developing healthy cleaning alternatives for faith based organizations

Evaluate, Educate and Equip: Developing Healthy Cleaning

Alternatives for FBOs

Vonetta A. Storbakken

CANDIDATE M.S. URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

PRATT INSTITUTE

AUGUST 2012

EVALUATE EDUCATE AND EQUIP: DEVELOPING HEALTHY CLEANING ALTERNATIVES FOR FBOS

1

Introduction

Faith-based organizations (FBOs) expose their staff and congregants to harm when they

allow their janitorial staff to use cleaning products that contain toxic chemicals. When FBOs

switch to environmentally-friendly cleaning products they protect the communities they serve as

well as influence wider behavior changes. In an effort to support and strengthen FBOs who

desire to implement environmentally-friendly cleaning practices, I have surveyed the cleaning

inventory of Friendship Baptist Church, Emmanuel Baptist Church and the Bowery Mission to

identify one common chemical in their cleaning products that may impact the health of their

congregants. By identifying a chemical in their cleaning inventory, I am able to asses when

building occupants will be exposed to the chemical on a daily basis. Furthermore, I will make

recommendations on how to switch to environmentally-friendly cleaning practices and strategies

to reduce or prevent health effects associated with the chemical. Because FBOs are anchors for

their communities, switching to environmentally cleaning practices have the potential to greatly

influence the broader community.

Unaware of the risks associated with many of the most popular cleaning products, many

faith-based organizations (FBOs) continue to purchase these products to clean their buildings.

Some of the chemicals in the cleaning products are a contributing factor to many of the health

effects that plague underrepresented communities (e.g., African Americans, immigrants, and

those living at or below the poverty level). In New York City many African American and

immigrant churches as well as other FBOs serve underrepresented communities via food

pantries, immigration/legal clinics, and by linkage and referral to social service agencies. The


2

racial demographics of the staff as well as the recipients of the services provided by FBOs

increase their risk to the negative health effects associated with some cleaning products.

Therefore it is imperative that pastors, administrative staff and leaders of FBOs protect the health

of their congregants, staff and other building occupants by implementing environmentally-

friendly cleaning practices, such as using non-toxic cleaning products. Furthermore, pastors and

leaders of FBOs should educate their constituency (e.g., community they serve) about the health

risks associated with the chemicals in popular cleaning products.

I have chosen to research the cleaning inventory in FBOs to identify one pervasive

chemical that impacts the health of the people who utilize the buildings on a daily basis. I’m

working with two churches, Emmanuel Baptist and Friendship Baptist, both are historic African

American churches in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, and one

faith-based service organization, the Bowery Mission, located on the Bowery in the Lower East

Side it is one of the nation’s oldest gospel rescue missions. Although I have not identified a

synagogue, mosque or other place of religious worship, it is true that the practices and messages

of the clergy have influence on the congregants.1 I have selected to work with Christian

organizations because I have developed relationships with these organizations while serving as a

fellow at the Pratt Center for Community Development, and as a Christian I am familiar with the

language and worldview of these churches/organization.

Pastors, administrative staff and leaders of FBOs participating in this project will be

equipped with the knowledge related to promoting non-toxic products and methods to implement

healthy cleaning practices. As a Christian who leans toward a more progressive perspective, and

1 Clergy and Churches as Political Elites and Cue Givers: Preaching to the Choir? , Matt Burger, 2008


3

understands the scriptures to ultimately be a story of liberation and redemption for those who are

oppressed, I find it important to work with religious leaders to help them articulate an

understanding of how we are to be in relationship with the earth. Many religious leaders, even

those who are in the struggle for social justice, have yet to understand how chemicals in certain

cleaning products affect congregants who are already disproportionately at risk for asthma,

respiratory problems and lung disease. This project will help religious leaders in influential urban

churches to learn about the connection between cleaning supplies and health problems in

minority communities.

Building occupants in faith-based organizations

The buildings that house FBOs are used for soup kitchens, medical clinics, youth and

senior groups, daycare, church services and administrative work. During the week Friendship

Baptist church houses women’s bible studies, Boy and Girl Scout programs, and church services

on Sundays. On a daily basis, three members of janitorial staff are in the building from Tuesday

to Friday and one trustee is in the church on Wednesdays. Emmanuel Baptist’s building

occupants include: clergy, administrative staff, congregational members and janitorial staff. In

addition, Emmanuel Baptist has Bible studies, meetings for the elderly, literacy classes, Boy and

Girl Scout programs, and daycare. The Bowery Mission houses eighty men living in the

residential recovery program and apartments for seven staff members. There are 5-25 volunteers

per day, and 600-800 people who daily receive services (meals, counseling, chapel, medical,

clothing, etc.). Figure 1 illustrates the building occupants of each FBO. This regular use of the

building exposes many people to potential toxicity from cleaning products.


4

Factors that may contribute to how building occupants are impacted by the toxicity of

chemicals include the cleaning schedule and the exposure duration of the chemical (i.e., the

length of time a person is in contact with a chemical). For example, if the janitorial staff cleans

the building one day before the building occupants occupy the space, the occupants, depending

on the chemical, may not be affected by the fumes of the chemical. However, if the janitorial

staff cleans the building one hour before the building occupant occupies the space then the fumes

from the chemical may be too concentrated and will impact the occupant more than it would

have if the space was cleaned a day before. According to a report prepared for the California

EPA titled “Indoor Air Chemistry: Cleaning Agents, Ozone and Toxic Air Contaminants”, “The

total exposure duration (i.e., the sum of the time required for the activity plus the time remaining

in the location after the activity) is based on the location of the cleaning event and varies from

0.42 h for mopping the bathroom floor to 12 h for interior window cleaning. It is assumed that

the occupant is breathing at a higher rate (1.33 m 3 h -1(breathing rate)) during the activity

than after the activity (0.48 m3 h-1(breathing rate)) (Nazaroff A., et.al, 2006). Thus, when a

building is cleaned and how long a person has been exposed to a chemical are determining

factors on how a person’s health will be impacted by the harsh chemicals from cleaning

products.

