Talk:Environmental impact of cleaning products

This page was proposed for deletion by Dom.uk.1 (talk · contribs) on 23 October 2021.

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pmccaw22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Croth509, Andrewolenek.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Improvement

This article contains a lot of great information, but some of it seems a bit disorganized. For example, some of the subheadings only only have a few sentences of information, so maybe these could be expanded upon or labeled under a different subheading. As someone noted in the "Classmate Comment" below, the article uses negative language that makes the article seemed biased. I think a few more references would really help to solidify and support the facts. Overall, it is an informative article that presents a lot of interesting claims! Stack0711 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classmate Comments

Hey, great job piecing this article together. I think that with a little bit of polishing, this could be very promising as a ‘good article’. A few noted points:

-I noticed that your first paragraph lacked any citations, which is necessary considering the amount of factual information being provided. There are also some ideas that are mentioned in the opening paragraph, but that are not expanded upon later on in the article. For example: the effects of cleaning products on gene function.

-provide links to necessary existing wiki pages, such as bioaccumulation. Also check to see if there are any other necessary links.

-I understand that with an article like this it is hard to keep a NPOV, considering the fact that you are talking about negative impacts. But perhaps providing some information on why cleaning products are used in the first place, or maybe some information on the decrease of certain diseases, and general improvement in human health since the use of cleaning products could be helpful in bringing that balance.

some minor grammatical mistakes: ‘Phthalates are a known reproductive adversaries’ A quick review should take care of that though. Luhizi (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well done and well laid out. I like how you separated sections based on types of chemicals you were discussing. In the last section titled "Environmentally benign alternatives" there is a sentence about how vinegar is a good substitute for acidic cleaners (Vinegar is another popular replacement for acidic cleaners that kill most bacteria and germs because the acetic acid it contains can upset pH balance). While this sentence does get the point across, the wording is a little confusing. The use of the word another means there has already been a reference to alternatives to acidic cleaners, however there is no prior mention of them in this section. Another way of wording this sentence could be "Vinegar has become a popular replacement for acidic cleaners because it contains acetic acid which upsets pH balance, killing most bacteria and germs." Aukere (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2

Hey great job on your article so far. You have a lot of information on here and you cover a wide range of topics. I like the way you organized the information, with different chemicals as headers, and also where they are found. You should include this type of outlined information in your introduction. For example, Say that these cleaning agents are in these products. I feel like this would be helpful for people accessing your site that are looking to see if the cleaning products they use are harmful. (I can see a lot of people using your article for this reason)

You should also cite more of your information. For example, your intro. paragraph needs a couple.

I think you should also try to condense some of your sentences. One of the nice things about encyclopedias is that they include short, easy to read sentences. For example, In the second sentence of the intro it reads: Bioactive molecules that are detrimental to the environment can either result from molecules that have biodegraded into more dangerous compounds, are directly contained in the product or enter the environment through leaching from the containers of the cleaning agent. Try to cut down on some of the verbage or make it into two sentences. It would make it a lot easier to read.

This is where I'd post links for you to look at to add more information, but I don't think you have a problem with this. I think you have more than enough information, I just think if you shorten your sentences, add citations and do a little more for organization you will have a great article. Good Job!

anthonna (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Nice article. I have several suggestions of additional directions this page could go in/topics to address under the overall topic of environmental impact of cleaning agents: 1) You might want to distinguish if you are just focusing on environmental impacts – that is impacts on water, air, soil, or wildlife – or whether you are also including human health impacts on this page. Most of the page seems directed at environmental impacts but your section on 2-butoxyethanol is the outlier – as you mention there are few negative environmental impacts - your focus in that section is clearly human health impacts.

2) If you want to expand the human health impacts section – I can recommend reports published by Women’s Voices for the Earth including Household Hazards, Disinfectant Overkill, What’s That Smell and Dirty Secrets - all available at http://www.womensvoices.org. All reports are fully cited with peer-reviewed articles – and detail the impacts (both to the environment and to human health) of additional common cleaning agents.

3) One specific omission that would be important to include on this page is a discussion of the use of antimicrobial chemicals in cleaning products. The antimicrobial chemicals such as triclosan, triclocarban and ammonium quaternary compounds have endocrine disrupting properties and can also contribute to the formation of resistant bacteria (or “superbugs”) which have enormous environmental and human health consequences. (More detail on this available in the report “Disinfectant Overkill” - available at http://www.womensvoices.org.

