Just a thought I read in a magazine:
"Going green doesn't have to be about just saving the environment. It can be about increasing profits too." Scott Gardner, Foodservice and Hospitality, March 2008
Our thoughts on this: We believe it is about the environment - but if you need incentive to take a big and responsible step try this: How much do you spend in one month on the following chemicals - glass cleaner, oven cleaner, floor cleaner, disinfectants, mop heads, degreasers, descalers, grill bricks, sink and toilet bowl chemicals. Ok, now multiply by 12. Now multiply that number by 5. Shocked??? Try one steam vapour cleaning system that will do all of these jobs with NO CHEMICALS going down the drain. Our most rugged, reliable and portable SteamKing 1500 comes fully equipped for $2590 and when properly maintained (Drained Weekly), should last around 5 years, often longer - the warranty on the boiler is 3 years!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Hidden Hazards in Air Fresheners NRDC testing finds hormone-altering chemicals in common air fresheners
Over the past few years, air fresheners have become a staple in many American homes and offices, marketed with promises of a clean, healthy and sweet-smelling indoor atmosphere. The labels do not mention, however, that many of these products also release potentially hazardous chemicals.
A recent investigation of 14 common air fresheners by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found hormone-disrupting chemicals known as phthalates in 12 products, including some fresheners marketed as "all-natural" and "unscented." None of the air fresheners listed phthalates on their labels.
Phthalates are known to interfere with hormone and testosterone production. Children and unborn babies are particularly vulnerable to the toxins. The State of California notes that five types of phthalates - including one detected in air fresheners - are "known to cause birth defects or reproductive harm." Still, phthalates are used in many common consumer products -- to soften plastics in children's toys, as sealants and adhesives in nail polish, and as solvents in perfumes and fragrances.
The air fresheners NRDC tested included aerosol sprays, liquids that emit a continuous scent, and a solid. From generic store brands to "100% Pure and Natural" blends to college dorm favorites like Ozium, the vast majority of air fresheners tested revealed at least trace amounts of toxic phthalates. Walgreens Scented Bouquet topped the charts with 7300 parts per million of the phthalate DEP. The only two products that tested entirely free of phthalates were Febreze Air Effects and Renuzit Subtle Effects, both sprays.
NRDC's testing was limited, but the results do suggest that more comprehensive, in-depth testing of air fresheners is warranted. Air fresheners are used indoors, heightening the threat of exposure to users and their families. They are ubiquitous outside the home, in office spaces, retail outlets and public restrooms. Air fresheners are not regulated by the federal government, and companies are not required to list ingredients on their labels. Consumers should be wary of all air fresheners, even those that claim to be "all-natural." NRDC and other groups are petitioning the EPA and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to do more comprehensive testing and to take action to protect the public from dangerous chemicals in air fresheners.
Intersteam suggests the Panfan Toilet Odour removal system - click here for a link!!
A recent investigation of 14 common air fresheners by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found hormone-disrupting chemicals known as phthalates in 12 products, including some fresheners marketed as "all-natural" and "unscented." None of the air fresheners listed phthalates on their labels.
Phthalates are known to interfere with hormone and testosterone production. Children and unborn babies are particularly vulnerable to the toxins. The State of California notes that five types of phthalates - including one detected in air fresheners - are "known to cause birth defects or reproductive harm." Still, phthalates are used in many common consumer products -- to soften plastics in children's toys, as sealants and adhesives in nail polish, and as solvents in perfumes and fragrances.
The air fresheners NRDC tested included aerosol sprays, liquids that emit a continuous scent, and a solid. From generic store brands to "100% Pure and Natural" blends to college dorm favorites like Ozium, the vast majority of air fresheners tested revealed at least trace amounts of toxic phthalates. Walgreens Scented Bouquet topped the charts with 7300 parts per million of the phthalate DEP. The only two products that tested entirely free of phthalates were Febreze Air Effects and Renuzit Subtle Effects, both sprays.
