Sensitive Mouthwash safety rating

Sensitive Mouthwash safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 40-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

82Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent

050100

All 581 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

40 pts apart

Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. This score changed Sep 1, 2026: source data updated. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. This score changed Sep 1, 2026: source data updated. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 63% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Coverage & match quality

4 ratings · 1 of 4 axes

Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmentalno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Laborno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Packagingno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

Data availability

Robust15 of 16 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 15 of 16 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (6)

Cocamidopropyl Betainecommon irritantantistatic · cleansing · hair conditioningraters disagree
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →

No flags in our sources (9)

No data in our sources (1)

Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.

What these ingredient tags mean (3)

These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

common irritantPropylene Glycol, Cocamidopropyl Betaine
- Propylene Glycol: A solvent that shows up in patch-test clinics, more often as irritation than as allergy. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2018 (Jacob SE, Scheman A, McGowan MA, Dermatitis 2018;29(1):3-5).
- Cocamidopropyl Betaine: A mild cleansing agent, but a recurring patch-test finding, usually traced to leftovers from how it is made. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2004 (Fowler JF Jr, Dermatitis 2004;15(1):3-4).
undeclared fragrance blendAroma
- Aroma: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.
humectantGlycerin
- Glycerin: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".