Toxics Use Reduction Institute Facility Maintenance Using Bio-based Materials Opportunities to Green...
-
Upload
ignacio-hillhouse -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Toxics Use Reduction Institute Facility Maintenance Using Bio-based Materials Opportunities to Green...
Toxics Use Reduction Institute
Facility Maintenance Using Bio-based
MaterialsOpportunities to Green Your
Company
Dr. Jason MarshallLaboratory Director
Surface Solutions Lab
[email protected]://turicleanbreak.blogspot.com
www.cleanersolutions.orgwww.turi.org/laboratory
(978)934-3133
Why Biobased Products
• May 2002, Section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Public Law 107-17)– Federal agencies are mandated by this law to
purchase and promote the purchase of biobased products
• United States Department of Agriculture – Memorandum in January of 2005– Establishing the USDA biobased procurement
program– Intent to increase the purchase and use of
biobased products by Federal Government
What is Biobased
• A biobased product as defined by the Secretary of Agriculture– To be a commercial or industrial product
(other than food or feed) that is composed, in whole or in significant part, of biological products or renewable domestic agricultural materials (including plant, animal, and marine materials) or forestry materials.
www.ofee.gov/gp/USDA_Secretary's_Memo.pdf
Whole or Significant Part
• What does that really mean?
• Lab set up four categories– Whole 100%– Significant ≥50%– Partial ≥25%– Minimal <25%
• must be greater than 0%
This is where we want to be
Biobased Sources
• General source of materials in products – Soy– Corn– Plant– Citrus– Other
Compare Current Products with Alternatives
• Evaluate traditional cleaning products for performance under controlled setting
• Evaluated bio-based alternatives under laboratory conditions as well– Green Seal GS37 certification process
• Industrial and Institutional Cleaners• http://www.greenseal.org/certification/standards/gs37.pdf
– Green Seal GS40• Industrial & Institutional Floor-Care Products• http://www.greenseal.org/certification/standards/gs40.pdf
Find Out What Your Potential Applications Are
• Identify potential areas for using biobased products– All purpose cleaning– Hard surface cleaning– Glass Cleaning– Carpet Cleaning– Floor finish & stripping– Vehicle maintenance
Start Small
• Pilot on One Possibility– Floor Stripping and Cleaning
Process Phase I
• Product Identification
• Lab Testing
• Field Testing
• Evaluate EH&S
• Evaluate Economics
• Recommendations for Change
Product Identification Floor Finish Stripping
Biobased Product Identification Floor Finish Stripping
• Existing floor strippers– Not many out there
• Lab’s website: www.cleanersolutions.org– Wax removal– Coating removal
• Web Search
Lab’s Website
Partial List of Possible Floor Finish Strippers
Product Profile
Laboratory Testing Floor Finish Stripping
Lab Testing Floor Finish Stripping
• Bench scale testing– Preliminary screening– Manual wipe– Mechanical abrasion – See handouts
• Pre-pilot testing– Floor stripping machine
Screening Floor Finish Stripping
• Have identified over 50 possible biobased products
• Established a screening process to aid in the identification of products that may be effective– Necessary as many of the identified
products were not manufactured for floor stripping applications
– Generally designed to remove other types of coating systems
Screening ResultsFloor Finish Stripping
• Reduced the number of possible products down to 20– Half of were very effective– Half were partially successful
Bench Testing FloorFinish Stripping
• Vinyl composition floor tile
• Scrub pad
• Stripping was performed at 175 rpm – Using pad attached to variable speed drill
• 15 effective products– Some had strong odors
Bench Testing Results Floor Finish Stripper
Manufacturer Product
Franmar Chemical Soy Strip
