
Is it healthier to use household cleaning products – or not?
Our use of cleaning products has increased significantly since Covid-19. But some of the products we're using to clean our homes come with their own health risks.
Humans have been cleaning with chemical agents for around 5,000 years. Ancient Romans' version of the professional cleaner was the "urine scrubber", after it was discovered that urine could be used to clean fabrics. Thankfully, we've come a long way since then.
More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has changed our everyday hygiene habits, with many people becoming more conscious of potential pathogens in the home.
Our use of cleaning products increased substantially during the pandemic, according to a Finnish study. Scientists found that, during this period, people cleaned 70% more often, and the amount of cleaning products they used increased by 75%.
Household cleaning products, including antibacterial spays, promise to kill most of the harmful bacteria in our toilets, on our kitchen surfaces and elsewhere around our homes.
But there's a growing body of scientific evidence showing that they can also increase our exposure to various harmful chemical air contaminants and particulate matter.
What are the risks involved with cleaning our homes regularly – and should we be worried about the products we're using?
Using household cleaning products is one of the "modifiable risk factors" of asthma, says Emilie Pacheco Da Silva, postdoctoral researcher at Inserm, the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, where she specialises in the asthma effects of disinfectants and cleaning products.
This means it's a behaviour that can be changed to lower the risk of developing the condition and experiencing symptoms.
Scientists, who in 2024 analysed 77 studies looking into the health effects of household cleaning products, concluded that they can have a harmful effect on respiratory health. In particular, cleaning products applied in spray form are suggested to have more harmful effects on the respiratory system than liquids and wipes.
The scientists found that regular use of cleaning sprays increases the risk of developing asthma, triggering current asthma, and poorly controlled asthma in adults, and wheezing in children.
Specifically, using sprays between four and seven times a week has been associated with an increased risk of asthma in young adults, and there is some evidence that symptoms worsen with increased use. Researchers say sprays are worse than other types of cleaning products because the chemicals become airborne and therefore it is easier for us to inhale larger amounts.
Some studies the researchers looked at also found a link between exposure to cleaning products during pregnancy and persistent wheezing in early childhood. These products can pose an even greater risk to children, they add, who breathe faster than adults.
One reason for this is because using cleaning products produces volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can cause ear, nose and throat irritation.
"There's enough evidence to know that cleaning products are harmful to some people, particularly if they use them a lot. What's harder is which specific chemicals cause damage," says Nicola Carslaw, professor of indoor air chemistry at the University of York in the UK.
However, there's some evidence suggesting that there's more risk associated with certain chemicals, including chlorine, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, chloramine and sodium hydroxide, as these are corrosive and reactive irritants that, when inhaled, may damage tissues at a cellular level.
What about natural and 'green' cleaning products?
In recent years, there has been a rise in demand for 'natural' household cleaning products, which don't include any synthetic chemicals, and those that purport to be better for the environment.
Researchers concluded in their 2024 review that "green products", which contain only biodegradable ingredients, seem to be less harmful than conventional ones, though they say further research is needed to examine their impact on respiratory health.
When Pacheco Da Silva realised there were no population studies looking at the impact of "green" and homemade products on respiratory health, she analysed data from more than 40,000 people, and asked them about their respiratory health and use of household cleaning products over the previous 12 months.
She expected the data to show that using household wipes containing disinfectant on a weekly basis would have a harmful effect on asthma, and the use of green and homemade sprays and wipes would be less harmful. She initially saw that weekly use of products in all three categories were associated with asthma.
However, when Pacheco Da Silva studied the weekly use of individual product categories while also taking into account people's weekly use of irritants or sprays, the association with asthma disappeared for products branded as "green" and homemade products, whereas the use of wipes remained significantly linked with asthma.
The study indicates that "the household use of green and homemade products could be less harmful to asthma, but that the use of wipes could be deleterious," says Pacheco Da Silva.
However, she says, there's no standard definition for "green" cleaning products, which may skew the study's findings. Indeed, it is a term commonly misused in marketing slogans (read Isabelle Gerretsen's story on why terms like "green" don't always mean what you think). Carslaw adds that "green" cleaning sprays aren't necessarily any better for us, though, because our bodies don't know the difference between natural and manmade ingredients.
Sprays are worse than other types of cleaning products because the chemicals become airborne
In one study, Carslaw looked at the chemical reactions that happen when using cleaning products containing natural ingredients. She found that they often contain as many aroma chemicals as regular cleaning products.
