EWG School Cleaning Supplies Report

8/14/2019 EWG School Cleaning Supplies Report

1/42

Greener School Cleaning Supplies = Fresh Air + Healthier Kids

New Research Links School Air Quality to School Cleaning Supplies

EWGs air pollution tests of school cleaning supplies detected hundreds of contaminants,including six that cause asthma, 11 tied to cancer in people, and many more that have never beenevaluated for safety.

Table of Contents:

Executive Summary: Green School Cleaners Emit Fewer Air Pollutants.. 2Findings: Classroom Cleaners Release 457 Air Pollutants. 5Impact on Kids Health: Students Face Health Risks from Air Contamination 14Government Action: Children, Teachers and Custodians Lack Protections. 23Successful Green Cleaning: Green Cleaning Does the Job26Greenwashing: Be Skeptical of Greenwashing Claims.. 28Study Methodology 30Acknowledgements... 35References. 35

For more information, visit:

www.ewg.org/schoolcleaningsupplies


2/42

EWG | School Cleaning Supplies | Nov 2009 2

Executive Summary:

Green School Cleaners Emit Fewer Air Pollutants

Cleaning supplies used in 13 large Californiaschool districts release an airborne brew of

chemicals, including a number that have beenlinked to asthma or cancer by state and federalhealth authorities. Tests of 21 cleaners from theseschools conducted for the Environmental WorkingGroup found that when used as directed, theproducts released six chemicals known to causeasthma, 11 contaminants that are known, probable,or possible cancer-causing substances in humans,and hundreds of other compounds for which thereis little or no hazard information.

The school districts using these products are

Bakersfield City and the unified districts ofFairfield-Suisun, Fresno, Jefferson (Daly City),Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento City, SanBernardino City, San Francisco, San Jose,Stockton, Visalia, and West Contra Costa County.Some of these districts have reduced their use ofmore toxic products by adopting or trying greencleaning supplies.

In all, air testing revealed 457 chemicals emittedby these products. While some of these airbornecompounds are known to be hazardous, nothing is

known about the health risks of most of them.Manufacturers documents disclosed the presenceof another 42 chemical ingredients that air testingcould not pick up.

Statewide, cleaning supplies release 32 tons ofcontaminants into the air each day.

Some of the products tested are widely used inAmerican households, including:

Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser, whichemitted 146 contaminants when used as

directed, including formaldehyde, benzene,chloroform and four other chemicals identifiedby the state of California as causing cancer orreproductive harm.

Simple Green, a general purpose cleaner thatreleased 93 chemicals into the air, including twolinked to cancer (2-butoxyethanol andacetaldehyde) and one linked to cancer and

asthma (formaldehyde).

Febreze Air Effects, an air freshener that gaveoff 89 airborne contaminants includingacetaldehyde, a chemical linked to cancer.

EWG also tested several green cleaners used byschool districts that have chosen to use productsindependently certified as being free of severalharmful ingredients. The results showed that greencleaning supplies can reduce chemical exposure intwo important ways:

Green cleaners released a lower overall numberof measurable air contaminants. Theconventional cleaners analyzed produced threeto five times more air contaminants than greengeneral purpose cleaners.

Green cleaners produced lower levels of oneimportant class of air pollutants, volatile organiccompounds (VOCs). Total VOC levelsmeasured from conventional general purposecleaners were six times higher than their greencounterparts.

Even so, most green cleaning products could be a

little greener. Although they emitted fewerpotentially hazardous chemicals overall, ourtesting showed that some certified green productsrelease measurable levels of substances that couldpose a risk to childrens health, indicating that thecertification process is not airtight and needs to becontinually upgraded.

Ingredients pose a health risk:

Among the hundreds of chemicals identified in theschool cleaners were:

Six known to cause asthma (formaldehyde,styrene, methyl methacrylate, ethanolamine,alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, anddidecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride).Childhood asthma prevalence has more thandoubled since 1980, and today nearly 10 percentof children have asthma.

11 that are known, probable, or possible humancarcinogens (formaldehyde, styrene,


3/42


chloroform, trichloroethylene, benzene, 1-chloro-2,3-epoxypropane, acetaldehyde, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-ethanamine, 2-butoxyethanol,ethylbenzene, and quartz). Incidence ofchildhood cancer rose 28 percent from 1974 to1998, with especially significant increases in

leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and severalbrain and nervous system cancers.

283 on which there is almost no scientific data,according to a review of the scientific literature.Outdated federal regulations do not requiresafety testing of all chemicals, resulting in a vastgap in knowledge about potential health risks ofmany substances in everyday products.

The alarming truth is that we know far too littleabout whats in the cleaning supplies used inschools and in our homes. Legally, nearly any

chemical can be used as an ingredient, andcleaning product labels are not required to listingredients. Lacking a legal definition of wordslike non-toxic, manufacturers can makemisleading claims. As a result, school staff andconsumers do not have the information they needto select products made with safer ingredients.

What about H1N1?

The H1N1 virus presents a unique situation thatrequires special precautions. We recommend thatall schools follow the official guidance of the CDC

and their local health authorities.

From the CDC:http://www.flu.gov/professional/school/schoolguidancepdf.pdf

Routine cleaning: School staff should routinelyclean areas that students and staff touch oftenwith the cleaners they typically use. CDC doesnot believe any additional disinfection ofenvironmental surfaces beyond therecommended routine cleaning is required.

Specific Product SuggestionsEWG tested four products approved by EPA forcontrolling influenza A viruses like H1N1. Basedon our tests of these approved products, werecommend Alpha HP as a preferred disinfectionoption, because it exposes children to few toxicchemicals. If schools use bleach as a disinfectant,we suggest that they not spray the product, as

studies show that custodians and professionalcleaners exposed to bleach spray products faceincreased risk of developing asthma.

What we can do to keep the air in

classrooms clean:Parents Learn about your schools cleaning policy and

educate school staff about certified greencleaning supplies.

Follow EWGs tips for cleaning your home.

Support local, state, and federal efforts topromote green cleaning in schools and torequire safety testing and disclosure ofingredients.

Local, state, and federal governments

Require use of certified green cleaning suppliesin schools and other public buildings.

Require disclosure of all ingredients on productlabels.

Require safety testing of chemicals in cleaners.

Manufacturers

Disclose all ingredients on labels.

Eliminate ingredients with known risks tohealth.

Help schools pick kid-safe cleaning supplies.

Schools

Make the switch to certified green cleaningproducts and practices and help other schools dothe same.

Ensure that all cleaning is done at times whenstudents, including those staying for after-school programs, are not in the building.


4/42


General purpose cleaners: Conventional

products are five times more polluting.

38

8

0

10

20

30

40

Conventional

cleaning products

(we tested 8)

Certified Green

cleaning products

(we tested 5)

Average number of

air contaminants

Worst Cleaners: These products released thelargest number of air pollutants

Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

Simple Green ConcentratedCleaner/Degreaser/Deodorizer

Febreze Air Effects

Worst Product Types: These types releasedthe largest number of air pollutants

Graffiti Removers

Air Fresheners

Floor Finishes

Best Cleaners: These certified green productsreleased few air pollutants and none known tocause asthma or cancer

Glance Non-Ammoniated Glass & Multi-Purpose Cleaner*

Marauder Environmental General PurposeCleaner

*There are many versions of Glance. OnlyGlance NA meets these criteria.


5/42


Study Findings:

Classroom Cleaners Release 457 Air Pollutants

All across California, children spend many hoursof the day in schools cleaned by products that can

pollute classroom air. Cleaning supplies release 32tons of contaminants into the air each day inCalifornia alone (CARB 2003; Nazaroff 2004).

EWG-commissioned tests of commonly usedschool cleaners reveal the wide range of chemicalschildren can breathe in each day at school. Morethan 20 products were selected based on a surveyof the cleaning supplies used by several majorCalifornia school districts, and tested individuallyby a leading laboratory that specializes in studyingair pollution released by cleaning products. In a

key part of this investigation, this state-of-the-artair quality laboratory cleaned a model classroomusing multiple products at the same time, a first-of-its-kind test to measure the real-world pollutionthat occurs when typical assortments of cleaningsupplies are used together.

The results are alarming. For example, some of thecleaning supplies used at home as well as at schoolrelease the highest number of contaminantsmeasured. Some cleaners that appear green areanything but, misleading schools and consumers

with marketing claims. Certified green cleaners,those meeting strict standards from independentgroups, emit fewer contaminants on average andare safer choices for schools.

KEY FINDINGS:

457 distinct air contaminants were released bythe 21 cleaning products tested. CometDisinfectant Powder Cleanser emitted 146contaminants, more than any other producttested. Glance NA, a certified green janitorialglass and general purpose cleaner, emitted justone air contaminant, the fewest detected.

24 of the chemicals found in these cleaners havewell-established links to asthma, cancer, andother serious health concerns, including 12 ofthe State of Californias Proposition 65chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, orreproductive toxicity.