Cleaning practices

The cleaning practices of FBOs can immensely contribute to the effects of the chemical.

For example, when the janitorial staff uses a spray or aerosol bottle to disperse the cleaning

product instead of a bottle with a regular mouth the chemical from the cleaning product will


5

release into the environment much easier.2 This may cause the chemicals to remain longer in the

environment making it easier for the building occupants to be exposed to its toxicity or other

harmful effects. A research study identifying 3,503 persons who clean their homes and who were

free of asthma at the beginning of a survey showed that 42 percent of the participants who used

cleaning sprays at least weekly experienced asthma symptoms (Air Quality Sciences, 2011). The

products that were used regularly by consumers and found in this research were glass and

furniture cleaners and air freshener sprays. In addition, participants who used the sprays at least

four days per week showed a higher incidence of physician-diagnosed asthma. Cleaning products

that were not applied as a spray were not associated with asthma or other respiratory problems

(AQS, 2011). It is important that the pastor and organizational leaders understand the connection

between cleaning products and the health of the congregation. To mitigate the impacts associated

with unsafe cleaning practices pastors must use their familiarity with the upkeep of the building

and program schedules to implement best cleaning practices.

Cleaning without adequate ventilation can be a contributing factor to how the chemicals

in cleaning products impact the health of the building occupants. For example, immediately after

a cleaning product is used the fumes from the chemical will be at its strongest; if a building

envelope is too tight it can prevent air from flowing in and out of the building. This lack of

adequate ventilation prevents toxic chemicals from dispersing more quickly into the air.

Another cleaning method that is practiced by some janitorial staff is mixing together

cleaning products to make it more effective. This can create a toxic gas (i.e. bleach and

quaternary ammonium can create cleaning products to create more effective cleaners.

2 Health Effects of cleaning products, Dr. Susan Duty


6

Incompatible chemicals combined chloramine gas) (Duty S., 2012), and can lead to sudden

death.

Cleaning practices may vary according to the different sites. Thus it is important for each

FBO to identify the various cleaning products, cleaning schedules and other pertinent

information that will help each organization better address potential health risks and make

changes that protect the building occupants while also keep the building clean. Because most

organizations use similar cleaning products there is great potential for there to be common issues

related to the chemicals in the cleaning products.

Site analysis

An analysis was done on the cleaning inventory of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Friendship

Baptist Church and the Bowery Mission to identify one pervasive chemical in their cleaning

products that may impact the health of the building occupants. Figure 1 illustrates the cleaning

inventory for each building, the types of building occupants, and the occupants’ schedules as

well as the cleaning schedule for each building. By looking at the cleaning schedule of the

building and the occupants’ schedule the FBOs will be able to determine when the building

occupants are most likely to be exposed to a chemical. For example, Friendship Baptist Church’s

janitorial staff cleans the buildings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from

9:30AM to 12:30PM. Women’s Bible studies are held on Wednesdays from 11AM to 1PM.

Thus, the participants in the women’s Bible studies will be exposed to the chemical and its fumes

when the janitorial staff cleans the building on Wednesdays from 10AM to 12:30PM. However,

building occupants that are in the building on Sundays for the church service will not be exposed


7

to the chemical because the janitorial staff does not clean on Sundays. Figure 2 illustrates the

building occupants of Friendship Baptist Church exposure times to chemical. The cleaning

schedule for Emmanuel Baptist Church, which is a larger church than Friendship Baptist in size

as well as building occupants, is divided in three shifts from Monday to Friday. The building

occupants that are exposed to the chemical are staff who work from 7:30AM to 6PM and the

children in the day care which is held Monday to Friday from 8AM to 5:30PM. Other programs

are held throughout the day such as a literacy program (Women Prime Time Writing Workshop),

Bible studies and Boy and Girl Scout programs. However, some of the programs are not held

every day so their exposure to the chemical will be much less than that of staff members and

children in the daycare. Figure 3 illustrates Emmanuel Baptist Church’s building occupants’

exposure times to chemical. The Bowery Mission’s building cleaning schedule is Monday to

Sunday from 8AM to 9PM. The staff schedule is Monday to Friday from 8AM to 7PM. The

residents are there 24 hours. The volunteers and chronically homeless schedule is 6AM to 7PM.

Thus the building occupants’ exposure to the chemical will occur between the hours of 8AM and

9PM. The Bowery Mission is a high traffic area; it serves about 600 to 800 people a day, so it

would be very difficult to keep the building clean without cleaning throughout the day.

Compared with the other two FBOs the building occupants of the Bowery Mission will have

greater contact with the chemical due to the residents remaining on the site most of the day and

night. Figure 4 illustrates the building occupants of the Bowery Missions exposure times to

chemical.

Knowing when the chemical will impact the building occupants is an important factor in

preventing the health effects associated with cleaning products. Most pastors, administrative staff


8

and leaders are familiar with the day-to-day maintenance of the building and the schedule of

each staff member and building programs. However, if these leaders were to implement

environmentally-friendly cleaning practices such as cleaning with non-toxic cleaning products or

warning building occupants of any off-gassing or fumes from cleaning products, the impact of

toxins from the cleaning products will be minimal or prevented.