Franmar Chemical Soy Gel
SoySafe SoySafe Graffiti Remover
Vertec BioSolvents Household Paint Stripper
Spartan Green Solutions
Spartan Green Solutions
The Clean Environment Co Cycle-Strip
Ecolink Safe Strip
Inland Technologies Inc EP 921
Finger Lakes Chemical Pine Strip
Green Products aMAIZeing
Lab Testing Floor Finish Stripping
• Testing with dilutions and full strength– Included newly received products
• Testing process in the laboratory was closely matched with typical stripping process
• Odor evaluations
Field Testing Floor Finish Stripping
Field Testing Floor Finish Stripping
• Top performers should be used on site– Work completed by your staff– Can be witnessed by Lab staff to help with
objectivity
• Survey workers – During stripping with existing solvent– With biobased alternative
Evaluation Form For Janitorial Cleaning
User Name:Location Used:Square footage cleaned:Name of Product:Product Manufacturer:
Section I: Surfaces Cleaned
□ Appliances□ Carpets□ Countertops□ Ovens□ Furniture such as desks and chairs (specify type, if possible): □ Fixtures (faucets, etc.)□ Hardwood floors□ Laundry□ Marble or ceramic □ Tiles of any other kind □ Mirrors and glass□ Toilet, sink or tub (porcelain/fiberglass)□ Windows □ Other (describe):
Section II: Soils Removed □ Dirt□ Dust□ Food □ Fingerprints□ Grease/grime□ Personal care products such as hair spray,etc. (please specify):□ Scuff marks□ Soap scum□ Stains (please specify): □ Floor coating/wax□ Other (describe):
Evaluation Form
Section III: Cleaning Methods Application: □ Wipe □ Scrub (manual) □ Soak □ Spray □ Mechanical agitation
□ Other (describe):
Supplies Used: □ Cloth □ Paper towel □ Mop □ Pad (describe): □ Other (describe):
Cleaning Time (in minutes):Cleaning Cycle (daily, weekly, etc.):
Performance Comparison: Yes No1. Does this product perform satisfactorily overall? □ □2. Does this product take longer than normal? □ □3. Does this product require more effort to achieve needed level of cleaning? □ □
Health Comparison: Yes No1. Does this product have any unpleasant odor? □ □2. Are there any skin problems with this product? □ □3. Is there any eye irritation with this product? □ □4. Is there any respiratory reaction to this product? □ □
ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Evaluate EH&S
EH & S Comparisons
• Current Product
• Top alternative products evaluated in the lab and on-site– SSL’s Safety Screening– TURI’s Pollution Prevention Options
Analysis System (P2OASys)
Lab Safety Screening
• EHS analysis– Based on 5 parameters
• Volatile Organic Content (VOC)• Global Warming Potential (GWP)• Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)• National Fire Protection Association hazard
rating (NFPA) or Hazardous Material Information System ratings (HMIS)
• pH
– Provides quick screening of cleaning alternatives based on SSL’s focus
VOCs
• Source control – Eliminate products
that have high levels of VOCs
– Purchase new products that contain low or no VOCs
• (Environmentally Preferable Purchasing)
VOC content (g/l) Pts
0-24 10
25-49 9
50-74 8
75-99 6
100-149 5
150-199 4
200-299 3
300 2
>300 0
• Screening Values
GWPs
• Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere– Include water vapor,
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone
• Others result from human activities– Very powerful
greenhouse gases that are generated in a variety of industrial processes, including cleaning processes
GWP Score Pts
GWP = 0 10
GWP = 1 (CO2) 5
All others = 0
ODPs
• The ratio of the amount of ozone depletion of a chemical compared to the amount of ozone depletion of the same mass of CFC-11
• Certain manufactured substances can destroy stratospheric ozone much faster than it is formed
ODP Points Pts
ODP = 0 10
All others = 0
HMIS/NFPA
• Individual Indicator Scores– Add up HMIS/NFPA
for each category– Use table to
determine the number of points to assess
