Personal care products disrupt the human oxidation field

The Hacker News discussion revolves around a study concerning the chemical reactions that occur in indoor air when exposed to human "oxidation fields," particularly how common consumer products like lotions and perfumes interact with these fields. The conversation touches on several interconnected themes:

The Science of Indoor Air Chemistry and Human Oxidation

A central point of discussion is the study's focus on indoor air chemistry and the concept of a human "oxidation field." Users are trying to understand the practical health implications of these complex processes.

• Some users express confusion about the study's findings, with one asking, "Not well versed in the field, what are the basic implications of this for health?"
• Another user clarifies the article's scope: "The article does not come to any health conclusions, just studies the impact on indoor air chemistry."
• The complexity of the subject is highlighted by the observation, "Chemistry, environmental chemistry, and biochemistry are absurdly complex and full of interlocking Chesterton's Fences."
• One commenter notes the article's careful wording, stating, "This article has a headline engineered with shock value connotations, but when you read it carefully, it takes pains to rein the suggestions of the title in as much as possible while still stirring the pot."
• The researchers themselves are quoted on their findings: "“If we buy a sofa from major furniture company, it’s tested for harmful emissions before being put on sale. However, when we sit on the sofa, we naturally transform some of these emissions because of the oxidation field we generate,” said lead author Jonathan Williams, who heads the study of organic reactive species at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry."

The Role and Safety of Consumer Products (Lotions, Perfumes, Air Fresheners)

A significant portion of the discussion centers on the potential effects of everyday products like lotions and perfumes on indoor air chemistry and, by extension, human health.

• The study suggests that lotions and perfumes can "dampen down" the effects of indoor air emissions, with one user interpreting this positively: "Which, if you're worried about the effects of unstudied compounds, lotion will help protect you against."
• However, the interaction is complex, and the actual impact isn't clearly positive or negative: "What this article seems to say is that lotion can affect the oxidation chemistry nearby it, but it’s not yet known if that is an effect with consequences that are on the whole negative or positive."
• Concerns about product ingredients are raised, with a user questioning the safety of certain preservatives: "Sounds like they blame the phenoxyethanol? Which serves a preservative kind of role?"
• This leads to a broader discussion about fragrance and its potential health effects: "With how bad for us the common fragrances are in regards to things like cancer risk, endocrine disruption, etc, its surprising that nothing has changed. Most products have fragrance free alternatives."
• User amarcheschi points out regulatory efforts in the EU: "At least in the eu there are quite strict rules regulating cosmetics. Hell, lilial in perfumes was banned just to stay safe because they couldn't determine an "average exposure" and went by banning it in perfumes to reduce what would have been the real exposure, even if it wouldn't have caused issues by being used in perfumes standalone (so not how it's used in cleaning products)"

Negative Ions, Ozone, and Air Purification Fads

The mention of hydroxyl ions and their air-cleaning properties sparks a debate about negative ions, air ionizers, and historical fads, particularly concerning ozone generation.

• The concept of negative ions is introduced in relation to air cleaning: "Hydroxyl ions are a significant kind of negative ion in the atmosphere and they’re known to be good because they react with and clean out pollutants like methane." A user also shared: "TIL that Hydroxyl ions bind to methane and thereby clean the air?"
• This leads to skepticism about ion generators: "How can something be a negative ion generator without simultaneously being a positive ion generator?"
• The discussion delves into the potential generation of ozone by such devices, with a user noting the dual nature of ozone: "Ozone sanitizes and freshens, but is bad for the lungs at high concentrations."
• A strong warning is issued about ozone generators for general use: "My takeaway is that Ozone generators for rooms/basements/etc are definitely a bad idea." The user cites research on ozone's hazardous levels and olfactory fatigue: "Ozone concentrations as low as 70ppb are hazardous when you're exposed to it for several hours [1]." and "Estimates for Ozone's olfactory threshold aren't trustworthy, since you go nose-blind to it pretty quickly..."
• Historical context is provided: "In the 1970s there was a lot of talk about ‘healthful negative ions’ and a fad for negative ion generators even though many of those also generated hazardous ozone."

Skepticism Towards Marketing and "Natural" Trends

Several comments reflect cynicism towards how scientific findings are translated into marketing buzzwords and the consumer trend towards "natural" products.

• One user predicts marketing spin: "This won’t lead to people using less lotion, but it will lead to fancy lotions adding “OH precursors” as the new science buzzmarketing term."
• This is contrasted with the recent "anti-oxidant" fad: "Which is funny since the exact opposite, anti-oxidants, have been a fad to add for the past 20years."
• However, a distinction is made between topical application and ingestion of antioxidants: "You eat anti-oxidants. So unless you're eating your lotions this isn't related and can't be the opposite."
• A user points to research questioning the efficacy of antioxidant supplements: "Antioxidant supplements provide no benefit, may even be harmful."
• The push for "natural ingredient products and fragrance free" is seen as a response to concerns about what's in products: "The opening paragraph is precisely why so many people have moved to natural ingredient products and fragrance free."

The Challenge of Interpreting Scientific Studies and Online Discussion

Some users express frustration with the quality of online discussions and the accessibility of scientific information.

• There's a sentiment that comments are becoming less useful due to people reacting without reading the article: "Unrelated: This is why reading comments is becoming useless. People react to the news without opening the article. Its so annoying."
• Technical barriers to accessing the actual study are reported: "Cloudflare products disrupt the human ability to read science.org articles." and "Turning on JS and doing the captchas just results in more captchas, forever, with no end."
• One commenter advises minimizing worry about the study's implications for daily life: "But really, I wouldn't worry about the result of this study at all in daily life. It's quite surprising to me that this would be the top HN article at the time of this comment."
• A critique of the authors' word choice is made: "I would criticize the authors for their use of the word disrupt, because of the negative connotation carried by that word when talking about human biological systems."