Figure 1: Church Survey

Friendship Baptist Church Emmanuel Baptist Church Bowery Mission

Chemicals Chemicals Chemicals

Ajax

Pine Sol

Fabuloso

Windex Glass Cleaner

Mistolin

Clorox Bleach

Pledge Furniture Spray

Pineamic-4

Certo Health Care Disinfectant Spray

Claire Waterbase Stainless Steel

Windex Glass Cleaner with Ammonia-D

Pledge Furniture Spray Lemon Citron

Spartan Fast &Easy Hard Surface &

Glass Cleaner

Spartan Non Acid Disinfectant

Bathroom Cleaner

Clorox Bleach

Parsley Plus All-Surface

Cleaners

Pine-Sol

Green Choices

Fantastic

Windex Glass Cleaner

Building Occupants Building Occupants Building Occupants


9

Clergy

Administration

Congregation members

Boy/Girls Scouts

Janitorial staff

Women bible studies

Congregation members

Clergy

Staff

Daycare

Boy/Girls Scouts

Janitorial staff

Bible studies

Prime Time Writing Class

Staff

Residents in the program

Chronically homeless

Volunteers

Occupants Schedule Occupants Schedule Occupants Schedule

Church service -Sunday

9AM to 12:30 PM

Women bible studies -

Wednesday 11AM to 1PM

Congregation members - Sunday 7:30

AM to 3:30 PM

Church service - Saturday 5PM

Daycare - Monday to Friday 8AM to

5:30 Pm

Women Prime Time Writing –

Staff - 7:30 AM to 6PM

Residents – 24 hrs

Regular Staff – Monday to

Friday 8AM to 7PM

Volunteers – 6AM to 7PM

Chronically homeless – 6AM

to 5PM

Building Cleaning

Schedule

Building Cleaning Schedule Building Cleaning Schedule

Tuesday to Friday – 9:30

Am to 12:30 PM

Monday to Friday – 7:30 AM to 3PM

Monday to Sunday – 8AM to

9PM


10

Figure 2: Friendship Baptist Church building occupants’ chemical exposure times

Figure 3: Emmanuel Baptist Church’s building occupants’ exposure times to chemical


11

Figure 4: Bowery Missions’ building occupants’ chemical exposure times


12

Which chemical was identified in cleaning products that can be hazardous to

human health?

About 98 percent of the cleaning products used in Friendship Baptist Church, Emmanuel

Baptist Church and the Bowery Mission have hazardous chemicals that can impact the health of

the building occupants. However, one chemical that was highly noticeable in the cleaning

inventory of the FBOs was ammonia hydroxide. Listed in the Toxic Substance Control Act

(TSCA) inventory and under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as a hazardous substance3, ammonia

hydroxide and other ammonium ions were identified in a few of the cleaning products.

Ammonia hydroxide, also known as CAS# 1336-21-6, is an ingredient mainly used in

cleaning products, smelling salts, and fertilizer. Ammonia hydroxide is also called liquid

ammonia. It is found in many household and industrial-strength cleaning solutions (New York

State Department of Health, 2004). Ammonia concentrations in household cleaning products are

between 5 and 10 percent. Cleaning products that have ammonia hydroxide are used to clean

bathroom tiles, mirrors, windows, kitchen counters, and the floor.

Ammonia hydroxide and ammonia have the same the same chemical compounds,

however, when ammonia gas is dissolved in water it becomes ammonia hydroxide. Ammonia

(NH3) is a nutrient that is a compound of hydrogen and nitrogen. It is formed naturally in

humans and in the environment. It is found in many places in the environment such as the air,

water and soil. However, it is also human-made to be used in agriculture to make fertilizers, in

commerce as an ingredient in cleaning products, and in other industries to manufacture textiles,

3 Material Safety Data Sheet, Ammonium Hydroxide, 2001


13

plastics, pesticides and other chemicals.4 According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR), “The amount of ammonia manufactured every year by humans is

almost equal to the amount produced by nature.” (ATSDR, 2004)

Health effects associated with ammonia hydroxide

Toxic pollutants from cleaning products cause adverse human health effects. Recent

studies have shown that inhaling chemicals found in many household cleaning products,

including bleach, ammonia, solvents and stain removers more than once a week are linked to a

twenty percent rise in cases of asthma or wheezing (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology, 2010). Some chemicals in cleaning products have also been linked to reproductive

harm, which includes changes in sexual behavior, decreases in fertility, changes in onset of

puberty, cancers of reproductive organs, miscarriage, premature birth and other negative side

effects (Women’s Voices for the Earth, 2010).

The health effects associate with ammonia is the same as the health effects associated

with ammonia hydroxide. Health effects related to ammonia hydroxide are numerous. They

range from skin, eye, mouth and throat irritation, to sudden death. Potential effects are ulcers on

the skin, cataract development, permanent eye damage, upper respiratory problems,

pneumoconiosis, fibrosis, and liver and kidney damage.5 It also affects behavior and can cause

olfactory fatigue (the temporary inability to smell an odor after being exposed to it for a while),

which is the result of multiple overexposures to ammonia.6 In addition, research has shown that

4 New York State Department of Health, information for a healthy New York,2012,

5 Material Safety Data Sheet, Ammonium Hydroxide MSDS, Sciencelab.com, INC.

6 Acute-onset persistent olfactory deficit resulting from overexposure to ammonia vapor at work, Prudhomme,JC,

1998


14

ammonia hydroxide can also be an irritant to people who have lung diseases such as emphysema

and asthma.