NRDC's testing was limited, but the results do suggest that more comprehensive, in-depth testing of air fresheners is warranted. Air fresheners are used indoors, heightening the threat of exposure to users and their families. They are ubiquitous outside the home, in office spaces, retail outlets and public restrooms. Air fresheners are not regulated by the federal government, and companies are not required to list ingredients on their labels. Consumers should be wary of all air fresheners, even those that claim to be "all-natural." NRDC and other groups are petitioning the EPA and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to do more comprehensive testing and to take action to protect the public from dangerous chemicals in air fresheners.
Intersteam suggests the Panfan Toilet Odour removal system - click here for a link!!
Monday, April 7, 2008
Strong Odours Bring Strong Feelings
VISTA, CA -- A new survey has found that facility managers feel strongly about malodor issues, with 85 percent of them saying odors make them more concerned about germs. The online survey of approximately 700 facility managers, jan-san manufacturers, distributors, and building service contractors, found that 71 percent of respondents believe restroom odors are a sign of improper cleaning.Other noteworthy results from the survey include:
• No odor or a fresh smelling restroom is a sign of a well-maintained restroom, say 81 percent of the respondents.
• Sixty-six percent indicated that an unpleasant restroom odor would deter them from returning to a restaurant or store and 47 percent said they would tell a manager or “someone in authority” about the odor.
• Sixty-eight percent said that a pine odor does not mean clean when it comes to restrooms.
The ‘Where’ of OdorsSome of the questions focused on where odors are most typically found, for instance in what types of facilities. Restaurants were at the top of the list, with 53 percent indicating this is where they most commonly notice malodors in public places. This was followed by large public places, such as airports, sports stadiums, and convention centers. At the bottom of the list were libraries and “where I work.” About half of the respondents believe restroom odors come from floors; twenty-five percent said odors come from toilets and urinals, and a small percentage indicate odors come from sink and floor drains. “In fact, many restroom odors are the result of sewer gasses coming up through the drain,” says Klaus Reichardt, managing partner of Waterless Co. LLC, a leading manufacturer of No-Flush™ urinals and other restroom products. “This happens when the water in the drain’s u-tube or trap evaporates. Fortunately, there are products now available that prevent this evaporation, essentially ending this as a source for restroom odors.”The survey was conducted by AlturaSolutions Communications for Waterless Co. LLC. About 700 people were invited to take the online survey with more than 100 completing it. The survey was conducted in mid-January 2008 and has a confidence rating of 95 percent.
INTERSTEAM has the Solutions to these problems! Urinal and Commode Mats, Steam Vapour Cleaning Systems and the PANFAN - toilet odour removal system.
• No odor or a fresh smelling restroom is a sign of a well-maintained restroom, say 81 percent of the respondents.
• Sixty-six percent indicated that an unpleasant restroom odor would deter them from returning to a restaurant or store and 47 percent said they would tell a manager or “someone in authority” about the odor.
• Sixty-eight percent said that a pine odor does not mean clean when it comes to restrooms.
The ‘Where’ of OdorsSome of the questions focused on where odors are most typically found, for instance in what types of facilities. Restaurants were at the top of the list, with 53 percent indicating this is where they most commonly notice malodors in public places. This was followed by large public places, such as airports, sports stadiums, and convention centers. At the bottom of the list were libraries and “where I work.” About half of the respondents believe restroom odors come from floors; twenty-five percent said odors come from toilets and urinals, and a small percentage indicate odors come from sink and floor drains. “In fact, many restroom odors are the result of sewer gasses coming up through the drain,” says Klaus Reichardt, managing partner of Waterless Co. LLC, a leading manufacturer of No-Flush™ urinals and other restroom products. “This happens when the water in the drain’s u-tube or trap evaporates. Fortunately, there are products now available that prevent this evaporation, essentially ending this as a source for restroom odors.”The survey was conducted by AlturaSolutions Communications for Waterless Co. LLC. About 700 people were invited to take the online survey with more than 100 completing it. The survey was conducted in mid-January 2008 and has a confidence rating of 95 percent.
