Toxics Use Reduction Institute Facility Maintenance Using Bio-based Materials Opportunities to Green Your Company Dr. Jason Marshall Laboratory Director.

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