Every year about five thousand persons die of asthma in the United States (Partners

Asthma Center, 2011). However, the threat of death from asthma among African Americans is

three times greater than among whites in America (Partners Asthma Center, 2011). According to

the EPA, “African Americans continue to have a higher rate of emergency room visits,

hospitalization and deaths than white Americans. The rate of emergency room visits is 330

percent higher. The hospitalization rate is 220 percent higher and the asthma death rate is 190

percent higher” (EPA, 2012). This disparity is due to the difference in socioeconomic conditions

between Caucasian Americans and African Americans.

A study was done in New York looking at the hospitalization of severe asthmatics among

different neighborhoods by zip codes7 The people who lived in lower income neighborhoods had

the highest rate of asthma compared to the people who lived in neighborhoods with higher

incomes. Figure 5 illustrates the association between asthma hospitalization and socioeconomic

conditions.

7 Breath of Fresh Air, Partners Asthma Center, November 2011


15

Figure 5: Asthma Hospitalization Rates

Source: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Ammonia hydroxide can also impact human health through genotoxicity, which is a harmful

action on a cell’s genetic material (DNA, RNA) affecting its integrity. It can affect the gene code

causing genetic mutations, and birth defect causing agents. A research examined the genotoxic

effect of ammonia in humans. Blood samples were taken from 22 workers in a fertilizer factory

exposed to ammonia and from 42 men who were also working in the same factory but were not

exposed to ammonia (ATSDR, 2004). The results were the 22 factory workers exposed to

ammonia showed increased frequency of the abnormalities in the number of chromosomes which

are responsible for genetic disorders and ratio of the number of cell undergoing cell division.

Also with increased ammonia exposure increase frequency of the abnormalities in the number of


16

chromosomes and cell division continued (ATSDR, 2004). According to ScienceLab.com’s

Material Safety Data Sheet, ammonia hydroxide “may affect genetic material based on tests with

microorganisms and animals” and “may cause cancer (tumorigenic) based on animal data”

(ScienceLab.com).

Exposure route of ammonia hydroxide

If you are exposed to ammonia hydroxide, many factors will determine whether you will

be harmed. According to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),

“These factors include the dose (how much), the duration (how long), and how you come in

contact with it. You must also consider any other chemicals you are exposed to and your age,

sex, diet, family traits, lifestyle, and state of health” (ATSDR, 2004).

Building occupants can be exposed to ammonia hydroxide in many ways. For example,

vulnerable building occupants, such as children, the elderly and women, are exposed to harsh

chemicals from cleaning products8 through inhalation, skin and eye contact and accidental or

intentional ingestion. Children attending daycare may be exposed to chemicals by touching the

residue from the cleaning product and putting their fingers in their mouths. Also they may inhale

the fumes from the chemicals. The elderly and women attending church services or adult

programs may also be exposed to chemicals by inhalation or skin and eye absorption.

Although in occupational settings the level of ammonia hydroxide in cleaning products

might be low, studies have shown that repeated exposure to low concentrations can still impact

8 American Cleaning Company, INC, Vulnerable Population, 2012

http://amercln.com/Green_Cleaning/Vulnerable_Populations/
















17

the health of the people who are exposed to it. To reduce risks of toxins it is important to

understand how the toxins enter the body. Figure 6 illustrates the exposure route of most

chemicals.

Figure 6: Exposure Route of Most Chemicals

The inhalation of ammonia hydroxide can result in burns in the nose, pharynx and

trachea, as well as an abnormal increase in fluid in the mouth and nose (also called dropsy), and


18

airway destruction resulting in respiratory distress or failure 9 Also, skin and eye contact of

ammonia hydroxide can cause blindness and skin burns. The ingestion of cleaning products

usually do not occur in the workplace, however, if ammonium hydroxide was ingested it can

result in severe damage to the mouth, throat and stomach.

For building occupants of the three FBOs two factors determine the extent of exposure to

ammonia hydroxide: when the janitorial staff cleans, and the amount of ammonia hydroxide used

to clean. In the workplace, OSHA has established an eight hour exposure limit of 25 parts per

million (ppm) and a short-term (fifteen minute) exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia.10

According to Steven Issley, MD, “The permissible levels of exposure to toxic gases are defined

by time-weighted average (TWA).” The TWA is defined as the concentration for an eight hour

workday of a forty hour workweek that nearly all workers can be exposed to without adverse

effects (Issley, et al., 2011). Figure 7 illustrates the gaseous ammonia effects at various

concentrations.11 NIOSH recommends that the level in workroom air be limited to 50 ppm for 5

minutes of exposure.12 According to OSHA, “Massive accidental exposure can be quickly fatal.

Autopsies of individuals who have died from exposure have indicated severe damage at every

level of the respiratory system, including edema and hemorrhage” (OSHA).

9 Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry, Exposure Route of Ammonia, 2003

10 New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Service, Hazardous Substance Factsheet, 2002

11 Medscape, Ammonia Toxicity, June 27,2011

12 New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Service, Hazardous Substance Factsheet, 2002


19

Figure 7: Gaseous ammonia effects at various concentrations

25 ppm or

less

TWA

25-50 ppm Detectable odor; unlikely to experience adverse effects

50-100 ppm Mild eye, nose, and throat irritation;may develop tolerance in 1-2 weeks with

no adverse effects thereafter

140 ppm Moderate eye irritant; no long-term sequelae in exposures of less than 2

hours

400 ppm Moderate throat irritation

500 ppm IDLH

700 ppm Immediate eye injury

1000 ppm Directly caustic to airway

1700 ppm Laryngospasm

2500 ppm Fatality (after half-hour exposure)


20

2500-6500

ppm

Sloughing and necrosis of airway mucosas, chest pain, acute lung injury

(ALI), and bronchospasm

5000 ppm Rapidly fatal exposure

Source: Medscape

Building occupants at risk from exposure to ammonia hydroxide in cleaning

products

The building occupants that use the building consists of the elderly, chronically homeless,

young adults, children and women. The building occupants most susceptible to ammonia

hydroxide are the elderly, women, children, janitors and people with respiratory diseases – many

of the chronically homeless individuals suffer from a variety of health complications. Pregnant

women may also be at risk from exposure to ammonia hydroxide. One study done on animals

displayed that mothers who were exposed to very high levels of ammonia while pregnant caused

their newborn babies to be smaller than normal newborns (ATSDR, 2004).