HMIS/NFPA Point Assessment
Total Pts Examples0 10 H-0 F-0 R-0
1 9 H-0 F-0 R-1, H-0 F-1 R-0
2 8 H-1 F-1 R-0, H-2 F-0 R-0
3 7 H-1 F-1 R-1, H-2 F-1 R-0
3 2 H-3 F-0 R-0
4 6 H-2 F-2 R-0, H-1 F-2 R-1
4 1 H-1 F-3 R-0
5 5 H-2 F-2 R-1
5 0 H-1 F-3 R-1, H-2 F-3 R-0
6 4 H-2 F-2 R-2
6 0 H-3 F-3 R-0
7, 8, 9 0 H-3 F-3 R-1, H-3 F-3 R-2
pH
• Neutral substances receive the highest Individual Indicator points
• Both very acidic and very basic are both avoided
pH Pts0-1.0 0
1.1-2.4 4
2.5-2.9 6
3.0-4.0 7
4.1-5.9 8
6.0-6.4 9
6.5-7.5 10
7.6-8.9 9
9.0-9.9 8
10-11.4 7
11.5-11.9 6
12-12.4 4
12.5-12.9 2
13-14 0
Example Safety Screening Results
Safety ScreeningExample of Floor Finish Stripping
Safety Screening Values VOC GWP ODP
HMIS/NFPApH
Total Score
Rank
Products H F R 50 max 1 = best
ProStripper (non-bio) 250 0 0 3 0 0 12.1 29 6
Super Stripper 263 0 0 1 0 0 11.8 38 1
EnviroCare Floor Stripper 250 0 0 1 2 0 10.6 37 3
Whistle Jet Cleaner 114 0 0 1 1 0 12.3 37 3
Super Orange Jel 153 0 0 1 0 0 12.2 38 1
Cycle Strip 200 0 0 1 0 0 12.4 36 5
Safety Screening
• Should not be concluded from these results alone that all biobased products are safer with respect to EHS
• A full EHS study should be conducted on the products with better Safety Screening Scores– TURI’s 5 Chemical Assessment– P2OASys
Pollution Prevention Options Assessment System
• P2OASys– Helps companies determine if TUR options
being considered have any unforeseen negative environmental, worker or public health impacts
– Specific process information used to establish baseline of hazards associated with current system
P2OASys Criteria
Major Category Number of Criteria
Acute human effects 10
Chronic human effects 8
Physical hazards 5
Aquatic hazards 5
Persistence/bioaccumulation 5
Atmospheric hazard 4
Disposal hazard 4
Chemical hazard 13
Energy & resource use 3
Product hazard 3
Exposure potential 1
Standardized Hazard Score Data Base 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Acute human effects Units
Inhalation LC50 ppm10000.0
01000.0
0150.0
0 15.00 <15
PEL/TLV ppm 200.00 100.00 25.00 5.00 <5
PEL/TLV (dusts/particles) mg/m3 10.00 5.00 1.00 0.10 <0.1
IDLH ppm 1000.00 500.00 50.00 10.00 <10
Respiratory irritation L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
Oral LD50 mg/kg 5000.00 500.00 50.00 5.00 <5
dermal irritation L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
skin absorption L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
dermal LD50 mg/kg 5000.00 500.00 50.00 5.00 <5
ocular irritation L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
Chronic human effects
Reference Dose RfD mg/kg/day 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.001<0.00
1
carcinogenIARC/EPA
Class 4,E 3,D 2B,C 2A,B 1,A
mutagen L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
reproductive effects L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
neurotoxicity L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
developmental effects L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
respir. sensistivity/disease L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
other chronic organ effects L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
P2OASys Criteria
Physical hazards
heatWBGT,
°C 25.00 27.00 30.00 32.00 >32
noise generation dBA 80.00 85.00 85.00 90.00>90.0
0
vibration m/S2 4.00 6.00 8.00 12.00>12.0
0
ergonomic hazard L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
psychosocial hazard L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
Aquatic hazards
Water Quality Criteria (HWQC) mg/l >10 6-8 4-6 1-4 <1
aquatic LC50 mg/l1000.0
0 50.00 1.00 0.10 <0.10
fish NOAEC mg/l 0.20 0.020.002
0 0.0002<0.00
02
plant EC 50 mg/l 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 <0.1
observed ecological effects L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
Persistence/bioaccumulation