INTERSTEAM has the Solutions to these problems! Urinal and Commode Mats, Steam Vapour Cleaning Systems and the PANFAN - toilet odour removal system.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Group Warns that Nurses face Health Risks from Chemical Exposure
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 (SF Chronicle)
Erin Allday, Chronicle Staff Writer
The very chemicals used to keep hospitals squeaky clean and to treat patients could be harmful to nurses who are exposed to them in their daily duties, according to a study released Tuesday by an Oakland environmental group.
Nurses are exposed to a wide range of chemicals on the job - from heavy-duty cleaners and latex to chemotherapy drugs - that could have long-term effects on their health and the health of their children, say researchers with the Environmental Working Group and Health Care Without Harm, which coordinated an online survey of 1,500 nurses in the United States. But few regulations limit nurses' exposure to chemicals, and, in fact, most nurses have no idea that their work environment could be harmful, said Jane Houlihan, vice president of research for Environmental Working Group and an author of the study. "As much as we rely on nurses to protect us when we're sick, we're not protecting nurses in return," Houlihan said. "They face a diverse range of exposures in the workplace that really could pose significant health risks."
The survey was made available to nurses all over the country, and nurses with physical ailments and concerns about their working environment could have been more likely to participate in the survey, said Houlihan. But researchers hope the survey results will persuade national health officials to further study the exposure of nurses to chemicals and to develop regulations to limit it.
The survey looked at nurses' exposure to 11 common health care chemicals, including gases used for anesthesia; hand disinfectants; cleaning agents; latex; medications such as chemotherapy and antiretroviral drugs; devices containing mercury; personal care products such as shampoo and soap; and chemicals used for sterilization. According to the survey results, nurses who were exposed regularly - at least once a week - to the chemicals had increased rates of cancer, asthma and miscarriages. Nurses who were pregnant when they were exposed to certain chemicals were more likely to have children with birth defects than nurses not exposed to the chemicals. Chemical exposure seemed to have an especially large impact on the rate of musculoskeletal defects in children of pregnant nurses. Nurses with frequent exposure to sterilizing agents and anesthetic gases were seven to nine times more likely to have children with musculoskeletal defects than their unexposed peers. The results could be overstated because of the informal nature of the survey, Houlihan said.
But even if long-term exposure to chemicals isn't as harmful as the study shows, there's no question that it is unhealthy, nurses said. "The biggest problem I see is that nurses don't know they're being exposed," said Lisa Hartmayer, a registered nurse at UCSF. "It's not like nurses are saying, 'I can't go to work because of chemical exposure.' It's more like they don't feel well, and they don't know why. I think the damage is being done quietly." Hartmayer said one of the most common complaints nurses have is related to sanitary wipes they're instructed to use to clean off devices such as blood pressure cuffs and stethoscopes. Nurses might use these wipes several times a day, she said, and many of her colleagues complain of headaches, watering eyes and runny noses every time they use them. "Generally, we think the cleaner the better - the cleaner something is,the safer it is. But that's not always the case," Hartmayer said. "We use everyday cleaners that have chemicals, there's soap we use on our hands. I don't believe there's strong enough research to tell us what happens with constant exposure."
Authors of the study said Bay Area hospitals tend to be ahead of national regulations when it comes to limiting nurses' exposure to chemicals. Many Bay Area hospitals no longer use latex gloves, for example, because latex can cause allergic reactions in some people. Several Bay Area hospitals are limiting the amount of vinyl materials they use in everything from floors and walls to medical devices because chemicals used to make vinyl have been tied to cancer and birth defects. At Stanford University Medical Center and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, newly hired nurses are given a physical that includes looking at the chemicals in their bodies. They are then offered free annual physicals to monitor their exposure to chemicals as well as other physical ailments. Both hospitals also have extensive engineering staffs to check the air quality and ventilation systems. Nurses are regularly trained in protocols for handling potent drugs. It's not just the nurses who need to be kept safe, said Beverley Tobias, director of occupational health services for the medical center and children's hospital. "We have a lot of really, really sick people. We can't have a lot of foreign elements that are going to harm them on top of what they already have," Tobias said. While government regulations are in place for a handful of chemicals common in medical facilities, the policies aren't strong enough and don't cover enough chemicals, said researchers and nurses. "I know a woman who had eight miscarriages while she was working in healthcare," said Lauri Hoagland, a nurse practitioner at a Kaiser Permanenteclinic in Napa. "There haven't been any studies, but if you work in healthcare, you know something's happening. There isn't enough information and there aren't enough rules for hospitals to follow."