At Friendship Baptist Church and Emmanuel Baptist Church the majority of building

occupants are women. The Bowery Mission mainly serves men, thus the majority of the building

occupants are usually men. However, a couple of women work on staff and women do go to the

Bowery for services such as free meals, and clothing and social service assistance. According to

Women College Hospital (WCH), “women are more at risk to the effects of toxic chemicals than

men because of hormonal differences, lower body mass, and they have an average of 10 percent

more body fat” (Women College Hospital, 2012). Also, research have shown that when women

and men are exposed to the same toxic substances in the workplace, women consistently report


21

having more symptoms than men (Women College Hospital, 2012). This is due to the difference

in the physiological make-up of both women and men.

Children attending Emmanuel Baptist Daycare are vulnerable to the exposure of

ammonia hydroxide because they breathe in more air with respect to their body size than adults

and thus have greater exposure to indoor environmental pollutants (AQS, 2007). In addition,

based on the age range of the children attending the daycare – 2.7 years to 5 years – they are still

very tactile so they constantly touch things and then put their fingers in their mouths.

Building occupants with respiratory diseases are extremely vulnerable to toxics fumes

from cleaning products. Cleaning products with ammonia hydroxide can aggravate building

occupants with respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic bronchitis. Children with asthma

may be particularly sensitive to ammonia fumes (Healthy Child Healthy World).

The janitorial staffs at both of the churches and the rescue mission are at risk of the

negative health impacts associated with ammonia hydroxide. Studies have shown that

professional workers in the United States and Europe have lower risk of asthma compared with

people working as domestic or industrial cleaners who have higher risk of asthma (AQS, 2007).

About 2.8 million potentially exposed janitors are employed by the cleaning

industry(Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, 2010). Data from Washington State illustrates

that about 6 percent of janitors experience a job related injury due to chemical exposure to

cleaning products annually (EPP, 2010). Figure 8 illustrates the annual janitor chemical exposure

injuries in Washington State.


22

The elderly are also at risk to the health effects associated with ammonia hydroxide. Like

children, the elderly have a weaker immune system and lower body mass than younger adults

which increases their risks to toxic chemicals. According to a five-year study conducted by the

EPA, “with increasing age people become more vulnerable to the harmful effects of

environmental chemicals due to the deterioration of physiological and biochemical processes,

which include certain age-related biochemical, morphological and functional changes associated

with the nervous system” (EPA, 2005).

Figure 8: Annual Janitor Chemical Exposure Injuries in Washington Sate


23

The health costs associated with chemical exposure

According to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), “four

percent of the world’s GDP (US$1,251,353 million) is lost with the cost of injury, sickness

treatment and disability,death and disease through absence from work, and survivor benefits”

(ICFTU, 2005). The single largest contributing risk factor associated with job related illness and

injury in health care is due to working with or exposure to toxic chemicals (Weiss, L., 2012). An

estimated 60,000 deaths and 860,000 job related illnesses is attributed to occupational exposure

(OSHA,2008). Chemicals in cleaning products are a contributing factor to the costs of health

care. The constant exposure to chemicals in cleaning products can deteriorates the immune

system causing health risks. Respiratory diseases such as asthma are an outcome of harsh


24

chemicals in cleaning products. Asthma is attributed to an estimated 14 million lost school days

and $16 billion in yearly health care expenditures for both children and adults (Greenguard,

2012). Taking into consideration the health costs associated with chemical exposure, pastors as

well as leaders of the three FBOs should help reduce building occupants’ health costs by

implementing environmentally friendly practices such as purchasing non-toxic cleaning products

and making sure that the janitorial staff practices safe cleaning practices.

Other contributing factors/building systems that can contribute to health

impacts

Some cleaning products contribute to unhealthy indoor air quality; however, many other

factors can also contribute to indoor air quality. Building materials such as carpets, rugs, new

flooring, furniture and HVAC systems are all contributing factors to indoor air quality. Both

churches and the Bowery Mission have an HVAC system. If the system is not properly

maintained, it will contribute to the quality of indoor air in the building. For example improperly

maintained HVAC systems can cause high humidity in the building which spurs mold growth

and poor indoor air quality.

Current policies and programs

As the public becomes cognizant of the danger of hazardous chemicals in cleaning

products some states as well as the federal government have already implemented green cleaning

programs and policies to educate and to assist the public in making environmentally preferable

decisions. In 1995, the EPA established Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) to


25

encourage and assist executive agencies in the purchase of environmentally preferable products

and services (EPA, 2010).

Nationally state officials and environmental groups have helped legislate green cleaning

polices for schools. Many states, such as New York and Illinois, have legislated green cleaning

laws for schools.13 In 2005, the New York Green Cleaning Laws amended the New York State

and Education Law and Finance to require elementary and secondary schools to procure and use

environmentally sensitive cleaning and maintenance products as per the Office of General

Services (OGS) commissioner guidelines (OGS, 2009). On April 24, 2008, Executive Order 4

(EO 4) was signed. The act advocates for policies within state agencies that reduces impacts on

public health and environment and the reduction, use and generation of toxic substances,

pollution and waste (OGS, 2009). In addition to the above policies, state agencies and authorities

are required to implement green practices because cleaning programs are part of EO 4.14

Recommendations

1. Influence local change in the congregation and community.

The purpose of church is to influence, inform and shape people and whole communities. It is

a high calling as they are commissioned to evangelize the whole world. The word “evangelize” is

a verb that inherently means to share the good news. The “good news” is that God cares about

people and the whole of creation and calls us to redeem the broken, desperate, hopeless parts of

the world – i.e. to infuse the world with hope, love, restoration and reconciliation.