Certified green general purpose cleaners tested

released an average of eight air contaminants,while those not certified released nearly five

times as many, an average of 38 differentcontaminants each. Compared to conventionalgeneral purpose cleaners, the certified greenproducts contained just one-quarter of thechemicals with documented ties to specifichealth concerns such as asthma and cancer. Acomparison of all products tested showscertified green cleaning supplies released half asmany air contaminants as conventionalproducts, and contained one-third the chemicalswith known health concerns.

Cleaning a classroom with certified greenproducts releases less than one-sixth of the totalair pollution released by cleaning a classroomwith conventional cleaners.

Cleaning supplies, dirty air:

EWGs testing of more than 20 cleaning productsused in California schools detected a total of 457chemicals released into the air. Limitedinformation provided by manufacturers revealedthe presence of 42 other chemical ingredients thatwere not measured in air samples, typically

because they are not volatile. Manufacturers arelegally required to disclose only a specific handfulof cleaner ingredients due to acknowledged healthconcerns and occupational safety standardsassociated with each of them.

The results show dramatic variation in thenumbers of contaminants released by each producttested: Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanseremitted 146 distinct chemicals into the air, while acertified green glass and general-purpose cleaner,Glance Non-Ammoniated (NA) Glass and Multi-Purpose Cleaner, emitted just one air contaminant.

Some of the worst offenders, such as CometDisinfectant Powder Cleanser, are householdcleaning supplies commonly used in homes acrossAmerica. When used at full-strength, the well-known cleaner Simple Green, which claims to benon-toxic, gave off 93 different aircontaminants; a Febreze Air Effects air freshenerreleased 89.


6/42


Generally, certified green cleaning productsreleased significantly fewer air contaminants thantheir conventional counterparts. On average, greengeneral purpose cleaners released one-fifth asmany contaminants as conventional generalpurpose cleaners. Broadening the comparison to

include all cleaning supplies tested, certified greenproducts emitted half as many contaminants asconventional cleaning supplies.

Especially polluting cleaning product typesincluded air fresheners, graffiti removers, andfloor finishes.

Certified green cleaning supplies release fewer

air contaminants.

Source: Air pollution test results for school cleaning supplies.Note: Certified Green Products included in EWG tests arethose certified by Green Seal or EcoLogo (Green Seal 2008;EcoLogo 2007, 2008).

Cleaning products can affect our

health:Twenty four air contaminants detected by EWGtests may cause asthma, cancer, and other serioushealth concerns affecting children and adults,according to U.S. and international healthagencies. Seven more toxic cleaning chemicalsthat can linger on surfaces and contaminate dustare disclosed as ingredients by product

manufacturers.

Ten of the products tested contained one or moreof the chemicals known to the State of Californiato cause cancer or reproductive or developmentaltoxicity: Alpha HP Multi-Surface Cleaner, Citrus-

Scrub 90, Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser,Febreze Air Effects, Goof Off Cleaner (CA VOCCompliant), Pine-Sol Brand Cleaner (Original),Pioneer Super Cleaner, Shineline Seal FloorSealer/Finish, Simple Green ConcentratedCleaner/Degreaser/Deodorizer, and Waxie GreenFloor Finish. Twelve of these toxic chemicals,known widely as Proposition 65 chemicals, arefound in the cleaning supplies we tested,including:

Benzene, a solvent and contaminant linked tocancer and male reproductive system toxicity(Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser)

Chloroform, a gas that causes cancer anddevelopmental toxicity (Comet DisinfectantPowder Cleanser)

Dibutyl phthalate, an emulsifier known todamage developing male and femalereproductive systems (Shineline Seal FloorSealer/Finish).

Formaldehyde, a cancer-causing gas alsoemitted by some building materials and

furniture (Simple Green ConcentratedCleaner/Degreaser/Deodorizer, Pine-SolOriginal Cleaner, Comet Disinfectant PowderCleanser, Super Cleaner Concentrate)

Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser aloneemitted seven Proposition 65 chemicals.

Products that expose users to Proposition 65chemicals above legally prescribed levels must beclearly labeled as such under the law, to allowindividuals and institutions such as schools tochoose safer products. Recently, the manufacturer

of the graffiti remover Goof Off was successfullysued by a public interest law firm because itsProposition 65 warning label was insufficient (AsYou Sow v. The Valspar Corporation, 2008). TheGoof Off purchased for this study featured anappropriate Proposition 65 warning on theproduct.

Certified green products contained fewer known

8

16

38

37

0 10 20 30 40

General

purpose

cleanersonly

Allcleaning

productstested

Total number of air contaminants released

(average emissions per product)

Conventional products Certified Green products


7/42


toxic ingredients, according to EWGs laboratorytests and company documents. On average, greengeneral purpose cleaners contained one-fourth asmany chemicals with documented health concernsas similar conventional products. Among allcleaning supplies tested, certified green products

contained one-third the chemicals withdocumented health concerns.

Leading green certifications include Green Seal(GS-37, Environmental Standard for Industrial andInstitutional Cleaners) and EcoLogo (CCD-146,standard for Hardsurface Cleaners, and CCD-147standard for Hard Floor Care Products). GreenSeal GS-37 and EcoLogo CCD-146 establish

Certified green cleaning supplies contain fewer

chemicals with documented health concerns.

Source: Air pollution results for school cleaning supplies.Note: Certified Green Products included in EWG tests arethose certified by Green Seal or EcoLogo (Green Seal 2008;EcoLogo 2007, 2008). Chemicals highlighted are those listed

by leading authorities on asthma, cancer, reproductive

toxicity, hormone disruption, and neurotoxicity, and are listedand documented in the Table below.

environmental and health requirements for generalpurpose, restroom, glass, and carpet cleaners,intended for routine cleaning of schools, offices,and institutions. EcoLogo CCD-147 establish

similar requirements for floor polish, strippers andother floor maintenance products. The cleaningproduct criteria state that certified products willnot contain ingredients that are carcinogens,mutagens, or reproductive toxins; heavy metalssuch as lead and cadmium; common cleaning

chemicals of concern including 2-butoxyethanol,alkylphenol ethoxylates, and phthalates; ozone-depleting chemicals; and optical brighteners.Green Seals standard was recently revised toinclude a prohibition on chemicals that are knownto cause asthma through a process calledrespiratory sensitization. (Green Seal has alsoestablished a GS-40 floor care products standard,with less stringent criteria than those outlinedabove.) The EcoLogo standard also prohibits anumber of ingredients based on their suspectedhormone-disrupting properties.

Green Seal and EcoLogo standards, which arerevised periodically, also establish specific limitson ingredients for acute toxicity; skin absorption;inhalation toxicity; toxicity to aquatic life;bioaccumulating compounds; nutrient pollution;and fragrances. Additional criteria in thesestandards also limit a products pH,combustability, volatile organic compound (VOC)content, and biodegradability. The criteria definerequirements for concentrates; dispensing systems;packaging; recyclability; labeling; and training.

These particular standards do not include cleanersfor household use, and do not apply to airfresheners, graffiti removers, or to disinfecting orantimicrobial cleaners.

Despite these standards, some certified productsdid emit asthmagens, carcinogens, andreproductive toxins. Some of these offendingproducts were certified under earlier versions of agreen standard and have not yet been reformulatedto reflect the latest standard. Others emit toxicchemicals still allowable under their particularcertification standard, and some release chemicals

specifically prohibited as ingredients according totheir own certification. Just two of six greenproducts were completely free of all theasthmagens, carcinogens, and reproductive toxinsaddressed by current standards, according to EWGtests. Just 1 of 16 conventional products tested wasfree of all of these chemicals.

0.8

1.2

3.6

3.3

0 1 2 3 4

General

purpose

cleanersonly

All

cleaning

productstested

Number of chemicals known to cause

asthma, cancer, reproductive toxicity,

hormone disruption, or neurotoxicity(average emissions per product)

Conventional products Certified Green products


8/42


Dozens of chemicals in cleaning supplies are tied to human health risks.

Health ConcernChemicals detected by EWG

tests or disclosed as ingredients

Products containing one or more of these

chemicals (number of relevant chemicals)

Asthmagens:chemicals thatcan trigger thedevelopment ofasthma inpreviouslyasthma-freeindividuals 6chemicals from10 schoolcleaners

Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammoniumchloride (ADBAC)

Didecyl dimethyl benzylammonium chloride

Ethanolamine

Formaldehyde

Methyl methacrylate

Styrene

3M Brand Glass Cleaner (Product No. 1,Twist n Fill System) (1)

Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser (1)

NABC Non-Acid Disinfectant BathroomCleaner (1)

Pine-Sol Brand Cleaner (Original) (1)

Pioneer Super Cleaner (2)

Ripsaw (1)

Shineline Seal Floor Sealer/Finish (1)

Simple Green ConcentratedCleaner/Degreaser/Deodorizer (1)

Virex II 256 (1)

Waxie Green Floor Finish (1)

Carcinogens: 11chemicals from11 schoolcleaners

Acetaldehyde

Benzene

2-Butoxyethanol

1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane

Chloroform

Ethylbenzene

Formaldehyde

N-Ethyl-N-nitroso-ethanamine

Quartz*

Styrene

Trichloroethylene

Citrus-Scrub 90 (1)


Febreze Air Effects (1)

Glance HC Glass and Multi-Surface Cleaner(1)

Goof Off Cleaner (CA VOC Compliant) (1)


Pioneer Super Cleaner (2)



Waxie 21 Glass Cleaner (1)


ReproductiveToxins: 4chemicals from 4school cleaners.