Nurses' exposure to chemicals -- They include anesthetic gases, hand and skin disinfectants, cleaning agents, latex, medications such as antiretroviral and chemotherapy drugs, devices with mercury, personal care products such as shampoo and soap, and sterilization chemicals, as well as radiation.
The health effects -- Nurses who were regularly exposed to chemicals reported higher incidences of cancer, asthma and miscarriages than their peers with limited exposure. -- Nurses who were regularly exposed to chemicals while pregnant had children with higher incidences of birth defects than the children of nurses with limited exposure.
Copyright 2007 SF Chronicle
Erin Allday, Chronicle Staff Writer
The very chemicals used to keep hospitals squeaky clean and to treat patients could be harmful to nurses who are exposed to them in their daily duties, according to a study released Tuesday by an Oakland environmental group.
Nurses are exposed to a wide range of chemicals on the job - from heavy-duty cleaners and latex to chemotherapy drugs - that could have long-term effects on their health and the health of their children, say researchers with the Environmental Working Group and Health Care Without Harm, which coordinated an online survey of 1,500 nurses in the United States. But few regulations limit nurses' exposure to chemicals, and, in fact, most nurses have no idea that their work environment could be harmful, said Jane Houlihan, vice president of research for Environmental Working Group and an author of the study. "As much as we rely on nurses to protect us when we're sick, we're not protecting nurses in return," Houlihan said. "They face a diverse range of exposures in the workplace that really could pose significant health risks."
The survey was made available to nurses all over the country, and nurses with physical ailments and concerns about their working environment could have been more likely to participate in the survey, said Houlihan. But researchers hope the survey results will persuade national health officials to further study the exposure of nurses to chemicals and to develop regulations to limit it.
The survey looked at nurses' exposure to 11 common health care chemicals, including gases used for anesthesia; hand disinfectants; cleaning agents; latex; medications such as chemotherapy and antiretroviral drugs; devices containing mercury; personal care products such as shampoo and soap; and chemicals used for sterilization. According to the survey results, nurses who were exposed regularly - at least once a week - to the chemicals had increased rates of cancer, asthma and miscarriages. Nurses who were pregnant when they were exposed to certain chemicals were more likely to have children with birth defects than nurses not exposed to the chemicals. Chemical exposure seemed to have an especially large impact on the rate of musculoskeletal defects in children of pregnant nurses. Nurses with frequent exposure to sterilizing agents and anesthetic gases were seven to nine times more likely to have children with musculoskeletal defects than their unexposed peers. The results could be overstated because of the informal nature of the survey, Houlihan said.
But even if long-term exposure to chemicals isn't as harmful as the study shows, there's no question that it is unhealthy, nurses said. "The biggest problem I see is that nurses don't know they're being exposed," said Lisa Hartmayer, a registered nurse at UCSF. "It's not like nurses are saying, 'I can't go to work because of chemical exposure.' It's more like they don't feel well, and they don't know why. I think the damage is being done quietly." Hartmayer said one of the most common complaints nurses have is related to sanitary wipes they're instructed to use to clean off devices such as blood pressure cuffs and stethoscopes. Nurses might use these wipes several times a day, she said, and many of her colleagues complain of headaches, watering eyes and runny noses every time they use them. "Generally, we think the cleaner the better - the cleaner something is,the safer it is. But that's not always the case," Hartmayer said. "We use everyday cleaners that have chemicals, there's soap we use on our hands. I don't believe there's strong enough research to tell us what happens with constant exposure."
