Safer sustainable nail polish removers using mechanisms toxicity analysis green solvents and a quantitative sustainability health efficacy framework

Sustainability drives the rethinking of nail polish removers, highlighting the need to balance efficacy, human health, and environmental impact within a single formulation. These products remove nail lacquer through solvent diffusion into the polymer film, primarily composed of nitrocellulose networks combined with resins and plasticisers, causing swelling and facilitating film dissolution or detachment. Acetone has long dominated because of its rapid and effective action, typically removing polish within 30–60 s. However, its high volatility, strong skin-defatting effect, and contribution to volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions raise concerns for human health and the environment. Ethyl acetate and isopropyl alcohol provide alternative solvent options, although their removal performance depends on formulation and application conditions. Emerging bio-based solvents, including ethyl lactate, γ-valerolactone, and d-limonene, offer potential environmental and toxicological advantages, although their suitability depends on their performance, hazard profiles, cost, odour, and compatibility with formulations. This review synthesises evidence on molecular mechanisms of film dissolution, solvent performance, toxicological risks associated with short- and long-term exposure, occupational evidence from nail salons, and life-cycle environmental impacts. It also evaluates alternative delivery systems, including gel-based removers, pre-soaked wipes, and water-based formulations, in terms of their practicality and potential benefits. As a methodological contribution, the Sustainability–Health–Efficacy (SHE) Index is proposed as a transparent, multi-criteria screening framework for organising existing evidence on nail polish remover solvents. A Hansen-sphere screening approach, a literature-based evaluation of gelled-solvent systems, and a cost-per-treatment scenario are also presented. Illustrative calculations based on literature-derived data demonstrate the framework’s structure and the influence of weighting choices; they do not constitute validated rankings or formulation recommendations. The framework and associated calculations remain unvalidated experimentally, and their interpretation is subject to limitations in data availability, scoring criteria, normalisation procedures, and weighting assumptions. Future progress requires standardised experimental validation, particularly through controlled dissolution tests, nail-plate compatibility assessments, environmental toxicity studies, and verified techno-economic analyses. Such evidence is essential to advance the development of balanced formulations that simultaneously address efficacy, human health, and environmental sustainability.