Benzene

Dibutyl phthalate*

Ethoxyethanol

Toluene

Alpha HP Multi-Surface Cleaner (1)





9/42


HormoneDisruptors: 8chemicals from 9school cleaners

Benzophenone

1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane

Dibutyl phthalate*

Ethylene glycol

N,N-Dimethylformamide

Nonylphenol ethoxylate*

Phenol

Styrene

3M Brand Glass Cleaner (Product No. 1,Twist n Fill System) (1

Clorox Regular Bleach (1)


Glance HC Glass and Multi-Surface Cleaner(1)




Twister (1)


Neurotoxins: 17chemicals from15 schoolcleaners

Acetone*

Benzene

Benzonitrile

Benzyl alcohol

Chloroform

Cyclohexanone

Dibutyl phthalate*

N,N-Dimethylformamide

Ethyl acetate

Isopropyl alcoholMethyl ethyl ketone

Methyl methacrylate

Phenol

Styrene

Toluene

Trichloroethylene

Xylene

3M Brand Bathroom Cleaner (Product No.44, Twist n Fill System) (1)

Alpha HP Multi-Surface Cleaner (1)

Citrus-Scrub 90 (1)

Clorox Regular Bleach (1)


Febreze Air Effects (1)


NABC Non-Acid Disinfectant BathroomCleaner (1)


Ripsaw (1)



Virex II 256 (1)



Note: Certified Green Products included in EWG tests are those certified by Green Seal or EcoLogo (Green Seal 2008; EcoLogo

2007, 2008). Chemicals highlighted are those listed by leading authorities on asthma, cancer, reproductive toxicity, hormonedisruption, and neurotoxicity, and are listed and documented in the Table below.

*Chemicals not detected in air contaminant tests, but disclosed as ingredients by manufacturers

Asthmagens identified by the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC 2009).Carcinogens identified by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, reasonably anticipated, or

possible human carcinogens (IARC; Groups 1, 2A, and 2B), the National Toxicology Program (Groups 1 and 2), the EPAIntegrated Risk Information System (weight-of-evidence classifications A, B1, B2, C, carcinogenic, likely to be carcinogenic,and suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity or carcinogen potential), or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (ascarcinogens under 29 CFR 1910.1003(a)(1))Reproductive toxins identified by the State of California under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986


10/42


(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 3, Sections 1200, et. seq., also known asProposition 65).Hormone disruptors identified by the European Union in Appendix 9 of Towards the Establishment of a Priority List ofSubstances for Further Evaluation of Their Role in Endocrine Disruption (European Commission DG ENV 2000, 2007)

Neurotoxins identified in literature review by Grandjean and Landrigan (2006).

While it is troubling to note the presence of

chemicals linked to health risks in the majorityof the cleaners tested, a higher level of concernmay be appropriate for those chemicalsdisclosed by manufacturers. Cleaning productmakers typically disclose only those ingredientsboth tied to specific occupational health risksand making up more than one percent of theproduct, or 0.1 percent if the ingredient is acarcinogen. Thus, chemical ingredientsdisclosed by companies are typically primaryingredients present at significant concentrations,rather than trace contaminants present at much

lower levels.

Some key chemicals of concern in

cleaning supplies:

Many conventional cleaning products rely on arelatively small set of chemical ingredientslinked to serious health concerns. Highlightedbelow are two chemicals commonly detected inthe air following cleaning, as well as a class ofchemicals frequently found in cleaners.

Formaldehyde

Detected in:


Pine-Sol Brand Cleaner

Pioneer Super Cleaner


Recognized as a known human carcinogen bythe International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC 2004), formaldehyde is a common indoor

air contaminant released by cleaning products,as well as by other school and consumer goods,including plywood or particle-board furniture,building materials, and nail polish. TheCalifornia Air Resources Boards ScientificReview Panel has concluded that there is no safelevel of exposure to this cancer-causingchemical (CARB 1992).

Formaldehyde can form indirectly when terpenes

from pine- and citrus-based cleaners react with tracelevels of ozone in the air. For this reason, theCalifornia Air Resources Board recommendsavoiding use of citrus and pine oil cleaners,especially on smoggy days when levels of ozone arehigh (CARB 2008).

Formaldehyde is generally accepted as anasthmagen by the Association of Occupational andEnvironmental Clinics (AOEC 2009). Cleaningproducts certified by Green Seal must not containingredients that AOEC defines specifically as

sensitizer-induced asthmagens (chemicals thatinduce asthma by sensitizing, rather than irritating,the respiratory system), a designation that theorganization has not assigned to formaldehyde. As aresult, this chemical is not prohibited as anasthmagen according to the current Green Sealcertification, although it is prohibited as acarcinogen. Formaldehyde is highly corrosive,capable of damaging eyes, skin, and lungs.

2-Butoxyethanol (also known as ethylene

glycol monobutyl ether or EGBE)

Detected in:

Glance HC Glass & Multi-Surface Cleaner

Goof Off Cleaner (CA VOC Compliant)


Shineline Seal Floor Sealer/Finish


Waxie 21 Glass Cleaner

Waxie Green Floor Finish

Many chemicals within the glycol ether family arelinked to impaired fertility and reproductive anddevelopmental toxicity in animal studies (EPA 2000;NTP 2000) and four are on Californias Proposition65 list of male developmental toxins. Occupationalstudies indicate that men exposed to glycol ethers onthe job are more likely to have reduced spermcounts, while pregnant women exposed on the job


11/42


are more likely to give birth to children withbirth defects (Cordier 1997; CDHS 2007). Thesesolvents can reach toxic levels in the body bybeing readily absorbed through the skin or viainhalation; glycol ether solvents can damage thelungs and may be linked to asthma.

2-Butoxyethanol is a glycol ether that iscommonly found in cleaning supplies. Exposureto 2-butoxyethanol can damage red blood cells,which could lead to anemia (NTP 2000). It is apossible human carcinogen (EPA 1999), andmay be toxic to the reproductive system as well(NTP 2000). Routine home cleaning using 2-butoxyethanol cleaners can result in aircontamination that exceeds established health-based limits for the workplace (Nazaroff 2006).This chemical is specifically prohibited in the

certified green cleaners tested.

Quaternary ammonium compounds

(quats, including alkyl dimethyl benzyl

ammonium chloride and didecyl dimethyl

benzyl ammonium chloride)

Disclosed as ingredients of:

NABC Non-Acid Disinfectant BathroomCleaner

Virex II 256

Many other chemicals of concern commonlyfound in cleaning supplies cannot be detected byair pollution tests because they do not vaporizeinto the air. Instead, these chemicals formresidues that remain on desks, floors, and othercleaned surfaces. These chemicals can adhere tochildrens skin, including their hands, whereexposure can occur through ingestion orabsorption through the skin. These chemicalsmay also build up in dust, leading to exposuresthrough inhalation, ingestion, and skinabsorption.

For example, residues of non-volatile quaternaryammonium compounds (quats) in cleaningproducts can cause or exacerbate asthma (AOEC2009). Surveys of house cleaners, health careworkers, and others link exposure to quat-basedcleaners to asthma symptoms and thedevelopment of work-related asthma (Preller1996; Purohit 2000; Rosenman 2003; Delclos

2007). A quat-based disinfectant called Virex,similar to one used in multiple school districts inCalifornia and tested in this study (Virex II 256),was recently identified by noted scientist Dr. PatriciaHunt as the cause of a severe decline in the fertilityof a laboratory mouse population preliminary

evidence that quats may be reproductive toxins(Hunt 2008). Recent tests using human blood cellsalso indicate that quats can damage DNA at levelsfar below those found in cleaning products (Ferk2007). Overuse of quats may lead to development ofantimicrobial resistance; bacterial coloniesspecifically resistant to these antimicrobial agentshave already been identified in food productionfacilities (Mullapudi 2008).

A note on disinfectants and flu:

The flu virus and other infectious diseases can

spread easily in schools, and the emergence of theH1N1 swine flu this year has heightened concernsbecause it appears to be especially prevalent amongchildren and young adults.

Most health authorities recommend frequent handwashing and careful cleaning as the best ways toreduce the risk of flu. In particular, the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) and theCalifornia Department of Public Health (CDPH)recommend regularly cleaning and sanitizing allareas and items that are likely to be frequently

touched and immediate cleaning of visibly soiledareas (CDC 2009; CDPH 2009). Both agenciesendorse recommendations by the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics (AAP 2009) calling for dailycleaning and sanitizing of surfaces such as desks,countertops, floors, and doorknobs.

Neither government agency recommends use ofdisinfectants beyond measures already in place tokeep schools clean. Instead, they urge frequent handwashing and isolating sick students and staff as thebest means to control the H1N1 virus (CDC 2009;CDPH 2009).

