In a cost-saving measure, the City of Mesa, Ariz., initiated a cleaning program that has everyone involved: City employees empty their individual trash receptacles.
The idea of sharing trash-dumping duties came from the employees themselves when administrators asked for new money-saving ideas.
We literally got a couple hundred suggestions of things we could do, says Paul Wenbert, deputy city manager.
The ideas simplicity combined with its potential for savings made it stand out from the others, he says.
Employees empty their trash into a common receptacle where cleaning workers pick it up.
Its pretty straightforward, Wenbert says. You are on your way to the drinking fountain and you drop off your garbage.
The city projects $120,000 in annual savings, which makes up for an 8 percent decrease in the municipalitys janitorial budget. Wenbert explains that the savings come from the decreased labor and time it takes the cleaning service to visit each work station, bag trash and move on to the next. With a staff of 4,000 employees, it takes a long time to empty all the employees trash.
We are paying the janitorial service to come to every work station, every day even though all wastebaskets may not be full, he says. This way the employees control [trash dumping] themselves.
Each floor of the citys buildings has a central location and the cleaning service will only have to go to one place on each floor to collect the waste. Eliminating a number of trash pick-up stops leaves more time for cleaning restrooms and common areas.
During the budgeting process, the city was considering employee layoffs to cut costs. Now that employees are emptying their wastebaskets, the city does not need to cut positions.
The new employee trash-dumping program was phased into city buildings this summer. So far, no one has complained about the new concept.
People want to do what they can to pitch in, Wenbert says. Maybe every employee feels that they are doing at least a little something to help with our budget situation.
Ryan Mertes, contributing editor
NFSI Certifies Floor-Care System
The National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI), a nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing slip-and-fall accidents, recently certified the first floor-care system to include floor-scrubbing equipment and its companion cleaning agents.
The Tennant FaST [foam-activated scrubbing technology] system received the NFSI High-Traction product certification, which means that the system meets a 0.6 coefficient of friction rating under wet conditions.
A lot of people are falling on slip-resistant surfaces, says Russ Kendzior, executive director of NFSI. He says NFSI raised the bar on the traditional standard for slip-resistant products, which requires floors to meet a value of 0.5 under dry conditions.
It is up to end users to request NFSI-certified products from their vendors, Kendzior says.
NFSI tests and certifies other types of products, including floors, floor mats, brushes and floor tape.
A study of more than 4,500 women in Spain found that women working as cleaners in various environments are at an increased risk of asthma and other breathing problems.
The Municipal Institute of Medical Research in Barcelona claimed that exposure to a variety of cleaning products, dust and dirt can contribute to breathing problems.
The researchers reported that women working in hospitals and health-care centers had a significantly higher risk of asthma and bronchitis than other workers.
The group also found a slightly higher risk among women cleaning hotels, laboratories and kitchens, but concluded that office cleaning was not associated with an increased risk of respiratory problems.
The study was designed to assess the risk of asthma in women working as domestic cleaners.
Study Dismisses Antibacterial Concerns
Antibacterial cleaning products do not contribute to the antibiotic resistance of bacteria, according to a study published in the Journal of Applied Microbiology.
During the two-year study, samples were taken from surfaces in homes in the United States and England. Half of the homes included in the study used antibacterial products, while the other half did not.
Researchers tested antibacterial agents, including those found in soap and cleaning chemicals. Household products, rather than commercial antibacterial products, were used.
In the study, more target bacteria was found in nonuser homes than in user homes, suggesting the antibacterial agents had done their job without leaving stronger, resistant microbes behind.
GOVERNMENT
City Finds Safer Graffiti Cleaners
The city of Portland, Ore., recently found some graffiti-removal products that are significantly less hazardous than traditional products.
A study conducted by the Center for a New American Dream looked into other studies that found that many products traditionally used to remove graffiti contain chemicals that have been found to cause cancer, permanently damage eyesight, burn skin, or cause reproductive disorders or birth defects.
Using existing lists of known carcinogens, reproductive toxins and other human health hazards compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others, the Center ranked the most frequently used graffiti-removal products into five categories from the least hazardous products to the most hazardous. Twelve products were tested throughout Portland to measure their effectiveness removing different types of graffiti from a variety of surfaces.
The Centers report takes a lot of information and boils it down so employees and the public can understand whats in the products theyre buying, says Susan Anderson, director of Portlands Office of Sustainable Development. It supports our ongoing efforts to raise awareness and get people to consider the long-term health, environmental and economic costs of their everyday decisions.
The Centers report describes the test methodology, identifies safer products and includes performance results that allow people to choose products.
I read Becky Mollenkamps article (If green doesnt connote healthy, its time to rethink your green cleaning philosophy, September) and generally agreed with it and support its conclusions. My only concern was her using the trend of green cleaning and the attention that it is getting to talk about cleaning for health. Even the definition used in the third paragraph attributed to Mike Berry is a definition of cleaning for health, not green cleaning.
While I definitely agree with the title of the article (green cleaning has to address protecting health), my main disagreement is with her opening attention-grabbing statement describing green cleaning as the trend du jour. A trend du jour suggests that tomorrow it will be gone and replaced with something else maybe the use of more toxic cleaning products that are even more destructive to our health and the environment???
All in all, I think it is a good article, but I felt it necessary to stress that green cleaning (cleaning to protect health without harming the environment) is NOT a fad, and to suggest that a cleaning-for-health program which uses products that are toxic to either worker or building-occupant health, or to the environment is really NOT cleaning for health. After all, how can a cleaning-for-health program use products containing ingredients that are considered to be reproductive toxins or endocrine modifiers?
Thanks again for covering the issues so well. I genuinely appreciate the high quality of your articles. Frankly, I believe yours to be the best in the industry.
Stephen P. Ashkin
President
The Ashkin Group
I could not have written this article better myself. I am a manufacturing rep promoting a new product called ECOgent and I am well aware of the slow changes in the U.S. I am also aware that things are changing with green programs and it is starting at the top and being driven down. I have been researching so-called Green Seal products lately and know this is a loose term. It might be acceptable for the environment but does not mean that it is safe for the cleaner.
If you go to www.scorecard.org and [look up] so-called green products, you will find that they are not so user-friendly.
Mark Johnson
Chemspec
I am writing to compliment Housekeeping Solutions for a great article, Cleaning for Health, by Becky Mollenkamp. The article is right on the money. It takes more than green cleaning. It really is about cleaning for health. The article quotes the best in the cleaning industry, Dr. Michael Berry, Marvin Klein and Mark Samios of Portion Pac, which we have used for 20 years, and Dave Frank. I truly enjoy your publication.
Eusebio Franco, Jr.
Manager of Custodial
and Grounds
Rice University
Houston, Texas