Sydney Gordon at Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio; Lisa Gallagher, Amy Davis and Daniel Ribeiro at the UW; and Lance Wallace, retired from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The research was partially funded by Seattle Public Utilities.

–

Reference:

University of Washington, Hannah Hickey, Release: Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals,Oct. 26, 2010

• More information on the project
• More information on volatile organic compounds is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Library of Medicine

Related Articles:

• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Secret Chemicals Revaledin Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays
• Phthalate Concentrations and the use of Personal Care Products among Pregnant Women
• New Discovery on the Causes of Contact Allergy

On November 2009 I was interviewed on Carne Cruda, Spanish radio program, to talk about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and one of the listeners of the program, the videographer Víctor Moreno, was so impressed that he quickly contacted me to say that he wanted to make a short film about MCS to help us to raise awareness of this terrible disease and he asked my opinion and if I wanted to collaborate with them. Obviously I told him that they could count on me for what they wanted.

On March they began filming “The birds of the mine”, the first short film about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Spain, and now we can finally present the trailer and announce that its debut will be next December. When this project began, I had the honor of reading the script, because they wanted my opinion, and then I saw some scenes of the shoot and I can assure you that is very, very impressive, as you can deduce from the trailer.

Autor: Eva Caballé, No Fun, Oct. 25, 2010

Related Articles:

• A Book about Chemical Sensitivity will become a Radio Series in the near Future
• Interview with Eva Caballé about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and about her book
• How to become a an MCS Activist in less than 365 days? Have a look to Spain!
• The naked truth about MCS – Multiple Chemical Sensitivity – Including Forewordabout German Situation

Do you remember, around the middle of 2010 when the parents of a young Spanish woman, Elvira Roda, who suffers from severe chemical sensitivity (MCS), asked for help? Do you recall that Elvira was living in a specially prepared, very expensive, pollution-free house where the city applied pesticides?

EMM Blog: Cry for Help – Young Woman in Danger

This seriously ill woman collapsed from the nerve agents, which were sprayed and resulted in putting her into a critical condition. For days she was in the worst health state possible and had to sit in a lawn chair by the sea. The parents tried to stop the city leaders from this application of pesticides, neurotoxic organophos- phates, but it was in vain.

A petition for Elvira, was released worldwide on many MCS blogs and by organizations. People from different countries signed, asking the city officials to refrain from spraying pesticides outside the home of this young woman.

Elvira’s life is in danger again

A day ago the parents of Elvira again asked for help because the city of Alboraya has now begun to spray a herbicide.

Please read her parent’s letter below and support by signing the petition for Elvira.

For Elvira’s sake:

Thanks to everyone who supported Elvira Roda by signing the petition to the Alboraya City Council in Valencia , Spain and asking them not to use chemicals that are harmful to humans and the environment, but instead requesting them to find healthier alternatives.

Our family has tried everything possible to prevent further spraying, but unfortunately today on October 5th, the Alboraya City Council will begin using new fumigation using Plus Roundup (glyphosate), and other environmentally harmful chemicals.

We have requested them to use environmentally friendly, natural alternatives, and asked the city council to inform the public prior to the spraying, but both requests were unsuccessful. We therefore believe it necessary for the health of all, to continue to collect signatures on the petition. We need you. With these efforts, we will certainly succeed.

Please help Elvira Roda! Tomorrow it could be one of you, who needs the help of us all.

For more information regarding Elvira’s situation, please see:

Support for Elvira Roda

To sign the petition, go to >>> Petition to Elvira Roda (sign at the bottom)

Thank you for your support!