General purpose cleaners can remove significantnumbers of infectious germs, and many schools alsouse disinfectants or less potent sanitizers that containEPA-registered pesticides to further control thespread of communicable diseases. While judicioususe of disinfectants and sanitizers may play a role incontrolling the virus in schools, overusing them does


12/42


not provide any additional protection and canexpose school children and staff to toxicchemicals. In addition, the American MedicalAssociation warns that overuse of antimicrobialproducts could cause germs to developresistance to useful antibiotics and make them

ineffective (Tan 2002). When disinfectants orsanitizers are used, they should be carefullyselected to minimize childrens exposures totoxic ingredients while achieving the desiredlevel of germ control. Depending on the productused and the setting, this may involve a)cleaning surfaces first to remove soil that canshelter germs from disinfection or sanitization,b) careful dilution of the product, preferablyusing automatic dilution equipment that controlsits concentration, c) applying an appropriateamount to surfaces using tools that minimize

waste, such as microfiber cloths, d) allowing theproduct to remain in place long enough (dwelltime) to kill germs, and e) removing or rinsingaway residues, according to the product label. Itis crucial to train custodians how to use theseproducts correctly to protect both schoolchildren and custodians themselves.

Under U.S. law, disinfectants cannot makegreen claims. Certified green cleaningproducts are intended to replace conventionalcleaning agents, not disinfectants.

Real-world classroom cleaning

clear benefits to going green:

In a first-of-its-kind analysis, a leading airquality laboratory compared contaminantsreleased when cleaning classrooms with typicalassortments of conventional and green cleaningproducts. These tests clearly demonstrated thatgreen products emit less than one-sixth of thepollution of conventional products. Previousstudies typically examined cleaning compoundsindividually and failed to capture the real-world

air contamination created by simultaneous use ofmultiple cleaning products.

Technicians, following carefully prescribedcleaning regimens based on findings fromCalifornias Air Resources Board (Nazaroff2006), cleaned a model classroom with regularor green cleaning supplies. In the conventionalclassroom they mopped floors with Twister,

wiped windows with Waxie 21 Glass Cleaner, andcleaned desks, bookshelves, and a whiteboard withSimple Green, simulating conventional cleaningwith products widely used in California schools. Inthe green classroom, they mopped floors withMarauder Environmental Cleaner, wiped windows

with Glance NA, and cleaned desks and othersurfaces with Alpha HP (cleaner strength) allproducts used in California school districts that havemade the switch to green cleaners. The air qualitylaboratory pumped purified air through the modelclassroom chamber during and after cleaning at arate of a rooms worth of air per hour, and collectedthe outgoing air for analysis.

A total of 75 air contaminants were detected in thesemodel classroom tests. The room-sized test chamberallowed scientists to both identify contaminants and

measure their concentrations reliably. Theseclassroom cleaning tests thus allow comparison ofoverall air pollution measured as total volatileorganic compounds (VOCs), as well as comparisonof the number of different air contaminants released.

The results are clear levels of VOCs are less thanone-sixth as high in the green classroom. Thenumber of different individual chemicalcontaminants detected in the green classroom is one-third to one-fifth as high at every time pointmeasured as well. Green cleaning products producedmarkedly safer, cleaner indoor air in the classroom and are certified to perform at least as well asconventional cleaners.


13/42


Cleaning a classroom with green products

releases one-sixth the overall air pollution.

Source: All measurements for conventional and greenclassroom cleaning scenarios may be found in the DataAppendix.Conventional cleaning supplies used: Twister (floor),Waxie 21 Glass Cleaner (windows), Simple Green (desksand other surfaces).GCertified green cleaning supplies used: MarauderEnvironmental Cleaner (floor), Glance Non-AmmoniatedGlass & Multi-Purpose Cleaner (windows), Alpha HPMulti-Surface Cleaner (desks and other surfaces).

A key chemical of concern measured in theconventional cleaning scenario is 2-butoxyethanol, classified as a possible humancarcinogen according to EPA (1999), with levelspeaking at over 2,000 micrograms per cubicmeter of air. This peak measurement is belowgovernment guidelines suggesting that levels of2-butoxyethanol must be lower than 14,000micrograms per cubic meter of air over a one-hour period to protect those exposed from eyeand lung irritation (OEHHA 2008). Thisguideline was not designed to protect adults orchildren from increased risk of cancer; long-term exposures to 2-butoxyethanol may be a

serious health concern at the lower levels.

Formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen, wasdetected at trace levels of around threemicrograms per cubic meter of air, in both theconventional and green cleaning scenarios.

In addition, 15 air contaminants detected in theconventional cleaning scenario were not

detected by any of the tests of individual productsused to clean the classroom; in the green cleaningscenario, 10 new air contaminants were detected dueto use of a mixture of green products. Trace levels ofthese chemicals may arise due to the interaction ofthe cleaning products with each other, or with the

cleaning materials used to apply the products.Differences in detection may also stem fromdifferences in sensitivity between the small-scaleindividual product tests and the larger-scaleclassroom cleaning test.

3,0403,100

2,050

811

332367 575 387

14550

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

0 60 120 180 240

Air pollution

(VOCs, g/m3)

Minutes after classroom cleaning

Conventional

products

Certified Green

products


14/42


Impact on Kids Health:

Students Face Health Risks from Air Contamination

Healthy indoor air is essential for any classroom.Yet a U.S. Department of Education survey

revealed that 1 in 5 public schools in the U.S. haveunsatisfactory indoor air quality, and 1 in 4 haveinadequate ventilation (NCES 2007). A 2004California Air Resources Board report on portableand traditional classrooms throughout the statefound substandard levels of fresh air in classroomsduring 40 percent of class hours, with seriouslydeficient ventilation 10 percent of the time (CARB2004). As a result, nearly all classrooms testedcontained hazardous contaminants likeformaldehyde at levels above governmentguidelines designed to protect against cancer and

other long-term health effects.

Children subjected to poor quality air at school areless healthy (Myhrvold 1996), less able toconcentrate (Myhrvold 1996; Smedje 1996), anddo worse on tests (Shaughnessy 2006). They alsomiss more days of school (Shendell 2004). Achilds overall academic performance suffers withsuch illness or absence (Weitzman 1982; ONeil1985; Silverstein 2001). EPA advises schools toimprove indoor air quality to increase both healthand scholastic achievement (EPA 2003).

School staff should take a careful look at thecleaning supplies they use as one means ofmaintaining healthy air in the classroom. Somecleaners can be a significant source of indoor airpollution that harms air quality, causing asthmaand other health problems in students, teachers,custodians, and staff. Chemicals in manyconventional cleaning supplies used in schools inCalifornia have been linked to asthma, cancer,reproductive toxicity, hormone disruption, andneurotoxicity. After cleaning, chemical residueshave been measured in air, on surfaces, in dust -and some of these chemicals have been detected inpeoples blood and urine, a clear indication ofexposure.

Childrens Asthma and Cleaning

SuppliesCDC surveys have detected a dramatic increase inchildhood asthma across the country in the span of

just a few decades. At present, nearly 1 in 10children (9.3 percent) has asthma in the U.S.

(CDC 2008), up from 7.5 percent in 1996, and just3.6 percent in 1980 (CDC 2006). In California,one in six children will develop asthma at somepoint during childhood or adolescence (Babey2006). Childhood asthma is more common amongAfrican-American, Latino, and low incomecommunities (CDC 2006; Babey 2007; Meng2007). Hospitalization rates for asthma are athistorically high levels, mirroring the documentedtrends in asthma prevalence (CDC 2006).

Childhood asthma affects education as well as

health. Nationally, asthma is the leading cause ofmissed school days due to a chronic illness,accounting for one-third of these absences (EPA1991). Asthma was responsible for an estimated1.9 million missed school days in California in2005 (Meng 2008), and approximately 14.7million missed school days each year nationally(EPA 2005). Every school absence represents lostopportunities for learning and lost school revenuefrom the state. Is it possible that schoolsthemselves may unintentionally contribute togrowing rates of asthma through use of cleaning

products containing ingredients known to causeasthma?

Many ingredients in conventional cleaningsupplies cause asthma in previously healthypeople, according to the Association ofOccupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC),the leading international body concerned with thelink between chemical exposures and asthma.Examples of recognized asthmagens used incleaning products include a class of surfactantscalled ethanolamines (like monoethanolamine,diethanolamine, and triethanolamine) and a classof antibacterial agents known as quaternaryammonium compounds (like benzalkoniumchloride, or alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammoniumchloride). More asthma-causing air contaminantsspecifically measured in EWG tests of cleaningsupplies include formaldehyde, methylmethacrylate, and styrene. In addition, fragrances,which are common components of cleaners, are


15/42


among the top five allergens in the world (deGroot 1997; Jansson 2001), and are known totrigger asthma attacks (Norback 1995; Millqvist1996).

Several studies also conclude that both

occupational and non-occupational use of cleaningproducts are linked to increased risk of asthma(Medina-Ramon 2005, 2006; Arif 2009; Bernstein2009). Teachers have high levels of asthma whencompared to the general workforce (NIOSH 2004;Mazurek 2008), and a recent study of Californiaand three other states noted that many teachersspecifically report exposures to cleaning suppliesin association with development of work-relatedasthma (Mazurek 2008).