13

Green Cleaning, Stephen Ashkin, July 2009 14

New York’s Green Cleaning Program, OGS 2009


26

There are many FBOs, such as Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice (YMPJ) and Habitat

for Humanity, which were created in an effort to work toward positive social change by

addressing issues of environmental racism and injustice as well as housing scarcity. For example,

YMPJ has actively reclaimed the Bronx River waterfront for the community; it is working to

decommission the Sheridan Expressway; and it is equipping young people with the knowledge

and skills to advocate for change in their communities. The Bowery Mission, which is a much

more conservative organization (concerned with personal transformation, and not radical social

change), recently built a rooftop garden and its senior staff has recognized the importance of

identifying and implementing greening techniques to create a more sustainable organization.

Churches and FBOs have considerable influence, especially within their local communities.

When senior staff is engaged to and equipped with a way to address issues that affect the

communities they represent, they will have the power to transform the communities which they

lead.

2. Implement strategies to reduce exposure and minimize health impacts of cleaning

products.

To prevent exposure and mitigate the health impacts of ammonium hydroxide and other

chemicals in cleaning products that are harmful to the health of the building occupants at

Friendship Baptist Church, Emmanuel Baptist Church and the Bowery Mission, faith leaders of

the above FBOs need to implement four strategizes: 1) Educate their constituents about the

adverse health effects associated with conventional cleaning products; 2) hold monthly workshop

on best cleaning practices, such as how to properly apply a cleaning product, when to apply the


27

cleaning product and the appropriate cleaning tools that should be use; 3) faith leaders must

maintain adequate ventilation in the buildings by making sure that their building systems are

operating correctly and up to code; and 4) faith leaders must purchase environmentally-friendly

cleaning products that are certified by the government and reputable eco-friendly companies to

ensure that they are purchasing products that effectively clean the building.

a. Educate their constituents about the adverse health effects associated with

conventional cleaning products

Without comprehending the dire issues related to how we treat our environment and ourselves it

is difficult for us to make any changes to our behavior. However, through education, training,

leadership modeling and support it is possible for us to make healthy life changes. Faith-based

leaders should educate their congregants and staff about the toxicity in cleaning products by

including environmental passages from the bible in sermons and having or sending them to green

cleaning workshops. There are many community organizations or non-profit organizations who

are already at the forefront educating the public about environmentally best practices. With

proper training on how to use cleaning products janitorial staff will be better equipped to handle

and prevent chemical exposure from cleaning products.

a. Maintain Adequate ventilation

In addition to training and education, maintaining building systems, such as Heating

Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC), is an important strategy toward having good indoor

air quality and reducing the impacts associated with hazardous chemicals in cleaning products.

For example, without adequate ventilation ammonia fumes can build up if the ammonia is not

diluted with sufficient water (Healthy Child Healthy World). Thus it is important that staff who


28

are under the supervision of faith-based leaders properly upkeep the HVAC systems or air

filtration system in the building. If the building does not have an HVAC system, the facility

manager or janitorial staff can reduce cleaning product’s fumes build up by opening the windows

and doors while cleaning.

b. Purchase Environmentally-friendly cleaning products

All building occupants are usually exposed to the volatile components of cleaning products

(EPA, 2010). To prevent or to effectively minimize all of the impacts associated with cleaning

products, faith-based leaders should purchase environmentally-friendly cleaning products.

Cleaning with eco-friendly products offers many health benefits as well as financial benefits.

According to Ashkin, “replacing conventional cleaning products with those that have the

potential for harm has numerous advantages and is less costly than increasing the supply of fresh

air or general ventilation” (Ashkin, 2009). For example, environmentally-friendly cleaning

products improve indoor air quality thereby reducing health impacts such as asthma, and skin,

eye and throat irritation. Moreover, because environmentally-friendly cleaning products promote

a healthier environment for building occupants and janitorial staff, it reduces sick days and

absenteeism.15 Also injuries to janitorial staff and Worker’s Compensation Claims are reduced.16

In the past environmentally-friendly cleaning products have been expensive to purchase,

however, because of the influx of environmentally-friendly cleaning products in the market,

many environmentally-friendly manufacturers have lowered their prices to stay abreast of the

current market. In addition, the recession has also caused many manufactures to lower their

15

New York’s Green Cleaning Program, New York State Office of General Services, 2009 16

IBID


29

prices to encourage consumers to purchase their products. If the three FBOs are unable to

purchase environmentally-friendly products they can start a buy-in program. A buy-in program is

a program where two or more FBOs come together to purchase a product directly from the

manufacturer to lower the price of the product. In addition, New York State, green cleaning

products help to configure the cost of concentrated cleaning products into the cost per gallon

when diluted.17 Therefore you can use the results to compare it to environmentally-friendly

cleaning products.

Due to federal laws that require government agencies to purchase environmentally-friendly

products, the EPA established the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) program.18 The

EPP assists federal agencies in the purchase of environmentally-friendly cleaning products.

However, FBOs and consumers who would like to purchase environmentally friendly products

but do not know where to start can also obtain information from EPP’s database of approved

environmentally-friendly cleaning products. Also, New York State has established a green

cleaning program for schools. New York State Office of General Services has a database for

approved green cleaning supplies. Not all products that are labeled environmentally-friendly are

safe for the environment. According to the EPA, purchasers should be especially careful in

interpreting vague or generic claims such as "environmentally friendly," "eco safe," etc.