Authors of the study said Bay Area hospitals tend to be ahead of national regulations when it comes to limiting nurses' exposure to chemicals. Many Bay Area hospitals no longer use latex gloves, for example, because latex can cause allergic reactions in some people. Several Bay Area hospitals are limiting the amount of vinyl materials they use in everything from floors and walls to medical devices because chemicals used to make vinyl have been tied to cancer and birth defects. At Stanford University Medical Center and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, newly hired nurses are given a physical that includes looking at the chemicals in their bodies. They are then offered free annual physicals to monitor their exposure to chemicals as well as other physical ailments. Both hospitals also have extensive engineering staffs to check the air quality and ventilation systems. Nurses are regularly trained in protocols for handling potent drugs. It's not just the nurses who need to be kept safe, said Beverley Tobias, director of occupational health services for the medical center and children's hospital. "We have a lot of really, really sick people. We can't have a lot of foreign elements that are going to harm them on top of what they already have," Tobias said. While government regulations are in place for a handful of chemicals common in medical facilities, the policies aren't strong enough and don't cover enough chemicals, said researchers and nurses. "I know a woman who had eight miscarriages while she was working in healthcare," said Lauri Hoagland, a nurse practitioner at a Kaiser Permanenteclinic in Napa. "There haven't been any studies, but if you work in healthcare, you know something's happening. There isn't enough information and there aren't enough rules for hospitals to follow."
Nurses' exposure to chemicals -- They include anesthetic gases, hand and skin disinfectants, cleaning agents, latex, medications such as antiretroviral and chemotherapy drugs, devices with mercury, personal care products such as shampoo and soap, and sterilization chemicals, as well as radiation.
The health effects -- Nurses who were regularly exposed to chemicals reported higher incidences of cancer, asthma and miscarriages than their peers with limited exposure. -- Nurses who were regularly exposed to chemicals while pregnant had children with higher incidences of birth defects than the children of nurses with limited exposure.
Copyright 2007 SF Chronicle
Steam Vapour Sanitation: A Better Method For Hard Surfaces
by: Rick Hoverson
Steam vapour sanitation enables cleaning hard and porous surfaces more thoroughly than conventional methods - which helps improve appearance, indoor air quality and safety - while minimizing chemical use and labour costs.
A steam vapour system facilitates applying low pressure steam ranging from 215 to 230 degrees Fahrenheit through a set of insulated tools to sanitize, clean and deodorize various surfaces.
Steam sterilization used in autoclaving requires 258 to 258 degrees Fahrenheit for an extended period to destroy all living organisms, including spores.
Potent, Safe Sanitizing
Heat has been proven to sanitize, disinfect and even sterilize objects and is the most well-known germ killing agent.
According to researchers at the University of Sioux Falls, moist heat provides the advantage of rapid penetration to facilitate protein coagulation, which kills microbial organisms.
Moist heat also has the ability to break down and destroy biofilms, which are protective coatings of bacteria-generated slime that enable germs to resist standard disinfectants.
Trapping Steam
The surface temperatures achieved through the use of a steam vapour system are developed by holding the tool close to or in contact with the surface to be sanitized, confining the low pressure steam to a localized area.
This maximizes the energy (heat) carried my the steam vapour and minimizes the need for scrubbing.
When the steam vapour is free to expand into the atmosphere, it cools rapidly as it leaves the tool orifice.
This fact is important to note as it relates to ease of use and control as well as operator safety.
Because the steam is saturated, it contains very little water, only 5 to 6 percent, enough to effect emulsification of grease, oils and all types of surface soils.
This makes a little water go a long way - the system will consume between one and one and a half quarts of water per hour of use.
Meeting the Mold Challenge
Steam vapour penetrates deep into surfaces where typical cleaning methods can't reach.
Superheated steam, by definition, provides a fine water mist that carries energy in the form of heat.
Compared to other methods, this heat penetrates far deeper into porous areas, such as grout substrates, to remove mold, as well as surface soils that feed molds.
Results are visibly superior and prevent the return of the mold for up to 6 to 8 weeks.
This mold-free period can be extended almost indefinitely with quick periodic cleaning, using the system on a regular basis.
As an added bonus, toxic or offensive chemicals are not needed and harmful exposures are minimized.