persistence L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
BOD half-life days 4.00 10.00100.0
0 500.00 >500
hydrolysis half-life days 4.00 10.00100.0
0 500.00 >500
bioconcentration log kow 1.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 >6
bioconcentration factor (BCF) kg/l 10.00
100.00
200.00
1000.00 >1000
Atmospheric hazard
greenhouse gas Y/N N Y
ozone depletorODP units
acid rain formation Y/N N Y
NESHAP Y/N N Y
Disposal hazard
landfill L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
EPCRA reportable quantity lbs5000.0
01000.0
0100.0
0 10.00 1.00
incineration L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
recycling L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
Chemical hazard
vapor pressure mm Hg 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 >100
solubility in water mg/L
specific gravity N/A
flammability0,1,2,3,
4 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
flash point °C 100.00 75.00 25.00 10.00 <10
reactivity0,1,2,3,
4 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
pHpH
units 7.006-7, 7-
85-6, 8-
93-5, 9-
111-3, 11-
14
corrosivity L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
High pressure system L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
High temperature system L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
mixture/reaction potential L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
odor threshold L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
volatile organic compound L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
Energy & resource use
non renewable resource L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
water use L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
energy use L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
Product hazard
upstream effects L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
consumer hazard L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
disposal hazard L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
Exposure potential
Exposure potential L/M/H L L/M M M/H H
P2OASys Example Summary Table of Floor Finish Strippers
P2OASys Category Pro
StripperSuper
StripperEnviroCare
Floor StripperWhistle Jet
CleanerSuper
Orange JelCycle Strip
Acute human effects 6 6 6 8 6 10
Chronic human effects 4 2 2 2 2 2
Physical hazards ND ND ND ND ND ND
Aquatic hazard 2 ND 2 4 2 2
Persistence/ bioaccumulation
5 5 6 7 7 5
Atmospheric hazard 2 2 2 2 2 2
Disposal hazard ND 2 4 2 2 2
Chemical hazard 8 8 8 8 8 8
Energy/resource use 6 4 4 4 4 4
Product hazard 6 2 2 2 2 2
Exposure potential 6 6 6 6 6 6
Final 45 37 42 45 41 43
Weighted Final; 10 worst 5.00 4.11 4.2 4.50 4.10 4.30
Ranking; 1 = best 6 2 3 5 1 4
ND = no data
Evaluate Economics
Evaluate Economics
• Product cost– Current solvent from the paper
• Found to be the cheapest product
• Operating cost– Initial biobased alternatives required longer times
• Some needed to be heated
– New project identified products that operated under same conditions as current product
• Environmental cost– Current solvent’s components linked to significant
negative health, safety, and environmental impacts
Cost Comparisons Example Floor Finish Stripping
Purchase Cost $
Cost based on Dilution Ratios
Show Place Finish Timesaver Finish
Product
4 - 1 gallon bottles
Dilution ratio
Cost / gallon
% Increase over current
cost
Dilution
ratio
Cost / gallon
% Increase over current
cost
ProStripper 38 1:4 1.90 -- 1:4 1.90 --
Super Stripper 45 1:3 2.81 48 1:4* 2.25 18
EnviroCare Floor Stripper 107 NT NA NA 1:3 6.72 253
Whistle Jet Cleaner 130 1:10 NE NA 1:10 NE NA
Super Orange Jel 115 1:10 NE NA 1:5 NE NA
Cycle Strip 57.31 1:2 4.78 151 1:3 3.58 89
NT - not tested; NA - not applicable; NE - not effective
*Testing not completed on-site, but assumed to be effective at this dilution based on laboratory testing
Example Summary Floor Finish Stripping
