ReviewToxicological research2025
Regulatory frameworks for fragrance safety in cosmetics: a global overview.
Review in Toxicological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Vitro Percutaneous Absorption of Dehydroacetic Acid and Benzoic Acid From Pig Skin Using the Franz Diffusion Cell System.Journal of applied toxicology : JAT · 2026Article
- ChemSkin DB 2.0: a comprehensive reference chemical database for skin corrosion and irritation.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- From Agri-Food Byproducts to High-Value Bioactive Compounds: A Critical Review Linking Green Recovery and Chemical Profiling to Circular Valorization.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fragrances play a crucial role in cosmetic products, influencing consumer preferences and enriching sensory experiences. However, making sure these products are safe, especially concerning natural and synthetic fragrances, requires robust regulatory frameworks. This review offers a global perspective on the regulatory systems governing the safety of fragrances. It begins by examining the fundamental differences between natural and synthetic fragrances, highlighting their origins and unique safety considerations. Natural fragrances, sourced from botanicals like essential oils, have a long history of human exposure. Synthetic fragrances, on the other hand, are artificially manufactured compounds that often lack sufficient safety data, thereby requiring strict regulation. Various countries have developed safety guidelines to address concerns such as skin sensitization, allergies, and health risks associated with fragrance use. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of these global regulatory frameworks, emphasizing both commonalities and disparities in safety standards for natural and synthetic fragrances. It also discusses ongoing efforts to harmonize regulations and improve fragrance safety in cosmetics. By offering this in-depth overview of regulatory approaches, the article serves as a valuable resource for cosmetics industry professionals. It provides insights into the evolving landscape of cosmetics regulations worldwide, aiding stakeholders in navigating the complexities of natural and synthetic fragrance safety and ultimately safeguarding consumer well-being. Graphical Abstract:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.