Source: The Conversation – France (in French)– By Guillaume Christen, Assistant Professor at the University of Strasbourg, Doctor in Environmental Sociology, University of Strasbourg
Biocides used in cleaning products, especially for disinfecting public buildings, contribute to water pollution. However, alternatives exist, but changing practices is difficult. The cause lies in the lack of knowledge about the risks within the sector as well as the current organization of work.
We handleon a daily basisproducts containing biocides, for example for home maintenance, personal hygiene, pest control, etc. In urban areas, their use has spread to many activities: construction,cleaning, maintenance of green spaces, etc. It is used, for example,for the protection of facade coatingsin order to fight against moss and mold or for domestic uses such as hygiene and building maintenance (floors, sanitary facilities, etc.).
However, the use of these substances contributes to adeterioration of water quality. The solutions considered generally favor the treatment of micropollutantsafter use. However, the treatment plants do notonly partially retainpolluting molecules.
This observation invites a rethink of uses and a study of the possibility of source reduction. But giving up biocides is not straightforward. Indeed, it is apoorly identified environmental issueby the population. It also requires changes in practices that may encounter forms of inertia.
The issue of giving up biocides for disinfection (bactericides, virucides, fungicides) is particularly sensitive. This is even more true in the sectors of early childhood and the maintenance of municipal buildings.
The practices in place to clean public buildings
To understand these issues, we conducted a sociological survey on the scale of the Eurometropolis of Strasbourg. This is based on about thirty semi-structured interviews conducted with key players in the cleaning sector, particularly cleaning staff, technical managers, and suppliers.
We relied on the idea of reducing biocides at the source, starting fromconcept of “ecological redirection”. This is not simply about optimizing existing practices, but rather about abandoning the use of certain products that may contain harmful biocides.
In the investigation, we sought to understand how professionals in the cleaning sectorcan innovate differently, by using fewer chemicals, either by considering alternatives such as steam disinfection, or by favoring more natural compounds such as lactic acid.
Also to read:
How to limit the use of biocidal products in facade coatings?
Omnipresent micropollutants, particularly quaternary ammoniums
Biocides, whose etymology denotes the action of neutralizing“the unwanted living”, are qualified as“micropollutants”due to their low concentration in urban aquatic systems. Although present in small quantities, their notable toxicological impact onthe environment and human healthrequires our attention.
The sources are, indeed, numerous: antibiotic treatments,PFAS,facade paintingsor even household disinfectants, the subject of our discussion.
In order to ensure the disinfection of certain surfaces (floors, tables, sanitary facilities, contact points), professionals and individuals use biocides called “quaternary ammoniums” (or “QUATS”). However, their persistence in the environment isworrying. Although there are other disinfection methods (lactic acid, steam cleaning), the use of QUATS is the dominant practice, partly due to their recognized use in the medical field. While it is not possible to quantify the volume of QUATS introduced into the environment, their predominance in usage makes them a subject of environmental health, within an approachOne Health).
Since cleaning is a municipal responsibility, a municipality may choose not to use these compounds. However, the “biocide” risk is poorly identified by the various actors in the chain, which complicates its communication to the maintenance staff who handle them on a daily basis.
A risk made invisible by the “sector effect”
There is indeed a “sector effect” that leads to the delegation of trust to specialized actors. This results in a distancing, which can be the source of a“restricted capacity”professionals to express an environmental concern regarding the use of a product.
This is manifested by a lack of knowledge about the composition of the products used throughout the chain of actors. This loss of knowledge is observed from the suppliers, who are unable to transmit the information to the technical managers and themselves to the agents. After use, the waters containing the cleaning products are collected and treated in wastewater treatment plants. Theirdiscreet managementmakes the fate of cleaning waters invisible and the common understanding of the issue.
In this context, the technical cleaning services, notably those of municipalities, do not make the composition of the product a criterion for choice. They trust the supplier-producers, explains a coordinator of cleaning staff at a school institution:
“We are the user, we are not the manufacturer, so we come at the end of the chain. We come and say: ‘I want a product to clean.’ Then it is the designer who says: ‘Well, for this task, you need this dosage, you need this, that.’ That’s not my concern.”
Key players in the sector, manufacturers and suppliers are involved in defining cleaning practices. They not only sell cleaning products, but also application recommendations (the type of surface, frequency of use, preparation, dilution dosage, and cleaning method), which the cleaning staff follow.
Professionals thus lose the “trace” and the “memory” of the chemical composition of cleaning products as well as their possible impacts on the environments.
Alternatives to appropriate
Disinfecting with harmful biocides (QUATS) is not inevitable, however. Lactic acid and steam are two alternatives already used by some professionals committed to a broader ecological approach. They embody the idea of innovating by “removal” by encouraging “doing without” (steam) or “with less” (lactic acid).
These alternatives that innovate without bringing additional technology still struggle to inspire confidence, in a context where technical innovation appearslike the legitimate private key. These reservations are explained by the fact that effectiveness is the main criterion used to judge the quality of a cleaning protocol. However, according toSinner’s circle, this efficacy depends on four factors: application time, mechanical action (AM), temperature, and the chemistry used.
ManonM12/Wikimedia
The use of a less “aggressive” chemistry results in an increase in at least one of the other three factors. This leads to changes in historical practices or even in the organization of work (scheduling, purchasing machines). In other words, for our interlocutors, simplifying cleaning chemistry means complicating daily organization, hindering adherence to alternatives.
Giving up biocides for hygiene involves identifying the main actors involved, their level of awareness of the impacts (notably on health and on water), and the obstacles to using alternatives. Recovering urban waters of quality and free from pollution is also an adaptation challenge in a context of ecological crisis: their reuse constitutes a major leverage against climate hazards, for example during heatwaves and droughts.
ReactiveCity is funded by the Interreg VI Upper Rhine program. The research involves researchers from the Hydrology Department of Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg (Germany), the Working Group on Functional Aquatic Ecotoxicology (University of Koblenz-Landau), the Institute of Sustainable Chemistry and Environmental Chemistry (Leuphana University Lüneburg), the Earth and Environment Institute of Strasbourg (Ites, project leader), as well as the Societies, Actors, Government in Europe laboratory (University of Strasbourg).
Guillaume Christen received funding from the European Union as part of the Interreg 6 Upper Rhine project “ReactiveCity: towards a proactive city without biocides” (Sept. 2023 – August 2027).
Louise Negri received funding from the European Union as part of the Interreg 6 Upper Rhine project “ReactiveCity: towards a proactive city without biocides” (Sep. 2023 – Aug. 2027).
Philippe Hamman received funding from the European Union under the Interreg 6 Upper Rhine project “ReactiveCity: towards a proactive city without biocides” (Sept. 2023 – August 2027).
–ref. Daycares, schools… public buildings facing the challenge of less polluting cleaning –https://theconversation.com/creches-ecoles-les-batiments-publics-au-defi-dun-nettoyage-moins-polluant-278630