"With a lemon-scented cleaning product, for example, it doesn't matter if the scent is lemon or factory-made, it's the same compound when it's released into the air," she says.
This compound in lemon is limonene, and when it undergoes chemical reactions, it can produce formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.
Some people choose to use homemade cleaning products on the assumption that they're healthier. But while there's some general ideas around what these ingredients can be – water, citric acid, salt, baking soda – there's no official recipe, and there's a lack of information around how active ingredients should safely be used, scientists say.
There are also concerns among scientists that extensive use of antibacterial cleaning products is contributing to antibiotic resistance, the process whereby bacteria develop defences against antibiotics, which lessens their effectiveness against some infections.
Some studies show that using certain antibacterial products can cause a cross reaction with certain antibiotics, which means you might get a resistance to those antibiotics, which hinders their effectiveness, says Elaine Larson, professor of epidemiology at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in the US.
"Eventually we may theoretically reduce the ability of the immune function to respond to an encounter with organisms," Larson says.
This can be explained by the hygiene hypothesis, Larson adds, which argues that the more bacteria, viruses and other microbes children are exposed to at an early age, the better their immune system develops. However, in recent years, there has been some disagreement from scientists about the accuracy of this theory.
Larson has spent her career dedicated to studying antibacterial resistance, and, in 2007, she carried out a study to address her growing concerns regarding humans' exposure to antimicrobial soaps and household cleaning products.
Larson wanted to see if there was any health benefit when it came to using products labelled as antibacterial. She gave 238 families living in Manhattan products like a kitchen spray and hard-surface cleaner (either antibacterial, or that didn't contain antibacterial ingredients) at random – all commercially available, but with the labels removed. Larson then monitored the participants every week for almost a year and took note of any respiratory viral symptoms they reported (flus, colds, coughs and runny noses).
At the end of the study, Larson found no difference in respiratory symptoms between the two groups of participants. Ultimately, it didn't seem to matter whether their laundry, bathing and hard-surface cleaners contained antibacterial ingredients or not.
"This was pretty good evidence that the most important thing is the friction [between the surface and cloth, caused by the action of cleaning], and it doesn't matter so much whether a product [contains something] labelled anti-bacterial," she says. Other studies have found that showering and bathing with nonantibacterial soap increases how much skin bacteria is dispersed into the air around us – and Larson is suggesting a similar mechanism may happen when we clean our homes.
Our own 'elbow grease' is at least as effective as the cleaning product we choose
And the US Food and Drug Administration advises that it's the motion of handwashing that's most effective, and that there is no conclusive body of research showing that antibacterial soap is any more effective that soap and water.
However, Larson concludes in the study that the types of infections most likely to be influenced by household cleaning, such as gastrointestinal disease, may be bacterial in origin – and the products selected in the study didn't claim to have anti-viral properties.
The reason for this, Larson says, is that antibacterial products don't always deter viruses, which can be airborne and are often the cause of respiratory infections. "Things on the outside of our bodies are much less likely to cause contamination than breathing in the flu, so antibacterial products aren't affecting the transmission dynamic," she says.
However, Larson adds, antibacterial products may help with gastrointestinal or bacterial infections, like salmonella, by killing or inhibiting the growth of harmful bacteria. She writes in her paper, though, that any potential benefit of using antibacterial cleaning products must be weighed against a theoretical risk for antibiotic resistance. A University of Sheffield study found that "gentle" cleansers – those without antibacterial ingredients – can kill "enveloped" viruses (viruses with an outer layer) including coronavirus.
So how should we clean our homes?
Scientists don't know the exact mechanisms behind the links between household cleaning products and our health, but the general advice is to minimise our exposure to them, Carslaw says, and only use them as often as we need to.
The American Lung Association, for example, advises keeping the area well ventilated, and to avoid using irritant ingredients.
"No one would suggest you stop cleaning, because it's had a massive impact on reducing the amount of diseases we used to get 50 years ago," Carslaw says.
However, we should always ensure there's good ventilation in the room we're cleaning, such as an open window, Carslaw adds.
Another way to lower the risk to our health, she says, is to use liquid cleaners rather than sprays.
"Sprays are effective at converting chemicals in a product into aerosols, which are easier to breathe," she says. "With liquid products, you don't get the same dose."
Carslaw also advises cutting down on cleaners that have lots of added fragrances, as this generally increases the likelihood of them containing products that will irritate our airways.
The consensus is that it's definitely safer to clean our homes than it is to not clean them at all. And with the research indicating that "green" or "natural" products may also pose certain risks, perhaps we should bear in mind that our own "elbow grease" is at least as effective as the cleaning products we choose – since the friction caused when we wipe surfaces helps to lift the bacteria off.
--
If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter – a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week.
For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Jodi Picoult fumes as Hollywood drops her film over 'radioactive' theme
Beloved author Jodi Picoult launched a scorched earth tirade against Hollywood elites for 'bending the knee' and refusing to create movies that could upset President Trump. The bestselling author of My Sister's Keeper slapped down an 'unnamed streaming service' in a video shared to TikTok after plans to create a movie from her 2021 novel were suddenly abandoned. 'Today I found out after four years they have decided to cancel the project because "with the new regime they don't want to do a storyline around Covid,"' she said on Friday. While Picoult did not explicitly name the streaming service, it is widely known that Netflix acquired the rights to her Covid-era tome Wish You Were Here back. The book centers around a NYC woman in her late-20s woman whose life is upended by the arrival of the pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns. Picoult was responding to a question on TikTok about why more of her books haven't been turned into movies. 'This is what I mean when I say even places that are considered to be very liberal, like Hollywood, are terrified of the Trump administration,' she said. 'They think there is going to be backlash if they don't bend the knee.' Trump has used hardball negotiating tactics during his second term to force CEOs and industries into making dramatic concessions. He even slapped extraordinary tariffs on some of America's closest allies. But in a display of fondness for his favorite films, Trump has tried to remake Hollywood in his own image while railing against the cinema hub for its 'wokeness.' He threatened to impose a 100 percent tariff on foreign-made films in an effort to bring productions back to Hollywood, warning: 'The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death.' Trump also appointed several Ambassadors to Hollywood - right-leaning celebrities who endorsed him during his campaign, including Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone. But Picoult argues Trump's involvement has softened the industry, which once proudly opposed to the former reality TV star, and made executives and bigwigs more risk-averse. To make matters worse for Picoult, members of the Trump administration have been openly critical of the handling of the Covid pandemic in the United States. Trump himself has promoted a popular theory that the virus began in a lab in Wuhan, China. The book centers around a late-20s woman living in New York City whose life is upended by the arrival of the Covid pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns Most recently, his administration limited approval for annual Covid booster shots to only seniors and others at high risk of falling ill with the virus. 'I guess that means I better go out and write a book about an anti-vaxxer who is married to someone who thinks Ukraine started the war against itself, and they have a baby who drinks raw milk,' Picoult said. 'You'll want to make that, right Hollywood?' Picoult's criticism marks the latest in a string of accusations that Hollywood has been tip-toeing on egg shells around angering Trump during this administration. Oscar-nominated film The Apprentice, based on Trump's early years as an up-and-coming businessman, struggled to secure a streaming deal after Trump criticized the film. 'It's hard to be creative when you're afraid,' Tom Nunan, from the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television, told the Los Angeles Times. 'I don't think that people have really figured out what to do yet, how to express themselves or what's going to be the most effective.' Picoult was inundated with support from fans who were concerned Netflix would have butchered the adaption and were upset with how Hollywood changed the ending of her last work for the screen. 'After they ruined My Sister's Keeper, I'll stick to just reading them,' one supportive fan wrote. In the comments section of her post, Picoult was asked about another book she wrote, Sing You Home, which followed the story of a woman who wanted to use frozen embryos she created with her ex-husband with her new wife. The rights to the movie were acquired by Ellen DeGeneres back in 2011. A fan asked: 'What ever happened to that?' Picoult responded with a shocking take against Ellen, writing: 'There is not enough alcohol in the world to tell that story.'