Like teachers, school children spend a large part oftheir day inside classrooms cleaned with chemicalsthat can cause or exacerbate asthma, and breathein a complex set of indoor air contaminants withlungs that are still developing. While manychildren outgrow their asthma diagnosis,childhood is a time of elevated sensitivity toirritating chemicals. According to the NationalAcademy of Sciences, one factor in childrensexceptional sensitivity to the harmful effects ofchemicals is that their developing organ systemsare more vulnerable to damage from chemicalexposures (NAS 1993). The Academy alsoconcluded that children are less able than adults todetoxify and excrete chemicals.

In addition, a childs chemical exposures aregreater pound-for-pound than those of an adult(NAS 1993). On a body weight basis, for example,a resting child breathes up to twice as much air asadults (EPA 2008) - an important factor whenconsidering the effects of air pollution in theclassroom. Finally, the National Academy ofSciences notes that children have more years offuture life in which to develop disease triggered byearly exposure (NAS 1993).

Green Seal, an independent group that certifiesgreen cleaners, has taken into account childrensspecial susceptibility to toxic air contaminants indesigning its cleaning product standards (GreenSeal 2008). According to the latest version ofGreen Seals certification standard, certified greenproducts are prohibited from containingingredients classified by AOEC as both

asthmagens and sensitizers.

EcoLogo, another independent green certificationcompany, specifically prohibits a number oftypical cleaning product ingredients found on theAOEC list (EcoLogo 2008). While green cleaning

products generally contain far fewer asthmagensthan conventional products, air contaminant testsdid detect one such chemical, methylmethacrylate, in the EcoLogo-certified WaxieGreen Floor Finish. This chemical is notspecifically prohibited by EcoLogo criteria,suggesting that a more comprehensive prohibitionof AOEC asthmagens might strengthen theEcoLogo standard and better protect public health.

Cleaning products also contribute to asthmaindirectly, by releasing a host of volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) that form ozone when in thepresence of other widely distributed aircontaminants composed of nitrogen and oxygen.Ozone is the primary component of smog that cantrigger asthma. Ozone was not detected in thisstudy because the VOCs emitted by cleaningproducts were exposed to purified air free ofnitrogen-oxygen air contaminants. These commoncontaminants undoubtedly affect the air inclassrooms across the U.S., providing anopportunity for ozone formation during and afteruse of cleaning supplies that release VOCs.

Use of cleaning products can release volatileorganic compounds at levels up to 100 timeshigher than found outdoors; these levels can evenexceed safety limits established for industrialsettings (Nazaroff 2006). So many of these volatileorganic compounds are capable of producingozone that estimates of smog-forming VOCs canbe made by measuring the total level of all VOCsemitted, then subtracting methane, a singlenonreactive volatile compound, from thismeasurement.

Recent research indicates exposure to ozone canbe especially harmful for children. A six-monthstudy of fourth graders in 12 southern Californiacommunities documented an 83 percent increasein respiratory-related absences when daytimeozone levels increase by 20 parts per billion(Gilliland 2001). Children who grow up in smoggyregions have permanently scarred lungs, and feellifelong effects of diminished lung capacity


16/42


(Kunzli 1997). For this reason, certificationorganizations place strict limits on the levels ofvolatile organic compounds emitted by greencleaning products.

Volatile chemicals known as terpenes, derived

from pine and citrus oil cleaners, produce anotherasthma risk. Terpenes can react with trace levelsof ozone to form formaldehyde, an asthmagen andknown human carcinogen. The California AirResources Board recommends avoiding use ofcitrus and pine oil cleaners, especially on smoggydays (CARB 2008).

The annual direct medical cost of asthma in bothchildren and adults is estimated at $37 billionnationwide (Kamble 2009). The indirect costs foran individual child are difficult to quantify, butencompass impacts on a childs education andwell-being from asthma caused or triggered bycleaning products. And asthma is just one of manylong-term health consequences associated withcleaning product chemicals.

Chemicals in Cleaning Supplies Raise

Other Health Concerns

Individual chemicals found in cleaning productsare tied to a number of other serious human healththreats, according to numerous laboratory studiesand, in some cases, research on exposure and

disease in people.

Cancer

Increasing incidence of many childhood cancers,including leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, andspecific brain and nervous system cancers(Woodruff 2004; Ries 2007), are a clear cause forconcern regarding childrens exposures tochemicals linked to cancer. Air pollution tests ofcleaning products used in schools, along withlimited ingredient disclosure, revealed a total of 11cleaner chemicals classified as known, probable,

or possible human carcinogens.

For example, Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanserreleased benzene, formaldehyde, chloroform, andthree more cancer-causing chemicals. Anadditional carcinogen, quartz, was not detected bytesting, but is disclosed as an ingredient by themanufacturer. Quartz is an inhalation carcinogen.

School children are unlikely to inhale quartzpowder present in cleaning products, butcustodians may experience more substantialexposures. The widely used graffiti remover GoofOff emitted ethylbenzene and 2-butoxyethanol,both linked to cancer.

Green Seal-certified cleaning supplies cannotcontain ingredients classified as carcinogenic bythe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), theNational Toxicology Program (NTP), theOccupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA), or the International Agency for Researchon Cancer (IARC). These products also cannotcontain ingredients known to produce or releasethese carcinogenic compounds (Green Seal 2008).EcoLogo prohibits formulation or manufacture ofcertified green cleaning products with anycarcinogens listed by IARC (EcoLogo 2008).

While 10 of 16 conventional products emittedcarcinogens, just one of six certified greencleaning products, Waxie Green Floor Finish,emitted any of these cancer-causing chemicals.The chemicals emitted by this green product arespecifically prohibited by the green standard it iscertified to meet (EcoLogo 2007), implying aninconsistency between the manufacturersdisclosures concerning formulation and the actualchemicals released by the product. If greencertifying groups required air testing results forcertification, such inconsistencies could bedetected and resolved immediately. That wouldensure that certified green products did not emitsubstances prohibited by their certificationstandards, resulting in safer, healthier, and moretrustworthy green cleaning supplies.


17/42


Carcinogenic chemicals prohibited in certified green products are released by 10

conventional cleaners, and by one green cleaner.Carcinogen Cleaning Product

Acetaldehyde (1,2,3)


Febreze Air EffectsSimple Green ConcentratedCleaner/Degreaser/Deodorizer


Benzene (3,4,5) Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

2-Butoxyethanol (6)

Glance HC Glass and Multi-Surface Cleaner







1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane (1,3,7) Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

Chloroform (1,2,8) Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

Ethylbenzene (2) Waxie 21 Glass Cleaner

N-Ethyl-N-nitroso-ethanamine (1,3,7) Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

Formaldehyde (1,4,9)


Pine-Sol Brand Cleaner (Original)



Quartz* (4) Waxie Green Floor Finish

Styrene (2) Shineline Seal Floor Sealer/Finish

Trichloroethylene (1,7) Citrus-Scrub 90

*Ingredient disclosed by manufacturer but not detected in air contaminant tests(1) NTP reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen(2) IARC possible human carcinogen (Group 2B)(3) EPA IRIS probable human carcinogen (Group B2)(4) IARC known human carcinogen (Group 1(5) EPA IRIS known human carcinogen (Group A)(6) EPA IRIS possible human carcinogen (Group C)(7) IARC probable human carcinogen (Group 2A)(8) EPA IRIS likely to be carcinogenic to humans (high-exposure conditions only)

(9) EPA IRIS probable human carcinogen (Group B1)


18/42


Allylanisole, a carcinogen identified inCalifornias Proposition 65 list but not on any ofthe agency lists specified in existing certificationstandards, was detected in the conventionalcleaner Simple Green. This chemical is typicallyextracted from plant sources and can be used as a

component of fragrances at low levels, amongother uses. If certification groups includedProposition 65 chemicals in their list of prohibitedcarcinogens, their standards could be even morehealth protective.

Cleaning product ingredients can also be indirectsources of carcinogenic contamination. Asdescribed above, the known human carcinogenformaldehyde can form by mixing trace amountsof ozone in the air with terpenes, naturalcomponents of pine and citrus oil cleaners like

Pine-Sol. Formaldehyde formation from terpenesis higher on smoggy days when ozone levels arehigh.

Reproductive Toxicity

Each year, about 7.3 million American coupleshave trouble becoming pregnant or carrying to fullterm, an increase of 20 percent over the last 10years (Barrett 2006). Alarmingly, infertility isrising most rapidly for women under age 25.Increasing evidence indicates everyday exposuresto reproductive toxins may play a role in

escalating levels of infertility in the U.S.

Conventional cleaning supplies can contain anumber of reproductive toxins. Phthalates,common ingredients in cleaner fragrances and insome floor finishes and window cleaners (WVE2007), are reproductive toxins according to anumber of animal studies (CERHR 2000; OEHHA2007). In addition, epidemiological studies link anumber of reproductive effects to phthalateexposure, including male reproductive systemabnormalities (Swan 2005), altered sex hormonelevels in baby boys and men (Main 2006; Duty

2005), and sperm damage in men (Duty 2003,2004; Hauser 2007). Dibutyl phthalate is aningredient in Shineline Seal Floor Sealer/Finish,one of the products examined in this study.

