Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-05-06
Source: The Conversation – France (in French)– By Guillaume Christen, Lecturer at the University of Strasbourg, Doctor of Environmental Sociology, University of Strasbourg
The biocides used in cleaning products, particularly for disinfecting public buildings, contribute to water pollution. However, alternatives exist, but changing practices is difficult. The reasons are the lack of awareness of the risks within the sector as well as the current work organization.
We handledailyproducts containing biocides, for example for household 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 in domestic uses such as hygiene and building maintenance (floors, sanitary facilities…).
However, the use of these substances contributes to adeterioration of water quality. The solutions considered generally favor the treatment of micropollutantsafter use. However, the wastewater treatment plants doonly partially retainpolluting molecules.
This observation invites us to rethink usage and to study the possibility of reduction at the source. But giving up biocides is not obvious. Indeed, it is aenvironmental issue poorly identifiedby 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.
Practices in place for cleaning 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 the chain of actors in the cleaning sector, particularly the maintenance staff, technical managers, and suppliers.
We relied on the idea of reducing biocides at the source, based onconcept of “ecological redirection”. This is not just 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, in particular quaternary ammoniums
Biocides, whose etymology denotes the action of neutralizing“the undesirable 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 use makes them an environmental health issue, in 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 workers who handle them daily.
A risk made invisible by the “sector effect”
There is indeed a “sector effect” which leads to the delegation of trust to specialized actors. This results in a distancing, which can be the origin of a“disability”professionals to express an environmental concern regarding the use of a product.
This is manifested by a lack of knowledge of the composition of the products used, throughout the chain of actors. This loss of knowledge can be observed starting with the suppliers, who are unable to transmit the information to the technical managers and they 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 the wash water invisible and the common understanding of the issue.
In this context, the technical cleaning services, particularly those of municipalities, do not make the composition of the product a criterion for choice. They trust the supplier-producers, explains a coordinator of the maintenance staff of a school establishment:
“We, we are the user, we are not the manufacturer, so for us, 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 such a dosage, you need this, that.’ That is 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 provide application recommendations (the type of surface, frequency of use, preparation, dosing for dilution, or even the 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 environment.
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 “withdrawal” by encouraging “doing without” (steam) or “with less” (lactic acid).
These alternatives that innovate without adding additional technology nevertheless struggle to inspire confidence, in a context where technical innovation appearslike the legitimate reading key. These reservations can be explained by the fact that effectiveness is the main criterion used to judge the quality of a cleaning protocol. However, according to theSinner’s circle, this efficiency depends on four factors: the application time, the mechanical action (AM), the temperature, and the chemistry used.
ManonM12/Wikimédia
The use of 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 water), and the obstacles to using alternatives. Regaining quality urban waters free from pollution is also an adaptation challenge in an ecological crisis context: their reuse is a major lever against climatic hazards, for example during heatwaves and droughts.
ReactiveCity is funded by the Interreg VI Upper Rhine program. The research involves researchers from the Department of Hydrology at Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg im Breisgau (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 under the Interreg 6 Upper Rhine project “ReactiveCity: towards a proactive city without biocides” (Sept. 2023 – Aug. 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” (Sept. 2023 – Aug. 2027).
Philippe Hamman 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).
–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