Purchasers should ask vendors and manufacturers offering green cleaning products to clearly and

specifically define their green claims. Guidance on the use and interpretation of environmental

marketing claims is available from the Federal Trade Commission (EPA, 2010). In addition, the

17

New York State Green Cleaning Program, Office of General Services, 2009 18

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing(EPP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,2012

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm






30

EPA has recommended purchasing environmentally-friendly cleaning products with the labels:

Green Seal and Design for the Environment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the FBOs identified in this project serve as a place where minority and

underrepresented people meet either to worship or to receive social services. Already

disproportionately impacted by diseases and socioeconomic circumstances, they are susceptible

to many of the health effects associated with cleaning products, therefore pastors and

organizational leaders must exercise their authority to make environmental changes that will

reduce and/or even prevent the health effects associated with cleaning products.

It is my hope that not only will these religious organizations make wiser choices

regarding their cleaning supplies, but that the clergy will become more knowledgeable of the

issues related to cleaning products and transfer that knowledge to those they serve. It is essential

that they influence their congregants and the greater community to be in healthy relationship

with one another, their neighborhood and the environment.


31

Bibliography:

1. Burger, Matt. "Clergy and Churches as Political Elites and Cue Givers: Preaching to the

Choir?.".N.p.,2008.Web.16Jul2012.

<www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/burger08.pdf>.

2. "Vulnerable Population." American Cleaning Company,INC. American Cleaning

Company,INC,2012.Web.16Jul2012.

<http://amercln.com/Green_Cleaning/Vulnerable_Populations/>.

3. Nasaroff, William. "Indoor Air Chemistry: Cleaning Agents, Ozone and Toxic Air

Contaminants." (2006): n. page. Print. <http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/01-

4. Susan, Duty. "Health Effects of Cleaning Products." . Simmons Center for Hygiene and

Health, n.d. Web. 16 Jul 2012.

5. "Green Cleaning for Health." Air Quality Sciences. (2011): n. page. Web. 16 Jul. 2012.

<http://www.aqs.com/docs/resource-library/green-cleaning-for-health-white-paper.pdf>.


32

6. Susan, Duty. "Health Effects of Cleaning Products." . Simmons Center for Hygiene and

Health, n.d. Web. 16 Jul 2012.

7. Material Safety Data Sheet, Ammonium Hydroxide, 2001

8. “The Facts about Ammonia." Information for a Healthy New York 28 07 2004.

n.pag. New York State Department of Health. Database. 16 Jul 2012.

<http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/emergency/chemical_terrorism/ammonia_gene

ral.htm>.

9. The Facts about Ammonia." Information for a Healthy New York 28 07 2004. n.pag. New

York State Department of Health. Database. 16 Jul 2012.


ral.ht>.

10. United States. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . Public Health

StatementforAmmonia.Atlanta:CDC,2004.Web.

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=9&tid=2>.

11. "Cleaning sprays can trigger asthma." European Academy of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology. European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 06 06 2010. Web.

16 Jul 2012. <http://eaaci.net/images/files/Pdf_MsWord/2010/Press_Release/cleaning

sprays can trigger asthma.pdf>.


YorkStateDepartmentofHealth.Database.16Jul2012.


ral.htm>.


33


YorkStateDepartmentofHealth.Database.16Jul2012.


ral.htm>.

14. "Reproductive Harm." Women's Voices for the Earth. Women's Voices for the Earth,

2010.Web.16 Jul 2012. <http://www.womensvoices.org/science/fact-sheets/reproductive-

harm/>.

15. "Material Safety Data Sheet Ammonium hydroxide MSDS." . Science Lab, n.d. Web. 16

Jul 2012. <http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922918>.

16. Prudhomme, JC. "Acute-onset persistent olfactory deficit resulting from multiple

overexposures to ammonia vapor at work.." US National Library of Medicine National

Institutes of Health. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 1998.

Web. 16 Jul 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9456450>.

17. "Partners Asthma Center." Partners Asthma Center. Partners Asthma Center, 2011.

Web. 30 Jul 2012. <http://www.asthma.partners.org/>.

18. "Partners Asthma Center." Partners Asthma Center. Partners Asthma Center, 2011.

Web. 30 Jul 2012. <http://www.asthma.partners.org/>.

19. "Asthma Facts." Indoor Environment Divisions of Air and Radiation. United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. Web. 30 Jul 2012.

<http://www.epa.gov/asthma/pdfs/asthma_fact_sheet_en.pdf>.

20. . "Breath of Fresh Air." Partners Asthma Center. Partners Asthma Center, 2011. Web. 30

Jul 2012.


34

21. "TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR AMMONIA ."Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 2004.

Web. 30 Jul 2012. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp126.pdf>.


Disease Registry. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 2004.

Web. 30 Jul 2012. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp126.pdf>.

23. "Material Safety Data Sheet Ammonium hydroxide MSDS." ScienceLab.com.

ScienceLab,2010.Web.30Jul2012.

<http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922918>

24. "Public Health Statement for Ammonia." Toxic Substances Portal - Ammonia. Agency

for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, 2004. Web. 30 Jul 2012.

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?

25. "Vulnerable Population." American Cleaning Company,INC. American Cleaning

Company,INC,2012.Web.30Jul2012.<http://amercln.com/Green_Cleaning/Vulnerable_P

opulations/>.


DiseaseRegistry.ATSDR,2003.Web.30Jul2012.

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=11&tid=2>.