While phthalates may be present in other cleaningproducts tested, especially as components offragrance, these chemicals are not sufficientlyvolatile to be measured as air contaminants.

Instead, phthalates released by cleaners are likelyto contaminate dust (Rudel 2003; CDC 2005).Exposures to toxins in dust are significantespecially for younger children who are morelikely to spend time sitting or playing on the floor(Butte 2002). According to the manufacturer,

Shineline Seal Floor Seal/Finish contains up tofive percent dibutyl phthalate, an alarmingly highlevel considering the potential this creates forchildrens exposure to a known reproductive toxin.

Dibutyl phthalate is a known reproductive toxin asdefined by the state of Californias Proposition 65process. Other Proposition 65 reproductive toxinsdetected in these tests of cleaning supplies includesolvents like toluene, benzene, and ethoxyethanol.These chemicals were detected in a total of fourproducts, including one Green Seal-certified

cleaner, Alpha HP. Green Seal-certified productsmust not contain Proposition 65 reproductivetoxins as ingredients, nor can they containingredients known to produce or release thesecompounds (Green Seal 2008). In this case, testingdata indicate a certified green product releasedtrace levels of a prohibited compound, perhaps dueto contamination of a product ingredient.

Other cleaner chemicals not yet listed asreproductive toxins in California are linked toreproductive harm. Glycol ethers, including thewidely used 2-butoxyethanol, are commoncleaning solvents that impair fertility and harmdevelopment in animal studies (EPA 2000; NTP2000). Other studies find that men exposed toglycol ethers on the job are more likely to havereduced sperm counts, while pregnant womenexposed on the job are more likely to give birth tochildren with birth defects (Cordier 1997; CDHS2007). 2-Butoxyethanol was detected in sixconventional cleaning products (Simple GreenConcentrated Cleaner/Degreaser/Deodorizer,Glance HC Glass and Multi-Surface Cleaner,Shineline Seal Floor Sealer/Finish, Goof Off

Cleaner (CA VOC Compliant), Pioneer SuperCleaner, and Waxie 21 Glass Cleaner), and onecertified green product (Waxie Green FloorFinish). Only five cleaning products (Citrus-Scrub90, Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser, GlanceNA Glass & Multi-Purpose Cleaner, MarauderEnvironmental Cleaner, and NABC Non-AcidDisinfectant Bathroom Cleaner) were free of all


19/42


glycol ethers examined by laboratory tests.

Quaternary ammonium compounds (quats) areantibacterial pesticides commonly used indisinfectants. A quat-based disinfectant calledVirex, similar to one used in multiple school

districts in California, was recently identified bynoted scientist Dr. Patricia Hunt as the cause of asevere decline in the fertility of a laboratory mousepopulation preliminary evidence that quats maybe reproductive toxins (Hunt 2008). Twodisinfectants in this study, NABC Non-AcidDisinfectant Bathroom Cleaner and Virex II 256,both list quats as ingredients. Quats may bepresent in other products as well, as they are alsoused for their detergent properties. Thesechemicals are non-volatile and are expected tocontaminate dust (Ferrer 2002). EcoLogo certified

products are prohibited from containing quats.

EcoLogo certified products are prohibited fromcontaining phthalates, quats, and some glycolethers and their acetates (2-butoxyethanol, alongwith ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethyleneglycol monoethyl ether, and ethylene glycolmonopropyl ether) (EcoLogo 2007, 2008). TheEcoLogo-certified product tested in this study,Waxie Green Floor Finish, emitted the prohibitedingredient 2-butoxyethanol.

For some certified green cleaning supplies, state-

of-the-art air quality tests again highlight adiscrepancy between ingredients disclosed togreen certifiers and air contaminants emitted bythese products. By requiring independent aircontaminant testing as part of certification, GreenSeal and EcoLogo would be able to verify thatcertified green products are free of manyprohibited reproductive toxins, guaranteeing saferproducts.

Hormone Disruption

Signs of hormone disruption are evident in girls

growing up all over America. Over the last fourdecades, the age at which girls begin to developbreasts has declined by one-to-two years(Steingraber 2007), with African-American girlstypically developing at an earlier age thanCaucasian girls. Over the same 40-year period, theage at which girls in the U.S. begin menstruatinghas declined by a few months, with substantialvariation by ethnicity (Steingraber 2007). Early

breast development, as well as the appearance ofpubic hair at a young age, has become so commonthat in 1999 the clinical definition of early-onset orprecocious puberty in the U.S. was reduced fromage 8 to age 7 for Caucasian girls, and from age 7to age 6 for African-American girls (Kaplowitz

1999).

A girl who begins puberty at an early age is atgreater risk for several adult illnesses, includingbreast cancer (Wang 2005; Steingraber 2007;Golub 2008) and polycystic ovary syndrome(Ibez 1997; Kousta 2006; Steingraber 2007;Golub 2008), a leading cause of pelvic pain andinfertility. Polycystic ovary syndrome is linked toincreased risk of obesity, diabetes and impairedglucose tolerance (Auchus 2004; Kousta 2006),and increased prevalence of risk factors associated

with cardiovascular disease (Kousta 2006).

Early-maturing girls are also more prone to avariety of psychiatric or behavioral problems,from depression to drug abuse and teen pregnancy(Graber 1997, 2004; Kaltiala-Heino 2001, 2003a,2003b; Flanigan 2003; Deardorff 2005). Womenexperiencing early puberty tend to have lesseducation (Johansson 2005), while late-maturinggirls tend to perform better in school and are morelikely to finish college (Graber 1997, 2004).

Scientists and medical professionals increasingly

identify exposures to hormone-disruptingchemicals as a significant factor in unnaturallyaccelerating this critical period of development.Preliminary research on people suggests thatexposures to one particular class of hormone-disrupting chemicals, phthalates, may be linked toearly puberty in girls (Colon 2000).

Eight of the hormone-disrupting chemicalsidentified by a key European Commission report(European Commission DG ENV 2000, 2007)were detected as air contaminants or disclosed as

ingredients of nine cleaners tested. Shineline SealFloor Sealer/Finish contained three differentsuspected hormone disruptors (styrene, ethyleneglycol, dibutyl phthalate), and two such chemicalswere found in Comet Disinfectant PowderCleanser (1-chloro-2,3-epoxypropane,benzophenone), Simple Green ConcentratedCleaner/Degreaser/Deodorizer (phenol, ethyleneglycol), and Goof Off Cleaner (CA VOC


20/42


Compliant) (benzophenone, N-N-dimethylformamide).

Dibutyl phthalate and other phthalates arecommon ingredients in cleaning products and havewell-documented hormone disrupting properties,

according to laboratory tests and epidemiologicalstudies (ATSDR 1995, 1997; CERHR 2000; Main2006; Duty 2005; Huang 2007; Meeker 2007).Alkylphenols, breakdown products of widely usedalkylphenol ethoxylate cleaner ingredients likenonyl phenol ethoxylate, are widely-acknowledged hormone disruptors implicated inthe feminization of fish living in waterwaysreceiving treated wastewater (Balch 2006; Zoller2006; Barber 2007). Fragrances used in manycleaners can contain known or suspected hormonedisruptors as well (EWG 2008).

Groups certifying green cleaning products have

different ways of addressing hormone-disruptingchemicals. EcoLogo-certified products may notinclude chemicals listed in 2000 by the EuropeanCommission as candidates for evaluation ofhormone-disrupting properties (EuropeanCommission DG ENV 2000), a list drawn from

the rapidly emerging science on this critical healthand environmental concern. However, phenol andethylene glycol, two chemicals detected in thesetests of cleaning product pollution, have beenadded to an updated version of this European listthat is not included in the EcoLogo standard(European Commission DG ENV 2007). TheGreen Seal certification standard prohibits a fewspecific chemical classes, including phthalates andalkylphenol ethoxylates, due to hormonedisruption concerns. By prohibiting a more up-to-date list of hormone-disrupting chemicals,

EcoLogo and Green Seal could further improveproduct safety.

Hormone disruptors, some specifically prohibited in certified green products, are released

by many cleaners.

Hormone Disruptor Cleaning ProductBenzophenone



1-Chloro-2,3-Epoxypropane Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

Dibutyl phthalate* Shineline Seal Floor Sealer/Finish

Ethylene glycol**

3M Brand Glass Cleaner (Product No. 1, Twist n FillSystem)

Glance HC Glass and Multi-Surface Cleaner




Nonylphenol ethoxylate* Twister

Phenol**Simple Green ConcentratedCleaner/Degreaser/Deodorizer

Styrene Shineline Seal Floor Sealer/Finish

Source: Potential hormone disruptors identified by the European Commission (European Commission DG ENV 2000, 2007)*Chemicals disclosed as ingredients by manufacturers but not detected in air contaminant tests**Potential hormone disruptors mentioned in the most recent European Comission candidate list, and not prohibited by theEcoLogo standard (EC 2007, EcoLogo CCD-146, 2008)


21/42


Neurotoxicity and Developmental

Disabilities

In light of recent warnings suggesting thatdevelopmental disabilities stemming fromexposures to neurotoxic chemicals may be a

silent pandemic in modern society (Grandjean2006), children require special protection fromneurotoxins. Growth and development of the braincontinues for many years after birth, leavingchildren uniquely sensitive to the effects ofneurotoxic agents; in particular, dramatic changesto brain structure and function occur duringadolescence (Golub 2000).