4) In the phthalates section, it should be noted, that phthalates are not only present in cleaning products due to contamination from packaging. Phthalates are also commonly used in fragrance, and thus are intentionally introduced into fragranced cleaning products.

Thanks for your efforts on this! Alexandra Scranton Director of Science and Research, Women’s Voices for the Earth (Member of CHE Fertility Working Group) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascranton (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to shorten the name of this article to something more compact. The bottom of the article provides a chart linking to Wikipedia articles on "Human Impact on the Environment", and this particular article is linked as "Manufactured Cleaning Agents". Perhaps a title more closely related to that would be more useful.

The discussion above regarding phthalates as not being found only in packaging supplies is key and should be noted at least briefly (with a link, perhaps). I would also consider changing the title of the section regarding the packaging material to include phthalates; I would then remove the subsection title of "phthalates". As each subsection within this section deals with phthalates specifically, it may make sense to note "phthalates" in the section title.

The "Current Research" section should be greatly expanded. Much research has been done on the environmental impact of cleaning agents, and this research has not been sequestered only in the realm of green cleaning. If by "Current Research" you are speaking of current research on alternatives to current chemicals, then this should be noted. The title is somewhat vague for what is being explained. For an example of current research on this topic, see this study that looks into the affects of floor cleaning agents on the ozone layer. In addition. it may make sense to merge this section with the "Environmentally benign alternatives" section, as the last sentence of the "Current Research" section mentions several naturally occurring alternatives by name.

--DeusetScientia (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides helpful information about the consequences of multiple chemicals used in cleaning products.

It might be helpful to list specific examples of the chemicals you will be discussing in the introduction instead of just describing where they are found.
The section on phthalates should have phthalates in its main name (like you did for the other chemicals) so you don't have to repeat it in a subsection.
Under the alkylphenols potential effects section, the first sentence is phrased awkwardly. It could be rephrased into something like "Research has indicated that alkylphenols are endocrine disruptors. Studies show that when treated with alkylphenols, cells undergo proliferation..."
Your last two sections about current research and benign alternatives say the same thing. Either get rid of the current research section or add current research about other chemicals that may also have adverse effects on the environment.
Links 5 and 7 are no longer working.

Hwola (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you're adding material, please try to work from secondary sources which actually discuss the issue of how these compounds affect the environment. Simply adding safety information from a source about the safety of the compound isn't the best way to do this; for one, it can end up being original synthesis, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, and for another, there's no guarantee that the impacts a compound has on humans (say, in a close room) are the same that it might have once it makes it into a watercourse. So stick to sources that address environmental impacts directly. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDD Edit Suggestion

The article is relatively thorough, however two important chemicals commonly associated with household cleaning products are missing from the article: formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen found in preservatives in cleaning products, and chloroform, sometimes found in fumes from chlorine bleach. I think it would be beneficial to add these two chemicals because they are quite prevalent and well known. (http://www.ewg.org/guides/cleaners/content/findings)
I also think the article focuses a bit too much on the negatives, which makes the article seem one-sided. There are several organizations and cleaning products that seek to alleviate use of the harmful chemicals. Environmental Working Group lists Green Shield Organic and Whole Foods’ Green Mission brands as selling “superior green products.” Research on these companies and other alternatives could give the article some more two-sidedness
I also think that a section on labeling could be beneficial for the article. The EWG (http://www.ewg.org/guides/cleaners/content/findings) notes that the word natural doesn't ensure that the product is non-toxic and further that cleaning products don’t have labels that disclose the ingredients used in their cleaners. A section on this could also add to the article
Finally, there are two links in the citation that don’t seem to be working: “Phthalates: Should You Be Concerned” (Green Decade) “National Pollutant Inventory- Dibutyl Phthalate: Environmental Effects” (National Pollutant Inventory)

--Enthusiast006 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phthalates in cleaning agents?

The initial part of the article discusses probems phthalates, but it never is clear how phthalates are relevant to the topic. I dont think that phthalates are in cleaning agents. But before removing this large section, I thought that I would leave this note. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Focus needs to be expanded

The article text generally assumes we are discussing contaminants in water which is treated by municipal waste water treatment systems, but a significant portion of wastewater is expelled locally through private septic systems instead, so we need some discussion of that as well. I’m adding a maintenance tag to this effect. Walkersam (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]