Unlike strong chemical treatments, steam vapour sanitation will not damage the substrate.
In fact, the surface will be easier to clean in the future because the surface is not degraded.
Pros and Cons
In case studies where steam vapour systems have been used, in such settings as health care, hospitality, university and school environments, results have been positive.
Users report that these systems are easy to use, reduce chemical use, produce visually better results compared to traditional cleaning methods, offer less call backs and reduce labour times.
Equipment cost amortized over a 5 year (conservative) lifespan, including wear and tear, is less than $1.50 a day.
Other considerations such as reduced water consumption, reduced workers compensation claims, improved worker morale, improved indoor environmental quality, less facility degradation through misuse/abuse of chemical cleaners, less possible future liability pertaining to multiple chemical sensitivity, and other chemical exposure can also be achieved by professional cleaning operations.
Rick Hoverson is a steam vapour system consultant and principal of Advanced Vapour Technologies, Edmonds, WA.
Steam vapour sanitation enables cleaning hard and porous surfaces more thoroughly than conventional methods - which helps improve appearance, indoor air quality and safety - while minimizing chemical use and labour costs.
A steam vapour system facilitates applying low pressure steam ranging from 215 to 230 degrees Fahrenheit through a set of insulated tools to sanitize, clean and deodorize various surfaces.
Steam sterilization used in autoclaving requires 258 to 258 degrees Fahrenheit for an extended period to destroy all living organisms, including spores.
Potent, Safe Sanitizing
Heat has been proven to sanitize, disinfect and even sterilize objects and is the most well-known germ killing agent.
According to researchers at the University of Sioux Falls, moist heat provides the advantage of rapid penetration to facilitate protein coagulation, which kills microbial organisms.
Moist heat also has the ability to break down and destroy biofilms, which are protective coatings of bacteria-generated slime that enable germs to resist standard disinfectants.
Trapping Steam
The surface temperatures achieved through the use of a steam vapour system are developed by holding the tool close to or in contact with the surface to be sanitized, confining the low pressure steam to a localized area.
This maximizes the energy (heat) carried my the steam vapour and minimizes the need for scrubbing.
When the steam vapour is free to expand into the atmosphere, it cools rapidly as it leaves the tool orifice.
This fact is important to note as it relates to ease of use and control as well as operator safety.
Because the steam is saturated, it contains very little water, only 5 to 6 percent, enough to effect emulsification of grease, oils and all types of surface soils.
This makes a little water go a long way - the system will consume between one and one and a half quarts of water per hour of use.
Meeting the Mold Challenge
Steam vapour penetrates deep into surfaces where typical cleaning methods can't reach.
Superheated steam, by definition, provides a fine water mist that carries energy in the form of heat.
Compared to other methods, this heat penetrates far deeper into porous areas, such as grout substrates, to remove mold, as well as surface soils that feed molds.
Results are visibly superior and prevent the return of the mold for up to 6 to 8 weeks.
This mold-free period can be extended almost indefinitely with quick periodic cleaning, using the system on a regular basis.
As an added bonus, toxic or offensive chemicals are not needed and harmful exposures are minimized.
Unlike strong chemical treatments, steam vapour sanitation will not damage the substrate.
In fact, the surface will be easier to clean in the future because the surface is not degraded.
Pros and Cons
In case studies where steam vapour systems have been used, in such settings as health care, hospitality, university and school environments, results have been positive.
Users report that these systems are easy to use, reduce chemical use, produce visually better results compared to traditional cleaning methods, offer less call backs and reduce labour times.
Equipment cost amortized over a 5 year (conservative) lifespan, including wear and tear, is less than $1.50 a day.
Other considerations such as reduced water consumption, reduced workers compensation claims, improved worker morale, improved indoor environmental quality, less facility degradation through misuse/abuse of chemical cleaners, less possible future liability pertaining to multiple chemical sensitivity, and other chemical exposure can also be achieved by professional cleaning operations.
Rick Hoverson is a steam vapour system consultant and principal of Advanced Vapour Technologies, Edmonds, WA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