Examples of neurotoxins commonly used incleaning products are benzyl and isopropylalcohol, detected in NABC Non-Acid DisinfectantBathroom Cleaner, Waxie 21 Glass Cleaner, and

Ripsaw; isopropyl alcohol is also a knowningredient of Pine-Sol Original Cleaner. Although

limits have been set for these chemicals in food,no limits are in place for cleaners.

A number of chemicals that incorporate chlorineare toxic to the brain and nervous system. Xyleneis a neurotoxic component of certain heavy duty

cleaning supplies, like Goof Off Cleaner (CAVOC Compliant) and Shineline Seal FloorSealer/Finish, which are in use in Californiaschools. Toluene and chloroform, both emitted byComet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser, are alsoneurotoxic chemicals. Fragrances used in manycleaning products can contain ingredientssuspected of neurotoxicity as well (USHR 1986).

Health-based limits exist regarding exposure tomany neurotoxins in the workplace. Theseexposure limits, however, were designed only toprotect against acute effects such as headache, andhave not been tightened in decades despite recentscientific evidence of potential health effects ofchronic, low-dose occupational exposures.

Neurotoxins are released by cleaning products, according to air contaminant tests and

ingredient disclosures.

Neurotoxin Cleaning ProductAcetone* Goof Off Cleaner (CA VOC Compliant)

Benzene Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

Benzonitrile Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

Benzyl Alcohol Ripsaw

Chloroform Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

Cyclohexanone

3M Brand Bathroom Cleaner (Product No. 44, Twist nFill System)

Virex II 256

Dibutyl phthalate* Shineline Seal Floor Sealer/Finish

N,N-DimethylformamideClorox Regular Bleach


Ethyl acetate Febreze Air Effects

Isopropyl alcohol

NABC Non-Acid Disinfectant Bathroom Cleaner

Pine-Sol Brand Cleaner (Original)*

Ripsaw



22/42


Methyl ethyl ketone Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser

Methyl methacrylate Waxie Green Floor Finish

PhenolSimple Green ConcentratedCleaner/Degreaser/Deodorizer

Styrene Shineline Seal Floor Sealer/Finish

Toluene

Alpha HP Multi-Surface Cleaner



Trichloroethylene Citrus-Scrub 90

XyleneGoof Off Cleaner (CA VOC Compliant)


Source: Chemicals known to be neurotoxic according to Grandjean 2006.*Chemicals disclosed as ingredients by manufacturers but not detected in air contaminant tests

Cleaning Products Pose Risks to

School Custodians, Too

The custodial and operations staff working eachday to provide Californias children with asanitary school environment receive the brunt ofexposures to harmful chemicals in cleaningproducts. Cleaning professionals suffer a numberof serious chemical injuries on the job. Forexample, 6 out of 100 janitors in Santa Clara

County, California experience chemical-relatedinjuries annually; 20 percent of these injuries areserious burns to the eyes or skin (Barron 1999).

Custodial staff experience increased incidence ofasthma compared to those in other occupations

(Zock 2001; NIOSH 2004; Medina-Ramon 2005;Jaakkola 2006). A recent study of work-relatedasthma in four states indicates that 12 percent ofcases are associated with exposure to cleaningproducts (Rosenman 2003). Twenty two percent ofthose afflicted worked as janitors, and 13 percentworked in schools. Use of cleaning products canalso exacerbate existing asthma; a recent study ofasthmatic women who clean their own homesindicated increased asthma symptoms after

housecleaning (Bernstein 2009). Across the stateof California, asthma is responsible for anestimated 2 million days of missed work (Meng2008), an indication of the severity of this publichealth crisis.


23/42


Government Action:

Children, Teachers and Custodians Lack Protections

School cleaning supplies can contain a broadrange of chemical ingredients, many linked to

significant health concerns including asthma andcancer. At this time, inadequate government healthprotections, combined with manufacturers abilityto conceal cleaning product ingredients, meanschool staff often lack the information needed tomake safer choices about the school cleaners theypurchase.

Secret Ingredients

Take a look at a typical cleaning product, andyoull often see a label full of marketing claimsand instructions for use. Whats missing is a list ofingredients.

Unlike foods, beverages, and body care products,cleaning products need not be labeled with a list ofingredients. School staff and everyday consumerslack key information needed to select cleaningproducts made with safer ingredients.

Cleaning products must disclose certain kinds ofinformation about ingredients. In the state ofCalifornia, products containing chemicals knownto cause cancer, birth defects, and other types of

reproductive or developmental harm, theProposition 65 chemicals identified by the State,must include a warning on the product label ifthese chemicals are present above specified levels.Companies neglecting to properly label cleaningsupplies have been successfully sued by citizens orby advocacy groups and forced to pay fines. Someadvocates offer lower fines in their settlements tomanufacturers that agree to reformulate products(As You Sow v. The Valspar Corporation, 2008).In addition, antibacterial cleaning products areclassified as pesticides, and must list the name and

quantity of all antimicrobial agents on the productlabel.

Schools and other institutions can obtain limitedinformation on ingredients and associated healthconcerns from Material Safety Data Sheets(MSDSs), documents distributed by themanufacturer that outline safe storage andhandling procedures for a product. These

documents typically list only the handful ofspecific chemicals regulated by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) or the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA), andonly when those chemicals are present in theproduct above one percent, or 0.1 percent in thecase of carcinogens. MSDSs are designed withoccupational exposures in mind, and do notaddress childrens special sensitivity to chemicalexposures.

Furthermore, these documents are often found tobe out-of-date, inconsistent, and lacking criticalinformation on chronic toxicity and

carcinogenicity (Nicol 2008; Karstadt 2009).Many cleaner ingredients, including fragrances,dyes, and preservatives, are never listed, leavingschool staff in the dark about what chemicalstheyre using to clean classrooms, bathrooms, andother school spaces. While a few companies havebegun to disclose more information on thechemicals making up their cleaning supplies, mostkeep their ingredient information secret.

A lawsuit filed earlier this year may begin tocorrect this gap in cleaning product health

protections. On behalf of public health andenvironmental advocacy groups, Earthjustice issuing Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, andother cleaning product manufacturers for refusingto follow a New York State law passed in 1976that requires them to disclose the chemicalingredients in their products and the health risksthey pose. If successful, this lawsuit would forcehousehold and commercial cleaner companiesselling products in New York to file semi-annualreports with the State listing the chemicalscontained in their products, and describing anycompany research on these chemicals health andenvironmental effects.

A legislative prescription is also in the works: U.S.Representative Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) introducedHR 3057 this year to require that all householdcleaners be labeled with a full list of ingredients.This bill would not apply to institutionalcleaners marketed specifically to schools, office


24/42


buildings, hospitals, and other institutions. U.S.Senator Al Franken (D- Minn.) has introduced theSenate version of this bill.

Faced with this pressure, the cleaning productsindustry has announced plans to disclose

voluntarily many of the ingredients found incleaning products. The Consumer SpecialtyProducts Association (CSPA), CanadianConsumer Specialty Products Association(CCSPA) and the Soap and Detergent Association(SDA) recently announced an ingredientcommunication initiative designed to provideconsumers with information about the ingredientsin household cleaning products. Starting inJanuary 2010, consumers will be able to call a toll-free number, consult a website or, for someproducts, check the label to find many major

ingredients (Wayne 2009).

While partial, voluntary ingredient disclosure is asubstantial improvement over thestatus quo, full,mandatory disclosure of all ingredients on productlabels is essential to protecting public health. Inaddition, while voluntary ingredient disclosuremay occur for household cleaners, it is unclearwhether it will also occur for institutional cleaners.

Many States and Districts Support

Green Cleaning in Schools

Lax federal health protections have fostered avariety of state efforts to promote green cleaningin schools. Eight states have passed laws on thesubject:

New York States 2005 Green Cleaning Act (SB5435) requires elementary and secondaryschools to use green cleaning and maintenanceproducts, under state guidelines.

Illinois 2007 Green Cleaning Schools Act(Public Act 095-0084) requires elementary andsecondary schools to develop a green cleaning

policy and purchase and use products consistentwith state guidelines for green cleaning andmaintenance products for schools. Schooldistricts that can prove that using green cleanerswould pose a financial hardship may receive anexemption.

Maines 2007 Policy to Encourage the Use ofSafe Chemicals in Public Schools (Legislative

Document (LD) 88; S.P. Chapter 32) requiresthe State to publish information on greencleaning products and procedures, but does notmandate green cleaning in schools.

Missouris 2008 Green Cleaning for Schools

Act (Revised Statutes 161.365; 2008 Mo. Sen.Bill 1181) requires the State to publishinformation on green cleaning products andprocedures, but does not mandate greencleaning in schools.