27. "Ammonia Toxicity." Medscape Reference. Medscape, 2011. Web. 30 Jul 2012.

<http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/820298-overview>.

28. "Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet." . New Jersey Department of Health and Senior

Service, 2002. Web. 30 Jul 2012. <http://web.doh.state.nj.us/rtkhsfs/indexfs.asp&xgt;.

http://web.doh.state.nj.us/rtkhsfs/indexfs.asp&xgt;.





















35

29. "Ammonia Toxicity." Medscape Reference. Medscape, 2011. Web. 30 Jul 2012.

<http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/820298-overview>.

30. "Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet." . New Jersey Department of Health and Senior

Service, 2002. Web. 30 Jul 2012. <http://web.doh.state.nj.us/rtkhsfs/indexfs.asp&xgt;.

31. Adler, Robert. "Ammonia in Workplace Atmospheres - Solid Sorbent." Occupational

Safety and Health Adminstration. United States Department of Labor, 2002. Web. 30 Jul

2012. <http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/inorganic/id188/id188.html>.

32. "Public Health Statement for Ammonia." Toxic Substances Portal - Ammonia. Agency

for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, 2004. Web. 30 Jul 2012.

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?

33. "Why Do Environmental Illnesses Affect Women More Than Men?."

Women'sHealthMatters.CA Women College Hospital. Women'sHealthMatters.CA, 2012.

Web. 31 Jul 2012. <http://www.womenshealthmatters.ca/health-resources/environmental-

health/why-do-environmental-illnesses-affect-women-more-than-men>.

34. "Why Do Environmental Illnesses Affect Women More Than Men?."

Women'sHealthMatters.CA Women College Hospital. Women'sHealthMatters.CA, 2012.

Web. 31 Jul 2012. <http://www.womenshealthmatters.ca/health-resources/environmental-

health/why-do-environmental-illnesses-affect-women-more-than-men>.

35. "Cleaning Chemicals and Their Impact on Indoor Environments and Health." Air Quality

Sciences. Air Quality Sciences, 2008. Web. 31 Jul 2012.

<http://www.aerias.org/uploads/Inhalation Risks From Cleaning Products.pdf>.






















36

36. "Chemical Encyclopedia Ammonia." Health Child Healthy World. Healthy Child

Healthy World, n.d. Web. 31 Jul 2012. <http://healthychild.org/issues/chemical-

pop/ammonia/>.

37. "Cleaning Chemicals and Their Impact on Indoor Environments and Health." Air Quality

Sciences. Air Quality Sciences, 2008. Web. 31 Jul 2012.

<http://www.aerias.org/uploads/Inhalation Risks From Cleaning Products.pdf>.

38. "Greening Your Purchase of Cleaning Products: A Guide For Federal Purchasers."

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP). United States Environmental protection

Agency, 2010. Web. 31 Jul 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/cleaning.htm>.




40. "Aging And Toxic Response: Issues Relevant To Risk Assesment." National Service

Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP). United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 2005. Web. 31 Jul 2012. http://nepis.epa.gov/

41. "DEAD AND INJURED WORKERS REMEMBERED." TERRIVIVA. TERRAVIVA,

2005. Web. 31 Jul 2012.

<http://www.ipsterraviva.net/tv/wsf2005/print.asp?idnews=208>.

42. Weiss, Larry. "The real cost of toxic chemicals in healthcare." Healthcare Purchasing

News. Healthcare Purchasing News, 2003. Web. 31 Jul 2012.

<http://www.hpnonline.com/inside/2003-09/0903toxins.html>.

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100CJ6L.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000+Thru+2005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C00thru05%5CTxt%5C00000029%5CP100CJ6L.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL









37

43. "OSHA Technical Manual (OTM)." Occupational Safety & Health Administration.

United Staes Department Of Labor, 2008. Web. 31 Jul 2012.

<http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_ii/otm_ii_2.html>.

44. "Reviewing and Refocusing on IAQ in Schools." Greenguard. Greenguard, n.d. Web. 31

Jul 2012.

<http://www.greenguard.org/Libraries/GG_Documents/Reformat_Reviewing_Refocusin

g_on_IAQ_in_Schools_Final_with_revisions.sflb.ash&xgt;.


Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP). United States Environmental Protection


46. "Green Cleaning." Healthy Facilities Institute, The Resource for a Better, Safer Built

Environment. Healthy Facilities Institute, 2009. Web. 31 Jul 2012.

<http://www.healthyfacilitiesinstitute.com/bio_426-Stephen_P._Ashkin>.

47. "Policies, Guidelines and Reports." New York's Green Cleaning Program. New York

State Office of General Services , 2009. Web. 31 Jul 2012.

<https://greencleaning.ny.gov/Policies.asp>.

48. "Policies, Guidelines and Reports." New York's Green Cleaning Program. New York

State Office of General Services , 2009. Web. 31 Jul 2012.






38

50. "Green Cleaning." Healthy Facilities Institute, The Resource for a Better, Safer Built

Environment. Healthy Facilities Institute, 2009. Web. 31 Jul 2012.

<http://www.healthyfacilitiesinstitute.com/bio_426-Stephen_P._Ashkin>.

51. "Potential Benefits of Green Cleaning Products and Programs." New York's Green

Cleaning Program. New York State Office of General Services , 2009. Web. 31 Jul 2012.


52. "Potential Benefits of Green Cleaning Products and Programs." New York's Green

Cleaning Program. New York State Office of General Services , 2009. Web. 31 Jul 2012.








developing healthy cleaning alternatives for faith based organizations

Education

friendly cleaning products

popular cleaning products

nontoxic cleaning products

friendly cleaning practices

healthy cleaning alternatives

leaders of fbos

fbos switch

fbos vonetta