Assessment CriteriaPro Stripper
referenceSuper
StripperEnviroCare
Floor StripperCycle Strip
Technical
Biobased content 0% + + +
Dilution Used 1:4 - - -
Time to clean 10-15 minutes = = =
Odor Strong + + +
Lab Performance Effective = = =
Field Performance Effective + - -
Economic CostsDirect Cost
$38 for 4-1 gallon bottles - - -
Dilution Cost $1.90/gallon =/- - -
Environmental SSL Safety Screening 29/50 + + +
P2OASys 5.00/10.00 + + +Purchasing
Preferences
AbilityOne Program – JWOD or SDVOB /
SVO suppliedOn JWOD list - - -
Process – Phase II
• Product Identification
• Lab Testing
• Field Testing
• Evaluate EH&S
• Evaluate Economics
• Recommendations for Change
Product Identification Hard Surface Cleaning
• Lab’s website: www.cleanersolutions.org
• Internet searches
• 38 products from 16 vendors – Dilutions used for the products
• Over 70 cleaning variations
Laboratory Testing Hard Surface Cleaning
• Identified cleaning products– Diluted to the vendor recommended
concentrations for all purpose cleaning– Fiberglass and plastic coupons – All Purpose Soil
• SSL Soil #3: Hucker’s Soil
– Manual cleaning process• Gardner Straight Line Washability unit
Effectiveness LevelsHard Surface Cleaning
Efficiency Ranking Observation Made
100%Coupon prior to Hucker's application
75% Clean
50% Slightly dirty
25% Dirty
0% Very dirty
Results of Laboratory Testing Hard Surface Cleaning
• 34 combinations had an average cleaning level at or above the 50% mark
• There were seven products with an average of 67 or greater
• Products were selected for piloting based on– Average value– Whether or not there were multiple products
available from a particular vendor
• Prior to going on-site, these products were evaluated for odor
Odor Ranking for Products selected for PilotingHard Surface Cleaning
Manufacturer Product Odor Rank
Wex-ProNeutral Cleaner Concentrate - non-bio
10
Wex-Pro Wex-Cide 128 - non-bio 12
Bio-Kleen BKP 130 10
Clean Environment Co Super Citrus Clean 13
Gemtek Products SC Bathroom Cleaner 7
Gemtek Products SC Floor and Tile Cleaner 6
Gemtek Products SC Multi-Surface Cleaner 3
Gemtek Products SC Odor-Ex Cleaning Deodorizer 14
Rochester Midland Corp EnviroCare Low Foam All Purpose 8
Rochester Midland Corp EnviroCare Neutral Disinfectant 9
Rochester Midland Corp EnviroCare Tough Job Cleaner 2
Rochester Midland Corp EnviroCare Washroom Cleaner 5
Spartan Restroom Cleaner 1
Spartan Tribase 3
Field Testing Floor Finish Stripping
• Products delivered to the facility– Each product provided in the proper dilution
ratio– Used the products over a two to three day
period– At the conclusion of the trial period
• Provid feedback on performance using survey
Field Testing Example ResultsHard Surface Cleaning
Vendor Product Performance
Bio-Kleen BKP 130 Better than current
Clean Environment Co Super Citrus Clean Better than current
Rochester Midland Corp EnviroCare Low Foam All Purpose Less than current
Rochester Midland Corp EnviroCare Neutral Disinfectant Less than current
Rochester Midland Corp EnviroCare Tough Job Cleaner Close to current
Rochester Midland Corp EnviroCare Washroom Cleaner Less than current
Spartan Restroom Cleaner Close to current
Spartan Tribase Less than current
Safety ScreeningHard Surface Cleaning
Safety Screening Values VOC GWP ODP HMIS/NFPA pH Total Rank
Products H F R 50 max 1 best
Wex-cide 128 120 0 0 2 0 1 2.5 38 13
Wexpro Neutral Cleaner low 0 0 1 0 0 7 48 2
Bio Kleen 130 low 0 0 1 0 0 6.44 47 6
Enviro Care Neutral Disinfectant 4535 0 0 0 1 0 0 7.7 48 2
Enviro Care Tough Job 4539 25 0 0 2 0 0 9.75 45 10
Low foam all purpose 50 0 0 1 0 0 7 47 6
Washroom cleaner 30 0 0 1 0 0 3.5 45 10
Restroom Cleaner 150 0 0 1 0 0 2 37 14
Tribase 150 0 0 2 0 0 8.5 41 12
Natural Super Citrus Cleaner N-46 10 0 0 0 0 0 7.6 49 1
SC MultiSurface 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.7 48 2