Marylands 2009 Act Concerning CountyBoards of Education Procurement of GreenProduct Cleaning Supplies (House Bill 1363)requires the States elementary and secondarypublic schools to use cleaning products withpositive environmental attributes. Local Boardsof Education are responsible for defining what

may be considered a green product.

Connecticuts 2009 Green Cleaning Products inSchools Act (Public Act 09-81) requireselementary and secondary public schools to usecertified green cleaning and maintenanceproducts, according to state guidelines.

Hawaiis 2009 House Bill 1538, Relating toEnvironmentally-Sensitive Products, requiresthe Department of Education to give firstpreference for Green Seal certified greencleaning products for use in elementary and

secondary public schools.

Nevadas 2009 Act Requiring School Districtsto Use Certain Environmentally SensitiveCleaning and Maintenance Products (Senate Bill185) mandates that all public elementary andsecondary schools ensure that only greencleaning and maintenance products are used toclean their floor surfaces. The StatesDepartment of Education is required to adoptregulations that define green products andprovide districts with a list of approvedproducts. School districts that can prove that

using green cleaners would pose a financialhardship may receive an exemption.

Bills on green cleaning in schools were alsointroduced this year in California, Massachusetts,Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Many proactive school districts in California havealready begun adopting green cleaning policies,


25/42


using certified green cleaners to maintain theirfacilities. Success stories show that green cleaningis effective, protects the health of students andstaff, and can even save money.

Safer Cleaning Supplies Protect

EveryoneBy cleaning up the cleaning products industry, wecan make schools safer for students as well ascustodians and teachers. Parents everywhere cantake steps to protect their kids:

Ask your school about its cleaning policy andpractices. If theyre not using certified greenproducts, urge them to start cleaning green withthese special tips for talking to schools. Andwhen youre on school grounds, check to ensurethe products in the custodial carts match schoolpolicy.

Support state and local efforts requiring the useof certified green cleaners in schools.

Spread the word about the secret ingredients incleaning supplies, and fight for completeingredient disclosure for all cleaning products.

Dont stop with school follow EWG advice ongreen cleaning at home.

Cleaning products are an appalling example of theinadequacy of current chemical protections. The

U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, the law thatregulates all industrial chemicals in the UnitedStates, was enacted more than three decades ago,and assumes that chemicals in everyday productsare safe until proven otherwise. Cleaning suppliesand other everyday products can containingredients that have never been tested for safety.Lacking labeling requirements, consumers areeven denied the right to know whats in theproducts they buy and use every day. Federalreform is needed to require companies to discloseall ingredients in cleaning supplies and other

products, and to test these ingredients for safety.


26/42


Successful Green Cleaning:

Green Cleaning Does the Job

All across California, and indeed, all across thenation, schools have begun to turn to certified

green cleaning supplies to provide students with asafer learning environment. Some of the manyCalifornia school districts implementing large-scale green cleaning programs include Elk GroveUnified, Fairfield-Suisun Unified, and FresnoUnified. Other schools conducting green cleaningpilot programs include Los Angeles Unified,Oakland Unified, and San Francisco Unified.These success stories show that green cleaning iseffective, protects the health of students and staff,and can save schools money.

Green Cleaners Really CleanTo be certified, a green cleaning product must passstrict performance tests. Elk Grove Unified, justsouth of Sacramento, transitioned from 15different conventional cleaners to a single certifiedgreen cleaner that, at varying strengths, can cleanjust about every surface in a school (RAMP 2009).Linda Lopez, Manager of Custodial Services forElk Grove, supervised the switch. After ademonstration from the product rep, she ordered apilot test at Franklin High School. She reports,Ive also seen a lot of green cleaners that dont

perform. But this one [certified green cleaner]really works, and its safe.

According to Richard Bonfond, chief custodian atElk Groves Joseph Sims Elementary School,Some of the old products, you couldnt standthem they were so harsh, plus they didnt work aswell. I prefer this new product. I like how it worksfor us. Just because you clean something doesntmean its clean. With this stuff, its clean.

Green Products Are Healthier for

KidsSchool staff quickly see the health benefitsprovided by green cleaning supplies. For example,the same year that the new certified green cleanerwas introduced to Elk Grove, absenteeism dropped2 percent (RAMP 2009). Thats probablycoincidental with attendance efforts on otherfronts, said Linda Lopez, but it [absenteeism]

has been down significantly since then and itsstayed down.

Francis Kennedy, Custodial Manager of Fairfield-Suisun Unified, led the districts transition togreen cleaning products (RAMP 2009). Anasthmatic himself, Kennedy remembers that thetraditional cleaners used in the district had verypowerful odors and children were affected by it.Following the transition to green cleaners, Thenumber of complaints we used to get about smellsand odors, we dont get any more. With greencleaning in place, The rooms became cleaner andthe teachers noticed it. They didnt smell residual

products after cleaning, which used to be a reallybig issue. When a room had an odor we used tospray a deodorizer that lingered for two to threedays. We dont use products like that anymore.

Green cleaning is also safer for custodians.According to Kennedy, the job injury rate atFairfield-Suisuns school sites also droppedsignificantly with the transition to certified greenproducts. Were not having the chemicalaccidents we used to have, he noted. Job injuriesmostly evaporated that first year.

Green Cleaning Can Save Money

Green cleaning need not cost schools any moremoney than conventional cleaning. On thecontrary, many schools have saved money bymaking the switch. Fairfield-Suisun officialsestimate that the new cleaning products andprocedures have produced savings as high as 20percent, in part due to labor savings from usingrestroom cleaning machines and autoscrubbersthat dispense new green cleaning products (RAMP2009).

Novato Unified School District in CaliforniasMarin County successfully transitioned to greencleaning products at all sites with no additionalexpense by working through its long-term contractwith a local vendor (GPI 2009). The market trendis that the costs for green products are going down,and having a long-term contract has helped us tolock-in prices and better manage our budget


27/42


projections, said Mark Silva, Director ofMaintenance, Operations and Transportation forNovato Unified.

A money-saving advantage incorporated into thepackaging of certified green cleaning supplies is

that of automatic dilution equipment. Mostcertified green cleaning supplies are highlyconcentrated and a large percentage come withspecially-engineered dilution control packaging orequipment to guarantee all products are used atappropriate concentrations. This creates a money-saving advantage over many conventionalcleaning products by preventing waste caused byunmeasured pouring (the glug-glug method).Recently, two schools in Honolulu, HI were ableto reduce the cost of their restroom cleaningproducts from $6-12 per gallon to less than $1 per

gallon by replacing a ready-to-use conventionalproduct with a highly-concentrated, Green Seal-certified product that is typically diluted with 64 to256 parts water (GPI 2009).

Fairfield-Suisun Custodial Supervisor FrancisKennedy also reminds us that there are oftenadditional, unquantified savings in better indoorair quality, fewer job injuries due to toxicchemicals, and less damage to the facilitiesbecause of spills or misuse of the toxic product(GPI 2009). Mary Curtin, a registered nurse atMartinez Unified School District, now using greenbathroom cleaners, noted that, The greenproducts will most likely save district money withdiminished school absences and improvedemployees health (GPI 2009).

New York and Illinois, the first states to mandategreen cleaning in schools, have seen no adversecost impacts from the legislation (GPI 2009). KurtLarson of the New York State Office of GeneralServices Environmental Services Unit, which

spearheaded implementation of New Yorks 2005Green Cleaning in Schools Law, has not heard anycomplaints from schools about the cost of greencleaners. Since there are about 750 schooldistricts in the state, if the requirement to usecertified green cleaners was onerous, we would

likely be hearing about it, Larson said.Anecdotally, were hearing that the greencleaning products work effectively and last longer,because they are concentrated and the dispensingsystems are more accurate. In addition, the newproducts are usually implemented in conjunctionwith a comprehensive green cleaning program,often reducing the number of cleaning productsrequired, which saves money.

The Illinois Green Clean Schools Act of 2007 waswritten to include an exemption clause that allows

schools to opt out of the laws green cleaningrequirements if they determine that they wouldincrease their cleaning costs (GPI 2009). MarkBishop of the Chicago-based Healthy SchoolsCampaign noted, In follow up discussions withmore than 25 districts, not a single facilitymanager told us that their costs increased. Most ofthe facility managers we spoke to said that whilesome elements of the green cleaning program costmore, some elements cost less; overall, greencleaning resulted in no additional cost.Additionally, as of April 2, 2009, the State of

Illinois has received only four notices of schoolsdetermining that green cleaning is noteconomically feasible [out of nearly 900 districtsin the state].

For more green cleaning success stories, check outBreathing Easier: School Districts Make theSwitch to Certified Green Cleaning Products, anew report from Regional Asthma Managementand Prevention (RAMP).


28/42


Greenwashing:

Be Skeptical of Greenwashing Claims

Many cleaners make extravagant claims of beingenvironmentally-friendly, but often this marketing

simply doesnt stand up to scrutiny. No regulationsexist to require that m

Documents

EWG School Cleaning Supplies Report