Many groups and agencies promote the use of alternative household cleaners because of the belief that they are environmentally preferable to commercially formulated hard surface cleaners. These alternative cleaners include food products such as vinegar or baking soda as well as cleaning and laundry aids such as borax or ammonia.
The "recommended uses" of most of the alternative cleaners are for general cleaning, but some of them are also recommended as alternatives for disinfectants. Household cleaners that are registered as disinfectants must meet testing requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and it is recognized that the alternative cleaners do not meet this criterion.
The purpose of this research was to test and compare the efficacy of alternative cleaners using both soil removal and microbial reduction as the evaluation criteria. The alternative products were tested as single ingredient products even though in actual practice some of them are mixed together in make your-own recipes.
In this laboratory study, sections of plastic laminate commonly used for kitchen and bathroom countertops were soiled with two different soiling mixes: one soil mix was formulated to simulate bathroom soil and the other to simulate kitchen soil. To test for effectiveness in microbial reduction, a microbial agent was applied to the soiled sections. The alternative cleaning products used to clean the sections were lemon juice, vinegar, baking soda, borax, ammonia, and liquid hand dishwashing detergent. The alternative cleaners were compared to commercial hard surface cleaners. The commercial cleaners used were a (1) chlorine-based liquid since registered as a disinfectant, (2) a "pine" based liquid since registered as a disinfectant, (3) a chlorine-reinforced abrasive cleanser registered as a disinfectant, and (4) a white liquid based cleaner not registered as a disinfectant. Water was used as a control. The cleaning was done in the laboratory using a Gardner Abrasion Tester with a selected number of cleaning strokes.
The results are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The results indicate that compared to commercial cleaners, the alternative cleaners as a group are less effective in both microbial reduction and soil removal. However, the alternative cleaners vary in their effectiveness. Two alternative cleaners, borax and ammonia, were more effective in soil removal than the other alternative cleaners. However, borax was not at all effective in reducing microbial contamination. Vinegar was more effective in reducing microbial contamination than the other alternative cleaners but was least effective in removing soil.
Table 1. Effectiveness of cleaners in removing soil.
Bathroom Soil Removal | |
---|---|
Most effective | Registered disinfectant cleaner with pine |
High intermediate | Baking soda |
Borax | Water |
Low intermediate | Registered chlorine-based cleaner |
Lemon juice | |
Least effective | Vinegar |
Kitchen Soil Removal | |
---|---|
Most effective | Ammonia |
Registered chlorine-based cleaner | |
Registered cleaner with chlorine | |
Registered disinfectant cleaner with pine | |
High intermediate | Baking soda |
Non-registered commercial cleaner | |
Low intermediate | Water |
Least effective | Lemon juice |
Vinegar | |
Note: Not all cleaners were used on both types of soil. |
Table 2. Effectiveness of cleaners in reducing microbial contamination.
Bathroom Soil | |
---|---|
Most effective | Registered chlorine-based cleaner |
Registered disinfectant cleaner with pine | |
Vinegar | |
Intermediate | Baking soda |
Lemon juice | |
Least effective | Borax |
Water |
Kitchen Soil | |
---|---|
Most effective | Registered chlorine-based cleaner |
Registered cleaner with chlorine | |
Registered disinfectant cleaner with pine | |
Vinegar | |
Intermediate | Ammonia |
Water | |
Least effective | Baking soda |
Non-registered commercial cleaner | |
Note: Not all cleaners were used on both types of soil. |
All of the cleaners, including water, could conceivably have removed the soil from the sections with enough cleaning strokes. Therefore, consumers who wish to use alternative cleaners may find them effective in removing soil if they are willing to work harder. The microbial reduction in this research could be the result of either cidal (killing) action or physical removal and transfer of the microbes to the sponge. Washing the sponge with a disinfectant or drying the sponge will ultimately destroy the microbes. Because the microbe used for testing in this research was susceptible to acid conditions, the acidic cleaners, particularly vinegar, were effective in reducing microbial growth. For cleaning soil with these types of microbes, a vinegar rinse following cleaning with a more effective soil-removing alternative cleaner, may be effective in reducing microbial contamination. However, when there are health-related concerns (such as the presence of newborns or immunosuppressed family members in the household) that signify the need for microbiocidal action, consumers should be aware that only registered disinfectants have been tested using standard methods to show cidal action. This laboratory study is useful in evaluating some differences among alternative cleaners. Further testing of these products needs to be conducted in the home environment under conditions of consumer use.
Programming Implications
Many educators are familiar with the alternative cleaner suggestions made in popular publications and by environmental groups and agencies. Liz Gelbmann from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has notified us that the MPCA is planning on using the research results in their educational programming. If Extension educators work in collaboration with other county waste management agencies, they may find that other agencies are unfamiliar with these research results. Probably the best message is that all alternative cleaners are not equal in effectiveness. Borax and ammonia were the most effective alternative cleaners in removing soil as tested in this research. Vinegar was not at all effective in removing soil but was effective in reducing microbial contamination. Borax was not effective in microbial reduction. Consumers who are concerned about both soil removal and microbial reduction may need to use a two-step cleaning process when using alternative cleaning products, cleaning first with an effective cleaner followed by a vinegar rinse.
We found that this research was controversial and it may be that some of the educational programming that follows may also be controversial. The Soap and Detergent Association refutes the claim that their products contribute to more environmental degradation than alternative methods of cleaning. Therefore, in their view, there is no need to recommend alternative products.
Environmental groups have been critical of the research because it does not compare the environmental effects in a life cycle inventory of the products tested. Other groups, such as Franklin Associates, are attempting to do some of this analysis. The methods used for life cycle inventory, the first step in life cycle analysis, are complicated and controversial. It may be difficult to find information that is complete enough to compare the life cycle effects of these products.
The least amount of controversy will come from programming that educates consumers to choose products that they can use, store, and dispose of safely. As you know, this requires reading and following label directions and being familiar with signal words. Some of the alternative cleaning products are food products (e.g., vinegar, lemon juice, baking soda) and may not contain the same kind of information on their labels that cleaning products do. This research tested cleaners on only plastic laminates used for countertops. The results are probably not generalizable to other hard surfaces such as wooden cutting boards or ceramic tile. We would warn consumers that cleaners that are appropriate for one surface may not be appropriate for another. An advantage of commercial cleaners is that their labels contain information on the types of surfaces that they can be used to clean.
We are currently developing methods for testing consumer satisfaction with the products. The results of that research should be available later in the year. At that time, we will use the results to develop educational materials that we hope will be of use.
Source: "Hard surface cleaning performance of six alternative household cleaners as measured by soil removal and microbial reduction under laboratory condition" by Wanda Olson, Donald Vesley, Marilyn Bode, Polly Dubbel, and Terry Bauer. This paper was presented at the National Household Hazardous Waste Management Conference sponsored by the EPA in Minneapolis, December, 1992. The research was funded by the Minnesota Extension Service, the Waste Management Initiative of MES, and the MPCA. The full text of this summary, including identification of commercial products, is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.mes.umn.edu/Documents/H/HD1000.html
5581 Research On Household Cleaners And The Environment
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this document for
non-commercial purposes provided that the author and MES receive
acknowledgement and this notice is included.
Minnesota Extension Service
University of Minnesota
405 Coffey Hall
St. Paul, MN 55109
(612) 625-2787
Email: pmailop@mes.umn.edu
![]() |
© Copyright |