SC Bathroom 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.5 48 2
SC FloorTile 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.3 47 6
Odor Ex 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.5 47 6
Values were not available but stated as being low by vendor: low ~<50 g/l
P2OASys Summary TableHard Surface Cleaning
P2OASys Category
Acute human effects 7 4 6 6 2 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4
Chronic human effects 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 4 2 2 2 2
Physical hazards ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 6 6 6 6
Aquatic hazard 5 ND ND 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Persistence/ bioaccumulation
5 ND ND 3 ND ND ND 4 ND ND 2 2 2 2
Atmospheric hazard 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Disposal hazard ND 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Chemical hazard 8 4 5 5 7 4 7 8 6 3 5 5 5 6
Energy/resource use 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Product hazard 6 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Exposure potential 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Final 47 28 29 38 27 28 31 38 34 29 35 35 35 36
Weighted Final 10=worst 5.22 3.50 3.63 3.80 3.38 3.50 3.88 3.80 4.25 3.63 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.60
Relative Rank 14 2 8 10 1 2 12 10 13 9 2 2 2 7
ND = no data
We
xcid
e 1
28
Wex
pro
Neu
tral
C
lea
ner
Bio
Kle
en 1
30
EC
Neu
tral
D
isin
fect
ant
EC
To
ug
h J
ob
45
39
Lo
w f
oam
all
p
urp
ose
Was
hroo
m
clea
ner
Res
tro
om
Cle
aner
Trib
ase
Su
pe
r C
itru
s C
lea
ner
N-4
6
SC
M
ult
i S
urf
ace
SC
Bat
hro
om
SC
Flo
or
Til
e
Od
or
Ex
Evaluate EconomicsHard Surface Cleaning
Product Cost Rank $/Gallon % Increase
Wexpro Neutral Cleaner 6 20.00 0.00
Bio Kleen 130 1 12.50 -37.50
Enviro Care Neutral Disinfectant 4535 5 16.03 -19.85
Enviro Care Tough Job 4539 7 22.95 14.75
Low foam all purpose 2 12.87 -35.65
Washroom cleaner 8 23.35 16.75
Restroom Cleaner 3 14.92 -25.40
Tribase 9 27.5 37.50
Nat Super Citrus Cleaner N-46 4 15.48 -22.60
SC MultiSurface 10 40.68 103.40
SC Bathroom 12 49.74 148.70
SC FloorTile 13 49.74 148.70
Odor Ex 11 49.39 146.95
Overall Summary Hard Surface Cleaning
Assessment Criteria Current Products
Technical
Biobased content 0% + + + + + + + + + + + +
Dilution Used 1:12.8 N/A + + - + + + + - - - - -
Time to clean 5 minutes = = = = = = = = = = = =
Odor Strong = - + + + - + + + + + +
Lab Performance Effective = - + - = = + + +/= + - NT
Field Performance Effective + - = - - = - + =/- - =/- -
Economic Costs
Direct Cost$20/gal
N/A + + =/- + =/- + - + - - - -
Environmental
SSL Safety Screening
48/50 - - = - - - - - + = = - -
+ 38/50 + + + + + - + + + + + +
P2OASys3.5/10 - - - + = - - - - = = = -
+ 5.22/10 + + + + + + + + + + + +
Purchasing Preferences
AbilityOne Program – JWOD or SDVOB / SVO
supplied
Available - = = = = - - - - - - -
Wexcide 128
Wexpro Neutral Cleaner
Bio
Kle
en
130
EC
Neu
tral
D
isin
fect
ant
EC
Tou
gh
Job
4539
Low
foam
al
l pur
pose
Was
hroo
m
clea
ner
Res
troo
m
Cle
aner
Trib
ase
Sup
er C
itrus
C
lean
er N
-46
SC
Mul
ti S
urfa
ce
SC
B
athr
oom
SC
Flo
or
Tile
Odo
r E
x
Next Steps
• TURI’s Plan– Work with facility to implement biobased
floor stripping and hard surface cleaning products
• Facility– Identify next focus area and repeat process
Future Work
• Several projects that could be conducted to increase the amount of biobased products being purchased – Evaluation of biobased floor finish or other “green”
finish can be tested• So that lower dilutions of biobased floor strippers could be
used effectively thus reducing operating costs further– The expansion of biobased cleaning products
beyond the floor finish stripping and hard surface cleaners would be a logical next step
• Glass cleaning• Bathroom cleaning• All purpose cleaning activities• Cleaning of equipment and transport vehicles during
maintenance and repairs