Science of Fresh evaluates domestic cleaning and odour-control products through a published, criteria-based review framework. The aim is to separate manufacturer claims from chemical plausibility, safety documentation, regulatory context, and real-world consumer evidence.
Our core evaluation pillars
Safety Data Sheet and ingredient analysis
Each product review starts with the available Safety Data Sheet, label information, technical data, and manufacturer documentation. We identify disclosed active ingredient classes, surfactants, fragrance systems, pH information, hazard classifications, and any concentration ranges provided by the manufacturer.
SDS documents are safety documents, not performance tests. They help identify disclosed ingredient classes and hazards, but they do not prove real-world odour removal. Where data is absent, we say so rather than inferring or inventing a specification.
Mechanism of action classification
We classify each product by its likely primary mechanism: fragrance masking, surfactant cleaning, enzymatic breakdown, chemical neutralisation, oxidation, adsorption, or biocidal action. This allows readers to match the product to the odour problem instead of relying on broad claims such as ‘fresh’ or ‘powerful’.
Biocide and antimicrobial claims
Products that claim to disinfect, sanitise, kill bacteria, or provide antimicrobial activity require careful handling. We review disclosed active classes, label directions, hazard statements, and UK regulatory context, including HSE and COSHH considerations where relevant. We avoid treating antimicrobial claims as proven unless they are supported by the product’s documentation and legal positioning.
Enzymatic and microbiological criteria
For enzyme and microbial products, we assess whether the claimed mechanism fits the use case. Enzyme systems and live cultures are affected by dwell time, moisture, temperature, pH, preservatives, and incompatible cleaning residues. A product may be chemically plausible but still poor for a household use case if the required conditions are unrealistic.
Safety, surfaces, and household suitability
Effectiveness is not enough. We assess ventilation requirements, wet-contact risks, surface compatibility, fragrance intensity, residue potential, and suitability for homes with pets, children, or people with respiratory sensitivities. Users are always expected to follow the product label and patch-test where appropriate.
Consumer evidence synthesis
We use verified consumer reports and relevant community evidence to identify recurring performance patterns: short-lived fragrance effects, residues, fabric marking, trigger failures, overpowering scents, or poor performance on embedded odours. Isolated complaints are not treated as proof, but repeated patterns are considered evidence of real-world friction.
Cost and value metrics
Where data allows, we compare cost per 100 ml, cost per treatment, dilution yield, and cost relative to the active mechanism. We do not assume that the cheapest product is best, or that a higher price proves stronger performance.
How we handle our own products
Science of Fresh is owned by Bodhi & Digby Ltd, which also owns and develops odour-control products marketed under the AromaShield brand. This creates a commercial relationship that must be disclosed. When one of our own products appears in a guide, it is identified clearly and evaluated against the same published criteria as third-party products.
Limitations and corrections
Unless a page states otherwise, our evaluations are research-led assessments, not independent laboratory trials of every product. They draw on SDS data, labels, published evidence, regulatory context, and consumer reports. If you believe a technical claim is wrong, contact us at contact@scienceoffresh.eu so we can review the evidence and correct verified errors.