Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 485–491 | Cite as

Exposures and effects from fragranced consumer products in Sweden

  • Anne SteinemannEmail author


Fragranced consumer products—such as cleaning supplies, perfume, and air fresheners—have been associated with indoor air pollutants and adverse human health effects. Through a nationally representative population-based survey, this study investigates sources and risks associated with exposure to fragranced consumer products in Sweden. It examines the frequency and types of fragranced product use, associated health effects, exposure situations, knowledge of product emissions, and preferences for fragrance-free policies and indoor environments. Data were collected in July 2017 using an online survey of adults (n = 1100), representative of age, gender, and region in Sweden. Across the Swedish population, 33.1% report health problems, such as respiratory difficulties (20.0%), migraine headaches (16.1%), and asthma attacks (5.5%), when exposed to fragranced products. Of these reports, 24.2% could be considered potentially disabling. While 98.5% use fragranced products at least once a week, 70.9% were unaware that fragranced products, even ones called green and organic, can emit potentially hazardous air pollutants. Importantly, 6.7% of the population lost workdays or a job, in the past year, due to exposure to fragranced products in the workplace. Also, 18.1% enter and then leave a business as quickly as possible due to air fresheners or a fragranced product. A strong majority of the population would prefer that workplaces, health care facilities and professionals, airplanes, and hotels were fragrance-free rather than fragranced. Results from this study provide new and important evidence that exposure to fragranced consumer products is pervasive in Sweden, that these exposures are associated with adverse health and societal effects, and that reducing exposures such as through fragrance-free policies can provide benefits to air quality and public health.


Fragranced consumer product Fragrance Fragrance-free policy Indoor air quality 



I thank Amy Davis for her valuable assistance. I also thank the staff of Survey Sampling International for their superb work. I declare that I have no actual or potential competing financial interests.

Supplementary material

11869_2018_565_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (71 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 70 kb)
11869_2018_565_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (208 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 208 kb)
11869_2018_565_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (2.2 mb)
ESM 3 (PDF 2273 kb)


  1. (DA) Discrimination Act (Diskrimineringslagen 2008:567), Section 5:4. Definition of disability, Section 5:4.
  2. (EC) European Commission (2009). Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on Cosmetic ProductsGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson L, Johansson A, Millqvist E, Nordin S, Bende M (2008) Prevalence and risk factors for chemical sensitivity and sensory hyperreactivity in teenagers. Int J Hyg Environ Health 211(5–6):690–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caress SM, Steinemann AC (2009) Prevalence of fragrance sensitivity in the American population. J Environ Health 71(7):46–50Google Scholar
  5. Carslaw N (2013) A mechanistic study of limonene oxidation products and pathways following cleaning activities. Atmos Environ 80:507–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elberling J, Linneberg A, Dirksen A, Johansen JD, Frølund L, Madsen F, Nielsen NH, Mosbech H (2005) Mucosal symptoms elicited by fragrance products in a population-based sample in relation to atopy and bronchial hyper-reactivity. Clin Exp Allergy 35(1):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6(3):e34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johansen JD (2003) Fragrance contact allergy: a clinical review. Am J Clin Dermatol 4(11):789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johansson Å, Brämerson A, Millqvist E, Nordin S, Bende M (2005) Prevalence and risk factors for self-reported odour intolerance: the Skövde population-based study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 78:559–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelman L (2004) Osmophobia and taste abnormality in migraineurs: a tertiary care study. Headache 44(10):1019–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lunny S, Nelson R, Steinemann A (2017) Something in the air but not on the label: a call for increased regulatory ingredient disclosure for fragranced consumer products. Univ NSW Law J 40(4):1366–1391Google Scholar
  12. Matura M, Sköld M, Börje A, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Frosch P, Goossens A, Johansen JD, Svedman C, White IR, Karlberg AT (2005) Selected oxidized fragrance terpenes are common contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 52(6):320–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Millqvist E, Löwhagen O (1996) Placebo-controlled challenges with perfume in patients with asthma-like symptoms. Allergy 51(6):434–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nazaroff WW, Weschler CJ (2004) Cleaning products and air fresheners: exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants. Atmos Environ 38(18):2841–2865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Palmquist E, Claeson AS, Neely G, Stenberg B, Nordin S (2014) Overlap in prevalence between various types of environmental intolerance. Int J Hyg Environ Health 217(4–5):427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Bossi R (2007) Selected important fragrance sensitizers in perfumes—current exposures. Contact Dermatitis 56(4):201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. SSI (Survey Sampling International) 2018 Dynamix sampling approach. Available from: (Accessed 22 Feb 2018)
  18. Steinemann AC (2009) Fragranced consumer products and undisclosed ingredients. Environmental Impact Assess Review 29(1):32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steinemann A (2015) Volatile emissions from common consumer products. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 8(3):273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Steinemann A (2016) Fragranced consumer products: exposures and effects from emissions. Air Qual Atmos Health 9(8):861–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steinemann A (2017) Health and societal effects from fragranced consumer products. Preventive Medicine Reports 5:45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinemann A (2018). Fragranced consumer products: sources of emissions, exposures, and health effects in the United Kingdom. Air Quality, Atmosphere, and Health (in press)Google Scholar
  23. Steinemann AC, MacGregor IC, Gordon SM, Gallagher LG, Davis AL, Ribeiro DS, Wallace LA (2011) Fragranced consumer products: chemicals emitted, ingredients unlisted. Environ Impact Assess Rev 31(3):328–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uhde E, Schulz N (2015) Impact of room fragrance products on indoor air quality. Atmos Environ 106:492–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weinberg JL, Flattery J, Harrison R (2017) Fragrances and work-related asthma–California surveillance data, 1993–2012. J Asthma 54(10):1041–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Melbourne School of EngineeringThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.College of Science, Technology and EngineeringJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Climate, Atmospheric Sciences, and Physical Oceanography, Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations