Talk:Air freshener

Health Effects

Most persons with Multiple chemical sensitivity experience distress and adverse health effects when exposed to air fresheners. Usually the solvents and other components in the formulation of these products, common solvent is ethanol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.163.210 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting Air Freshener off of clothes

Air freshener is designed to coat the air and to coat anything that comes in contact with the air - ie clothes turning said clothes into huffing rags. There must be an easy way to get the stuff off of clothes. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.75.185 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"naturally"

Current version states "Simple cleaners such as white vinegar and baking soda are effective at removing odors naturally." I dislike this formulation. What does 'naturally' mean in this context? What qualifies these chemicals as natural versus the (implicitly) unnatural air fresheners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eudoxie (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Air Wick

Air Wick should not redirect to here, it's a brand name and this article is useless to people like me trying to research the brand! --71.75.142.141 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Can Air Freshener be addictive?

There is an Air freshener that I use that is so moreish, it seems like its almost addictive Enov Cranberry air freshener.

Grantkip (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ingredients

This article states that air fresheners are "Composed mostly of ingredients such as carcinogens and acetone...".

The MSDS for Air Wick Air Freshener lists ethanol 2.5-10% and sodium tetraborate 0.1 - 1.0% as hazardous ingredients. Sodium tetraborate is commonly known as borax. Neither of these isted ingredients is acetone or a suspected carcinogen.

https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/ghd053107.html</ref>

In view of the listed ingredients of this popular air freshener and the official government policy it does not appear that the statement is accurate. 66.8.208.238 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Gary Baker

The words in question were probably vandalism, and have been deleted. Thanks for pointing this out. Reify-tech (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Article Focus

I seriously question the focus and tone of this article. I would say more than half of the article is dedicated to raising questions on the safety of "air fresheners" using un-cited and extremely broad statements like "Many air fresheners employ carcinogens, volatile organic compounds and known toxins such as phthalate esters in their formulas." First, and most importantly, the statement doesn't even offer a source. Second, the statement pairs two absurdly broad statements into one statement so laughably broad that it might as well read "Things contain stuff."

Let me explain:

1. The term "air freshener" could be used to describe literally anything designed to modify an environment's ambient odor. Attempting to describe what all air fresheners commonly contain is not only counterproductive, but misleading at best. I wager "air freshener" could be replaced by a hundred different terms and still be true. That fact alone renders the statement meaningless.
2. The ingredients that air fresheners supposedly contain are, once again, an extremely diverse and broad class of materials that could be used to describe a million different chemicals. Saying something contains phthalates would be similar to saying a product contains a material with phenyl ring. Phthalates are a 'class of chemicals. It's just too broad of a statement to provide any meaningful information and is confusing for a layman. VOCs (volatile organic carbons) is a regulatory term that is defined by the California Air Resource Board that pretty much means any carbon containing chemical that will vaporize. That smell you get after cutting a lemon? Those are VOCs. The scent of walking through a forest? VOCs. The reason why an air freshener works? Because things that smell are volatile, and things aren't don't.

So, basically "Things contain stuff."

Unless there is some serious objection I will start editing some of these sections to provide what I feel is a more thoughtful and neutral tone.

2easilyidentified (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

air wick air freshner benerfits rat or rodents

Heading text

I use air wick air freshner to kill rats I spray a piece of bread full of air wick freshner on both sides and I leave it where I see it.when the rat eats the bread only the spine of the rats remains over ,no smell or magots .I have been using air wick air so I thought Id let you know. YOURS FAITHFULLY SHARON HIPPOLYTE 9 ADELAAR RD EASTWOOD PIETERMARITZBURG KZN SOUTH AFrica Thankyou for your great product

California state law

You need to add this:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/12/what-the-heck-is-fragrance-thanks-to-california-companies-now-have-to-tell-us/

Arydberg (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for highlighting this. Numbersinstitute (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Multi-phasing

Opening summary says,

"There are also solid and passive versions, which use ceramic material and water based ingredients - these combine and create a 'multi-phasing' effect which provides a constantly evolving fragrance."

There is no detail in the rest of the article. Summary should summarize. "Multi-phasing" is simply one commercial design which has 2 emitters which change over time https://www.vectairsystems.com/innovation/multi-phasing-sub-micron-fragrance-technology/v-air-solid/. For neutrality, it needs to be dropped until an editor adds a section describing multiple designs from different companies. Numbersinstitute (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)