North Wales Chronicle
7 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Staff 'caught COVID-19' while working at factory on Anglesey
Mark Edwards, Glynne Roberts, Nia Williams and Brian Perry, who worked as food processing operatives for 2 Sisters Food Group, are bringing claims against the company for damages for injuries and losses following development of symptoms of the virus in mid-2020. 2 Sisters Food Group shut its Llangefni factory in 2023. A previous court hearing found in 2 Sisters' favour, but at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre in April, Judge Sir Peter Lane allowed an appeal of this ruling from all four ex-employees. In July 2024, Judge Wendy Owen concluded that the ex-employees would face a 'nigh-on impossible task' in establishing a causal link between a breach of duty from 2 Sisters and their contracting of COVID-19. They say they were working 'shoulder to shoulder' when, in June 2020, there was an outbreak of COVID-19 at the Llangefni factory, and that the site was then closed at the direction of Public Health Wales. As far as they are aware, 217 of the 560 staff at the factory contracted COVID-19 during the course of the outbreak, including all four of them. 2 Sisters admits they worked in close proximity with each other but contests the 'shoulder to shoulder' claim, and refutes the suggestion that the factory's closure was directed by Public Health Wales. In his written reasons, published on Wednesday (May 28), Judge Lane wrote: 'The causation issue stands front and centre of this case. The scenario posited by the appellants was not a fanciful one. 'What is potentially relevant to the present claims is, however, the prevalence of COVID-19, certainly in the area containing the factory and perhaps further afield, depending on the places of residence of the appellants.' Judge Lane added that if evidence were to show, for example, relatively low levels of COVID-19 on Anglesey in June 2020, then 'it is plainly not fanciful for the appellants to be able to show, on the balance of probabilities, that their illness would not have been sustained but for the respondent's breach of duty'. Though he allowed their appeals, he said they 'face an uphill task' in proving their cases.


Daily Mirror
9 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
New Covid variant 'under monitoring' after spike in cases and hospitalisations
First identified in January, NB. 1.8.1 is spreading quickly across multiple countries, leading to an increase in cases and hospitalisations, the World Health Organisation said A new coronavirus variant has been labelled as "under monitoring" by the World Health Organisation following a spike in cases and hospitalisations. First identified on January 22 2025, NB. 1.8.1 is a derivative of the Omicron strain. The variant is causing concern among health experts after being identified in multiple countries including popular holiday destinations like Egypt, Thailand and the Maldives. The WHO has warned that the new strain is now responsible for more than 10 per cent of all infections and is already the dominant strain in Hong Kong and China. The Centre of Disease Control (CDC) in the US has also identified cases in a number of states including New York, California, Arizona, Ohio, Washington, and Rhode Island. Despite saying that the variant is currently being monitored, WHO said in their report that the current risk to the public is deemed to be low - and currently approved vaccines are expected to "remain effective to this variant against symptomatic and severe disease." WHO said that despite an increase in cases and hospitalisations, currently there is no indication that this variant leads to more severe illness than other variants in circulation. Even though NB.1.8.1 has been found in popular holiday destinations, the WHO says there is no need for travel or trade restrictions at this time, Wales Online reports. The organisation urges countries to stay alert and adjust their responses as needed, but does not recommend closing borders or limiting travel. The official report states: "WHO recommends that countries remain vigilant, adapt to evolving epidemiological trends, and leverage Covid-19 management strategies to strengthen systems for all respiratory disease threats. Member States should continue offering Covid-19 vaccines in line with WHO recommendations." Health experts at the CDC say that symptoms may vary in accordance with the variant, however they will likely be similar to the typical symptoms of Covid-19. These include fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, new loss of taste or smell, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, nausea or vomiting, diarrhoea. This week, Lara Herrero Associate Professor and Research Leader in Virology and Infectious Disease at Griffith University, said that thanks to multiple mutations, the new strain "may infect cells more efficiently than earlier strains." Professor Herrero explained: "It's possible a person infected with NB.1.8.1 may be more likely to pass the virus on to someone else, compared to earlier variants. The evidence so far suggests NB.1.8.1 may spread more easily and may partially sidestep immunity from prior infections or vaccination. These factors could explain its rise in sequencing data. "But importantly, the WHO has not yet observed any evidence it causes more severe disease compared to other variants. Reports suggest symptoms of NB.1.8.1 should align closely with other Omicron subvariants. Common symptoms include sore throat, fatigue, fever, mild cough, muscle aches and nasal congestion. Gastrointestinal symptoms may also occur in some cases." The WHO report reads: "SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, and between January and May 2025, there were shifts in global SARS-CoV-2 variant dynamics. At the beginning of the year, the most prevalent variant tracked by WHO at the global level was XEC, followed by KP.3.1.1. In February, circulation of XEC began to decline while that of LP.8.1 increased, with the latter becoming the most detected variant in mid-March. Since mid-April, the circulation of LP.8.1 has been slightly declining as NB.1.8.1 is increasingly being detected."