Disinfectants, while essential for protecting public health, also are hazardous by nature. Most common disinfectants can cause asthma, are corrosive to eyes and skin, and pose hazards to aquatic life. Some are even known carcinogens or can cause reproductive harm.
To complicate matters, purchasers cannot tell whether the products really work, since the targets are microscopic organisms. Plus, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has historically prohibited disinfectant manufacturers from marketing products as “green” or promoting them based on claims of reduced impacts on health or the environment, fearing this could result in product misuse and increased exposures to product users, occupants and the environment. But help is on the way.
In recent years, EPA has organized a work group consisting of technical experts, children’s health and environmental advocates and other stakeholders to untangle the issues complicating the purchase of “greener” disinfectants.
Due to the serious nature of these products, EPA is taking a deliberate approach to deciding which ingredients will be deemed acceptable and what “label claims” they will permit. Working with EPA’s Design for the Environment Program, a number of active ingredients such as hydrogen peroxide, citric acid and lactic acid have been approved for a pilot program, along with claims related to biodegradability and lack of animal testing.
Unfortunately, this cautious approach has led to only a few manufacturers and products participating in the pilot with most being ready-to-use consumer-type disinfectants that are typically cost prohibitive for schools and universities. But more products are in the pipeline.
More recently the City of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment along with the Responsible Purchasing Network published a comprehensive report on safer disinfectants. This project, completed with the assistance of EPA’s Design for the Environment Program, reviewed health hazards, environmental impacts, germ-killing claims, surface incompatibilities, and other attributes of 11 common active ingredients (those that kill the organisms), 33 representative disinfectant products, and 24 sanitizer products. This alternative analysis also considered non-chemical options such as improved cleaning practices and the use of various tools, such as microfiber mops and electrolyzed water devices.
The highest scoring products used hydrogen peroxide, lactic acid, caprylic acid or citric acid as active ingredients. The study recommends active ingredients and specific products for general disinfection as well as targeted use to address locker rooms, bloodborne pathogens, and stomach flu.
Other recommendations:
- Buy products as concentrates instead of ready-to-use or pre-diluted formulations.
- Use “closed-loop” dilution systems, which automatically mix chemicals to the correct strength while keeping concentrates inaccessible to users.
- Clean surfaces well using microfiber mops and cloths, which can reduce germs by 99% or more without the use of disinfectants.
- Limit disinfectant use to high skin contact areas such as doorknobs or sinks.
- Select disinfectants that are pH neutral (close to 7) to reduce the potential for eye and skin irritation.
- Select disinfectants that contain low or no-VOCs (volatile organic compounds such as solvent- and fragrance-free) to minimize asthma and other respiratory problems.
- Reward manufacturers who provide complete ingredient disclosure for both active and inert ingredients such as surfactants (detergents), builders and fragrances.
- Train workers on proper dilutions, application and dwell-times for disinfectants.
Ashkin is executive director of the Green Cleaning Network, a 501(c)3 not-for-profit educational organization.
